RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Thank you Ernest for helping to raise the level of the debate here.
I'm still not convinced that we can or should idiot-proof the rules so that neither DMs nor players can abuse them but can we get a summary of the various fixes that have been presented so far? I'd look but the level of snarkiness in this thread makes my aging back hurt.
I'll take pity on an aging man and summarize for you ;)
1)Nerf the efreeti wish granting ability.
2)Nerf the abilities of creatures summoned by Planar Binding spells
3)Its a feature, not a bug, leave it be.
You're as old as me ... and thanks.
Any others that our undead ally missed?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Its one thing for major villains to use evil powers to further their evil ends, but again, what price are the PCs willing to pay to traffick with evil. There is nothing wrong with asking that question. And the answer might not even affect the PCs directly. As I noted above, asking myself those questions made me think of scenarios in which the PCs cross paths with a wizard who made a few too many bad deals and is suffering because of it in one way or another.
Does anyone remember this one? I think it was from Dragon magazine. A DM was running a group of characters who were totally evil. They got to pretty high levels and were ruling their sick little world. (With, I imagine, loopholes and chainbound efreetis and pinching the bums of local wenches while invisible or what-have-you.) One day, without warning, the DM said "Okay, hand me your character sheets. Now, roll up some new level one characters. In our next campaign, you will strive to destroy these evil NPCs I have in my hands."
I don't see problem. I see an adventure.
Thank you Ernest for helping to raise the level of the debate here.
I'm still not convinced that we can or should idiot-proof the rules so that neither DMs nor players can abuse them but can we get a summary of the various fixes that have been presented so far? I'd look but the level of snarkiness in this thread makes my aging back hurt.
I think the more specific list is:
0. No fix needed. Proper DM adjudication fixes this.
or
There are in-game consequences for doing this beyond the spell description or monster stat block.
1. Reduce the power of the spell-like ability (turn it into a limited wish).
2. Make it so spell-like abilities require material components.
3. Give efreeti the evil subtype to make it less of an option for PCs.
4. Creatures summoned by planar binding don't get access to spells stronger than planar binding (at minimum).
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.
6. Modify the power of the efreeti's wish ability.
And I think that is it.
Edit: Now I really think this is it so far.
7. Restrict the ability of summoned creatures to use certain spell-like abilities (wish, miracle, etc.).
8. You must know the genie's name (or true name) to summon it.
9. A mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie for every 1-5/years.
---
I believe my preferred version of (2) (Not that I prefer 2 or that I think only one item from the list is necessary), in this case, would just mean that the efreeti would just be using the treasures from some hidden vault they have somewhere in the multiverse to feed their wish habit as opposed to them needing diamonds on hand.
|
I wanted to say that you have some wonderfully salient points Set. Unfortunately it looks like they may have gotten lost in the furor.
Getting some useful conversation in sideways is a bit of a challenge, yes. :)
Perhaps the real solution is looking at it from a creature design point of view. I guess my only worry would be this: PFRPG is supposed to preserve backwards compatibility. In your opinion, would changing creatures overly much hinder that? Or would maintaining thematic integrity help prevent this issue? Is it even that much of an issue?
I see backwards compatibility as being about 80% important in the case of player characters, and not so much monster abilities.
Given a choice between removing shapeshifting, summoning, calling, binding, diplomacy, charm/compulsion spells, the leadership feat and having GMs *required* to be adversarial and confrontational and try to twist wording and 'screw with' players *who just want to play the game as written,* and giving genies a power that lets them 'grant wishes' without actually casting the Wish spell, I'd rather change the Genie than make a dozen or more changes to classes, spells, feats and skills.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Thank you Ernest for helping to raise the level of the debate here.
I'm still not convinced that we can or should idiot-proof the rules so that neither DMs nor players can abuse them but can we get a summary of the various fixes that have been presented so far? I'd look but the level of snarkiness in this thread makes my aging back hurt.
I think the more specific list is:
0. No fix needed. Proper DM adjudication fixes this.
1. Reduce the power of the spell-like ability (turn it into a limited wish).
2. Make it so spell-like abilities require material components.
3. Give efreeti the evil subtype to make it less of an option for PCs.
4. Creatures summoned by planar binding don't get access to spells stronger than planar binding (at minimum).
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.
6. Modify the power of the efreeti's wish ability.And I think that is it.
7. Restrict the ability of summoned creatures to use certain spell-like abilities (wish, miracle, etc.).
8. You must know the genie's name (or true name) to summon it.
9. A mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie for every 1-5/years.
Thank you Zynete. For a short person, you're not all bad.
Which of these fixes interfere least with backwards compatibility?
Which of these fixes keep the possibilities for adventure open while reducing the possibilities of munchkinism?
Which don't seem like silly little bandages to squash munchkinism but feel ridiculous otherwise?
Thank you Ernest for helping to raise the level of the debate here.
0. No fix needed. Proper DM adjudication fixes this.
1. Reduce the power of the spell-like ability (turn it into a limited wish).
2. Make it so spell-like abilities require material components.
3. Give efreeti the evil subtype to make it less of an option for PCs.
4. Creatures summoned by planar binding don't get access to spells stronger than planar binding (at minimum).
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.
6. Modify the power of the efreeti's wish ability.
7. Restrict the ability of summoned creatures to use certain spell-like abilities (wish, miracle, etc.).
8. You must know the genie's name (or true name) to summon it.
9. A mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie for every 1-5/years.Which of these fixes interfere least with backwards compatibility?
Which of these fixes keep the possibilities for adventure open while reducing the possibilities of munchkinism?
Which don't seem like silly little bandages to squash munchkinism but feel ridiculous otherwise?
Thanks, I try :-)
Anyway, evaluating these options.
0. Valid, ideally with guidance to prevent player screwing campaign or DM screwing player.
1. Valid, although gets into the "why discriminate against one specific 9th level spell" issue.
2. Valid, although should be vetted for effects on lesser spells - most spells require material components, after all, and you don't want monsters having to somehow come up with money to use their innate abilities.
3. Doesn't help, see Malconvoker prestige class and there are other binds than the efreet. You can bind any outsider or elemental under the HD cap.
4. Semi valid, though I'd change it to no powers higher level than the caster can cast, not the level of PB (to avoid the goofy need for higher level PBs).
5. Not a bad idea but doesn't help this issue at all, again because there's many more binds that can cast Wish.
6. Doesn't help because again, this is not an efreet-specific problem.
7. Valid, especially since there's precedent (summons can't port or summon).
8. Lame and nerfs bind - do you need a truename to bind anything?
9. Again, not a bad change in general but doesn't help this specific problem because of other Wish-granting beings. If you mod this to apply to "all creatures that cast wish" maybe but it's then quite "obvious bandaidy".
Left off was:
10. Make Wish (and maybe Miracle) not just a simple spell, change its rules. Having it as "just another 9th level spell" was bad design from the get-go.
So only 0,1,2,4, 7, and 10 work. Of those 2 is pretty intrusive, 1 is slightly wonky. 0's fine but a bit of a punt. 4 and 7 are decent and 10's good but admittedly a change from 3.5. (I personally don't value the back compatibility of Pathfinder all that much and would prefer a "better 4.0", but YMMV.)
|
The following are my thoughts. I am not suggesting that they are the correct answer.
0 works well for my game, but obviously doesn’t fix the perceived problem (if 0 worked for everyone, we wouldn’t be having this discussion).
1 by itself messes with story issues too much for my liking. Genies (and other creatures that can grant wishes) should be able to grant wishes! Not half-assed versions. However, 1 and 5 in combination (less powerful creatures can grant limited wishes, more powerful grant wishes) could work.
2 I’m not a fan of. Spell like abilities should be different to spells. This change would have flow on effects (some perhaps desirable, some probably not) throughout the game.
3 could work for me, but probably requires at least some of 0 to work.
4 again messes with story issues. Bound genies should be able to grant wishes (for example). The rules should support the story when it comes to classic fantasy tropes, not the other way around.
5 has merit.
6 probably requires either pages of description or a little of rule 0 to work. OR a change to how wish works in general.
7 – see 4.
8 has some merit but is still open to abuse (if people want to abuse the rules as they now stand, they will abuse this too with almost equal ease). Probably still relies on 0 to make it work.
9 … I’m not sure about – what about the classic 3 wishes?
2. Valid, although should be vetted for effects on lesser spells - most spells require material components, after all, and you don't want monsters having to somehow come up with money to use their innate abilities.
Is it worthwhile to consider SLA's having a built-in Eshew Material Components feature, where the creature with the SLA can ignore material component cost, in gp, up to their HD?
List of monsters that can Wish - efreeti, noble djinn, solars, glabrezu (1/month only), pit fiend (1/year only). That's only the Monster Manual. Keep in mind there's up through MMV, two fiendish codexes, book of exalted deeds, and about 20 other WotC books with 3.5e monsters in them. Plus whatever third party stuff you're using. So I think giving up on the "fix the efreet" angle is best, cause you're going to have to seek out and fix many a monster.
9 … I’m not sure about – what about the classic 3 wishes?
I believe the intent of that suggestion was that you got your three wishes then were unable to tap that same genie for a period of time, not just one wish.
2. Valid, although should be vetted for effects on lesser spells - most spells require material components, after all, and you don't want monsters having to somehow come up with money to use their innate abilities.
Is it worthwhile to consider SLA's having a built-in Eshew Material Components feature, where the creature with the SLA can ignore material component cost, in gp, up to their HD?
Logically valid, but as a DM the thought of having to look up every SLA and figure that out's a pain... One of the reasons SLAs don't have the casting time and material component aspects of spells is to make them easier to run.
|
|
List of monsters that can Wish - efreeti, noble djinn, solars, glabrezu (1/month only), pit fiend (1/year only). That's only the Monster Manual. Keep in mind there's up through MMV, two fiendish codexes, book of exalted deeds, and about 20 other WotC books with 3.5e monsters in them. Plus whatever third party stuff you're using. So I think giving up on the "fix the efreet" angle is best, cause you're going to have to seek out and fix many a monster.
Good point.
Let me say thanks to you as well Ernest. You put the thread back on track and saved us from going down in flames. I, personally, appreciate you bringing me back to my senses.
|
|
List of monsters that can Wish - efreeti, noble djinn, solars, glabrezu (1/month only), pit fiend (1/year only). That's only the Monster Manual. Keep in mind there's up through MMV, two fiendish codexes, book of exalted deeds, and about 20 other WotC books with 3.5e monsters in them. Plus whatever third party stuff you're using. So I think giving up on the "fix the efreet" angle is best, cause you're going to have to seek out and fix many a monster.
Valid point.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
List of monsters that can Wish - efreeti, noble djinn, solars, glabrezu (1/month only), pit fiend (1/year only). That's only the Monster Manual. Keep in mind there's up through MMV, two fiendish codexes, book of exalted deeds, and about 20 other WotC books with 3.5e monsters in them. Plus whatever third party stuff you're using. So I think giving up on the "fix the efreet" angle is best, cause you're going to have to seek out and fix many a monster.
Efreeti -- text already quoted above says they will try to screw you for binding them;
Solars -- are usually attendants to deity; so, now, you've pissed off gods;Glabrezu -- only once per month and "demands terrible evil acts or great sacrifice in compensation";
Pit Fiend -- CR 20; the wish is only once per year;
Noble Djinn -- Only 1%, right? How many djinn are you going to piss off before you find that 1%?
For all of these so far, I'm seeing great fun here.
Just out of curiousity, who are the DMs whose players have been abusing this spell, and how has it hurt or enhanced your games?
Let me say thanks to you as well Ernest. You put the thread back on track and saved us from going down in flames. I, personally, appreciate you bringing me back to my senses.
Hugs to all! Although it takes two (or more, on the Internet) to argue and two (or more) to calm down and have a civil discussion, so props to everyone. Also, given the sudden silence I wonder if there's been some temp bans handed out; I doubt that even my vaunted powers of communication are solely responsible :-)
|
0 works well for my game, but obviously doesn’t fix the perceived problem (if 0 worked for everyone, we wouldn’t be having this discussion).
Ok. Let me ask a question. Has anyone in this thread actually had this happen in a game?
I've heard some say its a problem. But I haven't actually heard anyone bring forth an actual play experience where it was a problem in their game.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
0 works well for my game, but obviously doesn’t fix the perceived problem (if 0 worked for everyone, we wouldn’t be having this discussion).Ok. Let me ask a question. Has anyone in this thread actually had this happen in a game?
I've heard some say its a problem. But I haven't actually heard anyone bring forth an actual play experience where it was a problem in their game.
Hahah. I beat you by 1 minute. I think that should be the first question we ask next time ... This bloody thread has consumed a lot of energy.
|
|
0 works well for my game, but obviously doesn’t fix the perceived problem (if 0 worked for everyone, we wouldn’t be having this discussion).Ok. Let me ask a question. Has anyone in this thread actually had this happen in a game?
I've heard some say its a problem. But I haven't actually heard anyone bring forth an actual play experience where it was a problem in their game.
No, its never been a problem in my game.
But then, I’ve also never had a problem with characters stripping down ladders and selling ten foot poles, or players refusing to play fighters because wizards were better, or half the other things that apparently make 3.5 broken beyond all measure.
Given that, I’m not suggesting that obvious problems should not be fixed. I’m suggesting that we be level headed in our definition of ‘obvious problems’ and ‘broken’.
|
|
I think the more specific list is:0. No fix needed. Proper DM adjudication fixes this.
or
There are in-game consequences for doing this beyond the spell description or monster stat block.
1. Reduce the power of the spell-like ability (turn it into a limited wish).
2. Make it so spell-like abilities require material components.
3. Give efreeti the evil subtype to make it less of an option for PCs.
4. Creatures summoned by planar binding don't get access to spells stronger than planar binding (at minimum).
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.
6. Modify the power of the efreeti's wish ability.
7. Restrict the ability of summoned creatures to use certain spell-like abilities (wish, miracle, etc.).
8. You must know the genie's name (or true name) to summon it.
9. A mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie for every 1-5/years.
My thoughts:
1- I am neither opposed or supportive of this. Seems like a good idea that will, generally, preserve backward compatibility.
2- Not a big fan of this. That might just be 3e tradition talking. I would rather not require material components for spell-like abilities. I am doubly opposed to singling out spell-like abilities by some form of designation (level, type, etc.) and requiring components for those powers.
3- Not likely to stop the problem in the long run, especially since we are dealing with many more creatures than just the efreet.
4- Possible. I don't feel strongly either way.
5- Once again, this would only fix the efreet and not handle all the other creatures that can cast wish.
6- It would require a complete change to the wish ability across the board to cover all creatures with the spell-like ability. I would really approve of this change if the wish power was something special and the spells just went away.
7- Seems arbitrary but not impossible. There is precedent for it.
8- While I like this from a flavor perspective I do agree it does nothing to fix the issue. There are ways around this.
9- Once again, somewhat arbitrary. It feels like a band-aid.
So, if I had my druthers I would say change the way wish works. Remove the spells and make it something uber-special. If done correctly it could still preserve backwards compatibility. Or, if you would like, keep the spells and give the wish granting creatures a different suite of powers that can provide results more in line with the literary themes on which they are based.
Of course, I also agree with Set when he says the issue goes beyond just this. I think some creature powers require a good hard look. When it comes time to prepare creatures for the new MM, how these powers are implemented should be examined. It is easier, and less likely to destroy backwards compatibility, to address how these "problem" monsters function.
While this stuff doesn't show up in my games, it also doesn't harm me if they decide to fix the issue. Well, not yet, I suppose. In theory, a "fix" could go the wrong way and really screw things up. At the very least, it is interesting to entertain ideas and discuss them in a civil manner. Perhaps something in this thread will inspire Jason in some way.
0 works well for my game, but obviously doesn’t fix the perceived problem (if 0 worked for everyone, we wouldn’t be having this discussion).Ok. Let me ask a question. Has anyone in this thread actually had this happen in a game?
I've heard some say its a problem. But I haven't actually heard anyone bring forth an actual play experience where it was a problem in their game.
Yeah, that's why I'm reacting so strongly against the "ways to screw the players" posts - I haven't heard any real cases of this either.
Like I say, in my current campaign there's binds aplenty and frankly they're a lot less useful than you'd think. The saves and CHA checks make it hard to do and there's plenty of good role-playing issues with it short of "scorched earth Abyss war on you" - your party and the general populace tend to not like it. To have a well prepared circle you need to do the binds somewhere safe like a home base, and then they are very limited on time so you have to get where you're going and have adequate time on target. And by the time you can bind a given HD they aren't anywhere near the HD of what you're facing. 6 HD at level 9? You probably killed a 6 HD critter as a level 2 character. 12 HD at L11 and 18 HD at L15. Not all that impressive, and an enchanter can just charm/dominate one of the ones your party faces for the same result.
In RotR, my bar-lgura bind worked well, the nalfeshnee bind wasn't worthwhile, and the glabrezu bind has been middling. They even put in a circle in one of the APs that would let you do a GPB, and I used it, but I had to go fairly lowball to be able to make the opposed CHA without screwing up the roll and getting eaten.
Also keep in mind that binding can't be too screwy as there's a whole nation in Golarion that pretty much does a lot of it.
|
|
[threadjack]I have been wondering about the original thinking that went into pricing the 10' pole. I'm guessing the designers were thinking they were more than just a simple wooden stick. Anyone who has ever bought lumber knows that some wooden sticks are far more expensive than others. [/threadjack]
|
|
I think that should be the first question we ask next time ...
Yep.
Do people actually play that way or do they just post about the possibility of playing that way on certain, unnamed, boards? I'm genuinely curious.
I remember when I was nine or ten (or maybe even a little older) I would create characters for my own amusement that were often munchkinized beyond belief (I idolized the Cat Lord) but I never actually gamed that way.
|
|
Yeah, that's why I'm reacting so strongly against the "ways to screw the players" posts - I haven't heard any real cases of this either.
Hey, I resemble that remark!
No, seriously, though....it's a viable trope from fiction. It's Faust; it's Frankenstein to some extent--tragic hero meddles in things he doesn't understand and gets burned.
I admit I went over the top with it and all, but on the flipside, there's a price to pay when you mess with supernature. I just think if you end up with a few bargain basement wishes and a boot party from an efreeti hit squad, or 15 new tentacles on your.....nose, that's the cosmos saying, " I told you so. "
|
|
I think that should be the first question we ask next time ...Yep.
Do people actually play that way or do they just post about the possibility of playing that way on certain, unnamed, boards? I'm genuinely curious.
I remember when I was nine or ten (or maybe even a little older) I would create characters for my own amusement that were often munchkinized beyond belief (I idolized the Cat Lord) but I never actually gamed that way.
In 9th grade, I took and gave everybody a Knight of the Round Table from the 1e Deities and Demigods, with the game balancing credo that "nobody gets to be Merlin, King Arthur or Lancelot."
It...fizzled.|
|
No, seriously, though....it's a viable trope from fiction. It's Faust; it's Frankenstein to some extent--tragic hero meddles in things he doesn't understand and gets burned.
Yeah, which is one reason I think it should be left alone.
You shouldn't want to mess over your players [much ;)], but its nice to have the story-possibility there for whatever reason.
|
|
No, seriously, though....it's a viable trope from fiction. It's Faust; it's Frankenstein to some extent--tragic hero meddles in things he doesn't understand and gets burned.Yeah, which is one reason I think it should be left alone.
You shouldn't want to mess over your players [much ;)], but its nice to have the story-possibility there for whatever reason.
Yeah, I agree. I really am a big softy. Honestly, though, I've been tweaking about all these fire genasi-classed hitmen, and salamanders, and it's better than rolling a random monster. It makes it more personal, and builds tension.
I'd sweat them some though...and if there isn't a way out of it I can figure, they usually do. Not all the time, but usually.I mean if they pee on Mordenkainen's foot, they better come heavy, is all I'm saying.
Can we get a summary of the various fixes that have been presented so far?
I'll take pity on an aging man and summarize for you ;)1)Nerf the efreeti wish granting ability.
2)Nerf the abilities of creatures summoned by Planar Binding spells
3)Its a feature, not a bug, leave it be.
Err... my suggestions probably didn't have enough attitude, but here they are again:
4)Nerf Summon/Bind/etc to limit access to SLAs, like Shape Changes now limit forms' abilities
5)Nerf Wish itself, so that one entity cannot benefit from more than 3 wishes/year.
6)Make Efreeti's Wish Granting a global effect that each Efreet channels, so ALL (INFINITE) EFREET can grant 3 wishes to a mortal, not each and every Efreet being able to grant 3 wishes individually.
|
|
Err... my suggestions probably didn't have enough attitude, but here they are again:4)Nerf Summon/Bind/etc to limit access to SLAs, like Shape Changes now limit forms' abilities
5)Nerf Wish itself, so that one entity cannot benefit from more than 3 wishes/year.
6)Make Efreeti's Wish Granting a global effect that each Efreet channels, so ALL (INFINITE) EFREET can grant 3 wishes to a mortal, not each and every Efreet being able to grant 3 wishes individually.
(I think your ideas got picked up in the expanded list over the page)
Thank you Zynete. For a short person, you're not all bad.
No, problem. :)
0. No fix needed. Proper DM adjudication fixes this.
0. I feel that this is good as a last ditch effort, but I would rather see if there was some simple alternative that has a overall positive effect. If other methods ultimately prove unfeasible, I might say some additional comment could be added to wish creatures and/or calling spells to explain why they don't give away wishs to everyone they like. But I feel this is at it's heart a last ditch failsafe that relies on good DM adjudication. I would like it not to be the first and only line of defense against silly PC tricks.
(Note: I'm less worried about the infinite wish machine because that is pretty easy to see it be overpowered. I would be more concerned about things that might be a bit over the normal power level. Those are the things that I feel are harder to find and decide on as a DM.)
1. Reduce the power of the spell-like ability (turn it into a limited wish).
1. It might be a good idea to make it so the 10 HD, CR 8 creature throws around limited wish rather than wish. However, there are other creatures that grant wish and this by itself doesn't answer that problem. This also might have ramifications in adventures that assume that they can grant full wishes, but I'm not sure that it would be that noticable and I think any descrepiencies can be explained by using 0 in a different way (these are special genie, they had special components to give the full powered wish, those of royal blood get better wishs etc.).
2. Make it so spell-like abilities require material components.
2. This might be a good idea to reattach the material components that limited players from throwing around wish on a daily basis. Even if the diamonds are taken from their master's celestial halls or their own hidden vaults as opposed to being expended straight from their hands and it might have no visable effect on the game, it does mean the wish granting creatures might have a very good reason not to wish their problems away.
The problem here is that there might be monsters here and there that were using other material component type spells (like stoneskin) and that they were created having no good reason to have hidden reserves of treasure.
3. Give efreeti the evil subtype to make it less of an option for PCs.
3. This only affects clerics without access to evil spells. The people who might try to sneak something like this by would probably just ignore this change.
4. Creatures summoned by planar binding don't get access to spells stronger than planar binding (at minimum).
4. I think it is a bad idea if a single spell can result in getting access to a significantly more powerful spell. This would affect any adventure that assumed the party could summon a creature capable of casting a more powerful spell, but I think that would be pretty poor adventure design. If something summons a creature with more powerful spells, I might suggest that it might be a more powerful spell with higher material costs might have summoned the creature instead.
I like someone else's suggestion that it might be limited to the highest spell the summoner can cast instead.
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.
5. Reasonable idea to fix efreeti with planar binding, but it does affect any adventure that assumed that the standard efreeti could cast wish. I think the solutions to the problem are similar to what I said in 1. There probably other areas that this by itself doesn't solve.
6. Modify the power of the efreeti's wish ability.
6. I think that my answers to 1 and 5 also cover this.
7. Restrict the ability of summoned creatures to use certain spell-like abilities (wish, miracle, etc.).
7. I think that my answers to 1 and 5 also cover the beginning of this, only applied to all summoned monsters. It doesn't handle non-summoned creatures willing to give wishs for cheap prices (or free) for various reasons. It also is a little too patch like for my tastes, if another problem spell appears then the spell needs to be errata'ed to fix it again this way.
8. You must know the genie's name (or true name) to summon it.
8. Interesting idea for summoning a specific genie, but it restricts the average player from any summoning and it is a mere inconvinance rather than an effective barrier to anyone who is very devoted to trying to get free wishes (or a least cheap ones).
9. A mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie for every 1-5/years.
9. I might suggest that getting three wishes from a 6th level spell might still be a bit excessive. Still any one incredibly devoted to making this work will still find some way to get a new genie.
I believe my favorite combination of items would be both 2, 4 (with the modifications that I prefer), then either 1, 5, 6 added, then some 0 spinkled on top to fill any little gaps that remain.
Whew...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I'm sympathetic to the view that there should be solidly designed rules that work in all situations and that DMs and players should not need to resort to house rules, but I finally realized an analogy that seems to fit these particular arguments.
Stat rolls.
So, there you are with your first level character, and a slew of mediocre scores. What's a body to do?
Kill yourself and roll a new character.
Rinse and repeat, each time having the new character arrive to take the old character's gear.
Not only will you eventually end up with all 18s, but also infinite cash. Once you have that cash, you can pay for someone to cast gate on your behalf, summon your infinite efreet, get infinite wishes, and rule the multiverse. And all at 1st level!
Not only that, it's a good strategy to kill your character at higher levels too. Replacement characters get to choose their gear rather than find it randomly in the dungeon - and that gives them a leg up.
If your character ever suffers permanent stat damage or level loss, you should kill him.
Now, obviously, most games do not encounter this problem, even if it exists in the RAW, because this level of abuse is disruptive of and destructive to the game. The same is true of the efreet. You effectively end the game the moment you play that particular trick (unless you enjoy a very high powered epic game, in which case, if everyone's having fun, who cares). So, while I am sympathetic to having the rules work correctly, I'm unimpressed by the girlish shrieks of "OMG! This is teh broken and needs to be fixed or the game will be ruined."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Ok, there's a lot (3 pages) of posts since I last read this thread.
(1) I remember something about OP assumptions being challenged, but now I can't find it again (and I just read it like 20 minutes ago). I would be happy to quote the rules in support of every point I make, including the elemental plane of fire being infinite
Ok, I'll just highlight your own assumptions in italics.
(Infinite Plane of Fire: hint, its (1) logically necessary given the infinite number of primes - otherwise no summoning would ever work because there'd be more summoners at any given moment than creatures to summon, and (2) I believe its explicitly stated in the Manual of the Planes. It may be in the DMG - i'll have to check).
An infinite number of primes is quite an assumption, and not really supported by anything. Yet even if there was an infinite number of primes, there need not be an infinite number of them even supporting any kind of intelligent life - or there might be multiple multiverses entirely. You really assume one particular view here.
Even if there was an infinite elemental plane of fire, there need not be an infinite number of Efreet - why should there? Because some summoning might fail? Well... Infinity is tricky that way - as long as only a finite number of them are summoned at the same time, there is no problem.
Manual of the Planes is WotC only, by the way.
Other than that, everything else is explicitly from Pathfinder material. I can cite rules to back up any statement you'd like. Tell me the statement, I'll cite the rule.
(2) "Don't fix it, I don't have a problem with it."
See, I have a real problem with DMs banning things on the spot. Its ok if the DM comes in with a couple pages of houserules - the players are aware of that ahead of time. Its ok if the rules are unclear - the players didn't know what to expect anyway. But the players are entitled to expect the rules to be followed. Its bad DMing to ban-hammer anything you don't happen to like as it occurs, it destroys a players ability to make informed choices (because it may or may not work like the rules say it does when he tries to do it), and thus the player can't really play the game or contribute to telling the story. Only the DM gets to actually play. The degree to which this is true depends on how ban-happy the DM is, but its a terrible mentality to encourage.
Ok, huge assumption here: Assumption GM and players are robots, and have a worldview right out of a few Chick Tracts i could look up. Just because the rules can not cover every inch of the world (how could they? Simple information theory tells you they will fall flat) you assume what they do cover must be explicitly possible, no matter how contradictory to common sense? Yeah, right. The rules are first approximations, and when you see they fail to make sense, you do not apply them to that particular case. Really not a huge issue - see the infinite speed by grappling peasants exploit. You do not want that to be explicitly addressed as well?
In general, you assume that just because the GM does not allow a rule that is stretched beyond its applicability to run rampant, she is somehow taking away from your ability to express your character as part of a fantasy epic. Well, maybe i never really got the genre, but even the worst munchkin novel characters rarely try to chain-summon Efreet for their Wish spells. These are artifacts of representation, and therefore should be disregarded. Trying to fix them may be worthwhile - but added complexity can easily more than offset any gain. Usually, fixing "Cornercase 173219" by making three core rules more complex is just not worth it.
Roleplaying is even more a collaborative effort than theater, and guess what - even in theater, if you just "follow the script", but become destructive to the production, you will receive the boot.
Further, the game exists independent of anybodies individual game/experience. Certain things are proveably true in it. This is one of them. Just because it doesn't come up in some games is anecdotal - it is still a possibility of the system and it is still broken. Ignoring it does not make it go away. Anecdotal evidence of absence is useless. It doesn't prove anything. Now, if someone has players who do this and it doesn't wreck their game, that would be useful data. I've never heard from any such DM or player except people playing Races of War + other Tomes games (where its a basic balance assumption that everyone will have +5 inherent to all attributes as soon as the ability to bind or gate in extraplanar beings with wishes becomes available - clearly not true for 3.P).
I know some philosophers who'd love to see you try and prove the first point i marked. You last point is... err... coming from where exactly? Top-Secret WotC design guidelines? Or maybe some boards concerned with "ideal characters"?
Sorry to go into full-blown satire for a moment, but it just fits the second section best:
I'd recommend you have your favorite body parts removed. Just because you have no indication they are cancerous, evidence of absence is useless. It doesn't prove anything. If not removing them helps cancer patients, that would prove something, but as is...
...
While I'd love to continue doing this, I've actually got things to do. Maybe another time.
Closing thought / Argument: Close one Loophole with a special rule: Congratulations, you've made the rulebook scale up linearly with the number of rules in existence. Close one Loophole with a change to a general rule: Open up dozens of new ones. Only when you have a work of rules as complex as the simulated object can you even begin to expect consistency. How complex is the real world? Way too complex for us to really describe past first order approximations. Now add magic and a multiverse.
Have fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Ok, since the quoting is all shot in the latest post, my response to your post in flowing text:
First off: Infinity. There are infinitely many natural numbers. Of these, there are infinitely many prime numbers. Also, there are infinitely many even numbers. There is a decidedly finite amount of even prime numbers. :)
Secondly, Paizo can only use, and hence, uphold, the parts of D&D that wizards released as the late-born OGL content. Hence, no manual of the planes material, no matter the edition. If you look at the most relevant cosmology (Golarions), there is IIRC not even any mention of alternative prime material planes.
Thirdly, as several previous posters pointed out, just because some Effreeti might stoop so low as to become a wish-monger for mere mortals, i really doubt most of them would do so. If anything, these beings have egos that would put titans to shame. Those who are going to be as degenerate probably wouldn't need Planar Binding, anyway... they'd start wandering the planes, selling wishes. Style? None. Flavor? None. Relevance? I'm tempted to say none here too, but the idea of an Effrit going along whoring himself to potential customers might even have some story potential.
Common Sense is hard to really figure out. Is it common sense that drives the world? It might be common sense to not nuke ourselves out of the world, but we have been on the brink of doing that at least once. Personal honor, codes of conduct and higher principles (not to mention simple ego) often stand in the way of common sense - oh, and ask a democrat and a republican about some issues, and both will call "common sense" on very different standpoints.
Every rule is a guideline in D&D. Every one. Mechanical application will never really bring forth a flawless whole. That doesn't mean that the rules can not be improved - but such improvements should always target the common case, the big issues. Not the "quaint but never really relevant" result in some dark corner. I accept the peasant loop because fixing it would require a lot of extra wording. Likewise i accept the Genie issue because... well... to look at your knife analogy: As long as knifes are usually used for cutting, rather than massacring yourself, I am not in favor of hyper-technical knifes that check DNA before they cut into meat. If you are clumsy, stay away from sharp knifes. If someone (ab)uses the spell rules, don't let him play a caster.
Okay, stop the bullsh*t with the "infinite number of efreeti" debate. It's not important. Even if there were only 100 efreeti, that's 200 (or 300) free wishes, which are more than enough to break the game.
As far as the efreeti "wish whoring" goes:
"Listen up, efreet. You're here and you're trapped right now. I want to make you a nice deal, see? So here's what we're going to do--you're going to grant me some wishes, and I'll give you one of them back. Sounds good, yes? I'm going to get some good stuff, and you're going to get some good stuff. So why don't you tell me what you want. We can get this done quickly, and then the two of us will be the better."
Per the SRD on LPB:
Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to
Costs summoned creature xp = unreasonable = not broken.
Have we met the DM whose players get away with this crap yet?
You're missing the point. Everyone is in agreement. No one really wants to allow Planar Binding to allow the caster to get free wishes.
The two camps are:
- A CR 8, 10 HD creature shouldn't have a level 9 spell-like ability usable 3 times/day.
- I don't care, because I'm the DM and what I say, goes.
I really don't know what people are arguing about.
Per the SRD on LPB:
Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to
Costs summoned creature xp = unreasonable = not broken.
That's the house rule in my campaign.
|
|
I put this in another thread but feel its probably relevent here since so much rant has been thrown into the mix.
There's a section right at the beginning of the dungeon masters guide that says "The DM defines the game". Page 4 - the dungeon master
Also on page 4 - Final note
It states "The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the game - the rules , the setting, the action and ultimately the fun. This is a great deal of power and you must use it wisely ."
Note the emphasis is mine.
The rules say the DM can arbitrate to makea game fun.
The rules say you must use them wisely.
I suggest a whole bunch of posters who keep telling people how to change the rules need to think a hell of a lot more about the using them wisely bit. After all, its in the rules.
I suggest a whole bunch of posters who keep telling people how to change the rules need to think a hell of a lot more about the using them wisely bit. After all, its in the rules.
So are you suggesting that Pathfinder shouldn't make any changes at all to the 3.5 rules? If not, why would a change to efreeti wishes (or shadow spawn or whatever) be any more objectionable than any other change?