|
I am trying an experiment on this one to see if its possible in the current thread climate to resolve an issue without too much angst being shown.
I'd like a simple yes or no to this question "Should Planar Binding be adressed for the main relase of the Pathfinder rules".
Please do not post reasons why or why not. I am trying to determine what percentage of players feel it is an issue without clouding the forum.
At the end of 2 weeks I will tally the for's and against's and present them as a percentage of individual voters. On that note, please don't post more than once.
I would then invite at least one member of the development team to determine if sufficient weight of numbers has been carried to make this a topic for discussion in terms of a FIX. I also invite them to discuss if they feel this is even a relevent format in which to determine this.
Gary, if you feel this is circumventing your ban on the other thread please feel free to close it down and kick me soundly in the behind. It's certainly not my intention.
Hoping for all your support on the nature of the thread.
Cheers
|
I'd like a simple yes or no to this question "Should Planar Binding be adressed for the main release of the Pathfinder rules".
Potential problems stemming from Planar Binding should be addressed, although I'd prefer that this happen at the monster design level, than the spell design level, so that it affects NPC features, not PC class abilities.
I think Planar Binding is fine the way it is.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think that lots of spells need further revision and clarification. In general, the more complicated spells need more attention for loopholes, and the planar binding/ally spells qualify. I'm not suggesting wholesale changes, but definately clarifications. Personally, I don't want to see these spells limit what powers a bound creature can use or not, the way summoning spells limit use of summoning magic by the summoned creature. I'd rather see a change such as using CR as the limit instead of HD, combined with a few monster revisions to limit how certain powers work (such as the oft cited efreeti wish, but also things like continual flame - you can effectively mass produce valuable items, then sell them for profit if you bind a creature that can use that at will)
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Planar Binding needs substantial rewriting. There are no legitimate non-broken uses of it. That is a problem.
Of course there are legitimate non-broken uses of it. Just because there are examples of its use that ARE broken, doesn't make it true that there are no non-broken uses. And to be technical, every use of it following the rules as written are legitimate, even if they are broken. Examples of non-broken uses, binding an elemental, binding an CR appropriate outsider with no abusive SLAs (to use an underpowered example - a lemure - I highly doubt that a bound lemure would break your game.) Generally, using "always" or "never" arguments weaken your case, since there's often cases that don't fit your absolute statement.
I also think a vote like this is useless. Opinions on whether or not an ability are fine are meaningless. Demonstration of uses and mathematical analysis are far more meaningful. Which means people who actually bother to respond to this are going to be self-selecting for the crowd that finds no problem with the spell, because those of us who understand just how broken it is aren't basing this off of opinion, we're basing it off of facts.
I'd have to disagree here as well. The use for a vote like this (or any other thread on the boards who's intent is to show a concenssus of opinion) is to show the community that there IS greater support for an idea that is being loudly declared by a small group to be necessary. The point is to reassure the community as a whole that the change being proposed is regarded as a good one by the community at large, and not just a vocal few. This way, if changes along these lines do get included in the final rules for PRPG, it shows that the game is making changes that many people find usefull and good, and not that the designers were cowed or browbeaten into changes that only a few people wanted (not that I'm suggesting that Jason and company would bow to such pressure, I actually think they wouldn't.) This way, should these changes get in, the community as a whole (including all the lurkers who don't post, but do read the boards) can feel that the changes were good, even if they personally never had a problem with them.
Implementing change is a two step process. First you need to analytically show that the change is needed, but after that, you need to sell the change and make sure that it is accepted and adopted as a good change. No matter how good your technical analysis is, if you can't sell the change, it won't be well received, and will often fail if not communicated in such as way as to get your audience to accept that the change is good.
Planar binding is fine, just needs some adjudication advice like there is for illusions.
|
You do realize that self-selecting surveys are statistically meaningless, right?Current tally btw is
7 for a change of some type (or clarrification)
5 against
So fairly polarised atm. Hoping for a much bigger demographic though to get a better representation of the communities feel for this
That would depend on how many in the population take the time to vote.
|
|
You do realize that self-selecting surveys are statistically meaningless, right?Current tally btw is
7 for a change of some type (or clarrification)
5 against
So fairly polarised atm. Hoping for a much bigger demographic though to get a better representation of the communities feel for this
That would depend on how many in the population take the time to vote.
Actually it doesn't, because the participants self-select its impossible to say they represent the total population (in this case of game players).
In fact, any online survey is automatically biased because its self selecting for (1) people who are online (2) people who are willing to take a survey online (3) people who know where to go to take said survey.
Calling random phone numbers is a basically unbiased method. Sure, some few people don't own phones, but that number is so small as to be statistically meaningless. Anything which requires the participant to find or seek out the survey has no statistical validity.
Let's say you have four friends and you want them to answer some questions regarding their favorite ice cream. To answer these questions they must each log onto your web page, type in their answers. Its essentially a self-selecting poll on ice cream flavors.
All four of your friends take the time and answer the question. This is not statistically insignificant as you knew the population (4) and had complete participation.
Likewise even if the population is 100 and only say 80 percent answer, you know the veiwpoints of 80 out of a hundred people.
Like I said, the statistical signifigance depends on how many of a population answer. You are essentially right in regards to most on-line polls but I was just commenting on the fact I think your actual statement is not always true.
Edit: I apologize for the threadjack and I'm going to drop this right now so as not to completely derail the thread.
|
|
current vote is
7 for a change
6 against. Ernest Muller ninja'd me in my last update, just letting him know he wasn't lost in the wash
Oh yeah and
1 abstained till further input :)
Please, if you wish to discuss the merits of this method of sampleing, start an alternate thread so this one doesn't lose its purpose.
Cheers
|
|
"Should Planar Binding be adressed for the main relase of the Pathfinder rules".
The truth is that I don't really use this spell in true game play nor have I seen any players ever use it. However, the simple fact that the debate had/has gone on as long as it has suggests that regardless of how people really feel, it should probably be looked at to try and clean up a bit. So given that, I would have to say "yes" it needs to be addressed.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
1. I'd go with the "should be clarified" camp. I suggested a few fixes in the locked thread vis-a-vis the wish question, but in general I think the spell be better described. Either find a different tracking system for what creatures you can call or place certain limits on what they can be compelled to do and what they want in exchange.
I find it ironic that the planar ally spells, where in theory you're all working for the same team and for the same purpose, a willing alliance, generally require much more expenditure of resources than the planar binding spells, where the model is apparently "intimidate/charm/browbeat" creatures. The PA spells actually spell out the bribes required to engage the services of the called. The PB spells don't. = lame
2. There are also confounding problems with monsters having overpowered SLAs, like the wish-casting efreet or the nightmare with at-will astral projection and etherealness (that's the one where you can take a bunch of folk with you), which I happily incorporated into my RPGSS 'villain' entry with Avinash, enabling him to transport his higher-level hit squad behind enemy lines while his mooks occupied the front lines) or the lantern archon/continual flame silliness. Those could stand to be looked at as well.
|
|
that makes
10 for a change
6 against
1 waiting for more info
Moff, while i agree with your analysis at this stage, I'm actually doing this to see if a consensus can be made in this fashion without all the vitriol.
I deliberately chose a topic already hotly debated. This vote will at least clear some of the muddiness found by multiple postings by the same person in an extended argument format. Hopefully any way.
If it works, we may be able to do similar things for other topics being looked at. A kind of seive for determinnig the extent of the issue.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Please do not confuse an open playtest with design by democracy. This is not that.
It is a playtest. Your assignment, should you choose to participate, is to playtest the rules as written in the most current version of the playtest documents, and then provide feedback at the appropriate time on what works, what doesn't, and why you came to those conclusions. "Sufficient weight of numbers" does not come into play. If Jason agrees that there is a problem to fix, it doesn't matter whether one person or one thousand people think it's a problem.
|
|
Please do not confuse an open playtest with design by democracy. This is not that.
It is a playtest. Your assignment, should you choose to participate, is to playtest the rules as written in the most current version of the playtest documents, and then provide feedback at the appropriate time on what works, what doesn't, and why you came to those conclusions. "Sufficient weight of numbers" does not come into play. If Jason agrees that there is a problem to fix, it doesn't matter whether one person or one thousand people think it's a problem.
Well, guess that makes this thread pointless then. Cheers Vic, you've certainly cleared a conceptual barrier for me at least. <sigh> It's never easy being wrong :)
Yes (Toned downwards)
I don't want hard rules for it, but I could do with having an extra paragraph of "DM guidelines."
^This.
Lets not forget that in *any* roleplaying game "Rules" are actually only guidelines. Just because the rulebook says you "can" (theroetically) doesnt mean that the GM/DM/gamers can't overrule it.
Yes it absolutely needs clarification and/or nerfing. Similarly, the summon function of Gate needs to be clarified/fixed/nerfed as well.
No.
I have never, in the past months of playing Pathfinder, or the past years of 3.x ever seen this abused or a source of a problem.
