| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ban it.
Worst solution ever. Better to read the description and enforce it's limits.
Ban it.Worst solution ever. Better to read the description and enforce it's limits.
I wouldn't say it is the worst I tend to ban options I find unbalanced or uncool, reading description and enforcing limits is basically a given but a single (new) spell shouldn't affect the way you build encounters as a GM. Sometimes it is just better to cut the workload and disallow options that give you headaches, preparing a proper game tends to be enough of a workload already.
I wouldn't say it is the worst I tend to ban options I find unbalanced or uncool, reading description and enforcing limits is basically a given but a single (new) spell shouldn't affect the way you build encounters as a GM. Sometimes it is just better to cut the workload and disallow options that give you headaches, preparing a proper game tends to be enough of a workload already.Ban it.Worst solution ever. Better to read the description and enforce it's limits.
I don't know that this spell fits into that category, given that the pit can be bypassed freely with no save via the 5' of mandatory sloped ground that surrounds it and is ineffectual unless the being stops on it. The slope also prevents completely blocking a passage. In my experience Glitter Dust or the many wall spells are more powerful. RAW appears to include the sloped ground as part of the spell effect, meaning it needs a 20x20 area, leaving that easily passed 5' rim around it in every situation.
I wouldn't say it is the worst I tend to ban options I find unbalanced or uncool, reading description and enforcing limits is basically a given but a single (new) spell shouldn't affect the way you build encounters as a GM. Sometimes it is just better to cut the workload and disallow options that give you headaches, preparing a proper game tends to be enough of a workload already.Ban it.Worst solution ever. Better to read the description and enforce it's limits.
Yes, but how do you decide what is unbalancing or uncool? I've seen a single grease spell cakewalk a CR7 encounter because of where it was placed. Does that make the spell unbalancing or uncool? No, it makes the player imaginative and maybe lucky.
This spell isn't particularly powerful, it lays down less damage than many spells and is easier to get around than many too. In a few circumstances it is highly effective, but that's all and it can be said of any spell.
Banning broken stuff is fine. Banning a spell because your players got smart is just punishing them for thinking outside the box.
I wouldn't say it is the worst I tend to ban options I find unbalanced or uncool, reading description and enforcing limits is basically a given but a single (new) spell shouldn't affect the way you build encounters as a GM. Sometimes it is just better to cut the workload and disallow options that give you headaches, preparing a proper game tends to be enough of a workload already.Ban it.Worst solution ever. Better to read the description and enforce it's limits.Yes, but how do you decide what is unbalancing or uncool? I've seen a single grease spell cakewalk a CR7 encounter because of where it was placed. Does that make the spell unbalancing or uncool? No, it makes the player imaginative and maybe lucky.
This spell isn't particularly powerful, it lays down less damage than many spells and is easier to get around than many too. In a few circumstances it is highly effective, but that's all and it can be said of any spell.
Banning broken stuff is fine. Banning a spell because your players got smart is just punishing them for thinking outside the box.
I would not consider it punishing to start with, everything is optional but it goes doubly so for things outside of the CRB. As a GM I allow Core with few adjustments, APG with relatively few adjustments and other books pretty much on case by case basis. I expect GMs to make judgement calls and to be fair but I won't try to push a spell they are uncomfortable with.
Basically as a player it is easy to ask wether a spell is allowed and move on as with all options allowed it means more work on part of the GM every single option added makes the game that much more complicated. The fact that there are several threads on the pit spells shows that they require quite a bit of GM adjudication and rule mastery to deal with. Sometimes it is better to just start with core and expand options from there slowly.
The fact that there are several threads on the pit spells shows that they require quite a bit of GM adjudication and rule mastery to deal with. Sometimes it is better to just start with core and expand options from there slowly.
I understand the value in starting core and slowly expanding, but citing the number of threads on the forum questioning a mechanic as an indicator of GM complication and the forerunner to banning means we can run a series of searches and reduce even the Core to a pamphlet of a few pages, and that will most likely be the table of contents and the index :)
I would not consider it punishing to start with, everything is optional but it goes doubly so for things outside of the CRB. As a GM I allow Core with few adjustments, APG with relatively few adjustments and other books pretty much on case by case basis. I expect GMs to make judgement calls and to be fair but I won't try to push a spell they are uncomfortable with.
Basically as a player it is easy to ask wether a spell is allowed and move on as with all options allowed it means more work on part of the GM every single option added makes the game that much more complicated. The fact that there are several threads on the pit spells shows that they require quite a bit of GM adjudication and rule mastery to deal with. Sometimes it is better to just start with core and expand options from there slowly.
That's a fair answer, but I confess the only thing I have ever banned from any Paizo source is a certain feat beginning with 'A' that many people hate. I don't look on a spell that makes my life difficult as a DM as an issue, to me it's a challenge.
I understand the value in starting core and slowly expanding, but citing the number of threads on the forum questioning a mechanic as an indicator of GM complication and the forerunner to banning means we can run a series of searches and reduce even the Core to a pamphlet of a few pages, and that will most likely be the table of contents and the index :)
The fact that there are several threads on the pit spells shows that they require quite a bit of GM adjudication and rule mastery to deal with. Sometimes it is better to just start with core and expand options from there slowly.
I am not saying it it should be banned, I am just saying that a GM should run with what he feels comfortable with. Simply banning options is acceptable, so is house ruling, only requirement is to be fair and run a game that is enjoyable.
That's a fair answer, but I confess the only thing I have ever banned from any Paizo source is a certain feat beginning with 'A' that many people hate. I don't look on a spell that makes my life difficult as a DM as an issue, to me it's a challenge.I would not consider it punishing to start with, everything is optional but it goes doubly so for things outside of the CRB. As a GM I allow Core with few adjustments, APG with relatively few adjustments and other books pretty much on case by case basis. I expect GMs to make judgement calls and to be fair but I won't try to push a spell they are uncomfortable with.
Basically as a player it is easy to ask wether a spell is allowed and move on as with all options allowed it means more work on part of the GM every single option added makes the game that much more complicated. The fact that there are several threads on the pit spells shows that they require quite a bit of GM adjudication and rule mastery to deal with. Sometimes it is better to just start with core and expand options from there slowly.
Some things I (practically) banned/houseruled :
Improved sunder feat
I never used monsters with this feat either, players perceived it to be not fun.
Item creation feats
Though it is still possible to craft it will cost full and it will not be available till 4 levels beyond core.
Some spells
Shadow projection and magic jar, I just don't want to run that type of campaign.
Paladin smiting aura
I don't like it
Gunslinger
flavor clashes with my setting
Witch sleep hex
Boring and overpowered
That's a fair answer, but I confess the only thing I have ever banned from any Paizo source is a certain feat beginning with 'A' that many people hate. I don't look on a spell that makes my life difficult as a DM as an issue, to me it's a challenge.I would not consider it punishing to start with, everything is optional but it goes doubly so for things outside of the CRB. As a GM I allow Core with few adjustments, APG with relatively few adjustments and other books pretty much on case by case basis. I expect GMs to make judgement calls and to be fair but I won't try to push a spell they are uncomfortable with.
Basically as a player it is easy to ask wether a spell is allowed and move on as with all options allowed it means more work on part of the GM every single option added makes the game that much more complicated. The fact that there are several threads on the pit spells shows that they require quite a bit of GM adjudication and rule mastery to deal with. Sometimes it is better to just start with core and expand options from there slowly.
Some things I (practically) banned/houseruled :
Improved sunder feat
I never used monsters with this feat either, players perceived it to be not fun.
Never had a player take it, and never been tempted to take it except possibly with a monk build. Never seen the need to use it except with...
Item creation feats
Though it is still possible to craft it will cost full and it will not be available till 4 levels beyond core.
No, I don't believe in nerfing things to uselessness. I have played crafter base characters (and DMed them) and this would wreck their contribution. Sure, the party can end up with excessive gear, but that's what Improved Sunder is for (and it makes it less painful, while soon they learn to spend their surplus cash on spare gear rather than better gear - it all works out).
Some spells
Shadow projection and magic jar, I just don't want to run that type of campaign.
Never felt the need to do this.
Paladin smiting aura
I don't like it
It's not a problem when you remember the limitations and it has pulled a party's collective butt out of the frying pan enough times that I would never consider doing so. It's part of what paladins do that makes them not-suck compared to earlier versions.
Gunslinger
flavor clashes with my setting
I just ban guns, period, because I don't like them in fantasy.
Witch sleep hex
Boring and overpowered
Never encountered it.
|
OK here's the thing. Create Pit is banned in my games because it is too powerful. It's a direct damage, crowd control and debuff in a can.
I banned it totally when I realised that creatures with a climb speed couldn't make the check to climb out. That's too powerful.
Your damn right I ban stuff. It doesn't make the game any less fun. In fact it makes it better because it takes away stuff that makes the game too easy and therefore boring.
My list of banned stuff includes the following
Antagonise feat
Terrible Remorse spell
Pit spells
Crane style feats
To me these four things make the game less fun. So I removed them.
The drow spiders that can also cast create pit. :D
It's an extra-dimensional space to avoid the embarrassment of the DM later realising that the thirty foot deep pit was in a floor two feet thick before it became the ceiling of the level below.
How do you figure that it will open up to the floor below?
The pit is not there in the material world, but a dimentional pocket that only has the "entrance" to the pit as its link to the material world.
|
It's an extra-dimensional space to avoid the embarrassment of the DM later realising that the thirty foot deep pit was in a floor two feet thick before it became the ceiling of the level below.How do you figure that it will open up to the floor below?
The pit is not there in the material world, but a dimentional pocket that only has the "entrance" to the pit as its link to the material world.
... and what Dabbler was saying was that the reason it's an extradimensional space is so that GMs wouldn't have to worry about what's below the space the pit was created in. There's other reasons, too, like not letting players open a 200' pit in a stone archway over a chasm via this spell. That would be overpowered.
... and what Dabbler was saying was that the reason it's an extradimensional space is so that GMs wouldn't have to worry about what's below the space the pit was created in. There's other reasons, too, like not letting players open a 200' pit in a stone archway over a chasm via this spell. That would be overpowered.It's an extra-dimensional space to avoid the embarrassment of the DM later realising that the thirty foot deep pit was in a floor two feet thick before it became the ceiling of the level below.How do you figure that it will open up to the floor below?
The pit is not there in the material world, but a dimentional pocket that only has the "entrance" to the pit as its link to the material world.
The other reason it's an extra-dimensional space is to prevent Pit Stacking. If it actually created a real Pit, then a sorcerer could cast Levitate, then cast Create Pit, then cast Spiked Pit into the the bottom of the Create Pit, then cast Acid Pit into the Spiked Pit, then cast Hungry Pit into the Acid Pit.
So the victim would fall 30 ft and take damage, then fall 50 ft, and take damage, then fall another 50 ft and take damage, then fall another 50 feat and take damage. Then he has to climb out of the Hungry Pit as it squeezes him, then the acid pit as he is being burned by acid, then the spiked pit, then the regular pit.... It's a good thing they made it an extra-dimensional space.
@SterlingEdge: Since you're the GM, you can decided on the ruling of whether or not one can Dimension Door/Teleport out of the Pit spells. You can't Dimension Door/Teleport across planar boundaries, but no one is sure over whether or not extra-dimensional spaces count as planar boundaries, so this is a decision left up to a GM to decide on.
|
|
OK here's the thing. Create Pit is banned in my games because it is too powerful. It's a direct damage, crowd control and debuff in a can.
I banned it totally when I realised that creatures with a climb speed couldn't make the check to climb out. That's too powerful.
Your damn right I ban stuff. It doesn't make the game any less fun. In fact it makes it better because it takes away stuff that makes the game too easy and therefore boring.
My list of banned stuff includes the following
Antagonise feat
Terrible Remorse spell
Pit spells
Crane style featsTo me these four things make the game less fun. So I removed them.
Have you read the spell?
DC 25 isn't much at all in fact assuming your climbing creature has climb as a class skill or has put 2 skill points into it he literally cannot fail to climb out of a regular pit. DC 25 check -5 for being able to climb a corner gets a +8 racial bonus for natural climb speed and can always take 10 to climb. He has a base roll of 18 and that's assuming he has a 0 strength mod on a DC 20 check soooo yeah not difficult at all imo.
OK I'll admit I missed the "can climb corners discount" bit. However...
The incident I was talking about was my players casting Hungry Pit on a Gug.
Even if the Gug can get up the 100 feet it will take it 3 rounds at best. The Gug takes 16d6 to 22d6 damage (an average of 56-77 damage), is removed from doing anything for 3 rounds at at the end of all that is standing around like a lemon for anyone to beat up.
On top of all of that you have a strategically placed an obstacle on the battlefield that no-one wants to go near.
Tell me any other 5th level spell that controls the battlefield, does direct and continuous damage and takes three actions to get out of? I can't think of one. Even Black Tentacles (rightly regarded as a very powerful spell) can fail if the grapple check is low.
Too powerful, banned.
Assuming an equal CR10 battle the Pit will be 50feet deep (5d6).
Don't forget that the Gug gets a reflex save every round to halve that damage. With a +6reflex vs a DC21 (10+5+6ability score) that is a 30% chance to halve the damage each round. Average DPR of 11.9 (14*70% + 14/2*30%).
As for climbing out:
The Gug has a +15 bonus. Because it is large it it can brace against both walls (-10DC) and use the corners (-5DC). Note: both bonuses are cumulative.
So, we have a DC35 pit reduced to DC20. The Gug can take 10 for a total of 25 (20 if accelerated). With a climb speed of 20feet it can climb up 80feet accelerated per round. This means 2 rounds of possible damage.
So: we have a total average damage of 5d6(17.5) +11.9*2 = 41.3 and takes the Gug out of the fight for 2 rounds.
Not bad for a 5th level spell. Not great either.
- Gauss
Teleport will not work because there is a Willing creature requirement.
You would need to make the creature willing first. Most of those means would eliminate the Gug as a problem.
- Gauss
Assuming an equal CR10 battle the Pit will be 50feet deep (5d6).
Don't forget that the Gug gets a reflex save every round to halve that damage. With a +6reflex vs a DC21 (10+5+6ability score) that is a 30% chance to halve the damage each round. Average DPR of 11.9 (14*70% + 14/2*30%).
As for climbing out:
The Gug has a +15 bonus. Because it is large it it can brace against both walls (-10DC) and use the corners (-5DC). Note: both bonuses are cumulative.
So, we have a DC35 pit reduced to DC20. The Gug can take 10 for a total of 25 (20 if accelerated). With a climb speed of 20feet it can climb up 80feet accelerated per round. This means 2 rounds of possible damage.
So: we have a total average damage of 5d6(17.5) +11.9*2 = 41.3 and takes the Gug out of the fight for 2 rounds.
Not bad for a 5th level spell. Not great either.
- Gauss
I have to agree, as battlefield control it's not awesome - it's easily avoided and doesn't even apply to some creatures (those that can fly).
Most things that might be stuck in it at that kind of level are usually going to get out pretty easily if they are small enough to fall in to begin with. It's a reflex save, so hardly overwhelming.
As direct damage, it's not awesome. I mean it looks bad, but compare it to Corrosive Consumption (up to 15+15d4+15d6 for 105 damage over 3 rounds) and it looks lacklustre.
|
No. You can't do that. Read the spell, look for the words "willing target".As a sorceror or a Wizard you can use this to take the Gug 1,000 miles away with a 10th level caster. Drop him somewhere and teleport back.
Because its impossible to make the target willing? You are a caster for jeez sake I NEVER had a problem with that. If you are a good player you shouldn't have an issue Teleporting things away.
In order to become a Willing target the target must be under either a charm/compulsion effect that makes them willing or helpless for some reason or convinced by a skill to accept the spell. In combat situations skills will not usually convince a target to recieve a spell from the enemy willingly. That leaves charm/compulsion and helpless. Those 3 conditions already deal with the problem (although charm only deals with it weakly) and thus teleportation is not required.
- Gauss
Kenmckinney: It is an extradimensional space so that it does not create a massive problem with terrain, buildings etc. It does not block teleportation since it is not an extraplanar space.
Can you Teleport into or out of an extradimensional space? I'm thinking specifically of the Create Pit line of spells as they actually create an extradimensional pit. I'm wondering if a caster could Dimension Door/Teleport out of a Pit spell instead of having to climb out or wait for it to end. I know they could fly/levitate, but there are others that can use similar features.
While I'm specifically thinking the Create Pit spells, this also applies to a Bag of Holding, a Rope Trick, Portable Hole, etc.
You can teleport out of pits created by create pit. While they're extradimensional, they're not extraplanar, and they retain a connection to the world via the entrance that makes teleportation through it possible.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think a lot of the problem that GMs have with the Pit line of spells is that they are not aware of all the aspects of the spell and how to extricate yourself from that spell.
- Gauss
|
|
Make sure to start using the pit spells with your bad guys as often as possible. Once they see how annoying it is, you may be able to engage them in pit-free detente.No offense, but that's the trademark of an uncreative GM, right up there with banning.
I disagree. That was one of the first things I learned in D&D, anything the heroes can do, the bad guys can do to. If something is "broken" and the number of people who ban the spell suggests that that is not out of the realm of possibility, the players need to understand that there is a consequence to their behaviour. Use pit spells, have pit spells used on you. Coup de grace opponents, you have to expect the same.
Too many players expect to walk through every encounter, no matter how tough the opposition may be. They need a taste of reality.
Last night I ran a level 12 spellcaster against my 10th level group. The adventure is a premade but I always make tweaks to it. One of those tweaks I added to the wizard was Hungry Pit. One of my players like the pit spells so I thought I would give him a taste of his own medicine and toss one back at them. They avoided it easily (as I figured they would).
Frankly, Pit spells are nasty only if the GM or players do not know how to deal with them.
That does not mean I will start spamming the pit spells. This was a single encounter.
- Gauss
Maybe start summoning stuff once your in the pit. Also I think leviatate definitely works Then stand over the pit so they cannot engage you in melee.
Acid Pit, and then on your next turn, ready an action to Wall of Force as the party prepares to jump over the pit :P
Tels: They can climb out of the acid (albeit, not out of the pit).
Still a good tactic.
- Gauss
No, no, no, I mean they prepare to run and jump across the pit and BLAM! Right into the Wall of Force. Watch as the comedically slide down the Wall like a cartoon.
Right into the pit :P
Tels: Ahhhh, another nice tactic. Then they just climb out normally. Still, funny.
- Gauss
Aye. I had already made my melee party's life harder with the pits. Casters thrown in the pit flying/levitating directly above and baiting the PCs to try to charge them. Next time I'll cover the pit in illusion and make it look that the pit was dispelled. Also fielding more than one guy pretty limits the thing if you manage to avoid making every other fight in a location that the party can easily block one or two approaches to them.
The enemy archers that made up the rear of their formation, stand on the other side of the pit and start shooting at the PCs?
Bonus points if these archers are protected by Fickle Winds to deal with return fire from the PCs.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a single target Plane shift is far more dangerous. It can hit a single creature touched, willing or not. Send Gug to elemental plane of fire, use rest of round to have a sandwich.
Okay, I'm gonna have to call BS on this one. There's no way eating a sandwich is less than a full-round action.