As a general rule I personally dont make a habit of perverting wishes.
By not letting the players take agency of their own actions you're removing the part of the game that makes this game better than other games... The players have to spend upside of 100,000 gold to get +4 or +5 on an attribute... The mindset that they should have to pay a price for power? They're paying it.... Spitting on their cheeseburger isn't a sign of great gaming. Have a little dignity for the craft.
On the other hand it's the golden rule
How would you want to be treated... Sure you can hide behind the notion of 'I don't mind perverting wishes because I'd never make them' but thats not the question... The question is if you had something you wanted to wish for and you did, would you want your gm to screw it up on you. Sometimes the golden rule isnt good enough. For that we have:Tthe platinum rule: Treat others the way they want to be treated.
If the results you choose for how the wish goes down would cause them to wish they'd never made the wish in the first place then the characters should know the interaction is more trouble than its worth before they even try. This isnt a gm vs players game.The problem with this mindset is that its a concept failure... The gm is supposed to be a referee. He's got complete power for how the game goes down... But being a referee means more than that. It means you don't get to *choose* to win. Its not an option for you.
You never hear a report on the news saying 'man there's a lotta chatter tonight after last nights game... It was quite a doozy. Broncos were the clear favorite but nobody would argue the raiders played a good game... could have gone either way.. but the referee's taking home the superbowl ring this year was an upset that *nobody* predicted.... Great game last night by the referees... They really showed the other teams the way to play the game..."
If the PCs are paying money for the wish, there is a good chance that they are casting the wish and then there is nothing to pervert (provided they use a listed effect). BUT when you are trying to planar bind your way access to a wish. That is a whole different story.
We still really need to hang out sometime.And Markthus wins the "I really hate that trope." award for GMs I would really not like to play under.
I have a hard enough time convincing every player I have that when I give them a wish I'm not going to twist it on them "just because" as it is.
To be clear, I'm glad you have fun with that style, and I recognize it as a defense mechanism against abusive players. That's fair and does not make you a bad GM or bad player.
I'd just hate playing under it. Personal tastes/personality clash and all that.
Agreed! Come to Ocala! :)
In this case I'd simply argue the idea that a genie isn't the granter of the wish but the medium through which the wish is granted... Genies ability to grant wishes is simply a racial ability to cast wish... The wish is granted by a higher power than the wizard or the genie and the diamond component is still required.
If all you have is a planar binded genie and no diamonds... well. The only wish he can fulfill is the same kind a non genie could grant... one of personal service.
I agree that one should not try to bypass the cost of a wish spell.
Another important thing to remember is that a wish spell can only give a +1 inherent bonus. a plus 2 requres 2 concurrent castings of wish back to back... and so on...
Getting 1 wish from 1 genie will only ever give you a +1. You'd need 5 genies bound at the same all casting wish for the same thing at the same time to get a +5 inherent. It's not that the genie isn't *willing* to try to give you 5 attribute points with one wish. A single wish spell simply isnt that powerful.
Might be a harder argument to say that planar binding is strong enough to convince a genie to cast 5 wishes on you in rapid succession than just 'granting a wish' and planar binding 5 genies in one day at the same time is a pretty tall order.
If you play it by the rules, wishing for huge inherent bonuses is not an easy task.
On the one hand its as easy as having a high umd and buying 5 wish scrolls.
On the other hand finding 5 wish scrolls is both expensive and challenging.
Riddleport *might have them*... Korvosa *should* have them.
A thief with black market feat should make finding them easier...
Or thief with black market feat can make it easy to find a tome of +5...
But every method I know of requires the cost.
Even if genies can cast it without the component cost they still are not bound to grant wishes even if they are planar bound. Entries in the genie adventure path specifically state
only grant wishes for creatures... ...who have gained control over them... Even in such cases they are hardly helpless or forced to affect creation against their will... some might take further coercion even after being presented with the rarest of gifts.
so even compelling them to grant wishes still requires [the valuable gift] in order for the wish not to go wrong, whether you rule that the genie requires it for himself or whether you rule that the power of the wish requires it and genies are more of a 'wish channel' than a 'wish factory'.
In this case I'd simply argue the idea that a genie isn't the granter of the wish but the medium through which the wish is granted... Genies ability to grant wishes is simply a racial ability to cast wish... The wish is granted by a higher power than the wizard or the genie and the diamond component is still required.
If all you have is a planar binded genie and no diamonds... well. The only wish he can fulfill is the same kind a non genie could grant... one of personal service.
I agree that one should not try to bypass the cost of a wish spell.
Another important thing to remember is that a wish spell can only give a +1 inherent bonus. a plus 2 requres 2 concurrent castings of wish back to back... and so on...
Getting 1 wish from 1 genie will only ever give you a +1. You'd need 5 genies bound at the same all casting wish for the same thing at the same time to get a +5 inherent. It's not that the genie isn't *willing* to try to give you 5 attribute points with one wish. A single wish spell simply isnt that powerful.
Might be a harder argument to say that planar binding is strong enough to convince a genie to cast 5 wishes on you in rapid succession than just 'granting a wish' and planar binding 5 genies in one day at the same time is a pretty tall order.
If you play it by the rules, wishing for huge inherent bonuses is not an easy task.
Eeeh. Wish is list as an SLA for the genie to grant. So I say the genie grants the wish, but they to do not pervert it. If the genie tries to make the wish do something beyond the listed abilities, then the wish is pervert. I'm inclined to think that this is something genies are apt to do.
Another method is for the genie to grant the wish normally, but then immediately go to some random person agreeing to give them one wish if they wish for you to be dead (roll save). So enjoy your plus 1-2 inherent bonus for the day or so it may last.
I'm absolutely certain. I completely forget they exist when I am building and playing my characters.I have never used an inherent bonus on a character and don't believe I ever would.Are you sure about that?
You don't need them. I do love to get them. Surprised you don't like inherent bonuses.
All my players save up for inherent bonuses. They usually wait until one of the casters is high enough level to chain cast a wish or miracle.
aceDiamond: First, thanks for the compliment earlier.
As for the reason for this post:
Does this thread need to dissolve into another clarification on the ruling on Planar Binding again? We're dealing with high level play being mechanically sound or broken. The exact wording of this spell should be enforced by GM reading more than anything else. And only because it brings in a new NPC/character.I think people bring this spell up because this is an area where play styles can change the utility of the spell dramatically. If you assume that players can serially bind creatures, compel them into service, then release them when the service is over with few if any repercussions, the spell is indeed quite powerful. If the repercussions are potentially much riskier, you'll probably use it as a last resort, if you use it at all.
How it applies to the higher level math: at the higher levels, you can get up to a +3 inherent bonus* to an ability at almost no cost by binding an Efreeti and forcing it to use all three wishes consecutively. If you are building for maximum optimization and the repercussions would be assumed to be easily manageable (if there are any at all), there is no reason, really, not to do it.
*As I read RAW/RAI for using wish to increase an ability score, the wishes must be cast consecutively, and an Efreeti only has 3 wishes a day, so +3 is the best you can do, and if you assume a surviving Efreeti is a potential threat, the best you can do is a +2, since you would have to kill it before it cast the third wish.
You can planar bind more then one and then "arrange" their untimely demise after they all help you get +5 (or you could just Blood Money Wish it up yourself...) But yes you are correct on the RAW/RAI of them needing to be consecutive.
I'm absolutely certain. I completely forget they exist when I am building and playing my characters.I have never used an inherent bonus on a character and don't believe I ever would.Are you sure about that?You don't need them. I do love to get them. Surprised you don't like inherent bonuses.
All my players save up for inherent bonuses. They usually wait until one of the casters is high enough level to chain cast a wish or miracle.
Ya this is pretty much my experience. At the highest levels every player I've ever had in my group is looking for inherent bonuses to their main ability score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It *IS* certainly a "thing" but no DM I know would let a wizard get away with than many castings of it.
By 20th level, everyone should have a +5 inherent modifier to all their ability scores because planar binding is a thing..
There's not really any getting away with it. By the time a wizard can cast planar binding, they are leaps and bounds above efreeti in terms of power. And they can force the efreeti to give into their demands with an opposed Charisma check that the wizard can stack in his favor in major ways.
My favorite method is just trading wishes. Get an efreeti and a couple of his buddies and make wishes to give the efreeti inherent modifiers, since efreeti can't normally grant wishes to each other, you could instead wish for the efreeti to be stronger, faster, tougher, etc. 2:1 deal. Pretty much a win/win for the efreeti. Even if it wasn't, the efreeti doesn't have much of a choice and there is not anything that an efreeti can realistically do to mess with you that won't result in his demise, or if there was you could just kill him before he would have a chance (but only after you have the cleric in the party cast augury with the question of "is my GM going to be a dick?").
Also, funny thing. NPCs can do this too if they have the means. A Paizo published adventure has a powerful arcane caster, an efreeti, and a red dragon. Her stats are all buffed up because her bound efreeti gave her +3 to all her stats. Tels was kind enough to give a full breakdown.
This isn't anything new. This was brought up during the Pathfinder playtest. The devs commented on it and said they might make it impossible to do this. They didn't. It's still here. It's been here. What they did do was nerf wish hardcore by comparison to 3.5. You can't really wish for anything broken in PF like you could in 3.5 where you could milk the spell for wealth and magic items. A bound efreeti is a solid way to get your mid-high level bumps to your ability scores and if you're cool about it make a friend by trading an efreeti his own wishes. At this level you probably have a party face who has some pretty amazing social skills and tongues to break any language barriers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inherent modifiers via casting are also very handy for the martial/MAD characters in the game. Fighters and the like are going to appreciate the +X to their ability scores moreso than casters. A wizard isn't getting much out of +5 Strength. A Fighter is getting a lot more out of +5 Int. In fact, the more MAD a class is, the more it helps.
It also helps because some people complain about saving throws. You have 3 stats that you need to raise to improve saving throws, and 1 stat you need to raise to improve save DCs. The inherent modifiers that become reasonably available in the upper-mid to low-high levels help to pad your defenses to keep up with what's going on.
125,000 gp is grossly overpriced for a +5 to a stat. This is a nice way of getting around the gross material component cost in a thematic way (genies man, genies granting wishes), while leaving your real wishes in the field for real things like pushing the reset button or spewing out that spell you really need but don't have. Even still, wish was horribly nerfed with the 25,000 gp material component (5,000 XP was nothing major at the level that you learned Wish back in 3.x). Now Miracle is pretty superior in general purpose use.
...So then Anzyr, enuf hypotheticals. Many of us, such as RJGrady and myself have said we don;t have "rocket tag in our games. The Devs don't have rocket tag in their games.
Do you? I asked you this yesterday and you didn't reply: And, few people have said they play a game where 'rocket tag" is normal. In fact no one here has chimed in to say their actual game is a "rocket tag' game. Are you talking IRL or theorycraft?
Is YOUR game all Rocket tag? What sort of game do you play?
To everyone here that claims that rocket tag is "inevitable" do you actually play that way? Do you even play Pathfinder?
If so then do you enjoy playing that way?Do you play with any of the three factors I listedRocket tag is caused by three issues:
1. Allowing PC's to hyper-optimize. High point buy, allowing magic items, feats, spells, etc from non-core sources, dumping, etc.2. Running those hyper-optimized PC's in a standard AP and not making adjustments to the encounters. If the players get a 25 pt build, why are the monsters still using Elite? Why not change around their feats, spells etc to match those the PC's have access to?
3. The DM not using good tactics for the bad guys.
But let me AGAIN make this clear- if you are having fun, then allowing Rocket Tag is NOT "Badwrongfun". If it's fun, then it's not wrong. Revel in your characters hyper-optimized powerfulness.
But those of you that claim rocket tag is Borg-like in it's inevitability, then do YOU play that way?
Or are we just talking hypotheticals?
In my pathfinder game that lasted for a year and a half that put our party to level 15's it was almost impossible without the dm specifically avoiding it to not have rocket tag. That was happening within the last few levels of the campaign that sadly didn't finish. Optimization of the players wasn't the issue, we all had decent builds, not overpowered ones just decent and when the dm put us up against his powerfully built enemies the baddies and us dropped very quickly.
You can planar bind more then one and then "arrange" their untimely demise after they all help you get +5 (or you could just Blood Money Wish it up yourself...) But yes you are correct on the RAW/RAI of them needing to be consecutive.
*As I read RAW/RAI for using wish to increase an ability score, the wishes must be cast consecutively, and an Efreeti only has 3 wishes a day, so +3 is the best you can do, and if you assume a surviving Efreeti is a potential threat, the best you can do is a +2, since you would have to kill it before it cast the third wish.
Putting aside the Blood Money part of this for the moment...
Since you need at least two genies to get to +5, how would you arrange it so that both of the genies died and you still get your +5? Since by the rules, the wishes must be granted in consecutive rounds, the best scenario I see here is:
Setup: Both genies are bound, with dimensional lock in place. Both genies are asked to give +3 inherit ability score increases when requested (note the timing has to be part of the agreement, even if it's simple "On my command"), and both are successfully compelled
Round 1: 1st genie grants 1st ability score increase
Round 2: 1st genie grants 2nd ability score increase
Round 3: 1st genie is killed by party; wizard orders 2nd genie to give 3rd ability score increase; 2nd genie refuses because it has become an unreasonable command, since he now has every reason to believe he will be dead after the 2nd wish is granted
You can argue what happens in round three isn't per the rules, but the spell specifically requires "unreasonable commands" to be refused. Now, what constitutes an "unreasonable command" is a matter of DM judgement, but it certainly seems a very reasonable GM ruling to decide that a genie would find it "unreasonable" to trust the honor of a group that just proved itself to be dishonorable murderers. Furthermore, the genie would not consider the command "reasonable" until it knew that it would be returned to it's home plane when the last wish was granted.
Now you may find it more reasonable to believe the genie will simply grant the wishes and trust the dishonorable murderers to keep their word to him when the party clearly betrayed one of his own kind (or simply grant them out of fear and hope the party is merciful), but neither interpretation is "more correcter" than the other as far as the rules go. It's a matter of how a GM feels NPCs should react to the actions of the PCs, and here is where I think you and I might disagree.
I should point out that for some GMs, an "unreasonable command" could even be mortals asking the genie to grant the wishes in the first place, since it encourages mortals to continue to do so and leads to the continual enslavement of geniekind. Also, if you think a genie wish works exactly like the wish spell and requires a 25,000 gp material component, a genie may find it completely unreasonable to grant the wishes as well if they have to provide the component themselves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell-like Abilities don't require material, verbal, or somatic components, if I recall correctly. But still, can we refrain from discussing killing outsiders and the repercussions thereof? We went off on that for pages already.
Anyway, I find it hard to think that inherent bonuses are overpowered simply due to the sheer amount of resources that go into getting them.
Tacticslion:
Dragons can benefit from Amulets of Natural Armor. An Amulet provides an enhancement bonus to Nat Armor, the same way Greater Magic Vestment does to Armor. If a dragon wears an ANA, it's Nat Armor will go up from +1 to +5.
The amulet doesn't give you nat armor...it increases it. It's not Bracers of Natural Armor. Most humans starting out with 0 Nat Armor may have skewed your viewpoint.
==Aelryinth
AceDiamond: and if you reduce the cost of that acquiring of inherent bonuses to 0, what then?
==Aelryinth
AceDiamond: and if you reduce the cost of that acquiring of inherent bonuses to 0, what then?
==Aelryinth
As a GM, I'd say the efreeti would be free to corrupt a wish and give the PC a metaphorical slap for trying to bend reality on a budget. Reality is a classy and deserves at least dinner and a movie before doing what these plans suggest.
Without exactly invoking Rule 0, I happen to remember that several monsters with Wish as SLAs cannot give Inherent bonuses. I don't happen to remember what monsters at the moment, though. Oracles with the Lore mystery and maybe Hastur? I'm on my mobile, so I could be wrong. Specifics aside, are we sure that the efreeti Wish SLA doesn't have that same restriction?
Agreed! Come to Ocala! :)We still really need to hang out sometime.And Markthus wins the "I really hate that trope." award for GMs I would really not like to play under.
I have a hard enough time convincing every player I have that when I give them a wish I'm not going to twist it on them "just because" as it is.
To be clear, I'm glad you have fun with that style, and I recognize it as a defense mechanism against abusive players. That's fair and does not make you a bad GM or bad player.
I'd just hate playing under it. Personal tastes/personality clash and all that.
You know, I really missed an opportunity there.
EDIT: But I still say you should come to Ocala!
Yeah, sorry, that'd probably be it. I was just going off the top of my head.Tacticslion:
Dragons can benefit from Amulets of Natural Armor. An Amulet provides an enhancement bonus to Nat Armor, the same way Greater Magic Vestment does to Armor. If a dragon wears an ANA, it's Nat Armor will go up from +1 to +5.
The amulet doesn't give you nat armor...it increases it. It's not Bracers of Natural Armor. Most humans starting out with 0 Nat Armor may have skewed your viewpoint.
==Aelryinth
So instead, let me amend my point. It would be like wizards using mage armor and armored kilt and silken ceremonial armor while attempting to gain the bonuses of both the armors and the spell. That doesn't make sense.
Or using the speed special quality weapon and then using haste - because you don't know that they don't stack.
I mean, it's a presumed part of the world based on rules, so I don't see it as a problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When it comes to phrasing a wish as perfectly as you nee to I find it highly unlikely a 22 to 24 int character could not find a way to do so.
Simply because I with my personal 11 to 12 real world int cannot do so is not a good way of saying this is not possible.
Honestly, most gamers will average between 9 and 14 in my belief.
The levels of cognition and training we are talking about at this point are superhuman after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed! Come to Ocala! :)Well, maybe when the wife takes her trip to Disney I can tag along.
Doooooooooo iiiiiiiiiiiiit! :D
That would actually be super-awesome!
If it happens to be summer time, I could also bring my wife along!
(Our toddler may or may not be with us, depending on grandparent availability.)
*Hm. Begins brewing ideas on how to play a one-shot at Disney...*
EDIT:^ Look, I'm a nerd. If you don't know that by now... :)
Spell-like Abilities don't require material, verbal, or somatic components, if I recall correctly.
You're right of course. Somehow I just wasn't noticing the whole "spell-like abilities" part of the stat block for the efreeti, and just reading them as spells. My only defense is that I was pretty tired at that point.
As a GM, I'd say the efreeti would be free to corrupt a wish and give the PC a metaphorical slap for trying to bend reality on a budget. Reality is a classy and deserves at least dinner and a movie before doing what these plans suggest.AceDiamond: and if you reduce the cost of that acquiring of inherent bonuses to 0, what then?
==Aelryinth
I agree. And how that relates specifically to this thread is that if you assume the core rules are intended to make the inherit bonuses expensive and therefore come out of the character's WBL if they want them, this is a way to reduce that cost to 0 and effectively nearly double the PCs WBL even at level 20. If you assume the game is not balanced for that, this contributes to he "breakdown of the math" at higher levels.
Without exactly invoking Rule 0, I happen to remember that several monsters with Wish as SLAs cannot give Inherent bonuses. I don't happen to remember what monsters at the moment, though. Oracles with the Lore mystery and maybe Hastur? I'm on my mobile, so I could be wrong. Specifics aside, are we sure that the efreeti Wish SLA doesn't have that same restriction?
I couldn't find anything in the description for SLAs or any of the core genies that prevent them from using their wishes to grant inherent bonuses.
Now, having said all that, my default position as a GM would the same as what I think yours is: wishes that a player casts (and therefore paid for either by getting the components or finding them as part of their allotted treasure) work as the player intends; heck, even if the player screws up the wording of the wish originally, I'd work with them to get what they wanted as long as it was within the rules (same would be true for miracle). However, coerced wishes would be risking the wish be perverted by the coerced caster. Players would know both these things and be able to make decisions accordingly.
Of course, if I was GMing for a group that wanted successfully coerced wishes to work without perversion so they could get free inherent stat bonuses, I could roll with that, provided they understand that NPCs of sufficient power would use the same tricks, too—since they're free, they don't count against NPC wealth either.
But still, can we refrain from discussing killing outsiders and the repercussions thereof? We went off on that for pages already.
I'm honestly curious how Anzyr plans to get his +5 inherent bonus without at least one genie getting away, unless he believes that, all evidence to the contrary, the treacherous murderers requesting the wishes will keep their word to the second genie because he's special. Having said that, I agree that that discussion is tangental (at best!) to this discussion so hopefully if Anzyr wants to continue it he will not do it here and follow me to Planar Binding, genie wishes, and repercussions.
You don't have to word-a-wish to cast wish with a listed effect. You do have to word a wish to a genie. One is spellcasting the other is a requested service.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an outsider doesn't want to do something, the GM assigns a bonus to their Charisma check between +0 and +6. It says impossible or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. Unreasonable by definition means without reason, irrational, lacking in rational faculty.
I could bind a demon and tell it to save every child in an orphanage, help old ladies across the street, fight my enemies for me, and take me out to the movies. He would probably get a +6 to his check because most of those things go against everything that it is and it hates the thought of it.
I couldn't, however, demand that he abolish gravity (unless he was somehow capable of doing so) or make a request that is lacking mental clarity or reason.
It is not a blank check for an outsider to refuse anything they don't like or do not agree with without a check. It's an out for being told to do impossible things, told to kill themselves, etc.
The argument that efreeti are going to try to pervert your wish is pretty dumb. You can just make not perverting your wishes part of the binding agreement and bam, they can't pervert it. Not that any smart efreeti would. If you call an efreeti up, explain that you want to wish for you and your friends to be magically enhanced, and that you would be willing to make wishes on behalf of the efreeti and up to 5 friends of his for the same wishes, and get their names.
So you then call the same efreeti plus several of his friends. The genies leave their world for about 1 minute each day for a few weeks, and the result is you, your party, and all the efreeti get +5 to their stats. It's not like efreeti wouldn't like being 10%-15% better at most things they do too. It gives them an edge. It's not even about forcing them, it's about making a deal that only a complete idiot would try to ruin for themselves.
There's always Simulacrum though, and SLAs are racial abilities that are not tied to Hit Dice, so this is really a pointless discussion. If I can't find a genie that will do it for a 2:1 deal, then I can make one.
The argument that efreeti are going to try to pervert your wish is pretty dumb. You can just make not perverting your wishes part of the binding agreement and bam, they can't pervert it. Not that any smart efreeti would. If you call an efreeti up, explain that you want to wish for you and your friends to be magically enhanced, and that you would be willing to make wishes on behalf of the efreeti and up to 5 friends of his for the same wishes, and get their names.
So you then call the same efreeti plus several of his friends. The genies leave their world for about 1 minute each day for a few weeks, and the result is you, your party, and all the efreeti get +5 to their stats. It's not like efreeti wouldn't like being 10%-15% better at most things they do too. It gives them an edge. It's not even about forcing them, it's about making a deal that only a complete idiot would try to ruin for themselves.
There's always Simulacrum though, and SLAs are racial abilities that are not tied to Hit Dice, so this is really a pointless discussion. If I can't find a genie that will do it for a 2:1 deal, then I can...
Define pervert? You don't hang around lawyers much do you?
Also the simulacrum trick doesn't have to work. As far as the bestiary demonstrates SLAs are tied to HD, you will have to cite a rule saying they aren't.
The GM then makes a genie with abilities appropriate for a creature with 1/2 HD. This is the GMs call, he can give you a genie with all of the abilities or none of the abilities or anything in-between by RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Define pervert? You don't hang around lawyers much do you?
The augury came back yes apparently...
Also the simulacrum trick doesn't have to work. As far as the bestiary demonstrates SLAs are tied to HD, you will have to cite a rule saying they aren't.
Nope. Sorry. That's not the way exception design works. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 dollars. If something is, you have a rule saying it is so. The reason humans do not fly around at the speed of light is because they have nothing saying it is so.
"Show me where it says it doesn't" is never right. It is obviously bad logic. It never works. It's never reasonable. Instead, you can show me where it says that SLAs are tied to HD, and when you do, I'll agree. Until then, they aren't, end of story.
Simulacrum only modifies effects based on HD. There are many, many effects in the game that are directly based on HD. Most noteworthy being ability save DCs, skill ranks, maximum skill ranks, base attack, base saving throws, and feats, and the effects of certain spells. The only example of HD affecting SLAs is with specific templates like Half-Fiend, but those are self-contained.
The GM then makes a genie with abilities appropriate for a creature with 1/2 HD. This is the GMs call, he can give you a genie with all of the abilities or none of the abilities or anything in-between by RAW.
By RAW, it's based on HD. Suck it up.
There are plenty of examples in the bestiary where creatures gain HD to gain SLAs. You said SLAs and HD are not related when all infer-able evidence is to the contrary.
Simulacrum doesn't give free wishes for any GM who knows what the word appropriate should mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of examples in the bestiary where creatures gain HD to gain SLAs. You said SLAs and HD are not related when all infer-able evidence is to the contrary.
I'm seeing a major lack of examples here. Bonus points if you can cite an example that's not a template like I already pointed out. >_>
Simulacrum doesn't give free wishes for any GM who knows what the word appropriate should mean.
Which is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If an outsider doesn't want to do something, the GM assigns a bonus to their Charisma check between +0 and +6. It says impossible or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. Unreasonable by definition means without reason, irrational, lacking in rational faculty.
The American Heritage Dictionary definition of unreasonable:
1. Not governed by reason: an unreasonable attitude
2. Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate: unreasonable demands
The American Heritage Dictionary definition of immoderate:
1. Exceeding normal or appropriate bounds; extreme. immoderate spending; immoderate laughter
So, barring a clarification from the developers on the RAI, the rules are ambiguous because the RAW is ambiguous (possibly deliberately so) and a GM is free to define "unreasonable" as either "not goverened by reason" or "immoderate", or both.
And to reiterate something from earlier, neither way of defining this is badwrongfun, so long as the group is actually, you know, having fun. (I should make something like this my signature...)
And to ace: my apololgies for jumping back on this shark in this thread, but I did feel it worth pointing out that the wording for planar binding is in fact quite ambiguous about what a bound outsider might be willing to agree to, and does leave a fair amount of interpretation for the GM if he wants to take it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are plenty of examples in the bestiary where creatures gain HD to gain SLAs. You said SLAs and HD are not related when all infer-able evidence is to the contrary.
The rules are also built around the idea of "what is shown is the exception to the general, unless stated as general" and all that anyone ever pulls up are the specific exceptions.
Simulacrum doesn't give free wishes for any GM who knows what the word appropriate should mean.
This, however, is just bad form. Please do not insult your fellow GMs or other posters in this fashion.
A GM is certainly within his rights to read it the way you are describing. I agree that the use of the word "appropriate" can be twisted to be ambiguous.
But a GM that does so is not following the preponderance of the weight RAW, nor the RAI. This is not wrong, and I will argue that you are certainly following RAW to a ridiculous degree, but it is clearly not what the preponderance of RAW indicates is happening. It is, instead, taking a single word and building an entire argument around it.
Again: this is not wrong.
It is, though, a sign of a GM who holds players as opponents to be defeated/outwitted (possibly due to a lack of gentleman's agreement on the part of the players), which, ultimately, is not fulfilling to me.
@Ashiel
You're free to not play by the rules. But that doesn't mean high level play is broken.
EXAMPLES: Dragons, noble djinni to name a couple.
|
If an outsider doesn't want to do something, the GM assigns a bonus to their Charisma check between +0 and +6. It says impossible or unreasonable commands are never agreed to. Unreasonable by definition means without reason, irrational, lacking in rational faculty.
I could bind a demon and tell it to save every child in an orphanage, help old ladies across the street, fight my enemies for me, and take me out to the movies. He would probably get a +6 to his check because most of those things go against everything that it is and it hates the thought of it.
I could see the demon finding that request entirely unreasonable and automatically refusing to serve as well. I suppose it depends on how easy it would be to corrupt the mortals he was forced to interact peaceably with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel
You're free to not play by the rules. But that doesn't mean high level play is broken.
EXAMPLES: Dragons, noble djinni to name a couple.
Dragons don't gain spell-like abilities based on HD; they gain them based on age category. Age category also determines a dragon's base HD, but it's not the connection you claim. The rules for adding/removing HD can be applied to a dragon, keeping it in one age category. Similarly, noble djinn don't gain SLAs based on HD. A noble djinni gets SLAs for being a noble djinni, which is a variant djinni. Noble djinn do have more hit dice than standard djinn. But adding 3 hit dice to a dijinni doesn't give it wish.
It is, though, a sign of a GM who holds players as opponents to be defeated/outwitted (possibly due to a lack of gentleman's agreement on the part of the players), which, ultimately, is not fulfilling to me.
See this is where you have no idea what you are talking about.
Saying the game is well written enough that high level casters aren't merely choosing not to snap the game over their knee is not the same thing as playing GM vs Player. Playing via "social contract" simply is not fair to the other members in the party. "Congratulations heroes you defeated the BBEG together, because the wizard chose not to create an endless army of outsiders and snowmen. I'm sure you all feel accomplished knowing that you were playing with someone who was merely choosing not to solo the campaign."
Some of us enjoy high level play and choose to do so by playing by the rules because we lack the general tabletop system mastery to make up the books of houserules that would be needed for high level play. This includes recognizing where in the rules it specifically ask for the GM to make a call.
Dragons don't gain spell-like abilities based on HD, they gain them based on age category. Age category also determines a dragon's base HD, but it's not the connection you claim. The rules for adding/removing HD can be applied to a dragon, keeping it in one age category. Similarly, noble djinn don't gain SLAs based on HD. A noble djinni gets SLAs based on being a noble djinni and also gets extra hit dice. But adding 3 hit dice to a dijinni doesn't give it wish.@Ashiel
You're free to not play by the rules. But that doesn't mean high level play is broken.
EXAMPLES: Dragons, noble djinni to name a couple.
Ah yes because we have specific rules on HD advancement for monsters.
How do you separate dragons gaining HD from age which advances them to an age category and saying dragons gain SLAs when they age?
How do you know a djinni who gains 3 HD doesn't become a noble djinni? Do you have the djinni monster class in front of you? There is no specification on how djinn become noble or if they are born noble.
It is, though, a sign of a GM who holds players as opponents to be defeated/outwitted (possibly due to a lack of gentleman's agreement on the part of the players), which, ultimately, is not fulfilling to me.See this is where you have no idea what you are talking about.
Probably nothing. I would just ignore the crazy guy. :)
Saying the game is well written enough that high level casters aren't merely choosing not to snap the game over their knee is not the same thing as playing GM vs Player. Playing via "social contract" simply is not fair to the other members in the party. "Congratulations heroes you defeated the BBEG together, because the wizard chose not make to create an endless army of outsiders and snowmen. I'm sure you all feel accomplished knowing that you were playing with someone who was merely choosing not to solo the campaign."
I never suggested otherwise. Actually, the opposite. Why would the Wizard try and take on everything solo? That seems like a terrible idea.
Instead, as a wizard, I'd utilize the heck out of these things to make my allies better. We would all still be the heroes, but we'd be better at it because, you know, we were enhanced. If you don't like heroes being enhanced, I would counter that the magic item/"Christmas Tree effect" is far more annoying, in my opinion, than having magic coursing through your very being making you better.
Again, my point above is that the GM feels the need to "defeat" players by making that ruling.
The GM might have valid reasons for that. It could be because the players are being jerks about it. Or it could be that it stretches their suspension of disbelief. Or whatever.
Perhaps my wording is offensive - if so, I'll apologize, as that's not my intent. I roll natural 1s on these diplomacy checks 'round here all the time. It's probably because I write so much.
But one way or the other, making that ruling is a sign that the GM doesn't trust the player with that kind of power. Which, in some groups, is the better way of taking it.
Some of us enjoy high level play and choose to do so by playing by the rules because we lack the general tabletop system mastery to make up the books of houserules that would be needed for high level play. This includes recognizing where in the rules it specifically ask for the GM to make a call.
I find it frustrating that you imply (through "some of us" comparing to my post) that I do not enjoy high level play. The exact opposite is true. I'm all about ever-higher level play. The one downside with mythic is that it effectively replaces epic (though it's an amazing system and I like it a lot).
And, if you actually read the rest of my post, I noted that as a GM you aren't wrong. It's not my cup of tea, and I don't like the implications of it, but you aren't wrong. It's a perfectly valid call. It just also is going against the weight of the system just to deny players nifty stuff. I tend not to like to deny players nifty stuff as a GM. It frustrates me as a player, too.
But, as I've tried to say: play-style/personality clash instead of you being wrong, bad, or otherwise incorrect.
How do you separate dragons gaining HD from age which advances them to an age category and saying dragons gain SLAs when they age?
I think the easiest way to think about this is to think of the different age categories of a given dragon type as different creatures. They are similar and are presented in a condensed manner, but they are different creatures. This avoids confusing changing HD with changing age categories. Take for example, a wyrm silver dragon. It has 27 HD and is CR 20. Looking at table 2--1 in the Bestiary, we see that we have to add 3 HD to it to increase its CR by 1. It now has 30 HD, one more than a vanilla great wyrm silver dragon. But it doesn't get the changes going from wyrm to great wyrm. Its size doesn't increase, it doesn't get another couple levels of sorcerer casting, it doesn't get reverse gravity as a SLA, etc. In the end, we have two dragons:
They are different creatures with different stats.
Again, my point above is that the GM feels the need to "defeat" players by making that ruling.
I have no idea how that ruling can be considered "defeating" players. Much like how I wouldn't say a GM who refuses the fighters request from infinite XP from pouring hot water down an ant-hills is being adversarial. She is merely enforcing the rules. And the rules enforce fair play.
How do you separate dragons gaining HD from age which advances them to an age category and saying dragons gain SLAs when they age?I think the easiest way to think about this is to think of the different age categories of a given dragon type as different creatures. They are similar and are presented in a condensed manner, but they are different creatures. This avoids confusing changing HD with changing age categories. Take for example, a wyrm silver dragon. It has 27 HD and is CR 20. Looking at table 2--1 in the Bestiary, we see that we have to add 3 HD to it to increase its CR by 1. It now has 30 HD, one more than a vanilla great wyrm silver dragon. But it doesn't get the changes going from wyrm to great wyrm. Its size doesn't increase, it doesn't get another couple levels of sorcerer casting, it doesn't get reverse gravity as a SLA, etc. In the end, we have two dragons:
Wyrm silver dragon with extra HD: CR 21, 30 HD, Gargantuan dragon; and
Great wyrm silver dragon: CR 22, 29 HD, Colossal dragon.
They are different creatures with different stats.
Oh look different species age differently.
What is your point?
Oh this great.
ADDING RACIAL HIT DICE
Adding racial Hit Dice to a monster is a similar process to building a monster from scratch... ...It can also include additional spellcasting capability and other powers.
---See page 295 from Bestiary I for more context
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh look different species age differently.
What is your point?
Oh this great.
ADDING RACIAL HIT DICE
Adding racial Hit Dice to a monster is a similar process to building a monster from scratch... ...It can also include additional spellcasting capability and other powers.
---See page 295 from Bestiary I for more context
Thank you for referring me to the page of the Bestiary containing the table I cited. I'm not sure I could have found that page without you. If you read the entire Adding Racial Hit Dice section, you'll see that while it says to adjust special abilities that depend on HD, size, or ability scores, it doesn't say to add extra spell-like abilities. If, like a lot of creatures, its caster level for SLAs is based on HD, you would increase its caster level to match its new HD.
You would do the same thing for a simulacrum. A simulacrum of an intellect devourer, for example, would cast its SLAs at CL 4, instead of CL 8. The wishes you get out of a simulacrum would have lower CL, but that doesn't prohibit using them for ability score increases, so it's not a big deal.
"spellcasting capability and other powers." So that means CL and only CL to you. K.
Personally I think "spellcasting capability and other powers" means spellcasting capability and other powers, which to me CL is only a part of.
Also I think "a similar process to building a monster from scratch" means that you do more than adjust some numbers.
"spellcasting capability and other powers." So that means CL and only CL to you. K.No, it also means things like poison and other ability DCs. Some monsters even have special rules for adding hit dice! Look at the hydra:
You can make more powerful hydras by increasing their Hit Dice---each added HD increases the hydra's statistics as appropriate, but also gives it one additional head and a +1 increase to its natural armor. A hydra's CR increases by +1 for each Hit Die it gains.
If a player in a game of mine were to make a simulacrum of a hydra, based on this passage, I would reduce the number of heads it has.
Do djinn have a similar passage?
"spellcasting capability and other powers." So that means CL and only CL to you. K.No, it also means things like poison and other ability DCs. Some monsters even have special rules for adding hit dice! Look at the hydra:You can make more powerful hydras by increasing their Hit Dice---each added HD increases the hydra's statistics as appropriate, but also gives it one additional head and a +1 increase to its natural armor. A hydra's CR increases by +1 for each Hit Die it gains.If a player in a game of mine were to make a simulacrum of a hydra, based on this passage, I would reduce the number of heads it has.
Do djinn have a similar passage?
You expect the writers to put in examples for every monster instead of just providing examples from which you are suppose to extrapolate from?
K. I for one am glad they didn't waste the space.
My favorite method is just trading wishes. Get an efreeti and a couple of his buddies and make wishes to give the efreeti inherent modifiers, since efreeti can't normally grant wishes to each other, you could instead wish for the efreeti to be stronger, faster, tougher, etc. 2:1 deal.This rise the question of why the efreet are not doing this without the intervention of a high level wizard in the fist polace.
They have plane shift at will, so they do not need to wait, they can just travel and ask for a deal to whatever intelligent being they found, like a fire elemental.
If it is so simple for them, then is reasonable to asume that every efreet out there already have a +5 inherent bonust to all his stats and have no reason to do this deal with the wizard.
I'm not sure why they can't grant each other's wishes as is, but I don't have their entry in front of me.
Anyway, how can we rule out that every efreeti has already done this for all their stats?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You expect the writers to put in examples for every monster instead of just providing examples from which you are suppose to extrapolate from?
K. I for one am glad they didn't waste the space.
A simulacrum template would have worked just fine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel
You're free to not play by the rules. But that doesn't mean high level play is broken.
EXAMPLES: Dragons, noble djinni to name a couple.
What the hell are you talking about? I do play by the rules, and I'm one of the only people in this forum that says high level play isn't as broken as is commonly believed.
I'm not saying high level play is broken. I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying that high level play is a different animal. Things change in high level games. The kid gloves come off. At high levels, having your party wizard grab some +5 inherent modifiers by one of the various ways of getting free wish spells is just par for the course, and you do it because it's neither complicated nor overpowered. It actually keeps things more balanced.
Seriously, an array consisting of 30, 24, 26, 19, 24, 20 is way more balanced than 30, 19, 21, 15, 19, 15. There's nothing particularly odd about it.
The problem I'm seeing is that people seem to put inherent modifiers on some sort of holy pedestal, or revere wish like it was somehow the most amazingly amazing spell of amazement ever. Maybe once upon a time, but not today. But 1/7th a 20th level character's entire WBL for +5 to a stat is just stupid. But going without it is also stupid, because you need those at high levels, and without those you will indeed have an imbalance.
Going back to the PF Playtests, the subject of free wishes via djinn came up. They said they'd look into it. In Pathfinder, wish is a mere shadow of its former self, but it's still available through means like planar binding, astral projection, and simulacrum. It's still given to certain monsters to just hand out like party favors. The spell was nerfed, not the delivery.
Turning This Around
I explained some of the common myths about high level gameplay (including the rocket tag myth), and some of the places to watch out for. I've cited the rules in terms of what you can do to prepare yourself for high level play.
You say I'm not following the rules and that I'm saying high level play is broken. I'm going to ask you to prove it. Further, I'd like you to explain exactly why getting your inherent modifiers (which are capped at +5) is overpowered post 10th level (the spell becomes available without NPC / magic item help at 11th level).
Please, show me how I'm cheating, breaking the system, or making high level play broken. Please do it by actually citing real examples and not by telling me I need to cite a section of the book that says "inherent mods aren't broken, page X". If you want to show the math I'm down. I'll even help you.
The average save DC 10 + 1/2 your level + key ability + other. A wizard will get his +5 inherent modifier, either because he will craft his own manual, or he will make his own wishes (but crafting the manual is cheaper because he gets the material components at 1/2 off). That adds +2.5 to his spell save DCs.
Spell save DCs target Fort, Ref, or Will defenses. That means that the +5 inherent to one stat has given a +2.5 vs every defense. Flip it around, you need +2.5 to each defense to make up for the shift.
I'm not sure why they can't grant each other's wishes as is, but I don't have their entry in front of me.
Genies can only grant wishes to non-genies.
A simulacrum template would have worked just fine.You expect the writers to put in examples for every monster instead of just providing examples from which you are suppose to extrapolate from?
K. I for one am glad they didn't waste the space.
God that would have been nice! They could have even included that in the spell. But they chose not to touch the spell for the most part.
In 3.5 monster classes were a thing, so it was unquestioned that simulacrum creatures wouldn't have all their abilities. Arguments to the contrary were the height of munchkin-ing.
I would really have loved an awaken template as well.