Sounds like homebrew cheese. For one thing, Tiamat doesn't have any associated Domains that I can find.
with true seeing i imagine it was a high AP... HIPS is redundant in this case i think... stilled wouldnt matter either way, silenced would just be another perception. -6 to see, not counting invis etc... would be greater invis which allows attacking.
off the top of my head sounds almost like fiat...
Any possibility it's 3.5 cheese instead?
Hope it's only the top of the church, not the entire priesthood...
*hears imperial march playing*
Time to pack up, guys. This city's toast.
|
Assuming a cleric could get HiPS and a long-duration greater invisibility, this still would not have gone that way because they cannot stealth *while* attacking, so they would at the very least have to reveal their location at the time of their casting to those with true seeing, after which point they could re-stealth with their move action (though you would still have an approximate location).
Without true seeing, it still only takes a roughly DC20 (+ distance and conditions) perception check to get their location since they cannot stealth during the attack (so they only get basic "invisible creature" DC, not "stealthing while invisible" DC). Of course, hearing the casting of a non-silent spell is very easy (no more than DC10 + distance/conditions).
Sure, come your turn you would only have an approximate location (at best), but you could still prepare an action to attack when she was forced to reveal herself while casting (with the added bonus that the damage might interrupt her casting!)
TL;DR - Sounds like major DM fiat cheese.
|
If you really like the Power, then begin worshiping Tiamat, take a level in Cleric, and ask the DM "so, where's this badass power I was promised?"
This is the best solution to games where NPCs and monsters have ridiculous rules-breaking powers that PCs are never expected to have (like Efreeti granting wishes).
Seize them (dominate them, take them as cohorts, planar bind them, etc.) and use them yourself.
200 quatloo says they'll stop appearing in the game once the crazy 'too good for PCs' junk gets into your hot little hands.
If you really like the Power, then begin worshiping Tiamat, take a level in Cleric, and ask the DM "so, where's this badass power I was promised?"I seriously thought about it. I would love to do that. If this current guy bites the dust that is what I'm gonna do.
And watch that as soon as you do it, suddenly Clerics of Tiamat can no longer do this crazy nonsense. =P
|
|
And watch that as soon as you do it, suddenly Clerics of Tiamat can no longer do this crazy nonsense. =PIf you really like the Power, then begin worshiping Tiamat, take a level in Cleric, and ask the DM "so, where's this badass power I was promised?"I seriously thought about it. I would love to do that. If this current guy bites the dust that is what I'm gonna do.
This is the point where I usually end up giving the DM a piece of my mind. Nothing irritates me more than a DM that changes the rules just because they can. This is almost always an indication that the DM does not view the game as a co-operative venture but as a DM vs PC one.
A DM's job is not to make a game challenging, it is to make it interesting and fun for all at the table (including, but not limited to themselves).
Tossing out that cleric of tiamat doesn't sound like fun for anyone but the DM because it makes the players feel betrayed that the rules of the game were changed out from under them (the difficulty may/may-not be a problem depending on the group). If the cleric was completely within the rules and simply powerful, that's fine, but pumping up perception DCs to above what the book says given the cleric's abilities is a betrayal to the players. After all, why take perception if you're just going to increase the DCs until the players can't see it?
@Stabbity
I completely agree, but I have seen a few DMs get very angry/upset when I've done the exact same things they have done back to them and told that it doesn't work that way but works that way when they do it.
As for the original question, this does indeed smell of cheese. There are lots of things wrong with the situation.
true sight only works up to 120 feet away, any medium range spell could catch you all off guard if they were invisible and flying outside of that.
evil cleric can just cast then move every turn, maintaining more than 120 feet away, would do it.
If you really like the Power, then begin worshiping Tiamat, take a level in Cleric, and ask the DM "so, where's this badass power I was promised?"
"Level 20 capstone. Since you multiclassed you'll never have it, sorry." *sadpanda face*
But seriously, in APs it's nothing unusual for clerics of deities to have certain blessings on them that aren't normal for the cleric class. There's nothing inherently wrong with this.
true sight only works up to 120 feet away, any medium range spell could catch you all off guard if they were invisible and flying outside of that.
evil cleric can just cast then move every turn, maintaining more than 120 feet away, would do it.
Destruction is a close range spell and unless they had greater invisibility active, casting Destruction on them would break invisibility, that is, of course, unless the DM cheesed it to consider none of the players a foe, which to me would be a douche move.
Destruction is a close range spell and unless they had greater invisibility active, casting Destruction on them would break invisibility, that is, of course, unless the DM cheesed it to consider none of the players a foe, which to me would be a douche move.true sight only works up to 120 feet away, any medium range spell could catch you all off guard if they were invisible and flying outside of that.
evil cleric can just cast then move every turn, maintaining more than 120 feet away, would do it.
reach spell
Good idea about talking to the GM. Sounds like he's having fun with all this but probably isn't considering if his group is having fun with it.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment (or should I say, "GM's advocate").
It's a wide world out there. PCs are not supposed to understand every power and every enemy they face. Sometimes even heroes get hit with "WtF was that?!" No hero should be able to look at an opponent and list down all of his abilities and - in character - say, "Oh, he just used Dimensional Step." As an experienced player, you may have pretty good rule knowledge and recognize different spells and abilities, but in-character, your PC doesn't. It's a perfect example of meta-gaming. When I GM, I will occasionally swap out a monster's spells or powers, or reskin a monster so players don't get bored/lazy, and I hate it when one of them cries, "You can't do that!" If you don't understand the powers the bad guy just used, don't ask the GM what he's doing - that's lazy - have your PC go do some research. And hate the bad guy all the more, but don't get mad at the GM.
Now, as a GM, great flexibility comes with great responsibility. Mix things up and surprise your players once in a while, but don't screw them. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. Surprises are fun and memorable. TPKs aren't. GM's can't abuse Rule 0 or players are going to leave. But keep in mind that GMing isn't an exact science - maybe he made an encounter that was meant to be really challenging and it turned out to be too challenging. Oops. Sound like he's got a back door for you all with easy Resurrection. Or maybe you wiped out his boss last week in the first round and he wanted some payback (Not a great motive, but hey, it happens - GMs put hours into prep and it's supposed to be fun for them too, and trust me, one-shoting bosses is not fun for GMs). Or maybe he needed to do what he did for narrative reasons to move the story forward so he stepped outside the rules for a minute. If you really don't like it, talk to him or take a break, or do both.
Finally, this jive about, "Well I'm going to become an evil cleric of Tiamat just so I can that too," comes from angle where players take classes and levels for purely power reason and nothing to do with who their character is. Down this road lies more and more player vs. GM conflict as everyone tries to "win." Fun? Not for long.
|
While I can't find any Paizo stats for Tiamat, in Golarion, her son Dahak has very similar portfolio: (destruction, dragons, evil, treachery), and Domains: (Chaos, Destruction, Evil, Scalykind, Trickery). SubDomains are: Catastrophe, Deception, Demon, Dragon, Rage, Thievery.
The Deception SubDomain has a power that may work similar to the DD power you mentioned,
to a space that you can see. This space must be inside the reach of the creature that attacked you. You can use this power a number of times each day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
A Trickery and Deception 5th Level Power False Vision would beat the True Seeing (a Divination spell), and Trickery does offer the Cleric Stealth as a class Skill, which might have been buffed by some fairly cheap items. It's possible the DM did things right, just didn't explain some of the things she was atually doing so as to not spoil the combat.
A Metamagic rod or the Silent spell Feat applied to the Destructions, an additinal part of the above False Vision, or even a self-targeted Silence spell might also have played a part.
:)
False vision should not negate true seeing.
False vision is a illusion spell and true seeing can see through illusion.
False vision only interferes with Divination (Scrying) spells, which False Vision is not.
False Vision
This spell creates a subtle illusion, causing any divination (scrying) spell used to view anything within the area of this spell to instead receive a false image (as the major image spell), as defined by you at the time of casting. As long as the duration lasts, you can concentrate to change the image as desired. While you aren't concentrating, the image remains static.
True Seeing
You confer on the subject the ability to see all things as they actually are. The subject sees through normal and magical darkness, notices secret doors hidden by magic, sees the exact locations of creatures or objects under blur or displacement effects, sees invisible creatures or objects normally, sees through illusions, and sees the true form of polymorphed, changed, or transmuted things. Further, the subject can focus its vision to see into the Ethereal Plane (but not into extradimensional spaces). The range of true seeing conferred is 120 feet.
However Hide in plain sight combined with the sniping ability of Stealth would mean that the Cleric could snipe and do a stealth check as minus 20 afterwards to remain hidden.
Would have to have a extremely good stealth and be high level.
Lets see:
Make the Cleric a Halfling
Stealth as class skill at 18th (17 cleric, 1 shadow-dancer) level = 21
Base Dex of 20 to increase the skill to 26
Use a book to increase by 4 to bring the base to 28
Use item for enchantment bonus of +6 to Dex so base of 31
Put +2 of your attribute bonus from your level into Dex for a 33
Use a Ioun stone but make it a luck bonus instead for +2 so base of 34
+4 size bonus for Stealth from race so base of 38
Greater Shadow armor to bring to base of 53
Roll a 15 on the die for a total of 68
Give the halfling the swift as shadows ability to cut the minus for sniping to -10.
Cast Greater Invisibility as well
Final result when using hide in plain sight from shadowdancer is a 58 for the perception to beat if you have true seeing and 78 if you do not.
IIRC Takhisis had access to the Trickery domain. Maybe the DM was mixing her and Tiamat?
I love Mosaic's post and think it hits the nail on the head. I can hear how the OP is frustrated, but I'm thinking s/he might be following the wrong track. If bad guy X has developed a method to be in the center of the combat and attack but remain unseen, despite the PCs being stacked to the teats with skill ranks and magic and abilities, then the PCs need to get the hell out of there - toute suite. It sounds like you and the other players usually see everything there is to see in a location thanks to those remarkable Perception bonuses. Perhaps the GM was trying to challenge you with an encounter where that didn't work?
I notice that my players very often have a hard time with the concept of fleeing to fight at a more opportune moment... more opportune for them, I mean. At a level where the PCs have teleport spells and magic (and it evidently works if the bad guy can use it), you can quickly remove yourselves. At the very least, teleport upward, invisible and outside the 120-foot range, and examine the situation to see what the hindrance is (bringing your fallen friends with you).
|
|
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment (or should I say, "GM's advocate").
It's a wide world out there. PCs are not supposed to understand every power and every enemy they face. Sometimes even heroes get hit with "WtF was that?!" No hero should be able to look at an opponent and list down all of his abilities and - in character - say, "Oh, he just used Dimensional Step." As an experienced player, you may have pretty good rule knowledge and recognize different spells and abilities, but in-character, your PC doesn't. It's a perfect example of meta-gaming. When I GM, I will occasionally swap out a monster's spells or powers, or reskin a monster so players don't get bored/lazy, and I hate it when one of them cries, "You can't do that!" If you don't understand the powers the bad guy just used, don't ask the GM what he's doing - that's lazy - have your PC go do some research. And hate the bad guy all the more, but don't get mad at the GM.
Now, as a GM, great flexibility comes with great responsibility. Mix things up and surprise your players once in a while, but don't screw them. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. Surprises are fun and memorable. TPKs aren't. GM's can't abuse Rule 0 or players are going to leave. But keep in mind that GMing isn't an exact science - maybe he made an encounter that was meant to be really challenging and it turned out to be too challenging. Oops. Sound like he's got a back door for you all with easy Resurrection. Or maybe you wiped out his boss last week in the first round and he wanted some payback (Not a great motive, but hey, it happens - GMs put hours into prep and it's supposed to be fun for them too, and trust me, one-shoting bosses is not fun for GMs). Or maybe he needed to do what he did for narrative reasons to move the story forward so he stepped outside the rules for a minute. If you really don't like it, talk to him or take a break, or do both.
Finally, this jive about, "Well I'm going to become an evil cleric of Tiamat just so I can that too," comes from angle where players take classes and levels for purely power reason and nothing to do with who their character is. Down this road lies more and more player vs. GM conflict as everyone tries to "win." Fun? Not for long.
I *almost* agree with your first paragraph. You see, the *characters* are not supposed to know about every power out there, but it's perfectly reasonable for the *players* to assume it at least vaguely follows the rules. It's not really the DM's responsibility to explain it to them, but it requires a lot of player trust to kick the PCs asses all up and down the curb with seemingly no chance of victory and not have someone question it, especially when you hint that custom content was used. The moment someone questions it, player trust is on the line, and that trust is the most valuable commodity a DM can have.
After a particularly devastating encounter I often try to make a few comments about *why* it was devastating by pointing out the rules the enemy used to be that way. It is by no means necessary by the rules, but if you want to build player trust despite such encounters it is a good idea to do so.
The problem with this encounter is absolutely not because the enemy used powerful abilities. The problem is that the player feels betrayed that the enemy seemed to be completely outside the rules with how difficult they were to spot, effectively negating an area they spent a lot of resources to improve*. In fact, I would hazard that they were likely completely outside the guidelines for creating new content as well.
*As an aside: Players do not improve abilities in an area so that the challenges can go higher, they improve abilities there so that the given area will not be as much of a challenge (for the assumed purpose of looking awesome when doing it). Just because someone *actually* bought climb does not mean you should start increasing the DCs to climb walls.
The trick is for the GM to provide a reasonable challenge for his players while at the same time make it enjoyable for the players. The GM does not want be creation frustration among the player's.
I agree with Stabbitydoom, as I do the same thing, if player's have questions about how an encounter was ran I will generally tell them how I did or what rules I applied.
Sounds liks cheese.
Even Paizo does this with clerics in APs. There's nothing wrong with it. The argument for it is logically plausible.
Real quick: Incorporeal makes corporeal weaponry hit for 50%, not have a 50% miss chance. The miss chance was a 3.5 thing.
Unless we're talking about spells that do not do damage, as they only have a 50% chance of working.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Incorporeal-Ex-
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are people here seriously suggesting that NPCs should not have access to anything players can't do? What kind of crazy attitude is that? Since the dawn of roleplaying, no since the dawn of the fantasy genre itself, have villains had access to unique powers they needed to have for plot reasons.
Are you people playing a wargame or an RPG here?
The trick is for the GM to provide a reasonable challenge for his players while at the same time make it enjoyable for the players. The GM does not want be creation frustration among the player's.
I agree with Stabbitydoom, as I do the same thing, if player's have questions about how an encounter was ran I will generally tell them how I did or what rules I applied.
I do as well, but AFTER the encounter, at the end of the night. I don't stop the game to tell them how someone is doing something, that's usually basically telling them how to bypass the power usually.
|
|
Are people here seriously suggesting that NPCs should not have access to anything players can't do? What kind of crazy attitude is that? Since the dawn of roleplaying, no since the dawn of the fantasy genre itself, have villains had access to unique powers they needed to have for plot reasons.
Are you people playing a wargame or an RPG here?
I never suggested that. I merely suggested that if the players are upset, you should probably give a brief explanation of the custom content so that players know you aren't saying "Eh, they have +20 i-hate-you bonus to stealth. And are always stealthed. You know, because."
The OP has since stated that the DM claimed they swapped out a domain power for the ability to snipe with spells and was combining that with incorporeality and an elixir of hiding. Boom. Now we, as players, know roughly what's going on, and it doesn't seem completely out of the scope of the rules (even if custom). The characters can go on none-the-wiser, but at least the players don't feel like their DM is out to get them.
@dP: Your explanation sounds reasonable-ish. I question the wisdom of something that allows you to stealth-cast given the verbal components and the sheer power of some of those spells. The magic section implies that verbal components can't be spoken quietly (it says you must use a "strong voice"), meaning they'd need silent spell as well, though that's possible via item. As a quick guesstimate, you were probably running at a 50/50 chance of seeing her on a given round, and those kinds of odds can go sour fast. This is probably just a case of a DM overestimating what you guys could handle.
What's the delay potion?
Are people here seriously suggesting that NPCs should not have access to anything players can't do? What kind of crazy attitude is that? Since the dawn of roleplaying, no since the dawn of the fantasy genre itself, have villains had access to unique powers they needed to have for plot reasons.
Are you people playing a wargame or an RPG here?
Hahahahah! Wow, what a terrible post, sir!
I, personally, play an RPG - that's "Role Playing Game", for the curious -, and one in which the PCs that I have can, if they take the same steps as the villains, acquire anything the villains have.
I run a world in which the world works coherently together, as opposed to a world that runs "just because I say so".
I run a world that holds the same rules for everything, unless there's a specific reason why the creature runs under different rules (such as gods, in which case, if gods can be ascended, so can the players).
This is a living world and a world in which stories occur and happen and people play a role in the world, instead of a world that has nothing but arbitrary rules filled with "monsters", "players", and "guys without stats", which was one of my major problems with how 4E handled... well, everything.
It's not a "wrong" way to play, but, sir, your post is pretty silly in its implications. I rarely play tactical war games (though PFRPG certainly has its roots deeply embedded into such, and many consider it one), but, please do understand, the idea that somehow someone who plays differently than you are not playing an RPG is very... poorly thought out.
On the other hand, my post is apparently a meme, so, we can't all be winners. :)
I'd poured so much into the effort that I was really, genuinely upset and frustrated... it was a huge disappointment that no matter how well we rolled or how well we did, we simply weren't able to defeat the creature. Later, I spoke with GM, and she explained that it wasn't meant to be "winnable" - the creature we fought was eleven levels higher than we were (and were actually just taking their thing and leaving, anyway), and she shared with me the stats and in-game notes. I actually felt much, much better. My perception was adjusted as to what was going on. She pulled back the curtain and told me, the player, things that the character didn't and couldn't know. With that revelation, with my perception suitably altered, my character changed, but in the way that allowed the story to progress - he became more humble, more cautious, and more methodical, making sure he was in a position to evade fights altogether (and occasionally run away) as much as win them.
And so the game continued, and changed, and, though the character changed, he did so "in character", taking a defeat, chalking it up to the will of the gods, learning, and becoming a little bit of a better person for it.
This kind of stuff happens in games. Personally, I'd be a better person if I hadn't needed the GM to tell me, but I wasn't at that point. Maybe in the future! :)
Are people here seriously suggesting that NPCs should not have access to anything players can't do? What kind of crazy attitude is that? Since the dawn of roleplaying, no since the dawn of the fantasy genre itself, have villains had access to unique powers they needed to have for plot reasons.
Are you people playing a wargame or an RPG here?
Hahahahah! Wow, what a terrible post, sir!
I, personally, play an RPG - that's "Role Playing Game", for the curious -, and one in which the PCs that I have can, if they take the same steps as the villains, acquire anything the villains have.
I run a world in which the world works coherently together, as opposed to a world that runs "just because I say so".
I run a world that holds the same rules for everything, unless there's a specific reason why the creature runs under different rules (such as gods, in which case, if gods can be ascended, so can the players).
This is a living world and a world in which stories occur and happen and people play a role in the world, instead of a world that has nothing but arbitrary rules filled with "monsters", "players", and "guys without stats", which was one of my major problems with how 4E handled... well, everything.
It's not a "wrong" way to play, but, sir, your post is pretty silly in its implications. I rarely play tactical war games (though PFRPG certainly has its roots deeply embedded into such, and many consider it one), but, please do understand, the idea that somehow someone who plays differently than you are not playing an RPG is very... poorly thought out.
On the other hand, my post is apparently a meme, so, we can't all be winners. :)
** spoiler omitted **...
nothing wrong with a GM giving a random blessing, template or custom spell that the players can't have. The gm works with the same rules as soon as an encounter starts but he is completely free to determine how he builds the npcs, he can use a 50 point build, or entirely made up monsters or spells for all I care, but I expect challenges we can overcome with some effort and a little luck.
Fairly sure there are ways to do what the cleric did, perhaps sometihing else is going on what the players are not supposed to know. Though I personally would not enjoy to routinely have half the party die on a regular basis, even if you can be brought back easy. Dying more than once with a character usually means my character stays dead the second time.
The rule sets are only effective if both parties follow the rules.
nothing wrong with a GM giving a random blessing, template or custom spell that the players can't have. The gm works with the same rules as soon as an encounter starts but he is completely free to determine how he builds the npcs, he can use a 50 point build, or entirely made up monsters or spells for all I care, but I expect challenges we can overcome with some effort and a little luck.
You are quite correct!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that play style, as I was indicating: to each their own. However, mcv's post seemed to indicate that there was something wrong with playing the other way.
My point? Both are perfectly acceptable and reasonable.