|
My players don't use wall spells that much. :/ They do like their web and entangle spells tho, and those don't require more than one casting usually.Web and Entangle are endlessly spammed at my table too. Usually by Me(DM) vs the party :) Ettercaps are such a fun low level encounter, shame you don't see them more :)
re: splats- I honestly feel like with the changes PF made to the fighter, the 3.5 splats are no longer needed. Our group made the 3.5-> PF transition in Beta, and pretty much run PF core only now, and are much happier as a result. Every now and again I'll dig out some useful nugget, but my players were really tired of having 2-6 books per character, and are really enjoying the simplicity of Core +(maybe) APG.
Web and entangle got major nerfs in Pathfinder. And once per encounter should be at least 4 times a day.
Splats are dangerous. So far I have seen mostly flavor over function outside core if PF and I hope it stays that way.
Persistant spell and the pit spells are pushing it IMHO.
Are you refering specifically to non-casters (Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk), or partial casters (Paladin, Ranger, ect) as well? Perhaps a retooling may in some instances be warrented, but replacing them with the older version I think would be a step in the wrong direction. From looking at the class, PF Fighter > 3.5 Fighter. In addition to the feats they get, Armor Training, Weapon Training, retraining (appearantly), and Bravery (for what it is worth), plus the wonderful abilities in the APG they can be swapped out for. The PF Fighter has exactly the same break down as 3.5 (feat at level 1, and every even level), plus extras. To go backwards we would lose abilities. I'm still on the fence as to PF Power Attack. I like from an immersive standpoint that it is a bonus that you cannot alter without changing your BAB, and depending on the level that it is being used at and what it is being used in conjunction with, it may or may not be better than 3.5's.I think I saw a couple of regulars on these boards doing a rewrite of some of the non-casting classes that looked nice at first glance, but I haven't really sat down to spend time looking at them.
That was 3.5 anyways, right? In 3.5 it was incredibly easy for a martial character to pick up pounce anyway, then all you had to do was worry about a charge lane, which became a bit easier once you hit the levels where flight was a bit more common and your enemies were larger, facilitating getting away from rumble and such on the ground. Still not always possible though. I think I'd like giving full attacks as a standard action, but I haven't tested it out much to say for sure.
We agree that combining statistic boosting items punished martial types more than caster then, I think. Probably good to leave that topic alone then.True, since there are more spells which are interchangable for casters they should be less versitile individually, or at least less versitile than feat, of which there are fewer and fewer still that you can take, and this is not the case. In my opinion, more combat feats should be like the old combat feats from 3.5 supplements, giving you a variety of options each.
That's probably why I haven't heard it much. I don't pay much attention to optimization boards. From my experience many "optimized" builds I've seen have come from players who don't know what they are doing. I prefer to play around and figure out things for myself and decide what's best on a scenario by scenario basis. Of course some spells/feats/abilities are undeniably amazing - i.e. 3.5 Wildshape, Glitterdust, Leap Attack, ect.Later in 3.5 I saw a few other ways of getting solid damage, usually relying on heavy multiclassing and a few key feats, but it was an unfortunate design flaw that all but required Power Attack. The spiked chain was overused to the point of being redundant when I saw it on a player's sheet. It was great, there is no denying that, but after the 20th time it was boring. Now it likely isn't worth using over comparable weapons in PF, except from a flavor standpoint, but at least there is lunge, allowing reach with anything for a small trade off. Maneuvers still work more often than not, from what I've seen, at least against humanoid enemies. They aren't the auto-success that they once were, but they still function enough.
ACP isn't a huge penalty, certainly not an insurmountable one. A small feat tax can allieviate the difficulty, but many classes are paying feat taxes these days. Finesse or archery tree for rogues who want to enter combat reliably, Iron Will to shore up a fighters defense. The difference is, at least, that with a feat every level, the fighter can afford the tax.
Well, certain PF combat feats I feel are poorly designed, such as the critical feat line. I'm trying to figure out which caster feats are inherently better though. Certainly none are worse, but which would you say are superior? Also, I'd like to note that the feat I miss most is Close Quarters Combat from the PHB2 in 3.5.Would it be safe to say then, to clarify and simplify, that the major problem that you have with PF PA is that it is worse for you when you are getting attacked as opposed to be worse for you when you are attacking?
As a "fix" to the game would you be more likely to advocate buffing martials by completely retooling them or hindering casters by redoing the spell-list. Not neccessarily which would be easier in this hypothetical scenario, but which do you feel would better improve the game, keeping in mind that weakening something that enemies get as well lessens the overall threat to the party.[quote=]The PB system screws MAD characters even more.
Crafting, a caster thing is massively buffed.
Free HP, just for being born.
Free spell DCs, just for being born.
More free spell DCs, handed out like candy for various reasons.
Persistent Spell. Because as we all know, casters needed +4 to +5 DC for one feat, or cheap magic item.Well, the PB "screwing MAD classes" isn't so much a boon to casters as it would be a slap to martial. And the HP increase is across the board, so I'd consider that a wash. But the higher save DC (I'm assuming from the higher starting Int) is a valid point, though martials get a +2 they can sink wherever as well. And well, I'm not a fan of either persistant or bouncing. They are far too powerful compared to the other metamagics of comparable levels, and as such I'd be hard pressed to make a mage who wouldn't try to get a handful of the rods.
I brought it up because I don't see autohitting that often when using core rules; perhaps every once in a while on a bruiser with no other real mode of attack, and little in the way of defense past killing the enemy first. With supplements open monster power ramps up just as dramatically as PC power, but with AC usually going at a slower curve.
But, just like in a PC a mixed group of NPC's with PC levels provides a very credible threat, which their various spells and abilities augmenting and complimenting one another. An NPC caster can pose a real threat with Haste when accompanied by a few mobile warriors. I usually have plenty of time on my hands to work on my games, and spend a good deal of it on encounter design. I wouldn't say it takes a lot of effort, per say, but time consuming perhaps, just like building monsters from scratch.[quote=]And shall we what? Discuss how much gear is CR appropriate? What's there to discuss? It's listed right there in the statblock. Standard, or double standard, or triple standard. And then you cross reference it, subtract the value of any gear they are already listed as having unless it says that the standard is in addition to that, and then you use that amount to give it things that help it.
If that's not good enough for you, PF lets you full PC gear something for only +1 CR.I should have been more clear.
When deciding what gear to give the antagonists I consider several things:
The intelligence of the enemy.
The resources which that enemy has available to them. - Obviously not every monster can wander into the magic mart and take their pick, and not every group of enemies will have casters capable of manufacturing whatever gear they desire.
What I want my PC's to be able to pick up off the corpses of the enemies once they are defeated.I also know that some gear will drastically alter a creatures combat capabilities, likely making more or less of a threat than it is intended to be by a great margin.
I can admire and respect that; you essentially tailor the game to fit your liking and shore up for failings in the system your group has encountered, much like many on here, an abundance of houserules has improved your gaming experience. My group uses relatively few houserules (though likely more to than we mean to, since we hold over many things from 3.5 that probably have been changed and we haven't noticed), but always are open to finding and trying new ones.
I like to stagger my games between 2E AD&D, 3.5, PF, 4E, and Mouseguard. Each system has points I really like, and many that I do not. Overall we probably play 3.5 most, but have mixed in a handful of ideas from PF that we've enjoyed.[quote=]Full attacks are a standard action.
All WBL, including enemy wealth (so you can actually get your treasure) is increased by 100%.
Crafting feats do not exist. Instead everyone gets double wealth (see previous line) and a Mage Mart. The game breaks otherwise.
All HP per HD are maxed. Now having a high HD size actually means something.
Various weak or mandatory feats are either removed outright and made innate abilities of the character, massively improved, or combined with other weak feats.Like the first, to some extent.
WBL I consider to be a guideline, and not a hard rule, and alter my encounters accordingly if I'm running a game with less gold or more. I'd be a fan of getting rid of item creation from the standpoint of simply making magic items cheaper, and either cutting costs of magic items to purchase or adding a general amount of wealth, but I like players being able to come up with fun and inovative ideas with craft wonderous.
Set HP is cool, I've seen it houseruled, and it works great in 4E.
Feat taxes turning into class abilities I'm all for, and improving very weak feats when compared with others. Overall I'd say that those would probably improve gameplay from a mechanical standpoint, even if I'd tweak them slightly differently from what you might intend.
Well there needs to be well defined combat rules for a smoothly running system. I'd find it hard for anyone to refute that. But what kind of "rules" would you place on diplomacy? The closest approximation I can think of is either the complex skill check varient from UA or Skill Challenges in 4E. And while they each have their charm, pros, and cons, putting too many rules forth on how one goes about interacting with NPCs lessens the amount of role-playing that would actually take place, in my opinion. I'm having trouble seeing just how many rules could be placed on non-combat encounters past the skills, feats, and abilities that already address those situations.[quote=]With that said, that is basically what we do. The combats are hard fights against intelligent, well made enemies fighting to the best of their abilities. The social encounters are a mixed bag, depending on the nature of the person being spoken to but there is a fair bit of that. This being D&D, problem solving is primarily the purview of spells, either because no mundane alternative exists, or because the mundane alternative is either not very effective, too slow, or both. Sure we have skills, and sometimes they even get used, but mundane abilities just don't solve supernatural problems. And that includes such things as "A really big, but otherwise ordinary enemy".
With that said, the efforts usually succeed. Combats are beaten down in a round or two (rarely three - almost never more than three) and if we didn't, they'd beat us down. Even when not playing on hard mode. The person playing the face or diplomat or whatever you want to call them is good at what they do, so if we need to talk to someone and get this information, and they have that information we get it. Of course, often they don't. See comments about mundane skills and short expiration dates. And problem solving? Well it might take more than one spell, and probably will if the enemy is half decent, but the problem gets solved. Now with all the house rules and such mundanes are a lot better, but they still aren't driving any plots.
I see you often speaking on spells answer the greater majority of problems and skills ceasing to be functional after a certain level. You mention intelligent enemies as well. I find more often you are dealing with those who actually have intelligence and clout at higher levels. Would it be safe for me to assume that you more often than not play a higher level game and stray from low levels?
I was just a bit curious because you often spoke of playing but I didn't see much in your posts of DMing but you had practical rules knowledge and a quick ability to break down probabilities that I see mostly in other DMs.EDIT: 31 new posts since I starting typing this up. I have some catching up to do.
Hitting the weak point is common sense. The problem is martials can't. Also, Fireball isn't a weak point of anyone, not even low Reflex Cold subtype creatures.Not to mention, creatures use whatever resources are available to them. Casters can buff themselves easily. The warrior guy? Potions, and not a lot else.
Don;t forget, Allied casters can buff the martial types too. Though I agree that the main things martials target (AC and HP) are things most Bad Guys have in abundance. Which is where encounter design comes in. Something for everyone to chew on :)
I play with good people. Good people, particularly good gamers are hard to find. Why would I switch? So I can deal with people that can't even decide what words mean, and who will, more likely than not just cause me, and us headaches? Where I recruit from changes the odds of finding bad players a little, but it's still a very high chance no matter what....
Just saying, play styles differ. If you are locked into "one way" thinking, it could be instructive. But hey, you seem to be VERY happy with things as they are, so....
[quote=]You could be better at building casters, OR you could have sub-consciously chosen spell that made your party cry- ie you hit the fighter and rogue with will saves, dropped a fireball on the casters, and had enough "time" to stack 3-4 buffs on your Dracolich, where as you just threw the warrior out there without any support at all. That BBEG Caster should have been there to support his boss, no? Or at least SOME other lower level casters should have been there as a personal body guard? So not "character" building problem, more of an ENCOUNTER building problem.
IMO, anyway.
The party did a fair share of utilizing social skills and sneaking for nearly a whole session to ensure they would battle the BBEG alone. Help was on its way, but not quick enough. Although the PC's did get a lucky break in the final fight, BBEG activated his boots of teleporation and tried to get in on the mage who had a greater anticipate teleporation up. The party really seemed to enjoy the battle with the Dracolich at any rate, especially the Paladin, for both mechanical and flavor reasons. As a caster the Dracolich used nothing more than some staple spells and flashy/fluffy options that I'd normally stray from as a PC (such as Meteor Swarm). The PC's had very good saves, I think only a couple of saves out of a good few dozen failed over the course of the battle.
Wrote good stuff...
See, the in this case, you just have good, smart players. If they played it smart, conserved their energy, and saved up for the BBEG, let'em have the cookie :)
Could, but the best buffs are self only, and in PF only selfish casters are supported by the system.
I don't see this at all. I think it comes down to play style.
And encounter design meaning what? Nerfing all the enemies? That's a concession.
Longer reply to follow.
Who said nerf? Just make it interesting- mix up enemy types, modes of movement, terrain, intelligent foes vs waves of bruisers. My prepared casters often spend a lot of time maneuvering, because my bad guys make them. And not in a cheesy "must kill the caster" kind of way, EVERYONE is moving and trying to avoid being hit while dishing out as much as possible.
Again, I tend to play mostly int he low-mid levels, with the occasional one-off at higher levels, so YMMV greatly. I just try to make sure that at least once per session the players have to deal with something they have never seen before.
|
If the "nerf" was not enough to matter then nothing really changed. That was the point with my last post. If I go from 50.00 to 49.25 my lifestyle won't have a noticeable change.
As to whether or not it really is caster edition depends on your group. For Codzilla it still is CE(caster edition), but for most people, not so much.
I seem to understand that the moniker "caster edition" means that pathfinder favours casters more than previous editions, pathfinder casters are king but no more and arguably a little less than previous editions (if you use only pathfinder core of course), so the moniker "caster edition" as something specifically pathfinder is not true, the difference in power in castershave been always there.
That said...I enjoy the difference, I dont like the 4th edition take of utter equality, but I disagre with the common asumption in some boards that non-casters are useless because that isnt true, dont happen in my table,and dont happen in the campaing journals that I have read, less powerful? sure, but not useless.
|
|
Nope. That trope always gets trotted out, and people who have seen casters played well know it's not true.
Mainly, because hit points run out, too, and the things that fix or put off that problem also put off the alleged impotence of casters
I have found in my games quite the oposite, kill the 15 minute adventuring day and casters wich have to hoard their spells grow less powerful.
Well, right. The point is just that the "Spells run out, but sword works all day!" meme doesn't hold up if you think about it at all.
Unless you are playing a tome of battle character with the feat that gives you your level+3 hit points each combat, or even better a crusader or a hellreaver or a psychic warrior with claws of the vampire or ,somewhat less useful, vigor or the second level psionic healing power, just of the top of my head. All this helps a lot to keep going, in that gameplay, casters have to hoard their spells, wich is just what my players casters do, or take spells less powerful but with ongoing effects, wich help them to contribute with little investiment. What usually happens is that warriors dominate gameplay with the casters going nova in the tough fights and overcoming obstacles with magic (fly, teleport, polymorph self whithout cheese just in a umberhulk to excavate).
Unless you are playing a tome of battle character with the feat that gives you your level+3 hit points each combat, or even better a crusader or a hellreaver or a psychic warrior with claws of the vampire or ,somewhat less useful, vigor or the second level psionic healing power, just of the top of my head.
Uh, 0% of those things are in Pathfinder.
Hey guys, I've just discovered that house cats can't kill Commoners any more in Pathfinder. So, it's safe to say that Pathfinder isn't any more Catster Edition, and should be henceforth refereed to as Commoner Edition.
What, this is off topic ? How come ?
That's okay, the house cat might find a belt (collar) of Str +2 while digging through some garbage behind the local magic shoppe and come back to show its owner who isn't threatening anymore.
|
|
Uh, 0% of those things are in Pathfinder.
In core? I know, my point is that when you get past the 15 minute adventuring day spellcasters are indeed weaker, also a maximized armour class character also works, I dont know in pathfinder, but in 3.5 armour class was one of the cheapest things to maximize, and there were many different bonus, if you are hard to hit you are protecting your hit points, our melee characters grew more powerful when we realised that the best place to put our money was in our defenses be it armour class or saves (which were also cheap).
And that's before you even get into the various gamebreakingly powerful stunts you can get into with the various call planar ally type spells.
Um... how can the planar ally spells be "gamebreakingly powerful" when the DM decides what outsider shows up, bargains as the outsider, and controls the outsider?
And that's before you even get into the various gamebreakingly powerful stunts you can get into with the various call planar ally type spells.Um... how can the planar ally spells be "gamebreakingly powerful" when the DM decides what outsider shows up, bargains as the outsider, and controls the outsider?
Not to mention the dent that regular and prolonged use of the spell can put in your character's wallet. Even with the Thaumaturgist bonus it was still expensive at the levels that it was most beneficial.
And that's before you even get into the various gamebreakingly powerful stunts you can get into with the various call planar ally type spells.Um... how can the planar ally spells be "gamebreakingly powerful" when the DM decides what outsider shows up, bargains as the outsider, and controls the outsider?
Because DM playing the called monster as a called monster instead of a tool is a "jerk DM" :D
It's a lose-lose situation simply DISCUSS of it. Because if the spell is played incorrectly, is too strong: but if you play it correctly, it sucks and is not worthy of being cast - instead of being, as always, situationally very good. Same things with evocation, rogues, and other things that "sucks".
Optimizers will never be happy. If you look at recent threads, and remove from the game all the "problems" and "abusable" stuff, you obtain 4th edition. And invalidate completely the reason we stuck with PF.
It would be nice just once that whenever a thread comes up discussing the flaws of Pathfinder that a 4E reference not show up.
Sorry, but this time things are related.. because a lot of the things I read here, are the same that people used to say then.. thereafter, 4th edition came.
And that's before you even get into the various gamebreakingly powerful stunts you can get into with the various call planar ally type spells.Um... how can the planar ally spells be "gamebreakingly powerful" when the DM decides what outsider shows up, bargains as the outsider, and controls the outsider?
Because something that requires the GM to work as hard as possible to limit its power isn't typically considered that well balanced.
I mean, I could give out Wish as a midlevel spell without an expensive material component and say: "But the GM gets to pick what happens and try very hard to pervert the Wish!" but I think we could agree that isn't a great idea either.
I never found a gap. Never thought there was a gap, and to paraphrase the most spectacular movie of 1991, believe there is "no [gap] but that which we make."
I think if you are seeing a gap it's because the GM is not challenging the WHOLE party correctly and/or you are experiencing what I have come to think of as Self-Gratification through Metaspell.
That is to say that the player of the spellcaster is not putting himself in the more conservative, more responsible shoes of his character, but is letting loose the full brunt of his power in anticipation of the always-available eight hours rest and unlimited spell components via his generous GM (and probably gratifying himself in a way the rest of us would find creepy if we knew about it).
I had one of these metagamers in our most recent party. He truly got off on letting loose tremendous power to show up the fighters. He loved to teleport around every obstacle. But Bruunwald is not a lazy GM. Bruunwald is a detailed GM who likes variety in encounters and settings.
Oh how the wizard cried and wailed when a spell component went missing, was damaged, or was unavailable in town. You should have seen how red his face got when I kept the party up all night in a haunted castle and ruined his rest (and theirs). He was not used to GMs keeping track of such things and had taken them - and the power that came with such lax details, for granted.
The only place I've ever found that gap was in how lazy this guy's previous GMs had been in challenging him.
Oh how the wizard cried and wailed when a spell component went missing, was damaged, or was unavailable in town.
I don't think "The classes are perfectly balanced if the GM plays as though he's out to get or punish the players of the good classes" is a very good argument. I mean, hell, I can beat Tiger Woods at golf if the referees help me out and keep running him over with golf carts.
Among other things, it disallows you from running any published adventure as written.
Because something that requires the GM to work as hard as possible to limit its power isn't typically considered that well balanced.
Why hard work? Play the creature as a creture and not a puppet is hard work?
So, why GM games?
And that's before you even get into the various gamebreakingly powerful stunts you can get into with the various call planar ally type spells.Um... how can the planar ally spells be "gamebreakingly powerful" when the DM decides what outsider shows up, bargains as the outsider, and controls the outsider?Because something that requires the GM to work as hard as possible to limit its power isn't typically considered that well balanced.
I mean, I could give out Wish as a midlevel spell without an expensive material component and say: "But the GM gets to pick what happens and try very hard to pervert the Wish!" but I think we could agree that isn't a great idea either.
It doesn't require the DM to work hard at all. If the PC wants to do something "gamebreakingly powerful", the outsider simply says "no" - with the full force of it's diety behind it.
Why hard work? Play the creature as a creture and not a puppet is hard work?
Playing it as a creature isn't really sufficient.
I didn't say hard work; you did. The point is, if you as a GM need to scrape and scheme and try to find every possible reason why something won't work for it to be balanced, it probably isn't a good idea.
I didn't say hard work; you did.
Where I said it?
It doesn't require the DM to work hard at all. If the PC wants to do something "gamebreakingly powerful", the outsider simply says "no" - with the full force of it's diety behind it.
You don't think it's cause for alarm that the gods in your game need to decide what they'll do not based on their appropriate roleplay, but on what would balance your game?
"Look, even though you're a priest in great standing with your deity, Sarenrae, and even though she would be all about you smashing up the temple of Rovagug, she decides her angels can't help you do it because it would make the adventure too easy."
That doesn't seem a little crazy to you?
Where I said it?
I didn't say hard work; you did.
I think something's getting lost in translation here...
Why hard work? Play the creature as a creture and not a puppet is hard work?
Playing it as a creature isn't really sufficient.
I didn't say hard work; you did. The point is, if you as a GM need to scrape and scheme and try to find every possible reason why something won't work for it to be balanced, it probably isn't a good idea.
"Work as hard as possible" = "hard work" unless you're nitpicking.
"Work as hard as possible" = "hard work" unless you're nitpicking.
Why hard work? Play the creature as a creture and not a puppet is hard work?
Playing it as a creature isn't really sufficient.
I didn't say hard work; you did. The point is, if you as a GM need to scrape and scheme and try to find every possible reason why something won't work for it to be balanced, it probably isn't a good idea.
I don't think those words have nearly the same connotation in English. YMMV.
I think something's getting lost in translation here...Where I said it?
I didn't say hard work; you did.
See, I point to Mandor's answer and call it a day.
It doesn't require the DM to work hard at all. If the PC wants to do something "gamebreakingly powerful", the outsider simply says "no" - with the full force of it's diety behind it.You don't think it's cause for alarm that the gods in your game need to decide what they'll do not based on their appropriate roleplay, but on what would balance your game?
"Look, even though you're a priest in great standing with your deity, Sarenrae, and even though she would be all about you smashing up the temple of Rovagug, she decides her angels can't help you do it because it would make the adventure too easy."
That doesn't seem a little crazy to you?
Roleplay works perfectly fine.
In the case you just mentioned - using planar ally simply to call an angel to help fight in something Sarenrae would consider a holy cause - the spell would work fine. If the fight turns out to be too easy, the angel reports that to Sarenrae. If it happens twice, the third time Sarenrae sends a less powerful angel.
Of course, how often is the player who is trying to do something "gamebreakingly powerful" playing a priest who is:
1. in good standing with their deity and
2. using the spell to further the purpose of their deity?
Roleplay works perfectly fine.
In the case you just mentioned - using planar ally simply to call an angel to help fight in something Sarenrae would consider a holy cause - the spell would work fine. If the fight turns out to be too easy, the angel reports that to Sarenrae. If it happens twice, the third time Sarenrae sends a less powerful angel.
I think we just fundamentally disagree, because to me, a god choosing what aid their followers can and can't have based on what would make for challenging encounters rather than what would serve their goals is the antithesis of roleplaying. Like any kind of metagaming, you can try to rationalize it as RP, but rationalization is all that it is.
And, again, regardless of whether or not the GM is capable or willing to do that metagaming, the fact that it's necessary is, to me, a red flag.
|
"Look, even though you're a priest in great standing with your deity, Sarenrae, and even though she would be all about you smashing up the temple of Rovagug, she decides her angels can't help you do it because it would make the adventure too easy."
I know a world where a priest of one of the main gods decided that the gods should be subservient to their will. That world was Krynn, and that priest was the Kingpriest. It didn't go so well for him, and it went rather horribly for Krynn as a whole.
"Look, even though you're a priest in great standing with your deity, Sarenrae, and even though she would be all about you smashing up the temple of Rovagug, she decides her angels can't help you do it because it would make the adventure too easy."I know a world where a priest of one of the main gods decided that the gods should be subservient to their will. That world was Krynn, and that priest was the Kingpriest. It didn't go so well for him, and it went rather horribly for Krynn as a whole.
And that has what to do with what I wrote?
Roleplay works perfectly fine.
In the case you just mentioned - using planar ally simply to call an angel to help fight in something Sarenrae would consider a holy cause - the spell would work fine. If the fight turns out to be too easy, the angel reports that to Sarenrae. If it happens twice, the third time Sarenrae sends a less powerful angel.
I think we just fundamentally disagree, because to me, a god choosing what aid their followers can and can't have based on what would make for challenging encounters rather than what would serve their goals is the antithesis of roleplaying. Like any kind of metagaming, you can try to rationalize it as RP, but rationalization is all that it is.
And, again, regardless of whether or not the GM is capable or willing to do that metagaming, the fact that it's necessary is, to me, a red flag.
No... I understand your point.
Take the Legacy of Fire AP, for example. From your point of view, when the PCs discover the full plot towards the end of module 5 and the priest of Sarenrae mentions the situation in his daily prayers, by the time the party has completed the module Sarenrae's angels have completed module 6. Only makes sense.
Take the Legacy of Fire AP, for example. From your point of view, when the PCs discover the full plot towards the end of module 5 and the priest of Sarenrae mentions the situation in his daily prayers, by the time the party has completed the module Sarenrae's angels have completed module 6. Only makes sense.
No, but if I'm making my choices based on RP and not on balance/metagaming, certainly the PCs as they're starting module 6 can planar ally as many planetars or astral devas as they can afford.
Letting the party have 20 planetars with them would make every combat in the module a joke. The only reason to say no to it as a GM is to try to make the module challenging -- there's no legitimate reason, roleplaying-wise, for the planetars or the PCs' deity to nix it.
A spell that forces you, as a GM, to say no to things that RP should allow is a bad spell.
I think we just fundamentally disagree, because to me, a god choosing what aid their followers can and can't have based on what would make for challenging encounters rather than what would serve their goals is the antithesis of roleplaying. Like any kind of metagaming, you can try to rationalize it as RP, but rationalization is all that it is.
And, again, regardless of whether or not the GM is capable or willing to do that metagaming, the fact that it's necessary is, to me, a red flag.
Actually, after thinking about it a few more minutes, it makes perfect sense fluff/roleplay-wise that a god would send a level appropriate outsider in response to a planar ally spell. It makes little sense to waste the time of a powerful servant who is beyond the power level of the priest since it's unlikely the priest needs that much power.
Planar Ally is a generally bad spell because it allows you to trade money for what amounts to almost an additional party member. If you know you are getting a good pay-off from the encounter(s), you can trade money for making an encounter much easier. Is that fun?
Both Planar Ally and Planar Binding also involve too much GM discretion to really judge the spell outside of a campaign setting.
I would ask everyone to move the topic along, or rather get back to the topic, because you are essentially debating whole aspects of a campaign when discussing these spells.
The spell is a general call for help and who knows what will show up.
You summon a celestial Jarjar Binx! Nooooooo!
Actually, after thinking about it a few more minutes, it makes perfect sense fluff/roleplay-wise that a god would send a level appropriate outsider in response to a planar ally spell. It makes little sense to waste the time of a powerful servant who is beyond the power level of the priest since it's unlikely the priest needs that much power.
Each version of the Planar Ally spell does limit what HD it brings. What it doesn't very effectively limit (although it tries to some degree) are numbers or duration.
Edit: I'll let the Planar Ally debate go. I've made my point as clearly as I can and you're either persuaded by it or you're not.
Each version of the Planar Ally spell does limit what HD it brings. What it doesn't very effectively limit (although it tries to some degree) are numbers or duration.
Edit: I'll let the Planar Ally debate go. I've made my point as clearly as I can and you're either persuaded by it or you're not.
Last point then I'll drop it.
The spell also doesn't state the minimum HD it brings and does not allow the caster to chose what type of outsider it brings. At best, a caster can ask for a specific outsider whose name the caster knows and maybe the deity will send that being. Or not. The spell is a general call for help and who knows what will show up.
Take the Legacy of Fire AP, for example. From your point of view, when the PCs discover the full plot towards the end of module 5 and the priest of Sarenrae mentions the situation in his daily prayers, by the time the party has completed the module Sarenrae's angels have completed module 6. Only makes sense.No, but if I'm making my choices based on RP and not on balance/metagaming, certainly the PCs as they're starting module 6 can planar ally as many planetars or astral devas as they can afford.
Letting the party have 20 planetars with them would make every combat in the module a joke. The only reason to say no to it as a GM is to try to make the module challenging -- there's no legitimate reason, roleplaying-wise, for the planetars or the PCs' deity to nix it.
A spell that forces you, as a GM, to say no to things that RP should allow is a bad spell.
Doesn't it say summon planar ally?
ally does not always mean "I will fight for you and endanger my life"
just a starting thought.
Second I hardly think a God would think it his best interest to allow any number more than one angel (and sparingly) to influence the eart in any way.
For a variety of reasons that list as follows:
- demons are vast in number and if that God is going to let his angels run wild...
- It probably breaks some code of the earth and divinity, otherwise Gods could just erase all good and evil if they wanted by snapping
- Why would a God let you manipulate 20 angels for your whim? and how do the angels feel about it? surely the God loves his angels more than you.
- If you are getting them for overkill? that would be considered gullutiny by most Gods, and lust for power. Hardly heroic.
I am not saying you cant use the spell to help yourself in dire need everyone in a while, or to get an audience with a higher power that knows more, ect. But calling in an army and then saying "Why wouldn't my God let me? That is metagaming! You aren't letting me do that just because it will make me powerful!"
That is just not true at all, that isn't even how the spell was intended to be used in my opinion (YMMV). It also makes no sense because NO ONE in any module or campaign world history spammed the call planar ally spell and brought an army to complete an AP. So justifying using that to complete one while saying "you only wont let me do that because its too powerful" is a fiat. It is a double standard and not fair to say to be honest in my opinion
EDIT: Terribly sorry I hadnt realized you dropped the arguement already. Ignore my post.
|
|
Wrote good stuff...See, the in this case, you just have good, smart players. If they played it smart, conserved their energy, and saved up for the BBEG, let'em have the cookie :)
Exactly.
And sometimes the Big baddie is in another castle and you saves for nothing, and sometimes you waste your spells on fake big baddies, and sometimes...
|
|
Don;t forget, Allied casters can buff the martial types too. Though I agree that the main things martials target (AC and HP) are things most Bad Guys have in abundance. Which is where encounter design comes in. Something for everyone to chew on :)
Hitting the weak point is common sense. The problem is martials can't. Also, Fireball isn't a weak point of anyone, not even low Reflex Cold subtype creatures.Not to mention, creatures use whatever resources are available to them. Casters can buff themselves easily. The warrior guy? Potions, and not a lot else.
Could, but the best buffs are self only, and in PF only selfish casters are supported by the system. And encounter design meaning what? Nerfing all the enemies? That's a concession.
Longer reply to follow.
Why would you buff martial classes, it isn't like they can do any damage to an enemy...
Single attack, far from optimized...
I can't wait for a response with a build or list of overpowered spells...but I guess I'll have to...
|
|
Particularly given the conversations on these boards, I can think of about 4 people offhand I could game with for one session without anyone wanting to commit homicide. That's not a lot.So... while I'm finishing catching up on reading this thread... am I among those four people? lol.
I can't wait for Paizo to adjust for CoDzilla 5 players. Considering he doesn't even own the Advanced Players I suspect it doesn't make much business sense.