|
20th level Fighter vs 20th level NPC Wizard (Average CR 19 Encounter) I find the fighter wins more often than not.
All the fighter needs to beat the wizard is a caster cohort and the fighter has enough feats to pick leadership with every build other martials may pick this too but they don't need to as much. Also I find after spending about 400,000 gp I have most everything I need as fighter so I can top up my cohort with the rest. So fighter with his 17th level caster is buffing/debuffing and controlling the battle field making for a bad day for the enemy wizard. The enemy Wizard may be higher level the cohort wizard but the cohort has 4 times the wealth.
Now Player vs Player the wizard wins most of the time due to more optimization. NPC are not optimized. If you do optimize the NPC I think the CR should go up by 1. The main reason is if I optimize a wizard I optimize them for 1 fight. I don't have to worry about the next encounter like a player does with an optimized character so mine is much more powerful in the GM chair.
You should try an optimized Fighter who's specialty is killing magic users.
20th level fighters are capable of flight, teleportation, blinking, seeing the invisible, and a whole host of other things.
|
20th level Fighter vs 20th level NPC Wizard (Average CR 19 Encounter) I find the fighter wins more often than not.
All the fighter needs to beat the wizard is a caster cohort and the fighter has enough feats to pick leadership with every build other martials may pick this too but they don't need to as much. Also I find after spending about 400,000 gp I have most everything I need as fighter so I can top up my cohort with the rest. So fighter with his 17th level caster is buffing/debuffing and controlling the battle field making for a bad day for the enemy wizard. The enemy Wizard may be higher level the cohort wizard but the cohort has 4 times the wealth.
Now Player vs Player the wizard wins most of the time due to more optimization. NPC are not optimized. If you do optimize the NPC I think the CR should go up by 1. The main reason is if I optimize a wizard I optimize them for 1 fight. I don't have to worry about the next encounter like a player does with an optimized character so mine is much more powerful in the GM chair.
Not bad. That's pretty good, actually. Friggin' good. Lich killin' good, even. :)
This isn't going to work anyway because Magic Circle Against Evil is a good descriptor spell and I don't think an evil lich can cast it.
You would be wrong. The alignment-descriptor of spells is only relevant to divine-casters.
Also, let's say he could cast it, even though he has created a binding circle it is still a Protection from Evil spell so the Protection from Mind effects would still be given to the Balor.
This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. When focused inward, the spell binds a non-good called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle. The creature cannot cross the circle's boundaries. If a creature too large to fit into the spell's area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.
All he would need to do is drop the Unholy Aura as a free action and gain the benefits of the Protection from Evil from the magic circle.
He CAN drop his aura, but since the circle is inward-facing instead of outward-facing, he gets none of the benefits, normally associated with protection from evil. In other words, dropping his aura would accomplish absolutely nothing.
Edit: Basically even though you've trapped it, you are giving it protection at the same time. I think that is why the Planer Binding spell talks so much about needing to make charisma checks to persuade it.
No, this has been proven wrong. You are not offering it protection, you are using an alternate application of the Magic Circle against Evil, to trap it. It amazes me that I have to explain this to you, since this mechanic is the crux of the entire planar binding chain, and you claim to have read them.
-Nearyn
Just as an aside, while I disagree with much of what Shallowsoul has said, I do want to make clear that I'm of the opinion and experience that casting spells across a warding diagram at a bound creature falls within the 'anything disturbs the diagram' line. I don't think that the topic was ever specifically addressed in 3X or PF, but I certainly recall numerous scenes in official novels that made it pretty clear that was the case (there is at least one scene with Cadderly where he explicitly steps across a diagram to start dropping blade barriers on a fiend).
I think any other interpretation leaves the spell open to the kind of exploitative suggestions we're seeing, and while a good GM can work around it (because only a moron binds an eons old fiend with a genius level intellect with brute force and humiliation) it works better otherwise.
I'd be happy to see an FAQ though on what exactly is defined as disturbing the diagram, and whether officially the hi-jinks described are legal.
|
|
This isn't going to work anyway because Magic Circle Against Evil is a good descriptor spell and I don't think an evil lich can cast it.You would be wrong. The alignment-descriptor of spells is only relevant to divine-casters.
Also, let's say he could cast it, even though he has created a binding circle it is still a Protection from Evil spell so the Protection from Mind effects would still be given to the Balor.This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it. A magic circle against evil can be focused inward rather than outward. When focused inward, the spell binds a non-good called creature (such as those called by the lesser planar binding, planar binding, and greater planar binding spells) for a maximum of 24 hours per caster level, provided that you cast the spell that calls the creature within 1 round of casting the magic circle. The creature cannot cross the circle's boundaries. If a creature too large to fit into the spell's area is the subject of the spell, the spell acts as a normal protection from evil spell for that creature only.All he would need to do is drop the Unholy Aura as a free action and gain the benefits of the Protection from Evil from the magic circle.He CAN drop his aura, but since the circle is inward-facing instead of outward-facing, he gets none of the benefits, normally associated with protection from evil. In other words, dropping his aura would accomplish absolutely nothing.
Edit: Basically even though you've trapped it, you are giving it protection at the same time. I think that is why the Planer Binding spell talks so much about needing to make charisma checks to persuade it.No, this has been proven wrong. You are not offering it protection, you are using an alternate application of the Magic Circle against Evil, to trap it. It amazes me that I have to explain this...
There is nothing in the spell that states just because you do it inverted that what ever is in it doesn't gain the benefit. It even states that if the creature is too big for the circle it still benefits from Protection from Evil.
No DM is going to allow an evil "undead" lich to cast a Good spell. You have a citation to back you up with regards to the "Good descriptor"?
|
|
Just as an aside, while I disagree with much of what Shallowsoul has said, I do want to make clear that I'm of the opinion and experience that casting spells across a warding diagram at a bound creature falls within the 'anything disturbs the diagram' line. I don't think that the topic was ever specifically addressed in 3X or PF, but I certainly recall numerous scenes in official novels that made it pretty clear that was the case (there is at least one scene with Cadderly where he explicitly steps across a diagram to start dropping blade barriers on a fiend).
I think any other interpretation leaves the spell open to the kind of exploitative suggestions we're seeing, and while a good GM can work around it (because only a moron binds an eons old fiend with a genius level intellect with brute force and humiliation) it works better otherwise.
I'd be happy to see an FAQ though on what exactly is defined as disturbing the diagram, and whether officially the hi-jinks described are legal.
I will agree with this because if it were easy to just hit the creature with spells then needing to persuade it wouldn't need to be in the spell or needing to bribe it. You would just be able to sit there and hit it with mind effecting spells until it fails it's save and does what you say.
Just as an aside, while I disagree with much of what Shallowsoul has said, I do want to make clear that I'm of the opinion and experience that casting spells across a warding diagram at a bound creature falls within the 'anything disturbs the diagram' line. I don't think that the topic was ever specifically addressed in 3X or PF, but I certainly recall numerous scenes in official novels that made it pretty clear that was the case (there is at least one scene with Cadderly where he explicitly steps across a diagram to start dropping blade barriers on a fiend).
I think any other interpretation leaves the spell open to the kind of exploitative suggestions we're seeing, and while a good GM can work around it (because only a moron binds an eons old fiend with a genius level intellect with brute force and humiliation) it works better otherwise.
I'd be happy to see an FAQ though on what exactly is defined as disturbing the diagram, and whether officially the hi-jinks described are legal.
Nothing in either the Circle of protection vs [alignment] or Planar binding is similar or support what you wrote.
It's a nice houserule though
There is nothing in the spell that states just because you do it inverted that what ever is in it doesn't gain the benefit. It even states that if the creature is too big for the circle it still benefits from Protection from Evil.
Let's say it is the case. Now, the devil is immune to enchantment spells cast by evil casters, and to evil summmons, and +2 AC and saves against evil creatures and effects.
How is that helping ?
No DM is going to allow an evil "undead" lich to cast a Good spell. You have a citation to back you up with regards to the "Good descriptor"?
Except that it can. [Good] or any other [alignment] spells can be cast by any arcane caster without considerations towards its own alignment.
There is no exceptions. A good aligned wizard can cast Protection from Good, even if it is a [evil] spell.Those limitations are only for divine casters.
|
|
Just as an aside, while I disagree with much of what Shallowsoul has said, I do want to make clear that I'm of the opinion and experience that casting spells across a warding diagram at a bound creature falls within the 'anything disturbs the diagram' line. I don't think that the topic was ever specifically addressed in 3X or PF, but I certainly recall numerous scenes in official novels that made it pretty clear that was the case (there is at least one scene with Cadderly where he explicitly steps across a diagram to start dropping blade barriers on a fiend).
I think any other interpretation leaves the spell open to the kind of exploitative suggestions we're seeing, and while a good GM can work around it (because only a moron binds an eons old fiend with a genius level intellect with brute force and humiliation) it works better otherwise.
I'd be happy to see an FAQ though on what exactly is defined as disturbing the diagram, and whether officially the hi-jinks described are legal.
Nothing in either the Circle of protection vs [alignment] or Planar binding is similar or support what you wrote.
It's a nice houserule though
Actually it doesn't state "what" exactly constitutes as "disturbing" the circle from the outside you can't actually sit there and say he is wrong either.
|
|
There is nothing in the spell that states just because you do it inverted that what ever is in it doesn't gain the benefit. It even states that if the creature is too big for the circle it still benefits from Protection from Evil.Let's say it is the case. Now, the devil is immune to enchantment spells cast by evil casters, and to evil summmons, and +2 AC and saves against evil creatures and effects.
How is that helping ?
Hmmm let's see, since a Geas is an enchantment spell the Balor would be immune to it.
|
|
Has anyone actually read that the magic circle is only 3ft in diameter?
Magic Circle against Evil
School abjuration [good]; Level cleric 3, paladin 3, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (a 3-ft.-diameter circle of powdered silver)
Range touch
Area 10-ft.-radius emanation from touched creature
Duration 10 min./level
Balor won't fit into a 3ft diameter circle.
Hmmm let's see, since a Geas is an enchantment spell the Balor would be immune to it.
In 3.5, I would totally agree with you. Except that protection vs [alignment] does not protection you against ALL such spells, only against those that are from the opposed alignment. So Protection from evil will not protect against a neutral caster. Never.
Balor won't fit into a 3ft diameter circle.
Balors are Large. So they fit in the circle just fine. The limitation is for its HD, not its size.
The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. The creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.
Except that spells that goes from outside to inside does not mess with the diagram, as the diagram is on the floor (contrary to the effect of the spell, which use the diagram to create a "barrier" that prevent the creature from doing almost anything). The geas spell will not create winds that will cause objects to mess with the diagram. I would agree with blast spells or the like, but not with mind effect spells.
There is nothing in the spell that states just because you do it inverted that what ever is in it doesn't gain the benefit. It even states that if the creature is too big for the circle it still benefits from Protection from Evil.
This spell has an alternative version that you may choose when casting it.
"Alternative version", meaning "different from the first version".
There is also nothing that states that I do not get a CL 19 blade barrier spell cast on me, whenever I 5ft step. =.=
No DM is going to allow an evil "undead" lich to cast a Good spell.
I you are confusing "no DM is", with "I am not". You have demonstrated your inability to read, comprehend, and accept the rules, multiple times now.
You have a citation to back you up with regards to the "Good descriptor"?
Yes, I do.
Most of these descriptors have no game effect by themselves, but they govern how the spell interacts with other spells, with special abilities, with unusual creatures, with alignment, and so on.
Good: Spells that draw upon the power of true goodness or conjure creatures from good-aligned planes or with the good subtype should have the good descriptor.
Evil: Spells that draw upon evil powers or conjure creatures from evil-aligned planes or with the evil subtype should have the evil descriptor.
Nowhere in these rules does it state that the alignment-descriptor prevents a character of a different alignment from casting them. In fact, the only exception to this rule, the case of divine magic, is explicitly spelled out, whenever it applies:
A cleric can't cast spells of an alignment opposed to her own or her deity's (if she has one). Spells associated with particular alignments are indicated by the chaotic, evil, good, and lawful descriptors in their spell descriptions.
There is no rule preventing an evil arcane-caster from casting a [good] spell or vice versa.
-Nearyn
|
|
Hmmm let's see, since a Geas is an enchantment spell the Balor would be immune to it.In 3.5, I would totally agree with you. Except that protection vs [alignment] does not protection you against ALL such spells, only against those that are from the opposed alignment. So Protection from evil will not protect against a neutral caster. Never.
Balor won't fit into a 3ft diameter circle.Balors are Large. So they fit in the circle just fine. The limitation is for its HD, not its size.
The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. The creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.Except that spells that goes from outside to inside does not mess with the diagram, as the diagram is on the floor (contrary to the effect of the spell, which use the diagram to create a "barrier" that prevent the creature from doing almost anything). The geas spell will not create winds that will cause objects to mess with the diagram. I would agree with blast spells or the like, but not with mind effect spells.
Remind me again how a large creature with wings can stand in a 3ft circle?
Now if you want to go by HD then G Planar Binding wouldn't work because the max it effects is 18HD.
My group never really had a problem with caster/martial disparity. We don't particularly care for the unbalance but we do appreciate the attempt at balance. Now in our games there's always a silent agreement that the martials kept the mook hordes off the casters while the casters dealt with the enemy casters or anything else for that matter. Usually that involves shutting the enemy caster's defenses so that the martials can tear through them like wet paper. It's all a big team effort.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. The creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.Except that spells that goes from outside to inside does not mess with the diagram, as the diagram is on the floor (contrary to the effect of the spell, which use the diagram to create a "barrier" that prevent the creature from doing almost anything). The geas spell will not create winds that will cause objects to mess with the diagram. I would agree with blast spells or the like, but not with mind effect spells.
You are free to interpret it however you'd like. The spell is somewhat open ended in that regard. For my part, since the diagram is able to prevent all magical and ranged attacks on the part of the bound creature from passing over or under the 'diagram on the floor', I've always thought that as a magical construct it functions as a cylinder, and that anything that crosses that threshold (be it above the 'diagram' or not) shatters the diagram's power.
It's the same reason you can't stand at the perimeter and hack and slash them apart or stand across the room and shoot arrows across it. I think to interpret the spell otherwise is to draw some awfully curious and nuanced distinctions within it that disproportionately increases its power as both a weapon of assassination / revenge and as a tool in striking bargains. If you can simply use enchantments, curses, and the threat of death to cow every being you summon into submission with virtually zero threat to you why even bother with payment?
I'd also note that it's interpretations like your own (combined with people that can't be bothered to read the spells they love to scream about like the OP) that tend to create much of the so-called caster/martial disparity. When you stack the deck in their favor of course they come out ahead.
The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. The creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.Except that spells that goes from outside to inside does not mess with the diagram, as the diagram is on the floor (contrary to the effect of the spell, which use the diagram to create a "barrier" that prevent the creature from doing almost anything). The geas spell will not create winds that will cause objects to mess with the diagram. I would agree with blast spells or the like, but not with mind effect spells.You are free to interpret it however you'd like. The spell is somewhat open ended in that regard. For my part, since the diagram is able to prevent all magical and ranged attacks on the part of the bound creature from passing over or under the 'diagram on the floor', I've always thought that as a magical construct it functions as a cylinder, and that anything that crosses that threshold (be it above the 'diagram' or not) shatters the diagram's power.
It's the same reason you can't stand at the perimeter and hack and slash them apart or stand across the room and shoot arrows across it. I think to interpret the spell otherwise is to draw some awfully curious and nuanced distinctions within it that disproportionately increases its power as both a weapon of assassination / revenge and as a tool in striking bargains. If you can simply use enchantments, curses, and the threat of death to cow every being you summon into submission with virtually zero threat to you why even bother with payment?
While I completely respect what thematic flavour you are going for here, and I would not mind playing in a game that rolled that way, the rules only prevent the bound outsider, very explicitly so, from casting spells and reaching across the ward.
So yes, as it is written, you could totally summon a creature and just kill it with spells or a polearm, provided there is no outside interference with the circle of materials on the ground.
|
|
The creature is immediately released if anything disturbs the diagram—even a straw laid across it. The creature itself cannot disturb the diagram either directly or indirectly, as noted above.Except that spells that goes from outside to inside does not mess with the diagram, as the diagram is on the floor (contrary to the effect of the spell, which use the diagram to create a "barrier" that prevent the creature from doing almost anything). The geas spell will not create winds that will cause objects to mess with the diagram. I would agree with blast spells or the like, but not with mind effect spells.You are free to interpret it however you'd like. The spell is somewhat open ended in that regard. For my part, since the diagram is able to prevent all magical and ranged attacks on the part of the bound creature from passing over or under the 'diagram on the floor', I've always thought that as a magical construct it functions as a cylinder, and that anything that crosses that threshold (be it above the 'diagram' or not) shatters the diagram's power.
It's the same reason you can't stand at the perimeter and hack and slash them apart or stand across the room and shoot arrows across it. I think to interpret the spell otherwise is to draw some awfully curious and nuanced distinctions within it that disproportionately increases its power as both a weapon of assassination / revenge and as a tool in striking bargains. If you can simply use enchantments, curses, and the threat of death to cow every being you summon into submission with virtually zero threat to you why even bother with payment?
While I completely respect what thematic flavour you are going for here, and I would not mind playing in a game that rolled that way, the rules only prevent the bound outsider, very explicitly so, from casting spells and reaching across the ward.
So yes, as it is written, you could totally summon a creature and just kill it with spells or a...
There is nothing as written to support what you say 100%. I think this needs to be FAQed.
Remind me again how a large creature with wings can stand in a 3ft circle?
The limitation isn't a 3ft circle, it is a material component. The effect is a 10ft circle. The same that casting a fireball isn't throwing some sulfur powder and bat guano, but casting a fireball.
And a balor occupies a 10ft circle just fine.If it was a 3ft circle, the spell wouldn't even affect anyone, because 3ft is smaller than any creature that can be called.
Now if you want to go by HD then G Planar Binding wouldn't work because the max it effects is 18HD.
Its been almost 50 posts that it has been said that GPB doesn't work with balor by itself because of the HD limit. Move on dude. It does work with Gate, because Gate is a calling effect and Circle of protection works with all calling effects, with for example the planar binding spells.
I've always thought that as a magical construct it functions as a cylinder,
I agree with you, except that the cilinder is only for the trapped creature, not for the caster. The caster is even able to cross the diagram just fine, at the condition he takes care of not messing with the diagram.
Has anyone actually read that the magic circle is only 3ft in diameter?
Incorrect. The material component for the spell, is a 3-ft diameter circle of powdered silver. The magic circle itself is a 10ft radius emanation.
There is nothing as written to support what you say 100%. I think this needs to be FAQed.
I defy you to make a single, context-appropriate citation from either the Planar Binding chain, or Magic Circle against Evil, that does not support what I say.
|
|
Remind me again how a large creature with wings can stand in a 3ft circle?The limitation isn't a 3ft circle, it is a material component. The effect is a 10ft circle. The same that casting a fireball isn't throwing some sulfur powder and bat guano, but casting a fireball.
And a balor occupies a 10ft circle just fine.If it was a 3ft circle, the spell wouldn't even affect anyone, because 3ft is smaller than any creature that can be called.
Now if you want to go by HD then G Planar Binding wouldn't work because the max it effects is 18HD.Its been almost 50 posts that it has been said that GPB doesn't work with balor by itself because of the HD limit. Move on dude. It does work with Gate, because Gate is a calling effect and Circle of protection works with all calling effects, with for example the planar binding spells.
I've always thought that as a magical construct it functions as a cylinder,I agree with you, except that the cilinder is only for the trapped creature, not for the caster. The caster is even able to cross the diagram just fine, at the condition he takes care of not messing with the diagram.
The 10ft radius emanation is when you use the spell and touch someone. They will then radiate a 10ft emanation.
The 3ft powered silver is the focus for the spell in all it's forms. it says nothing about being able to make the circle any larger or smaller in the spell's description.
|
|
Has anyone actually read that the magic circle is only 3ft in diameter?Incorrect. The material component for the spell, is a 3-ft diameter circle of powdered silver. The magic circle itself is a 10ft radius emanation.
Which means it radiates outward to 10ft from a specific point. It says nothing about starting 10ft outward and heading inward when you invert it.
The 10ft radius emanation is when you use the spell and touch someone. They will then radiate a 10ft emanation.
The 3ft powered silver is the focus for the spell in all it's forms. it says nothing about being able to make the circle any larger or smaller in the spell's description.
This has been answered, move along.
Which means it radiates outward to 10ft from a specific point. It says nothing about starting 10ft outward and heading inward when you invert it.
It does not have to start from the outside and emanate inward for the spell to work. Stop making up rules, it is getting tedious.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I challenge some assumptions in the OP. First, I don't think the game is designed for four martial characters to be able to handle any threat. The design is for four mixed characters to be able to handle almost any threat, and the EL determines the amount of resources used to beat that challenge.
Second, I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. In this case, the CR 20+ lich is fairly optimized, comfortable blowing three ninth level spells before combat begins. If the party wants to compete, they had better not be relying on one 20th level fighter to handle him. Someone should be able to dispel his spells as they're being cast, or sneak up and disable him immediately. Supposing a smart party gets initiative with their rogue and sets the contingency loose. The party spends several hours ransacking the place, looking for the phylactery, killing minions, looting treasure, stealing expensive components, etc. Maybe they set up shop and wait for him to come back.
Say the party shows up and the lich starts to cast time stop. Someone holds an action to dispel it, the party gets their full turn. If the party is as capable and well-prepared as the lich is, they aren't screwed. Every GM knows that a group of organized players will destroy a similar CR encounter.
Next, I feel there is a lot made about how mathematically some classes just outshine others. Why ever play a rogue and that sort of thing. I just don't subscribe to that. First, the game is intended for fun, not to win optimization contests. It might be fun for everyone to play a wizard in this game or for everyone to play a barbarian in that game. A good GM designs a challenge for the players involved, and good players find a way around those challenges. A rogue with the same level of optimization might disable the lich single handedly. Maybe he has to do it twice after the contingency pays off. There are a lot of ways to build and unstoppable PC or NPC. And there are even more ways to destroy that character once he's been built.
Try building the most amazing character with no flaws that you can. I think the overwhelming common denominator we'd all feel about our best build is...there's still a weakness, 880k in items is just not enough to make him invincible, etc. Let me prepare that lich for a solid week and my players here in Tulsa will tear through him, regardless of time stop or contingency. They'll find a way. And the fighter won't feel like he had no chance to impact the fight.
Different groups play diferrently, but remember, it's all about fun, and every class has a lot of fun to offer at every level.
The 10ft radius emanation is when you use the spell and touch someone. They will then radiate a 10ft emanation.
The 3ft powered silver is the focus for the spell in all it's forms. it says nothing about being able to make the circle any larger or smaller in the spell's description.
Not true. The powdered silver circle is the material component for arcane casters, and divine caster must use their divine focus INSTEAD.
Moreover, 50% of wizard and every sorcerer have Eschew materials, that effectively delete the material component. It is NOT a focus, re-read the component line :
Components V, S, M/DF (a 3-ft.-diameter circle of powdered silver)
And now, we go to the magic section, to know what M/DF mean.
If the Components line includes F/DF or M/DF, the arcane version of the spell has a focus component or a material component (the abbreviation before the slash) and the divine version has a divine focus component (the abbreviation after the slash).
Now, I'm done with this argument.
It says nothing about starting 10ft outward and heading inward when you invert it.
The only size that is in the effect line is 10 ft radius emanation. Nothing more, nothing less.
And a 10 ft emanation means that you can trap a Huge creature or smaller inside (no more, because of the way diagonal works).
And a 10 ft emanation means that you can trap a Huge creature or smaller inside (no more, because of the way diagonal works).
I hadn't thought about this. So are you going by the squeezing rules, because if so, that is an angle to this spell I had never even considered :)
This will never happen in PFS, and as for home games, you GMs just need to get your gamer pants on and make some home rules!
Actually, in PFS it would work (and the GM can't even say no) : the barrier prevent the trapped creature from attacking, not both the caster and the trapped creature. For games outside PFS, most of them aren't RAW, so it would be just too long to assume every possible houserules about them.
This is a fun argument between people saying essentially that if the rules don't say you can't do something, then you can and those essentially arguing that if the rules don't say you can, then you can't.
Note to both sides. The rules don't say a lot of things. If the rules were written to take every conceivable contigency into acocunt, no one would be able to carry that book around, or find anything in it if they could. And the game would likely be a heck of a lot slower and less fun as everyone paused the action to search for rules every time someone tries to so something unusual.
That's why the game has a GM. So he/she can interpret the rules and make calls when they are unclear. So, in the absence of specific language in the rules defining the outcome of a proposed action or an FAQ answer from Paizo staff, it works if the GM, drawing on his experience, says it works. That's not house rules, that's how the game functions.
I realize that drives some people crazy because different GMs with different types and amounts of experience and different perspectives might interpret rules in very different ways. Oh well. Nature of the beast. If they ever get to the point where the rules are so well-defined so as not to need a GM to make rulings on stuff like this, I'll probably have to find another hobby, because this one will likely be no fun anymore.
That's why the game has a GM. So he/she can interpret the rules and make calls when they are unclear. So, in the absence of specific language in the rules defining the outcome of a proposed action or an FAQ answer from Paizo staff, it works if the GM, drawing on his experience, says it works. That's not house rules, that's how the game functions.
I agree with you. But what about PFS scenarios ? They are ruled by RAW/official FAQ, and the DM does NOT have the right to interpret rules in such games : they MUST apply it to the letter. And for that, there must be an agreement of how the action works BY THE RULES. The sentence "Your DM will find a way", or "You're the DM, put your pants on and tell how it works at your table" doesn't work with those.
I interpret things when I'm home, or when I don't know how it works, or when I'm not satisfied with the official ruling. But we are on the official Paizo forum, and by such, posters look for the rules to be clarified/explained by official rules, not to be told : "Hey guys, you don't know how it works ? DM's call". If it was the case, such forum wouldn't even exist.
There is a forum for houserules, and one for advice. There is also a forum for Rules questions.
|
|
I agree with you. But what about PFS scenarios ? They are ruled by RAW/official FAQ, and the DM does NOT have the right to interpret rules in such games : they MUST apply it to the letter. And for that, there must be an agreement of how the action works BY THE RULES.
Table variation is written into PFS rules to account for the fact that not everything is well defined within the rules.
That's why the game has a GM. So he/she can interpret the rules and make calls when they are unclear. So, in the absence of specific language in the rules defining the outcome of a proposed action or an FAQ answer from Paizo staff, it works if the GM, drawing on his experience, says it works. That's not house rules, that's how the game functions.I agree with you. But what about PFS scenarios ? They are ruled by RAW/official FAQ, and the DM does NOT have the right to interpret rules in such games : they MUST apply it to the letter. And for that, there must be an agreement of how the action works BY THE RULES. The sentence "Your DM will find a way", or "You're the DM, put your pants on and tell how it works at your table" doesn't work with those.
I interpret things when I'm home, or when I don't know how it works, or when I'm not satisfied with the official ruling. But we are on the official Paizo forum, and by such, posters look for the rules to be clarified/explained by official rules, not to be told : "Hey guys, you don't know how it works ? DM's call". If it was the case, such forum wouldn't even exist.
There is a forum for houserules, and one for advice. There is also a forum for Rules questions.
I do not play PFS, so will defer to those that do, but it has never been my impression that PFS GMs do not have any discretion on interpretation of the rules. Frankly, I don't believe such would even be possible, given how many areas in the rules are unclear (and some of them deliberately so). I also have never believed that there can ever be such a thing as a RAW-only game, for reasons I've previously stated. Certainly some tables, and PFS as a whole, try to hold closer to the RAW than others, but the RAW simply does not suffice to run a game. No matter how many rules you write, imaginative players will always figure out some plan that is not accounted for in those rules. I've been GMing for 35 years and virtually everyu session my players will come up with something new that I would never have foreseen (and neither would the designers) in a million years. Part of what makes it fun.
Also, I know some people wish it wasn't so, but GM makes the call is RAW itself, and thus appropriate for forum discussion. In fact the very nature of these forum arguments, which tend to showcase variety of opinion and playstyle far more often than they ever come to unanimous conclusions when someone "wins" the argument, tend to support my argument.
Note the Volume...one touched object of up to 2 cu feet/level.
This means the Volume BEFORE you touch it, not after.
Meaning that at 10th level, I can shrink an object 10 cubic feet in size. That's around the size of an outhouse. Take the floorboards out, take the roof out, reinforce the sides, and there you go. Again, this spell works fine for the purpose I describe, Aelryinth.
you're assuming it's going to come down equally on all sides of you and not be leaning to one side or the other. Technically speaking, you can't do it unless it's a 5 x 5 x 6 enclosure, completely surrounding your space, but I'd go with 3x3, else you're likely to knock it over as it unshrinks.
Yes, you can make it very small. It doesn't mean something sizable is easy to shrink down.
You know, if I wanted to, I could make up rules regarding spells as well.
How about this: "You cast a fireball? Well since the fireball needs to travel the distance from you, to your target, a butterfly gets in the way of the fireball's travelling arc, just 5 feet in front of you, and the fireball hits it, exploding in your face. Roll reflex save".
We're talking about the mechanics of a spell here. There is nothing in the rules backing your claims of the object leaning on one side, or knocking the object over while it "unshrinks". These things might seem well and good from a thematic perspective, but they are still GM fiat, overriding the usefulness of the spell, and screwing the player who was creative enough to use it.
I'm being realistic, and you're trying to abuse a spell. Sorry, I've seen that argument before...it's been around ten years or more. Someone came up with it in the Lockdown thread on the WoTC boards back then, but they used Polymorph Any Object, I believe. Spells don't do everything Schroedinger's Wizards think they do.
You're interpreting volume as the area of the solid object.
Volume is expressly a unit of area, expressed in 1 cubic foot blocks, by the terms of the spell. It would presume the area your 'outhouse' encompasses, i.e. the total volume the spell is supposed to effect, spread out over a larger area. The volume a spell effects is not just the outer edge of something, nor does it say anywhere in the spell description that volume is perfectly fluid, i.e. by your interpetation, I could do a dome 50' across, as long as I could make the material of the dome out of silk. No...the dome has to fit in the volume of the spell, not just the silk it's made out of.
You could, of course, collapse it down to stacked up slats or folded silk, but then it's not in the form you want.
You could still do it, you'd just need access to the Widen Metamagic feat so you could up the AoE by a factor of 8...and even then, it's still a dumb thing to do.
As for the Magic Circle: I see where I missed the additional information on the Diagram, you are indeed correct on that point. It's in the last paragraph of the spell description. The binding information for an inward turning circle-diagram allows spells and ranged attacks to cross the boundary, and that's in the second paragraph.
In other words, if you don't have time to prepare a diagram, you better not trust to a Magic Circle to save you.
As for the area of the circle...the 3' circle is the center of the 10' emnation effect. I'm not certain you're 'limited' to a 3' circle when you are inverting it, otherwise you'd never be able to summon any size L outsider, or a winged size M into one, which is, well, a lot of them...but then again, it doesn't say how big a circle you can make, does it? A strict interpretation of this spell could do serious harm to those who like to summon, because 'fits into' the circle is very restrictive.
In other words, to summon the powerful stuff, you might well be forced to use a permanent circle of larger size then the spell allows somewhere else...and we don't actually have any rules on those, either. I can see why the spell isn't allows in PFS.
==Aelryinth