Baprr's page

FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. Starfinder Society GM. 7 posts. 1 review. No lists. No wishlists. 13 Organized Play characters.


RSS

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Then again, negating high level spell slots with low(er) level ones was a broken and unfun tactic, so there's that to keep in mind.

Except now there is less use for low level slots, AND if you recall, we, as a group, failed to dispel a level 8 spell with level 7 spells. It's utterly broken! Also, without the possibility to use a specific spell for a specific purpose there is no reason to prepare for anything. Just take every blast in the book (those are universal!) and kill the bad guy.

PsychicPixel wrote:
But the casters who cast those spells also had to expend higher level slots to prevent you from dispelling them.

Nope, the first caster probably wasn't there at all, and the second one still had more 8th level spells than our entire party (one, maybe two, but still).

PsychicPixel wrote:
If the spell is 1 higher than your dispel you should have about a 25% chance 15+ to dispel it assuming casters of equivalent levels. For each level the spellcaster is higher than you that chance does decrease since their spell DC increases but the opposite is true the other direction as well.

PCs encounter higher level spellcasters more often than lower levels, and that guy was higher. I like my chances.

PsychicPixel wrote:
Now for the adventure it would be nearly impossible to dispel the "warning" spell because of who the caster of that spell was and also to point out to the players that maybe casting spells in the middle of a party without permission is probably a stupid idea.

So you're familiar with the adventure. And you know that at some point the sorcerer goes invisible, right? Well, I cast See Invisibility, then lied my ass off to get out of any ramifications (which mostly worked). That was a move that paid off and didn't cost much, but I'm still salty.

PsychicPixel wrote:
For see invisibility and true seeing it makes sense again why they function the way they are. See invisibility is a very specific function it sees invisible things. True seeing would let you see vs any illusion or transmutation but they put a roll requirement on it to prevent it from just always working. So if you wanted it to basically always work you prep it at a higher spell slot.

Which I wouldn't have, because, really, how often do you meet a boss spellcaster that is lower level?

PsychicPixel wrote:
Spells are no longer learn and forget. You have to think about what you want to learn, what to prep, and what level slots you want those spells to take.

They are "learn and forget" in the sense that the moment I learn a spell involves dispelling, I will forget it exists.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Let me tell you about a time I had in the sixth chapter of DDD. I will try to be as spoiler free as I can, sorry about that.

While investigating we found out that there would be a spell preventing a certain kind of behavior. Well, good thing we found out about it, right? I can simply burn all my 4-5 spells on Spell Immunity and that would protect us - there is a dispel check, but I like my chances and it doesn't hurt to have a back up plan, right? And in case I do fail the check, I will prepare some Dispel Magic to give me a few more checks, I can't possibly fail them all, right? Wrong.

Dispelling works like this: you automatically remove a spell of equal or lower level, and attempt a check to remove a spell of a higher level (+5 to DC per level difference).

When the need did arrive, I found out that the spell in place was impossible to dispel with the spells I prepared, and when our sorcerer with spontaneously heightened Dispel Magic tried, well - for him it was merely unlikely, since he only needed a nat 19. OH WELL.

We went ahead and some stuff happened and we were away from the social part of the adventure and cast our buffs - See Invisibility for me, True Seeing for the sorcerer. Well, when the need did arrive we again noticed that True Seeing wasn't. See Invisibility, a 2nd level spell, is somehow way more useful than a 6th level spell because dispelling. GM ruled that you can roll a check every round, but no dice.

We discussed it later with our GM, and found out that both spells were only 8th level vs our 4-7th spells. They were almost impossible to dispel (I think we attempted about ten checks) with our best spells! Without that blasted +5/level I would need to roll 15+, which would be fair, with it - 30+ (well, 20, I guess).

I actually really like that spells like True Seeing now require a check, but it's difficulty means that I would be way better off simply preparing Heals and Flame Strikes in all those wasted 4-6 slots - and not for the lack of recon and preparation! I mean, the enemy spellcaster could be ONE LEVEL HIGHER than you for his spells to be undispellable.

I hate how in 2e a few levels can be so significant, especially since PCs are unlikely to be on the higher side.

Now I am reluctant to prepare anything but damaging spells, and it sucks - I have no polite words to describe how much.

Get rid of that +5 to DC.

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:

Being a Cleric isn't like studying a spell book, or practicing a trade. It isn't a job, or a task you practice at. You have faith, total devotion to your god, so much so that it grants you supernatural powers.

You don't have the faith to get those kinds of powers by being a moderate. You're not just a worshipper, you're a Cleric, a Priest or Priestess, you are dedicated wholly to your God and their machinations.

Worship out of habit isn't gonna do the trick. Worship out of fear doesn't do the trick. You gotta drink the kool-aid and buy in mind, body, and soul.

This is just the worst kind of pigeon-holing a whole class into a single role. Even Paladins can have some doubts (well, maybe you think they can't, I do not know), but for all the clerics be 100% devote from level one? That's bad. You would lose a whole slew of archetypes and twists, and I do not think I want that. You lose the god-gives-power-to-corrupt-cleric cleric, you lose the misunderstanding-cleric cleric, you lose the losing-his-faith cleric.

Again, the new restriction is unacceptable. I will change it if the devs don't change it.

Grand Lodge

HWalsh wrote:

Abadar's first tenet:

"Abadar and his followers wish to bring the light of civilization to the wilderness, to help educate all in the benefits of law and properly regulated commerce."

Light of civilation to the wilderness is not Neutrality. Yes he is about commerce, but he's not about neutrality at all. He doesn't want people to just work for a paycheck. He isn't the God of unfettered Capitalism.

Abadar is also about "earning wealth through hard work and trade" and "following the rule of law" - you ignored 2/3 of his tenets just now. "Earning wealth" is basically Capitalism. Not everyone must bring civilization to the untamed lands, somebody must stay at home and till the fields, raise the children etc. Otherwise, what's the point of building civilization and not enjoying the benefits?

HWalsh wrote:

Lamashtu?

Dude, she's evil. Like evil to the core. The Demon Queen. What kind of "Good" Character worships a demon? We aren't talking like anime "Demon" or Dante from Devil May Cry here. We're talking about Demon. Like, the enemy of the Angels and destroyer of all things good Demon.

If she is so evil, why give her worshippers said healing and Family? Actually, on second thought, I can imagine an abusive kind of family, but my point was - the entire race worships her! They can’t all be wantonly evil! Maybe not good, but I can certainly imagine someone who doesn’t really care for good or evil choosing her because of tradition and because they don’t want to get killed for not following the right god.

HWalsh wrote:

Asmodeus?

Again, you are serving an evil being. No good person would actually do that. Heck, no neutral person would do that. You are literally willing to serve an evil…

Again, there is a whole nation that is no longer an ethnicity, that almost exclusively worships him. They can’t all be evil!

That actually bothers me a little. Now there can not be moderate clerics, only those who embrace their gods get the power - which eliminates gaps. And that is bad.

Grand Lodge

I don’t understand why the new restrictions on clerics’ alignments?
Specifically Lamashtu. When I first read in the blog that alignments requirements and channels will be revised (and Lamashtu was given as an example), I thought “awesome, NG goblin cleric sounds fun”. If goblins are introduced into society (and Society), why wouldn’t some of them keep faith in a goddess that provides healing and the Family domain? Why is that change a change for the worse? Why do that horrible thing (no pun intended)?
Also Abadar. True Neutral clerics are out. WHY? Isn’t N the alignment that descrides the average Joeleth, who does their job fine, but is there for the paycheck. The whole “you have to be passionate about the Law” thing sounds like something a crappy new manager says while trying to “build team spirit” or something.
And Asmodeus. Wasn’t there a clause that he doesn’t care what you think so long as you go trough the motions? But now you HAVE to be a bastard?
I can go on, but overall it looks like Paizo tried fixing what wasn’t broken. It feels unnecessary restrictive. I will certainly houserule it the hell out.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mutation Warrior (Fighter)
Archaeologist (Bard)
Invulnerable Rager (Barbarian)
Urban Barbarian
Martial Artist (Monk)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that just because it isn't explicitly stated in the masterpiece, the creature summoned can't refuse you because of lack of payment. The task is somewhat dangerous, may or may not align with the devil, and would probably require about an hour - you'd need 600-6000 gp for that one, and a song and a keg of beer is so out of it's price range, it isn't payment (maybe try an azata next time). I doubt it is the intended purpose of the masterpiece.

But that is a good example of a mildly unreasonable deal. Lets crank it up to eleven! We bind an angel and pay him a kiss on the bum to hunt down and kill paladins for a century - a task ridiculously out of character for your typical angel, suicidal and underpaid. Would he be able to refuse? Not unless he rolls good! Of course, you would think that nobody would try that, but I can bet my life that there is a troll of a player who would.

That is why I think that the creature can simply refuse your task.