|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, function #1, #2, and #3 are likely the design.
I'm not sure why it is important to some of us (me included) that Paizo should "officially" correct stuffFor me, it is because I don't want a new player coming to the board and seeing a thread saying something works to make 999d10 damage and show up at my table with "the Internet said it worked".
The appropriate response is "the internet isn't running this table".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me, it is because I don't want a new player coming to the board and seeing a thread saying something works to make 999d10 damage and show up at my table with "the Internet said it worked".
It isn't an issue in PFS, as it is banned, and in a home game you're running, Rule 0.
More broadly, differing expectations about what your particular table of PF "is" can be an issue. But it isn't solved with rules, and is more fundamental than this one issue.
I have played at plenty of tables that this wouldn't have caused anyone to bat an eye. There is variation in expectations.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I have played at plenty of tables that this wouldn't have caused anyone to bat an eye. There is variation in expectations.
Honestly I don't have a problem with that. I understand this will have table variance. I'd like us to all agree it has table variance. Some people can't agree to table variance. If we all now agree to "Table Variance", then I'm good with that idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, it looks like you all agree that you won't let it play in your own tables, it is obviously a mistake, at best, and even PFS won't let it play. Yet we argue on?
The only mistake is to assume that RAW is meant to be taken literally down to a robotic level. Even Paizo warns against that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we all now agree to "Table Variance", then I'm good with that idea.
I don't have a problem with table variance. I just feel it is a background assumption that should be kept in mind in any discussion, rather than an argument for/against something.
In a rules system as complicated a PF, played by as many people in as many locations, all with their own expectations; rule variance is to be expected.
But if there is a question about what a rule says, the fact that some (many? most? but not all) DM's might find this or that idea to be overpowered is better handled at that table by that DM rather than in a discussion about what the rule is.
Now sometimes language can certainly be read in more than one way, and I am not trying to say that "how it should be" has no part in the conversation. But statements about how something "should" work should also probably be distinct from how it "is" written.
Table variance is too wide a spread to be addressed in every rule discussion. I mean, we had a thread not long ago because someone felt that traits were overpowered. Traits!
Using the ASM+Mount discussion as an example, I am totally cool if someone says "I think this was a mistake not caught by the author/editor. I wouldn't allow this combo." But a position of "nope, doesn't work," just falls flat to me given the way the rules are written.
Yup, but how do you fix it?
Either a Summoner can't use it for their own Summons 'correctly', or they get to cheese someone else's.
You could rule that you have to use the same spell list as was originally used to cast the spell.
So if you cast ASM on a summon cast by a wizard, you count it as the wizard level.
If you cast it on a summon cast by a summoner, you also use the summoner spell level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand that many people are of the opinion that the ASM + Heightened Mount is (take your pick: broken, cheesy, overpowered, abusive, etc).
And I can understand why. If you compare it to Summon Monster IX, then (at CL 20) you have:
9th level spell - Glabrezu without teleportation, summoning, or wish (20 rounds)
Compared to 9th level Mount + ASM:
9th level and 2nd level spell - Glabrezu without summoning, but possibly with their other SLA, for 40 hours(!)
That certainly seems way more powerful! Even with the extra cost of the 2nd spell slot. But Summon Monster IX isn't our only (or even best, necessarily) point of comparison.
Comparing Heightened Mount + ASM to Planar Binding, things look different.
9th level spell + 2nd level spell - Glabrezu without summoning, but possibly with their other SLA, for 40 hours.
6th level spell - Glabrezu with summoning, teleportation, and wish for 20 days!
And with the Arcane Discovery "Truename" you have the effect of the Planar Binding, at will with no need for bargaining or payment available at 11th level.
You could use Greater Planar Binding and get a Marilith or Horned Devil (with all abilities), for the same 20 days, and the "cost" is still less than HM+ASM (only one 8th level spell).
And Calling is usually more advantageous than Summoning as many abilities that protect from summoned creatures don't affect called creatures such as Prot from Evil or Antimagic Field.
So, while it is jarring when first seen, I doubt it would in practice cause imbalance.
Side note: For the Planar Binding spell, I am assuming a service such as "I am on my way to XXX to destroy YYY, come and fight with me on my quest" as a kind of open-ended service as described in the spell as lasting 1 day per CL.
So long as destroying YYY would fit the desires of the creature called (such as fighting a Runelord for a good outsider, or destroying the rebellion for a devil, or just promising lots of random murder for a demon) this should work, in my opinion.
Of course, as per our table variance discussion above, how well this works and how much the DM tries to subvert this service depends on the DM and type of creature called.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ASM only works on conjuration (summoning) spells, so it doesn't work with planar binding.
I never said, or implied that it did.
I compared the cost and effect of a Heightened Mount altered with Alter Summoned Monster, versus simply casting a regular Planar Binding.