Sno-Cone Wish Machine

[Kirth Gersen]

Snorter wrote:

It's easy to make a game without blatant loopholes.

Just don't write rules that contain blatant loopholes.

I think that's easier said than done. However, when certain loopholes have been pointed out repeatedly since about the year 2000, at some point it might make sense to address them in the rules.

[Kirth Gersen]

Snorter wrote:

It's not rocket surgery.

EDIT: By the way, it's now my goal in life to use this expression at least once within the next week or so.

[Hendelbolaf]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Snorter wrote:

It's not rocket surgery.

EDIT: By the way, it's now my goal in life to use this expression at least once within the next week or so.

I agree but I am not really sure as to how difficult or not "rocket surgery" really is!

[Snorter]

It's easier, if you majored in Brain Science first.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

Removed a post. Please keep the discussion free of personal attacks. Remember the first rule of the forum

[Tyrannon]

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense. Common sense tells me that a level 7 spell cannot duplicate a spell-like ability that is level 9.

Also, using the Efreet example, I find it incredibility amusing that a fire subtype creature that radiates a continuous fire/ heat damage effect can be formed from ice or snow.

As to that, if a GM wants to allow this, do remember the rules for wish granting types of Jinn from the Legacy of Fire AP. You do not get to decide how the Efreet grants the wish. So ponder this. Do you really want a Efreet, as many times a day as you can cast Sim, granting you 3 wishes a day? Good luck with that.

[Kirth Gersen]

Tyrannon wrote:

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense.

I'm unclear on how 7 out of 16 people qualifies as "the vast majority."

Is "common sense math" different from regular math?

Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9).

But that aside, the same question always stands. If a simple erratum to the rules can fix the problem, and at the same time not affect your game at all, why are you so opposed to it? What people are saying is, "let's adjust the wording of the rules to reflect all of this common sense that's going around." Why is that a bad thing to do?

[Tyrannon]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Tyrannon wrote:

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense.

I'm unclear on how 7 out of 16 people qualifies as "the vast majority."

Is "common sense math" different from regular math?

Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9).

But that aside, the same question always stands. If a simple erratum to the rules can fix the problem, and at the same time not affect your game at all, why are you so opposed to it?

So your response is an insulting attack instead of trying to be constructive. Why not try & learn to rise above such petty replies & address the others there, or better yet, let it go?

[Kirth Gersen]

Tyrannon wrote:

So your response is an insulting attack instead of trying to be constructive. Why not try & learn to rise above such petty replies & address the others there, or better yet, let it go?

I'd mention that "Just use common sense! You don't need better rules; you need a better DM!" is already both insulting and unconstructive, so I'm not clear on how I'm lowering the level of discourse.

As far as constructive, I've identified two minor rules errata that would eliminate the problems many people have with not only this spell, but with an number of others.

And the question STILL stands, if a rules fix doesn't affect your game at all, why are you so opposed to it?

[Gigigidge]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Tyrannon wrote:

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense.

I'm unclear on how 7 out of 16 people qualifies as "the vast majority."

Is "common sense math" different from regular math?

Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9).

I never stated as such, but you can add me to the "fix by rule" group.

Although in the meantime, I just do my best to house rule this kind of stuff using ideas like common sense to keep the game fun and playable for everyone at the table, DM and players alike. (And of course what your table finds fun might vary!)

P.S. I’m pretty sure DrDeth would be in the "fix by rule" group as well.

[Tyrannon]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I'd mention that [b]"Just use common sense! You don't need better rules; you need a better DM!"]/b] is already both insulting and nonconstructive, so I'm not clear on how I'm lowering the level of discourse.

Re-read MY post. Do not put words into my text as you see fit.

Leaving this off, I have better things to do than spend time making a reply to trolls.

[Claxon]

Let me be clear, I still fall in the group of "common sense can handle this", but if Paizo really wants to pull together and address this problem I'm not opposed to it. I'm not going to ignore their effort. I will review it, and if it fits what I like I will use it. If not, then I wont.

However, I do get a nice feeling from seeing the ban hammer come down on things like this. For my home games I have ruled that Simulacrums cannot cast spells and SLA abilities are reduced per their reduction in Hit Dice. The later being a nice vague way to allow me to remove any SLAs from a creature I don't want them to have.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

Folks are walking a fine line here. Keep it civil please.

[CWheezy]

Gerrinson wrote:

Alright, the thread is too long for me to finish at lunch, but I see at least a few problems with the half HD pit fiend.

You are correct! As a fun fact, it is a huge pain in the ass to figure out on your own how things scale, so I did mess up his HP. Also, his attacks were hitting 1 less than they should have been. The saves and whatnot are correct I am pretty sure, I adjusted them based off HD

New and Improved Pit Fiend:

Simulacrum Pit Fiend:
LE Large Creature
Pit Fiend CR 10(????)
XP 307,200
LE Large outsider (devil, evil, extraplanar, lawful)
Init +13; Senses darkvision 60 ft., see in darkness; Perception +23
Aura fear (20 ft., DC 18)

DEFENSE

AC 38, touch 18, flat-footed 29 (+9 Dex, +20 natural, –1 size) (Maybe their natural armor scales with level?)

hp 195 (10d10+120); regeneration 5 (good weapons, good spells)
Fort +19, Ref +16, Will +14
DR 15/good and silver; Immune fire, poison; Resist acid 10, cold 10; SR 21

OFFENSE

Speed 40 ft., fly 60 ft. (average)
Melee 2 claws +23 (2d8+13), 2 wings +21 (2d6+6), bite +23 (4d6+13 plus poison and disease), tail slap +21 (2d8+6 plus grab)
Space 10 ft., Reach 10 ft.
Special Attacks constrict 2d8+19, devil shaping
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 8th)
At will—Fireball(DC21), Wall of Fire, Dispel Magic, Hold Person, Scorching Ray, Invisibility, Magic Circle against Good

STATISTICS

Str 36, Dex 28, Con 34, Int 26, Wis 30, Cha 26
Base Atk +10; CMB +24 (+28 grapple); CMD 43
Feats Power Attack, Improved Init, Iron Will, Multiattack, Ability Focus (Poison)
Skills Appraise +7, Bluff +21, Diplomacy +21, Disguise +17, Fly +20, Intimidate +21, Knowledge (arcana) +18, Knowledge (planes) +21, Knowledge (religion) +21, Perception +23, Sense Motive +23, Spellcraft +21, Stealth +18, Survival +12, Use Magic Device +18
Languages Celestial, Common, Draconic, Infernal; telepathy 100 ft.

SPECIAL ABILITIES

Devil Shaping (Su)

Three times per day, a pit fiend can spend a minute to transform nearby lemures into other lesser devils. A pit fiend can transform one lemure for every Hit Die the pit fiend possesses. It can then reshape these lemures into a number of Hit Dice's worth of lesser devils equal to the number of lemures affected. For example, a typical 20 Hit Dice pit fiend could transform 20 lemures into two bone devils (10 HD each), or three bearded devils (6 HD each, leaving two lemures unchanged), or any other combination of lesser devils. Lemures to be reshaped must be within 50 feet of the pit fiend, becoming stationary and unable to move once the shaping begins. After a minute passes, the lemures reform into the shape of a new lesser devil ready to follow the orders of the pit fiend. Although pit fiends can, technically, elevate a mass of 20 lemures into a new pit fiend, most are hesitant to do so since they have no special control over a devil created in this manner.

Disease (Su)

Devil Chills: Bite—injury; save Fort DC 27; onset immediate; frequency 1/day; effect 1d4 Str damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.

Poison (Ex)

Bite—injury; save Fort DC 29; frequency 1/round for 10 rounds; effect 1d6 Con damage; cure 3 consecutive saves. The save DC is Constitution-based.

For a comparison, here is a 25 Point buy level 13 fighter

Fighter Fellow:

Dwarven Fellow
Dwarf Fighter (Two-Handed Fighter) 13
LG Medium humanoid (dwarf)
Init +10; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +14
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 30, touch 16, flat-footed 26 (+12 armor, +4 Dex, +2 natural, +2 deflection)
hp 147 (13d10+65)
Fort +16, Ref +12, Will +11; +1 trait bonus vs. spells, spell-like abilities, and poison, +2 vs. poison, +4 vs. spells and spell-like abilities
Defensive Abilities defensive training (+4 dodge bonus to AC vs. giants)
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +5 nodachi +25/+20/+15 (1d10+31/15-20)
Special Attacks backswing, +1 on attack rolls against goblinoid and orc humanoids, overhand chop, piledriver, shattering strike, weapon training abilities (heavy blades +3, bows +2, close +1)
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22, Dex 18, Con 18, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 5
Base Atk +13; CMB +15 (+18 sunder); CMD 35 (39 vs. bull rush, 38 vs. sunder, 39 vs. trip)
Feats Combat Reflexes, Critical Focus, Dazing Assault, Furious Focus, Greater Weapon Focus (nodachi), Improved Critical (nodachi), Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Power Attack, Sickening Critical, Staggering Critical, Steel Soul, Weapon Focus (nodachi), Weapon Specialization (nodachi)
Traits glory of old, reactionary
Skills Climb +8, Fly +8, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +5, Knowledge (engineering) +5, Perception +14 (+16 to notice unusual stonework, such as traps and hidden doors in stone walls or floors), Survival +5, Swim +8
Languages Common, Dwarven
Other Gear celestial plate armor, +5 nodachi, amulet of natural armor +2, belt of physical perfection +2, boots of speed, cloak of resistance +4, ring of protection +2, 990 GP
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Backswing (Ex) Attacks after the first in a full attack receive 2x STR bonus.
Boots of speed (10 rounds/day) Affected by haste
Combat Reflexes (5 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Critical Focus +4 to confirm critical hits.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Dazing Assault (DC 23) -5 to all attacks and maneuvers but struck foes are dazed 1 rd (Fort neg).
Defensive Training +4 Gain a dodge bonus to AC vs monsters of the Giant subtype.
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Glory of Old You receive a +1 trait bonus on saving throws against spells, spell-like abilities, and poison.
Hatred +1 Gain a racial bonus to attacks vs Goblinoids/Orcs.
Overhand Chop (Ex) Single attacks with two-handed weapons receive double STR bonus.
Piledriver (Ex) Standard action: attack with a two handed weapon, if successful, free bull rush or trip w/o AoO.
Power Attack -4/+8 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Shattering Strike +3 (Ex) +3 Sunder and damage vs. objects.
Sickening Critical Critical hit sickens target.
Staggering Critical (DC 23) Critical hit staggers target
Steel Soul Hardy's save vs. spells and spell-like abilities becomes +4
Weapon Training (Blades, Heavy) +3 (Ex) +3 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Heavy Blades
Weapon Training (Bows) +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Bows
Weapon Training (Close) +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Close-in weapons

It seems to me that the Pit Fiend blows this poor fighter out of the water. Does more damage with a full attack, can fly more times per day, excellent grappler, and has a very strong poison and disease. He even has more health with regen! Also, unless the opponent can go through good and silver dr, the pit fiend has dr 15(!!!) against attacks. He also has some useful at will powers like wall of fire, invisibility, etc.

[Lemmy]

Tyrannon wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Tyrannon wrote:

I agree with the vast majority who have said to use common sense.

I'm unclear on how 7 out of 16 people qualifies as "the vast majority."

Is "common sense math" different from regular math?

Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9).

But that aside, the same question always stands. If a simple erratum to the rules can fix the problem, and at the same time not affect your game at all, why are you so opposed to it?

So your response is an insulting attack instead of trying to be constructive. Why not try & learn to rise above such petty replies & address the others there, or better yet, let it go?

I'm honestly perplexed by this post... I honestly can't see anything in Kirth's post that sounds even remotely insulting.

Am I missing something? Did I misread a sentence? Is Kirth the world's greatest sarcasmancer?

[DrDeth]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

This is another area where a simple general rule or two might clear up more abuse than an overly-specific one, and without "ruining the game!1!" or "turning it into 4e!"

The way I see it, two guidelines could clear up this and a lot of other potential spells abuse.

1. Peg SLAs to CR.

2. Assign overall # and CR (not HD) limits to any one person's control of planar bindings, magic minions, and created undead.

Again, yes, we could rely on "common sense" and/or gentleman's agreement, but these are easy enough things to fix in the RAW -- and without a separate edition or a whole new game. Some errata listings, is all it would take.

Good ideas, thanks!

[DrDeth]

Gigigidge wrote:

"Use Common Sense = Claxon, LazarX, Ton Foil Yamakah, Hendelbolaf, Vod Canockers, Gerrinson, and you (7).
Fix By Rule = Mech E, LoneKnave, CWheezy, Rynjin, Chengar Qodarth, Caedwyr, ShadeofRed, Snorter, and myself (9). "

I never stated as such, but you can add me to the "fix by rule" group.

Although in the meantime, I just do my best to house rule this kind of stuff using ideas like common sense to keep the game fun and playable for everyone at the table, DM and players alike. (And of course what your table finds fun might vary!)

P.S. I’m pretty sure DrDeth would be in the "fix by rule" group as well.

Yes, and no. My group, being all very experienced and mature players, can rely upon Common Sense. But we have to remember PF is played by younger folk, and people new not only to PF but to RPG's in general. So, for them, we need to get these issues fixed .

So, I think both sides can agree. Yes, our experienced tables can rely upon houserules and common sense. But not every group has the same level of expertise and maturity.

[Kirth Gersen]

DrDeth wrote:

Yes, and no. My group, being all very experienced and mature players, can rely upon Common Sense. But we have to remember PF is played by younger folk, and people new not only to PF but to RPG's in general. So, for them, we need to get these issues fixed.

So, I think both sides can agree. Yes, our experienced tables can rely upon houserules and common sense. But not every group has the same level of expertise and maturity.

YES! This exactly. DrDeth alone has decades of common-sense experience to share, and I've got any number of houserules (too many, for sure!), and most of the other people on the boards have a lot to offer as well. I think it can only help the hobby if the rules reflect that aggregate wisdom -- instead of us expecting inexperienced players to sort through dozens of threads like this one looking for it, or having to learn it through experience the way we did.

[Rynjin]

Come on, don't be like that Deth. =(

Just because someone wants a problem fixed doesn't mean they're less mature than people who houserule the problem away.

[Kirth Gersen]

Rynjin wrote:

Just because someone wants a problem fixed doesn't mean they're less mature than people who houserule the problem away.

I often disagree with DrD, but in this particular thread I'm not reading him as saying that (any more). It sounds to me like he's saying that the same common sense and experience that inform his houserules/playstyle could just as easily appear in errata/FAQs as well, which is something I agree with.

[jlighter]

I think in this case mature is being used in a synonymous sense with "experienced." That said, I'd definitely be interested in an FAQ/errata of this spell. Even just saying that spell-like abilities of a level higher than Simulacrum would go a long way toward balancing it. There's still the Tarrasque Simulacrum Mount to deal with, but one at a time. :)

To the argument that "special abilities" doesn't include "spell-like abilities," I point out that Lesser Simulacrum says it doesn't include "magical abilities," implying to me at least that the standard version does include such. I was interested in the possibility of a Simulacrum Efreeti, being made of ice and snow, melting itself after taking enough heat-damage from its own special abilities, but it is probably still immune to fire. Vulnerable to cold, though, so it could freeze itself to death. :)

On another note, since the sno-cone wish machine that I'm familiar with involves using the Efreeti's Wish spells to create more simulacrum efreeti to generate more wish-power, the Tier 2 and below simulacra wouldn't be under direct control of the original Caster. Any wishes would probably go through a game of telephone to get to the one casting the Wish spell. Stack that with the aforementioned Legacy of Fire Wish-twisting, and bad stuff can definitely happen.

[DrDeth]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Just because someone wants a problem fixed doesn't mean they're less mature than people who houserule the problem away.

I often disagree with DrD, but in this particular thread I'm not reading him as saying that (any more). It sounds to me like he's saying that the same common sense and experience that inform his houserules/playstyle could just as easily appear in errata/FAQs as well, which is something I agree with.

Exactly. Yes, Kirth and I often disagree, which shows you that this is not a minor issue. Thanks, Kirth for all your helpful point here.

[ShadeOfRed]

LazarX wrote:

ShadeOfRed wrote:

Even Microsoft did this with their XBox 360 and the Red Rind Of Death and Microsoft isn't exactly the most customer friendly company in the world. (One of the worst in my, and others I know, experience) (also look at how they decided to do the XBox One, then backpedaled and changed it to what the customers wanted, just saying they fixed it)

I'm not saying a GM can't handle this, they can, but if it's broken, they should take some time to have someone fix it with errata. As a GM I would appreciate it when playing with new players, having to spend time with them disrupting the game and arguing until it is decided they don't fit. It's not fair to the other players at the table to have to deal with stuff like this that can, RAW, be 'abused'.

You don't seem to be listening much do you?

That's just an insult and unneccesary. But I will address it anyway. I am listening. I have made a pretty clear point, even though you edited it out, that I would like to see this and things like this fixed, out of customer service. I'm a customer and spend quite a bit of money on this. I expect a bit of good treatment because...

LazarX wrote:

You point out that the game is breakable. That's correct. That is the unavoidable price of allowing player choice.

I didn't state it was breakable...what I was trying to say is that, Rules As Written, it is broken.

Although the game IS breakable, that happens when people don't follow RAW in 99% of the cases. That or OOC knowledge of an adventure ahead of playing it. So I apologize that I wasn't clear enough.

LazarX wrote:

There is simply no practical way to publish a fix for every possible rules abuse. (and believe it or not, sno-cone wish machine isn't the big number one most wanted that you seem to think it is.)

Absolutely disagree with this. What I feel isn't practical is someone paying for this product, receiving it, finding there are broken parts to it and nothing being done. That is an unpractical means to treating customer service. And I am also aware of the sno-cone wish machine being not the biggest thing. There are many others. But if something as easily fixed as someone typing a simple paragraph stating some solution, (SLA don't copy onto the simulacrum or what have you) as being unpractical, for something this obviously broken, just so I, the customer, don't have to deal with it or other obviously broken things in the time I have to play this game, even if it is only one time ever...I feel that is an unreasonable statement and makes it sound like you think I should not have the right to ask for this from someone SELLING the product to me. I'm the customer, 5 minutes to type a paragraph is not unpractical or unreasonable, and would be appreciated by me and many others. Customer service friend, that's what I'm talking about. This problem and many others.

LazarX wrote:

The game is breakable for players determined to break it. That's the plain fact Jack. The only way to "fix" it to your satisfaction is to remove the primary cause, i.e. the expansion of player choices and revert this game back to either the hard and fixed choices of First Edition, or the homogenised approach of Fourth Edition. If that's what you want, those games and others like them ARE OUT THERE. But the bulk of the folks playing here don't see this as a problem that merits throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, I don't appreciate your hostility...but anyway.

Has nothing to do with player choices...also not what I said at all. Read what I wrote please and don't extrapolate it into something else. I never said what you are saying, if I wanted to go to something else I would have already. And honestly...clearing up things that Rules As Written don't work like they should or as Rules As Intended is not throwing the baby out with the bathwater as you say.

It's not unreasonable for someone clarify or fix issues with their product. It's customer service. Period.

[CWheezy]

jlighter wrote:

On another note, since the sno-cone wish machine that I'm familiar with involves using the Efreeti's Wish spells to create more simulacrum efreeti to generate more wish-power, the Tier 2 and below simulacra wouldn't be under direct control of the original Caster. Any wishes would probably go through a game of telephone to get to the one casting the Wish spell. Stack that with the aforementioned Legacy of Fire Wish-twisting, and bad stuff can definitely happen.

They are actually under your power, since you are the one wishing for them.

Anyway, simulacrums are under your total control, so you can give them simple commands such as "never try to weasel out of things" or whatever

Quote:

You point out that the game is breakable. That's correct. That is the unavoidable price of allowing player choice.

I didn't realize that lazarx said this. This is easily proven to be false, by looking at a multitude of games with player choice that are not totally broken.

[Kirth Gersen]

Rynjin wrote:

On a side note, as a person who thinks spellcasters are too powerful compared to everything else, this is an extremely over-used example to me too. Why push for something like this as being "what makes casters broken" when there are other, much more insidious and simple spells that prove the point better? More people need to be b~~~%ing about the real problem spells, like Spider Climb.

Spells that obsolete skills are an issue, and again one that I think a general rule could go a long way towards fixing. There are several possibilities; arguably, the simplest would be if spells could provide an enhancement bonus to skill checks, but never replace the use of the skill. The bonus would also have to be lower than the base skill check, possibly by limiting it to something like "+1 per 3 caster levels," or by making it a flat bonus (say +5), or by pegging it to the number of ranks in the skill already possessed by the recipient. Ideally we'd make magic items and masterwork kits and so on all provide enhancement bonuses to skills as well, to limit the kind of insane bonus-stacking that magic can do so easily.

[Gauthok]

I'm going to chime in on the side of "fix the rules".

I have been playing a long time, since AD&D. And I hated AD&D. I played pretty much any roleplaying game I could other than AD&D, because the rules sucked so hard. I love that 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder have introduced rules that allow me as a player to figure out a "build", because by nature I'm a planner.

Now, I GM far more often than I play, so it's not just a matter of wanting broken stuff to stay in the game so I can abuse it as a player. I want rules that are as solid and consistent as possible, so I can apply them fairly without having to put so much effort in. Is it too much to ask for a game that just works?

[Kirth Gersen]

Hendelbolaf wrote:

DM's need to just take back control and run their games the way they and their players want

Be careful when you speak for what other people want...

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Raith Shadar wrote:

They want the DM to tell them where to go, what to do next

Do you really think this is true of all players? I almost can't express how sad that is.

"People need to just be told what to do. They should not be free to determine their own actions. It's for their own good. It's what they want, really."

[Hendelbolaf]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Hendelbolaf wrote:

DM's need to just take back control and run their games the way they and their players want

Be careful when you speak for what other people want...

For the record I was not speaking for what others want, I stated my opinion of what they should do.

[DrDeth]

Hendelbolaf wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Hendelbolaf wrote:

DM's need to just take back control and run their games the way they and their players want

Be careful when you speak for what other people want...

For the record I was not speaking for what others want, I stated my opinion of what they should do.

Thanks for clarifying that, but I assumed that is what you meant.

[Tels]

Inb4lock

I should point out that the snow-cone wish machine was discovered during the Pathfinder open playtest and wasn't fixed then. So what makes you think it will be fixed now?

[Matthew Downie]

I wonder if it would be possible to achieve a community consensus on how these spells ought to work? We could come up with a sensible version of Simulacrum that doesn't require too much extra rules text, and then petition Paizo to make it an official errata rather than making them do all the work.
Probably not...

[N. Jolly]

Consider me on "Team Fix" as well. Common sense is a lazy way of solving a problem when it's a mechanical one. I'll admit you can't for see all the complications that will come about with adding things to the game, so some of these are unavoidable, but this problem has been around for a while without anything to stop it, and it could be a real game ender for a new group.

All it takes is one new player with a Wizard to see Sno-cone Wish Machine and a GM who doesn't understand the repercussions to completely flatline a session, and that's not something that should be that easy to do.

[Remy Balster]

ShadeOfRed wrote:

It's not unreasonable for someone clarify or fix issues with their product. It's customer service. Period.

What is to say this is a broken product?

It would seem more like the product is slightly different than you had hoped it would be.

Sounds more like a customizing issue. You need to customize the product you purchased to better fit your personal tastes.

Calling a product broken, and demanding it be fixed though? That certainly isn’t necessary. Not unless the product is actually broken. Is Pathfinder actually broken? No, I don’t think so.

Is it everything to everyone? No, it isn’t that either. But we all know this. Which is why so very many of us choose to use house rules, to change it up to suit our tastes a little better… we customize the product we bought.

What we don’t do is go demanding the makers of the product customize it for every single customer. Or act like our product is broken when it clearly isn’t.

Unless you bought books with erroneously printed pages, or it is missing sections? Then you’d have a valid concern.

[Alexandros Satorum]

Not sure why there is hostility toward DrD. He is one of those people that are in the "pathfinder is fine" camp in almost every sitaution.

The situation pointed in this thread is a problematic one, if you ahve not saw it in a campaing good for you, but that does not mean anything.

Simulacrum, planar binding for free wishes, blood money, those are things that heavily umbalance the game adn should hav been handled long time ago, asking for a fix is not rude, it is natural.

"Do not use those" is not a fix.

"Use common sense" is not a fix.

"Fix it yourselve" is not a fix.

[Alexandros Satorum]

Tels wrote:

Inb4lock

I should point out that the snow-cone wish machine was discovered during the Pathfinder open playtest and wasn't fixed then. So what makes you think it will be fixed now?

This is my thought too. I think the devs just not want to deal with this kind of things, there probably other things they considerer more important.

[Chengar Qordath]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Tels wrote:

Inb4lock

I should point out that the snow-cone wish machine was discovered during the Pathfinder open playtest and wasn't fixed then. So what makes you think it will be fixed now?

This is my thought too. I think the devs just not want to deal with this kind of things, there probably other things they considerer more important.

It does seem like the Paizo devs tend to work off of the assumption that casters will stick to the rails and not try anything especially sneaky or creative. To some extent, that's probably reasonable. The Sno-cone wish factory, Blood Money, and Planar Binding generally aren't going to be used by the vast majority of wizard players. Whether it's through player ignorance, GM fiat, house rules, or just a gentleman's agreement, these things just don't show up in most games. When they do show up, it's usually at a table that's more-or-less okay with playing at that power level. Admittedly I might be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten from some of their comments.

[DrDeth]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Not sure why there is hostility toward DrD. He is one of those people that are in the "pathfinder is fine" camp in almost every sitaution.

Maybe that's why? ;-)

I am in the camp of "PF is pretty darn good but a few tweeks & fixes would make it better camp".

For now, I am against the idea of a massive make over type 2nd Ed. So, I am looking for "fixes" that can be done without it. I'd like to see the Fighter get 4SkP, but that's not gonna happen without that, so i am willing to wait. Mind you there could be a few archetypes...

[Alexandros Satorum]

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

Tels wrote:

Inb4lock

I should point out that the snow-cone wish machine was discovered during the Pathfinder open playtest and wasn't fixed then. So what makes you think it will be fixed now?

This is my thought too. I think the devs just not want to deal with this kind of things, there probably other things they considerer more important.

It does seem like the Paizo devs tend to work off of the assumption that casters will stick to the rails and not try anything especially sneaky or creative. To some extent, that's probably reasonable. The Sno-cone wish factory, Blood Money, and Planar Binding generally aren't going to be used by the vast majority of wizard players. Whether it's through player ignorance, GM fiat, house rules, or just a gentleman's agreement, these things just don't show up in most games. When they do show up, it's usually at a table that's more-or-less okay with playing at that power level. Admittedly I might be wrong, but that's the impression I've gotten from some of their comments.

I have that impression too.

I would like to add that if the correct use of an option is to never use it, that pretty much tells that the option is broken.

[Alexandros Satorum]

DrDeth wrote:

For now, I am against the idea of a massive make over type 2nd Ed. So, I am looking for "fixes" that can be done without it. I'd like to see the Fighter get 4SkP, but that's not gonna happen without that, so i am willing to wait. Mind you there could be a few archetypes...

Ah to dream...

4 Skp for fighter would be like the easiest errata ever and easily belong to the to p 10 best errata ever.

[DrDeth]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

For now, I am against the idea of a massive make over type 2nd Ed. So, I am looking for "fixes" that can be done without it. I'd like to see the Fighter get 4SkP, but that's not gonna happen without that, so i am willing to wait. Mind you there could be a few archetypes...

Ah to dream...

4 Skp for fighter would be like the easiest errata ever and easily belong to the to p 10 best errata ever.

It'd be very popular, but it's not errata.

They do have the Tactician archetype.

[Alexandros Satorum]

DrDeth wrote:

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

For now, I am against the idea of a massive make over type 2nd Ed. So, I am looking for "fixes" that can be done without it. I'd like to see the Fighter get 4SkP, but that's not gonna happen without that, so i am willing to wait. Mind you there could be a few archetypes...

Ah to dream...

4 Skp for fighter would be like the easiest errata ever and easily belong to the to p 10 best errata ever.

It'd be very popular, but it's not errata.

They do have the Tactician archetype.

I know t is not an errata but it woudl be an easier errata if just they decided to do it. Just replace a number in the CRB, and a couple of numbers for the tactician and the lorewarden and profit.

[Oncoming_Storm]

I can't believe how many rustled Jimmies are in this thread.

[Buri]

The tempo I'd prefer to things like this is "GM until we clarify" and not just "that's why we have GMs." I'm fine house ruling but dealing with players who bought the materials and clearly see certain options in black and white (beige, rather) do, in fact, have a reasonable expectation to be able to exercise those options. To be told no, it doesn't work that way, you read it wrong, [insert other "no" response here], etc. is frustrating and deflating. They should be fixed eventually.

I don't care what the development team has to say about it or even Paizo as a whole. It's good customer service to explain to people what the default assumptions are to your system so if they buy it they don't need a bunch of clarifications from some other person or to come here and be told "learn 2 read" in various forms by dozens, or potentially hundreds, of people.

I wholly hold that to fix all the rules is impossible is conflation born of a mind that doesn't want to really examine what's wrong. Maybe they feel they're too busy, too tired, etc. But, it's possible and possible to do cleanly and concisely. I know it's possible. Having been in software for the past decade, all I do is develop and fix rules. If I told a client "no fix for you, just use this work around" I'd have not made it this long. Yes, it can be painful. Yes, it can have some ripple effects, but you do it because it's vital to the health of the system and your relationship with your customers.

So, I live in both camps. "House rule 'till FAQ'd/errata'd" is my stance.

[Matthew Downie]

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

I know t is not an errata but it woudl be an easier errata if just they decided to do it. Just replace a number in the CRB, and a couple of numbers for the tactician and the lorewarden and profit.

And add two more skill points per level to every published fighter character in every adventure module...

[Tin Foil Yamakah]

LoneKnave wrote:

EDIT: The "you" here is everyone who finds this applicable to themselves. "I personally didn't encounter this problem, so it's not a problem" is incredibly close minded

Ok, one mans close mindedness is anothers common sense

Quote:

and I don't feel bad saying that you should feel bad, especially if not only do you don't care but even go out of your way to take the effort to come into a thread and tell people that want it fixed that they are somehow wrong.

For the most part,I do not feel bad at all about anything I read on this messageboard and I was not saying that if you want it fixed you are wrong.

I'm saying that until it get's "fixed" why not fix it yourself however you want.

Prediction sure to be right. When it is "fixed" there will be multiple threads of people complaining for the dev's to "Fix" this problem

[LoneKnave]

Matthew Downie wrote:

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

I know t is not an errata but it woudl be an easier errata if just they decided to do it. Just replace a number in the CRB, and a couple of numbers for the tactician and the lorewarden and profit.

And add two more skill points per level to every published fighter character in every adventure module...

Just lower their INT by 4.

[DrDeth]

LoneKnave wrote:

Matthew Downie wrote:

Alexandros Satorum wrote:

I know t is not an errata but it woudl be an easier errata if just they decided to do it. Just replace a number in the CRB, and a couple of numbers for the tactician and the lorewarden and profit.

And add two more skill points per level to every published fighter character in every adventure module...

Just lower their INT by 4.

( bad Joke ahead) To 3?!? (end bad joke)

PS- need more FAQ, guys, please.

[Stephen Radney-MacFarland]

DrDeth wrote:

PS- need more FAQ, guys, please.

I understand you are passionate about this issue, see it as an important issue and we are going to look into it, but this kind of post should keep in mind the guidelines set out in the "The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It" sticky. (Or as I like to call it the FAQ FAQ).

I want a rule changed. Should I start a thread and ask people to FAQ-click it?
No. The FAQ is not to be used to get rules changed. Posts attempting to use the FAQ for this purpose will be cleared from the FAQ queue.

Keep in mind that the FAQ is exactly that: Frequently asked questions. Not questions you want answered and can get enough people to push a button. I know the distinction may seem subtle, but it is there.

We need this for a few reasons. It is important for us to distinguish legitimate FAQ items from an artificial echo chamber effect or the creation of items that seem more of a concern than they actually are because of a "get out the vote" campaign. It helps us get a genuine and unbiased idea of the trouble spots in our rules and our user's experience.

It also allows us to look at issues that are real for new players, and not focus on corner case rules and exceptions.

Lastly cuts down on the danger of making this process a kind of skinner box zoo, and allows us to prioritize issues and workload.

By the FAQ FAQ's guidelines I should clear it from the FAQ now. I will not this time as a warning. Please avoid this kind of lobbying in the future, please.

Thanks everyone.

[Rynjin]

I think in this case it's warranted since this is one of the (if not THE) most frequently used examples of something being broken in the Pathfinder ruleset.

[Your Local Meatball DM]

Yeah, because I need a dev to clarify every single piece of minutia