What spells do you consider to be "breakers"???


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

I am very interested in this topic. Are you planning to post your final "solutions" or house rules based on this list? Thanks!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

It also takes a level 1 spellcaster with a cantrip to Detect the Enchantment magic at work on all those people. It costs what, 2k for a Wayfinder with the stone that neutralizes all compulsion effects, which would be standard equipment for any courtier.

There's probably a whole subset of security trained especially to be looking for those kind of influences, and the courtiers will definitely be looking for it on each other.

Charm spells only work in the movies where nobody has ever been targeted by magic or knows anything about it. In a place where it's commonplace, thwarting 'common tactics' will be easy.

==Aelryinth

Liberty's Edge

I think a lot of this comes down to how prevalent magic is in the campaign world.

If it's common, then paying for a spell to be cast is probably like paying for valet parking. Not something you do every day, but something you could choose to pay for if the occasion was right.

If important people know about magic, then there would be common defenses in place.

Guards would have dogs, because scent foils invisibility
Valuables would be kept in lead-lined boxes
Important places would be protected with magical effects, like hallow and forbiddance
The wealthy would have spellcasters on retainer, like we do with lawyers
Disguises would be more common, to defeat scrying. Even the dark hooded cloak is effective.
Rich and paranoid people would have doubles to do the dangerous work: Master rogues, dopplegangers, whatever.

And most importantly, the religious/legal system would have rules for who can be brought back from the dead and who cannot, and under what conditions.

My take on that is you need to be a member in good standing. Otherwise, some churches will tell you to forget it, others will assess you for missed years of tithing, plus penalty fees, plus atonement costs for your misdeeds, etc.


Technotrooper -

I'm using a home-brew variant of Unearthed Arcana's Incantations. Each spell would still have to be "known" by the caster (if applicable), and occupy a spell slot on the day of the ritual, then the ritual process would be quick and simple (in terms of game mechanics), based on just the spell level. No modifying each spell's description in terms of Backlash, number of Knowledge rolls, etc. Virtually no changes to the existing spell mechanics.

My hope is that by making them time- and GP-consuming (with chances of death if things go very wrong), the PC's will think twice and only use those spells when really needed. The result of a ritual can be stored in a scroll for in-melee use later.

As a by-the-way, I'm also using rituals to justify the low quantity of high-powered and "permanent" magic items (armor, swords, rings, staves, etc.) in my world : in addition to the feat, making each item requires a ritual, which can incur things like long-term Ability penalties and possibly death. So high-level spellcasters are only going to make items when they *really* need to. But wands, potions, and scrolls are still available in quantity, and I'm giving PC's extra "points" at each level to add to their AC's, saves, abilities, etc.

I plan to post the details of all these home-brew mods once the PC's have gotten much higher in level, as I don't feel comfortable posting "in theory" systems.

But if anyone would like to know the specifics of the rituals or the "extra points" before I post them (which could be many months from now), feel free to Private Message me, I'd be glad to give you the details.


"Counterspell-breaker : has a limited number of options for negating or getting around the spell".

I'd like to make a point about this particular guideline. Any spell that can be defeated with Dispel Magic probably shouldn't be considered a counterspell breaker. Yes, a spell may be negated by "a limited number of options" and that limited number may even be one, but if the one spell that works on it is Dispel Magic - no problem. It's a low-level spell, and every caster in the game gets access to it, both arcane and divine. In addition to it being omnipresent, it has one big obvious function that everyone knows - breaking spells. "Spell broken only by Dispel Magic" is like "Door opened only with doorknob" or "Can only opened by can opener".


You have control over your game, the encounters and the results of the dice. How can anything be a breaker? Tailor the encounters and if necessary fudge the dice rolls. You are making a story happen not being audited for accuracy and adherence to rules.

I had a DM who wouldn't let me take Fly once because he found it too awkward to work with, he also dictated what spells I could learn at each level- I retired the mage and became a fighter. TWF, sickles and Trip specialisation, so he put us in an environment where I lost the sickles and couldn't replace them - from 5th level to 7th and no sickles in sight. A waste of weapon focus and weapon specialisation.

Your game isn't a game without the players enjoying it, galling limitations remove enjoyment.


CountofUndolpho wrote:

You have control over your game, the encounters and the results of the dice. How can anything be a breaker? Tailor the encounters and if necessary fudge the dice rolls. You are making a story happen not being audited for accuracy and adherence to rules.

I had a DM who wouldn't let me take Fly once because he found it too awkward to work with, he also dictated what spells I could learn at each level- I retired the mage and became a fighter. TWF, sickles and Trip specialisation, so he put us in an environment where I lost the sickles and couldn't replace them - from 5th level to 7th and no sickles in sight. A waste of weapon focus and weapon specialisation.

Your game isn't a game without the players enjoying it, galling limitations remove enjoyment.

were you enjoying your wizard? If so, why did you retire it? Were you enjoying your fighter without his selected weapons?

It is NOT the GM story. It's a collaborative story built between the GM and the Players. Railroading freaks that fudge everything until the BBEG dies in the exactly planned way in tge exactly expected round, arent playing a rpg. They are storytelling us a script. I'd rather say him to write the book and send it to me when finished


No because I couldn't choose my own spells and so the direction of his progress.
Not as much as I would be with my chosen weapons, or the ability to reassign all my wasted feats.
It is the DMs story the PCs just add randomness to send it on new paths.
Yup under the control of the GM.
Good job I don't know any railroading freaks then!
Who are?
Say to who?

Did I miss any points?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CountofUndolpho wrote:
No because I couldn't choose my own spells and so the direction of his progress.

then your GM was doing a bad job.

Quote:
Not as much as I would be with my chosen weapons, or the ability to reassign all my wasted feats.

see above.

Quote:


It is the DMs story the PCs just add randomness to send it on new paths.

it is not. A writer decides the story. "I'm going to write about a barbarian from cimmeria that starts as a thief and ends as king". In a RPG, I could, as a player,decide that you (the GM) are going to tell the story of Conan, a delicate aquilonian bard who starts as a con man and ends as a leader of a spy network.

Quote:


Yup under the control of the GM.

in a rpg, no. I can decide I'm not going to accept the position of king. I can decide I'm not going to learn disarm and a rapier, or point blank shot and use a bow. I can decide to spare the lives of prisioners, or execute all of them. The GM controls the events and enviroment, but he does not control the decisions of the protagonists which happen to bd a veeeeery large part of any story.

Quote:


Good job I don't know any railroading freaks then!

you do. The guy who decided which spells y

ou learn when you level. And that made you dislike your character to the point of retiring it.
Quote:


Who are?

the railroading freak GM that don't understand roleplaying is collaborative, unlike storytrlking which is not.

Quote:


Say to who?

to the bad GM that decides whivh spells you learn, which feats you take, and which actions you do.

Quote:

Did I miss any points?

No.


Ah you got the point I was making

Story = campaign setting & NPCs; Randomness = actions of players
Story + Randomness = RPG

Bad GMing rather than railroading IMHO

Insert as needed.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Atarlost wrote:


You're just not imaginative enough.

You don't need to charm the king if you can charm his advisors.

Anyone can sense the advisor is Charmed with a DC 25 Sense Motive check.

Most NPCs can't make a DC 25 sense motive check with any reliability and a few people who think something's suspicious can be dealt with if you're in a position of influence.


For the people whining about Detect Evil, don't forget, Clerics who worship an Evil God detect as Evil even if they are not, in fact, Evil.

A neutral Cleric of an Evil god (like say a Cleric/Rogue of Norgober is head of the CIA) could be a pessimistic advisor to the King, but not really a bad guy. However, that Paladin detects him as Evil.. *SMITE SMITE SMITE* Now the Party are traitors, enemies of the state, etc. for murdering an advisor to the King that hadn't done anything wrong.

Scarab Sages

gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders

Those spells are only a problem is you assume the wizard has unlimited wealth.


Artanthos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders
Those spells are only a problem is you assume the wizard has unlimited wealth.

Blood Money


Artanthos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders
Those spells are only a problem is you assume the wizard has unlimited wealth.

Planar binding doesn't cost money (planar ally does, but Planar binding doesn't). And simulacrum is DAMN cheap. For the cost of, say, a lesser quickening rod, you could make nearly 5 simulacrums of the Tarrasque. I think they aren't that bad as mass-production bodyguards.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders

I bet they'll remove Simulacrum from the game next edition.

Or rewrite it so radically that it's effectively a different spell, with the same name. Just so people can't put Simulacrum back in the game.

I love simulacrums, but the cheese factor pings at 11.

I'll miss them when they're gone.

Simulacrum ceases to be a problem when you remove spellcasting ability from the simulacra as a strict reading of the spell would indicate.


LazarX wrote:
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders

I bet they'll remove Simulacrum from the game next edition.

Or rewrite it so radically that it's effectively a different spell, with the same name. Just so people can't put Simulacrum back in the game.

I love simulacrums, but the cheese factor pings at 11.

I'll miss them when they're gone.

Simulacrum ceases to be a problem when you remove spellcasting ability from the simulacra as a strict reading of the spell would indicate.

Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.


Peter Stewart wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Porphyrogenitus wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders

I bet they'll remove Simulacrum from the game next edition.

Or rewrite it so radically that it's effectively a different spell, with the same name. Just so people can't put Simulacrum back in the game.

I love simulacrums, but the cheese factor pings at 11.

I'll miss them when they're gone.

it's one of those "this spell is so cool that I would love to use it, but it's so dang broken that I can't use it without throwing the campaign out of the window

Edit: even without chain-simulacrum chease, simulacra of tarrasque, and other cheese, it's just too powerful.

5000-6000g to get a copy of every enemy? Lol.
In my current campaign, the PC know that the princess is not really human. They do not know what she is, but they know sje is horribly powerful. She is protected vs divination. So they have just made a simulacra of her, to know what she is (!)

Or, you know, you could use it in a non-game-breaking way. For instance, in my weekly game both the wizard and the sorcerer are looking into using simulacrum to create doubles of themselves to help keep track of their affairs in major cities while they are off adventuring, and to potentially help spring traps set for them in a meta-sense.

I suspect if we started using it to create doubles of 'every enemy' and such the GM would object - but it's unlikely to be an issue because the goal of the game is to play a character, not to try and 'win' or 'break' anything. Too many people forget that when they start listing off 'broken' spells.

In a Greyhawk game I had a diviner who created an army of simulacrums. Never used them in combat. I just had them magically spy on every major person in the continent 24/7. Incredible cheese.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I've played games with over-controlling GMs, and games with Monty Hall* GMs, and I've seen both go terribly terribly wrong. Generally, modest changes go over well, and the more experience and system mastery the GM has, the more customizations they can make without causing problems.

ZenFox42, I would simply not make a spellcaster to play in your game. You seem like a reasonable and thoughtful person, and an experienced GM. I'd be happy to work on a project with you, have you as a player, or even to play a martial character in the game you're planning. But, your introductory sentence actually states the difficulty I have, "relatively new to D&D/Pathfinder, I've recently become aware of spells that many consider to be breakers"

I strongly suggest that you don't change things you haven't experienced for yourself. There's a lot of BS on these forums, statements made by inexperienced players and GMs, statements made by people who are upset after a single bad experience, and blatantly false statements made by people who are just trolling. Don't take our word for it that a particular spell is overpowered. Try it for yourself!

An middle road between houseruling a game you don't know yet and playing a game you suspect might be spoiled by certain spells, would be to establish a "watch list". Take your list of breakers and share it with your players. Tell them that you feel those particular spells could be abusive, and that you reserve the right to modify the spell descriptions if they get out of hand.

*:
Monty Hall hosted the game show Let's Make a Deal in the 60's and 70's. For many years in D&D circles a "Monty Hall Game" was a game in which there was far too much treasure and magic given out, and in some cases, over generous house rules. (Sure, you can play a Genie!) I think a modern equivalent would be an Oprah GM, "You get an artifact, and you get an artifact, everybody gets an artifact!"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Blueluck +1

Scarab Sages

Tels wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders
Those spells are only a problem is you assume the wizard has unlimited wealth.
Blood Money

So which spell is the problem?

The ones that are powerful but expensive or the one that breaks WBL?

Your taking a single spell and using it as a justification as to why all the other spells, and the entire class, are broken. Try refocusing your indignation on the real problem.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.

Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.


Simulacrum is still a cheese spell even without Blood Money. The cost of a Simulacrum of several creatures is well worth the money you spent making it. Something like a Ghaele Azata comes to mind. There are also things like Efreets, Tarrasque, Balors, etc. etc.

Using Simulacrum can give your an army of glass cannons to annihilate foes with. It can also give you really cheap labor. Crafting some Simulacrums to make items for you is a very efficient method of making many of the consumables. Simulacrums making wands, potions, scrolls etc. only benefit the party, while you make something more powerful.

Blood Money just makes it cheaper to do so.


LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.
Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.

Pathfinder removed the need to keep a piece of the creature. You can literally make an ice sculpture of any creature you can get a description of, and *POOF* you now have a glass version of that creature.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Blueluck wrote:
There's a lot of BS on these forums, statements made by inexperienced players and GMs, statements made by people who are upset after a single bad experience, and blatantly false statements made by people who are just trolling.

Hands up, anybody who thinks Blueluck's statement above should be the first thing that comes up on the screen of every new visitor to these boards.


Tels wrote:
LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.
Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.
Pathfinder removed the need to keep a piece of the creature. You can literally make an ice sculpture of any creature you can get a description of, and *POOF* you now have a glass version of that creature.

Would errata'ing that back in make it more balanced?

Also, where does it say that a simulacrum automatically has all the information known to the creature it is made to resemble?


Lincoln Hills wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
There's a lot of BS on these forums, statements made by inexperienced players and GMs, statements made by people who are upset after a single bad experience, and blatantly false statements made by people who are just trolling.
Hands up, anybody who thinks Blueluck's statement above should be the first thing that comes up on the screen of every new visitor to these boards.

lol

Scarab Sages

Lincoln Hills wrote:
Blueluck wrote:
There's a lot of BS on these forums, statements made by inexperienced players and GMs, statements made by people who are upset after a single bad experience, and blatantly false statements made by people who are just trolling.
Hands up, anybody who thinks Blueluck's statement above should be the first thing that comes up on the screen of every new visitor to these boards.

+1

Scarab Sages

The game definitely takes on a different feel and look at higher levels when PCs are running overland flight and true sight all the time, communing, and doing "scry and fry" tactics. Nothing wrong with the natural progression of the game.

I do think that campaign focused GMs should decide how magic works in their particular game and the style of game they are aiming for and modify where necessary. This means that certain spells would be "breakers" for your game, but not necessarily in general.

For instance, I am running a Game of Thrones style Kingmaker game, which required that I make some changes to the rules. Overland flight is absent, castles have magical wards against summoning, teleporting, and walking thru walls, and anyone can have a ring that blocks detection of lies, alignment, or thoughts for 500 gp. I have nothing against these spells, except they "break" the tone of the game I am trying to run.

IMHO, this should be the only reason for a GM to be alarmed over a "breaker" spell.


Many people didn't like the experience component of a few of these "breaker" spells, but it was a limitation that people thought about twice compared to the monetary expense. You can also add story elements that detract from over-use of certain elements of spellcasting. Aeons seem to be made as an equalizer to these perceived abuses (and use enough that it really is a threat if the group is very high level). Teleportation creates holes in space could be your argument. Pharasma isn't a fan of you taking what she has already judged, etc., etc. All systems that do not take into all the algorithms that are what we call life will appear broken upon too close an inspection. Fix it how you like, use the right story for your group and hopefully they'll like it.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Tels wrote:
LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.
Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.
Pathfinder removed the need to keep a piece of the creature. You can literally make an ice sculpture of any creature you can get a description of, and *POOF* you now have a glass version of that creature.

Would errata'ing that back in make it more balanced?

Also, where does it say that a simulacrum automatically has all the information known to the creature it is made to resemble?

Honestly? Yeah, it would. Can't Simulacrum a Terrasque unless you have a body part. Means you have to either beat him down and cut a piece off, or sever some flesh and blood and run away.

I've never been a proponent of using Simulacrum to learn everything a BBEG knows, because it wouldn't. It gets half the creatures skill points, so it knows half of what the creature knows. The way I play it off is if you Simulacrum a 10 HD/level creature, it has knowledge of everything the creature knew when it was a 5 HD/level creature. That could mean it was a child form, or a student, a squire, a temple adept etc.

[b[Edit][/b] It does offer some interesting story building mechanics. For instance, the PCs make a Simulacrum of the BBEG (a 20th level enemy) and get a 10th level version. They can question the BBEG as he was when he was 10th level, maybe learning how he came into his schemes, what he did to gain power, his thought process etc.


Artanthos wrote:
Tels wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders
Those spells are only a problem is you assume the wizard has unlimited wealth.
Blood Money

So which spell is the problem?

The ones that are powerful but expensive or the one that breaks WBL?

Your taking a single spell and using it as a justification as to why all the other spells, and the entire class, are broken. Try refocusing your indignation on the real problem.

Blood Money doesn't work with Simulacrum anyway. BM creates the material component for 1 round, and Simulacrum has 12 casting time.


LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.
Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.

Fortunatelly, you don't need them to build your own army of Tarrasque Cavalry.

You don't need even to have seen the Tarrasque, or actually have read a book about it. Even some vague description (like old legends) will work in Pathfinder.

You can even miss the looking by a far marging. You could make a snowman with a carrot nose and a hat, which wouldn't pass for a Tarrasque not even for a blind person, and regardless, you can pop a 15HD copy of the Tarrasque every 12 hours or so.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Tels wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Simulacrum, planar binding, gate are the main offenders
Those spells are only a problem is you assume the wizard has unlimited wealth.
Blood Money

So which spell is the problem?

The ones that are powerful but expensive or the one that breaks WBL?

Your taking a single spell and using it as a justification as to why all the other spells, and the entire class, are broken. Try refocusing your indignation on the real problem.

Blood Money doesn't work with Simulacrum anyway. BM creates the material component for 1 round, and Simulacrum has 12 casting time.

That depends entirely on when the Material Component of the spell is consumed. Why?

Blood Money wrote:
Material components created by blood money transform back into blood at the end of the round if they have not been used as a material component.

If you use the material components created by Blood Money as the component of a spell, then the Blood Component doesn't turn back into Blood.

So the question is, at what point are the material components consumed by the spell? In the beginning? Middle? End? Start in the beginning and slowly consumed by the end?

If the material components are gradually consumed, or consumed in the beginning, then Blood Components are possible. Once the Blood Components are used by the spell, they continue existing, which allows them to be gradually consumed.

[Edit] BTW, my group nerfed Blood Money by not allowing the Strength damage to be healed by magic. It has to be healed at the natural rate of the body. Stops Blood Money spamming.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
gustavo iglesias wrote:
LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.
Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.

Fortunatelly, you don't need them to build your own army of Tarrasque Cavalry.

You don't need even to have seen the Tarrasque, or actually have read a book about it. Even some vague description (like old legends) will work in Pathfinder.

You can even miss the looking by a far marging. You could make a snowman with a carrot nose and a hat, which wouldn't pass for a Tarrasque not even for a blind person, and regardless, you can pop a 15HD copy of the Tarrasque every 12 hours or so.

I'don't care if there is a BIBLE of RAW making this so. It's not going to happen in my table,and PFS' own house rules make it a nonstarter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

LazarX, that isn't the point. This thread is about which spells are 'breakers'. Simulacrum is a possible game-breaking spell. Granted, most people won't let shenanigans run wild with it, but that doesn't excuse that from the list.


LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
LazarX wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Even then, you need to copy creatures of your CL at best. As said above, a party of, say, 4 simulacra Tarrasques cost 30.000 gp. Not bad for a creature with roughly 250hp, Regeneration 40 (or 20 if your GM want's to reduce it), almost immunity to magic, very dangerous natural attacks, gargantuan size, spines, 12 immunities, etc. I'm quite sure It'll be better than the party's 13th level fighter.
Fresh chunks of Tarrasque aren't something you can order at the local magic shop.

Fortunatelly, you don't need them to build your own army of Tarrasque Cavalry.

You don't need even to have seen the Tarrasque, or actually have read a book about it. Even some vague description (like old legends) will work in Pathfinder.

You can even miss the looking by a far marging. You could make a snowman with a carrot nose and a hat, which wouldn't pass for a Tarrasque not even for a blind person, and regardless, you can pop a 15HD copy of the Tarrasque every 12 hours or so.

I'don't care if there is a BIBLE of RAW making this so. It's not going to happen in my table,and PFS' own house rules make it a nonstarter.

You don't need a bible of RAW. It's just that the Pathfinder spell doesn't have a piece of the creature as component, period. They *intentionally* removed it, along with the XP cost.

In your game, you can play as you wish. For example, in my game, fireball doesn't do damage, just create colorful butterflies. That, however, is of no help in a thread about Pathfinder's fireball spell.

The Simulacrum IS a problematic spell because it allow you to copy creatures that are more powerful than yourself, without any requisite (other than knowing the creature exists, which is a Knowledge (whatever) roll of DC 15+CR for Tarrasque). Even without cheating the cost through chain-wishing-simulacrums, blood-money, and other cheaty stuff, the spell itself IS too powerful as it is. By 7500gp you can have a 15 HD copy of a creature that is bassically a mass destruction weapon by itself. Or you could copy a Golden Great Wyrm, for example. I'd gladly pay 7500gp for such mounts. Specially at level 13.


Tels wrote:

So the question is, at what point are the material components consumed by the spell? In the beginning? Middle? End? Start in the beginning and slowly consumed by the end?

In the case of Simulacrum, the description seems to indicate that you have to *work* with the components through the 12 hour casting. You have to work in the Ice Sculpture and roll disguise to see how well it looks compared to the original (if you care. You could have a Snowman with a carrot nose, and it'll have the powers of a 15HD creature)


gustavo iglesias wrote:
In your game, you can play as you wish. For example, in my game, fireball doesn't do damage, just create colorful butterflies.

Oh wow!

Fireball (mind effecting): creates dozens if not hundreds of fascinating, colorful butterflies. Enemies within the area of effect (30' radius) spend their next 1d4+1 rounds marking out, squeeing like schoolchildren, and looking for small nets to capture them with.

After the 1d4+1 rounds, the butterflies disappear. Enemies affected by the spell spend their next turn crying like small children who lost their favorite toy forever.

Additional effect: affected creatures must make a Will save or spend their next 1d2 lifetimes in a state of despond. This despair can only be removed by keeping a live butterfly somewhere on their person at all times.


Sorry all, I lost track of time and I haven't found any way to get notified via email when new comments are posted.

Blueluck, thanks for the advice! Altho I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't even try playing a spellcaster with what I've proposed, it only affects some 40 spells total (and a lot of those are 8th and 9th level). And the spells still work as before, just taking more time and money. Ok, also some major penalties if they don't work, and minor penalties even if they do. :)

RedCelt32, thanks for how you handled "breaker" spells in your game.

And from everything I've read here, the Simulacrum spell (as defined by Pathfinder anyway) just doesn't exist in my world. Why on earth would any DM even allow it to exist?

The Exchange

I've been avoiding these boards both for what I feel they've become and for a much neede break from the vitriol and apparent hate of this game that pops up in so many threads now.

However, I caught one or two threads this weekend when I browsed here in a moment of weakness. Thought I'd share some thoughts on these broken spells.

Wish - is controlled and monitored by the genies and other creatures who can use it as a supernatural ability. Its detailed very clearly in the article on wish lore in legacy of fire part 6. Spam those wishes and any number of extra planar creatures will pay a call and explain why it's a bad idea, in a fairly aggressive manner.

Simulacrum - are fantastic plot devices. See above for why using them for wish machines won't work. If your players use it to create monsters to learn about, or to determine the origin of the mystery queen etc, have them suddenly hunted by the law for creating evil beings or for plotting to overthrow the monarchy with a twisted double. Just because they have a plan, doesn't mean it can't backfire.

Gate and binding- let them try it. If its get abusive, have a delegation from the other planes pay them a visit ala wish above. Many things don't like being forced to do something if they already have their own agenda o their own plane. There's a reason they haven't already dealt with it on the material plane, but now you're forcing them to. Someone's gonna pay eventually.

Divination- works like nuclear proliferation. Your group are using them to find out what's going on, but the baddies are using them to counter your paties divinations.

Eg party uses divination to find out a major plot. Enemy uses divination and finds out his plot is discovered, so changes details of plot, rendering parties original divination worthless. Scry and fry is funny when the party try it,only to find out the enemy knew it was happening and prepared, or better yet, misled the party while they were s crying and tricked them into a trap.

The point I'm making is, many spells people call broken, others call plot development. Let your players try them. If they try to abuse them, work out a campaign reason why it hasn't been done already in the game world and then teach your player tha reason through in game consequences. If they're trying to play a game for fun with mates, they'll enjoy it. If they're trying to power trip or break the game, they'll get upset and rage quit. Either way, your game is better for it.

Hope that's a different perspective for folks to chew on. That's all from me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So the spells aren't broken as long as nobody uses them. Kinda like the rogue who gain invisibility when nobody is looking.

Simulacrum is broken with or without free sim factory. Buying 15hd copies of the tarrasque as mounts for your party paladin for 7500gp isn't balanced, period.


redcelt32 wrote:

The game definitely takes on a different feel and look at higher levels when PCs are running overland flight and true sight all the time, communing, and doing "scry and fry" tactics. Nothing wrong with the natural progression of the game.

I do think that campaign focused GMs should decide how magic works in their particular game and the style of game they are aiming for and modify where necessary. This means that certain spells would be "breakers" for your game, but not necessarily in general.

For instance, I am running a Game of Thrones style Kingmaker game, which required that I make some changes to the rules. Overland flight is absent, castles have magical wards against summoning, teleporting, and walking thru walls, and anyone can have a ring that blocks detection of lies, alignment, or thoughts for 500 gp. I have nothing against these spells, except they "break" the tone of the game I am trying to run.

IMHO, this should be the only reason for a GM to be alarmed over a "breaker" spell.

This +1000000000000

I ran a campaign that was fairly low magic and I wanted a grittier feel, kinda Glen Cook without some of the Gonzo elements. I removed fly, teleport, and ressuection spells from the spell lists and made them legendary spells that the characters uncovered during the course of the campaign. It doesn't mean these spells are broken, just that they would have broken the feel of my campaign.


A lot of the breaker spells are fun, but one isn't.

Find the Path.

That spell is lame AND breaks the game

Silver Crusade

ED-209 wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
In your game, you can play as you wish. For example, in my game, fireball doesn't do damage, just create colorful butterflies.

Oh wow!

Fireball (mind effecting): creates dozens if not hundreds of fascinating, colorful butterflies. Enemies within the area of effect (30' radius) spend their next 1d4+1 rounds marking out, squeeing like schoolchildren, and looking for small nets to capture them with.

After the 1d4+1 rounds, the butterflies disappear. Enemies affected by the spell spend their next turn crying like small children who lost their favorite toy forever.

Additional effect: affected creatures must make a Will save or spend their next 1d2 lifetimes in a state of despond. This despair can only be removed by keeping a live butterfly somewhere on their person at all times.

Lol, if I actually saw that go down in an encounter, I just don't think I would have the heart to harm those guys. Of course it may have something to do with my ROTFLMAO, and after finally picking myself up off the ground I would just leave. I may even be nice enough to bring them back some actual Butterflies just to even them out mentally.

The Exchange

gustavo iglesias wrote:

So the spells aren't broken as long as nobody uses them. Kinda like the rogue who gain invisibility when nobody is looking.

Simulacrum is broken with or without free sim factory. Buying 15hd copies of the tarrasque as mounts for your party paladin for 7500gp isn't balanced, period.

You need a sculpture of the target. Not a sculpture of what you think the target looks like. Not a sculpture based off drawings of the target which are likely missing details. A sculpture of the target. This means you need to have seen it or find someone who has seen it who can then sculpt a good likeness of it.

Same as the genie etc. your not sculpting a random genie. You need to sculpt a specific genie. That's what the line means "a sculpture of the target".

If you've seen the Tarrasque close enough to study it long enough to make sculptures of it then you're probably high enough level not to worry about riding mounts of it.

Of course,then there's the line about powers for a creature of its hit dice. I point you to dragons as examples of creatures whose powers don't scale the way the genie machine people would have you believe. Even better, as DM I'd be tempted to make your Tarrasque simulacrum rampage through the group killing everyone, since the Tarrasque is immune to controlling effects from spells. The control of your simulacrum comes from your spell. Boom, instant carnage, Bwahahahahaha. If I was less interested in killing you all, I'd just have the spell fail when the specific rule of your spell meets the specific rules of the Tarrasque. All that money for an ice sculpture that doesn't work.

These spells aren't broken. People who use their own interpretations to try and break them only get away with it through poor DMing. There are many in game ways to control them, none of which require rewrite.


ZenFox42 wrote:
Blueluck, thanks for the advice! Altho I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't even try playing a spellcaster with what I've proposed, it only affects some 40 spells total (and a lot of those are 8th and 9th level). And the spells still work as before, just taking more time and money. Ok, also some major penalties if they don't work, and minor penalties even if they do. :)

In my experience, playing a character type that your GM has a prejudice against, even a justified prejudice, turns out to be a bad time. If I were presented with your list during character creation, I would take it as a sign of things to come. What might you do if I pwned a couple of back-to-back encounters with Create Pit? How would you rule on spells used in creative ways?

Now, if you proposed a single change to alter the tone of your game, I would take that as GM world-building, not a prejudice.

Example:
Any spell which brings back the dead can only be cast at special holy (or unholy) sites. Access to many of these sites is controlled by various churches, and consequently bringing back the dead will be difficult, and likely involve social consequences. At the very least, some travel and a donation or favor will be in order.

Or, if you had only called out a couple of spells you'd had bad experiences with, I'd assume it was for good reason.

Example:
Wish and Limited Wish only do the listed options in my game, don't expect to use them as a Swiss Army Knife or to abuse them.

As I said, you sound like an intelligent and thoughtful GM, and I'd be happy to play with you. I'm curious if you plan to run Pathfinder for an existing group of gamer friends, and what they think of your proposed changes.


ZenFox42 something to keep in mind before you go changing spells, some of them function in the way they do for a reason.

Plane Shift, for example. You mention it shouldn't be able to be done on a whim, but Plane Shift is more than just a 'whim' spell. It's also a rescue spell.

For instance, some spells are inherently dangerous to players. Places like the Negative Energy Plane, the Elemental Planes, the Positive Energy Plane etc. All of the above planes have the potential to kill the player, for simply being there. If there were a lengthy ritual that had to be performed to Plane Shift, then if a player were to be transported there, it's basically a death sentence unless they happen to prepare spells to protect them from the Planes influence.

It also limits what bad guys can do as well. Many creatures can Plane Shift as a Spell-Like Ability, do these creature now all have to perform rituals too? One of the reasons these creatures have these abilities, is so it's harder to trap them.

If someone were to bring an extraplanar creature to the material plane (through Planar Ally, Gate etc.) then they'd be stuck here if they couldn't use their own abilities to get home. Think of a Bad Guy forcing something like a Planetar into his evil lair, and now the Planetar can't get back to his home, and is at the whims of the bad guy (assuming he had ways of trapping the Planetar).

Some of the spells you have listed make no sense as 'rituals'. Spells like Black Tentacles, or Solid Fog. Spells like Reincarnate, Raise Dead, Ressurection, I can easily see being a ritual, but a battle spell like Black Tentacles should be switched over. If you were to change it's casting time, you're drastically nerfing the spell.

Summoning spells are some of the most powerful spells a player can cast, but even they only have a casting time of 1 round. The danger of these spells is they are more easily interrupted. That is the extent of what you should do to a battle spell, or else you basically ensure the spell will never be taken. Why would anyone take Black Tentacles if it cost them more than a full round action to cast? It would be basically suicide to do so.

Keep in mind, as well, any spell your players use on the bad guys, the bad guys can use back.

In the group I play in, there are 3 GMs, including myself. We have a policy of dis-allowing any new book when it comes out until we have time to look things over and for anything immediately broken or over-powered. I also keep an eye on the forums for such things. We share our finding with each other, and then we introduce the spells in the game.

I was the first person to use Create Pit in our group. Now Create Pit is one of the best control spells in the game, and after I used it, the other GMs got to see for themselves how good it could be (they were initially skeptical). Now we see the bad guys using the spells too, because they are very good, but they aren't totally game breaking.

PCs are inherently more capable at overcoming challenges than most NPCs, mooks and villains. So don't be afraid to be use some of the more powerful options on your players. You'd be surprised at how resourceful they can be.

Resourcefulness has been the key to surviving the game since the game began. From carrying different weapons of different material for DR, to using scoffed at spells (like Explosive Runes) in creative ways, to simply carrying a bag of flour for invisible creatures. Adventures, if nothing, are damned good at defying death. Don't be afraid to challenge them.


Wrath wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

So the spells aren't broken as long as nobody uses them. Kinda like the rogue who gain invisibility when nobody is looking.

Simulacrum is broken with or without free sim factory. Buying 15hd copies of the tarrasque as mounts for your party paladin for 7500gp isn't balanced, period.

You need a sculpture of the target. Not a sculpture of what you think the target looks like. Not a sculpture based off drawings of the target which are likely missing details. A sculpture of the target. This means you need to have seen it or find someone who has seen it who can then sculpt a good likeness of it.

Same as the genie etc. your not sculpting a random genie. You need to sculpt a specific genie. That's what the line means "a sculpture of the target".

If you've seen the Tarrasque close enough to study it long enough to make sculptures of it then you're probably high enough level not to worry about riding mounts of it.

Of course,then there's the line about powers for a creature of its hit dice. I point you to dragons as examples of creatures whose powers don't scale the way the genie machine people would have you believe. Even better, as DM I'd be tempted to make your Tarrasque simulacrum rampage through the group killing everyone, since the Tarrasque is immune to controlling effects from spells. The control of your simulacrum comes from your spell. Boom, instant carnage, Bwahahahahaha. If I was less interested in killing you all, I'd just have the spell fail when the specific rule of your spell meets the specific rules of the Tarrasque. All that money for an ice sculpture that doesn't work.

These spells aren't broken. People who use their own interpretations to try and break them only get away with it through poor DMing. There are many in game ways to control them, none of which require rewrite.

YOU are reading ehat you want from the spell. The sculpture can be horribly built (ie you have -3 in disguise and roll a one) and that only mean any one looking at it will reecognize it is not the real Tarrasque. That's the only drawback of it. Everything else you add, is just you reading what you want (actually maki g stuff from thin air) to justify your GM fiat. "Today there is a rare eclipse and 7th level illusion spells are automatically counterspelled" also "solve" the problem with simulacrum. It doensn't make the spell any less broken. The fact you *need* to make up stuff to avoid it breaking the game *shows* it is game breaking.

About what a simulacrum can and can't do, i suggest you to read Rise of Runelord. There is an example of how it works there, written by paizo, inside the runeforge


Btw: people keep using the dragon example as a proof it is not. When you copy a huge wyrm, you get a less powerful version of a huge wyrm. Not an exact copy of a large adult dragon. Just like if you copy a butterfly, you get a less powerful version of a butterfly, not an exact copy of a canterpiller.

101 to 150 of 165 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What spells do you consider to be "breakers"??? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.