]but the simularum IS a problematic spell.
It's true that at best it needs clarification.
Even people who write modules have had the BBEG use simulacrums that cast spells when pretending to be the BBEG.
So it's really not obvious at all that it's not broken or breakable or abusable and that it's totally fixed if the DM has the "correct" interpretation; because it's not obvious from the text what interpretation is correct. All that is in there is a disclaimer of "appropriateness," but a generic-level "appropriateness" is tossed over all campaigns as general advice to DMs. That's wise advice; advice that is the salvation of many a campaign and indeed is why in sound campaigns people don't see the problems that otherwise might exist by robotic application of rules, but it doesn't determine what is and isn't RAW.
Note again I'm not saying here which side in this discussion is correct. I am saying, again, that the reason each side can make a case has to do with how the spell is worded.
And, naturally, of course no wording, no rules set, will ever be perfect. But. . .c'mon. IIRC though, the Developers don't want to further clarify Simulacrum because they like it as-is for use by aforementioned NPCs as "a storytelling device," but I think we can all agree that the spell does not work one way when an NPC casts it, and another (nerfed) way when a PC casts the same spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The alternative is to remove the spell (simulacrum) entirely. I don't want that, but I also don't know how they redesign it.
It's not that hard.
First, they can't remove the spell entirely, or people will re-import it back in (claiming "backwards compatibility").
Simply: Simulacrum creates a visual copy with all the knowledge of the original, if and only if the caster could be assumed to reasonably know that information (thus this is no longer a way to get free & easy interrogation of enemies). That is, they can create a copy of themselves or a close associate/friend, with a reasonable versimilitued of what that person's knowledge, but not a copy that knows anything that is unknown to the caster (thus all secrets are preserved, none are revealed by casting this spell and then commanding the simulacrum to tell you everything the target knows).
The simulacrum appears like the original, but has no Supernatural, Spell-like, or spellcasting abilities, and is limited (similar to the various Polymorph/Form spells) in the type of EX abilities it retains (that is, a list similar to that of the Polymorph/Form spells, thus radically curbing the amount of abilities one can generate by using this spell. Keep anything off the list that does not fit thematically with the intent of Simulacrum - thus, for example, Regeneration & Fast Healing might be excluded from the list of possible abilities).
Yes, this might also nerf the amount of "storytime" utility Simulacrum has in the hands of NPCs, but I care less about this (writers can always come up with some other nonsense explanation for BBEG's body-double).
Note the above would also nerf a lot of the uses I like Simulacrum for, but it would be good for the game. The resulting spell might likewise be lower level. But you have to keep a spell with this name in the game, simply to keep people from re-importing the original.
Fixing Simulacrum doesn't require a book-length, or even a page-length description of what the spell can or cannot do. Just the usual length for a complex spell.
You cam sim a solar. 11hd creatures (1/2 of solar ) CAN have wish. Djinn does.
And even without sim free factory, it IS a worrysome spell. Say you are playing Rise of Runelords. Since lvl 13 (or sooner with UMD and scrolls) you can get your own 1/2 copy of KARZAUG. Actually, HALF A DOZEN. In Forgotten, you can copy 1/2 ELMINSTER. Even if you don't cheat it cost, the spell is DAMN POWERFUL.It also says it gets 1/2 of the spell like abilities. That wish would be included isn't in the spell at all.
"it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD"
It is a problematic spell in that short of writing an entire book of what it can and can't do, it falls to GM fiat. Which considering it is a 12 hour casting spell, you and your player should be able to work it out.
Not to say it doesn't need work, particularly with all of the caster level bonuses that seem to stack at this point...and I would love to have a conversation about what they can use as a barometer for power on such things, but in what I've seen of Devs weighing in on it, they are of the opinion generally that it is a spell that requires GM approval, and so it is up to the GM to decide what is and is not part of a...
we simply put it under the MAD agreement (mutual assured destuction). Just like scry+teleport.
Even under a strict DM, the copy of elminster or La Simbul (36th is a 18th level caster. No SLA that the gm can leave out by Fiat, just pure level spellcasting. The fact you can copy something up to TWICE your CL is simply broken
Even under a strict DM, the copy of elminster or La Simbul (36th is a 18th level caster. No SLA that the gm can leave out by Fiat, just pure level spellcasting. The fact you can copy something up to TWICE your CL is simply broken
Under my recommended re-write of the spell, it won't have spellcasting, SU, or Spell-like abilities whatsoever. ^_^
|
The alternative is to remove the spell (simulacrum) entirely. I don't want that, but I also don't know how they redesign it.It's not that hard.
First, they can't remove the spell entirely, or people will re-import it back in (claiming "backwards compatibility").
Simply: Simulacrum creates a visual copy with all the knowledge of the original, if and only if the caster could be assumed to reasonably know that information (thus this is no longer a way to get free & easy interrogation of enemies). That is, they can create a copy of themselves or a close associate/friend, with a reasonable versimilitued of what that person's knowledge, but not a copy that knows anything that is unknown to the caster (thus all secrets are preserved, none are revealed by casting this spell and then commanding the simulacrum to tell you everything the target knows).
The simulacrum appears like the original, but has no Supernatural, Spell-like, or spellcasting abilities, and is limited (similar to the various Polymorph/Form spells) in the type of EX abilities it retains (that is, a list similar to that of the Polymorph/Form spells, thus radically curbing the amount of abilities one can generate by using this spell. Keep anything off the list that does not fit thematically with the intent of Simulacrum - thus, for example, Regeneration & Fast Healing might be excluded from the list of possible abilities).
Yes, this might also nerf the amount of "storytime" utility Simulacrum has in the hands of NPCs, but I care less about this (writers can always come up with some other nonsense explanation for BBEG's body-double).
Note the above would also nerf a lot of the uses I like Simulacrum for, but it would be good for the game. The resulting spell might likewise be lower level. But you have to keep a spell with this name in the game, simply to keep people from re-importing the original.
That really nerfs what the spell can do quite a bit. I am not saying you are wrong, and I like the approach of going similar to polymorph...but that is a very different spell.
You could do another 1000 post thread on how to fix Simulacrum without breaking it :)
Even under a strict DM, the copy of elminster or La Simbul (36th is a 18th level caster. No SLA that the gm can leave out by Fiat, just pure level spellcasting. The fact you can copy something up to TWICE your CL is simply brokenUnder my recommended re-write of the spell, it won't have spellcasting, SU, or Spell-like abilities whatsoever. ^_^
well, that makes it less powerful, sure. But an army of half-Tarrasque also have it's own problems
Fair point.a kick in the groin is dazing, and not mind affectingNot to start the derail, but the Tarrasque has ranged attacks and daze is (as the spell) is mind effecting.On the Daze issue the spell Daze may be a mind affecting spell but the condition Daze is not the same as the spell. The would be like saying because Stormbolts stuns the target all Stuns have the [electricity] elemental tag.
Dazed is also addressed in the Glossary which says:
Dazed: The creature. . .You might want all Daze effects to be mind affecting but they very clearly aren't.
*Sung like HAL9000*
Dazing, Dazing, give me your answer-do
We're half crazy, all for the lack of things to do
We won't write a clarified ruleset
We'll have to prolong the debate
In a forum to small for two.
Thank you, thank you. This was the Crazy Droid Chorus (Tom Servo, conductor).
|
|
@Gustavo - I like what Kirth proposed about counters to scry and fry actually. I would add to it some risk to the caster while they are scrying, something like you actually have to send something out which you become a part of, and therefore spells cast on the object effect you.
That would make scry a lot more interesting...
EDIT: Hell, actually make scry be something where you send out part of your mind in the form of an object that has to actually be able to travel to the location you are scrying. Then you can have all the restrictions of walls and lead work. Just have the object have some ridiculous speed so it can get to lots of places, but if spotted you suffer damage/spell effects through the scry.
I like it too.
well, that makes it less powerful, sure. But an army of half-Tarrasque also have it's own problemsEven under a strict DM, the copy of elminster or La Simbul (36th is a 18th level caster. No SLA that the gm can leave out by Fiat, just pure level spellcasting. The fact you can copy something up to TWICE your CL is simply brokenUnder my recommended re-write of the spell, it won't have spellcasting, SU, or Spell-like abilities whatsoever. ^_^
Well another limitation might be Caster HD, rather than 2x Caster HD.
Because you're correct that 2x Caster HD is probably too much.
People might squeal over that limitation, but those are the breaks.
That really nerfs what the spell can do quite a bit. I am not saying you are wrong, and I like the approach of going similar to polymorph...but that is a very different spell.
Yup; as I said more briefly before (was it early in this same thread? or a different thread? I forget and I'm too lazy to look): the solution to Simulacrum is essentially changing it to a different spell with the same name.
Now, IMO, this re-design does keep a lot of the original, as-intended flavor. But it does make it a flavor spell, rather than an Uber-critter spell.
It also does allow spellcasters, still, to create semi-duplicates of themselves for some uses (acting as their agent in another city, managing their home/base, and so on). But without busting action-economy open (you don't get duplicate spellcasting, so it's no longer a mini-me, much less a mini-someuberspellcasterIheardofwhois36thlevelnowIhavemultiplecopiesofpople withbetterabilitiesthanmyself spell), even by "strained interpretation" (which I don't think some of these interpretations are strained, I think they're RAW, or at least a very reasonable interpretation of RAW).
So, yeah, it's a different spell with the same name and much of the same old flavor, but with a lot of the abusability cut right out from the beginning.
Now yes there might still be a problem of duplicating tarrasques and even if not getting *all* the abilities, still getting too much even for a high level spell. Thus my being more than happy to have further refinements, lower the HD capacity, whatever else might be needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Gustavo - I like what Kirth proposed about counters to scry and fry actually. I would add to it some risk to the caster while they are scrying, something like you actually have to send something out which you become a part of, and therefore spells cast on the object effect you.
That would make scry a lot more interesting...
It was another game, but in that game scrying effects created an invisible sensor. Any attack on that sensor went directly to the caster, ignoring all of his personal defenses. The sensor could be attacked with magic weapons or spells. Protective spells could be cast on the sensor to protect the caster, but it made it a lot more work and still wasn't fool proof, and all your items that helped your physical body didn't help at all.
So, for example, you could cast Mage Armor and Shield of Faith to add to the sensor's base AC, but your Bracers of Armor and Ring of Protection would do you no good. Likewise with Cloak of Resistance and other such items.
|
|
I think returning the risk to magic is the key.
If Planar Binding was actually, unavoidably dangerous, would people be as concerned about the power?
I think in most games, it is actually unavoidably dangerous to kidnap and blackmail powerful creatures from other realms who likely have powerful friends. But others say that is GM fiat.
Why not build unavoidable failure chances with into such spells? Then you can still have it "happen" for story purposes, but it becomes risky.
Just like magic has classically been in fantasy.
Moving the power level of non-casters up is a fools errand, IMHO. Making the dark arts dangerous...why that is plot line gold :)
I think returning the risk to magic is the key.
If Planar Binding was actually, unavoidably dangerous, would people be as concerned about the power?
I think in most games, it is actually unavoidably dangerous to kidnap and blackmail powerful creatures from other realms who likely have powerful friends. But others say that is GM fiat.
The spell explicitly say they can seek for revenge. So it is not GM fiat. HOWEVER. The game fluff is full of wizards that do bind elementals, genies and devils. So it should be *possible* to do so, depending on circumstances, rping, level ... A flat "every single creature you bind will bring back a huge army of outsiders with CR your level +10 so don't bother" is fiat
Also, you can bring creatures that can't really planeshit or revenge. Acelestial dinosaur for example
I think returning the risk to magic is the key.
If Planar Binding was actually, unavoidably dangerous, would people be as concerned about the power?
in AD&D Cacodaemon had at worst an atmosphere of being rather dangerous. Especially since, as things were written, it was often assumed* that powerful critters with powerful Spell Resistance might just /ignore or break the usual protections. You had to be pretty hard-up to cast them. Or already have a deal of some sort (arranged beforehand, with its own risks). Or be a true badass (of course every PC is a true badass, amirite?); not everyone was Natasha-Iggwilv, or wanted to take the risks (of which, at least the atmosphere of high risk was always maintained).
Now in this edition people assume-into things a risk that by RAW really is not specifically there (of course, as always, a DM can always do whatever he wants, including say "the superiors of X kill X rather than letting you call it" - which somehow only got applied by some earlier commenters to Lawful critters? When Chaotic ones might also, if that's the route you're going. After all, FREEDOM! - or whatever rationale the DM might want to invoke for why "no, you can't have nice things" - people can be endlessly inventive, I happily concede. But people can just as easily come up with rationales for why, of course X would want to come help us. So that is a blaster that points both ways and resolves nothing).
As it stands, the RAW for using these spells are speedbumps now that anyone worth their salt can overcome. You're correct that using these spells should be hair-raising, rather than "just another day at the office."
*Whether this was actual RAW or just a common (mis)interpretation I'll leave as an exercise for the reader. Please no need to debate the specifics of actual AD&D RAW here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But...my T-shirts. . .
I was going to get rich off of royalties on those and get an U.P.G.R.A.Y.D.D. to Hedonismbot.
*sadface*
|
|
I think returning the risk to magic is the key.
If Planar Binding was actually, unavoidably dangerous, would people be as concerned about the power?
I think in most games, it is actually unavoidably dangerous to kidnap and blackmail powerful creatures from other realms who likely have powerful friends. But others say that is GM fiat.
The spell explicitly say they can seek for revenge. So it is not GM fiat. HOWEVER. The game fluff is full of wizards that do bind elementals, genies and devils. So it should be *possible* to do so, depending on circumstances, rping, level ... A flat "every single creature you bind will bring back a huge army of outsiders with CR your level +10 so don't bother" is fiat
Also, you can bring creatures that can't really planeshit or revenge. Acelestial dinosaur for example
You say it isn't Fiat...
I think the way most people play it is if you Bind something powerful, you better give it a fair deal or else.
Which is basically what the spell says.
But in many, many threads if people point out risk of any kind they should "FIAT!"
I think there needs to be some failure chance in the casting that means that no matter how good you are, say 5% of the time, that Celestial Dinosaur will not be bound, and you will have to deal with that.
But I think there is a move away from such things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Adding risk to spells is fun, and makes for a better story and better game, but it doesn't actually balance anything.
It's like the 1e psionics, "it's balanced because you only get it 1% of the time when you roll up your character!" And then someone hits that 00 and was using dominate person abilities at will at 1st level. That wasn't balanced, but it was sure fun for the one guy who happened to hit that roll.
And like I said, if Kirth the Conjurer summons Quaolnargn and gets eaten by it, I just roll up Karth the Conjurer and try again. Sooner or later someone will end up with a bound Quaolnargn that eats dungeons.
|
|
Adding risk to spells is fun, and makes for a better story and better game, but it doesn't actually balance anything.
Like I said, if Kirth the Conjurer summons Quaolnargn and gets eaten by it, I just roll up Karth the Conjurer and try again. Sooner or later someone will end up with a bound Quaolnargn that eats dungeons.
My goal isn't specifically balance.
I want a system where Kirth the Conjurer can exist as my BBEG, with the concept being 20 other wanna be Kirth the conjurers died to get there.
If a PC is able to summon something awesome, that doesn't bother me unless it is also combined with the fact that they will always, unalterably do something awesome, all the time..
It is kind of like that scene in the otherwise horrible Deep Blue Sea, where Samuel L. Jackson is being Samuel L. Jackson giving an awesome, powerful, epic speech.
Until the Shark bites him in half.
I don't care if Kirth the Conjurer summons Quaolnargn, at great risk to his personal being, and that cleared that dungeon on that day.
I do care if he can do it every day, with no risk of Quaolnargn biting him in half and the rest of the party having to deal with the new "Kill Quaolnargn" quest that just happened.
|
|
On the point you added after I replied, I think if the casters are powerful but squishy, I'm fine with that.
The fact that someone can re-roll Kirth 2: Electric Boogaloo is a separate issue for me.
I'm still going to mock you for the time you got eaten by Quaolnargn every time you tell me how powerful you are :)
My goal isn't specifically balance.
Yeah, I gather that.
Ya, that dying is a huge deal to casters, they definitely don't have spells that can restore life to the dead like Raise Dead, or Resurrection (or reincarnate... if you feel lucky punk... well do ya?) and heaven forbid they have Clones or Astral Projections. I'm sure martial class have lots of ways to come back from dying! Right? (You count as a half-caster Mr. Alchemist with Doppelganger Simulacrum, put your hand down.)
Also Conjurers who wish to Planar Bind those who might seek revenge... make sure you kill them when you are finished with them, preferably after saying "You've outlived your usefulness." No muss, no fuss.
Adding risk to spells is fun, and makes for a better story and better game, but it doesn't actually balance anything.
It's like the 1e psionics, "it's balanced because you only get it 1% of the time when you roll up your character!" And then someone hits that 00 and was using dominate person abilities at will at 1st level. That wasn't balanced, but it was sure fun for the one guy who happened to hit that roll.
I understand what you're saying, but i think it's a different sort of risk.
On the one hand, the "risk-reward" of rolling for psionics is: once you get it, you have it forever, and each use is reliable, and it sets you above all the other chumps who don't have it (so, for example, 1e Elminster was, naturally, psionic in addition to everything else).
The difference on adding risk to a spell is: each time you cast it, there is a chance that something bad happens. The more you use it, the more the law of large numbers takes over.
If the risk is high enough, you'll only use it when you really have to. (Of course, if you end up boloing, you're screwed. But then it gets used only when you'd have been screwed otherwise).
Anyhow, it's an idea worth considering. I dunno how to pull it off well, but it's worth pondering.
The difference on adding risk to a spell is: each time you cast it, there is a chance that something bad happens. The more you use it, the more the law of large numbers takes over.
Sure enough, but since planar binding lasts up to 1 day/level, it's just a matter of minimizing the risk by buffing your Charisma check and/or using Charisma debuff or complusion spells on the critter like the PF version of spiritwrack (whatever they called it), and casting as seldom as possible. It'll help, but not fix things -- unless maybe the failure chances are cumulative (like in Hardy's Master of the Five Magics -- the more times you summon a demon, the better it gets to know your mind, and the more likely it is to make you its slave instead of the other way around). Then it's not a negligible chance every time; eventually it's a certainty.
Overall, though, I guess that goes back to an important balance issue: is being able to reliably do something really lame just as good as being able to do totally stupendous things, but just less often? So far I'm going with "no."
Also Conjurers who wish to Planar Bind those who might seek revenge... make sure you kill them when you are finished with them, preferably after saying "You've outlived your usefulness." No muss, no fuss.Hmm, Good outsiders are liable to have friends and allies who might seek revenge. Evil outsiders are likely to have overlords annoyed that they have lost their minions.
Put it this way, if one of your enemies enslaved your cohort then butchered them once they had outlived their usefulness would you do nothing or seek revenge?
that's why it's much better to make a deal. Tell that efreet you are going to bring him twenty virgin slaves. Pay the earth elemental in valuable obsidian. Summon the Solar to fight evil and promise him an alignment shift to goodhood.
Or just bind some brutes as bodyguards. Celestial beasts with low int-cha are easier to bind. They have less SLA to play with, but they work as meatshields. You know,just like the party fighter :P
Also Conjurers who wish to Planar Bind those who might seek revenge... make sure you kill them when you are finished with them, preferably after saying "You've outlived your usefulness." No muss, no fuss.Hmm, Good outsiders are liable to have friends and allies who might seek revenge. Evil outsiders are likely to have overlords annoyed that they have lost their minions.
Put it this way, if one of your enemies enslaved your cohort then butchered them once they had outlived their usefulness would you do nothing or seek revenge?
But, but, but... the spell only says, "The creature might later seek revenge." It doesn't say that the creatures friends or masters or others concerned about the murdered beings welfare might later seek revenge. So you are totally just doing GM fiat. You might as well just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies!"[/sarcasm]
Now, I do not actually agree with what I just said above, but you know someone will make that argument.
Overall, though, I guess that goes back to an important balance issue: is being able to reliably do something really lame just as good as being able to do totally stupendous things, but just less often? So far I'm going with "no."
Well we've agreed in other threads that reliably doing stuff that is really lame is underwhelming and should be addressed.
I haven't changed my mind on that, and I don't agree with ciretose that "Moving the power level of non-casters up is a fools errand"
I think "Tier 4" (and "Tier 5" PC) classes should be upgraded (and I haven't changed my mind on the merits of some of your ideas for this).
Also, all the points you (Kirth) made about a specific type of risk are well taken, but it doesn't have to work that way (I can envision ways of accomplishing it which doesn't revolve around a mechanism that PCs can easily cheese to irrelevance. Can I describe that in rules terms? No, that's not my forte. But note I don't even go so far as to say ciretose's idea here is totally boss and should be adopted. Only that it is worth pondering and there is possibly a way to make it workable. . .which is what makes it worth pondering).
Also Conjurers who wish to Planar Bind those who might seek revenge... make sure you kill them when you are finished with them, preferably after saying "You've outlived your usefulness." No muss, no fuss.Hmm, Good outsiders are liable to have friends and allies who might seek revenge. Evil outsiders are likely to have overlords annoyed that they have lost their minions.
Put it this way, if one of your enemies enslaved your cohort then butchered them once they had outlived their usefulness would you do nothing or seek revenge?
So basically the same dangers as normal adventuring then? Or when you kill demons/angels/elementals while adventuring do they not seek revenge. More importantly, unless they are willing to invest resources the only one who knows you killed a particular demon/angel/elemental is the now very dead demon/angel/elemental. Plus hey, free xp that comes to you... that sounds like a bonus!
|
|
The difference on adding risk to a spell is: each time you cast it, there is a chance that something bad happens. The more you use it, the more the law of large numbers takes over.Sure enough, but since planar binding lasts up to 1 day/level, it's just a matter of minimizing the risk by buffing your Charisma check and/or using Charisma debuff or complusion spells on the critter like the PF version of spiritwrack (whatever they called it), and casting as seldom as possible. It'll help, but not fix things -- unless maybe the failure chances are cumulative (like in Hardy's Master of the Five Magics -- the more times you summon a demon, the better it gets to know your mind, and the more likely it is to make you its slave instead of the other way around). Then it's not a negligible chance every time; eventually it's a certainty.
Overall, though, I guess that goes back to an important balance issue: is being able to reliably do something really lame just as good as being able to do totally stupendous things, but just less often? So far I'm going with "no."
Cumulative could work, although extra bookkeeping.
And on your point, doing something stupendous with the risk of screwing everyone over by not only dying but releasing a demon/evil/etc...
If you think being a martial class in inherently being lame, which seems to be the implication, that is your opinion not backed up by the popularity of the class.
There are different classifications of spells on a certain level, and spells that have higher "win" possibility should also have a decent level of "fail" possibility.
People point to color spray as broken at 1st level, but if you are within 15 feet of enemies who made the save as a 1st level arcane caster, you are in trouble.
That is the balance I'm fine with. If the great and powerful Oz succeeds, hurray.
If the Great and powerful Oz fails, uh oh...
|
|
So basically the same dangers as normal adventuring then? Or when you kill demons/angels/elementals while adventuring do they not seek revenge. More importantly, unless they are willing to invest resources the only one who knows you killed a particular demon/angel/elemental is the now very dead demon/angel/elemental. Plus hey, free xp that comes to you... that sounds like a bonus!Also Conjurers who wish to Planar Bind those who might seek revenge... make sure you kill them when you are finished with them, preferably after saying "You've outlived your usefulness." No muss, no fuss.Hmm, Good outsiders are liable to have friends and allies who might seek revenge. Evil outsiders are likely to have overlords annoyed that they have lost their minions.
Put it this way, if one of your enemies enslaved your cohort then butchered them once they had outlived their usefulness would you do nothing or seek revenge?
|
|
Also Conjurers who wish to Planar Bind those who might seek revenge... make sure you kill them when you are finished with them, preferably after saying "You've outlived your usefulness." No muss, no fuss.Hmm, Good outsiders are liable to have friends and allies who might seek revenge. Evil outsiders are likely to have overlords annoyed that they have lost their minions.
Put it this way, if one of your enemies enslaved your cohort then butchered them once they had outlived their usefulness would you do nothing or seek revenge?
But, but, but... the spell only says, "The creature might later seek revenge." It doesn't say that the creatures friends or masters or others concerned about the murdered beings welfare might later seek revenge. So you are totally just doing GM fiat. You might as well just say "Rocks fall, everyone dies!"[/sarcasm]
Now, I do not actually agree with what I just said above, but you know someone will make that argument.
Did you summon him? :)
The difference on adding risk to a spell is: each time you cast it, there is a chance that something bad happens. The more you use it, the more the law of large numbers takes over.Sure enough, but since planar binding lasts up to 1 day/level, it's just a matter of minimizing the risk by buffing your Charisma check and/or using Charisma debuff or complusion spells on the critter like the PF version of spiritwrack (whatever they called it), and casting as seldom as possible. It'll help, but not fix things -- unless maybe the failure chances are cumulative (like in Hardy's Master of the Five Magics -- the more times you summon a demon, the better it gets to know your mind, and the more likely it is to make you its slave instead of the other way around). Then it's not a negligible chance every time; eventually it's a certainty.
Overall, though, I guess that goes back to an important balance issue: is being able to reliably do something really lame just as good as being able to do totally stupendous things, but just less often? So far I'm going with "no."
Personally, I find the opposed charisma check to be the only really broken part of planar binding. I feel like if they want to dominate the creature, they should have to spend more effort with something like Dominate Monster. Otherwise they should be forced to make a deal and, god forbid, roleplay. If nothing else, it shouldn't be an opposed charisma check because that just causes players to find the most powerful creatures with no charisma they can find. Caster level vs HD would be more appropriate IMO.
I also feel like there needs to be an upkeep cost for spells like this, where the player sacrifices a spell slot for the duraction to represent continual magic use.
People that point out that the limitation on the spell is not really limiting? Ya I suppose those people usually do exist...
I also feel like there needs to be an upkeep cost for spells like this, where the player sacrifices a spell slot for the duraction to represent continual magic use.
I agree with this -- that's what I'd suggested upthread for people storing up symbols and stuff, too. If all your mana is tied up in active and latent spell effects, you wouldn't have any left to cast spells with.
If you think being a martial class in inherently being lame, which seems to be the implication, that is your opinion not backed up by the popularity of the class.
Martial classes are popular primarily because of what they promise. And they do deliver it for a couple of levels -- or even more if the DM spends the effort to warp the game that way, and if the casters' players are indulging or incompetent. So, yeah, they're popular. That doesn't mean they're good, though, or even useful past a very limited lifecycle. And, remember, pet rocks were wildly popular for a while.
I've been nothing but respectful toward you.
P.S. I'm trying to indicate understanding -- that wasn't actually intended as sarcasm, although I agree it's harder than hell to read tone over the 'net.
|
|
If you have to attack with the duelist (+4 initative) weappn enchant before you get it, it is the worst weapon enchant everNo argument that it's a spectacularly confusing ruling, with what look to be unintended consequences coming out of its ears.
The more I think about it, the more it honestly hurts my head to try and piece together any kind of remotely coherent way that FAQ should be applied, without causing ridiculous side effects like what the dueling property gets hit with.
Duelist and defending aren't equivalent, because duelist only requires that the weapon be "drawn and in hand," while defending means it has to be "wielded," and the devs have repeatedly indicated that "wielded" is a more active state of use than simply holding it. The defending ruling has no impact on duelist at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think being a martial class in inherently being lame, which seems to be the implication, that is your opinion not backed up by the popularity of the class.Martial classes are popular primarily because of what they promise. And they do deliver it for a couple of levels -- or even more if the DM spends the effort to warp the game that way, and if the casters' players are indulging or incompetent. So, yeah, they're popular. That doesn't mean they're good, though, or even useful past a very limited lifecycle. And, remember, pet rocks were wildly popular for a while.
mcdonalds is very popular too. It doesn't mean it's a good diet.
Martials aren't lame. But at certain level, "mundane" is lame.
The problem is Gygax got inspired by Jack Vance for casters, and Tolkien for martials. Aragorn, Gimli and legolas are level *four* at best. They fight orcs, worgs, a troll with the young template, a giant spider, and they run when facing wraoths and balors. They can't take a dragon, or any high level threat.
Achilles is a high level martial. He killed an immortal being. He fought *a river* and *defeated it*. He was impervious to fear.
Beowulf fought a demon najed abd bareganded. He fought a sea monster for a week undersea *holding his breath*. He killed a dragon being old.
Hercules did 12 impossible tasks, and conquered Troia *alone*
Cuchulain rafe was so brutal that his sides broke and his eyes sucked in its sockets. He killed an entire army.
Sigfried killed a dragon, was invulnerable.
Gilgamesh, Finarfin, those ARE 20th level fighters.
Aragorb is level 4. That's the problem.
You don't have to convince me, Gustavo amigo -- we're on the same page!
You don't have to convince me, Gustavo amigo -- we're on the same page!
I knoe. Your post was just a convenient quote to express my point. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to convince me, Gustavo amigo -- we're on the same page!I knoe. Your post was just a convenient quote to express my point. :)
The problem isn't even totally Gygax. I mean, the man is dead. Have pity.
The problem is the mindset of a lot of people who play the game (and at least some of the people who design the game) today; when it comes to monsters with magical powers, or spellcasters, they think "fantastic."
When it comes to non-casters, they their mindset - for whatever level - is "what could a IRL peasant do, if you shoved a sword in his hand and asked him to keep watch? Could he do fantastic things? Hells no! And a higher level peon is still a peon. They shouldn't be able to do anything you or I couldn't do if we went to the weight room and bulked up (gotta bulk up)." The reference is completely changed, from fantasy to "realism" (gotta maintain "realism" with non-casters in the fantasy world, no matter how bogus that "realism" ends up being in the end).
A small - albeit small - example of this popped up in a thread completely unrelated to this, so it makes a useful analogy: the recent Crossbow thread. Now, people who use "regular" bows, long or short, composite or not, can take Feats that allow them to do. . .quite exceptional things. I guess Longbows are the Katana of the West. But one of the designers decided to help out in that thread by pointing out that it wouldn't be realistic to do X, Y, or Z with a Crossbow. When really one could design a Crossbow that did exceptional single-attack sniper damage, if one wanted to, and point to, say, the fate of Richard Cour de Leon as "a IRL example of how even powerful doods can get oneshotted with Crossbows." But, nope.
Note here I don't mean to be one of the people who slag on the Devs, Comic-book-guy-style. The Devs here are great, they do a wonderful job. But a phenomenon is a phenomenon. Irrespective of whether it's in the mindset of players or developers.
High level people should be capable of exceptional feats, simply because they are high level. They are presumed by these very same rules to have the same CR at the same level. Does that mean they should all be flipping around unreasonably, or all have the same powers? No, but it does mean that, as Kirth has pointed out, at a given level a given character (in a PC class) should be able to affect the world on roughly the same scale.
(Recognizing, again, the caveat that perfect balance isn't a reasonable expectation, and so on, and also the caveat that PF is a significant improvement on 3.5, which itself was a significant improvement on 3.0 - and only a few alterations were needed to accomplish both of these improvements, not an overturning of the entire game engine. The game is good, the people involved in it are good and work hard to put out good stuff, and everyone posting here has goodwill).
|
|
When Gustavo descibes the epic heroes, what I think we consider isn't so much the magical offense but the ridiculous defense.
That is what I think is lacking.
Attach some more spell resisting defense to high BaB an we get to something more like what you are describing.
They did a little bit of that with Barb and superstition, but I think there should definitely be some ridiculous fighter only high level "Your spell doesn't work because I am a $(%&$ Fighter." stuff and some other High BaB only stuff.
That is Achilles, that is Sigfried, hell that is Cuchulain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't have to convince me, Gustavo amigo -- we're on the same page!I knoe. Your post was just a convenient quote to express my point. :)The problem isn't even totally Gygax. I mean, the man is dead. Have pity.
The problem is the mindset of a lot of people who play the game (and at least some of the people who design the game) today; when it comes to monsters with magical powers, or spellcasters, they think "fantastic."
When it comes to non-casters, they their mindset - for whatever level - is "what could a IRL peasant do, if you shoved a sword in his hand and asked him to keep watch? Could he do fantastic things? Hells no! And a higher level peon is still a peon. They shouldn't be able to do anything you or I couldn't do if we went to the weight room and bulked up (gotta bulk up)." The reference is completely changed, from fantasy to "realism" (gotta maintain "realism" with non-casters in the fantasy world, no matter how bogus that "realism" ends up being in the end).
fun fact:at high levels, realism do not exist anyway.
My 15th level fighter got slept in a watch. We get ambushed by goblins. One of them sneak close to me. Seeing me sleeping, he puts a dagger in my throat. He pushes it. Coup de Grace. Guaranteed crit. The goblins do 2d3 damage with his small dagger and no str bonus. I roll For DC 13. I've just survived an execution. Then a dragon use "crush" on me. That means he lands on me crushing me under his weight. For a colossal dragon, that's a hundred thousand pounds or so. Then I climb mount Rushmore in full plate. I jump, and crash the land for 20d6, and finally go to breakfast cyanide.
All that is ok. But a 1/day ability to sunder magic? NO WAY.THAT BREAKS MY F$!$ING IMMERSION DUDE
True story, bro.
But we should probably reserve further discussion of that stuff for the Martial threads.