RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Have we met the DM whose players get away with this crap yet?You're missing the point.
I'd like to also point out that the Planar Ally and Planar Binding spells are unchanged from the SRD. Thus, wizards are still chain-binding efreeti for free wishes.
I'm just asking who these wizards are.
Yes, we do all agree that if a loophole can be elegantly fixed it should be. We managed to pull a number of useful perspectives out of the meandering debate after Psychic_Robot went to bed. Thank goodness it was a school night.
I'd like to also point out that the Planar Ally and Planar Binding spells are unchanged from the SRD. Thus, wizards are still chain-binding efreeti for free wishes.I'm just asking who these wizards are.
I'm pretty sure he's talking about a hypothetical wizard.
But as I pointed out before, in a higher level game (level 13ish), I had a character try to use a scroll of Gate to summon a solar. I thought it would be acceptable (we were stuck fighting a group of creatures way more powerful than us), but the DM flat out refused (as was his right). So I can state from experience that "use" and "abuse" of Conjuration (Calling) spells isn't clear cut.
|
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?
This was discussed above. Changing the Efreetis abilities changes the possibility of certain stories being told.
IMO, The rule needs to be genuinely shown to be broken before it is changed.
Vorpal Swords in the hands of 1st level characters are unbalancing. There are no rules in place to prevent this. This does not mean though that there is anything inherently wrong with Vorpal Swords because there is nothing in the rules that requires DMs to give them to 1st level characters.
Likewise, Efreeti granting an infinite number of wishes to PCs is unbalancing to the game. There are currently no rules in place to prevent this. This does not mean though that there is anything inherently wrong with Efreeti wishes (or demon/devil/whathaveyou wishes) because there is nothing in the rules that requires DMs to grant a players every wish. In point of fact, the rules explicitly state that Planar Binding will not force a creature to do anything the DM thinks is unreasonable. Therefore, what is reasonable or unreasonable is completely in the hands of the DM and Players at each particular table. Someone might think an automatic +5 to all abilities is reasonable once a PC hits level 13. Personally, I don't. But thats alright because the rules don't, despite arguments to the contrary, mandate such behavior.
This was discussed above. Changing the Efreetis abilities changes the possibility of certain stories being told.
Changing the spell Web prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing the spell Glitterdust prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing the druid's Wild Shape ability prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing [insert Pathfinder change here] prevents certain stories from being told.
|
|
But as I pointed out before, in a higher level game (level 13ish), I had a character try to use a scroll of Gate to summon a solar. I thought it would be acceptable (we were stuck fighting a group of creatures way more powerful than us), but the DM flat out refused (as was his right). So I can state from experience that "use" and "abuse" of Conjuration (Calling) spells isn't clear cut.
May I say that I appreciate you sharing your story because it is, far from being a hypothetical, a real issue that came up in a real game and therefore can be dealt with far more objectively.
Per the spell however(reading from the Beta supplement), (and kudos on a 13th level wizard using a 9th level scroll), you can summon any sort of creature you want, but you can only bind a being with less HD than your caster level. As Solar's have 22 HD, it was well within your DMs rights to have the Solar appear, scowl unhappily and tell you that "Mortals must fight their own battles," before dissapearing. Again, this is not unclear in the rules or a problem. Its left up to the DM. The situation is addressed in the wording of the spell itself.
|
|
This was discussed above. Changing the Efreetis abilities changes the possibility of certain stories being told.Changing the spell Web prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing the spell Glitterdust prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing the druid's Wild Shape ability prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing [insert Pathfinder change here] prevents certain stories from being told.
Well sure it does.
Which is why any such changes should be considered carefully. The reward for making the change has to, IMO, outweigh the sacrifice to Traditional tropes and the heritage of the game.
|
This was discussed above. Changing the Efreetis abilities changes the possibility of certain stories being told.Changing the spell Web prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing the spell Glitterdust prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing the druid's Wild Shape ability prevents certain stories from being told.
Changing [insert Pathfinder change here] prevents certain stories from being told.
Flawed comparisons.
He didn't say; "Changing the way Wish works..."
In certain circumstances Efreeti grant wishes
Stopping spiders from making webs prevents certain stories from being told.
Stopping druids from being able to wild-shape prevents certain stories from being told
etc.
|
|
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."
Can you stop the bovine excrement as well? You are WRONG. It is an assumption/interpretation that the Efreet can benefit from one of its own wishes used by proxy for itself. It may be a logical one, but it is an assumption none the less.
It is an assumption that an offer of a wish used for the Efreet would appeal to it when it hates mortals and is humiliated by a binding (RAW).
It is Squierly's assumption that the Efreet cannot find the summoner. It is also his assumption that there are an infinite number of primes, and an infinite number of Efreets and an infinite number of Cities of Brass. None of these are RAW. Thus the whole argument collapses like a house of cards. I'd try to use smaller words to explain this so you don't get confused, but I think it probably won't help.
to recap: YES, wish SLA presents some challenges since the only RAW limits on it are fluff based. This probably needs to be addressed.
Everything else you & your rodent friend have posted is basically assumptions without a basis in the RAW. cut the crap, man!
Ah, it's good to see that since I went to bed another whole page of posts has appeared, none of which contribute anything to the actual point of the thread and are all more about posturing.
Perhaps the ongoing war on "whether rules should be fixed or the DM should fiat" could be tamped back in the the ghetto of the thread designed for that. Frankly it appears most of the people posting opinions on that are doing it just to argue and not out of any constructive impulse.
Anyway, the revenge aspect of PB should not be overlooked but also not overblown. Note that many other binds can grant wishes not just efreet, so all the efreet-specific speculation isn't that useful. Sure, if someone is chain-binding wishes you may want to watch the movie "Wishmaster" and have a whole adventure to get back at them, but other than that, calm down. Just up and killing the bound monster isn't all that hard, ("You're bound till you grant me a wish, then stay here for another... 3 rounds." "Okay." "Wish, cone of cold cone of cold cone of cold." "Aieee!") and you'll just force players into more and more devious endgames, which aren't that fun for you, them, or the other players.
|
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.
Which kinda screws anyone new to the game who hasn't read this thread and doesn't know that there is an unofficial deinition of 'Wish' as 'screw the player if he ever wishes for anything.' Since I game with my friends, the notion of deliberately twisting wording or adversarially 'screwing over' my players doesn't really sit well with me.
I'd rather that the game not *encourage me* to promote hard feelings with my friends by saying that they can kick the football, but then encouraging me to snatch the football away when they run at it.
*Can I* twist the wording of a player Wish to 'discourage' them from ever gaming with my jerkwad self again (and possibly punch me in the head for being a dick and turning a collaborative game into 'me vs. them')? Can I punish my friends for having the impudence to read the rules of the game and foolishly attempt to apply them as written? Yeah. But I don't want to play that game. I want to play a game where we are working together, and ill-conceived rules aren't serving to set us at odds.
I've played with GMs who think it's 'fun' to screw with the players, who consider it a game to play 'gotcha' and nail somebody's character. I don't consider that sort of thing fun, either as a player or as a GM. I want us all to have a good time, and not go home annoyed at each other.
1. Reduce the power of the spell-like ability (turn it into a limited wish).
A definite possibility. I'd consider using Major Creation and / or Polymorph Any Object as guidelines for what a genie can 'create.'
2. Make it so spell-like abilities require material components.
This will affect hundreds of creatures, most of whom didn't luck out and get 'free Wishes' as an SLA. I'm not sure if targetting a few specific bugs is worth such a heavily laden cropduster full of insecticide...
3. Give efreeti the evil subtype to make it less of an option for PCs.
Which won't stop evil PCs or neutral PCs. Or NPCs. Or Genies from granting wishes to their pet kobolds, whom they've intimidated into reading exactly what is written on the page they give them (and, if they get it wrong, they just don't grant the misworded Wish and messily kill the Kobold as an example to the other Kobold 'readers').
If there's gonna be a barn door, it has to stop *all* of the horses from getting out. Not just the Paladin's LG warhorse, which probably would have behaved itself anyway and least needed to be locked up...
4. Creatures summoned by planar binding don't get access to spells stronger than planar binding (at minimum).
That's an option. But then there's Gate and the Candle of Invocation. The problem is merely put off, not actually resolved.
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.
Same deal, puts off the problem, but doesn't remove it. The Wish-granting isn't just a mechanical problem if PCs get ahold of it, it's a thematic problem if there are cities (of brass) full of genies that can cast the Wish spell 3/day with no cost to themselves. Even if only the bestest of the best genies have this power, it's a loopy bendy thing that should not be, IMO.
6. Modify the power of the efreeti's wish ability.
Same as 1, really, and my preferred choice.
7. Restrict the ability of summoned creatures to use certain spell-like abilities (wish, miracle, etc.).
Stopping a Summoned creature from doing something is a patch, but will need a ton of other patches, to extend to Called creatures, to Charmed creatures, to Dominated creatures, to creatures that are PCs, to creatures that PCs have turned into (and somehow gained the Supernatural abilities of), to creatures that are Cohorts, to creatures that have massively fallen for a Diplomacy 50 check and think the mortal is their best bud, to creatures that are selfish, evil and obsessed with personal power and decide to 'grant Wishes' to further their own power, to creatures that are lawful and organized and start granting wishes to empower their allies, cohorts and followers, etc, etc.
It's kinda of Pandora-esque, this box. It's already open, and all sorts of craziness comes out. Pushing one specific thing, summoned / called Efreeti, back in, doesn't do anything about all the other options flying around.
IMO, we need to close the box and allow genies to 'grant wishes' that aren't capital 'w' Wish spells.
8. You must know the genie's name (or true name) to summon it.
Unlike the barn door in the above metaphor, this is more of a line of police tape that *any* horse can push it's way through.
9. A mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie for every 1-5/years.
Yet another stop-gap, but not a curative. I don't want the elf or the lich-king or the Ruler of the City of Brass to have had *thousands* of Wishes cast on their behalf over the last couple centuries through binding / negotiating with / charming / compelling / etc. genie-kind.
I want genies to be reknowned for their 'genie-craft,' rumored to make silk as strong as steel, and steel as light as silk, water that tastes like sweet nectar and wine that brings visions of paradise, not 'those dudes I summon to get a +1 inherent bonus to Intelligence.'
A crapload of Craft skills and some (lasting) Major Creation and Permanent Illusion-type powers, and genies could be very much like those of lore, and less the pez-dispensers that they've become in D&D.
Zynete wrote:
5. Limit wish casting to efreeti with a high number of hit dice.Same deal, puts off the problem, but doesn't remove it. The Wish-granting isn't just a mechanical problem if PCs get ahold of it, it's a thematic problem if there are cities (of brass) full of genies that can cast the Wish spell 3/day with no cost to themselves. Even if only the bestest of the best genies have this power, it's a loopy bendy thing that should not be, IMO.
Huh? Are you saying that it's inappropriate for a CR 20 super-efreet to be able to use a level 9 spell-like ability? I would say it's perfectly appropriate.
|
|
Perhaps the ongoing war on "whether rules should be fixed or the DM should fiat" could be tamped back in the the ghetto of the thread designed for that. Frankly it appears most of the people posting opinions on that are doing it just to argue and not out of any constructive impulse.
Is there a war about whether rules should be fixed. :)
I thought the arguement was over whether the rule was actually broken?
|
|
Huh? Are you saying that it's inappropriate for a CR 20 super-efreet to be able to use a level 9 spell-like ability? I would say it's perfectly appropriate.
If it's a problem, it's a problem, no matter how high the bar is set.
I'd rather put the bar out of reach. If the Sultan of all Efreeti can grant actual Wish spells, sure, and as a unique being, he's not going to be Called up anytime soon, any more than Asmodeus is.
|
|
Which kinda screws anyone new to the game who hasn't read this thread and doesn't know that there is an unofficial deinition of 'Wish' as 'screw the player if he ever wishes for anything.'
I don't think anyone actually said this.
Wishes should be an integral possibility in the game.
Its a lot of fun for players to be able to achieve wishes.
But it should also have dangers inherent in the process, IMO, which the current rules allow for.
|
Limiting how often you can benefit from a Summoned Genie / whatever is not so much of a problem as you may think. After all, what prevents your Lich-King / whatever from using so many of his own wishes? I mean, they do get in the other of magnitude of 5/day anyway...
Trying to balance what a NPC does in a game is not the point of rules. An I dare say that I would fight against trying to balance the rules for characters that are not player characters.
What happens "off screen" is not what the rules are about. It's what happens "on screen" with the characters. Yes there needs to be ballance when the characters are involved. But I really don't want to have my hands tied when creating NPCs. All I want to to be sure that the NPC is ballanced for the encounter.
In this situation I believe were heading into a gamist/simulationist disagreement.
Huh? Are you saying that it's inappropriate for a CR 20 super-efreet to be able to use a level 9 spell-like ability? I would say it's perfectly appropriate.If it's a problem, it's a problem, no matter how high the bar is set.
I disagree. I think it's a problem of a creature having a SLA that's too powerful for its CR/HD. High-powered creatures are certainly entitled to high-powered abilities, and Wish (especially the Pathfinder version of Wish that can't create wealth, for example) is just another high-level spell.
|
|
If it's a problem, it's a problem, no matter how high the bar is set.I disagree. I think it's a problem of a creature having a SLA that's too powerful for its CR/HD. High-powered creatures are certainly entitled to high-powered abilities, and Wish (especially the Pathfinder version of Wish that can't create wealth, for example) is just another high-level spell.
In the case of the Pathfinder Wish, it's even *less* appropriate for genies, in that case, as they *did* create wealth. That's the iconic 'wish,' actually, for a fortune in gold!
Yet another rationale to support instead some sort of 'Improved Major Creation' or something for Genies, instead of the Wish spell.
|
|
In the case of the Pathfinder Wish, it's even *less* appropriate for genies, in that case, as they *did* create wealth. That's the iconic 'wish,' actually, for a fortune in gold!
Yet another rationale to support instead some sort of 'Improved Major Creation' or something for Genies, instead of the Wish spell.
I think the Genies could certainly stand some alterations, including the changing their abilities based on their rank as genies (i.e. HD and CR) but this does ignore the fact that, as stated above, Efreets are not the only wish granters able to be summoned with the Planar Binding spell.
In the case of the Pathfinder Wish, it's even *less* appropriate for genies, in that case, as they *did* create wealth. That's the iconic 'wish,' actually, for a fortune in gold!
Sure, but the "wish for anything" Wish would probably be an epic spell in D&D terms.
I seem to recall an old Dragon magazine article on all different kinds of wishes that was quite interesting.
Yet another rationale to support instead some sort of 'Improved Major Creation' or something for Genies, instead of the Wish spell.
Certainly you could use a Wish spell to emulate Polymorph Any Object, Wall of Stone/Iron, Major Creation, etc. (but not True Creation).
If a rules isn't fulfilling its purpose, it should be fixed; we're agreed on that. If a set of rules can be abused outside of its purpose, then that's not so much a problem with the rules.
The problem is that one person's "use" is another person's "abuse". For instance, a player might think it's reasonable to summon an efreet once for some cheap Wishes if it's an emergency, but the DM might think that it's never reasonable, even if he's indicated that "anything Core is fine".
I had this happen in a game once. Our party was infiltrating a fire giant fortress (and doing a fairly poor job at being sneaky) when we were attacked by half-fiend fire giant swordsages. We were routed pretty badly and suffered a few casualties, so we took the opportunity to prepare for a second assault. One of the things my character bought was a scroll of Gate; the DM didn't have any problem with that at the time. But when we returned to the fortress and I tried to use it to summon a solar to help us, he basically said "uh-uh, no way, that's not possible".
I don't have any problem with that, of course, but it sort of throws the idea of "everything Core is balanced and acceptable" out the window.
And that is why the word "no" works so well. Yes its in the rules but as a DM I can certianly say no, thats no fun for me otr the other people in the group. Good for the people that say no!
Ignatz
I don;t think that the SLA or Wish or the such should be changed.
Besides what happened to harsh twists on people asking for Wishes and then having them turned around on them.
"I want to be stronger" Poof they are strnger but slower, or even better a Statue heck a statue can hold up a lot of weight!
If people want to draft a 4 page document that details thier Wish then respond in kind with a trick. Or better yet have them make a Profession: Lawyer roll.
Bah! DMs take back your games!! :)
Becuase this is a long thread I keep finding other things. A few people ave said that srewing players isn't cool and that it would come off as a dick move. Players rules lawyering to min/max Wish comes right in line with that and is worse. Hell DMs are the ones running for the players.
Ignatz
((yes take this with the smile it was written with.))
|
|
I don;t think that the SLA or Wish or the such should be changed.
Besides what happened to harsh twists on people asking for Wishes and then having them turned around on them.
"I want to be stronger" Poof they are strnger but slower, or even better a Statue heck a statue can hold up a lot of weight!
That has been discussed (albeit with little agreement) somewhat extensively earlier on in the thread.
That has been discussed (albeit with little agreement) somewhat extensively earlier on in the thread.I don;t think that the SLA or Wish or the such should be changed.
Besides what happened to harsh twists on people asking for Wishes and then having them turned around on them.
"I want to be stronger" Poof they are strnger but slower, or even better a Statue heck a statue can hold up a lot of weight!
Damn! I knew it probably had, welp I suppose chuck up another one for that option. Sorry if my stuff repeats. Just got back in to looking through stuff again!
Thanks Bagpuss I'll rescan again!
Ignatz
Also, if you cast Charm Monster on him and he fails his save (and he does), he doesn't even know he was charmed. Even afterwards. And if you can make a *DC 6 diplomacy check* he's your friend for real (and if you make 10 he becomes helpful for real). (Change reaction from friendly to friendly or friendly to helpful), except the new reaction is non-magical). Now, sure, this can create some ongoing obligation, but he's your buddy, and you might just want to summon him over and over again.
Minor threadjack, but is this actually valid? I would never allow this in my game. If you've already charmed someone with magic, you don't get a chance to do it again with your honeyed tongue, and it certainly wouldn't persist after your 1 hour/level charm expires. Beta rules say an attitude change due to diplomacy generally lasts 1d4 hours, with a proviso that the DM can make it much shorter or longer based on circumstances.
Why not let genies grant limited wishes instead? They still are wishes. They are still quite powerful. Limited Wish is much clearer in what it can and can't do, so it's easier for GMs to adjudicate. And it removes the chain-binding nonsense from the game.That said... the concept of genies granting wishes is awesome and classic and needs to stay in the game.
Tis a conundrum.
This would be my suggestion, as well. Also, limited wish is more level appropriate for "standard" genies' CR.
"Ruler" genies who can grant a full wish can also exist, but if they can only be summoned using a gate spell, then that keeps it reasonable.
|
|
Also, if you cast Charm Monster on him and he fails his save (and he does), he doesn't even know he was charmed. Even afterwards. And if you can make a *DC 6 diplomacy check* he's your friend for real (and if you make 10 he becomes helpful for real). (Change reaction from friendly to friendly or friendly to helpful), except the new reaction is non-magical). Now, sure, this can create some ongoing obligation, but he's your buddy, and you might just want to summon him over and over again.Minor threadjack, but is this actually valid? I would never allow this in my game. If you've already charmed someone with magic, you don't get a chance to do it again with your honeyed tongue, and it certainly wouldn't persist after your 1 hour/level charm expires. Beta rules say an attitude change due to diplomacy generally lasts 1d4 hours, with a proviso that the DM can make it much shorter or longer based on circumstances.
I think there are ways to cast charm so that the creature doesn't know it has been charmed, but if you stand there and cast the spell and it watches you - the charm might take, but the creature doesn't have to be an idiot afterwards.
And no matter how honeyed your tongue, afterwards, your diplomacy is going to hit a brick wall. A DM is never under obligation to allow diplomacy in a situation where the 'victim' would not reasonably allow it.
I almost hesitate to ask, but I see Gate mentioned elsewhere as a problem spell. In what way is Gate supposed to break the game?
You can summon and control a creature with HD = twice your caster level. That includes many powerful creatures with powerful abilities. For instance, solars can be summoned and possibly made to use various powerful spells and abilities on your behalf (Wish, Miracle, etc. Or a titan could be gated in, who gates in another titan, who gates in another titan, etc.
Again, you have the issue of "What? You dare summon me? I'll get revenge, etc."
|
|
The Planar Binding/Gate connundrum is a very difficult one. I think there needs to be a spell tree in place that lets casters summon powerful extra planar beings and then bargain with them for services. With Gate, the problem is that if a single creature is called and has HD less than or equal to twice the caster's level then the caster automatically controls the actions of the called creature so long as they don't take more than 1 round per caster level. There are a ton of things that a Solar can do to break the game given 17 rounds of absolute control from a 17th level caster. With Planar Binding it is a little better because you have to bargain for the service and make opposed charisma checks. That said, there aren't especially hard rules in core about what sorts of bonus's and penalties different offers for a creature's services give you. For the efreet, getting the chance to use 1 of the Wish's per day for themselves is probably worth the cost of granting the other 2 to a different being.
There have already been lots of possible fixes for this suggested, so I won't just relist them. I think the best suggestions are probably the ones that either limit the sorts of abilities a called creature can use or the ones that reduce the power to something weaker like changing Wish to Limited Wish for Efreets. That said, a certain amount of this has to be DM fiat because it is very hard to make a rule to account for every way to break the game that a group of players can come up with. Perhaps putting in a limit that says a called creature can not cast a spell or use an ability that mimics a spell that would be higher level than the PC could cast themselves. That doesn't help what happens at 17th level when the problem happens anyway because the caster could cast 9th level spells at that point. I don't want to take away the ability for genies to grant wish's, but perhaps the number could be limited to 1/day? That way the caster can't offer to use the genie's wish for the genie because then they couldn't get a wish for themselves's.
Anyway, I do think the calling type spells (Planar Binding, Planar Ally, Gate) need to be fixed. I just can't come up with one that preserves what I want to keep (the ability for casters to bargain with powerful creatures for services or information) but not lead to broken combos (a caster calling a creature that will use abilities for him that are stronger than he should have or just plain broken like chain binding efreets).
|
|
Why not let genies grant limited wishes instead? They still are wishes. They are still quite powerful. Limited Wish is much clearer in what it can and can't do, so it's easier for GMs to adjudicate. And it removes the chain-binding nonsense from the game.That said... the concept of genies granting wishes is awesome and classic and needs to stay in the game.
Tis a conundrum.
This would be my suggestion, as well. Also, limited wish is more level appropriate for "standard" genies' CR.
"Ruler" genies who can grant a full wish can also exist, but if they can only be summoned using a gate spell, then that keeps it reasonable.
Or limit the number of wishes to one. Then you can't chain them to get the big ability boosts. Though Limited Wish also makes a lot of sense. Certainly it limits the degree of brokeness you can get with the ability. The trick there is you also have to think about what to do with other creatures that are available besides Efreets. For example, using Gate to call a solar that can then use powerful spells like Miracle or Wish for you. It's still a problem, just one that is delayed until 17th level or so.
As I think about it, it seems to me that perhaps the best solution is this - a creature with more HD than the caster cannot be compelled, it must be bargained with. Simple, elegant and leaves a whole bunch of options open.
Sure. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that you can try to Gate in any creature, but any services must be bargained for (regardless of HD). That's what I suggested in one of the Alpha threads.
Guys, even if you're right that the limitations of chain-binding make for an interesting adventure, I would argue that this is still too powerful.
See, this gets to the root of my complaint with high-level casters. Not only are they too good at killing monsters, they're too good at dictating the flow of the story. A good DM can stop a Wizard PC from completely dictating the plot, but usually only by obliterating any hope the Paladin or Rogue had of plot relevance.
Seriously, you're proposing allowing a tactic into the game which is so good that the only counter is not a simple other rule or counter tactic, but an entire adventure, even campaign arc.
Most players won't try for infinite wishes, but when one does, there are only three possible outcomes:
1: The DM says, okay, you have infinite wishes. Game balance is upset. FAIL.
2: The DM says, no way, that is not going to happen. Rule Zero'd, b$+$~. In this case the game goes on and everyone is happy. However, as game designers, our job is to minimize the frequency with which a GM has to ban apparently legal tactics, so this still counts as a FAIL.
3: The DM says, okay, this campaign is now about interplanar politics. I agree that this would be a fun campaign that I might some day want to run. However, the DM might jsut as easily have other things going on and not want to derail things. Or for that matter, the Barbarian player might be invested in a plot where he's trying to unseat a usurper, which has now been sidetracked for entire sessions because the wizard used one powerful spell. So for the majority of campaigns to work, the player will need to voluntarily refrain from the tactic, which stills counts as a FAIL.
|
|
3: The DM says, okay, this campaign is now about interplanar politics. I agree that this would be a fun campaign that I might some day want to run. However, the DM might jsut as easily have other things going on and not want to derail things. Or for that matter, the Barbarian player might be invested in a plot where he's trying to unseat a usurper, which has now been sidetracked for entire sessions because the wizard used one powerful spell. So for the majority of campaigns to work, the player will need to voluntarily refrain from the tactic, which stills counts as a FAIL.
This can happen with almost any player and any power.
|
|
2: The DM says, no way, that is not going to happen. Rule Zero'd, b##@@. In this case the game goes on and everyone is happy. However, as game designers, our job is to minimize the frequency with which a GM has to ban apparently legal tactics, so this still counts as a FAIL.
And again, in what way are infinite wishes apparently legal under the rules as written. The rules as written explicitly says that the DM does not need to allow anything unreasonable.
Infinite wishes strikes me as patently unreasonable.
And have you, Mr. Anderson, seen any player ever attempt such a thing? If so what was the context and outcome?
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?This was discussed above. Changing the Efreetis abilities changes the possibility of certain stories being told.
IMO, The rule needs to be genuinely shown to be broken before it is changed.
Vorpal Swords in the hands of 1st level characters are unbalancing. There are no rules in place to prevent this. This does not mean though that there is anything inherently wrong with Vorpal Swords because there is nothing in the rules that requires DMs to give them to 1st level characters.
Likewise, Efreeti granting an infinite number of wishes to PCs is unbalancing to the game. There are currently no rules in place to prevent this. This does not mean though that there is anything inherently wrong with Efreeti wishes (or demon/devil/whathaveyou wishes) because there is nothing in the rules that requires DMs to grant a players every wish. In point of fact, the rules explicitly state that Planar Binding will not force a creature to do anything the DM thinks is unreasonable. Therefore, what is reasonable or unreasonable is completely in the hands of the DM and Players at each particular table. Someone might think an automatic +5 to all abilities is reasonable once a PC hits level 13. Personally, I don't. But thats alright because the rules don't, despite arguments to the contrary, mandate such behavior.
My perspective 100%. It is not broken.
3: The DM says, okay, this campaign is now about interplanar politics. I agree that this would be a fun campaign that I might some day want to run. However, the DM might jsut as easily have other things going on and not want to derail things. Or for that matter, the Barbarian player might be invested in a plot where he's trying to unseat a usurper, which has now been sidetracked for entire sessions because the wizard used one powerful spell. So for the majority of campaigns to work, the player will need to voluntarily refrain from the tactic, which stills counts as a FAIL.
This can happen with almost any player and any power.
Yes and no. Obviously, there are a number of powers in the game that provoke this situation. The wizard could just as easily have said, "I want to raise an undead army" or "I'm going to Fabricate consumer goods." Heck, even the Fighter can do stuff like "I want to train a company of mercenary soldiers."
In fact, you *want* the game to have a certain number of such abilities. It's a big part of what makes D&D more fun than Final Fantasy. (Though I do love Final Fantasy)
However, I believe that D&D casters have too many. A Wizard who tries to apply even a fraction of the tools available to him will bend the plot so thoroughly that the input of any noncasters is completely overshadowed. To a certain degree this problem is inherent to the 3.X system, and is I think beyond the scope of Pathfinder to fix. But I'm certainly not going to cry if a few of them go away.
I feel that Chain-binding is a *bad* plot ability for a game to include, for several reasons.
1: The rewards are too appealing. While there are a number of ways of, say, stockpiling minions, the fact is that commanding minions is something only some players or characters will be interested in. Nercomancy, in particular, will not be appropriate to most concepts and party types, so most player's won't think of going the undead army route. Chain-Binding on the other hand boots your stats, which pretty much everybody wants.
2: The rewards are too universally applicable. For many plot abilities, their relevanc is conditional on the type of campaign and goals the GM provides. Either they can be made irrelevant (necromancy) or they require GM itnervention to be made relevant (mercenaries).
Hiring troops and becoming a commander is only relevant if the GM plays along. He has to provide things for your horde of level 1 guys to do. If the campaign is focused on something other than lordship, such as high-end dungeon crawling, it's not even an aissue. Having an army of peasants matters not a bit if your goals are "raid this crypt and fight the CR 7-10 monsters therein."
Necromancy is applicable more often, as out fo the box is can provide your with monsters that contribute to level-appropriate combat. However, undead minions have lots of limitations: mindlessness, poor mobility, special vulnerabilities, large size for the good ones, etc. These limitations make it fairly trivial to design adventures where undead minions arenot particularly helpful.
Chain-binding directly increases your stats and equipment, the core abilities of your character. There is literally no campaign in which a +5 to all stats isn't going to be useful. So there's always an incentive for players to turn to it.
3: The countermeasures are not mainstream enough.
Basically, I think the number of players and GMs who would want to play a campaign about necromantic armies is much greater than the number who would want to play City of brass/mafia politics. Therefore Necromancy is less disruptive to the average playgroup. And those groups who want to play interplanar politics and wishmongering can easily run those game sthrough plot devicium.
For all these reason, I think chain-binding is a poor plot ability to include.
Or limit the number of wishes to one. Then you can't chain them to get the big ability boosts. Though Limited Wish also makes a lot of sense. Certainly it limits the degree of brokeness you can get with the ability. The trick there is you also have to think about what to do with other creatures that are available besides Efreets. For example, using Gate to call a solar that can then use powerful spells like Miracle or Wish for you. It's still a problem, just one that is delayed until 17th level or so.Why not let genies grant limited wishes instead? They still are wishes. They are still quite powerful. Limited Wish is much clearer in what it can and can't do, so it's easier for GMs to adjudicate. And it removes the chain-binding nonsense from the game.That said... the concept of genies granting wishes is awesome and classic and needs to stay in the game.
Tis a conundrum.
This would be my suggestion, as well. Also, limited wish is more level appropriate for "standard" genies' CR.
"Ruler" genies who can grant a full wish can also exist, but if they can only be summoned using a gate spell, then that keeps it reasonable.
At which point, the 17th level spellcaster has so many other options, using a gate to call a creature that can grant one wish as a SLA (one full wish per day is a good limit) is hardly game-breaking, IMO.
|
|
Actually, you are mistaken here. I, for one, welcome and encourage PCs to try something like this. The spell is risky, and the Efreet WILL demand an insidious price and/or pervert the meaning of the Wish unless the PCs are exceptionally careful.
And if they *are* exceptionally careful? And if the Efreeti *wants* to make them more powerful, so that they can operate as his agents of discord? If the Genie actually *likes* them (or is a Cohort, relative or servant working for their god(dess))? And if they Gate in a Solar instead, will it also demand an insidious price and / or pervert the meaning of the Wish?
If *everything* goes perfectly, *every time,* and *every* entity that can grant Wishes (noble Djinni, Solars, etc.) is a massive Machievellian double-crosser with a degree in contract law, a psychotic dislike of using their SLAs as written in their descriptions and a copy of The Monkey Paw in his back pocket, then yeah, it's no problem at all, particularly if you don't like the people you game with and flat out *encourage* them to try and use the rules as written in the game, so that you can 'pervert' them to make things bad for them.
Those are your words by the way. You *encourage* your gaming buddies to do stuff that you can then *pervert* to screw with them. Is that fun for them? Do they like being dicked around with? Different strokes, I guess.
I'd walk away from a GM who thought that I sat down with the hopes of being *punished* for attempting to play the game with the rules written in the books. It's not supposed to be a fight between me and the GM. (Or me and the players, when I am GMing.) If it becomes a fight, me trying to trick them or screw them over or twist and pervert the rules to punish them, then *I'm doing it wrong.*
Or will seek revenge if it feels that it received a poor deal. Either way, it makes for a fantastic story / subplot. (Though perhaps you don't consider that 'free' wishes)
This fantastic subplot of being lured into genie politics and intrigue, with favors and double-dealing and all that, is utterly independent of the ability of an Efreeti to cast the Wish spell. 99% of Devils can't cast Wish as an SLA, and they do the exact same thing just fine. They're even *more* reknowned for doing this than Genies, actually, who, in the lore, tend to just do what is asked of them and are happy to do so!
No story potential is lost by making the Genie wish something other than the 9th level Wizard spell Wish.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
At which point, the 17th level spellcaster has so many other options, using a gate to call a creature that can grant one wish as a SLA (one full wish per day is a good limit) is hardly game-breaking, IMO.
FWIW, I don't think the argument is that the wish itself is game-breaking, it's that the wish comes at a much lower cost because you only need to pay for the components for the Gate spell, and not the xp cost for the wish itself. The xp cost to cast wish is an important limit, and summoning an efreet to cast wish allows you to sidestep that limit.
For example, using Gate to call a solar that can then use powerful spells like Miracle or Wish for you. It's still a problem, just one that is delayed until 17th level or so.At which point, the 17th level spellcaster has so many other options, using a gate to call a creature that can grant one wish as a SLA (one full wish per day is a good limit) is hardly game-breaking, IMO.
At that point, "game-breaking" is probably the wrong word (if the game hasn't been broken by then, it probably never will be). But personally I wouldn't want Gate to be better than Wish (e.g. I spend 5,000 gp gating in a solar to make a wish, miracle, resurrection, etc. instead of spending 25,000 gp on Wish) and I don't like Gate being better than Summon Monster IX (e.g. why would I summon a hezrou when I can gate in a balor?).
I know: "I'll get revenge on you for gating me in, you puny worm! Etc., etc."
Again though, can you give specific examples of chain binding affecting a game?
I cannot. And if we change the rule, I never will.
I have, however played in playgroups where even learning spells like planar binding, polymorph any object, etc., was strongly discouraged or outright banned because the DM didn't want to go to the effort of figuring out what was and wasn't an acceptable use of the spell every single session.
It's a shame to me that many of these spells don't see play because of their potential brokenness.
|
|
2: The DM says, no way, that is not going to happen. Rule Zero'd, b&*%*. In this case the game goes on and everyone is happy. However, as game designers, our job is to minimize the frequency with which a GM has to ban apparently legal tactics, so this still counts as a FAIL.
Exactly my thinking on the matter.
If the answer to a rules question is 'don't use that rule, you silly man, it's clearly ridiculous!' then the rule itself is suspect, not my judgement.
If I pay money for a gaming book, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect that the answer to a rules question won't be, 'Oh, that rule's stupid if you use it as written, I have no idea why it's there. Nobody ever uses it that way, and you're a powergamer rollplayer munchkin for even mentioning it.'
The game should work with me, not against me.
If the big 'fix' to any problem is just to ignore it, then we don't need Pathfinder at all. We don't even need the core rulebooks! Just Rule Zero everything on a case by case basis. As long as the rules as written are to be summarily ignored whenever we think that they are 'ridiculous,' and we all have different definitions of what's 'ridiculous' (my definition includes the Spiked Chain!), what's the point of even having rules at all?
I don't want to play a game where I have to ignore stuff that's 'ridiculous' and that 'no one uses that anyway.' I want to be able to be able to use the stuff in the game without being shunned as a powergaming twink, because it *isn't* 'obviously ridiculous for you to even think of that.'
|
|
FWIW, I don't think the argument is that the wish itself is game-breaking, it's that the wish comes at a much lower cost because you only need to pay for the components for the Gate spell, and not the xp cost for the wish itself. The xp cost to cast wish is an important limit, and summoning an efreet to cast wish allows you to sidestep that limit.
At which point, the 17th level spellcaster has so many other options, using a gate to call a creature that can grant one wish as a SLA (one full wish per day is a good limit) is hardly game-breaking, IMO.
I think the assumption of the designers here is that when you start messing around with wishes, utilizing outsiders (good and evil) and the like (to avoid the xp demands), you are messing around with story elements, hence the suggestion (in the rules) that such creatures need to be bargained with for this sort of thing.
It is hard to codify story element penalties.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Again though, can you give specific examples of chain binding affecting a game?I cannot. And if we change the rule, I never will.
I have, however played in playgroups where even learning spells like planar binding, polymorph any object, etc., was strongly discouraged or outright banned because the DM didn't want to go to the effort of figuring out what was and wasn't an acceptable use of the spell every single session.
It's a shame to me that many of these spells don't see play because of their potential brokenness.
I have a lovely vase.
It is potentially breakable.It is not broken.
Just because you can break something, doesn't mean it is broken.
:-)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I think the assumption of the designers here is that when you start messing around with wishes, utilizing outsiders (good and evil) and the like (to avoid the xp demands), you are messing around with story elements, hence the suggestion (in the rules) that such creatures need to be bargained with for this sort of thing.It is hard to codify story element penalties.
Generally I agree, but I wouldn't mind if they made it more clear that the intent is that anytime you get a wish from an extra-planar, you've got to pay some roleplay-type tax. One of my pet peeves is when you play a cleric in a campaign and the DM is constantly second-guessing everything you do because of your diety's concerns. Some people like that campaign style, but I find it intrusive. Similarly, absent some sort of express language that a roleplay-type tax should be charged for having summons cast big spells, I would be annoyed if my DM imposed such a tax on me. That being said, given the magnitude of the problem, the roleplay-tax is more palatable than the cleric micromanagement, and I'd be more likely to agree with the DM's interpretation, but it couldn't hurt to spell that out just a little more than it is right now.
But, I really can't get too worked up about this as a fatal flaw of the system. I really don't see any difference between this level of cheese and constantly killing your character until you get uber-stats.