1. I don't like to limit my players. Rules should be balanced.
The rules are balanced. Any ruleset can be broken, though, and I'm fortunate enough to not have such disruptive players. As for you, if you allow people to twink, don't come crying on a forum claiming that the rules are broken.
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
2. I'm more than capable. I'd put my DM skills against anyone. I've run plenty of high powered games. Mythic is far beyond what is normal.
That's the idea. It's not supposed to be normal. I'm guessing you're overestimating your DM skills if Mythic is too difficult to cope with. Stop complaining about the rules, which are already balanced, and deal with your players, who clearly aren't.
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
APL+1 does not work. You have not done the math if you think the rules as written are viable. Even a moderate power gamer can create combinations that one shot Baphomet in a single round. If you call that viable, our definition differs in the extreme.
I have done the math, and no one short of an extreme twink gamer could one-shot Baphomet. The character would have to be designed specifically for that encounter as well.
Our definitions clearly differ. I'm used to the higher power levels. I've even DMed recently a campaign from Level 1 all the way to Level 34, fully epic, with the Mythic rules on top of that. I was still able to present a challenge. As such, this is easily viable to one such as myself. You may be an experienced DM, but maybe you just don't have that inborn instinct that allows one to DM deep into the most difficult parts of the game to balance.
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
I've already taken the time to do extensive math on how the mythic rules work. It is not viable as written unless I want every single combat to end within a round one way or the other. I can design enemies that kill the PCs in a round. The PCs will run characters that will the enemies in a round. That is not what I consider a viable game or set of rules. I consider that a waste of my time.
Then you did the math wrong.
Piccolo Taphodarian wrote:
I have been doing calculations for what I want to happen and implementing templates that will withstand the onslaught of the PCs, while hopefully not killing them. I...
Here are some tips.
1. Average the attack rates of your attackers' first attacks, and make sure all enemy ACs are at least 10 higher than that average.
2. Focus on special abilities, even house made, that increase enemy HP.
3. Don't be afraid to tweak DR to make it relevant, even if you have to start giving things DR/epic. If you're a skilled DM, you can easily come up with plausible in-game reasons.
4. Don't do the math as typical math, use your instincts to find the answer from the solution to the math.
5. If you need to, limit the ways they can use their mythic abilities. Again, easily done.
Basically, if your players insist on twinking out, you must do the same with the enemies in order to compensate. In addition, if you have five or six players, add another 1 to the numbers I gave in my last post. If you increase the CR of every encounter by X amount, you'll get the hang of it.
EDIT:
6. Adjust enemies so that they're all built with 25 point buy, and give bosses whatever you like above that. Don't adjust the CR for this change.
DGL: i believe the RAW is clear in that you get to choose the targets. However, im not sure that you can willingly pick less targets than your level.
Yet another good reason for an FAQ. If you can't choose how many, it's still a useless spell. I refuse to believe that the developers would make such a stupid error.
I've run into a possible problem in the game I am running. Basically, the party leader, a paladin, and his wife (another party member) are having a child. Unfortunately, due to magical interference and other problems, the baby is to be born deformed.
Now I'm using the The Complete Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge from old 2E, updated for Pathfinder. I rolled on the table, and the worst thing happened: the baby is slated to be born a demon.
So I have to ask this question: is the paladin, the father, bound by the paladin's code to slay his own son upon birth as a demon? Would the other paladin in the party be obligated to do so? Is there wiggle room in the paladin's code that would make it possible to attempt to raise the child to be good (and possibly succeed)? Does either way mean a fall?
19 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
There have been questions as to how to run Wail of the Banshee. Apparently, the questions were not clear enough in the previous thread, so I have made a new thread to enter into the FAQ candidate database so that we might have some answers.
The first question has to do with targets. The spell itself has a listing as "targets", implying that the caster chooses targets within a 40 foot spread, and those closest to the point of origin are affected first. However, there is also a valid argument that the spread itself means there is no choice on who gets affected when the spell resolves, even though the spell does not list an actual area in its stats.
The rules contradict themselves here. Which is it? Is Wail of the Banshee an area spell where you can't select targets, or a targeted spell with a limited area?
My argument: As a Level 9 spell, it should be in line with other spells of its level. Mass Heal and Mass Harm both allow you to select targets, are Level 9, and can do similar damage until caster level goes above 25. The catch is that Mass Heal and Mass Harm allow will saves for half damage while Wail of the Banshee allows Fortitude save to negate damage altogether. If you can't select your targets, it is no longer a spell on par with other Level 9 spells, so I would argue that the caster should be allowed to select targets.
Please bring clarity to this point.
The second question is about the amount of damage it does. Another poster stated that James Jacobs once said Wail of the Banshee does 10 damage/level total, though the thread cannot be found. The spell itself is not completely clear.
Is the damage 10/level total, or 10/level to each creature affected?
My argument: As a Level 9 spell, Wail of the Banshee should be a major threat any time it is cast. If the damage were only 10/level total, with a Fortitude save to negate completely, that would kill its damage output to be in line with a Level 3 spell like Fireball, as even Destruction and Finger of Death would do more on average since Fortitude is almost always going to be a "good save" against whatever you are casting it at. As such, it obviously should be 10/level to every affected creature.
Please bring clarity to this point as well.
The book simply doesn't answer these points because of contradictory wording in the rules. Everyone, please select this as an FAQ candidate so that we might get some much-needed answers to these questions.
Taking sometthing from someone else is unlawful, not evil. I can't believe how many people confuse the two. It is against most laws to steal. The reason why you stole determines whether or not it is evil.
Cannilbalism is only "evil" in the sight of those who don't understand mostly ancient tribal cultures or people who think that they are "more civilized". Eating the flesh (cannibalism), especially the heart, of a slain warrior was thought to consume the power, soul or ki of that warrior, thus granting the consumer the eaten's power. Just because it is "uncivilized" doesn't make it evil.
Wrong and wrong.
Theft is almost always evil. You have some exceptions, sure. Robin Hood or a starving person stealing some bread. If you have an extraplanar creature trying to take your weapons and armor, and you're one of the good guys, that's evil. Theft isn't always illegal. It's more evil than it is unlawful.
Also, evil is not relative. Evil has a pointed meaning. Your cannibalism example is absolutely evil given that they believed they were devouring the souls of the vanquished. It's not about "thinking" your more civilized, it's about being better. If you kill someone to eat them, you're evil, plain and simple. Harming innocents is the most basic evil.
Seriously, though, people with the "evil is relative" position (who will often say things like "it's not evil to them") really piss me off hardcore. The test is simple. 1. Is someone factually harmed? If yes, go to 2. Was the harmed person innocent? Is yes, it was an evil act.
The fact that it's hard to peg his alignment is proof enough that he's Chaotic. I don't think there's any question that he's evil.
He's prone to fits when things don't go his way. NE is pure true evil without leaning either direction, but this guy is too unpredictable at best. LE is a hilarious suggestion and quite ridiculous, not to mention there's no way in Hell a LE character would worship a Demon Lord or Demon God.
You're assuming that Pathfinder's examples of "honor" are legitimate, though. The specifics of the paladin code are no evil acts, acting with honor, helping those in need, and punishing those who threaten innocents.
I would say "not lying" is not essential to "acting with honor". If the best way to achieve the greater good, save your own life, and save the lives of your friends is to lie to a freaking demon, then a paladin is certainly within the right to do so with no blemish on his honor.
The only time I would bar lying is if a specific deity's specific code forbade it under any circumstance. A general paladin code, though, no. That's just stupid. Again, Lawful Good, not Lawful Stupid.
Okay, first some background. I'm GMing a Mystara campaign, and we're currently in the year 1021 AC. Bargle the Infamous (older gamers might remember him) is one of the top three villains going in the current campaign, and he's working for Prince Emmerich von Blut of Glantri as the new Grand Master of the Great School of Magic. There's a big scheme going on, but what I have going on here is he's invented some new spells. For those of you who have read Harry Potter, you probably know which ones.
Yes, Bargle has invented the "unforgivable curses", only they're new and unregulated and a danger to the known world at the moment. I was just wanting input as to whether I've balanced them properly.
Let's start with the Cruciatus Curse. This was the easiest to do. I started with the spell Wrack from the 3.0 Book of Vile Darkness and went from there. I pimped it out and came up with this.
Crucio:
Crucio
School necromancy [evil] Level Cleric/Oracle 5, Sorcerer/Wizard 5, Witch 5
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature
Duration concentration
Saving Throw Fortitude partial; see text
Spell Resistance yes
Crucio, the Cruciatus Curse, is one of the most vile spells ever created. Also known as the Torture Curse, the sole purpose of this spell is to cause excruciating pain. Normal immunities do not stop this spell; any creature can be affected. For the duration of the spell, the victim is considered helpless and cannot take actions. Even on a successful save, the victim is knocked prone and takes 1d6 points of damage. After the spell ends, if the victim had been under it for 5 rounds or less, he or she is shaken for 3d10 minutes. If the victim had been under the spell for between 6 rounds and 2 minutes, he or she is staggered for 3d10 minutes.
If the victim is under the spell for over 2 minutes straight, he or she must make a Will save (DC equal to that of the casting of the spell) or risk going permanently and almost incurably insane. A day after the failed Will save, he or she must make a second Will save; success means that the insanity may be cured as normal, but failure means the insanity is permanent. In such cases, only a miracle or wish spell of a caster level higher than the caster of this spell can cure the afflicted, and a successful caster level check must be made.
Multiple people can cast Crucio at the same time to raise the save DC by +2 for each extra caster. This also raises the caster level needed to cure potential insanity by +2 for each extra caster.
Only a caster of evil alignment can successfully cast this spell, as "you have to mean it" and want to torture for the sake of torture. Any nonevil caster can only stun a victim for 1d6 rounds.
Next up is the Imperius Curse, which was actually the most difficult to manage. Dominate Monster is already a Level 9 spell, and Imperio (by Harry Potter canon) is clearly superior in pretty much every way. So how do you make a spell the same spell level while making it better? I gave it the properties to affect anything (we saw it affect a spider, which is mindless in Pathfinder, in "Goblet of Fire"), but then lowered the duration drastically, with a caveat to allow for longer durations. Here's the result.
Imperio:
Imperio
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting] Level Sorcerer/Wizard 9, Witch 9, Cleric/Oracle 9
Casting Time 1 round
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one creature
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Will negates
Spell Resistance yes
Imperio, the Imperius Curse, is the most potent control spell in existence. You can control the actions of any creature through a telepathic link that you establish with the subject. This spell even works on creatures normally immune to such spells and effects, including but not limited to mindless creatures and undead. There is no limit as to what a controlled creature can be forced to do, and worst of all, the spells forces them to "willingly" do these things. A second successful casting of Imperio on the same creature increases the duration to 1 day/level.
Finally, we get to the Killing Curse. This was tricky as well for obvious reason. There's no way to make it do exactly as in Harry Potter canon (in which it's pretty much unstoppable) without breaking the game, but I think I came close. I started with Power Word Kill, but to give it some extra zing, I allowed it to affect more hit points with no save allowed, making it a ray in order to hopefully balance it. Not sure if I succeeded. I needed to make this a spell to be truly feared, so I put some caveats in it to hinder revival magic. Here's what I came up with.
Avada Kedavra:
Avada Kedavra
School necromancy [death] Level Sorcerer/Wizard 9, Witch 9, Cleric/Oracle 9
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets one living creature
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none
Spell Resistance yes
Avada Kedavra, the Killing Curse, is one of the most potent spells in existence, capable of killing anything it hits. A green beam springs forth, and you must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Anyone with under 151 hit points dies instantly, even if normally immune to death effects; any being with a Constitution score can fall to this spell. Those killed by this spell can only be returned to life by a true resurrection, miracle, or wish cast by someone with a higher caster level than the caster of this spell.
Now for a bonus. I also conceived the Patronus Charm to help combat evil. It was a weird one, especially since it's not fleshed out very well in Harry Potter canon and the two worlds are highly incompatible when it comes to this one. Not sure if I got the school right here, or if it's balanced properly. It's basically a combination of many of the lower-level holy spells. This is what I decided upon.
Expecto Patronum:
Expecto Patronum
School abjuration [good, force] Level Cleric/Oracle 9, Sorcerer/Wizard 9, Paladin 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Area 40-ft.-radius emanation
Duration concentration (D)
Saving Throw Will partial
Spell Resistance yes
The Patronus Charm is a charm that evokes a partially-tangible, positive energy force known as a Patronus. Patronuses are also called spirit guardians though this may only refer to corporeal Patronuses. It is primarily designed for defense against dangerous undead, outsiders, aberrations and dragons, though there are other uses such as messaging. To successfully cast the spell one must muster a happy memory (the happier the memory, the more powerful and tangible the Patronus will be) and incant "Expecto Patronum". The happy memory one requires when casting does not necessarily have to be a specific moment in your past. Arguably more important than content, is how the memory or thought makes you feel now.
Upon casting, all allies within the emanation gain a +4 deflection bonus to AC and a +4 resistance bonus on saves as well as spell resistance of 25 against evil spells and spells cast by evil creatures. The abjuration also protects against possession and mental influence as protection from evil does, except it can not block Crucio, Imperio, or Avada Kedavra. Everything within the emanation is affected as if by a consecrate spell. The caster knows of any and all creatures entering the zone of a Patronus.
As a full-round action, the caster can materialize a corporeal patronus and attack evil creatures inside the emanation. The spell deals 1d8 points of damage per two caster levels (maximum 5d8) to each evil creature in the area (or 1d6 points of damage per caster level, maximum 10d6, to an evil undead, outsider, aberration, or dragon) and causes it to become blinded for 1d4 rounds. A successful Will saving throw reduces damage to half and negates the blinded effect. Furthermore, any evil undead, outsiders, aberrations, and dragons within the emanation take 2d6 points of damage per round with no save. Lastly, if you are on your home plane when you cast this spell, nongood extraplanar creatures within the area are instantly banished back to their home planes. Creatures so banished cannot return for at least 24 hours. The banishment effect allows a Will save (at a –4 penalty) to negate.
Aside from this, a Patronus can be used to send messages across great distances (anywhere on the same planet).
The spell requires a pure heart to cast. If a nongood caster attempts to use this spell, it only grants a +2 deflection bonus to AC and +2 resistance bonus on saves with no further effects. If an evil caster attempts to use the spell, it backfires and tries to devour the caster, doing 1d12 points of backlash damage per caster level.
There you have it. Just looking for opinions as to whether I've balanced them properly enough for use in Pathfinder. If you don't think I have, suggestions are welcome.
