|
Read it carefully: it inhibit the character from using a category of actions, it don't stop him from acting.
I did read it. Depending on the situation it could mean life or death for the party. Espcially if more than one character fails th save.
On himself. I would not allow the cleric to heal others with a spell or Channel. If the cleric goal was to heal someone than he can't. He has to do something opposite of what he wants to do.
The cleric? Channel instead of cure spell.
The ability don't work that way, you are houseruling it in something different.
The cleric can't cast a spell, but he can use a special ability.Aura of Chaos (Su): At 8th level, you can surround yourself with a field wild energies. Thee energies manifest as a 30-foot aura of chaos for a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level. All enemies within this aura must declare one type of action at the start of their turn (attack, cast a spell, move, use an item, or activate a special ability) and make a Will save. Creatures that fail the Will save must take an action other than their declared action. If they succeed, they must take the declared action. Creatures cannot select actions that they cannot perform.[/quoe]
A witch? Spells plus special abilities. That power will never completely stop her.
Or the alchemist as well. Still imo it is more effective against classes from the core.
This ability would screw witha Fighter. The other melee classes not as much imo.
The only people that would be completely screwed are pure melee characters.
An attack is an attack. So if you are affected by the aura and have chosen the attack action, you can't attack, neither with a sword, bow, combat maneuver or any other form of attack. So what is doing your "other meele class"? Circling around the enemy?
...using a charged item while astral projecting don't consume charges but affect reality and similarly butchered rules...If you play that way there is little to say.
Enjoy your way of gaming.
Diego, what is your personal problem with me?
Why am I the only person you've responded to by this, and why, when you do so, you denigrate me by saying "butchered rules"?
You completely ignored the point by doing so. That is classic violation of the most important rule.
Sir, please get off that high horse and off of my back.
I'm, like, the third or fourth guy recently.
Just because you choose to interpret things differently doesn't make you right or me wrong. Doesn't make "my way" right and yours wrong, either. Heck, I've never used and never seen used the astral projection trick, and only became aware of it (again*) fairly recently when it was mentioned by others.
* I have been made aware of it more than once, but generally forget about it, since I've never used it.
Stuff about stuff and gold from air.
I'm not actually disagreeing; rather, I'm saying that it functions that way in your games because you're applying fiat. There are plenty of creatures that can do similar things, yet they still value gold... for... some... reason?
And that's what I mean. You don't have to apply much fiat, but you do have to apply fiat. You have to presume that there's only one guy - essentially irreplaceable - that's doing this. You have to presume lower levels are more common than higher levels. You have to presume wizards are rare. Those are entirely valid presumptions, and generally considered "normal" by most standards, but they're presumptions nonetheless. Fiat.
That said, I entirely agree - it's not inherently unbalancing. It's just one of those things that can be, if your presumptions don't account for it.
(And the rules do not make way for inflation, flooding the market, or other normal market realities... so more fiat, though, again, comprehensible and good fiat.) :)
The rules are silent, but exactly for that reason you default to the general rule for Supernatural abilities. And the general rule is that the source of SU abilities is perceptible only if the SU ability description say so.
Where is that rule at?
Not true. Nature bond has is a this or that choice, not 11 stackable choices.
Now you are moving goalpost. First you said slumber was not its own class ability, and that it fell under another class ability. I mention that animal companion is an option just like slumber is and your premise changes.
Either something has to be a class ability or it does not. It is that simple.
edit: With that aside I think there is a way to get leadership as a class ability and that is better than slumber. It is also an option which is basically all that the other poster required so either way slumber is not the most power option.
I think the difference is that you get multiple hexes as part of the same "Hex" class feature, while you only get one "Nature Bond".
|
|
Not true. Nature bond has is a this or that choice, not 11 stackable choices.Now you are moving goalpost. First you said slumber was not its own class ability, and that it fell under another class ability. I mention that animal companion is an option just like slumber is and your premise changes.
Either something has to be a class ability or it does not. It is that simple.
edit: With that aside I think there is a way to get leadership as a class ability and that is better than slumber. It is also an option which is basically all that the other poster required so either way slumber is not the most power option.
I said that Slumber is 1/11 of a class feature.
Animal companion is 1/1 of a class feature as you can't have an animal companion and the domain at the same time.
|
Link to post by Kta (#501)
I did answer - two posts later, and then the discussion continued from Kta half way down that page, I then replied at 1.31 pm on Monday next page, and then I think TacticsLion picked up the thread.
I don't think I missed his points .... it's complicated :-)
You can not cover every possible player tactic or question that comes up in a setting. You are one person.
This, I think, is behind a lot of what I think has been going on in this thread, sort of behind the scenes, and it is I think a big and important point which is worthy of discussion.
This, however, is going to be a long post.
You *can* cover every possible player tactic.
If I write that a bear lives in a cave, describe the bear, its habits, the cave and its environment, I have provided the GM with everything he needs to run the encounter no matter what the players choose to do.
If I write that a bear lives in a cave and then explain what will happen if the PCs do one or two particular things, then all I've provided the GM with is information on how to run the encounter *only if* the players behave as expected.
These two admittedly trivialised examples illustrate to me the difference between a setting based encounter and a narrative based one.
Now just to cover one point before moving on - I know that GMs can change everything if they want to, however just because a GM can make a narrative module out of a setting one or vice versa doesn't mean that writers are free of responsibility about what happens at the gaming table.
And I think there has been a trend for quite some time now in modules moving from being setting based to narrative based.
And it seems to me from a lot of the comments I've read here that a reason for this may well be the fact that people don't think it's possible to write a setting based module any more.
Perhaps because the rules are too complicated, crazy or inconsistent.
Now I just happen to be running Wake of the Watcher at the moment, which is a heavily narrative based module (particularly so because it's based on a book), and although the story it tells is great if the players do what they're supposed to do it breaks down completely if they don't "follow the script".
(If anyone wants to challenge the example I can post up spoilers if you like).
I'm not so fond of this sort of module, I must admit, and I think it would be a real shame if this sort of thing became the norm and we started to see an end to the settings based ones.
Settings based modules, which were prevalent in the early days of D&D, were great fun because you really felt as a player you could do whatever you wanted. There was never any real danger that you were going to somehow or another break the module or embarrass the GM by not doing what you were supposed to do.
(this wasn't completely true, I have to say, but it was primarily true)
The first Ravenloft module, for example, has no narrative as such. There are a few things which the writers imagined would take place, but they were not obligatory. In fact, it really wasn't seen as the writer's job to steer the story in any way. This was something that was entirely up to the players and GM.
I think we may well be seeing a demise of player narrative choice as the cost to the massive increase we've had in choice when it comes to character creation and crafting and encounter resolution (which, incidentally, I think are wonderful developments in the game).
And that has resulted in modules which are basically strings of encounters which, although hugely rich and enjoyable in themselves, are then linked together with a narrative thread which allows for little variation within an encompassing world setting which is sometimes just seen as window dressing.
I know that some people are happy with that and that's fine however I think for others there is a danger that we're going to lose something from the game which is actually quite precious.
And the crazy thing is that I am far from convinced that we need to lose it at all.
Although the rules have got much more complicated I don't believe that they are game-world breaking. They certainly pose challenges here and there, but a little bit of imagination and open-mindedness, rather than believing that one can categorically conclude what must happen under any set of rules and circumstances, can allow settings based modules to exist.
Humility and open-mindedness are the key to this.
The sorts of discussions that we've had on here about giants and villages and witches and so on are partly logic partly judgement. None of us can categorically know what would happen - we can debate what we think is reasonable and then accept that what's left is a big grey cloud of possibilities.
You can build fantasy worlds using big grey clouds.
You can only build fantasy worlds out of solid bricks of certainty if those bricks fit seamlessly together. And that's a very tall order.
I started this thread heaven knows how long ago because I believe that Slumber Hex has moved those clouds around a bit. I don't think it has broken anything (how do you break a cloud, anyway), just changed the balance of power. Or possibly not - it's a cloud, it's just that I'm favouring the parts of the cloud that say it has :-)
Th whole sub-thread that's emerged about "why bother anyway, the world doesn't work" isn't something that I agree with. Indeed even if there are parts which pose challenges (like Create Water did until I realised (or was this a change) that the water disappears unless consumed within one day) I think it's worth trying to work with the rules to show how they can be made to work together to build the world rather than showing how they can break the world apart.
Richard
Richard
1) the idea behind a bear is a viable thing because most bears are rather familiar to most GMs - at least to some limited extent; more alien creatures are not so readily granted, and often need more help or prompting
2) I tend to like both setting and narrative encounters. Wake of the Watcher has specific needs for the general thrust of the story. Adventure Paths in general are, ultimately, stories that have a plot. It's like reading an interactive book, or playing a more open video game - there's certainly variance - lots of variance - but that variance also follows a general pattern of a story, some of which are "tighter" than others; this is a matter of taste. Sandbox campaigns - the larger group of setting-based encounters - are excellent, but are, much like APs, a matter of taste.
3) The major point I want to talk to you about is the one where rules can break the setting. Please be aware that I don't think the rules inherently break a setting. But there is no game system that I've seen where if taken just for the rules is viable in terms of narrative-creation. Again, we all use fiat. Every time. That fiat isn't wrong. The fact that, if pushed in certain ways a "trick" appears isn't setting-breaking. Maybe it hasn't been discovered because no one has discovered or thought of it. Maybe it hasn't been discovered because things don't work that way. Maybe it hasn't been discovered because of some other thing that I can't think of, but you (or someone else) can. My point has never been, "The rules suck and will break you." but instead, "Unless applied carefully and with forethought the rules can generate nonsensical results." (such as the existence of NPC classes in a free-choice world, slumber hexes in every thorpe in a free-witch world, simulacra of all sorts in that kind of world, and so on).
My point has always been the opposite of "why bother" - instead, it's been, "Make sure you bother, but when you bother, do so in such a way as to make things work, instead of in such a way as to break them."
(And if you weren't interested in how rules would change the setting...)
Again, I can see where you're coming from. I like internal consistency from the rules structures. I'm also okay with the rules needing help - they're not inifinitely granular (ugh, a system that was would be boooooooooooooooooooring) and they are, over-all, internally consistent and self-balancing. If you apply a bit of logic, however, and step just a hair beyond the bounds of the printed rules (as every published setting does), the world and setting becomes a substantially more well-rounded and internally consistent place without violating the rules.
Of course you're free to disagree. I'll probably keep trying to convince you, though. 'Cause daggum I like to talk a lot. :)
(Also, as far as I know, Create Water has always been temporary in PF, though I didn't realize it at first, either.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure whether we agree or not, we seem to be both trying to get to the same place but using slightly different tactics.
(Oh and I like talking a lot too :-) )
I think what it comes down to is this statement you make here:
"Unless applied carefully and with forethought the rules can generate nonsensical results."
My take on this is different:
"We can none of us ever know categorically what results the rules will generate because a simulated world is much too complicated to model inside our heads."
In my mind, there should never be a need for GM fiat, because the rules are never totally prescriptive about how a world will hang together. There's always enough uncertainty for us to be able to envisage that maybe the giant does regularly attack the village and gets away with it or maybe giants no longer attack the villages because of their fear of witches.
This isn't GM fiat, this is working within the boundaries of possibility once we've decided roughly speaking where those boundaries should lie.
It is the difference between thinking that we have to use GM fiat and be careful with the rules because they can break the world and thinking that the rules only break the world if you take a very narrow view about how you read them.
For example, let's say we accept that NPCs are as free to take PC classes as NPC ones. I can imagine a lot of NPCs wanting to be commoners as a way of saying "I'm no threat to you, leave me alone."
It's the appeasement / avoidance strategy we discussed earlier.
I have met many people in my life who are totally unambitious. I think if the world was quite brutal, it would discourage any but the strongest to draw any sort of attention to themselves.
But that's just my theory based on a smidgeon of understanding of psychology and sociology. It's a theory which can sit in that big grey cloud I talked about earlier alongside the one which says actually no, they'd all want to be fighters.
The rules don't dictate that either of these things has to be true, so for me there's no need for GM fiat to "fix" something, the rules were never prescriptive enough that anything was broken.
(BTW: It may be that my grey clouds and your GM fiat are the same thing. I'm not sure :-) )
Richard
I'm not sure whether we agree or not, we seem to be both trying to get to the same place but using slightly different tactics.
(Oh and I like talking a lot too :-) )
Hey, we're cool. :)
I think what it comes down to is this statement you make here:
"Unless applied carefully and with forethought the rules can generate nonsensical results."My take on this is different:
"We can none of us ever know categorically what results the rules will generate because a simulated world is much too complicated to model inside our heads."
Can we know every outcome? No. But given the things as currently printed, based on standard things the rules present us, we have a strong knowledge of the probability of such events.
It is that probability which negates your earliest examples of the giant coming to a village. Of course we can't tell the fine minutia of what will happen every time (though we could simulate it totally by the rules and randomness). That doesn't matter.
What does matter is the fact that the situations that will come up are very specific.
In my mind, there should never be a need for GM fiat, because the rules are never totally prescriptive about how a world will hang together. There's always enough uncertainty for us to be able to envisage that maybe the giant does regularly attack the village and gets away with it or maybe giants no longer attack the villages because of their fear of witches.
This isn't GM fiat, this is working within the boundaries of possibility once we've decided roughly speaking where those boundaries should lie.
I think that we're using the same term to mean different things here (like you note at the bottom of your post).
To me, the fact that the rules aren't perfectly prescriptive about how a world hangs together means that fiat is a necessity.
Otherwise we don't have a world, we have only rules.
We can envisage a giant attacking and getting away with it, sure, but if you run numbers only by rules, then the giant is on the losing in in too many cases to calculate. Regardless, whatever the reasoning behind the giant attacking (or not) and succeeding (or not) is entirely - what I am calling - fiat.
In fact, fiat.
a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2
: an authoritative determination : dictate <a fiat of conscience>
3
: an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree <government by fiat>
This is what I mean by fiat. An authoritative determination. Since the rules do not force a setting to occur in a particular way, there must be an authoritative decision for each setting and each campaign. Otherwise you're left with no setting, only rules.
That's what I mean be the rules are bones and the "fiat" the flesh (such as muscles, ligaments, and so on). The bones give structure and definition as well as subscribing certain limits. The flesh makes the whole thing live and move and subscribes other limits. Those two sets of abilities and limits together create the whole.
Similarly, the rules give structure and definition as well as subscribing certain limits. The fiat (GM or Published Setting determination) makes the whole thing live and move and subscribes other limits. Those two sets of abilities and limits together create the whole. (Just as there are creatures with no bones, there can also collaborative efforts with no rules.)
It is the difference between thinking that we have to use GM fiat and be careful with the rules because they can break the world and thinking that the rules only break the world if you take a very narrow view about how you read them.
That's... actually the opposite of true. If you are permissive - in other words, if you just let RAW stand as it is on its own - the rules lack any sort of direction to create a coherent or directed story or narrative. The rules actually contradict each other.
It's the act of putting the rules into action in specific contexts that gives story and narrative.
For example, from a recent thread, when you are blinded you gain the blinded condition, which means you can't see. If you then cast darkvision on yourself, darkvision notes it gives you the ability to see. There are multiple ways of taking the English in these rules, but only one of them works as intended. That intent is not within the rules itself as they are written, but is, in fact, the fiat that is expected to be applied. Much like the rarity of witches, there is no rule that demands you make witches rare, but the intent was there in the creation of the class and its fluff.
For example, let's say we accept that NPCs are as free to take PC classes as NPC ones. I can imagine a lot of NPCs wanting to be commoners as a way of saying "I'm no threat to you, leave me alone."
It's the appeasement / avoidance strategy we discussed earlier.
... and if they're regularly getting raided by giants, it's not a good strategy.
I have met many people in my life who are totally unambitious. I think if the world was quite brutal, it would discourage any but the strongest to draw any sort of attention to themselves.
Who says being a witch (or any class) has to draw attention to yourself? You want to be lazy? Sorcerer is where it's at!
1) Prestidigitation
2) Endure Elements
... and you're mostly covered.
(Oracle might work a little better.)
The point is, even those that aren't ambitious will do what it takes to survive. If the option is there, they will take it until other options fade out. Otherwise, you will have an entire world full of very unambitious people which... doesn't fit in with many published stories. There are plenty of published ambitious NPCs, which only functions if the world itself does not permit free-choice of class.
But that's just my theory based on a smidgeon of understanding of psychology and sociology. It's a theory which can sit in that big grey cloud I talked about earlier alongside the one which says actually no, they'd all want to be fighters.
The rules don't dictate that either of these things has to be true, so for me there's no need for GM fiat to "fix" something, the rules were never prescriptive enough that anything was broken.
(BTW: It may be that my grey clouds and your GM fiat are the same thing. I'm not sure :-) )
Richard
... to an extent, they may be. But I've never claimed the rules were broken, rather the opposite. The rules are variable and function well together, but unless someone makes a judgement call the rules don't do anything. They make a nice book.
You can create two* entirely different worlds by following RAW. One will conform more to what we know and understand in the world, and one will not. One will inform you that so long as the blindness condition persists, you cannot see; the other will note that you can see, but you still take all the penalties for being blind, except for the ability to see... somehow. One will create many varieties of infinite wishes (while following all the letter of the RAW) and the other will not.
Neither of these worlds are wrong. But when you publish (as you are doing) you are supposed to publish to the RAI as much as you can, because that will be the one most people will find the most useful.
RAI, witches are rare.
Applying the strongest weight of logic (that they are chosen by their patron, regardless of personal ambition), applying all the examples that we've been given (that they are rare and chosen by their patron), and applying RAI (based on the fluff), witches are rare.
Only by fiat-less RAW are witches possibly (and only possibly, not definitively) not-rare.
IF we go with the weight of the majority of printed materials, witches are taught the secrets that their patrons want them to know. IF the witches are taught the secrets that their patrons want them to know, it depends on their patrons what they get. IF it depends on their patrons what they get, they do not (in-character) choose. Thus, it's left to the GM to choose for them, out-of-character which is then justified in-character. Thus, fiat.
IF, on the other hand, we presume that anyone can be a witch at any time, then we have to weigh their options. There are so many other options that a witch might want that there is no guarantee that they'd choose Slumber. Certain witches would certainly, but not all. And with that, we know that slumber is more rare.
THUS the idea that creatures would change themselves around the Slumber hex is... weak at best, as it only functions in a world that is not intended, not implied, and not consistent with the vast majority of cases that pure numbers generate.
And as soon as you walk away from pure numbers and say, "Yes, but the situation is..." you're applying fiat (a judgement call) to create a situation. That's not a bad thing, but in this case it's only one situation.
So, to an extent, I think we're just taking it from a different perspective.
You: the rules function and create many variables to go by (what you call clouds)
Me: the rules have a function, but don't do anything until applied (what I call fiat)
Does that sound about right? Similar, but nuanced in their differences.
* Actually many more, but I'm going to go with two, and presume one uses RAW as is RAI and one uses the non-RAI RAW for this example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, we're cool. :)
Indeed, even if it's just you and me now that are interested in carrying on with this discussion :-)
But given the things as currently printed, based on standard things the rules present us, we have a strong knowledge of the probability of such events.
I don't agree with that. I think we have a bit of an idea about the probability of these events, and an idea of what we might consider reasonable and believable, but not anything approaching strong knowledge.
That isn't about minutiae either.
To my mind a good way of measuring reasonableness is to imagine you're reading the events in a book set in Golarion.
I wouldn't have a problem reading "The Giant stormed into the village, caused a lot of havoc, killed a few villagers then disappeared into the surrounding countryside before the local militia could mobilise."
Or "...the local militia were unable to get sufficiently clear shots on it in all the mayhem and the few who did found their arrows and sling shots bouncing off the giant's tough hide."
Or "...the local militia were inexperienced in dealing with such threats and were too frightened to react to it effectively."
Or "...the giant caught the scent of the local brewery and was distracted enough while he broke open a few barrels to allow the militia to get into position and kill it."
Or "...the village witch, hearing the mayhem, calmly moved into a room in one of the houses on a road she knew the giant would traverse on his way out and magically slept him as he retreated. The few guards who were chasing him out managed to cut his throat as he lay sleeping."
Or "...but the spell failed and he ran out."
I would have difficulty with:
"The Giant spent the next hour trashing every building and killing every villager."
Or "The Giant found itself alone in the village square surrounded by thirty guards on high battlements all armed with bows and crossbows."
Or "The Giant was blasted out of existence by the resident high level wizard."
As a result of a bit of logical thinking we form a grey cloud with some possibilities inside of it and some out.
If you're telling a particular story then GM fiat can allow you to pick any of the ones inside.
When you're just thinking about world building you think in terms of the clouds, because you're not considering particular events you're just trying to get an idea about how the world hangs together.
We can envisage a giant attacking and getting away with it, sure, but if you run numbers only by rules, then the giant is on the losing in in too many cases to calculate.
I don't think that the discussions we've been having here are anything like scientific enough to be able to draw that sort of conclusion.
Maybe it's my age, but you know when I was in my 20s and 30s I used to think I could find an answer to everything; now that I've hit 50 I think the exact opposite.
I remember once somebody telling me (not directly) the saying "if you're so clever how come you're not rich?"
It's a good question, don't you think, for our own world? After all, what's more important now than brains? If you ran this world using numbers only rules then there should be a strong correlation between INT and GP. As it is I think it's mostly down to luck.
But I'm mixing two points here - the complexity of situations and world dynamics and the complexity of people. The former, really, is what is influencing the giant vs villagers thing for me. I haven't heard any compelling argument about this scenario outside of what I initially proposed about villages having witches. If every village had a good chance of having a witch in it then Giants would be unlikely to attack, which is why I started this thread. It's quite a weapon, and it has low cost. Everything else I have heard is *good* but not overwhelming. IMVHO.
Since the rules do not force a setting to occur in a particular way, there must be an authoritative decision for each setting and each campaign. Otherwise you're left with no setting, only rules.
No, not at all. You need to make an authoritative decision when you want an event to take place, not when you're building either a setting or a campaign. In the latter cases you should keep your logic fuzzy.
It is the difference between thinking that we have to use GM fiat and be careful with the rules because they can break the world and thinking that the rules only break the world if you take a very narrow view about how you read them.That's... actually the opposite of true. If you are permissive - in other words, if you just let RAW stand as it is on its own - the rules lack any sort of direction to create a coherent or directed story or narrative.
I'm saying the rules don't break the world and you're saying the rules don't create the world. I think you've just proved that the opposite of true *isn't* false ;-)
Much like the rarity of witches, there is no rule that demands you make witches rare, but the intent was there in the creation of the class and its fluff.
I'm not very keen on the idea that PCs should have options available to them that NPCs don't. I don't mind PCs being *better*, in fact I expect them to have that sort of advantage, but I find the idea that PCs can just point-blank live in the fantasy world by different rules a bit objectionable.
I equally don't like the idea or RAI of fluff text being used to counter what a reasonable NPC might choose to do given their powers and abilities, particularly when that restriction isn't applied to PCs as well.
I would be quite happy to accept that witches are chosen by their patrons who then govern their abilities if the PCs had to roll for their patron who then limited their abilities as well. I dislike the idea of RAI telling us that witches are rare. It would be like reading that "Fireball" is rare because magical colleges are very reluctant to give it out but, by the way, your PC can have it whenever he wants.
I already think that PCs are a bit of a crazy anomaly in the world anyway, giving them PC-only options or powers moves us towards a super-hero game rather than an FRPG, and that's a line I would rather not cross.
The point is, even those that aren't ambitious will do what it takes to survive. If the option is there, they will take it until other options fade out. Otherwise, you will have an entire world full of very unambitious people which... doesn't fit in with many published stories. There are plenty of published ambitious NPCs, which only functions if the world itself does not permit free-choice of class.
But what does it take to survive? PCs, like I said, are an anomaly because the player doesn't get killed when his character does. If we assume that the world consists of NPCs who, although they have all the options that PCs have, *are* actually worried about their survival, what would they actually do?
IMO, not many of them would adventure, which means that most of them would be stuck at 1st level. In fact, if you allowed commoners, say, to gain experience, albeit slowly, just by being a commoner, then that would probably be the most popular choice.
And those that did pursue one of the more powerful professions would have to contend with the distrust of common people and then envy of the rich (who, like I said earlier, get there more by luck than ability (IMVHO)).
It isn't at all clear to me what would happen.
As for published stories - surely they're teeming with unambitious people. It is only the protagonists which rise above the rest - frequently to their detriment.
But when you publish (as you are doing) you are supposed to publish to the RAI as much as you can, because that will be the one most people will find the most useful.
Well, you don't, and I'm not sure that people do. I think Paizo are the ones who should stick to their own fluff text and RAI, and they do enough of that sort of publishing themselves. I think 3PPs should exist much more on the fringes of RAI and push the boundaries. Otherwise, who's going to?
RAI, witches are rare.
Well - they shouldn't be. I don't think RAI has any business making statements like that and I think it's dangerous that they do. The rarety or commonality of any given class/race/options/whatever should be driven by its utility using mechanisms and options which are as available to NPCs as they are to PCs. Creating some over-powering character which is freely available to players but rare in the rest of the world will create a game where players make a nonsense of the world around them, blasting opponents with powers which the population around them can only wonder at and turning the whole experience into something devoid of any real meaning or world engagement. It doesn't appeal to me and maybe we have to accept that the RPG community is spit between players / GMs who want a world where PCs have some measurable advantage over NPCs but are otherwise in the same boat and those who want to be superior to NPCs in very many ways (like a super-hero game).
IF, on the other hand, we presume that anyone can be a witch at any time, then we have to weigh their options. There are so many other options that a witch might want that there is no guarantee that they'd choose Slumber. Certain witches would certainly, but not all. And with that, we know that slumber is more rare.
Because PCs can choose their options, I prefer NPCs to be able to do the same. We cannot conclude that slumber is rare just because there are many options. We have to weigh up their relative utility, which is what we've been doing in this thread. I haven't seen anything to conclude that slumber is rare at all. Maybe 2nd or 3rd choice.
THUS the idea that creatures would change themselves around the Slumber hex is... weak at best, as it only functions in a world that is not intended, not implied, and not consistent with the vast majority of cases that pure numbers generate.
Not Intended and Not Implied: maybe so, but I've given you my feelings about not having PCs and NPCs having different options.
Not Consistent with the numbers: I think that pure numbers support my case with slumber hex but not without. However, this is a not a mathematical model, and there has been enough debate on this thread about the numbers for me to think that we cannot make any firm conclusions.
And as soon as you walk away from pure numbers and say, "Yes, but the situation is..." you're applying fiat (a judgement call) to create a situation. That's not a bad thing, but in this case it's only one situation.
You must be a mathematician :-)
I can only repeat my point that I don't believe that pure numbers are conclusive. They take us in the right direction but then we're left with lots of possibilities. Fiat resolves a given event, in whatever way the narrative demands it, but keeping yourself in a fiat-less cloud lets you measure general rather than specific behaviour.
Does that sound about right? Similar, but nuanced in their differences.
We're possibly looking at slightly different situations. But I think we're not too far away from each other.
richard
P.S. It has taken me 2 1/2 hours to produce this reply. I cannot afford this sort of time every day so I ask you to be patient if it takes me a few days to reply to your next post!
|
I'm sorry if this has been asked or mentioned before. I don't tend to post or read on any forums much and I didn't have the patience to go through 14 pages.
I have a Witch in my group who is a bit of a Slumber spammer and its getting to be a bit of a problem. I see a lot of discussion is it over powered or not and I see the merits in both.
That being said it has saved the groups collective butts on an occasion or two and it has flat out turned some fights into a joke.
I'm thinking of making it a full round action for him to use this ability as a house rule. Here is my rational... wondering what people think.
1) A super natural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise.
2) Slumber says the creature falls into a deep magical sleep as per the sleep spell.
3) The Sleep Spell has a 1 round casting time.
Thoughts?
Seems like a sensible houserule for your party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What kind of encounters is Slumber ending so easily? If you're used to throwing single strongbads at your party, well, yeah, Slumber's going to be a problem. Otherwise, there are just so many ways around it. Especially if the witch is starting to get a reputation for this.
Edit: A 1 round casting time won't help much--there's no concentration check for a hex, so all it will do is prolong the inevitable, so to speak.
POST 666!
I recommend having one effect for targets that are equal to or less then the HD of the caster - current sleep effect, then another effect for targets of greater level or HD - probably something like exhaustion or fatigue effect.
I'm sorry if this has been asked or mentioned before. I don't tend to post or read on any forums much and I didn't have the patience to go through 14 pages.
I have a Witch in my group who is a bit of a Slumber spammer and its getting to be a bit of a problem. I see a lot of discussion is it over powered or not and I see the merits in both.
That being said it has saved the groups collective butts on an occasion or two and it has flat out turned some fights into a joke.
I'm thinking of making it a full round action for him to use this ability as a house rule. Here is my rational... wondering what people think.
1) A super natural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise.
2) Slumber says the creature falls into a deep magical sleep as per the sleep spell.
3) The Sleep Spell has a 1 round casting time.Thoughts?
the mention of sleep spell is specifically related to the effect of the hex, it doesn't state that the hex' casting time is lengthened... so I'd still let the witch use Slumber as a standard action.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My second PFS character was a Slumber Hex Witch. The first few scenarios were interesting because Slumber worked so well. Then came the undead heavy scenario, where she was pretty much useless. In the 20+ adventures of her career, I had two GMs that would complain about how "broken" the ability was. But, you know what? They were also the ones that, when possible, used the best tactics to counter act it, in a fair and reasonable way. If I hit a boss with it, a minion would kick him awake. Really, the Slumber Hex is only really strong when the party out-numbers the opponents, and none of the opponents is an elf, construct, dragon, ooze, vermin, plant, Elemental, or Undead.
In a home game, the GM can even more easily work around it with varied encounters. No need to nerf the ability, just understand its power and limitations.
Oh, and by the way, nice thread necro! ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Elves, undead, and creatures with insanely high Will saves should definitely be included as enemies against witches with the Slumber hex.
In any case, by the time you are able to deal with the Slumber hex easily, your witch will have moved on to the even more deadly Ice Tomb hex.
Are you in an AP, a themed home brew, set world, or just free-form adventures?
That can all heavily influence whether or not how well your PCs' power will show up.
Also,
Oh, and by the way, nice thread necro! ;-)
I know, right? I was all, like, "What an interesting question. I should put some thought into it; my first impressions are that it isn't, but if I want to eventually debate the premise, I should sit and think about its ramifi-" and then I noticed I'd been in a heated debate on the subject in this thread three years ago.
... and then apparently got busy doing stuff and forgot to respond to richard's excellent points.
Whooooops~!
XD
Sorry, richard!
Huh - actually, I don't think I read your last post, richard. I might not have seen this thread pop back up. Hhhhhhuh. Maybe I'll respond later... XD
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you think it needs a house rule then house rule it, don't try to justify it with a contrived reading of the hexes rules.
As for the problem at hand, have you tried having a second combatant wake up the slumbered target?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a Shaman with a monk dip that uses Slumber Hex with Hex Strike. It does make for a devastating punch- but I do have to get into Melee range and hit (and my BAB isn't that great).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also remeber it is mind effecting and a sleep abilities so it can get messed up by immunities.
With elves commonly worshipping calistril have a group of elven adventurers come after that party seeking revenge.
I had a similar problem gming 3.5 for my homebrew until I realized everything had crap will saves and thus the whole campaign was kind of able to keep going without too much challenge.
All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.
If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.
Kind of but I personally have always found encounters with a single enemy are almost always to easy unless you have seriously drained your parts resources or they enemy is noticeably higher CR then the party. Single enemy encounters are always risky.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.
Single monster encounters are almost always a lot easier for most groups. Action economy wins by a large margin, and that was before this hex existed.
The numbers game is the issue more than the hex is. That is why two CR 12 monsters are typically a more difficult fight than one CR 14 fight, even though both are CR 14 fights.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What he said^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.
The list of classes with abilities that excel at single target encounters is larger than the list of classes that don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.
If a GM is dead set on single enemy encounters using PF RAW, that GM is going to be frustrated. Action economy is everything.
Kind of but I personally have always found encounters with a single enemy are almost always to easy unless you have seriously drained your parts resources or they enemy is noticeably higher CR then the party. Single enemy encounters are always risky.All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.
It doesn't just change single enemy encounters though. It's a major impact on any encounter that doesn't include a half dozen low level mooks who only exist to do things like block charging lanes and kick the real threat(s) awake.
A virtual save or die that can be done at will is a game breaker in the sense that SoD type effects are usually 'balanced' by limited uses per day.
Kind of but I personally have always found encounters with a single enemy are almost always to easy unless you have seriously drained your parts resources or they enemy is noticeably higher CR then the party. Single enemy encounters are always risky.All this really shows is the issue with doing single target encounters. Throw in some minions for a balanced encounter and the slumber hex really isn't that big of a deal.If you have to add extra enemies to an encounter just to deal with a single ability, I'd say that it's still a pretty darn big deal balance wise.It doesn't just change single enemy encounters though. It's a major impact on any encounter that doesn't include a half dozen low level mooks who only exist to do things like block charging lanes and kick the real threat(s) awake.
A virtual save or die that can be done at will is a game breaker in the sense that SoD type effects are usually 'balanced' by limited uses per day.
I just haven't seen this be a problem in practice. Maybe it's something about the way the encounter we play are designed.