Question to GMs: Have you really ever had an issue with the so called "GOD" wizard?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

651 to 700 of 782 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

I think sundering magic makes sense. I think getting extra saves against spells makes sense. I think spell resistance makes sense.

I think that at the end of the day, the full BaB class without spells should be able to be more resistant to magic as a trade off for not being tainted by it.

I think that makes tons of sense, and would address tons of issues with roles at higher levels.

Dark Archive

Back to the question. Question to GMs: Have you really ever had an issue with the so called "GOD" wizard? I have see it done in different ways. One less effective way leave the wizard indifferent to death with some contingency-greater teleport-clone. Death indifference can become a problem. The risk of death or risk of something is part of the game. If they are playing an evil (weather on paper or just play it that way) pc they don't risk much of anything ever. O ya back to the question - if the wizard doesn't rain on the other players parade and every one is having fun it is not an issue. I don't like playing level 17 + that long I find it uninteresting and the game tends to bog.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I do recall a time when I saw the possibility of the god wizard glimmer.

Playing Curse of the Crimson Throne, I had a dwarven Ranger/Wizard. We only accomplished the first module, but during the chase scene I expeditious retreated myself to keep up, feather falled the gnome when he fell from the rooftop, dazed the target of our chase to end it, and later greased the guards to allow the plot important NPC to escape.

A lucky string of perfect circumstances? Maybe, but with more spell slots those perfect circumstances come up more often just by way of having more varied spells that suit more situations.


I am having a lot of trouble with an item, the otherworldly kimono.

No sr maze is pretty good, also it gives crazy bonuses. It is a steal for casting characters


CWheezy wrote:

I am having a lot of trouble with an item, the otherworldly kimono.

No sr maze is pretty good, also it gives crazy bonuses. It is a steal for casting characters

That is a nice item.


Anzyr wrote:

Huh, maybe its just me but:

"Unless the descriptive text for a spell (or attack) specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack."

The only time damage to them appears to come up in is:

"If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects)."

Rolling a natural 1 could happen admittedly and the capes may need to be something sturdier in the future. (Interestingly, the Summoned Monster explosive runes causes no save to be rolled... fortunate.)

These are the rules I'm using to stack capes, but if I'm missing something let me know, though I may opt for something more durable anyway.

Read the above Lord Twig. Explosive Runes explicitly destroys the object its on (in this case a cape). Thus Cape 1 is read and is destroyed. This makes Cape 2 Visible, which is then read, which make Cape 3 visible. This will get you to X * 6d6 damage.

Next, this build is perfectly comfortable fighting flying opponents, as there are a number of flying summons that can be created with a Summon Monster IV or V (or III in a pinch). Summon Monster II can be used to have a small Wind Elemental deliver Explosive Runes to face. Barriers are fine as well.

Also with a base of 13 and a max of 18 for Initiative... you must have some pretty fancy CR 9's to stand a chance of going first. Surprise is possible but unlikely at CR 9 thanks to Permanent Arcane Sight and See Invisibility, while being Flying and Invisible.

Go and pick out that CR 9 encounter like I asked and I'll demonstrate.

Doesn't reading a symbol take a finite amount of time? Can someone read "all" of the symbols in one round? I'd be inclined to say no ...


In case anyone was still looking I have located the bit about the Defending weapon property. It is in the CRB FAQ. Helpfully its in the Spells and Magic section and not the Magic Item section.../sarcasm.

If you don't make an attack roll with the weapon then you don't get the bonus AC.


Fine. It's a deserved nerf, but I find its ruling quite awkward. It contradictscthe explicit text of defending for no particular reason than "in our county we drive at 40mph in this road"

Liberty's Edge

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Fine. It's a deserved nerf, but I find its ruling quite awkward. It contradictscthe explicit text of defending for no particular reason than "in our county we drive at 40mph in this road"

But back to sundering magic. Maybe it is for another thread, but what could we give to martials, at high levels (based on BaB, so it is really for martials) that would give them the defenses they need to be the epic heroes.

I like sunder magic. I like spell resistance, I like extra saves.

Maybe it is another thread, but I think this is an interesting framework.


I think the best way to limit magic is to increase the cost. In spell slots, wealth and actions. Make more powerful spells take a full round action or several even. Make spells with powerful strategic effects, such as Planar Binding or Teleport highly expensive.


And the best way to buff martials is to make manoeuvres easily available and promising actions in combat. No AoO, solid success chance even if you do not specialise in them and expanded options to cause various debuffs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You got your chocolate in my peanut butter!


One of the issues that's addressed less often is the unintentional side effect of the sheer variety of options. And no, I don't mean the ability to fly or planar walk or grease.

I mean that there are so many spells, and that with each publication, there are greater and greater numbers of them...

...this issue isn't dissimilar to feats, save there are a lot more spells...and they can have more finicky rules.

...and therefore, you get balance, interpretation, and so forth issues. It's part of the nature of the beast and with things as they are, it's more or less unavoidable, even with attentive editors.

Aside from hiring more editors, and adding more scrutiny, what else could be done? That might be a good thought exercise for the future.

We've got a while to tumble it around.


Well....that depends; do you mean the wizard that winds up becoming a new God because of some moron *cough*cough*Cyric*cough*cough*, who takes down the old God, only years before in your own timeline have the rest of those that *would* have taken over been killed off.....then yes....by purest of accidents....

If you mean a wizard that just overshadows the martial players....no. Never seen it ever in all my years of GMing 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and Pathfinder. I've seen God Fighters, God Barbarians, God Monks and God Clerics....but never a God Wizard. Would like to someday....it'd be nice to see.


No I have seen just about every class trivialize an encounter at one point but never every encounter. Battlefield control and buffing can be very nice but sometimes it doesn't make a real impact.


Merlin_47 wrote:

Well....that depends; do you mean the wizard that winds up becoming a new God because of some moron *cough*cough*Cyric*cough*cough*, who takes down the old God, only years before in your own timeline have the rest of those that *would* have taken over been killed off.....then yes....by purest of accidents....

Ah, Cyric... That brings back memories.


redliska wrote:
No I have seen just about every class trivialize an encounter at one point but never every encounter. Battlefield control and buffing can be very nice but sometimes it doesn't make a real impact.

1. My experience has been the same as yours.

2. Thanks for answering the actual question.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Ah, Cyric... That brings back memories.

The sad truth of it is.....I was the only person against the wizard becoming the god.....and it was my old character!


Ashiel wrote:

I've seen it first hand. I have no issue with it. It's a thing of great power and beauty, like a star.

I think to have issue with it one must first have an issue with players doing productive things.

the only issue at my table with the wizard is that he needs to cast twice in a round at level 12th (based on her base attack bonus)


Juda de Kerioth wrote:
the only issue at my table with the wizard is that he needs to cast twice in a round at level 12th (based on her base attack bonus)

Dear lord, even worse than people saying "There are no problems with casters" we have people actually wanting to BUFF the most powerful classes in the game?

Today is a day filled with wonder and bafflement. First you can't kick people if your hands are full, then someone told me I was making rules up by quoting directly from a spell description as to what it does, and now someone wants to buff casters by essentially giving them free Quickened spells at 12th level.

I can't even...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You've only just come across that Rynjin? I've seen people give casters iterative spells and limit rogues to one sneak attack a round.


I've seen the one SA per round limit, but seriously> Iterative spells? This is a thing?

Maybe if Evocation was like the only type of casting, sure, but as it stands now?


ciretose wrote:

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 :)

adding risk to magic does nothing to balance it

if somebody has a hypothetical 1 in 40 chance of enslaving a tarrasque at 12th level with a 6th level conjuration spell, then that means, that after 39 conjurers die, the 40th will have an enslaved terrasque pet and still break the game.

all i did, was change my name 40 times, and some names, are so commonplace in a given culture, especially in fantasy, that they can be recycled.

Robert is quite a common name for a librarian. in fact, Robert is just as common as William, Johnathan, James, or variants of the above and Turnpage is a setting appropriate last name for anyone involved in libraries or spellbooks. so yes, you can have 40 wizards named Robert Turnpage whom died so the 41st can have the terrasque as his slave and break the game.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
ciretose wrote:

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 :)

adding risk to magic does nothing to balance it

if somebody has a hypothetical 1 in 40 chance of enslaving a tarrasque at 12th level with a 6th level conjuration spell, then that means, that after 39 conjurers die, the 40th will have an enslaved terrasque pet and still break the game.

all i did, was change my name 40 times, and some names, are so commonplace in a given culture, especially in fantasy, that they can be recycled.

Robert is quite a common name for a librarian. in fact, Robert is just as common as William, Johnathan, James, or variants of the above and Turnpage is a setting appropriate last name for anyone involved in libraries or spellbooks. so yes, you can have 40 wizards named Robert Turnpage whom died so the 41st can have the terrasque as his slave and break the game.

Is this really how you game? My character means nothing. Who cares if he dies? There is always another adventurer right behind me with the same name, same skills, and same equipment?

Then how do wizards break any games? Oh, you teleported and killed the BBEG with your spell? Well BBEG 2 was right behind and now gets all his actions. Oh no, my fighter was held? No matter, BSF 2 to the rescue!


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
ciretose wrote:

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 :)

adding risk to magic does nothing to balance it

if somebody has a hypothetical 1 in 40 chance of enslaving a tarrasque at 12th level with a 6th level conjuration spell, then that means, that after 39 conjurers die, the 40th will have an enslaved terrasque pet and still break the game.

all i did, was change my name 40 times, and some names, are so commonplace in a given culture, especially in fantasy, that they can be recycled.

Robert is quite a common name for a librarian. in fact, Robert is just as common as William, Johnathan, James, or variants of the above and Turnpage is a setting appropriate last name for anyone involved in libraries or spellbooks. so yes, you can have 40 wizards named Robert Turnpage whom died so the 41st can have the terrasque as his slave and break the game.

Is this really how you game? My character means nothing. Who cares if he dies? There is always another adventurer right behind me with the same name, same skills, and same equipment?

Then how do wizards break any games? Oh, you teleported and killed the BBEG with your spell? Well BBEG 2 was right behind and now gets all his actions. Oh no, my fighter was held? No matter, BSF 2 to the rescue!

actually, it was a hyperbole description not of how i play, but what i have witnessed of a few campaigns that had high mortality rates.

with Weekly William, we have a rule that new replacement PCs must have some relevant difference from the previous one.

using arcane spellcasters as an example; you can have many differences

such as a wizard of a different school, race, or significantly different attribute distribution, or a sorcerer of a different bloodline or a witch of a different patron to replace a deceased arcanist. names can be recycled depending on cultural popularity, but not twice in a row. 2 variants of a name can follow each other. for example, you can have a half elf fey bloodline sorceress named Ilina whom is replaced by an elven transmuter named Irene, whom is replaced by a human Elements Witch named Elena, whom is replaced by a human arcane bloodline sorcerer named Elina whom is replaced by a sylph sage bloodline sorceress named Iline whom is replaced by a Samsaran Conjurer named Irena whom is replaced by a half elf shadow sorceress named Irine whom is replaced by a tiefling witch named Irina whom is replaced by an elven healing witch named Rina followed by a Samsaran sage bloodline sorcerer named Rena

11 Variants of the same name, all with a difference in skills, and sometimes different skills or mechanics. they all have their defining mechanical differences and playstyles.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
ciretose wrote:

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 :)

adding risk to magic does nothing to balance it

if somebody has a hypothetical 1 in 40 chance of enslaving a tarrasque at 12th level with a 6th level conjuration spell, then that means, that after 39 conjurers die, the 40th will have an enslaved terrasque pet and still break the game.

all i did, was change my name 40 times, and some names, are so commonplace in a given culture, especially in fantasy, that they can be recycled.

Robert is quite a common name for a librarian. in fact, Robert is just as common as William, Johnathan, James, or variants of the above and Turnpage is a setting appropriate last name for anyone involved in libraries or spellbooks. so yes, you can have 40 wizards named Robert Turnpage whom died so the 41st can have the terrasque as his slave and break the game.

Is this really how you game? My character means nothing. Who cares if he dies? There is always another adventurer right behind me with the same name, same skills, and same equipment?

Then how do wizards break any games? Oh, you teleported and killed the BBEG with your spell? Well BBEG 2 was right behind and now gets all his actions. Oh no, my fighter was held? No matter, BSF 2 to the rescue!

actually, it was a hyperbole description not of...

So...yes?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

so yes

not immediately. our characters have some difference, and while they do appear at Living Party Average level with WBL in gear. they don't come right away.

BBEG 2 isn't right behind BBEG 1 nor is he or she exactly the same.

BSF 2 doesn't come to rescue BSF 1.

there has to be a justifiable event for the new PC to show up. such as stumbling upon the new guy for their team in the nearest town, Ads being placed in the tavern, making deals with stuff along the lines of pirate crews or mercenary companies, stuff like trouble makers handed to the party to keep under group supervision, or a mentor might hand over their apprentice who overstayed their welcome and is racking up debts.


Does your party ever scare off new PC recruits by mentioning the abnormally high mortality rate?


chaoseffect wrote:
Does your party ever scare off new PC recruits by mentioning the abnormally high mortality rate?

not really. new recruits don't often hear about the mortality rate until later. though they do hear promises of great wealth should they survive,

thing is, 90% of the wealth comes from dead PCs. and by 5th level, we no longer have the original cast nor any remnants.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
thing is, 90% of the wealth comes from dead PCs. and by 5th level, we no longer have the original cast nor any remnants.

That's really amusing to me. I imagine a group that started with some grand epic goal but as the generations of adventurers went by no one really knows what the hell the plan is anymore, but NPCs who presumably still know greet them with open arms and give them tasks that the PCs don't even care enough to question.


chaoseffect wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
thing is, 90% of the wealth comes from dead PCs. and by 5th level, we no longer have the original cast nor any remnants.
That's really amusing to me. I imagine a group that started with some grand epic goal but as the generations of adventurers went by no one really knows what the hell the plan is anymore, but NPCs who presumably still know greet them with open arms and give them tasks that the PCs don't even care enough to question.

sounds like my group with Weekly William.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Like I said, I could be missing something, but it looks like you will have decent AC, no not magical offense, and not much magical offense if you are also healing based on the spell list you have available.
andreww wrote:

I am not doing a level by level breakdown for you because it is quite apparent at this stage that you aren't looking to discuss in good faith. I should have realised that when I started to reply to you again.

Also Oracles get all of the cure or inflict spells automatically as they level up.

ciretose wrote:

Yes cure OR inflict.

And if you are going to accuse me of things every time I ask you a question don't bother...

He's not obliged to post 20 different builds at every level, because your question is utterly irrelevant.

He's shown what the character is capable of, when it hits its peak.
He's said that, at level 1, it's an unremarkable Oracle, doing support and healing. Which is as much as anyone an ask of a 1st-level PC.
I can't imagine any 1st-level PC group turning away someone willing to take the unglamorous role of healer, because that person forgot to bring offensive spells.
The character is doing exactly what is expected of it.

He doesn't have to prove the character is Godlike at every level 1 through 20. As long as it possesses no obvious Achilles Heel, that would get it killed by a kobold child with a toothpick at level 1, you can assume the character is capable of surviving to the higher levels at which it does dominate play.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:

it's not the same. There's no rule that say you can't take actions dead, but there's no rule that says you CAN take actions dead either. Compare that to the examples given, where there ARE rules that allow you to [...] write 1001 explosive runes in a book, and then detonate them with a missed dispel magic[...].

Those aren't using actions not covered by the rules (like acting being dead). They use actions covered by the rules, explicitly.
ciretose wrote:

No, there are ways of reading the rules that say you can do those things, just as there are ways of reading the scenario I posted above as suicide rather than murder.

They are based on assumptions not outlined in the rules.

[...]At the same time, reading exploits into spells because technically it could be read that way when clearly it wasn't isn't the same thing. Explosive runes as a spell is clearly written to be it blows up if you read it and you can also be hurt if you are within 10 feet.

And then it goes on to explicitly describe how they are also set off by failed attempts to dispel.

"Another creature can remove them with a successful dispel magic or erase spell, but attempting to dispel or erase the explosive runes and failing to do so triggers the explosion."
Dispelling can explicitly be targeted at all unattended objects in an area, and can explicitly be attempted at range.
So if you created multiple copies of Explosive Runes, placed them together, then targeted the area with a dispel (preferably low caster level, such as from a scroll or wand), the runes which were successfully dispelled would explicitly be erased, and the ones which were not successfully dispelled would explicitly be set off.
The damage is explicitly stated in the spell description, affecting anyone within 10 feet of the resulting explosion.
Therefore, it is explicitly possible to use such runes as a remotely-triggered weapon.

The RAW state this is exactly how the spell works.
The only possible interpretation of RAI is that the designers wrote that explicit and unequivocal text, in such an explicit and unequivocal way, for the explicit and unequivocal purpose of having the spell work in that explicit and unequivocal way.

There is no 'exploit'.
There is no 'reading extra things that aren't there'.
There are no 'assumptions'.

You've spent much of the thread insulting people ('waving their e-peens'...seriously? How old are you?) who read the exact text of the Core Rulebook, and adjudicate their game, based on the actual text on the page.
It's tiresome trying to debate with someone who refuses to acknowledge the actual text, on the actual page, even when it's placed in front of their own eyes.

Instead of falsely accusing others of inserting text that isn't there,, and slandering their motives for bringing up problems to developers attention; why don't you explain why you think yourself justified in persistently refusing to acknowledge the existence of the actual explicit sentence in question?

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Caineach wrote:
Simulacrum wrote:
Simulacrum text

You get the creatures special abilities. This includes spell like abilities, so it would include wish.

However it then adds "for a creature of that level or HD" - leaving it up to the GM to decide what SLA are appropriate. Thus, if your player is breaking Simulacrum, I argue that as a GM you are letting them.

You make a good point there, that the spell invites GM adjudication on a case-by-case basis.

Which makes it an utterly terrible spell to include in a Players' Handbook, or the player section of the PF Corebook.
I die inside, whenever a player brings an illusionist or enchanter to the table, because I know the game is going to come to a crashing halt, every time they take an action, and we have to listen to the player pontificating on the life history of every orc or town guard, so as to work out what they would consider 'believable' figments, or 'acceptable' suggestions.

Players should have a reasonable expectation, that the options presented in the spell lists are the most commonly-used formulae, which have been tried and tested by generations of casters, refined to the point they are easily recognisable with a Spellcraft check, even one second into the casting, quick enough to be counterspelled.

Since the standard rules explicitly state they can be bought and sold, in the form of scrolls, potions and wands, they should be expected to do 'exactly what they say on the tin'.

If a spell has such complicated, bespoke ingredients and effects, that they have to be debated and haggled over, by player and GM, every single time they are used, then strictly speaking, they should fall into the category of independent spell research, and not be included in the 'off the peg' spell lists.
Make such spells into rituals, make the players research them throughout the course of a campaign, and make the overall metaplot relate to the fallout from their abuse.

What would be the consequences, in a hereditary aristocracy, of the existence of clones, simulacrua, or raising the dead?
That could have been the focus of an entire campaign, with the PCs slowly discovering that imposters were in positions of power, figuring out how such a thing were even possible, tracking down the suppliers of the rare materials, and unmasking/foiling the attempt to destabilise the continent.

Or it could have been, if such effects had not been made daily spells, expected to be used daily, thus wrecking any wonder, and relegating them to the status of household chores.

To Do List:
Put bins out for the dustmen
Strip the beds
Grow clone double
Wash dishes (leave to drain)
Empty cat litter
Raise monarch from the dead (AGAIN! - seriously?)
Gather laundry; take to washroom
Put away dry crockery
Make lunch
Carve out personal demiplane from the seething maelstrom of Limbo
Hang out wet clothes on the line
Sort out odd socks....


Rynjin wrote:
I've seen the one SA per round limit, but seriously> Iterative spells? This is a thing?

I remember back in 3.0 when Haste was the best spell in the game. And I don't mean "for it's level", or "pound by pound". It was the best spell in the game, PERIOD.

Quote:
Maybe if Evocation was like the only type of casting, sure, but as it stands now?

If you give my eldritch knight the ability to cast three empowered maximized intensified fireballs + a quickened empowered intensified fireball, then "nuclear power" would reach a new definition


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh. Personally if I had my druthers a lot of metamagic would go bye-bye.

Empowered is neat, as is Intensified, and a few others are useful without being OVERLY useful, but things like Quicken and Dazing are ridonkulous.

If we trimmed those down and removed or changed a lot of the storybreaker powers an iterative spell system might be feasible.

Something like 2 spells at 10-12, 3 spells at 20, with a limitation that full round spells can't be used (no mass summoning).

Change some of the major encounter ending spells to be full round actions.

I think it could work, with a major overhaul of the magic system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snorter wrote:

I often see the argument "The rulebooks will need to be 1000 pages long!", which I believe is Chicken Licken doomsaying whenever I hear it.

Many of the changes that would clarify problem spells, explain intent, and prevent abuse could be done so with less than one line.

In some cases, it would actually take less space, to explain a rule clearly, than the convoluted way it was originally written.

I would love to agree with you, but after the message boards on TWF and THF (armored spikes FAQ) that exploded the last couple of days I have to disagree. Even when a FAQ clearly explains an unclear rule, a lot of people don't want to hear it. They demand a rationale for the rule. When a dev came on an tried to give the rationale for the FAQ, people wanted a longer, more detailed explanation. A second dev comes on, gives a longer explanation, but it wasn't enough. A third dev came on, gave an even more in-depth rationale for the FAQ, and there is still a lot of arguing. It makes me think that regardless of how well the Devs explain the rules, people will choose to not believe it cause it doesn't fit their genius idea of how to break the rules. Personally, I think that in order to make the rulebook absolutely clear to all it would be much larger than 1000 pages and no game company would even think about publishing it.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen the thread in question, as I've been away, but I suspect it could be the one Rynjin refers to (Today is a day filled with wonder and bafflement. First you can't kick people if your hands are full...)?

If it is, have you considered that the reason people aren't happy to accept the ruling, could have less to do with them being argumentative/entitled/stubborn, etc, and maybe that the developers in question are provably wrong?

This is going back to what Kirth and Porphyrogenitus were describing, of the tendency for martial characters to be held to a far stricter standard of realism than casters.
This would be bad enough in itself, but what often happens is that they go further even than that, to disallow not just 'epic deeds of martial fantasy', but make it difficult to impossible to carry out simple actions that can be demonstrated by real people.

Every time a new spell comes out, it expands caster options ("WhooHoo! New spells! More stuff I can do! And if I'm a cleric or druid, I don't even have to expend any effort or resources to learn them!).

Many times a martial feat comes out, it restricts martial options ("Sorry mate, I know we've been letting you do that as part of your current feats, but it looks like you now need this other feat, after all...").

A caster is allowed to cast twice per round, while turning cartwheels in midair, selecting the exact spell components, for both spells, from a pouch that contains infinite amounts of materials for every spell that has ever existed, or will ever exist, manipulating them with the finesse of the world's finest croupier, while visualising arcane five-dimensional geometry, and chanting antediluvian words of creation first uttered by the wriggling abominations that first crawled out of the ocean, sounds that the human throat was never designed to speak.

Because 'it's fantasy, therefore imposing any realistic bookkeeping on materials, or asking how he holds two metamagic rods while fishing through his pouch in midair, or asking how he manages to take a breath, would be harshing his vibe, and ruining the player's fun'.

Meanwhile, the experienced Fighter, trained in multiple forms of unarmed combat, and specialised in his weapon of choice, firmly braced on solid ground, isn't allowed to stick his leg out, to kick someone running past, if he anything in his hands.

Because 'realism'.

Even though you could call up hundreds of youtube videos of real life (ie low level) martial artists, doing exactly that.
Even though you could walk past a school playground, and see Level Zero NPCs with the young template, encumbered with schoolwork, sports kit and other bags, booting seven shades of crap out of each other, while their hands are full.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
I've seen the one SA per round limit, but seriously> Iterative spells? This is a thing?

Not until Pathfinder 2nd Edition at least.

"It's come to our attention that Spellcasters have some limitations, sui we've made some changes to eliminate those weaknesses. Meanwhile, we think Combat Maneuvers, Stealth and precision attacks are just too easy to pull off, so we're making some changes there as well."

Liberty's Edge

@Snorter - Or it is a day that the Devs corrected wrong assumptions made by players who think they know the rules better than the Devs.

Generally because someone in an optimization thread who believes the Devs designed the game to have simulacrum genie wish machines told them they were reading it right...

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is it not a fact, that needless rule impediments are constantly thrown in the way of martial PCs, to prevent them carrying out simple actions, that can be demonstrated by level zero commoners in the real world?

"All movement greater than a double move must be in a straight line."

So why do we have oval running tracks?

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"I'll pick up this stick, and hit him with it."

"Sorry, but that is a stick FROM JAPAN. So you'll need Exotic Weapon Proficiency."

"It's...a stick! A simple, straight, uncomplicated stick."

"But it's a stick...<hushed tones of awe>from Japan. There's a difference."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry, Sebastian and Roberta Yang and (long-lost) Violetta Vadim.
Snorter is my new hero.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You can hit him with it, you just can't use the exotic damage stats.


boldstar wrote:
Snorter wrote:

I often see the argument "The rulebooks will need to be 1000 pages long!", which I believe is Chicken Licken doomsaying whenever I hear it.

Many of the changes that would clarify problem spells, explain intent, and prevent abuse could be done so with less than one line.

In some cases, it would actually take less space, to explain a rule clearly, than the convoluted way it was originally written.

I would love to agree with you, but after the message boards on TWF and THF (armored spikes FAQ) that exploded the last couple of days I have to disagree. Even when a FAQ clearly explains an unclear rule, a lot of people don't want to hear it. They demand a rationale for the rule. When a dev came on an tried to give the rationale for the FAQ, people wanted a longer, more detailed explanation. A second dev comes on, gives a longer explanation, but it wasn't enough. A third dev came on, gave an even more in-depth rationale for the FAQ, and there is still a lot of arguing. It makes me think that regardless of how well the Devs explain the rules, people will choose to not believe it cause it doesn't fit their genius idea of how to break the rules. Personally, I think that in order to make the rulebook absolutely clear to all it would be much larger than 1000 pages and no game company would even think about publishing it.

Well, that whole deal is less about the rules being unclear than it is that a lot people thinks the ruling was stupid, and SKR kind of stuck his foot in his mouth with the whole "secret rules" thing.

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Sorry, Sebastian and Roberta Yang and (long-lost) Violetta Vadim.

Snorter is my new hero.

Bah. You have a hero.

I have heroes.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

[Bowie]We can be heroes.

Just for one day.[/Bowie]

Scarab Sages

Chengar Qordath wrote:
Well, that whole deal is less about the rules being unclear than it is that a lot people thinks the ruling was stupid, and SKR kind of stuck his foot in his mouth with the whole "secret rules" thing.

Wasn't I supposed to get a Super Secret Decoder Ring, as part of my Superscriber initiation?


TOZ wrote:


Bah. You have a hero.

I have heroes.

No you don't, that show was canceled years ago.

651 to 700 of 782 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Question to GMs: Have you really ever had an issue with the so called "GOD" wizard? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.