Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant


Off-Topic Discussions

501 to 550 of 951 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

Yeah, it would be way OP, and it's not how I read it anyway.

The wording talks about an "attitude" Of "friendly" as well, so it's probably relevant to look at the diplomacy skill for reference.


Grimmy wrote:

"An effected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders."

To a paragon of good, a being of pure good, mass murder is probably "obviously harmful".

With wisdom and intelligence reduced to 1 that may not be so obvious anymore, although I'm not sure how the Ghaele was still speaking at that point.

I think Ashiel probably was swept away with the prose at that point, and I definitely enjoyed reading it, I like Ashiel's writing style very much.

Geas does not reduce the ability score. It gives a penalty to the scores.

In PF that makes a difference.

You take a penalty to your saving throw, but your ability scores are still the same, meaning that you can still reason normally.

The charm person spell still says "but it might be convinced that something very dangerous is worth doing."

I think that alone puts a dent in the "no limit" interpretation of anything.


You don't have to tell me, I definitely don't read it as "no limit".

As far as the ability scores though, I just thought the distinction between temporary and permanent and the way they are handled was mostly for ease of accounting.

You don't think a barbarian who has been drained down to a 4 in strength is still just as strong for purposes of encumbrance do you?


Incidentally, we are talking about the wrong spell. A ghaele does not fall under the "humanoid" creature type, and would not be effected by charm person at all.

Charm Monster is what we should be saying.

Andoran

Yes, but Charm Monster refers back to Charm Person for it's basis.


For sure, just being nit picky.


TOZ wrote:
I have nothing to say except: PaizoCon.

Wishing I was there!

Andoran

Grimmy wrote:
For sure, just being nit picky.

Fair, but this is another example of reading the rule in the most favorable way possible for the caster.

I think this is why Ashiel is very popular with new people and seen more as a mid-level poster for those with a longer post history. Allowing some liberal readings of the power of spells and items in some areas opens exciting possibilities.

However doing so in all areas breaks the game.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shifty wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I have nothing to say except: PaizoCon.
Wishing I was there!

Damn the material component costs! :)


Blind? Why, my eyesights as good as ever! And no suspicious black sores, either! :P

I think people are prescribing things to Ashiel that weren't said. Her wizard is using a big ol' pile of enchantment spells. Gaes, Charm Monster, Curse, and Planar Binding are all being used to push the angel to submit to this deal. Of course Charm Monster can't convince an angel to slaughter an entire city, but a combination of magic from a powerful enchanter over an extended period of time... Sure! Especially if it'd make for such a compelling villain.

Good point on the "IMPOSSIBLE" Gaes, though, but I still think it's open to debate, because it isn't really an UNREASONABLE command. The angel merely can't carry it out in her present state/location. If I were gaes'd to retrieve the macguffin from the death pits of Rovagug, my power level and the fact that the macguffin isn't in arms reach don't necessarily make it "impossible", I just have to work towards this goal. Ultimately the final arbiter of what's "impossible or unreasonable" is the GM, too, so ultimately it's a stylistic choice. This is just how it played out on Ashiel's table in this particular instance.

Also I'm amazed this thread is still around, and it's really quite entertaining at that. Let's keep the discussion rolling until I get my paws on my Runelords PDF! :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Fair, but this is another example of reading the rule in the most favorable way possible for the caster.

I think this is why Ashiel is very popular with new people and seen more as a mid-level poster for those with a longer post history. Allowing some liberal readings of the power of spells and items in some areas opens exciting possibilities.

Most favorable way possible for the NPC, not for wizards. This has absolutely no bearing on the class balance at Ashiel's table or the game in general, and there's a thread a week if you want to argue the topic.

Also I hate to be argumentative, but I'd like to ask you to stick to voicing your own opinion, and stop speaking for mine and everybody elses. I don't know what liberal rules readings you're touting are, but they have little bearing on why I appreciate Ashiel's contributions. The things I generally agree with her on are ENTIRELY stylistic. GMing advice, her adventurer's guide on using mundane gear, encounter building, party composition and general tactics, not spells and item use. Want to know one of my favourite bits of advice in her adventuring guide?

Spoiler:
That's Good Food, I Guarantee: This isn't quite hardcore
adventuring gear, but I'm kind of a sucker for a bit of role-
play. I generally like my characters to cook, and trail
rations suck (sure they're filling but nuts, dried breads,
and jerky would get very old after a while). I always liked
the idea of having a nice stewing fire, cooking the days
catch and enjoying the quiet peaceful aspect of the great
journey that is adventuring; so let's talk about food.

Trail rations are expensive. 5 silver pieces per day for 1
pound of food. That's like paying $50 bucks a day to avoid
starving. Incidentally, Pathfinder and the 3.5 SRD also lack
the item descriptions for this food source, so we really
have no idea how long they last, or what's in them
(Pathfinder hints at what appears to be small pieces of
meat or maybe dried orange slices, cheese, and bread; but
only through an art piece in the book).

So my characters typically pack their own meals. A whole
loaf of bread is 2 coppers (1/2 lb.), 1/2 lb. hunk of cheese is 1
silver, and a 1/2 lb. chunk of meat of my choice is 3 silver
pieces (good god meat is expensive, isn't it?). I can get 1/2
a pound more food for less than the cost of a trail ration.
In fact, I could probably eat the whole week off a loaf of
bread, chunk of cheese, and meat. Buy an iron pot to
round out your collection. You can also buy poor meals
(bread, baked turnips, onions, etc) in bulk and fill some
jugs with stew.

In your classic 4-person adventuring party that includes 1
cleric and 1 wizard, you're good to go on food now. The
cleric can both infinitely cast create water and purify food
and drink, while the wizard brings prestidigitation to the
mix. The cleric can prevent the food from going bad or
spoiling indefinitely. The wizard can make the food taste
like anything, and can turn the water to wine without the
alcohol (he can change the taste and color).

I realize my micromanagement as a player might be a bit
extreme, but I have a subtle enjoyment of whipping the
iron pot off my mule or ox, throwing together a stew,
garlic bread, a few seasonings, and a fire. If I'm playing a
wizard it's doubly great, since I can take 10 on a Craft
(Meals) check and enjoy the subtle satisfaction that my
food rocks socks.

It was this. My GM was appalled. "You've found a way to min-max food!", as he put it. But I'm glad to know SOMEONE out there that isn't me fussing over what his PC is going to eat.

And I wasn't aware we were being tiered here. Might I ask what class abilities I can expect when I reach mid-level poster status, ciretose? And how many more guides, articles and posts will Ashiel have to contribute before getting her capstone? If you really want to account for her popularity, I'd put it down to constantly showering us with goodies over the past several months.


Twigs wrote:
.. but a combination of magic from a powerful enchanter over an extended period of time... Sure! Especially if it'd make for such a compelling villain.

That however is not the rules. We are not discussing what makes a good story. :)

Quote:


Good point on the "IMPOSSIBLE" Gaes, though, but I still think it's open to debate, because it isn't really an UNREASONABLE command. The angel merely can't carry it out in her present state/location. If I were gaes'd to retrieve the macguffin from the death pits of Rovagug, my power level and the fact that the macguffin isn't in arms reach don't necessarily make it "impossible", I just have to work towards this goal. Ultimately the final arbiter of what's "impossible or unreasonable" is the GM, too, so ultimately it's a stylistic choice. This is just how it played out on Ashiel's table in this particular instance.

What is unreasonable will vary from creature to creature, which falls back to GM fiat, and therefore nobody can say there is a rule the says the angel will do ________ just because a few spells were tossed at it.


Twigs those are the same things I get from Ashiel, that's why I started this thread. I don't care much for char-op, and the latest, greatest build.


Cirerose, you would be surprised at the kind of game I run. Pretty gritty, I make it tough for wizards to obtain spells, teleport for example is nerfed almost out of existence. I work hard to prevent 5 minute work days so my casters have to manage resources carefully, and my Martials get time to shine.


Grimmy at what point do your martials run into trouble getting things done?

I ran a AoW/Kingmaker mashup about a year ago. Somewhere around level 15 things became difficult for the fighter, except for where I changed the story.


Twigs wrote:
The things I generally agree with her on are ENTIRELY stylistic.

This I can agree with also, not that we disagree on a lot of rules either. :)


I can't speak for the devs, but I think "unreasonable" here is meant to mean "ridiculous", such as requesting a purple half-fiend elephant from Castrovel. Again, that's open to debate.

However, take a look at the spell description:

Geas/Quest wrote:

Geas/Quest

School enchantment (compulsion) [language-dependent, mind-affecting]; Level bard 6, cleric 6, sorcerer/wizard 6
Casting Time 10 minutes
Target one living creature
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
This spell functions similarly to lesser geas, except that it affects a creature of any HD and allows no saving throw.

[b]If the subject is prevented from obeying the geas/quest for 24 hours, it takes a –3 penalty to each of its ability scores.[b] Each day, another –3 penalty accumulates, up to a total of –12. No ability score can be reduced to less than 1 by this effect. The ability score penalties are removed 24 hours after the subject resumes obeying the geas/quest.

Isn't being "prevented from obeying" the spell exactly what's happening here? I'd argue this is a case that the recipent is being prevented from obeying rather than the request itself being impossible. This seems to be the intention of the spell. It makes it all the more delightfully cruel, too. It isn't impossible. It's RIGHT there, and you're under a compulsion effect to grab it, but you can't. It sounds absolutely torturous, if you ask me.


The spell references lesser geas which has a better description.

OK, so after reading less geas I see it is more powerful than I thought it was. It pretty much takes away free will, which is what I said upthread though when I made the distinction between the charm and compulsion spells.

The geas spell falls in line with the "compulsion" subschool perfectly since they force you to do things, while the charm spells only make someone your buddy, giving you a chance to influence them as a friend would.


wraithstrike wrote:

Grimmy at what point do your martials run into trouble getting things done?

I ran a AoW/Kingmaker mashup about a year ago. Somewhere around level 15 things became difficult for the fighter, except for where I changed the story.

I don't run AP's so I have a little more room to adjust to my groups taste I think. My last serious campaign went from 1 to 12 and Martials still felt fine about their contribution, actually it was the rogue who started feeling overshadowed. I don't "hand waive" travel and exploration, and I use custom random encounter tables, so my Martials are often the only thing that keeps the party alive in the wilderness.

I did start Slumbering Tsar, which starts at 7, and I started seeing the disparity pretty quick, but we never finished.


It was not an issue with the AP, but that the higher level difficulties often require options most martials, don't have or things they can't counter. Reverse Gravity is one such spell, if the PC does not have access to a fly potion or another way to fly. I limited it to one or two fights though.


TBH we've never made it to 15 in Pathfinder yet. Come to think of it, I've never run or played in a game past 12 in my life. Back in 2e campaigns could go for years without getting that high.

I'm running for some youngsters right now that want to see this one through to 20 though, so I'm excited.


wraithstrike wrote:
OK, so after reading less geas I see it is more powerful than I thought it was.

Heh. I did the same with Planar Binding. I had no idea how the charisma checks were coming into the equation until half an hour ago. All up, I think all I'm taking away from this is that high level enchantment spells are TERRIFYINGLY good.


Grimmy wrote:

TBH we've never made it to 15 in Pathfinder yet. Come to think of it, I've never run or played in a game past 12 in my life. Back in 2e campaigns could go for years without getting that high.

I'm running for some youngsters right now that want to see this one through to 20 though, so I'm excited.

I have made it to 20 twice. It takes a lot of dedication and luck. Real life often shuts me down around level 10-13 by taking my players away.


Grimmy wrote:

"An effected creature never obeys suicidal or obviously harmful orders."

To a paragon of good, a being of pure good, mass murder is probably "obviously harmful".

With wisdom and intelligence reduced to 1 that may not be so obvious anymore, although I'm not sure how the Ghaele was still speaking at that point.

I think Ashiel probably was swept away with the prose at that point, and I definitely enjoyed reading it, I like Ashiel's writing style very much.

She was still speaking because her ability scores were penalized but not drained. The rules are very specific in the difference. Damaged or penalized ability scores only affect characters in very specific ways, and don't cause characters to lose access to speech, spells, or other sorts of things in the same way that draining ability scores do.

As for the geas, the bad guy only needs the ghaele to suffer from it for 4 days tops (he's using geas, not lesser geas) and in 4 days there's a -12 penalty to all her ability scores. It even specifically says "If the subject is prevented from obeying the lesser geas for 24 hours, it takes a –2 penalty to each of its ability scores. Each day, another –2 penalty accumulates, up to a total of –8. No ability score can be reduced to less than 1 by this effect. The ability score penalties are removed 24 hours after the subject resumes obeying the lesser geas".

As for the charm thing, I'd rather not get back into that. Suffice to say that I did make a mistake. The ghaele is under a constant effect that mirrors protection from evil which specifically makes it immune to the charm effect, so the bad guy will need to do it the old fashioned way (keep making his offer until she either breaks free and he owns her face because she's a severely debuffed ghaele with no hope of winning in a fight, or she fails her Charisma check and submits).

Side Note on the Charm Person Debate: This is mostly for Wraithstrike who felt charms weren't supposed to be able to allow you to command or control creatures.

Protection from Evil wrote:
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person.

Now, one thing I did forget about is that the ghaele does get a +6 bonus for the deal being absolutely sucktastic for the Ghaele, so the Ghaele should have been rolling at +1, not -5. The information is quoted below.

Planar Binding wrote:
If the creature does not break free of the trap, you can keep it bound for as long as you dare. You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature's Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward.

As the impossible or unreasonable demands for the creature does not seem to be nearly so broad a category. The BBEG is insisting the ghaele serve him loyally for a time and do as he says. Not impossible. Nor does it lack reason. He's not asking her to discover the square root of the color blue, nor is he asking her to do something that is directly suicidal. The irony that I find is people accuse me of trying to bend and twist the rules in their favor, when to me that appears to be what is going on here. Really harsh twisting that goes against the rules and the narrative of those rules, and could just as easily be used to ensure no outsider ever listens to the caller.

For example, if someone can say "It's an unreasonable demand for a celestial to do something it doesn't want to", someone could just as easily argue that literally every demand is unreasonable to all outsiders. More than likely most outsiders aren't going to want to serve you. They might forgive your tresspass if you used the spell as a means for communication (I seriously doubt the Ghaele would hate him or even resist at all of he called her their to give him advice on becoming a better person). However, if we want to connect "something you don't want to do" with "impossible and unreasonable" then the spell simply does not function. By its very nature it is intended to be a very forceful spell. I mean, why else would it include lines such as:

Planar Binding wrote:
Once the requested service is completed, the creature need only to inform you to be instantly sent back whence it came. The creature might later seek revenge. If you assign some open-ended task that the creature cannot complete through its own actions, the spell remains in effect for a maximum of 1 day per caster level, and the creature gains an immediate chance to break free (with the same chance to resist as when it was trapped). Note that a clever recipient can subvert some instructions.

I'm sure the ghaele would attempt to subvert his instructions at every opportunity. Hence why he'll be quite specific in most instances. "Destroy Deepkelp..." might give the ghaele enough leeway to try and allow the citizens to evacuate, or perhaps even warn the city that she is coming. Or she might see a party of goodly adventurers and explain the entire situation to them while she is tearing buildings apart, since his orders didn't specifically instruct her from being a blabbermouth about the BBEG.

Narrative?: Now I'd like to take a moment here to say that I do typically put more emphasis on the crunchy bits than fluff. I don't believe crunch and fluff are dynamically opposed. I see the crunch kind of similar to the way we think of Neo seeing in the Matrix. It's the fundamental and natural laws of this fictional universe. If you're good with the crunch, you can have an entire narrative that is both entertaining and consistent with the natural laws.

However, I do have a soft spot for the roots of certain concepts as well. Planar binding is an example of something that has a very, very clear source as to the concept of it. Specifically the act of binding and forcing outsiders to do things they really do not want to do, or would be considered against their nature. This dates back to the biblical King Solomon. He was supposedly a goodly man, and was definitely within God's favor (now whether you would agree with either his or god's alignment within D&D is irrelevant, as for all intents and purposes he's a good guy in that story). Supposedly God gave him a magic ring or seal that allowed him to bind and subjugate demons and rule over them. And they were most definitely not happy with it. The Seal of Solomon is the source material for pretty much every latter instance of the summoning and binding of spirits.

Now what did he have his demons do? Build the Temple to God. Now in the story, the demons are not good. But God is the supreme good. And he forces them to -- against their will -- build a temple to this supreme goodness. And by many accounts they aren't happy about it at all. In fact, they go so far as to say that they will haunt his people and descendants for the indignity. A tad bit spiteful (but who of us could blame them?).

There are accounts that he bound angels as well and had them tell him any secret he wished to know, or even take his friends on vacations to hell (bizarre right?).

Looking upon the narrative, the entire concept behind Planar Binding is that it binds. It obligates you to do as the caster wills if you cannot resist or break free. It also carries a dire warning that you trifle with things that may be beyond you. It's no doubt that the ghaele in our own story here hates this hypothetical big bad evil guy. She tries to cut him down herself while trapped in the magic circle against good. The moment she is freed of his command, more than likely she will seek out retribution as to shame past retributions. The big bad is probably arrogant enough to not care, or may be intending to kill her before her service to him is complete (thus preventing her from coming back to haunt him later).

Of course, there's always something that could go wrong. Like a party of adventurers. Maybe that party of adventurers steals your slave away until your bonds wear off. Maybe she will give them her name so they can call her back to this world for retribution as an ally. Maybe he will find that she's not quite as easy to bully when she's not trapped in a magic seal. Just perhaps, he might find out why Ghaele Azatas are really damn scary for a CR 13 creature, as she greater teleports around his lair, killing his evil minions, freeing his living experiments, burning his lab to ashes, and coming for him and his peers, before finally attacking him with the adventurers who saved her soul from that monster.

Anyway, I'm probably rambling by now, and I need to take a shower to go out and eat with a friend of mine.


Tels wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
I'm reading your blog it's great

I have to agree, definitely a good blog. I see a lot of things I agree with there. Kinda mad at myself for reading it all in one sitting.

Makes me think it might not be a bad place for you to post some of your tips and tricks there, like your tips for a new GM post I saw awhile back.

Are you guys talking about my blog?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I cleaned up some bickering and personal attacks. Also Google stalking is Not Cool.


Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
I'm reading your blog it's great

I have to agree, definitely a good blog. I see a lot of things I agree with there. Kinda mad at myself for reading it all in one sitting.

Makes me think it might not be a bad place for you to post some of your tips and tricks there, like your tips for a new GM post I saw awhile back.

Are you guys talking about my blog?

Course.


Ashiel wrote:

Protection from Evil wrote:

Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person.

magic chapter wrote:


Enchantment

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.

All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two subschools of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.

Charm: A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.

Compulsion: A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way its mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject's actions or the effects on the subject, others allow you to determine the subject's actions when you cast the spell, and still others give you ongoing control over the subject.

I think the spell's description is in error.


Quote:
For example, if someone can say "It's an unreasonable demand for a celestial to do something it doesn't want to", someone could just as easily argue that literally every demand is unreasonable to all outsiders.

That is not the argument I was making. I can't speak for anyone else.

What someone does not want to do, and what they are vehemently opposed to are entirely different categories to me.

Yes I am aware the words "vehemently opposed" are not in the book. I was just trying to establish degrees of separation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


So the actual result was immediately becoming a CR 5 undead creature with starting resources. I don't recommend it to just anyone. It was fun though. I didn't begin with much else in the way of gear, and was seemingly just a homeless woman, right up until she threw giggles into a pile of fish guts.

This might be the greatest character that I ever heard of.

Andoran

There are a few spells that require heavy GM adjudication. If you over write them you can ruin a lot of options and close a lot of thematic doors.

But if you, as a GM, decided not to adjudicate them, they go off the rails with some players.

Much like the magic item guidelines, spells like Planar Binding, Simulacrum, and Geas assume a certain level of GM involvement.

I don't want the Devs to have to write 5 page long spells. Hell they added an entire section in Ultimate Magic on binding which more or less said "If you are a jerk to what you try and bind, they will spend eternity trying to make you miserable."

If your game is very loose and it works for you, fine. But it isn't the spell that is broken if it doesn't work, it is the GM.


wraithstrike wrote:
Quote:
For example, if someone can say "It's an unreasonable demand for a celestial to do something it doesn't want to", someone could just as easily argue that literally every demand is unreasonable to all outsiders.

That is not the argument I was making. I can't speak for anyone else.

What someone does not want to do, and what they are vehemently opposed to are entirely different categories to me.

Yes I am aware the words "vehemently opposed" are not in the book. I was just trying to establish degrees of separation.

Vehemently Opposed is the same as just not wanting to do it, only on a larger scale. It's still just not wanting to do it.

For example, I am vehemently opposed to murder. I don't even want to kill my worst enemies. If I was hypothetically subjected to the effects of a charm person or planar binding (despite not being an outsider), it is neither something I would normally do, nor want to do. However, if the caster's will was strong, then I may end up murdering someone at their behest. In the case of the charm, I was convinced at least at the time to do so. I'll probably not be happy about it in the morning (or ever actually). I might blame myself for not being more strong-willed (I have noted a specific lack of Charisma on my part in the past). Or I might simply lack a clear choice in the matter, and filled with both extreme reluctance and anger over being forced to so so, end up ending someone's life, or pushing the button on the Death star, or what ever other terrible thing I'd be crazy opposed to.

It's not actually different than being forced to eat a food I don't like, except the scale is different.

As I said before, if we just assume it's things that the creature would be naturally opposed to, then you can't really bind outsiders at all. Most sentient creatures are naturally opposed to being bound. Sentient creatures generally do not like being forced into anything. Do you think a chaotic evil demon wants to serve the BBEG any more than the ghaele? My bet is no. I mean, why would this creature of deception, rage, and anarchy want to fall into your control? Why would it want to accept your rule? It wouldn't, I don't think. But like the Ghaele, it does not exactly get the benefit of choice unless the binder is foolish or the binded is lucky.


Grimmy wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Tels wrote:
Grimmy wrote:
I'm reading your blog it's great

I have to agree, definitely a good blog. I see a lot of things I agree with there. Kinda mad at myself for reading it all in one sitting.

Makes me think it might not be a bad place for you to post some of your tips and tricks there, like your tips for a new GM post I saw awhile back.

Are you guys talking about my blog?
Course.

:D

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Quote:
For example, if someone can say "It's an unreasonable demand for a celestial to do something it doesn't want to", someone could just as easily argue that literally every demand is unreasonable to all outsiders.

That is not the argument I was making. I can't speak for anyone else.

What someone does not want to do, and what they are vehemently opposed to are entirely different categories to me.

Yes I am aware the words "vehemently opposed" are not in the book. I was just trying to establish degrees of separation.

Vehemently Opposed is the same as just not wanting to do it, only on a larger scale. It's still just not wanting to do it.

For example, I am vehemently opposed to murder. I don't even want to kill my worst enemies. If I was hypothetically subjected to the effects of a charm person or planar binding (despite not being an outsider), it is neither something I would normally do, nor want to do. However, if the caster's will was strong, then I may end up murdering someone at their behest. In the case of the charm, I was convinced at least at the time to do so. I'll probably not be happy about it in the morning (or ever actually). I might blame myself for not being more strong-willed (I have noted a specific lack of Charisma on my part in the past). Or I might simply lack a clear choice in the matter, and filled with both extreme reluctance and anger over being forced to so so, end up ending someone's life, or pushing the button on the Death star, or what ever other terrible thing I'd be crazy opposed to.

I fundamentally disagree with you, and I will FAQ this to get a ruling from a Dev.

If you feel strongly this was the intent of charm person, I suggestion you FAQ it as well. Given that this would be well beyond the clarification for dominate person, I feel confident this wasn't the intent.

Andoran

Or I would have...where did the FAQ tag go?


cranewings wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


So the actual result was immediately becoming a CR 5 undead creature with starting resources. I don't recommend it to just anyone. It was fun though. I didn't begin with much else in the way of gear, and was seemingly just a homeless woman, right up until she threw giggles into a pile of fish guts.
This might be the greatest character that I ever heard of.

Hah, thank you Cranewings. ^.^

She was a blast to play, and kind of funny too. Her low Intelligence was great for roleplaying her obliviousness to things due to lack of education. She couldn't take 10 and answer simple questions on any subject, so people in the party would reference common things and she'd look at them like, "Huh...what is that?", and they'd be like "What do you mean what is that? Have you lived under a rock?", "Does in a basement count?", "Um, actually...I guess it does."


I guess they aren't doing that anymore huh? Probably because we would always just keep arguing even after they made a ruling?


Ashiel wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


So the actual result was immediately becoming a CR 5 undead creature with starting resources. I don't recommend it to just anyone. It was fun though. I didn't begin with much else in the way of gear, and was seemingly just a homeless woman, right up until she threw giggles into a pile of fish guts.
This might be the greatest character that I ever heard of.

Hah, thank you Cranewings. ^.^

She was a blast to play, and kind of funny too. Her low Intelligence was great for roleplaying her obliviousness to things due to lack of education. She couldn't take 10 and answer simple questions on any subject, so people in the party would reference common things and she'd look at them like, "Huh...what is that?", and they'd be like "What do you mean what is that? Have you lived under a rock?", "Does in a basement count?", "Um, actually...I guess it does."

I've always liked the idea of playing world of darkness style characters in PF. I used to let PC's start off as Vampires and Werewolves periodically. A confused mummy would take it to the next level.

Andoran

Grimmy wrote:
I guess they aren't doing that anymore huh? Probably because we would always just keep arguing even after they made a ruling?

Some people would...


cranewings wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


So the actual result was immediately becoming a CR 5 undead creature with starting resources. I don't recommend it to just anyone. It was fun though. I didn't begin with much else in the way of gear, and was seemingly just a homeless woman, right up until she threw giggles into a pile of fish guts.
This might be the greatest character that I ever heard of.

Hah, thank you Cranewings. ^.^

She was a blast to play, and kind of funny too. Her low Intelligence was great for roleplaying her obliviousness to things due to lack of education. She couldn't take 10 and answer simple questions on any subject, so people in the party would reference common things and she'd look at them like, "Huh...what is that?", and they'd be like "What do you mean what is that? Have you lived under a rock?", "Does in a basement count?", "Um, actually...I guess it does."

I've always liked the idea of playing world of darkness style characters in PF. I used to let PC's start off as Vampires and Werewolves periodically. A confused mummy would take it to the next level.

I've never gotten to play anything World of Darkness related, other than a new Vampire demo several years ago (it seemed fun though from a RP perspective). Morgana was indeed fun to play, so if WoD is anything like that, I could see the appeal.

As for vampires, I recently discussed playing vampires in PMs with another poster (I think I mentioned this during my Morgana post). For playing vampire PCs, particularly from lower levels, I recommend using the Vampire Spawn rules, possibly watered down into a template (I showed Artarok some methods for creating templates). Not nearly as powerful as the actual vampire template, but easily possessing much of the same flavor. :)


ciretose wrote:
Or I would have...where did the FAQ tag go?

Just make another thread explaining the issue so we can FAQ it.


Ashiel wrote:


Vehemently Opposed is the same as just not wanting to do it, only on a larger scale. It's still just not wanting to do it.

You can try to simplify it, but scales of magnitude matter.

If I shoot someone in the face I am sure I won't get the same punishment as punching them in the face, yet both are crimes of violence.

Are you trying to say scales don't matter?


ciretose wrote:
Or I would have...where did the FAQ tag go?

They are only in certain areas of the board. I am sure there is a similar topic in the rules area. You can bump it or create a new one I guess.


Ashiel wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
cranewings wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


So the actual result was immediately becoming a CR 5 undead creature with starting resources. I don't recommend it to just anyone. It was fun though. I didn't begin with much else in the way of gear, and was seemingly just a homeless woman, right up until she threw giggles into a pile of fish guts.
This might be the greatest character that I ever heard of.

Hah, thank you Cranewings. ^.^

She was a blast to play, and kind of funny too. Her low Intelligence was great for roleplaying her obliviousness to things due to lack of education. She couldn't take 10 and answer simple questions on any subject, so people in the party would reference common things and she'd look at them like, "Huh...what is that?", and they'd be like "What do you mean what is that? Have you lived under a rock?", "Does in a basement count?", "Um, actually...I guess it does."

I've always liked the idea of playing world of darkness style characters in PF. I used to let PC's start off as Vampires and Werewolves periodically. A confused mummy would take it to the next level.

I've never gotten to play anything World of Darkness related, other than a new Vampire demo several years ago (it seemed fun though from a RP perspective). Morgana was indeed fun to play, so if WoD is anything like that, I could see the appeal.

As for vampires, I recently discussed playing vampires in PMs with another poster (I think I mentioned this during my Morgana post). For playing vampire PCs, particularly from lower levels, I recommend using the Vampire Spawn rules, possibly watered down into a template (I showed Artarok some methods for creating templates). Not nearly as powerful as the actual vampire template, but easily possessing much of the same flavor. :)

I'm a little more hamhanded with the rules when I do WoD conversions. I just try to put the PCs in the same ball park, making them CR 7s or so, and then award XP based on RP and completing objectives, giving none for combat. There is no balance among encounters - you try to find out ahead of time if you can take something and then try to get out of fighting it if you decide you can't. That's about it.

Doing the WoD stuff is all about RP and secondly about carving out your piece of the pie. It is almost always run as a sandbox where the GM stats every Mage, Werewolf, and Vampire in the campaign area, ties them up with some subplots, and then inserts the PCs. Because players are more interested in RP than winning, a lot of people end up with really "screwed" characters, like a Mummy who doesn't know what's going on or a vampire who's ostracized because his sire tried to kill the prince.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I consider in an 'unreasonable demand' of a Celestial to BETRAY THE VERY IDEALS IT IS AN INCARNATION OF, by serving an evil wizard in committing evil deeds. The very fact it was a slave it as an affront to everything a Ghaele stands for.

It simply will NOT happen. You are trying to compel an incarnation of Good to do the very opposite of what it was created to be.

However, demons and devils do not consider slavery unreasonable at all...submission to more powerful beings is a part of what they are. Likewise, building things, destroying things, are not against their natures...doing what they are told by a superior being without giving a damn for the moral implications of the actions are most definitely part of their mindset.

So, trying to shift the argument from 'Celestials won't act against their nature' to 'outsiders won't act against their nature' isn't working here. I thought you might try that tactic, which is why I noted that Evil Outsiders have an entirely different view of 'reasonable' then a Celestial. Commit genocide, torture/rape/murder an entire city of a million people because one of them noted the wizard's robe was a feminine shade of purple and two years out of style? Perfectly 'reasonable' to any Evil outsider.

Heck, when it comes to demons, it would be hard to find ANY action a demon didn't consider reasonable. Might makes right.

---------
Actually, I read all the relevant spell descriptions, I flubbed up on Spell Resistance vs the Will save when translating over. The point still stands...go read the spell again...they specifically mention Trap the Soul is the only long-term way to cage an outsider, Eventually, it will be free.

------------
Geas is an Echantment (compulsion) spell, and the obedience aspect would be suppressed by a Protection from Evil/Holy Aura.

And it could always assume incorporeal form and be a real pisser to target with spells on top of it. I favor surrounding itself in a wall of light with at-will Major Image so the wizard can't even SEE it to get line of effect.

Remember, it is hundreds, if not thousands of years older then the wizard. It already knows all the tricks.

-----------------
The 'boundary' of a summoning circle has never meant just the physical circle on the ground. It has never meant you could freely cast spells on a trapped outsider...take that viewpoint to its logical extreme, and you will have interfering outsiders being called up by spellcasters of the opposite alignment and MURDERED IMMEDIATELY AND SAFELY, unable to fight back.

It doesn't work, and never has. Spells that could safely be cast on a bound outsider have to be specifically made to work within the boundaries of the summoning magic.

If you want an example, look at purist Protection from Evil/Good, the inverted form of which is used for a summoning/binding circle. This prevents Evil creatures from even touching you (unless they make a save) unless you LAUNCH AN ATTACK on them, in which case it devolves just giving a bonus to saves and AC.

Note the language from Prot/Evil: "The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature."

So if you cast a spell on the bound creature (the spell is inverted, remember), you are launching an attack on it, and the binding breaks. The physical pattern on the ground? What that does is enhance the duration...it doesn't break the other rules for the spell. The duration of the spell ends instantly if the circle is broken, but it doesn't eliminate the other strictures of the spell. What made you think it did?

So, as soon as that geas is thrown, the inverted Prot/Good is breached and the ghaele is free to go. Ditto the Spectral Hand.

--------------------------

Also note that Protection from Evil/at-will Holy Aura gives a new saving throw when cast on a subject...and a good outsider can turn its Holy Aura on and off at will, effectively giving it a 'take 20' on any kind of enchantment or compulsion save. Every round, a new save at +2. It just cycles the Aura, letting it expire at the end of every round and putting it up anew if it fails. It will roll 20 eventually.

---------------------------

Also note that using a geas to force the celestial to breach the field is trying to use the boundary as an offensive barrier. Forcing the celestial into the barrier is no different then forcing the barrier into the celestial...the barrier compels the celestial to stay back, but he doesn't sprawl against it like a force field. You are effectively compelling him to overcome the compulsion to stay out!

=======================

I would also like to note that a viable interpretation of 'come get this feather' to an immortal is to do so VERY slowly. Say, a 10th of a millimeter per day along a spiral path in three dimensions, and thus never falling under ability score penalties. "Come do it NOW," would be replied to with, "I am in transit, oh master." Mockingly, of course.

==================
Lastly, the ghaele is a 13th level caster.
1, on day 2 it can prepare Restoration and get rid of the ability score penalties.

2, oh right, it's 13th level. 7th level spells.

Restoration, Greater
School conjuration (healing); Level cleric/oracle 7
CASTINGComponents V, S, M (diamond dust 5,000 gp)
EFFECTRange touch
Target creature touched
DESCRIPTIONThis spell functions like lesser restoration, except that it dispels all permanent and temporary negative levels afflicting the healed creature. Greater restoration also dispels all magical effects penalizing the creature's abilities, cures all temporary ability damage, and restores all points permanently drained from all ability scores. It also eliminates fatigue and exhaustion, and removes all forms of insanity, confusion, and similar mental effects.
============================
Ergo, evil casters don't even try to bind Good outsiders. Not only will they not betray the essence of what they are to obey the orders of an evil caster, they can't even be compelled to do so. In under 3 minutes, on average, they are going to be free.
===========
And frankly, I can't see any evidence in the rules as they stand that allows evil casters to summon GOod creatures, regardless if they are arcane or not. I was aware good creatures could summon Evil ones, and that Good Clerics could not, but there's that alignment shift.

Good creatures being summonable is effectively offering free sacrifices up to the forces of Evil, taken to its logical extreme. We need a sacrifice? Summon and subdue an angel and offer it up. Logically, it simply does not work in the long term. I can't see an example of it ever being done, either. Angels simply don't respond to calls from evil casters, and are going to be very unfriendly.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

I consider in an 'unreasonable demand' of a Celestial to BETRAY THE VERY IDEALS IT IS AN INCARNATION OF, by serving an evil wizard in committing evil deeds. The very fact it was a slave it as an affront to everything a Ghaele stands for.

It simply will NOT happen. You are trying to compel an incarnation of Good to do the very opposite of what it was created to be.

However, demons and devils do not consider slavery unreasonable at all...submission to more powerful beings is a part of what they are. Likewise, building things, destroying things, are not against their natures...doing what they are told by a superior being without giving a damn for the moral implications of the actions are most definitely part of their mindset.

Your fluff is nice, I guess. However, I don't see any actual argument that's backed by the rules. You're still trying to argue that evil characters can't cast [Good] spells, which has already been noted as false.

You're telling me what is "perfectly reasonable" and I'm telling you to take it, and swallow it. Because your opinion as to what is perfectly reasonable is no more or less valid than anyone else's opinion as to what is reasonable. Just because you don't like something, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that you get to dictate what is or is not allowed. If you want to say what you think is reasonable, then feel free. I've backed up what I've said with rule citations, and explanations on the narrative and fluff aspects as well. It all meshes. So far, yours has not. However,

Quote:

---------

Actually, I read all the relevant spell descriptions, I flubbed up on Spell Resistance vs the Will save when translating over. The point still stands...go read the spell again...they specifically mention Trap the Soul is the only long-term way to cage an outsider, Eventually, it will be free.
------------

I never said it wouldn't. In fact, if you read my last post on the matter, I specifically mentioned the outsider would get free and likely seek revenge, if the evil power controlling it didn't kill it to be on the safe side.

Quote:
Geas is an Echantment (compulsion) spell, and the obedience aspect would be suppressed by a Protection from Evil/Holy Aura.

Geas doesn't actually force anyone to do anything. Instead, it punishes you for not doing stuff. Protection from evil specifically notes that it prevents effects that control other characters, such as charm person(!), but geas does not force a creature to obey you, nor does it grant control over a creature.

Instead, it produces an effect when you are not doing as told. That effect being penalizing all your ability scores at a rate of -3 per day, up to -12. Humorously, greater restoration cannot help the ghaele because bestow curse is not called out as a penalty, and geas specifically notes that it can only be removed with a specific list of spells noted in the geas description. No restoration spell is listed among the methods to remove the geas or its penalties.

Quote:
And it could always assume incorporeal form and be a real pisser to target with spells on top of it. I favor surrounding itself in a wall of light with at-will Major Image so the wizard can't even SEE it to get line...

This is more interesting as an argument.

Quote:

Note the language from Prot/Evil: "The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature."

So if you cast a spell on the bound creature (the spell is inverted, remember), you are launching an attack on it, and the binding breaks. The physical pattern on the ground? What that does is enhance the duration...it doesn't break the other rules for the spell. The duration of the spell ends instantly if the circle is broken, but it doesn't eliminate the other strictures of the spell. What made you think it did?

So, as soon as that geas is thrown, the inverted Prot/Good is breached and the ghaele is free to go. Ditto the Spectral Hand.

You may want to note the language yourself. It prevents bodily contact via summoned outsiders. Firstly, the ghaele isn't summoned. It's a called creature. Protection from evil doesn't do jack against a called demon, and is completely irrelevant in this context. Secondly, the protection from bodily contact is an effect of protection from evil against summoned creature and does not dispel the protection if you make an attack, merely allows that outsider to have bodily contact with you. Again, it's irrelevant to your argument.

Quote:
Also note that Protection from Evil/at-will Holy Aura gives a new saving throw when cast on a subject...and a good outsider can turn its Holy Aura on and off at will, effectively giving it a 'take 20' on any kind of enchantment or compulsion save. Every round, a new save at +2. It just cycles the Aura, letting it expire at the end of every round and putting it up anew if it fails. It will roll 20 eventually.

This isn't a bad idea. Sadly, a saving throw does nothing against geas because it does not allow a saving throw. So the rolling for 20s is useless.

Quote:
Also note that using a geas to force the celestial to breach the field is trying to use the boundary as an offensive barrier. Forcing the celestial into the barrier is no different then forcing the barrier into the celestial...the barrier compels the celestial to stay back, but he doesn't sprawl against it like a force field. You are effectively compelling him to overcome the compulsion to stay out!

Sorry, this doesn't hold up to the actual rules. Forcing a magic circle against an outsider by moving it towards it is one thing, but arguing that casting spells through it is forcing the circle on the outsider? That's just silly and you know it. I think the spell you might actually be thinking of is sanctuary and somehow mistaking it for magic circle.


wraithstrike wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


Vehemently Opposed is the same as just not wanting to do it, only on a larger scale. It's still just not wanting to do it.

You can try to simplify it, but scales of magnitude matter.

If I shoot someone in the face I am sure I won't get the same punishment as punching them in the face, yet both are crimes of violence.

Are you trying to say scales don't matter?

Actually, yes. The wording is pretty clear. Anything you wouldn't ordinarily do. I wouldn't ordinarily punch you in the face, nor would I ordinarily shoot you in the face; but if I was charmed and the charmer won an opposed Charisma check against me, I would be convinced to do so.

It even says things that are very dangerous I could be made to do. I could be made to attempt to walk on a tightrope (though I may fall to my doom). I could be made to kill you, even though the risk of getting caught and punished, maybe even killed, getting sent to hell, or getting ostracized from my community are all very real risks but you would convince me of doing so. Perhaps the gods will have pity since I wasn't in my right mind when I killed you. Maybe I'll give you a hug and apologize on the other side.

I could have deeply rooted religious hatred for tattoos and piercings, and if your will is very strong, you might be able to take me to a tattoo parlor and come out looking like this lady. Later when it's all over with, I might wonder "WTF did I do!?", but I'm still covered in tattoos.

Andoran

I think the last two posts illustrate my concerns perfectly.

First post "That is all fluff. Rules citations only. The rules don't say I can't regardless of if it makes logical or reasonable sense."

Second post "Ignore the fact that it says you aren't an automaton, you can be talked into anything. I know because of these examples that aren't anywhere in the rules I am giving you."


I don't understand why people keep trying to argue that we're making Charm out to be like Dominate, when it's not.

I've said before, and I'll say again, Charm is all about CONVINCING someone to do something. That is the key right there.

Someone comes up to me and casts Charm Person then says, "Cheat on your girlfriend." For those that don't know, I absolutely despise those that cheat or have affairs. I literally will not associate with a person anymore if I find out they have done so. It fills me with a burning rage and makes me wish to smash their skull in wit a rock. Suffice to say, I am vehemently opposed to cheating on my girlfriend.

However, the spell Charm Person allows the caster to make an opposed Charisma Check. If the Caster wins the opposed Charisma Check, then I have been CONVINCED to cheat on my girlfriend. That means I agree to cheat, that I approve of it, that I will go ahead and cheat on my girlfriend, even though I am vehemently opposed to cheating on my girlfriend. I will seek out the chance to cheat on my girlfriend, at least for the duration of the spell.

The Caster CONVINCES you to do the order given. You AGREE with the Caster to do the order given. You APPROVE of the Caster's order given and seek to follow through with it.

It's not Dominating, it's Magically Persuading.

That's how the spell works. If you aren't using the spell that way, then you are using the spell incorrectly. The word 'anything' is not a factor in the mechanics of Charm Person. The word 'Convince' is the key factor in the mechanics of Charm Person. Regardless of what the Order given is, if I can't Convince the person (via an opposed Charisma Check), then the Order will not be followed, regardless of the Order.

Andoran

So what are the DCs of the different checks. Or is it the same to get someone to feed your cat as it is to get them to kill a small child?

You have to read an a lot into the wording of rule to get the outcome you are describing.

Our position doesn't. The spell simply makes that person friendly toward you. Period. Full stop.

What does "friendly" mean. You go to diplomacy (which it references) and it gives some example interactions and the bonuses and penalties that come with them.

Getting a creature to go against the very nature of it's being...I suspect that is much , much, higher than "Give aid that could result in punishment"

I would suspect that is a ridiculously high roll.

YMMV.

501 to 550 of 951 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Petition: I nominate Ashiel to work for Paizo as Rules Consultant All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.