Velsa-IronRage's page

From what they have said, having any clicks puts it on their list. From there, I think higher number of clicks says two things:

1.) Having a reasonable number of clicks makes them less likely to mark No Answer Required. This is because their confidence that it's clear needs to overshadow the statement of people that it's not. One person saying it's unclear is easy to disagree with. 1000 is less so.

2.) I imagine it provides some indication of priority. Other than pet issues (which I suspect Mark S brought a number of when he joined the dev team), I imagine them pulling up the list of FAQs and sorting it somehow, and age and number of clicks seem like the two most likely criteria there. From there, I see them scanning the list and deciding which they feel they can tackle today. The more often they see something the more it niggles at them and so that gives it some priority, too. What this would mean is having a large number of clicks gets you regular consideration for answering. Being a compelling/confusing/interesting/particularly problematic question gets you picked.

I have no actual knowledge of how it works, but that's how I would do it given the glimpses we already have. The 37 clicks puts it on the list of things they intend to get to, but clicks isn't what puts something on top. Also, if it were, 37 is not nearly the number to get there.

I have been busy and I feel like responding... 37 people asking for a FAQ is far more then the last couple that I have seen FAQ'd. I feel that a post with over 100 posts and 38 people now clicked in thinking it needs a FAQ should be reason enough to FAQ it.

There are currently 37 people asking for a FAQ on this now... what do you think the possibility of us getting a FAQ will be?

trollbill wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

My reply was not indicative of my GM style. After all, despite it being a TPK for you and your friends, you know I did my best to not be adversarial when I ran you through this scenario.

But Bonekeep and Hardmode sets a particular social contract. It is more adversarial by its very nature, and as such, you find the GMs getting extra creatice and pulling out all stops in deadly tactics.

The warnings are clear. And in this particular situation the GM made it abundantly clear what they were getting into.

The fact they got exactly what the GM promised and were unpleasantly surprised is not the GMs fault.

There is a confusion between hardmode and impossible. I played bonekeep 1 and there was the same contract and yet nothing even in the same city let alone the same ballpark as this.

Secondly It gives you the hard mode changes in the guide. These reduction have been removed these things have been added. This tactic is not specific to hard mode.

A good example to this is... I want to work out extra hard today so I am going to go on the treadmill and change the mode to hard work out. So in your case you asked for hard mode so the treadmill now starts the speed at the record of the fastest man in the world... 1 in 6 billion could run that fast but it is ok... you deserve it you asked for hard mode.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

As stated by a few of those at the game they maintain that it is legal.

For their table. Not for mine.

Sadly Arizona is a 4-6 hour drive.

A number of posters are remarking on the 'several grey area' rulings on this tactic, which I want to spell out for those catching up. (For the purposes of this post I'm ignoring whether it ever should be used, and also ignoring the flagrant meta-gaming.)

1. The use of limited wish to cast simulacrum. Limited wish can, among other things, "duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower" or "duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower." Simulacrum is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell, but also appears on the summoner list as a 5th level spell--thus the argument that limited wish can be used to duplicate simulacrum. However, there are two problems with that. First, simulacrum is not a "non-sorcerer/wizard spell" because it is a sorcerer/wizard spell of 7th level. (As an aside, I might be willing to accept the use of a spell that appears on the, say, cleric spell list at lower level than the sorcerer/wizard spell list on account of the fact that a divine spell is fundamentally different from an arcane spell in a way that a magus spell is not different from a sorcerer/wizard spell.) Second, limited wish also specifies that it can "produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" (emphasis added), meaning that there is a RAI ceiling on the power level of limited wish, which simulacrum obviously breaks. To me, at least, this makes the tactic illegal all by itself.

2. The reduction of simulacrum's 12-hour casting time to a single standard action. Limited wish states that it "duplicates any [spell]..." but it does not state that it "duplicates the effects of any [spell]..." which makes the reduction to a standard action a little dubious. Furthermore, limited wish calls out which elements of the duplicated spell change: "A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save...

As stated by a few of those at the game they maintain that it is legal. So unless we get a FAQ...

It is unfortunate this isn't deemed a major issue because it's high level magic. It's a pretty big distinction. If it's ever FAQ'ed it would almost definitely not be allowed because it breaks internal design rules left and right.

I pushed as hard as I can to get this FAQ'd but I think your right we are more then likely not going to get one.

Zen archer with out any bonuses from magic item reasonably has + 16 on first 2 attacks 5 wis 9 bab 1 weapons focus. You still need a 17. And that is niche. In 30 months of play i have seen 2 zen archers.

Swashbuckler also cant reach it.

READ, Read I did. do I think it was an illegal option, maybe. it is highly gray. BUT, YES BUT- after reading everything I am OK with it in this case. Why because, 4 of 6 players had prior knowledge of scenario. With this party spent 13,000 on buffs with that knowledge in mind. Than there is the statement "We want Hard Mode" "but will bring B team". She had to search for a way to challenge the group and did. I think A team PC's would have still took damage and some deaths but would have survived and gone on.

Would like a FAQ that makes this illegal use of Limited Wish. but having read the Rules thread on this. I think this maybe the only spell to ban because it is a HUGE Gray area just to use normally.

Those replaying only had knowledge of the first 10 feet last time. They all died. So it really is a moot point they were replaying it because none of the buffs were direct at the first fight they had ie avoid meta gaming.

Second the gm also knew the group makeup for more then a year. So this creature by the same token wad meta against the group

I maintain show me the reasonable a team that could have won this fight and i will concede the point. Look up magicbane bandersnatch 1/2 its hit points and remember you are goung to have to reach 15 up a wall with no magic items to hit it.

Fine mort. 1/2 the table was upset. It didnt seem that way when you immediately left the table and made a comment about being pounced straight to dead. Fine i get it. I am done arguing it and i will just have to either quit pfs altogether, drive an extra 30 mins to play somewhere else, or avoid this gm and those who posted's tables. More then likely it will mean that h and i + friends will stop pfs.

I cant imagine a team that could take at lvl 11 a ac 33 beast with antimagic aura with 15 reach who can hit anywhere in the room by climbing on the walls.

If you can show me a reasonable group i will even concede that it was hard not impossible.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Undone wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.

Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Yes and the Choice for the GM was to take it to impossible mode. Limited wish to cast simulacrum I maintain is outside the rules and more powerful then the spells intent. The problem is the way people were killed not that they were killed.

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

Because there is 1 gm and 4-6 players and GMs should be held to a higher standard. To even suggest it is okay to be blood thirsty and use less then honest tactics because 1 of your players might have cheesy grey zone build is insane.

Sounds like for you it is players vs gm not players vs the adventure

Undone wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.

Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Yes and the Choice for the GM was to take it to impossible mode. Limited wish to cast simulacrum I maintain is outside the rules and more powerful then the spells intent. The problem is the way people were killed not that they were killed.

The game I was invited to was, "Waking Rune, Hard Mode". That was how it was phrased when I was invited by the other players, that is how it was presented before we rolled dice and, surprise surprise, that is what we got. We had a crazy buff list. We summoned a deva. We asked for a...

We did ask for hard mode... not impossible mode. I feel it is important to state that. That is what we got. If you can't see that then I can't imagine talking to you in person would do anything.

I will also state that even with the Deva smacking the Bandersnatch 3-4 times it still moved around it taking an attack of opportunity avoiding 2 other players within its reach to catch the paladin on the other side of the pryamid just out of the aura. Meta'd.

It is hyperbole. Because that line of logic is supported only by a single, inflexible interpretation of an inherently ambiguous instruction. "To the best of her ability" is up to the GM to decide. Having that mean "be as much of a dick as possible" is not the only way to look at it; it is a statement that allows for flexibility appropriate for the situation. If we follow your logic then people are obligated to use this or a similar tactic in normal mode. And why stop with one bandersnatch when we could have two?

Again. Hyperbole does not help.

You laugh but she was going to move to the stairs and get another. Till someone tucked in a corner and caught her with slumber hex. ( of course the bandersnatch moved to cover her with the aura again immediately)

The players were all addressed before the game and the difficulty was discussed. The player who is now posting upset on these boards and his wife even joked multiple times that they expected to die and they "brought characters they really didn't care about".

If Big T would like to discuss this with any of us, he's more than welcome to. So far, the only person I've directly heard from having a problem with this game is you. And the only way I've heard how big an issue is you posting to this thread.

Let me address this for you. I will start with yes we brought our first characters we ever built to this game. Yes we in fact in both letters sent that we don't care if we get a 0 and just want the issue clarified and a FAQ because it was a horrid experience for more then just me and I don't think that anyone should be subject to this kind of game. I will argue till I am blue in the face that is illegal because it is not a non-wizard/sorcerer spell. It is on that list and therefore a Wizard Sorcerer spell. If there is a FAQ then I will stop.

The things I cared about is the 36 prestige Sean lost and the fact he is going to be hard pressed to play this character any retirement Arcs because of all the resources lost. The stars burned by Ian, Tony, and Sean some of them doing nothing but sit on the couch for 4 hours because he got pounced in round 1. The feeling of 100% helplessness because you are fighting a CR 20 creature with only a little less HP... ignore the high ac, DC on sicken, chance to hit, high grapple, and a variant that removes the abilities of every player in the game. No one should have to go through that and after a lot research I can not see how you can say casting Simulacrum is legal.

I played bonekeep with Chris and he made it hard. We made it through and worked our way through it... and it was fun. I played Waking Rune with this GM and it was not hard but impossible.

There were 4 players that I know didn't enjoy the game and the other 2 vocalized it to me or Hannah and one on the couch even vocalized it during the game. However, they are friends with s e or j so why would they say anything to them they will just accept it and move on. I on the other hand feel that it has to be addressed because I feel it isn't legal and not with in the spirit of the rules. It was a show of force by a GM and her friends.

As for trying to deal with it face to face. I am not going to go into a screaming match with you, J, Ath, and whoever else decided this was ok. I did however as I stated earlier sent an email. I got the brush off. The answer with no answers.

I then sent it as an official complaint which I was ignored. Other issues were addressed through the group email, I didn't get a I will respond to this after the holiday. Nope I wasn't responded to for 11 days (at which time I remain silent on both forums and PFS) when I had to push the issue where she asked for more days because of the holiday... which then I gave her another 7 days with still no response. I then sent it to Mike Brock and then I get responses (which Eric told me he talked to everyone did he not talk to you?).

If you want to know what I want? I want the FAQ. I want this to be resolved so no other player who gets this doesn't get Magicbane Bandersnatched. I want people to remember the game is about fun not just challenge. Can you tell me that was a fun tactic? Do you think the 2 outsiders might have been more fun? hell if I got blasted because a confused wizard rolled attack the nearest... I am good with that. To be beaten down in a corner without the ability to defend myself is not fun it is not what PFS is about. She should of just buried us with stone to mud because atleast then I wouldn't have had to sit around for 4 hours watching my less then optimized character get beat down.

This was meta'd and designed to be impossible not hard. The game was stolen from me. I will never get to experience that adventure now because of this tactic(not because I can't star it but because I don't want to because I can just see someone who looks up to J and A to use a similar tactic) and you all are so proud. You all seem to think it is praise worthy and that making it impossible was the right choice. Partially that is what keeps me fighting on.

I even talked to you outside about the tactics and how I feel it was meta'd. It was when I saw how it was created and heard the tactics used on most players on hardmode that I was upset. It is at best a (dark Dark) grey area and I maintain it isn't even that.

J even admits she has no character that would survive this fight. I wonder if she was on the other end would she have considered it fun?

Also this whole you were warned it is Bonekeep 3 rules... Ya that is what you guys say on Bonekeep 1... and it was challenging not unwinnable.

Wizards being better a moving between planes of existence is more of an opinion then a fact. A cleric using the power of Deity to move him from one Existence to another is way different then using your own arcane power. Hence the requirement of Clerics to stay within their domains and adhere to their gods or faiths. I feel that is a digression though and a topic to talk about over a few beers.

One sat on the couch and my wife talked to him upset, My wife is almost done with PFS all together (she didn't get talked to in the investigation), and one is a GM that hasn't been around and he told me at dinner after the game that he is not sure he wants to really play any more after the experience. But as I said the investigation revealed no malice and no reason to change anything.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Apparently the other 5 people at the table decided it was okay because he said they had no problem with the tactic.

I'm curious why that is if 3 of the 6 players are considering leaving the campaign over it.

that is what they told me after the game. Apparently they changed their minds or I am being bamboozled.

Here to quote the last 4 lines

here were minor mistakes that were made in the execution of the game (charge lanes interrupted by terrain was one example) . This is something that I would expect at any table and even more so in higher level play.

In all the accounts of this game that I gathered there was no trace of malice on the part of the GM. The players specifically requested as challenge and a challenge was provided to them. All PCs/familiars were brought back to life by the end of the game.

All players were made aware of the seriousness of the challenge before the game began and 4 out of 6 of the player had either played or judged this game previously.

Recommendation for this session:
This is a situation where there was:
· An absence of malice on the part of the GM
· A specific request from the players at the table for an extremely challenging game
· A very in depth warning and confirmation process that this was what the table wanted
· An advanced tactical response from a highly skilled GM seeking to give her players what they specifically asked for
After gathering feedback from as many of the people present at this game as was possible, reviewing the information that they provided, my recommendation no action be taken and that the results of the game stand as reported

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

I am saying that if you allow this tactic and condone the use of edge cases to destroy players because you feel they "had it coming" then it should be used for everyone.

Who is advocating this? Specific examples please.

My VC acting on part of Mike Brock. He says this tactic didn't have malicious intent and recommends that we suffer the consequences of the game.

Apparently the other 5 people at the table decided it was okay because he said they had no problem with the tactic.

I should start by saying that I interpret the RAW as plane shift isn't allowed, because it's not a non-sorcerer/wizard spell. I also think it doesn't make sense for a wizard to be unable to cast plane shift with limited wish. Here's why (in-game perspective):

Suppose a wizard looks at (for a random cleric-only spell) spell resistance and decides that it's a really neat spell. He'd like to be able to cast it. Now, as it currently stands, he can cast it with limited wish.

He realizes that it's getting really expensive to do it every day and decides to research a wizard version. His DM decides that shutting down magic is more a divine thing (ok, maybe not realistic) and tells him it'll be a 7th level wizard spell. Great! He can now cast it for the same slot without that pesky material component.

But now, since it's a wizard spell it's no longer available for his limited wish. That's goofy.

Plane shift is a similar issue. Is it more or less wizardy than spell resistance? I would argue more since he eventually gets access to it. It's not quite as goofy as my example of spell research depriving limited wish of an option, but I dislike it for the same reasons.

Now, is the summoner spell list messed up when spell level is used in the same way as other classes? Sure. But that's less of a disconnect for me than a wizard losing a way to cast a spell because it became available to him.

Outside of home games can you list where this has happened? Where a wizard got a spell that he could cast with Limited wish and then it was added to his list as a spell 7th level or higher?

That leaves a vast swath of possibilities that punish good players who end up on the wrong GMs table and rewards less prepared less experience players for ending up on the right GMs table.

You try and run all the games as close to the same as possible so it is fair to all players. If the games says to use the optimal tactic, you should use the optimal tactic. If you don't you are softballing. You are deciding that either A. your players can't handle the challenge B. It isn't a fun tactic and that is more important even in a hard mode game or C. I don't care about fairness.

Being the devil's advocate (as I am the one who complained about this tactic and sending it all the way up to Mike) I am saying that if you allow this tactic and condone the use of edge cases to destroy players because you feel they "had it coming" then it should be used for everyone.

That or you are playing favoritism.

TOZ wrote:

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

Responding directly to the GM in question.

"The fact you CAN do something does not mean you SHOULD. You still made the choice to run the scenario that way. The fact that the author left that option available doesn't change the burden of responsibility."

Also if the monster is the one I think it is the author did not give the monster the abilities due to it being a premade monster from another book.

If it was a demilich it would of been just as bad.

Voadam wrote:

A limited wish cannot do an equivalent level 13 top tier spell if it is 7th level.

Being able to do any of the summoner top tier level 13 spells like the 5th level summoner spell summon monster VII, which is equivalent to an otherwise barred wizard/sorcerer/cleric level 7 spell, and since you can do it without choosing to prepare the summon spell beforehand it is pretty powerful.

I'm not totally familiar with the summoner list, but I would expect it to have 5th level spells that are not on the sorc/wiz list. Are you saying that limited wish shouldn't be able to duplicate those spells?

I don't think anyone would argue that limited wish couldn't cast righteous might, even though an inquisitor can't cast it until 13th level.

I am saying that if it isn't on the wizard list then it isn't part of the argument. If Righteous might was part of the Wizard list as a level 7 spell I would say you are wrong to cast it. IT is also on the Cleric list as a level 5 spell which clear fits the bill.

Where the level come in is that they are arguing that it is within the power of the spell to cast this type of effect. However you are casting a spell that is not available normally to anyone until level 13 (wizard or summoner) and then reduces the time. This is clearly not what was intended because then they would have worded it like miracle.

(levels changed to match power level of Limited wish)

Duplicate any cleric spell of 6th level or lower.
Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower.

Instead of:

Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.
Duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell does not belong to one of your opposition schools.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

So there you go it isn't the GMs fault it is problematic scenario design.

So we are blaming the tools rather than the workman?

Hey, I just went through 30 days of arguing it is the workman and got told it is the tools. That is the Stance of the local VL. So yes it is the tool for sure!

I personally would be fine with either ruling.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

I agree that it's not the least bit absurd or overpowered. Having a summoner or "transformer" in the party rather than the wizard would have had a similar effect on the game, and that's to be expected since that's the way the system was designed. A wizard being able to do the same thing at the same or much later level does not break the game.

EDIT: I'm not saying that limited wish can do what's proposed, I think it's ambiguous enough to warrant a FAQ. All that I'm saying is that, if it could/can/does, it's not absurd or overpowered for it to be that way.

This is not true. Summoner max Casting level is 6 and doesn't get access to 5th level spells till 13.

A wizard gets access at 9. That is a huge disparity.

Huh? The wizard can't cast summoner spells until 13th-level, when he gets limited wish.

When does the summoner get access to 5th-level spells? 13th was it? Then how can it be broken?

Tell me this: If the summoner has the spell at those levels, and it doesn't break the game, then how does it break the game for the wizard to cast the same spell?

And if the summoner having it DOES break the game somehow, then that's a problem with the summoner and/or the spell, not the wizard.

Because Limited wish doesn't let you cast a level 7 wizard spell it lets you cast a level 6 wizard spell. It also takes 12 hours to cast as the level 5 summoner spell or the level 7 wizard spell.

So you are getting a spell reduced 11:59:54 seconds at a higher level then the spell selection was originally intended. Changing a spell to a quickened spell adds 3 levels how is this not outside the normal power level?

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Her objective is to murder the party.

Your objective is to run a fair and fun game. That takes precedence.

There are a myriad of ways to murder the party. You are not restricted from picking a different one.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

So how would a 31 intelligence creature do that if it was aware of this tactic?

You as the GM are the one who decides if she is aware of this tactic.

Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice.

No more than 'it is what my character would do' absolves the player of making a particular choice.

You are allowed to make different choices. You are not a machine.

And if this stands, you are softballing your players. You made a choice to give them an easier time then the optimal way and as such the GMs here locally will say you ran it wrong.

Here is a quote from the GM who ran the Scenario in response to "Run As Written does not absolve you of taking responsibility for making that choice."

"The scenario author gave a very intelligent creature a limited wish. That may well be problematic scenario design but there is nothing in the rules that prevents it from being used this way."

So there you go it isn't the GMs fault it is problematic scenario design.

What I am basically saying is that if this is ok to be reported this way and punish the 6 players including 3 GMs who burned a star to play it how can it be ok to not to run it that way for other players?

How can you say that we deserve the punishment and loss but other tables run with less challenge deserve the rewards?

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

and they did " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"

There is a difference between writing "uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" and writing "simulacrum up a bandersnatch to murder the party".

Her objective is to murder the party. So how would a 31 intelligence creature do that if it was aware of this tactic? Since this is the most efficient way to murder the party it " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect".

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Finally I think that if this is the legal tactic and I saw that someone else went through this process and got this result I wouldn't question it at that point. So now it is optimal because anyone else that goes through this complaint process is just whining.

Even if it is a legal tactic, it is just that. A legal tactic. Not the legal tactic.

This is really all that needs to be said--it's as simple as all this.

Scenarios aren't a simple equation with one correct solution. There are tons of possible right ways to run a scenario, and that's one of the reasons PFS play is great. You get different GMs who have different styles and different players with different PCs.

No two tables will ever be run identically, but they can both still be run correctly.

Both those tables should have to over come the same challenges. Solve puzzle A. If you decide to make it easier on Table A but not Table B it is unfair to Table B.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

2. This is legal and what the writer intended to have happen.

If the writer had intended for it to happen, he would have written it into the tactics.

and they did " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"

Since their is the possibility of get 5 natural flight pouncing barbarians. Then you just use the other tactic and bury them.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

I was told that if your table in Bonekeep 3 doesn't get TPK'd then it was run wrong.

How is this any different?

This example is absolutely no different than the current situation in that it is patently wrong.

These are quotes from my Local GMs. They will tell you to your face you got softballed. Their joke is the only way to win bonekeep 3 is to not play bonekeep 3.

So there you go. This is the embodiment of PFS in my area.

Basically after 30 days of trying to get this resolved my opinion of PFS is that fun is second. Everyone who is a representative of PFS that I have talked to has not been able to show me where it says it is legal or how they justify using the summoner list they just say it is and that this was okay.

So there are 2 choices.

1. this was done in Malice of the players because it is the kobeoshi-maru (sp?) of PFS and the thought was they want a hard game I will just remove all their abilities.

2. This is legal and what the writer intended to have happen. Therefore you are outside of RAW if you give them an easier game.

I agree that it's not the least bit absurd or overpowered. Having a summoner or "transformer" in the party rather than the wizard would have had a similar effect on the game, and that's to be expected since that's the way the system was designed. A wizard being able to do the same thing at the same or much later level does not break the game.

EDIT: I'm not saying that limited wish can do what's proposed, I think it's ambiguous enough to warrant a FAQ. All that I'm saying is that, if it could/can/does, it's not absurd or overpowered for it to be that way.

This is not true. Summoner max Casting level is 6 and doesn't get access to 5th level spells till 13.

A wizard gets access at 9. That is a huge disparity.

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I would argue that if they knew of this tactic then yes. Your game and the others were infinitely easier then mine. They didn't " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" where my GM did.

I was told my Thornekeep floor 5 table was run wrong because the GM used a different tactic.

I was told that if your table in Bonekeep 3 doesn't get TPK'd then it was run wrong.

How is this any different?

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

If you don't you ran it wrong.

Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them.

It is impossible to run round by round tactics because you can't predict your players moves however there are plenty that give you buffing order and when to cast certain spells.

It is in the spirit to run the game as close to the same to give everyone the same experience and challenge if you reduce the difficulty then it isn't fair to those who didn't get that same scenario hence why larger area's have GM 101 where they play the scenario together and go over tactics so they all run it similarly.

If you don't follow the tactics where it says " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect" then you are running it wrong. We can agree if this is legal it is to the best effect therefore you are softballing your table and running it wrong.

TOZ wrote:

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

If you don't you ran it wrong.

Run As Written is the rule, but to say that the rules force you to run this scenario using the tactics you have outlined in every game is wrong and against the spirit of the rules. If every table were meant to be run the same, then scenarios would have round by round tactics written into them.

It also ignores the fact that not everyone believes the tactic to be legal and in the absence of an actual clear FAQ different GM's can and will rule differently.

Except you have a ruling by a PFS representative. Unless it is FAQ'd then it is legal and shouldn't be part of the argument.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal.

Well, since you asked.

I would say it is not optimal in a scenario where the GM wishes to avoid a response like this.

Fair play.

I think that no matter how challenging the players want the game (barring them asking to kill you) if you devise a strategy that eliminates all their abilities and makes it impossible (not hard impossible) and then not expect pissed off players then you are delusional.

Finally I think that if this is the legal tactic and I saw that someone else went through this process and got this result I wouldn't question it at that point. So now it is optimal because anyone else that goes through this complaint process is just whining.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal.

Why? I never said it wasn't.

GM discretion allows softballing. Hence why I do not understand Undone claiming the rules require him to use your tactic.

It isn't my tactic first off I think it is BS and should be illegal if it isn't and should get FAQ'd out.

Secondly, All tables should be run as close to the same as possible to give people the same level of challenge. If you softball a group who succeeds easily and the other tables TPKs because they were run RAW then is it fair to the 2nd table? how about the first who won but didn't get any challenge? So the best answer is to Run As Written. In this case it says uses spells to their best effect.

If you don't you ran it wrong.

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

If you didn't get the same tactic I argue you were softballed.

This tactic relies on her tactics being invalidated, giving the GM free reign to do so.

Therefore, I fail to see how Undone is mandated to do so by the rules.

There is also the fact that GM discretion does not mean 'take the most optimal option every time'.

Please give me a scenario where this tactic is not the optimal.

Secondly, if you have a couple casters I can say displacement is null because displacement has little to no effect. They are going to use spells on me Incoming bandersnatch!

Finally if you don't use the optimal tactic you are now soft balling your table because you are giving them an easier experience then RAW. If it didn't say to her best ability then you are right... However it is states " uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect"

Anything less is softballing.

Undone wrote:

So by rules I have to do it. Lovely.

What?

It used to her best ability specifically in the text that she uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect. This is by far the best effect for her so why wouldn't she do this every time if she knows it exists. If you didn't get the same tactic I argue you were softballed.

The Bandersnatch tactic is legal. Here was the ruling after sending the complaint up the chain.

The first part of the complaint:
The nature of the first part of the complaint submitted by Jon centers around the use of a spell like ability of limited wish to cast the simulacrum spell to get a simulacrum of a magicbane bandersnatch.

There is a question around the specific use of limited wish to emulate a spell that is both on the sorcerer/wizard list as well as one a separate spell list.

One interpretation concludes that if a spell exists on the sorcerer/wizard list and is a higher level than limited wish can handle that this spell is not a valid spell for limited wish even if it appears on a separate spell list other than the sorcerer or wizard list.

A key test question for the Paizo developers that would clarify this issue would be “Can limited wish be used to cast the plane shift spell from the cleric spell list?” Plane shift is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell and a 5th level cleric spell.

Conclusions on the first part of the complaint:
The conclusion reached at the table by the GM that simulacrum from the summoner spell list was a viable spell for limited wish spell like ability to duplicate is reasonable based on an interpretation of the rules.

After looking at what happened with this table I have come to the conclusion that even if different tactics were used that the table would have reached the same conclusions (PCs being forced to retreat). Giving a genius level incredibly old and very knowledgeable opponent with a limited wish spell like ability to a GM with very high degrees of system mastery would result in significantly more of a challenge to any table (regardless of PC composition) than if that same scenario was run by less experienced GM. This is a case where the more you know about how the system works as a GM the more options you have in your toolbox and the greater the challenge you can bring to bear at a table.

Another more deadly option would have been use to limited wish to cast soften earth (a 2nd level spell) and stone on the room which was “carved out of stone” to collapse the entire room around the PCs putting them all in a bury zone of a cave-in. With Kurshu’s intelligence score of 31 she could target this spell so as to not include herself in the collapse.

The second area of complaint:
Kurshu would not have the knowledge of a magicbane bandersnatch.

Conclusions on the second area of complaint:
The knowledge arcana check to know about a CR19 creature would be at maximum a DC 34. This is well within Kurshu’s take 10 which gives her 38 (1 higher on hard mode).

The third are of complaint:
The tactics as written were not followed as they state if she is not detected that she casts the displacement spell first.

Conclusions on the third area of complaint:
The combination of
the players request for an ‘extremely challenging game’
with their PC’s actions of having called in a planar ally
the movanic deva is identifiable by Kurshu who would know that the angel
a. has darkvision and would prevent her hiding

b. can cast dispel magic at will

c. can cast an antimagic field once per day

would be things that I would consider sufficient to “invalidate the tactics as written”.

Kurshu is specifically listed as being “flexible in her tactics and uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect”. Combining this tactical flexibility with the force multiplier of advanced system mastery would result in an extreme challenge to any group with a GM that was sufficiently prepared. Casting displacement would have been a wasted action that would be expected to be rapidly countered resulting in no benefit.

Final Conclusions:
There were minor mistakes that were made in the execution of the game (charge lanes interrupted by terrain was one example) . This is something that I would expect at any table and even more so in higher level play.

In all the accounts of this game that I gathered there was no trace of malice on the part of the GM. The players specifically requested as challenge and a challenge was provided to them. All PCs/familiars were brought back to life by the end of the game.

All players were made aware of the seriousness of the challenge before the game began and 4 out of 6 of the player had either played or judged this game previously.

Recommendation for this session:
This is a situation where there was:
· An absence of malice on the part of the GM
· A specific request from the players at the table for an extremely challenging game
· A very in depth warning and confirmation process that this was what the table wanted
· An advanced tactical response from a highly skilled GM seeking to give her players what they specifically asked for
After gathering feedback from as many of the people present at this game as was possible, reviewing the information that they provided, my recommendation no action be taken and that the results of the game stand as reported

Here is the conclusion of the complaint I had so I assume you can cast plane-shift as well as cast simulacrum (since they fall into the category for both lists). If you get the tactic use limited wish to your best ability the following is the 2 best deadly tactics.

Since this is condoned as a tactic it is making me re think pfs all together.

I excluded the local recommendations since they are not part of the rulling.

The first part of the complaint:
The nature of the first part of the complaint submitted by Jon centers around the use of a spell like ability of limited wish to cast the simulacrum spell to get a simulacrum of a magicbane bandersnatch.

There is a question around the specific use of limited wish to emulate a spell that is both on the sorcerer/wizard list as well as one a separate spell list.

One interpretation concludes that if a spell exists on the sorcerer/wizard list and is a higher level than limited wish can handle that this spell is not a valid spell for limited wish even if it appears on a separate spell list other than the sorcerer or wizard list.

A key test question for the Paizo developers that would clarify this issue would be “Can limited wish be used to cast the plane shift spell from the cleric spell list?” Plane shift is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell and a 5th level cleric spell.

Conclusions on the first part of the complaint:
The conclusion reached at the table by the GM that simulacrum from the summoner spell list was a viable spell for limited wish spell like ability to duplicate is reasonable based on an interpretation of the rules.

After looking at what happened with this table I have come to the conclusion that even if different tactics were used that the table would have reached the same conclusions (PCs being forced to retreat). Giving a genius level incredibly old and very knowledgeable opponent with a limited wish spell like ability to a GM with very high degrees of system mastery would result in significantly more of a challenge to any table (regardless of PC composition) than if that same scenario was run by less experienced GM. This is a case where the more you know about how the system works as a GM the more options you have in your toolbox and the greater the challenge you can bring to bear at a table.

Another more deadly option would have been use to limited wish to cast soften earth (a 2nd level spell) and stone on the room which was “carved out of stone” to collapse the entire room around the PCs putting them all in a bury zone of a cave-in. With Kurshu’s intelligence score of 31 she could target this spell so as to not include herself in the collapse.

The second area of complaint:
Kurshu would not have the knowledge of a magicbane bandersnatch.

Conclusions on the second area of complaint:
The knowledge arcana check to know about a CR19 creature would be at maximum a DC 34. This is well within Kurshu’s take 10 which gives her 38 (1 higher on hard mode).

The third are of complaint:
The tactics as written were not followed as they state if she is not detected that she casts the displacement spell first.

Conclusions on the third area of complaint:
The combination of
the players request for an ‘extremely challenging game’
with their PC’s actions of having called in a planar ally
the movanic deva is identifiable by Kurshu who would know that the angel
a. has darkvision and would prevent her hiding

b. can cast dispel magic at will

c. can cast an antimagic field once per day

would be things that I would consider sufficient to “invalidate the tactics as written”.

Kurshu is specifically listed as being “flexible in her tactics and uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect”. Combining this tactical flexibility with the force multiplier of advanced system mastery would result in an extreme challenge to any group with a GM that was sufficiently prepared. Casting displacement would have been a wasted action that would be expected to be rapidly countered resulting in no benefit.

Final Conclusions:
There were minor mistakes that were made in the execution of the game (charge lanes interrupted by terrain was one example) . This is something that I would expect at any table and even more so in higher level play.

In all the accounts of this game that I gathered there was no trace of malice on the part of the GM. The players specifically requested as challenge and a challenge was provided to them. All PCs/familiars were brought back to life by the end of the game.

All players were made aware of the seriousness of the challenge before the game began and 4 out of 6 of the player had either played or judged this game previously.

Recommendation for this session:
This is a situation where there was:
· An absence of malice on the part of the GM
· A specific request from the players at the table for an extremely challenging game
· A very in depth warning and confirmation process that this was what the table wanted
· An advanced tactical response from a highly skilled GM seeking to give her players what they specifically asked for
After gathering feedback from as many of the people present at this game as was possible, reviewing the information that they provided, my recommendation no action be taken and that the results of the game stand as reported

This is a venue to get the rules fleshed out. If it isnt faq'd and answered then these othee gms will do this to their players... so then you have 4-5 tables with this issue. I took it to the VL who happens to be the person who ran the game and got pushed off 3 weeks and she interprets it as she can. Believe me i have sent it up the chain but unless i get some sort of ruling then the other gms are going to kill players unjustly wasting 32 sessions x 4 hours get a character to retirement to get wrecked because of this tactic

I would simply not play with this VL or these GM's. If I had a player ask me as their GM to interpret the spell as they suggest, I would laugh at them and say, "Nice try!" As a GM using it on PC's, it is gray at best by their interpretation, and gray areas should generally be ruled in favor of the players due to this portion of the Guide:

The Guide wrote:

The leadership of this organized play community assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules. This includes being courteous and encouraging a mutual interest in playing, not engaging in endless rules discussions. While you are enjoying the game, be considerate of the others at the table and don’t let your actions keep them from having a good time too. In short, don’t be a jerk.

I would agree with not playing with them except it becomes a hard ship to play then. They run alot of the PFS locations in the area and the distance I will have to travel to another location would be great or starts to early to make it from work. I just want it resolved so I can go back to enjoying pathfinder. (Which the longer it takes the less likely that will ever occur)

I think the logical dysfunction here comes from the fact any spell appearing on some non-wizard's spell list is by definition, not a wizard spell.

When a cleric casts Plane-Shift, he's casting a divine version of plane-shift, and one given to him by his deity.

Now...getting snotty with "why can't you read?" replies overlooks the fact that what I just wrote it how the "yes" crowd is reading the rules. So there it is.

Jacob makes a fine argument, as PFS seems to be the watermark of the wider game.

I'm open to an FAQ ruling.

I am open to it and I can only see it from my point of view so to me it is obvious when I break it down logically but not everyone interpret things I do... This is why I want a FAQ ruling.

It is hard to understand it but I know 4 GMs backing her with 3-5 stars.... I just want the ruling so it can be settled.

Sorcerer/Wizard can cast the spell, so it's a sorcerer/wizard spell and thus not available for casting as a non-sorcerer/wizard spell even if a non-sorcerer/wizard could cast it.

I completely agree however I have a feeling without a the powers that be helping she will stick to her guns with her original ruling.

There was a thread a week ago about it where Other GMs enlisted themselves to defend her case.

I need a FAQ or it will common place if a limited wish is in a PFS game without direct instructions BOOM magic-bane bandersnatch

Hence the FAQ... When you can summon a CR 20 Creature with a Magic Bane template in a tier 7,8 game it should FAQ'd so it doesn't happen to other people the same way

This does need a FAQ my VL is currently saying that it is with in the rules to cast simulacrum off limited wish because it is on the summoner list as a lvl 5 spell.

Really the 12k was for the payment the scroll cost money too + channel the gift (used 21 charges) all the lesser restos for blood money short charge wands for the 2 improved familiars (about 3k in those) just that is

13k for scroll + payment for deva
4.7k 21 charges of a lvl 3 wand
3k in short charge wands
3k for planeshift and teleport scrolls

there is 23k of it... the rest are potions of long buffs that aren't level dependant (IE darkvision for those who are human or elf kind)

Our buffs filled a 5x7 note card.

I see your 6 years raise you three more. Your examples are really weak. You're saying it isn't incompetent/unskilled players but it then you tell me that you lost all your gear and money. That would mean you went into the scenario spending all your resources knowing you had a high chance to die (based off the warning you were given. Did you not have the PA or money to get ressed? If not then it sounds like, as you said, incompetence.

As for cheesyness I think there are enough threads without a response saying cheese isn't allowed to make it illegal. I really wish there would just be a ruling so as to resolve this before it strikes again.

At Undone - If it is legal I'd say we are lucky most people don't know about the combo. I've never heard of the monster before this thread.

No we lost all of our money and prestige recovering and you just like wow don't get through Hard Mode raids without Consumables. 25k were spent between 6 players for consumables for this adventure and then I spent my prestige rezzing another after. However, it was illegal by all accounts that I can see except for the most slanted arguments. Also the table consisted of 2 4 star GMs 3 two star GMs and a player with over 100 games to her name. we have played plenty of hard games including the original bonekeep to completion with 0 deaths no one affected by the bad thing and more then 50 mins left. It had nothing to do with skill level it had to do with a thing that should never have happened.

Again if this is the case since Limited wish is in the 7-8 as well then they should all die to what we faced because the tactics say the same thing. If you like you can visit our area and bring a team and I will run the same combat for you as they ran it. We lasted 15 rounds.