|
I brought up the golem scenario as an example of interpretation being a key factor in playing 'overpowered' classes. It's not worth belaboring when everyone is certain they're right.
Personally, it just clarifies the type of player I'd like to have in my group. Aubrey and Kirth types, yes. Crusader types, no. And I'm sure people would hate to have me (and my interpretations) in theirs.
If Crusader's solution in his own group is to not include fighters, but they work fine in other groups, perhaps this isn't an issue? I don't know if the gap between optimization and traditional game flavor is one I want to see closed.
If the fighter has to become a tripping, flying, taunting, spell resistant blaster to keep up with the new realities of combat, I'd just rather encourage minor fixes, deal with a little imbalance, and trust my group to respect the spirit in which it was intended to be played.
Edit
*drinks* Damn you Strawman!
Drinks are okay, but lets not smoke...please. :)
@CoL - That chance is only 5%. Hardly worth mentioning in fact.
If said merchant's guild (or whatever) can affor the poison and a thug, chances are that a low level blackguard or assassin would be within their means. No poison fumbles there.
I am a strawman, and I approve this message.
Ok. Moving the goal posts. Before it was an Expert and a Barmaid (presumably a Commoner or Expert). Had you set this from the start it would not have been an issue (and said low level blackguard or assassin is at least level 6 and could just ya know, solo the level 5 wizard and save the time and trouble but hey). It is a CR + 5 encounter (at least) after all since the mage is alone. Casters are awesome, but not that awesome. They'll die if you powertrip enough (which is what expensive consumables and CR + 5 or more encounters are and can only be). Rocks fall, everyone dies proves nothing.
Aubrey and Kirth types, yes.
Interestingly, while I respect Aubrey, he and I very seldomly see eye to eye when it comes to styles of game play. I find his posts well-written and generally very much worth reading, however.
For something like a golem guarding a room from intruders wouldn't a suddenly appearing wall be reacted to as an intrusion? It can't reason but it can see something appearing where there wasn't something before. Wouldn't it then begin "smash it to pieces" mode?Only if it also attacks its master's Wall of Stone.
How would it differentiate? It's mindless. Perhaps its programming is "destroy any intruding creatures or objects except those bearing token X."
I just hate the idea of a low-level illusion being a foil for an iron golem. It goes against the grain.
Ruling against something just because you don't like it. Tch. See what I mean?
I brought up the golem scenario as an example of interpretation being a key factor in playing 'overpowered' classes. It's not worth belaboring when everyone is certain they're right.
Personally, it just clarifies the type of player I'd like to have in my group. Aubrey and Kirth types, yes. Crusader types, no. And I'm sure people would hate to have me (and my interpretations) in theirs.
If Crusader's solution in his own group is to not include fighters, but they work fine in other groups, perhaps this isn't an issue? I don't know if the gap between optimization and traditional game flavor is one I want to see closed.
If the fighter has to become a tripping, flying, taunting, spell resistant blaster to keep up with the new realities of combat, I'd just rather encourage minor fixes, deal with a little imbalance, and trust my group to respect the spirit in which it was intended to be played.
Edit
*drinks* Damn you Strawman!
My solution is to allow the issue to be self correcting. My players are welcome to play Fighter types. They can have any gear they can afford any time they're at a place where it can be bought or made. Unless they try to bring in a Ubercharger or some other Theoretical Optimization material I'm not going to shoot down their build based on overpoweredness. I'm not going to single them out for negation, however I'm not going to play my enemies in their favor either. End result? They get negated by pure accident despite the environment being as friendly as it is capable of getting barring turning every enemy into a mindless automaton for them. Casters come in, and end up better at melee by pure accident while clearly not trying to optimize and still ya know, casting spells. He's a half elf with two lost caster levels (and is planning on losing more) after all. That just cannot be optimal. Yet it's still enough to easily replace melee boy. Other new guy's cohort is about as good at fighting as such a character, except it's just one feat. And it takes half as much treasure. And it doesn't take any XP. So ya know, even if the cohort were useless it at least would not be a liability.
Ok. Moving the goal posts. Before it was an Expert and a Barmaid (presumably a Commoner or Expert). Had you set this from the start it would not have been an issue (and said low level blackguard or assassin is at least level 6 and could just ya know, solo the level 5 wizard and save the time and trouble but hey). It is a CR + 5 encounter (at least) after all since the mage is alone. Casters are awesome, but not that awesome. They'll die if you powertrip enough (which is what expensive consumables and CR + 5 or more encounters are and can only be). Rocks fall, everyone dies proves nothing.@CoL - That chance is only 5%. Hardly worth mentioning in fact.
If said merchant's guild (or whatever) can affor the poison and a thug, chances are that a low level blackguard or assassin would be within their means. No poison fumbles there.
I am a strawman, and I approve this message.
For starters, "I" didn't set anything up. I was simply offering an opinion ased upon the rules of poison use. Only amateurs use NPC throw-aways to assassinate people. Besides, they didn't have goalposts back then.
Secondly, planning out an assassination is not power tripping. Surely, there must be SOME way of occasionally knocking one off without resorting to dropping rocks on the tavern? As to the "+5 CR" thing, HUH? We are talking about a lvl. 1 wizard? It makes my brain hurt that you would spens so much time debating the best way to assassinate a 1st level wizard. Try this!
Just get a sack full of common cats, shake it up, and toss it in the room. Odds are, just their yowling will be enough to reduce the 6-10hp said mighty wizard has. Done deal.
No expensive poison, no expensive blackguard, just cats.
I am a StrawMan, and I approve of this message.
For something like a golem guarding a room from intruders wouldn't a suddenly appearing wall be reacted to as an intrusion? It can't reason but it can see something appearing where there wasn't something before. Wouldn't it then begin "smash it to pieces" mode?Only if it also attacks its master's Wall of Stone.
How would it differentiate? It's mindless. Perhaps its programming is "destroy any intruding creatures or objects except those bearing token X."
I just hate the idea of a low-level illusion being a foil for an iron golem. It goes against the grain.
Ruling against something just because you don't like it. Tch. See what I mean?
My solution is to allow the issue to be self correcting. My players are welcome to play Fighter types. They can have any gear they can afford any time they're at a place where it can be bought or made. Unless they try to bring in a Ubercharger or some other Theoretical...I brought up the golem scenario as an example of interpretation being a key factor in playing 'overpowered' classes. It's not worth belaboring when everyone is certain they're right.
Personally, it just clarifies the type of player I'd like to have in my group. Aubrey and Kirth types, yes. Crusader types, no. And I'm sure people would hate to have me (and my interpretations) in theirs.
If Crusader's solution in his own group is to not include fighters, but they work fine in other groups, perhaps this isn't an issue? I don't know if the gap between optimization and traditional game flavor is one I want to see closed.
If the fighter has to become a tripping, flying, taunting, spell resistant blaster to keep up with the new realities of combat, I'd just rather encourage minor fixes, deal with a little imbalance, and trust my group to respect the spirit in which it was intended to be played.
Edit
*drinks* Damn you Strawman!
Maybe yer doing it wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I do agree with Crusadre that poison and disease in 3.5 were trivial to even low level characters. DC's in the low teens for the most part are laughable. Even if the design philosophy for poison/disease was a 50/50 shot at saving it didn't scale at all and past mid levels it was downright useless.
Now I have to go over the new system for poisons, diseases, and traps but these need to be relevant at all levels. But that's for another design forum.
For something like a golem guarding a room from intruders wouldn't a suddenly appearing wall be reacted to as an intrusion? It can't reason but it can see something appearing where there wasn't something before. Wouldn't it then begin "smash it to pieces" mode?Only if it also attacks its master's Wall of Stone.
With that said...
250 huh? So crafting is 1/6th price now? Eh, if you say so. I remember it being a third. A quarter, with a feat (that helps magic items too, and therefore has a point).
Still, that doesn't account for the fact his room is unprotected. Or that he's in it, and not ya sleeping safely. He is level 5, and not 1 or 2 right?
Also, you're forgetting the chance to poison self. Which she will have too. Especially if she's spreading it without somehow touching it.
Making poisons with the Craft (poisonmaking) skill follows the in the player's handbook rules for all craft sills, with the following exceptions.
Price: The cost of raw marerials varies widely depending on whether the character has access to the active ingrediant. If a supply is readily available, the raw materials cost one-sixth of the market price.
While i will admit that it is perhapes not common, easily see a powerful trade house and this specific poisoner having access to the raw material.
With regards to the risk of poisoning one self, there is the feat 'poisoner' which negates the risk of this. Now it is true that i did point to tavern staff being used to delivier the poison. Even without the feat, the chances of success are excilent. i will point to your own comment on this.
Also last I checked, as a melee brute you had around a 30% chance of getting a maneuver to work against another melee brute since it's 15 + CMB. Which means even more of your only option is to stab it in the face, since you only have 30% accuracy. Instant kill moves have been called weak to average solely because of 30% accuracy before.
If a 30% success rate is very poor, a 5% failure rate must be pretty good. In fact, it is as good as rolled chance can be. On might even go further, and consider the possiblity that said tavern worker might take Ten on applying the poison.
Question, how is this random fifth level wizard protecting his room? Is it an arcane lock on the door and each window, using up most of his spells second levels? Or is it an exploding runes maybe? How does the owner react to not being able to get into a room in his own tavern to have the sheets changed or the like? Do you really expect me to beleive that you as a player, regularly spend fifty gold(assuming two locks) and two daily spells to make safe a room in a tavern. And then Memorise a dispel or use a scroll to remove it.
Ok. Moving the goal posts. Before it was an Expert and a Barmaid (presumably a Commoner or Expert). Had you set this from the start it would not have been an issue (and said low level blackguard or assassin is at least level 6 and could just ya know, solo the level 5 wizard and save the time and trouble but hey). It is a CR + 5 encounter (at least) after all since the mage is alone. Casters are awesome, but not that awesome. They'll die if you powertrip enough (which is what expensive consumables and CR + 5 or more encounters are and can only be). Rocks fall, everyone dies proves nothing.@CoL - That chance is only 5%. Hardly worth mentioning in fact.
If said merchant's guild (or whatever) can affor the poison and a thug, chances are that a low level blackguard or assassin would be within their means. No poison fumbles there.
I am a strawman, and I approve this message.
Hardly a power trip. You your self have stated your oppinion that NPC's should behave intelligently. It is viable responce, which would be availible to an intelligent Non-combatant/social villian of 5th level.
What is amuzing about this is that you claim with one post that NPC's must behave intelligently and then, when confronted with the actions of an intelligent NPC, equate said actions to 'rocks fall every body dies'.
Your willing to hide behind the idea of character appropreate encounters when it suits your stand point, but when it comes to building an encounter appropreate to Melee based PC's you consider such actions distasteful.
|
|
I think poisoing, out of combat, should be left to the rules of dramatic timing. If the PCs are the unknowing marks for an assassin's guild, do you just roll perception checks for them as they spend a night in the inn? Say they're very good assassins, and everyone fails their check,
"You all fail to wake up the next morning"...?
That's bad DM-ing. What you do is spook one character awake, even is she failed her role, describe some odd shadows and suspicious sounds and watch the drama unfold.
Wizards can easily be caught unaware without relying on poisoning barmaids and killer rockslides. Overwhelming the odds doesn't exactly make a point. And using the rules as a literalist's hammer fails the whole storytelling process entirely.
I think poisoing, out of combat, should largely be left to the rules of dramatic timing. If the PCs are the unknowing marks for an assassin's guild, do you just roll perception checks from them as they spend a night in the inn? Say they're very good assassins, and everyone fails their check,
"You all fail to wake up the next morning"...?
That's bad DM-ing. What you do is spook one character awake, even is she failed her role, describe some odd shadows and suspicious sounds and watch the drama unfold.
Wizards can easily be caught unaware without relying on poisoning barmaids and killer rockslides. Overwhelming the odds doesn't exactly make a point. And using the rules as a literalist's hammer fails the whole storytelling process entirely.
I agree that in a narrotive sense that what i am describing is poor dm'ing and i frankly wouldn't do it to a player, but then i also try to include elements which allow every party member to shine.
I hope you will understand that i am not actually saying that this is what one should do, but rather a logicial outcome of CoL's stand point.
I just hate the idea of a low-level illusion being a foil for an iron golem. It goes against the grain.
That's the problem with having mindless creatures. All a Golem or a Skeleton or a Giant Scorpion can do is follow orders - they have no ability to reason at all. Unless paired with a creature that can give them direct orders in combat, they aren't going to be very effective against clever players. They can't determine if an illusion is real or not because they don't have the mental capacity to determine anything at all. They can see, and they can attack. Aside from that, does not compute.
That's why I believe that Constructs, Vermin, and Undead should have an INT score of some sort. Vermin should get animal level intelligence, and Constructs and Undead should probably have something between a 5 and an 8.
|
Aubrey and Kirth types, yes.Interestingly, while I respect Aubrey, he and I very seldomly see eye to eye when it comes to styles of game play. I find his posts well-written and generally very much worth reading, however.
Same boat here with a good many posters on the boards, we can disagree without falling into attack mode and discuss in rational manners. Just had a good discussion with Aubrey today that was quite enjoyable and enlightening and never got rude.
|
|
I just hate the idea of a low-level illusion being a foil for an iron golem. It goes against the grain.That's the problem with having mindless creatures. All a Golem or a Skeleton or a Giant Scorpion can do is follow orders - they have no ability to reason at all. Unless paired with a creature that can give them direct orders in combat, they aren't going to be very effective against clever players. They can't determine if an illusion is real or not because they don't have the mental capacity to determine anything at all. They can see, and they can attack. Aside from that, does not compute.
That's why I believe that Constructs, Vermin, and Undead should have an INT score of some sort. Vermin should get animal level intelligence, and Constructs and Undead should probably have something between a 5 and an 8.
I reckon this one also comes down to the campaign your using. In Eberron I reckon they'd have a kind of programming system, as such in that game world constructs could have an intelligence equivalent score. As the golem got better in CR and therefore construction and programming, you could houserule a higher intelligence like score (programming replacing intelligence, not reasoning though).
In my gameworld, golems are powerhouses of destruction. They will kill or destroy aanything that gets in the way of them completing their objective. This often makes them unpredictable, even to their creators. My players have used this to their advanatage (droppoed the floor from below a golem in the BBEG home, and the golem killed the surprised and frightened guards standing in its way and smashed their way back up to the level to get to the players.) I play mindless as non discerning in the pursuit of their goals.
I think that clever use of figments should be able to trick a golem if the rationilastion behind it is sound for my game world. This is what I think Set is talking about in his idea of DM discretion and ruling. An illusionary wall or pit won't work in my game, however a silent image of an intuder that flees out of the room and draws the golem away so the characters can pass through unhindered I'd find perfectly acceptable if they could pull it off without the golem spotting them as well.
I think the mindless thing is actually great for open interpretation for just this reason. If CoL's DM allows his Golems to be beaten by simple figments, then so be it for his world. In mine they aren't without other very clever aspects to it, but that's my world.
Remember this game system is about making things flexible enough to build varying worlds. I have been worried lately that many of us are trying to force mechanics into this game becasue of our game worlds, and its a trap to be avoided. It's certainly something that needs to be watched carefully in the spell selection or the Nerf bat might become too big. (In my opinion at least).
Gonna try and drop out of this thread now becasue I think my points are exhausted and I'm starting to talk about the same arguments again. Looking forward to seeing this discussion pop up again after the feat section is being run and see what peoples opinions are. I believe feats are able to be used to provide flexability in game world design (people who want wuxia style fighters get feats to satisfy this, those who don't get alternate builds). I guess the trouble may be that Paizo is building this system with Golaraion in mind (I think?). This may limit the flexibility that some people are seeking. Guess we'll see.
Cheers
|
|
House rule? Are you sure Aubrey? The MM entry under constructs says they're immune to mind-affecting effects and specifically calls out phantasms and pattersn but not figments.
Also the illusion entry in the PHB magic chapter says illusions affect either the senses or the mind.
I was thinking that figments are senses-fooling and not mind-affecting. Wish the damn Sage was still in business or would swing by the Paizo boards.
The details are set out in the magic chapter in the PHB, where illusions in general are described, plus a quick look at the description of golems. Golems are not immune to figments because they are not mind-affecting, so they can potentially be affected even though they have no minds. So far, so uncontroversial. The position has been put forward that because golems cannot reason, they therefore cannot disbelieve the illusion. That is, in my view, a leap of logic. There is nothing in the PHB that says that a mindless creature cannot disbelieve a figment, nor is there a similar description of being mindless that says it cannot disbelieve figments. A golem has a WIS score, and Will saving throws are obviously affected by that, so it posesses senses and awareness if not intellect and reasoning. So, from that basis, if it possesses a range of senses it is probably able to notice that the illusion it just smacked actaully doesn't have substance. While it cannot "conclude" as such, it may well have programming that would allow it to take an instance of sensory dissonance, write it off as a figment, and move on from there. I agree with Bagpuss that a golem cannot study an illusion, it has to interact with it, which still makes figments quite powerful for dealing with them. But it also makes it situational, not a slam-dunk.
Bagpuss is quite right that illusion spells are not well drafted (along with most other spells) and are a pain to adjudicate as a DM given their very general applicability and variety of effect. However, as written, there is nothing that says a golem cannot disbelieve a figment. I can justify it to myself in-game through the fact that golems are made by poweful spellcasters who know about things like illusions, and as such will make sure that the golem's programming will cover such eventualities. And out-game, it is a DM's responsibility to provide appropriate challenges to the players. Allowing a CR 13 monster to be defeated by a lvl 1 spell either means that the spell is wrong or the CR is wrong (or both). Given that the spell descriptions don't say that a golem cannot disbelieve, I am therefore uninclined to cut the players the sort of slack that would allow to so do.
But that is my interpretation. Others may feel differently, and do.
|
|
Aubrey and Kirth types, yes.Interestingly, while I respect Aubrey, he and I very seldomly see eye to eye when it comes to styles of game play. I find his posts well-written and generally very much worth reading, however.
Selk, thank you for the compliment. Likewise Kirth - I have found your insights as to how 2e and 3e differ with respect to fighters extremely illuminating.
See, isn't it nice we we are nice to eachother.
Ruling against something just because you don't like it. Tch. See what I mean?
It's not a matter of simply disliking it. It's just plain ludicrous that conceivably a first level caster could bypass an iron golem in this manner. It is little loopholes like this that inspire houserules to deal with them.
To create an iron golem you have to be a fairly powerful and somewhat wealthy user of magic. You don't get that way by being stupid. Someone that smart should know how to program his creation to deal with minor nuisances like figments.
Instructions: "Destroy any intruding creatures or objects except those that bear token X". An illusionary wall appears where there wasn't one. Attempting to destroy the wall means interacting with it and thus earning a Will saving throw to "disbelieve" which really means "perceive what is real".
Ok. Moving the goal posts. Before it was an Expert and a Barmaid (presumably a Commoner or Expert). Had you set this from the start it would not have been an issue (and said low level blackguard or assassin is at least level 6 and could just ya know, solo the level 5 wizard and save the time and trouble but hey). It is a CR + 5 encounter (at least) after all since the mage is alone. Casters are awesome, but not that awesome. They'll die if you powertrip enough (which is what expensive consumables and CR + 5 or more encounters are and can only be). Rocks fall, everyone dies proves nothing.@CoL - That chance is only 5%. Hardly worth mentioning in fact.
If said merchant's guild (or whatever) can affor the poison and a thug, chances are that a low level blackguard or assassin would be within their means. No poison fumbles there.
I am a strawman, and I approve this message.
For starters, "I" didn't set anything up. I was simply offering an opinion ased upon the rules of poison use. Only amateurs use NPC throw-aways to assassinate people. Besides, they didn't have goalposts back then.
Secondly, planning out an assassination is not power tripping. Surely, there must be SOME way of occasionally knocking one off without resorting to dropping rocks on the tavern? As to the "+5 CR" thing, HUH? We are talking about a lvl. 1 wizard? It makes my brain hurt that you would spens so much time debating the best way to assassinate a 1st level wizard. Try this!
Just get a sack full of common cats, shake it up, and toss it in the room. Odds are, just their yowling will be enough to reduce the 6-10hp said mighty wizard has. Done deal.
No expensive poison, no expensive blackguard, just cats.
I am a StrawMan, and I approve of this message.
Learn what party levels are Mr. Troll Alt. 4 level 5 characters = level 5 party level = CR 5 stuff is routine encounter. 2 party members = party level - 2. 1 party member = party level - 4.
CR 6 at party level 5 = not power tripping.
CR 10 at party level 5 = power tripping.
CR 6 at party level 1 = power tripping.
"But CoL you meanieface!" you might be thinking to yourself. "Stop being rude!" *insert crying smiley here*
Try using your real account to post to me and not that Straw Man alt clearly created to troll. Then I won't call it as it is. Or rather I will call it as it is, it just will no longer be a troll alt and therefore not called as such. Seeing as you instead made two more troll alts that haven't been used (yet) I doubt you will.
Oh and... Alarm. Sleep in a Rope Trick. Wow, that was hard. /sarcasm
Learn what party levels are Mr. Troll Alt. 4 level 5 characters = level 5 party level = CR 5 stuff is routine encounter. 2 party members = party level - 2. 1...Ok. Moving the goal posts. Before it was an Expert and a Barmaid (presumably a Commoner or Expert). Had you set this from the start it would not have been an issue (and said low level blackguard or assassin is at least level 6 and could just ya know, solo the level 5 wizard and save the time and trouble but hey). It is a CR + 5 encounter (at least) after all since the mage is alone. Casters are awesome, but not that awesome. They'll die if you powertrip enough (which is what expensive consumables and CR + 5 or more encounters are and can only be). Rocks fall, everyone dies proves nothing.@CoL - That chance is only 5%. Hardly worth mentioning in fact.
If said merchant's guild (or whatever) can affor the poison and a thug, chances are that a low level blackguard or assassin would be within their means. No poison fumbles there.
I am a strawman, and I approve this message.
For starters, "I" didn't set anything up. I was simply offering an opinion ased upon the rules of poison use. Only amateurs use NPC throw-aways to assassinate people. Besides, they didn't have goalposts back then.
Secondly, planning out an assassination is not power tripping. Surely, there must be SOME way of occasionally knocking one off without resorting to dropping rocks on the tavern? As to the "+5 CR" thing, HUH? We are talking about a lvl. 1 wizard? It makes my brain hurt that you would spens so much time debating the best way to assassinate a 1st level wizard. Try this!
Just get a sack full of common cats, shake it up, and toss it in the room. Odds are, just their yowling will be enough to reduce the 6-10hp said mighty wizard has. Done deal.
No expensive poison, no expensive blackguard, just cats.
I am a StrawMan, and I approve of this message.
It has run over long, but the strawman alt was very fun, considering.
What your forgetting is that the a 5th level Npc classed character and a 1st level NPC classed character have a CR of 3 total. The rest of the party are not even neccissarily excluded from the encounter.
Which is because PF decided less wealth = less power and tagged humanoid NPCs as being half as strong as monsters accordingly. (CR - 2 = half power, at least if it's working as intended) Except these guys clearly don't have less wealth, if they can whip out several hundred gold consumables at will (along with ya know, everything else that comes from being a trade house). Not having less wealth = not having less power.
6 is just the minimum level for an assassin. Blackguard cannot be entered until 7 (and also requires wasting two feats, but hey).
|
|
It's not a matter of simply disliking it. It's just plain ludicrous that conceivably a first level caster could bypass an iron golem in this manner. It is little loopholes like this that inspire houserules to deal with them.
To create an iron golem you have to be a fairly powerful and somewhat wealthy user of magic. You don't get that way by being stupid. Someone that smart should know how to program his creation to deal with minor nuisances like figments.
Instructions: "Destroy any intruding creatures or objects except those that bear token X". An illusionary wall appears where there wasn't one. Attempting to destroy the wall means interacting with it and thus earning a Will saving throw to "disbelieve" which really means "perceive what is real".
Your basic premise seems to me to be saying that the CR system is more important than internal logic of the game\world. Now for me (as pretty much a simulationist) I just don't think that can be true. Of course, if golems can be bypassed by first-level spells, then that's a good simulationist argument for the owner of the golem putting them somewhere that that approach won't work properly, because if they don't they'll have wasted their effort in procuring the golem. We already know that you can have a high-powered monster be useless; put them in a pit and let the players shoot arrows at them, for example. There are also some spells that maybe break simulationist altogether, at least for the sort of world that many of us want to run -- Find the Path, as per the sidebar in the beta, is a good example of that -- but I am not sure that this is an example of that.
The extent to which golems can be programmed isn't that clear to me; presumably they have some sort of processing and memory limit, but that's going to be clunky compared to the general feel of what you can tell them to do. As you say, the owner of the golem will have to take countermeasures (as I suggested in the paragraph above) but it may well be that the countermeasures aren't in golem programming but rather in where the golem is situated or some other contextual effect. That still leaves the possibility that a clever party might bypass it, but then that's not such a bad thing.
I would also add that, from the narrativist point of view (my secondary interest after simulationism), a powerful moronic brute being undone by the clever use of a simple spell is pretty cool.
However and what would probably bother gamists most, I repeat what I said before and Aubrey has said, that the rules on illusions, which for years/ever haven't been really clear enough, still aren't clear enough.
I say if you are a Wizard or whatever, and want a construct buddy see Leadership, followed by Warforged. Warforged are just as intelligent as humans. Therefore high level enemies are not negated by very simple tricks because they aren't stupid. Stupid creatures simply cannot keep up at this level. Notice how just about every type known for low intelligence stops scaling up before then? He's still a one trick pony and easily shut down, but at least a Silent Image won't stop him for long.
Which is because PF decided less wealth = less power and tagged humanoid NPCs as being half as strong as monsters accordingly. (CR - 2 = half power, at least if it's working as intended) Except these guys clearly don't have less wealth, if they can whip out several hundred gold consumables at will (along with ya know, everything else that comes from being a trade house). Not having less wealth = not having less power.
6 is just the minimum level for an assassin. Blackguard cannot be entered until 7 (and also requires wasting two feats, but hey).
It is within the price range of consumable which a 5th level NPC has. And it is hardly 'at will', its a specific solution to a specific and very dangerous threat. A fifth level pc-classed character, especially a caster, is a huge risk to any conspiriacy, i cant see them using half measures to deal with an issue which could mean their failure.
I wonder if it would be desirable to create a new extrodinairy trait for constructs which have no Intelligence score. Perhaps call it "Advanced Programming" with the effect being "can adapt and adjust to situations as if it had Int X" or something to that effect. Sort of a magical computer brain. It's still technically nonintelligent but programmed to deal with a variety of situations.
Then you could start naming golems 2D-4D.
I wonder if it would be desirable to create a new extrodinairy trait for constructs which have no Intelligence score. Perhaps call it "Advanced Programming"
Or maybe a rule that a mindless construct can be programmed with one "trick" per "x" HD, much like a trained animal can only be taught a limited number of tricks. (Guard, Attack on Command, Pursue, Check for Illusion...)
Not that I am accomplishing much, but I feel obliged to point out that there are no Warforged in PRPG, nor are there "living construct" types. This sort of discourse belongs in the d20 OGL forums, putting here might be misleading to people trying to learn the new rules system.
Which brings us back to if you want a construct buddy, and want him to be a useful investment of expensive resources too bad. Seriously, have you seen how much it costs to make a golem? Screw that, invest it in yourself, not a mindless brute easily negated by any degree of intelligence.
Warforged are your only option to fill that niche. 1 - 1 = 0.
Well actually there's also Awaken Construct but that costs as much as a Wish, and hits the same issue with its native source. Plus again, you're investing a veritable ****ton of resources into something that will be casually dismantled in 1-2 rounds by anything capable of presenting a threat to you. I don't consider that an option at all. It's only there for completeness. And preemptively knocking the nitpickers out of the sky.
It is within the price range of consumable which a 5th level NPC has. And it is hardly 'at will', its a specific solution to a specific and very dangerous threat. A fifth level pc-classed character, especially a caster, is a huge risk to any conspiriacy, i cant see them using half measures to deal with an issue which could mean their failure.Which is because PF decided less wealth = less power and tagged humanoid NPCs as being half as strong as monsters accordingly. (CR - 2 = half power, at least if it's working as intended) Except these guys clearly don't have less wealth, if they can whip out several hundred gold consumables at will (along with ya know, everything else that comes from being a trade house). Not having less wealth = not having less power.
6 is just the minimum level for an assassin. Blackguard cannot be entered until 7 (and also requires wasting two feats, but hey).
5th level anythings are not that rare either. This would have to be routine, thus sustainable. We're also back to if you have these higher level guys in the roster, just let them handle it for free. Still reeks of abuse, but is at least consistent. Course, if the other guys are there too it's fine.
Though really, the words Rope Trick invalidate any attempt to kill a sleeping caster so... next subject? This one is completely irrelevant.
It is within the price range of consumable which a 5th level NPC has. And it is hardly 'at will', its a specific solution to a specific and very dangerous threat. A fifth level pc-classed character, especially a caster, is a huge risk to any conspiriacy, i cant see them using half measures to deal with an issue which could mean their failure.Which is because PF decided less wealth = less power and tagged humanoid NPCs as being half as strong as monsters accordingly. (CR - 2 = half power, at least if it's working as intended) Except these guys clearly don't have less wealth, if they can whip out several hundred gold consumables at will (along with ya know, everything else that comes from being a trade house). Not having less wealth = not having less power.
6 is just the minimum level for an assassin. Blackguard cannot be entered until 7 (and also requires wasting two feats, but hey).
5th level anythings are not that rare either. This would have to be routine, thus sustainable. We're also back to if you have these higher level guys in the roster, just let them handle it for free. Still reeks of abuse, but is at least consistent. Course, if the other guys are there too it's fine.
Though really, the words Rope Trick invalidate any attempt to kill a sleeping caster so... next subject? This one is completely irrelevant.
I think i just passed my will save, because i fail to beleive that you us a 3rd level spell(due to extended spell meta-magic), every day, just to avoid an occational poisoning attempt, especially when you consider poisons to be an non-issue..
|
Illusions have been crappily-defined since the beginning of the game.
Like the perennial favourite of 1E/2E, 'Phantasmal Force', a spell that was neither a phantasm, nor capable of exerting any force.
Yet every DM had to waste endless hours explaining this to players who wanted to make an illusory lion to 'bite' enemies, or an illusory 'fireball', to 'burn' them, until they 'died' (ie fell unconscious) from 'shock'.
Or illusory stairs to climb a cliff, or illusory bridge to cross a river. "Hey, I've got poor spell saves! If I can't disbelieve it, that means I can cross, yeah?"
And all the efforts of DMs to educate these players would be undermined by scenario writers, who would declare this a viable tactic, or new players "Well, my DM allows it!".
Re-naming it 'Silent Image' really should have ended all debate.
It is an image.
It is silent.
That is all it does. You can do some cool stuff with it, but at the end of the day, that's all it does.
Gods save us from wizards who think one low-level spell makes them Green Lantern.
Though really, the words Rope Trick invalidate any attempt to kill a sleeping caster so...I think i just passed my will save, because i fail to beleive that you us a 3rd level spell(due to extended spell meta-magic), every day, just to avoid an occational poisoning attempt, especially when you consider poisons to be an non-issue.
Whenever I play a wizard, I always take rope trick (aka "string cheese") ASAP to avoid any possibility of nighttime encounters. It's so much more useful than all the other 2nd level spells, it's almost like being offered a new car for free. This is from persional experience only, of course, but I honestly can't remember a PC wizard ever not using it -- all the way back to 1st edition.
Like the perennial favourite of 1E/2E, 'Phantasmal Force', a spell that was neither a phantasm, nor capable of exerting any force. Re-naming it 'Silent Image' really should have ended all debate.
Thank you! Best example ever of why NOT to use incorrect terminology under the aegis of "they'll know what it means," or "it sounds cool." It was likewise a happy day for me when "enchantment" became a school of magic, rather than a catchall for mind-affecting spells, or any spells, or creation of magic items, or whatever else.
Oh noes! CoL found me out! how...inconsequential. I just wanted you to stop misusing the argument. Bringing it up 17 times in one thread redefines anal, but to each their own I guess.
EL, CR, all just abstracts. To try and say a 5th level fighter needs 3 buddies to take down another 5th level fighter is...silly.
As to trolling, It is not possible for a troll to call troll. It's in the rules.
Implying that politeness and pleasantry is wasting time shows us that maybe you are on the wrong boards. If we are so aggravating go somewhere else. Being a decent human being is not a waste of time. Defending your snarkyness has wasted more time than all the pleasantries you could have possibly thrown out there.
After re-reading the thread, I am curious. Did you actually have a point? I see a ton of worthless fighter this, and worthless crusader that, and a lot of wizards rule, but notice the title of the thread?
We need CONSTRUCTIVE solutions for making fighters better, not more reasons why everyone should just play wizards, druids, or clerics.
Whenever I play a wizard, I always take rope trick (aka "string cheese") ASAP to avoid any possibility of nighttime encounters. It's so much more useful than all the other 2nd level spells, it's almost like being offered a new car for free. This is from persional experience only, of course, but I honestly can't remember a PC wizard ever not using it -- all the way back to 1st edition.Though really, the words Rope Trick invalidate any attempt to kill a sleeping caster so...I think i just passed my will save, because i fail to beleive that you us a 3rd level spell(due to extended spell meta-magic), every day, just to avoid an occational poisoning attempt, especially when you consider poisons to be an non-issue.
Our experience differ i think, i have never seen it used in game. And compaired to spells like detect throughts....it just seems kinda weird to take. But thats because we have differing game experience right?
Our experience differ i think, i have never seen it used in game. And compaired to spells like detect throughts....it just seems kinda weird to take. But thats because we have differing game experience right?
Exactly right. In theory, if you use detect thoughts to learn about an upcoming attack on your hotel room (and set up a counterattack), and I use rope trick to avoid the attack altogether, we've both avoided dying... using different tactics. In theory, yet a third player should be able to use hold person to directly defeat the attacker, and so on. In practice, some tactics might work better than others in a majority of situations, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Our experience differ i think, i have never seen it used in game. And compaired to spells like detect throughts....it just seems kinda weird to take. But thats because we have differing game experience right?Exactly right. In theory, if you use detect thoughts to learn about an upcoming attack on your hotel room (and set up a counterattack), and I use rope trick to avoid the attack altogether, we've both avoided dying... using different tactics. In theory, yet a third player should be able to use hold person to directly defeat the attacker, and so on. In practice, some tactics might work better than others in a majority of situations, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I really couldn't agree more
|
|
I find it ironic that most of the problematic wizard spells are ones that have been around since AD&D, and have remained relatively unchanged since that time. Yet people seem to blame the power level of wizards on 3rd Edition. In reality, as Kirth has noted several times in other threads, there was actually a decrease in power of the warriors while arcane spellcasters remained static. Divine spellcasters are a whole other story though.
|
|
I find it ironic that most of the problematic wizard spells are ones that have been around since AD&D, and have remained relatively unchanged since that time. Yet people seem to blame the power level of wizards on 3rd Edition. In reality, as Kirth has noted several times in other threads, there was actually a decrease in power of the warriors while arcane spellcasters remained static. Divine spellcasters are a whole other story though.
There were certainly some changes across the board that had an effect (like now everyone needs the same xp per level, but the spellcaster spell progression stayed basically the same, monster hp significantly increased, etc).
In reality, as Kirth has noted several times in other threads, there was actually a decrease in power of the warriors while arcane spellcasters remained static.
Well, except for their 3rd edition ease of casting spells while under attack. They didn't used to be able to do that, and it greatly magnifies their effectiveness -- especially when coupled with the loss of the 1e ability to essentially ready an attack to disrupt spellcasting while moving and actually making that attack.
Whenever I play a wizard, I always take rope trick (aka "string cheese") ASAP to avoid any possibility of nighttime encounters. It's so much more useful than all the other 2nd level spells, it's almost like being offered a new car for free. This is from persional experience only, of course, but I honestly can't remember a PC wizard ever not using it -- all the way back to 1st edition.Though really, the words Rope Trick invalidate any attempt to kill a sleeping caster so...I think i just passed my will save, because i fail to beleive that you us a 3rd level spell(due to extended spell meta-magic), every day, just to avoid an occational poisoning attempt, especially when you consider poisons to be an non-issue.
Exactly. It's not for 'avoiding being poisoned'. It's for never being disturbed in the night again by ambushes, random encounters, and the Fighter's overindulgence of the stew. The fact it also prevents that poisoning thing from happening is an incidental bonus.
Oh noes! CoL found me out! how...inconsequential. I just wanted you to stop misusing the argument. Bringing it up 17 times in one thread redefines anal, but to each their own I guess.
EL, CR, all just abstracts. To try and say a 5th level fighter needs 3 buddies to take down another 5th level fighter is...silly.
As to trolling, It is not possible for a troll to call troll. It's in the rules.
Implying that politeness and pleasantry is wasting time shows us that maybe you are on the wrong boards. If we are so aggravating go somewhere else. Being a decent human being is not a waste of time. Defending your snarkyness has wasted more time than all the pleasantries you could have possibly thrown out there.
After re-reading the thread, I am curious. Did you actually have a point? I see a ton of worthless fighter this, and worthless crusader that, and a lot of wizards rule, but notice the title of the thread?
We need CONSTRUCTIVE solutions for making fighters better, not more reasons why everyone should just play wizards, druids, or clerics.
Fighter 5 can take Fighter 5 by himself. There's just a 50% chance he will fail (die), and even if he lives he has 1%-20% of his resources (HP) left. I say 1%-20% because obviously 0% = dead. This is how CR + 4 works you see. CR + 5? It shifts beyond coin toss.
The rest of your post is irrelevant on the grounds I am not a troll, and you are still yammering on about time wasting crap. The others stopped, which is great. Before more time was wasted because ya know, I'm one guy and you're more than one.
In summary, take your own advice. Until then, do not speak to me.
|
|
Bagpuss did touch on something that I personally dislike about 3rd Edition in terms of balance - the idea of a consistent XP progression makes for easier character management, especially with 3rd Editions multiclassing, but it really throws off the casters power progression.
It was vastly important in 2nd Edition that warriors were frequently much higher level with the same amount of earned XP.
So your wizard camps, every night after he achieves the skill required to cast a 3rd level spell, for the rest of his career... He turns down comfortable beds, the company of the opersite or same sex, lives out of a back pack and uses a sleeping roll ext all. no matter what worldly comforts he might have access too... Because that doesn't sound like the actions of a person, in fact, id go so far as to say that for most characters, that is an example of an optimal choice, being bad roleplay.
Sure, i've played a wizard with obsessive and paranoid tendancies, who might have considered such things, if he trusted extra dimensional spaces. But i suspect mentally Ill characters do not list highly on your list of character trait.
|
|
So your wizard camps, every night after he achieves the skill required to cast a 3rd level spell, for the rest of his career... He turns down comfortable beds, the company of the opersite or same sex, lives out of a back pack and uses a sleeping roll ext all. no matter what worldly comforts he might have access too... Because that doesn't sound like the actions of a person, in fact, id go so far as to say that for most characters, that is an example of an optimal choice, being bad roleplay.
Sure, i've played a wizard with obsessive and paranoid tendancies, who might have considered such things, if he trusted extra dimensional spaces. But i suspect mentally Ill characters do not list highly on your list of character trait.
Bad roleplay?
If I had the power to cast rope trick and my sleeping time was as dangerous as is the case in many D&D campaigns (and it's not unreasonable, right? If I was going to attack a dangerous group, I'd do it when most of them were asleep), I'd godamned cast it, myself. It looks to me like utterly sensible roleplay, the aim being reducing the chance of ending up dead.
After re-reading the thread, I am curious. Did you actually have a point? I see a ton of worthless fighter this, and worthless crusader that, and a lot of wizards rule, but notice the...
My question remains unanswered by said troll.
I'd insert something about your mother here, but a gentleman never tells.
When I used rope trick to sleep, it was in one of the following situations:
1. In a dungeon or wilderness, and forced to rest;
2. In an inn in a city in which enemies were known to be present, and had a pretty good chance of knowing we were there, too.
At home in his manor house, my wizard sleeps in his bed (but still remembers to cast faithful hound every night as soon as he reaches 9th level).
So your wizard camps, every night after he achieves the skill required to cast a 3rd level spell, for the rest of his career... He turns down comfortable beds, the company of the opersite or same sex, lives out of a back pack and uses a sleeping roll ext all. no matter what worldly comforts he might have access too... Because that doesn't sound like the actions of a person, in fact, id go so far as to say that for most characters, that is an example of an optimal choice, being bad roleplay.
Sure, i've played a wizard with obsessive and paranoid tendancies, who might have considered such things, if he trusted extra dimensional spaces. But i suspect mentally Ill characters do not list highly on your list of character trait.
Bad roleplay?
If I had the power to cast rope trick and my sleeping time was as dangerous as is the case in many D&D campaigns (and it's not unreasonable, right? If I was going to attack a dangerous group, I'd do it when most of them were asleep), I'd godamned cast it, myself. It looks to me like utterly sensible roleplay, the aim being reducing the chance of ending up dead.
Real people do not choose to sleep on a bed roll in the heart of a city when there is a nice bed in an in room they have already payed for.
Sure rope trick makes great sense out in the wilderness, but its not how people for the most part, behave a city.