| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, folks, you know I am one of your biggest fans. Heck, I am often attacked on these boards just for that very reason. Sure, Pathfinder isn’t perfect, but it’s darn good. I have only a few minor quibbles (like the corner exception for reach weapons).
BUT there are some here who come up with weird rules stretches, stretches that if legit, could cause PF to break down. Now, we all know no sane DM would allow these, we all know they are against RAI, and we all know they are all there because of a strained or over literal wording of the RAW.
Sure. Given.
But these posters constantly, constantly, CONSTANTLY throw these up as to why Pathfinder is broken or how to break PF . Now, we know that they probably don’t actually play that way. Crikies- most of them likely don’t even play Pathfinder at all (in fact a couple of your biggest critics openly brag they don’t play Pathfinder).
So, you think- well, why bother? The devs know these things are silly, savvy PF players know these things are silly, heck, likely the people who post them know they are silly.
But you see- those aren't the only people who read these boards. Newbs, non-PF players, etc also read these boards. And, sometimes these “silly” arguments are posted in a rather convincing manner.
As an example- my 3.5 DM won’t switch to Pathfinder- and one reason is the “silly’ arguments he’s read here on this board. I’ll bet there are many more. Silly or no, it's costing you business.
So, Sean, Jason, James, the design Team, etc- let’s fix these silly loopholes.
Some of these include:
Planar Binding = getting infinite wishes and/or simply slaying the summoned being so he/she can’t get revenge. Yes, I know there are checks involved, but a hyper optimized PC can easily make those checks automatically. (Simple fixes could include a firm limit on the number of wishes gained this way and/or a note that slaying the being will cause other allied beings to seek revenge.)
Simulacrum= and the “sno-cone wish machine”. (Just re-write this spell, OK? or dump it. )
Heck, you could even say "A PC has a lifetime limit of wishes".
Blood Money= Limit maximum funds that can be formed/replaced this way. 5000gps? Yes, I know there are Strength issues- again, easily solved by a hyper optimized PC.
There are others, and I know we’ll get a list. Most posters here are also tired of these silly arguments.
It’s time to put an end to some of this foolishness. Just do it.
Folks? Let us focus on what can be fixed with simple errata. Thanks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh hey... DrDeth you are kind of late to this party but hey pull up a chair and pop open a streamer (GLITTERDUST!). You realize that (most) people are pointing out broken things so... and this may come as shock... it can be changed. Like you just suggested... several months (years?) after everyone else had already pretty much requested this.
So the above post has left me quite confused as to the belated nature of you realizing that the people posting these things were right all along, but hey I'll be the first to welcome you on board the "broken things are broken and could used fixed train".
While we're here can we also request a buff to martials, skills in general and the consolidation of feat chains?
Wasn't Planar Binding and Simulacrum the same in 3.5?
I highly doubt that those examples you gave are really why people don't play Pathfinder.
The folks I know who don't play Pathfinder play more Roleplaying centric games or actual DnD because they like the setting more. So there isn't going to be business coming from them regardless of these "fixes."
Things I actually care about:
Caster Martial Dispartiy(Because there IS one)
Rogues
How everything mundane must be less powerful than magic, even when we've reached superhuman levels(I.E level 8)
So the above post has left me quite confused as to the belated nature of you realizing that the people posting these things were right all along, but hey I'll be the first to welcome you on board the "broken things are broken and could used fixed train".
I never said they are broken, in fact I said they are NOT broken. But that doesn't mean they can't be broken by people reading the rules wrong.
Now, we all know no sane DM would allow these, we all know they are against RAI, and we all know they are all there because of a strained or over literal wording of the RAW.
Sure. Given.
The devs know these things are silly, savvy PF players know these things are silly, heck, likely the people who post them know they are silly.
Newbs, non-PF players, etc also read these boards.
Now I know you're not making logical statements and these fallacies are fairly meaningless in that sense, but the point I am trying to illustrate is that you appear to be getting riled up simply by your own viewpoint of the boards.
This is the internet, and it is full of a vast array of many personalities and viewpoints. The moderators of these boards do a very decent job of keeping discussions civil and intelligent. There are times I feel like they have even been overly attentive to such things and deleted posts that weren't even insulting.
I would like to add that I am in favor of errata and FAQs in general, so your proposition is not a bad one.
However it seems to me, and I could easily be wrong, that this post has an emotional context. I am trying to suggest that, in the case of people having discussions that you do not like, you let it go.
Things I actually care about:
Caster Martial Dispartiy(Because there IS one)
Rogues
How everything mundane must be less powerful than magic, even when we've reached superhuman levels(I.E level 8)
Are any of those "weird rules stretches, stretches that if legit, would could PF to break down. Now, we all know no sane DM would allow these, we all know they are against RAI, and we all know they are all there because of a strained or over literal wording of the RAW."
No. Those are 'features' not 'bugs". Now sure, I agree- some of those 'features' could use some tweaking- I have said many times the Fighter needs 4 SkP/lvl. But those are all a integral part of the rules, things that can not be 'fixed" (even if they wanted to) by a FAQ or Errata. they'd require a 2nd edition. And, even if many agree those features need to be fixed- very few folks will agree to a new edition. You are welcome to come up with a list of things you'd like fixed in the next edition. In fact- please do.
In all those cases I listed- those are Bugs. Bugs where the devs have in several cases said openly that the RAW perhaps doesn't match the RAI. Bugs that can be fixed quickly and easily with a Errata.
Oh, and I'll add one more "Scry & Fry." In fact JJ has said this doesn't work. Simple fix "Scrying will generally not give you the location of the target. In order to use Scry for targeting a Teleport (for example) you must already know those locations, and are using Scrying to simply find out which one of several known locations the target is at currently".
As far as why- sure, you have a point. But in my case, we all pointed out that we can't get new players since nearly everyone wants to play Pathfinder (and in fact i have had now a half-dozen potential players say exactly that) . He concedes this, but insists that Pathfinder is more broken than 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll never accept that someone having more options and the ability to create a better character in a class over another as a feature. Please don't try to sell me that slop because I'm not buying it.
The problem with your argument is your term of "Sane DM." What may be considered "Sane" to you is another's walk in the park.
No I'd rather not have to deal with what your definition of "Sane" is.
Instead I'd much rather focus on class balance and plot power between them.
I'll never accept that someone having more options and the ability to create a better character in a class over another as a feature. Please don't try to sell me that slop because I'm not buying it.
The problem with your argument is your term of "Sane DM." What may be considered "Sane" to you is another's walk in the park.
No I'd rather not have to deal with what your definition of "Sane" is.
Instead I'd much rather focus on class balance and plot power between them.
It's certainly not something which can be fixed by "errata".
Sure- focus on those things- in another thread. Like I said- start another thread, I'll join in. Someday there will be PF 2 and the devs need to know what we want. But that's not errata. That's game design.
Well the reasons that won't get changed is because it requires releasing completely new content.
For the changes you want, it requires either complete rewrites or heavy errata, thus invalidating folks' physical copies. That's a big no no to PFS folks and others.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Broken is a relative term. I do not need the devs to put out a notice to tell me to use my brain and common sense, however.
I don't have these problems in my games, at all. I have a magical power that takes care of it. It's called "No". If there are newbie GMs or people unfamiliar with the Pathfinder system, again, the word is "No."
No you cannot have infinite wishes. Or infinite money.
Sometimes players may not care for this and won't play. Ask if they'll GM instead. I betcha a penny that they will learn the word soon enough. This word words for any game system, at any level of experience.
What the OPs GM might want to understand is the broken garbage spewed on this board and others on the net, others before it, newgroups and so on is the result of both dreaming up the ultimate scenario and counting on no one saying "No".
No you cannot use those books. No, you have to justify those level dips and prestige classes. No, every magic item you desire isn't sitting somewhere waiting for you to take it. No, that doesn't work the way that JoeBob on the boards told you it did.
The devs gave us a game, and like most games there are a few wonky places, a few loopholes and exploits that they didn't think of -- mostly because there are so many hours in the day for them, and one can never underestimate the imagination of people trying to game a system.
That said, the devs are not supplying personal responsibility, common sense, a bit of a back bone, and a desire to play an even game.
Embrace "No" and enjoy the game. Don't sweat what random people on the Internet are saying. Make you own decisions and choices.
My yes, what a terrible shame it would be if people could rely on Cleave to work like Cleave from one campaign to the next. If only there were rules on what it did..., like say ones I've paid for. And if only those rules were written well enough that they were able to be consistently applied at all tables without becoming unbalancing. Especially if the rules we are using were largely taken from another game and amount to a slightly changed version of it.
But no its not the rules fault, its the peoples fault for using the rules.
*Because this is the internet... the above is sarcasm.*
Dumb question: What is a sno cone wish machine?
Dumb question: What is a sno cone wish machine?
A simulacrum of any monsters that has Wish as a SLA. The preferred mosnter is Efreet thanks to their 3/day usage, but realistically others could work.
Dumb question: What is a sno cone wish machine?A simulacrum of any monsters that has Wish as a SLA. The preferred mosnter is Efreet thanks to their 3/day usage, but realistically others could work.
doesn't that not work for an street? I mean it grants three wishes once per day, at 1/2 rounded down that's zero times a day, meaning as a simulacrum it can't grant wishes.
My yes, what a terrible shame it would be if people could rely on Cleave to work like Cleave from one campaign to the next. If only there were rules on what it did..., like say ones I've paid for. And if only those rules were written well enough that they were able to be consistently applied at all tables without becoming unbalancing. Especially if the rules we are using were largely taken from another game and amount to a slightly changed version of it.
But no its not the rules fault, its the peoples fault for using the rules.
*Because this is the internet... the above is sarcasm.*
The rules you paid for work just fine. It isn't the people's fault for using them. It's people's fault for trying to break stuff. For seeing if they can do whatever idea pops in their head and then pretending like it is a stroke of genius that should be applauded instead of what it is, intentionally trying to misuse what is there.
Let's be honest here, however. We aren't talking about the main rules not working from one table to the next (and that in itself is a bit of a moot argument. Outside of PFS or con play, are people moving from table to table that often?). We are talking about exploits that people with a bit of free time managed to find out and use to say that the devs just did it wrong or didn't change it enough. And if tomorrow they fixed those, you wouldn't have time to post 'hey thanks' before a new thread with 'Look what I can break lol' would pop up.
doesn't that not work for an street? I mean it grants three wishes once per day, at 1/2 rounded down that's zero times a day, meaning as a simulacrum it can't grant wishes.Dumb question: What is a sno cone wish machine?A simulacrum of any monsters that has Wish as a SLA. The preferred mosnter is Efreet thanks to their 3/day usage, but realistically others could work.
That is not how Simulacrum works. An Efreets ability to use Wish 3/day isn't tied to its HD. So a half HD Efreet can grant 3 Wishes a day, the same as a regular HD Efreet and the same as a 22 HD advanced Efreet.
I'm sorry knightnday, but neither Simulacrum or Blood Money is an "exploit". The explicit purpose of Blood Money is pay for expensive material components. That is is literally the intent of the spell. While the thought it could cover Wishes may not have come up, the designer surely accounted for the fact that it could be used to cast expensive spells... because that literally what it does.
The same with Simulacrum. This one may be a legacy issue, but again getting Wishes from a Simulacrum isn't an exploit, its how the spell works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer it when a game's design doesn't react to hysterics.
Let it be what it is.
There are some big issues with the game that maybe could be addressed, but they're pretty fundamental. It wouldn't really be the same game without them.
It is how those spells work but they should not work that way. If they do work that way then you have to you have to come up with reason why every caster that can use these spells does not do so in that way.
For blood money I would just let it be that only that one guy from the AP knows it.
I think that Simulacrum is less the problem then wish.
Make so that the price can not be overcome if you get some sort of long term benefit.
And that's where it breaks down, Mathius. PCs want to do it (or at least the folks posting it) but would be upset if you said "Oh, the bad guy has unlimited wishes. You all are dead. Game over." Rinse and repeat as necessary.
Or, you say no, I don't care if the devs come to my house with pizza and tell me that it is cool, the answer is still no. No, you cannot just generate wishes like that.
The benefit of Simulacrum by default beats out the price even if used completely as intended (by which I mean making a Simulacrum of yourself). Simulacrum basically reads pay some gold, get a half-HD absolutely loyal copy of yourself and that's absurdly powerful.
