I agree that some people have that response. But I have never stated that. I never stated that the section should be blacked out nor have I stated it should not be used. I have stated that certain items should never be made and one of those is anything involving the spell true strike.
My first comment on this thread was simply a statement that if you allow an item in as a 1/day it won't be long before someone is pushing for 5/day or infinite use (even if that DOES break the game).
It does not matter if that item does not break the game at 1/day or not. People always try to push boundries. This is why I start from a position of 'no'. It makes socializing less problematic (compared to having to constantly defend your disallowing one item but not another).
- Gauss
I started by responding to that, but then got in to arguing against the general forum response to item crafting.
Anyway, I agree with Gluttony here. I feel it's much easier to have hard lines between what is and isn't acceptable rather than deal with things on a case by case basis, regardless of your default answer.
Also notice that truestrike is a range personal spell with an unusual duration. It's not hard to draw a line that excludes it.
I think we will have to agree to disagree when it comes to where to draw the initial line. I draw it early to prevent arguments later. You draw it later and hope people are reasonable.
- Gauss
Why is item crafting any different than any other part of the game?
Because magic items combine features from many different areas of the game with a vast number of possible permutations that changes with every new spell, feat or item property published and it is impossible for the devs to predict them all.
That and True Strike is a Bad Idea to include in any weapon, period.
That and True Strike is a Bad Idea to include in any weapon, period.
So some people seem to say, but I've yet to hear any argument as to why it's a bad idea beyond "it's a bad idea", "it's a guaranteed hit", or "if you give your players a 1/day use you'll end up having to let them have infinite uses".
The first argument is circular, the second is simply stating what the spell is supposed to do (and if the problem is with the guaranteed hit, then perhaps your problem should be with True Stike as a whole rather than specifically on a weapon), and the third being wrong if the GM has any ability to stand by their decisions.
Also something the should be noted:
1/day True Strike on a weapon > 3000gp cost.
Scroll of True Strike = 25gp cost.
For the cost of the weapon I've created, one could get 136 scrolls of True Strike, or 68 scrolls if the weapon was crafted. That's over 2 to 4 months of using it every day in game before it becomes more cost effective than just buying scrolls (over 4 to 8 months of in-game days if the scrolls are being crafted). If someone is willing to put up with their fancy magic weapon being less cost-effective than a simple 1st level scroll for that long, I think they deserve the benefit of a guaranteed hit per day once they're finally past the 8 month mark.
The problem with that is that a scroll of true strike is only reliably used by those with true strike on thier spell lists. If you were to limit the weapon of true strike to the same classes then perhaps alot of the arguments would evaporate. (And yes, UMD would allow anyone to use either depending on the check.)
- Gauss
That and True Strike is a Bad Idea to include in any weapon, period.So some people seem to say, but I've yet to hear any argument as to why it's a bad idea beyond "it's a bad idea", "it's a guaranteed hit", or "if you give your players a 1/day use you'll end up having to let them have infinite uses".
Then if it's such a great idea, why hasn't it been done before? Why are there NO items anywhere in any official 3.X or Pathfinder release that use True Strike? Because it isn't a great idea. Swords of True Strike have been joked about since 3.0, so it's not that anyone hasn't thought of it, they just knew better than to go there. Mechanically, there is no reason not to allow more than 1/day uses, if you are going to allow it at all. If you can have more than 1/day, you can have infinity per day if you pay for it. Allow it on a toothpick and somebody will want it on a greatsword, and why not?
The thing is, it's not the damage dice that really do the DPR, it's delivering the hits, and True Strike does that too well. It's self-limiting as a spell in the hands of a not-to-hot fighting character, but it's always been kept out of a full BAB class.
WoTC's opinion on items of true strike
And before people cry 'but that was 3.5!' for the most part the custom item table hasnt changed since 3.5. Pathfinder is still based on 3.5 and thus some design elements which have not changed still have the same logic as 3.5.
- Gauss
WoTC's opinion on items of true strike
And before people cry 'but that was 3.5!' for the most part the custom item table hasnt changed since 3.5. Pathfinder is still based on 3.5 and thus some design elements which have not changed still have the same logic as 3.5.
- Gauss
That kind of underlines my point.
I have a faint memory of a 1/day true strike +1 light crossbow in a 3.0 product. Cant swear on it though. Just a side note.
The problem with that is that a scroll of true strike is only reliably used by those with true strike on thier spell lists.
Potion of True Strike then. Twice the cost of the scroll, no UMD. Still more cost-effective than the weapon for a good 2 - 4 in-game months.
Then if it's such a great idea, why hasn't it been done before? Why are there NO items anywhere in any official 3.X or Pathfinder release that use True Strike? Because it isn't a great idea. Swords of True Strike have been joked about since 3.0, so it's not that anyone hasn't thought of it, they just knew better than to go there. Mechanically, there is no reason not to allow more than 1/day uses, if you are going to allow it at all. If you can have more than 1/day, you can have infinity per day if you pay for it. Allow it on a toothpick and somebody will want it on a greatsword, and why not?
I didn't say it's a "great" idea per-say, just that it's not such a horrible one as its being made out to be.
On the link of WotC's stance on True Strike I honestly don't agree with them on it being broken. Their calculations on cost are unrelated to the argument they're making anyways. The argumetnt is against a weapon that can cast True Strike (such as what I've made) while their "ooh look at how terrifying this is" calculation is for a ring that provides a constant True Strike bonus on every attack. Totally different things.
Mechanically, there is no reason not to allow more than 1/day uses, if you are going to allow it at all. If you can have more than 1/day, you can have infinity per day if you pay for it.
Unless the GM is capable of drawing the line anywhere between 1 and infinite. If you let your players scream you into submission whenever they want something then sure, perhaps its best to avoid putting the idea into their heads.
Potions of personal spells are specifically prohibited.
Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions.
Regarding WoTC's stand of true strike being broken one of the points I was making when I posted that link is that all of those 'people' that think it is broken INCLUDE the games developers. I guess I wasnt explicit about that.
So some people seem to say, but I've yet to hear any argument as to why it's a bad idea beyond "it's a bad idea", "it's a guaranteed hit", or "if you give your players a 1/day use you'll end up having to let them have infinite uses".
- Gauss
You know, given some thought, a Command Word Ring of True Strike, really isn't as broken as everyone things it is. Sure, it's a guaranteed hit, but it's a guaranteed hit, every other round. Considering I can't really think of any combination that does unbelievably awesome damage, in a single attack, it would really only benefit classes that can't hit the broadside of a barn (so... Monks then...) and very few others. Why would a fighter trade hitting 3 or 4 times in a round, for 1 they know will hit. Why would a Barbarian? Or a Paladin? Or a Ranger?
Answer is, they wouldn't.
Any Wizard/Sorcerer spell that requires an attack roll, is always a touch attack roll, so they are already going to be pretty good at hitting in that regard. If they were to make a normal melee attack, their paltry 1d6 or 1d8 isn't going to do them much good, if at all.
A continuous Ring of True Strike is broken as all hell, and I would never allow it. But, unless there is some Super-Duper 1 Hit Mega KO! attack that exists in this game, I can't really think of a reason why a Command Word Ring of True Strike shouldn't be allowed.
Even then, True Strike doesn't remove that 5% chance of rolling a 1.
Mechanically, there is no reason not to allow more than 1/day uses, if you are going to allow it at all. If you can have more than 1/day, you can have infinity per day if you pay for it.
That's just wrong, and I mean that in the sense that it's incorrect. A GM can simply say "no unlimited personal spells" or even "personal spells are 1/day max." Simple, hard lines that aren't simply no and need no further arguing, unless the players want to argue with every houserule the GM makes. At least they could do that up front though.
Also, the idea that 5/day = unlimited is kind of weird and probably lies at the heart of many of the issues, but it's close enough for a lot of spells. Personal spells, as you say, are usually self-limiting, so they are a separate problem.
You know, given some thought, a Command Word Ring of True Strike, really isn't as broken as everyone things it is. Sure, it's a guaranteed hit, but it's a guaranteed hit, every other round.
Good point. It's only really useful to anybody who hits less than 50% of the time (i.e. the people with UMD or who can likely cast True Strike from their own spell lists).
At higher levels especially, you're sacrificing 2 to 5 attacks in a round just to ensure that a single attack lands.
Then if it's such a great idea, why hasn't it been done before? Why are there NO items anywhere in any official 3.X or Pathfinder release that use True Strike? Because it isn't a great idea. Swords of True Strike have been joked about since 3.0, so it's not that anyone hasn't thought of it, they just knew better than to go there. Mechanically, there is no reason not to allow more than 1/day uses, if you are going to allow it at all. If you can have more than 1/day, you can have infinity per day if you pay for it. Allow it on a toothpick and somebody will want it on a greatsword, and why not?I didn't say it's a "great" idea per-say, just that it's not such a horrible one as its being made out to be.
In and of itself, probably not. It's just that with experience you learn that the thin end of the wedge is the bit to be wary of.
On the link of WotC's stance on True Strike I honestly don't agree with them on it being broken. Their calculations on cost are unrelated to the argument they're making anyways. The argumetnt is against a weapon that can cast True Strike (such as what I've made) while their "ooh look at how terrifying this is" calculation is for a ring that provides a constant True Strike bonus on every attack. Totally different things.
Not really, the effect is the same in that you get a hit with a +20 insight bonus to hit. That's an auto-hit on anything you have a chance in hitting.
Mechanically, there is no reason not to allow more than 1/day uses, if you are going to allow it at all. If you can have more than 1/day, you can have infinity per day if you pay for it.Unless the GM is capable of drawing the line anywhere between 1 and infinite. If you let your players scream you into submission whenever they want something then sure, perhaps its best to avoid putting the idea into their heads.
It's the difference between drawing the line on the hard, dry level and trying to draw it through the grease half-way down the ramp leading into the steaming swamp of doggy-do. If you can do it, great, but it's a better idea to just not try.
You know, given some thought, a Command Word Ring of True Strike, really isn't as broken as everyone things it is. Sure, it's a guaranteed hit, but it's a guaranteed hit, every other round.Good point. It's only really useful to anybody who hits less than 50% of the time (i.e. the people with UMD or who can likely cast True Strike from their own spell lists).
At higher levels especially, you're sacrificing 2 to 5 attacks in a round just to ensure that a single attack lands.
All of which is based on the assumption you will get those attacks.
What happens in a mobile fight? In these circumstances full attacks are rare and attackers rely on getting in good hits as and when they can find them. True strike makes these auto-hits and using it does not significantly influence the combat.
What happens with charging? Many weapons and special attacks give added advantages ion a charge, like double damage. Activate true strike the round before (and with infinite uses you can just keep activating it every round) and that's automatic insta-double damage.
What happens when the foe is using concealment (or blur or displacement) to avoid hits? On single attacks this can have a devastating effect. It can be deadly if you are using sniping at a distance (imagine high level rogue with composite longbow in cover at long range - foe can't see him, so sneak attack each hit with them having no chance of avoiding it...)
Even the ring of true strike has a lot of room for abuse if you think about it.
It's the difference between drawing the line on the hard, dry level and trying to draw it through the grease half-way down the ramp leading into the steaming swamp of doggy-do. If you can do it, great, but it's a better idea to just not try.
Unless the GM is capable of drawing the line anywhere between 1 and infinite. If you let your players scream you into submission whenever they want something then sure, perhaps its best to avoid putting the idea into their heads.
Again, this is just incorrect. It's very easy to, upfront along with any other house rules, state that personal range spells cannot be made unlimited. Simple, clean line with no slippery slope. Unless you or your group has a problem with house rules in general.
Also, you can't activate the ring every round. Only every other round. Just saying.
Again, this is just incorrect. It's very easy to, upfront along with any other house rules, state that personal range spells cannot be made unlimited.It's the difference between drawing the line on the hard, dry level and trying to draw it through the grease half-way down the ramp leading into the steaming swamp of doggy-do. If you can do it, great, but it's a better idea to just not try.
Unless the GM is capable of drawing the line anywhere between 1 and infinite. If you let your players scream you into submission whenever they want something then sure, perhaps its best to avoid putting the idea into their heads.
In theory. Wisdom is the difference between intelligently knowing the theory and having the experience of implementing it in practice. It will work...some of the time, with the right players. I have known good and reasonable players try to stretch the envelope now and then, because they convinced themselves it was a good idea.
Here's the thing: people are not reasonable. People have a condition called 'confirmation bias' which means they ignore things that say that what they want is a bad idea, and only pick up the stuff that says it is. Hence the need for group discussion, and the fact that small group dynamics always contain a 'devils advocate' who opposes things and pokes holes in other people's logic. You need that guy around.
Simple, clean line with no slippery slope. Unless you or your group has a problem with house rules in general.
No, some players have problems with DM's interpretation of the rules, they think it is wrong if it disagrees with what they want. Allowing true strike 1/day for player A is taken by player B as precedent for allowing infinite use. You allowed it, he wants it, now you are arbitrary for not allowing it.
Further, this nerfs effects that should be quite legal that often, such as shield spell effects.
Also, you can't activate the ring every round. Only every other round. Just saying.
Yes you can, it's a standard action to activate, infinite use. You can only activate it every other round when you activate it, then make an attack (standard action or full attack) the following round. If you are approaching a possible encounter you could activate the ring every turn in order to have your first action benefit from true strike, be it a counter-attack or a charge or whatever, whenever the encounter started.
No, some players have problems with DM's interpretation of the rules, they think it is wrong if it disagrees with what they want. Allowing true strike 1/day for player A is taken by player B as precedent for allowing infinite use. You allowed it, he wants it, now you are arbitrary for not allowing it.
So? Don't let your players boss you around. It's not arbitrary, it's GM decision based on where the GM think the line of reasonable vs. unreasonable lies. The key words being "GM decision". They don't get what they want just because they're the best at screaming and crying at you until you give in; they get what they want through reasonable discussion and working with the GM to meet a compromise while remaining aware that the GM has the last say. If they're unable to at least make an attempt to do that then they don't get what they want.
As for various "what if" scenarios, the answer depends on the scenario. In a moving battle perhaps the enemy starts double moving away when he realizes the PC is slowing down every 6 seconds to activate their magic sword. If the PC wants to keep up they have to skip that standard action. On a rogue with a bow the enemy figures out which side of himself the arrow is sticking out and runs to find cover from that direction. And so on. There's tons of potential good responses to any situation. To decide that there aren't any good responses and that you have to avoid the situation like the plague before it ever happens isn't a good response.
It's the difference between drawing the line on the hard, dry level and trying to draw it through the grease half-way down the ramp leading into the steaming swamp of doggy-do. If you can do it, great, but it's a better idea to just not try.
Don't try and you'll never improve. When it comes to coming to compromises with players you'll have absolutely no practice because you always say no right from the start. Players will see you as unwilling to compromise and will decide you're a bad GM for it (unless of course they've never known a GM who does compromise).
Couple things Dabbler, but first, let me point point that I understand you're being cautious, but I really sat down and pondered for a good two hours, searching the SRD for combo's that could break it.
You mentioned charging for double damage. That would take even longer. On the first round, they activate the ring, on the second round, they charge, on the third round comes a choice. They can withdraw, and not provoke an attack, which means they activate the ring on the fourth round, then charge again on the fifth round. Or they can try to tumble, then activate on the third round, then charge again on the fourth round.
So, in 4 rounds (the bare minimum), the Ring of True Strike allows for double damage twice. That really isn't a lot, considering most classes are going to be better off making a full attack, than a single attack. This tactic is also easily countered by hampering movement, such as difficult terrain or barriers.
The other thing you mentioned, a rogue sniping, can't really be done very well. Sneak Attack has a range of 30 ft (unless they take the sniper archetype, which increases the maximum range to 80 feet at 18th level), ans sniping incurs a -20 penalty to your stealth check to remain hidden, unless they take the Stealthy Sniper talent which reduces it to -10. Perception is the skill I see pumped most often, so any penalty to stealth can ruin your attempts at sniping.
Anyway, my post about a Command Word Ring, is purely theory. I'd have to see it in practice to make a final decision on it, but I know that won't happen because my players (2 in particular) will cry foul to the heavens if such a ring were introduced.
You have some very valid concerns, as do a lot of people, which is why there is a such a knee-jerk reaction to any True Strike item. But I'm curious if there truly is a point at which such an item can exist. I know some people insist that if you allow a 1/day True Strike, then you must automatically allow a 5/day True Strike, at which point you have to allow a continuous or use-activated True Strike, but this isn't practical. I don't know about other GMs, but my rulings are final. No argument someone could possibly conceive of, would allow a continuous True Strike item in my game.
[Edit] I should mention, the best combination I can possibly think of, is a Spring Attacking Rogue that has a Flanking buddy for Sneak Attacks.
As someone who has been DMing since 1980 I've noticed a few trends here...
The biggest one being the "I'm the DM and what I say goes" style
What I've found over the years is that approach doesn't work too well in the long term. BUT as a short term way to keep the game moving for *that session* it does wonders.
So what we've done is take the approach that between games we'll discuss as a group whatever house rules got made and figure out what to do with them.
With regards to magic items:
Default answer: yes (even for infinite use). Now figure out the cost. Discuss either 1 on 1 or as group depending upon circumstance. Everyone realizes pretty soon whether an item is available or not pretty quick at that point. Besides - it's FUN to design magic items (that is why we play a game after all isn't it? Fun?).
Incidentally from "Sword & Fist" (3.0) there was the bow of true arrows (almost like the toy we're talking about here) that was priced at 4k. Spell trigger so a 1 level dip was needed but so what. The point is it only applies to your 1st attack after casting anyway (which could be an AOO...)which will always be at your highest attack roll anyway.
And even if you mess up on the pricing - the item is too cheap for what it does - you can compensate for it. Tougher monsters, thieves, unwanted attention, offers to buy, more frequent encounters, etc.
There's all sorts of way to compensate without being autocratic.
JohnBear
Default answer: yes is my preferred method too. The "I'm the DM and what I say goes" response is what my response would be if a player began to insult me for not giving them what they wanted, while refusing any attempts to compromise. (i.e. it's my response in the hypothetical situations Dabbler is suggesting. It's being autocratic to a hypothetical player who has refused every offer of me being helpful.)
My players know that I'll work with them, often putting in far more time than they could spare on their own to reach solutions that make us both happy. So Rule 0 rarely if ever needs to be called into play. It's just important to establish an understanding that it does exist.
No, some players have problems with DM's interpretation of the rules, they think it is wrong if it disagrees with what they want. Allowing true strike 1/day for player A is taken by player B as precedent for allowing infinite use. You allowed it, he wants it, now you are arbitrary for not allowing it.So? Don't let your players boss you around.
It's much better to be prepared to compromise within limits understood by everyone. Such limits should be justified in game and in metagame terms both.
It's not arbitrary, it's GM decision based on where the GM think the line of reasonable vs. unreasonable lies.
But it can be argued as inconsistent to allow one form and not the other. If true strike can be enchanted into an item, why can't it be continuous? What in-game reason is there for why wizard A cannot do this?
The key words being "GM decision". They don't get what they want just because they're the best at screaming and crying at you until you give in; they get what they want through reasonable discussion and working with the GM to meet a compromise while remaining aware that the GM has the last say. If they're unable to at least make an attempt to do that then they don't get what they want.
I agree, and it's better to be consistent in order to maintain verisimilitude. Easier to say 'true strike just doesn't work when imbued into items' than to metagame it. People take that a lot easier.
As for various "what if" scenarios, the answer depends on the scenario. In a moving battle perhaps the enemy starts double moving away when he realizes the PC is slowing down every 6 seconds to activate their magic sword. If the PC wants to keep up they have to skip that standard action. On a rogue with a bow the enemy figures out which side of himself the arrow is sticking out and runs to find cover from that direction. And so on. There's tons of potential good responses to any situation. To decide that there aren't any good responses and that you have to avoid the situation like the plague before it ever happens isn't a good response.
There are, it's true. Thing is, you can never predict these things. Some player picks up item X, effect Y and puts them into combo Z that suddenly breaks your game and you have a problem.
It's the difference between drawing the line on the hard, dry level and trying to draw it through the grease half-way down the ramp leading into the steaming swamp of doggy-do. If you can do it, great, but it's a better idea to just not try.Don't try and you'll never improve. When it comes to coming to compromises with players you'll have absolutely no practice because you always say no right from the start. Players will see you as unwilling to compromise and will decide you're a bad GM for it (unless of course they've never known a GM who does compromise).
Over thirty years of DMing, I have compromised plenty and I have 'tried' on many occasions to improve the game for the benefit of everyone, to come with and help others come up with new ideas and novel items, to create the new and the different. In this time I have found out the things that work and the things that don't, what it's safe to play with and more importantly what isn't safe to play with.
You have some very valid concerns, as do a lot of people, which is why there is a such a knee-jerk reaction to any True Strike item. But I'm curious if there truly is a point at which such an item can exist. I know some people insist that if you allow a 1/day True Strike, then you must automatically allow a 5/day True Strike, at which point you have to allow a continuous or use-activated True Strike, but this isn't practical. I don't know about other GMs, but my rulings are final. No argument someone could possibly conceive of, would allow a continuous True Strike item in my game.
I know what you mean. Thing is, you are applying a metagame solution in this way and some players do not like that kind of explanation. It breaks verisimilitude for them, and that's not a good thing. It's much better to come up with an answer that is good both for the matagame and for verisimilitude. As above, it's better for verisimilitude to say 'true strike just doesn't work when imbued into items' than to try and come up with more complex in-game reasons that players will then argue around, hoping you will change your mind about the metagame.
You have some very valid concerns, as do a lot of people, which is why there is a such a knee-jerk reaction to any True Strike item. But I'm curious if there truly is a point at which such an item can exist. I know some people insist that if you allow a 1/day True Strike, then you must automatically allow a 5/day True Strike, at which point you have to allow a continuous or use-activated True Strike, but this isn't practical. I don't know about other GMs, but my rulings are final. No argument someone could possibly conceive of, would allow a continuous True Strike item in my game.I know what you mean. Thing is, you are applying a metagame solution in this way and some players do not like that kind of explanation. It breaks verisimilitude for them, and that's not a good thing. It's much better to come up with an answer that is good both for the matagame and for verisimilitude. As above, it's better for verisimilitude to say 'true strike just doesn't work when imbued into items' than to try and come up with more complex in-game reasons that players will then argue around, hoping you will change your mind about the metagame.
But a Command Word Ring isn't a metagame response. Some will say that a Continuous Ring can't be made because of it's odd-ball duration, but a Command Word item can be made. To say otherwise, is metagaming. A Command Word X/Day Ring, is also a valid item. The only real problem with a True Strike item, is when people want to make it Continuous or Use-Activated.
Personally, I'm very much so a 'yes' GM when it comes to item creation. I also assist players (from my table or others) in any item they wish to make, or often times make the item for them. Most of my players don't understand the Magic Item Creation Rules very well, and don't want to bother learning them. Instead, they ask about the possibility of an item, and I design it for them. Currently, only one of my player has even bothered to take me up on the offer, and we built a Ring of Tiny Size for him so he can ride his Pseudodragon friend, though players from other tables have brought the items I've designed to their tables and got GM approval. I do have a number of items for other characters in storage, that simply haven't made it to the table based off player desires.
Next time I get the chance, I think I'll introduce a True Strike Command Word Ring into the game, with the intention of stealing the Ring if someone can break it. I'll let the players know the item is a test into it's actual usefulness. If it doesn't break the game, they can keep it, if it does, it gets taken away.
Metagame doesn't immediately mean bad. I'd just like to throw that out there.
Plenty of methods of metagaming speed things along in game, providing ease of play and reducing confusion about what can and can't be done.
In the case of drawing the line between 1 and infinite, the metagamey response of "no infinite uses per day because the GM has decided so" is a response that allows players who want a true strike weapon to have one while not forcing GMs who don't want infinite True Strike to allow it. It's a compromise.
I agree, and it's better to be consistent in order to maintain verisimilitude. Easier to say 'true strike just doesn't work when imbued into items' than to metagame it. People take that a lot easier.
I have to say your ideas of what magic shouldn't do (AKA what would break verisimilitude) are fairly different than mine. "No personal spells can be made unlimited/continuous" is a much easier rule-of-magic to swallow than "one spell, True Strike, simply can't be enchanted" or even "this short list of spells break the normal rules."
My real point though is that if I make a list of house rules before the game begins, the players are free to argue with those before the game begins. After the game starts, those rules are rules and that's simply how that particular universe works unless there is some serious problem with them. So if the rules of the universe say that "personal spells are limited to 1/day max" what grounds does player B have to argue that he should be able to make a 5/day personal spell item?
Metagame doesn't immediately mean bad. I'd just like to throw that out there.
Agreed, it isn't always bad, and it isn't always good.
Plenty of methods of metagaming speed things along in game, providing ease of play and reducing confusion about what can and can't be done.
Agreed.
In the case of drawing the line between 1 and infinite, the metagamey response of "no infinite uses per day because the GM has decided so" is a response that allows players who want a true strike weapon to have one while not forcing GMs who don't want infinite True Strike to allow it. It's a compromise.
Yes it is, and a reasonable one. However, people are not always reasonable and original reasons can easily be forgotten. Say another player joins the game later, and thinks that the infinite quickened true strike item he has in mind must be legal because you allowed once per day? And turns up and uses it without even checking with the DM?
I have to say your ideas of what magic shouldn't do (AKA what would break verisimilitude) are fairly different than mine. "No personal spells can be made unlimited/continuous" is a much easier rule-of-magic to swallow than "one spell, True Strike, simply can't be enchanted" or even "this short list of spells break the normal rules."
It is, but that would ban several existing magic items. However there are NO items using true strike, so it doesn't hurt to ban that one spell.
|
What it comes down to at the end of the day is that it needs to be adjudicated by each GM on a case by case basis.
Which is what the magic item creation rules say.
I can't think of a scenario where I would allow a true strike item, but if a player had an amazing concept and I trusted that player not to abuse it, or I wanted it in an artifact for some very specific reason...every good GM knows their game and their players.
What is not ok is for the players to assume if they can figure out a way to make it, they are entitled to it.
Items in the book have theoretically been vetted by the Devs. We have a contest every year where items are routinely approved or rejected.
At minimum you need some kind of vetting process in each game, and the GM is the person who decides, not the player.
Items in the book have theoretically been vetted by the Devs. We have a contest every year where items are routinely approved or rejected.
Sure. However, quite a lot of them get rejected not for balance issues, but for lacking 'superstar mojo'.
Which, I admit, is something I'd love to see from my players contributing... but I'm not exactly making it a prerequisite to allow something.What is not ok is for the players to assume if they can figure out a way to make it, they are entitled to it.
At minimum you need some kind of vetting process in each game, and the GM is the person who decides, not the player.
Amen on that. The Magic Items creation section has the 'DM approval required' tag for a reason.
Plus, sorry to say that, my table is not a democracy. I know I may come across as a pompous autocrat so some people on this forum, but the one who is in charge of keeping the universe together is me, and thus I reserve the right to allow or deny pretty much anything... not to annoy my players, but to keep things running, challenging and interesting.
Say another player joins the game later, and thinks that the infinite quickened true strike item he has in mind must be legal because you allowed once per day? And turns up and uses it without even checking with the DM?
This simply shouldn't happen. Also, it's another reason to make your list of house rules open and up front. Any new player joining the game should get a copy before character creation. Anyone trying to sneak an item in that clearly violates the rules (house rules or not) is willfully subverting the GM (AKA cheating) and no rulings one way or another will fix that.
I have to say your ideas of what magic shouldn't do (AKA what would break verisimilitude) are fairly different than mine. "No personal spells can be made unlimited/continuous" is a much easier rule-of-magic to swallow than "one spell, True Strike, simply can't be enchanted" or even "this short list of spells break the normal rules."It is, but that would ban several existing magic items. However there are NO items using true strike, so it doesn't hurt to ban that one spell.
What existing items grant an unlimited personal range spell effect?
Say another player joins the game later, and thinks that the infinite quickened true strike item he has in mind must be legal because you allowed once per day? And turns up and uses it without even checking with the DM?This simply shouldn't happen.
I agree, in an ideal world it doesn't.
Also, it's another reason to make your list of house rules open and up front.
Again, in an ideal world this happens. In an ideal world you would know in advance every intricate detail and permutation of the rules the players were thinking of...but let's be honest you just do not always get that much foresight or forewarning.
Any new player joining the game should get a copy before character creation. Anyone trying to sneak an item in that clearly violates the rules (house rules or not) is willfully subverting the GM (AKA cheating) and no rulings one way or another will fix that.
Very true.
What existing items grant an unlimited personal range spell effect?
Goiod question, well presented. I think off the top of my head Brooch of Shielding comes close, having a long-term shield effect although not unlimited.
I think we can all agree with Ciretose's statement above. Ultimately it's the GM's call. Were I asked, I would advise against allowing anything beyond a one-shot item with True Strike in it, but ultimately that's just my opinion.
Yes it is, and a reasonable one. However, people are not always reasonable and original reasons can easily be forgotten. Say another player joins the game later, and thinks that the infinite quickened true strike item he has in mind must be legal because you allowed once per day? And turns up and uses it without even checking with the DM?
I would blame myself for not bothering to check on what one of my players is doing before bringing them into the game.
Yes it is, and a reasonable one. However, people are not always reasonable and original reasons can easily be forgotten. Say another player joins the game later, and thinks that the infinite quickened true strike item he has in mind must be legal because you allowed once per day? And turns up and uses it without even checking with the DM?I would blame myself for not bothering to check on what one of my players is doing before bringing them into the game.
You are fortunate indeed to be able to be able to keep such close contacts with your players away from the gaming table, but not everyone has that luxury.
Fair enough. Those who don't have the luxury of time would likely benefit more from banning potential problems ahead of time rather than try to spend time they don't have on making things work out.
Wow that brooch is expensive. I don't think I'd pay for what little effect it gives unless I happen to know I was going up against a magic missile specialist, and even then it would only last a few rounds (29 missiles on average, up to 5 missiles per round).
More importantly though, it's far from unlimited.
Anyway, a new player joining a group, seeing that another player had a 1/day item and assuming that an unlimited version is therefore automatically OK without checking with the GM or the list of house rules they were just handed and all this happening innocently is probably a rare enough occurrence that it's not worth considering when discussing rules in a general context. It's simply not a reasonable reason to say you shouldn't allow the 1/day item.
You can't make rules (or even play the game) assuming that everyone is either malicious or incompetent.
Can't remember the name of the creature, but it was an animated suit of armor that could cast Magic Missile at will. My part was being hunted by 6 of them. After the first encounter, we bought 2 or 3 Brooches each. They could levitate/fly with a movement of 20 ft, and I owned a flying carpet, so it was very hard to outrun the magic missiles.
It's worth it in the circumstances, but an actual casting of shield gives 10 rounds per level of complete immunity. If the armors fire 3 missiles each each round, they'd likely burn through a brooch in just 2 rounds. So, very useful, but still very expensive (twice the price of a single first level wand for example).
Helmed Horrors. That's their name!
Yeah, I see what you mean, but we bought them as a reaction to their attacks. It was myself, and a Rogue who were ambushed by 3 of the 6 Horrors. These were lesser versions, shooting only 2 or 3 each, but at the time, we decided it was better to retreat, than try and fight 3 of them at the same time. To do so, we felt, was certain death. As it is, the Rogue was sent into negatives as we were fleeing (good thing I maxed Heal!) but we all survived.
When we encountered them again, we decided to wear all our brooches at once. The brooches, once burned out, stop being magical items, and therefore, no longer take up a slot. So once one burned out, the other activated. The DM allowed this, as it wasn't probably strictly legal. But even with those brooches, it was a tough fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make rules (or even play the game) assuming that everyone is either malicious or incompetent.
Actually...it's a really good design idea to assume the worst, and try to keep it balanced for that. So you kinda do need to assume maliciousness, and work back from there. Buffing up is easy. Nerfing back down? Not so much, unfortunately.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whose good idea? Have you ever played one of those EA games that require you to be connected to the internet the entire time you're playing the game even though it's single player only? That's the kind of stuff that happens when you assume everyone's malicious and try to prevent it.
Have you ever bought one of the humble bundles? Pay what you want for DRM free games. Those total up to a million dollars or more over the course of the two week sale. That's what you get when you assume your customers (or players or whatever) are basically decent people.
Now if you just mean you should err on the side of less powerful options, then whose options? Should you make the enemies weaker? That makes the players stronger by comparison. Should you make the players' abilities and gear weaker? That makes the enemies stronger by comparison.
Also, buffing up may not be easier. It depends on the context. If the players have already lost all interest in that option, then no reasonable amount of buffing will get them interesting again, which is where I think the magic item creation system is close to ending up. (See also the monk and the teamwork feats, at least from what I've heard.)
Edit: It may be a good idea for engineers, but this isn't engineering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't make rules (or even play the game) assuming that everyone is either malicious or incompetent.Actually...it's a really good design idea to assume the worst, and try to keep it balanced for that. So you kinda do need to assume maliciousness, and work back from there. Buffing up is easy. Nerfing back down? Not so much, unfortunately.
I agree. It's the same principal as stress-testing in engineering. You do not build a car assuming it will never crash, you build it and then you crash it a dozen times and make sure the passengers can walk away.
In games, you design your game so that it is fun to play and then see if you can break it. If you can break it, you redesign it so it can't be broken, while keeping the fun part if you can.
In games, you design your game so that it is fun to play and then see if you can break it. If you can break it, you redesign it so it can't be broken, while keeping the fun part if you can.
Actually, my priorities are the other way round: I will keep the fun part, and (if possible) redesign things to be less likely to be broken.
.However, when I reach some point where the 'added layer of protection' outweighs the fun, I prefer to make an agreement with my players that the system is intended to be played, not to be won at any cost.
.
The primary objective in engineering is to create a secure working system.
The primary objective in rules-writing is to create a fun working system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whose good idea?
Mine, Sean K Reynold and the rest of the paizo developer staff, a ton of the Paizo and 3rd party contributors...
It's just what you do. You look at the worst possible scenario, and reason it out from there, figuring out of the most optimal use of it is too powerful or what. You need to have a great understanding of the game to know what the effects of everything is, or as many of the effects as possible. And then you need to keep in mind how your item, feat, archetype, whatever will interact with those rules.
I haven't seen anyone who is paid for their design work saying to ignore the optimal case, and I have done a ton of research on the related topic. A lot of collaborative work is using the collective pool of knowledge of all the freelancers to catch the blindspots of others precisely for this purpose. Maybe someone designed something that was pretty tame from their perspective, but as soon as you think about class X and their use of it (which of course is the class the original author didn't think of), it becomes overpowered.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but just trying to explain how design works from my personal experiences as a freelancer, as well as in-depth discussions with other freelancers. I'm not commenting on your other arguments with this, and not trying to change the focus. I'm just trying to share what I've learned from some of the best minds in PF design.
You could tell them "heroes don't craft magic items" and send them out into the world of adventure to find what they will.
Problem solved.
Cheapy (as well as others who've made the same point but in less detail) is correct. On an grand scale you definitely have to be cautious and build while assuming the worst. When the population of players you're counting is large enough to include the entire player-base of any game (Pathfinder or otherwise) then there will be problems that will arise and need to be dealt with.
For those of us only dealing with our own small groups, especially those groups whose players don't bring any such problems to the table, there's more freedom. We don't have to consider things on such a large scale if we're making things for a personal game, and while a weapon of true strike may be a bad idea on a game design level, it's far less dangerous limited to one specific group that's proven trustworthy. I can design things that will be perfectly fine in the hands of my own players that I wouldn't dream of putting in the hands of players as a whole, given the opportunity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could tell them "heroes don't craft magic items" and send them out into the world of adventure to find what they will.
Problem solved.
Actually this topic was initially about pricing a custom magic item, not so much about crafting one. Your solution insults players who want to craft, and doesn't stop them from having the local blacksmith craft what they want anyways.
It's basically just insulting the players with no benefit.
You "could" tell them. If you insult them over it, that is up to you.
Some people just want to craft, and make everyone wait for their turn.
For those of us only dealing with our own small groups, especially those groups whose players don't bring any such problems to the table, there's more freedom. We don't have to consider things on such a large scale if we're making things for a personal game, and while a weapon of true strike may be a bad idea on a game design level, it's far less dangerous limited to one specific group that's proven trustworthy. I can design things that will be perfectly fine in the hands of my own players that I wouldn't dream of putting in the hands of players as a whole, given the opportunity.
And this is exactly why I consider the rule of 'The GM remains the final arbiter' one of the most important aspects of the crafting rules.
You could tell them "heroes don't craft magic items" and send them out into the world of adventure to find what they will.
Problem solved.
Wayland Smith.
I've had many crafter players, and I have played crafters, and it's never caused anyone to stop and await their turn. In fact, the other players love it as they come along with their wish-lists and piles of raw materials and a hopeful smile!
Crafting characters can be great fun to play and to have around.
We have a crafter character in one of my games. A storm-born sorcerer mad-scientist. She makes stuff for us, but...ah...tinkers...with them.
The party's ranger now has a scope on his bow.