*Citation needed.You need a rule to have allies of the NPCs you've murdered come after you for revenge?
That's a very strange campaign to me.
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge? Yes obviously? Do your Fireballs not require reflex saves?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge? Yes obviously? Do your Fireballs not require reflex saves?*Citation needed.You need a rule to have allies of the NPCs you've murdered come after you for revenge?
That's a very strange campaign to me.
The spell literally says "The creature might later seek revenge"
If I was a guy who was just forced against my will to do something and I was planning revenge I'd bring all my buddies and jump the dude in a dark alley. Why would I try to solo someone who just trapped me and forced me to do things against my will? That is the creature seeking revenge. He's getting revenge by bringing his friends and murderizing you.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Citation needed.You need a rule to have allies of the NPCs you've murdered come after you for revenge?
That's a very strange campaign to me.
Yeah, pretty much.
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge? Yes obviously? Do your Fireballs not require reflex saves?
Help me out here, where is the word 'only' in the below statement?
The creature might later seek revenge.
If you could also help me out by talking about what happens when the creature you summon is murdered by you, rather than simply forced to serve you, that would be awesome.
Thanks!
I'm not sure how he's getting the blame for the latest iteration of a system that Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and skip Williams created.
Honestly, despite the reverence Gygax receives, all the stuff he implemented has only managed to conviced me that he was a mechanical gamer first, and a petty one at that. I dont think it's a desirable "legacy feature".
Lets look at some friendly Gary Gygax Quotes.
First, his feelings on 3.0/3.5
"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."
Second, on war gaming Roots and the game as a whole.
"There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you're involved in, whether it's a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agenst or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things."
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
"A DM only rolls the dice because of the noise they make."
Seems like a guy wedded to the rules and focused on the war gaming aspects of things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge? Yes obviously?Can you show me where it says 'only'? Because saying the creature may seek revenge does not mean others won't.
Take note here people, for two rare things just happened.
1. TOZ and I agreed.
2. TOZ ninja'd the crap out of me.
Well played sir.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If summoning witif covorting with demons is illegal, as it is in parts of Golarion, can the local constabulary seek to arrest you for planar binding, even though the rules don't specifically say they can?
Only if you get caught...
Well played sir.I always play well. ;)
I subscribe to the idea that your actions will garner you a reputation. Murdering outsiders is a good way to array heaven and/or hell against you.
I subscribe to the rules as written. When a spell has the drawback of "the creature may later seek revenge" I'm fine with that. The spell does not have of the drawback of arraying heaven or hell against you... citation please.
I subscribe to the rules as written. When a spell has the drawback of "the creature may later seek revenge" I'm fine with that. The spell does not have of the drawback of arraying heaven or hell against you... citation please.Well played sir.I always play well. ;)
I subscribe to the idea that your actions will garner you a reputation. Murdering outsiders is a good way to array heaven and/or hell against you.
You never did answer my question.
Where does it say in the rules that killing commoners with a greatsword may cause others to seek revenge upon you?
Nothing in the greatsword description or combat section of the rules says that happens.
I'll just tell my GM that I can now fireball people in town without the town guard coming after me, because the spell doesn't say they do.
Here is something you don't see everyday: I agree with Marthkus.
At least on the Planar Binding issue.
The rules don't say allies of the outsider can't seek revenge. The fact that the bound creature itself can do it doesn't exclude the possibility of its allies having the same idea. (They going after you is not a consequence of the spell, it's a consequence of killing the called creature, which is not part of the spell).
That said, Planar Binding is still a incredibly powerful spell and is still leagues ahead of what any martial class can do. You can always convince the creature that your cause (or the promised reward) is worth the creature's effort and time.
The only thing that changes is the fact that killing the called creature is not a "Get Out of Jail Free" card, but in the end Planar Binding is still a very, very powerful tool...
I subscribe to the rules as written.So where in the rules does it say killing your PC will cause the party to seek revenge?
It's not the spell that has the drawback. It's your characters actions.
You'll note I said nothing about planar binding in the post you quoted.
There is no rule for what happens when you kill a commoner so feel free to make it up. However there is a line in Planar Binding about the creature seeking revenge. Not "You'll be attacked by its allies", not "You'll be hunted by heaven/hell", the only consequence of casting Planar Binding is "the creature may seek revenge".
Basically you are arguing that Fireball will deal you fire damage outside its range because conjuring that much heat in a small space would naturally do so...
|
However there is a line in Planar Binding about the creature seeking revenge.
And yet there is no line that says 'only the subject of the binding may seek revenge'.
Basically you are arguing that Fireball will deal you fire damage outside its range because conjuring that much heat in a small space would naturally do so...
Not at all. I am arguing that throwing a fireball into the duke's wedding procession will cause him to order his guards to execute you with extreme prejudice. It doesn't matter that fireball only says his clothing may catch fire.
When the spells says that only the creature will seek you out for revenge? Yes obviously? Do your Fireballs not require reflex saves?*Citation needed.You need a rule to have allies of the NPCs you've murdered come after you for revenge?
That's a very strange campaign to me.
Use just a little imagination here.
Whatever creature you just called on to the material plane... it has relationships. If it is a devil, for example, it probably has a rank and is part of an organized unit.
It just disappeared from its home plane... possibly in front of witnesses. These creatures don't just pop into existence when you call them... the have lives outside of the material plane.
If your ally suddenly disappeared, would you investigate? How about if you had access to incredibly powerful magic?
Maybe you could get away with this once... maybe twice... eventually other beings are going to notice... the things you are calling answer to someone.... and that someone or something is not going to appreciate what you're doing. This isn't making up rules... this is just using logic. It is like saying "only the king knows that I tried to cast a spell on him". Technically, that can be true... it doesn't change the fact that there can be serious consequences.
One off comment about planar binding and we forgot about the math thing...
There is no rule for what happens when you kill a commoner so feel free to make it up. However there is a line in Planar Binding about the creature seeking revenge. Not "You'll be attacked by its allies", not "You'll be hunted by heaven/hell", the only consequence of casting Planar Binding is "the creature may seek revenge".
Basically you are arguing that Fireball will deal you fire damage outside its range because conjuring that much heat in a small space would naturally do so...
Anzyr, the thing is that killing a creature is very likely to cause its allies to seek revenge on you.
It's not a house-rule anymore than any other event that happens to the player characters. That's not the GM creating a modification to the rules, that's him creating a reasonable consequence to your actions.
Allies of the called creature are not attacking you because of the Planar Binding spell, they are attacking you because you killed their ally (and killing that ally is not a part of the spell.)
When an enemy seeks revenge because you fried one of their friends with Fireball, they are not doing it because you cast Fireball, they are doing it because you hurt their friend.
These vengeful creatures are not a houserule to the Fireball spell, because their action have nothing to do with the spell. They have to do with you killing one of their friends... How (and possibly also why) you did it is irrelevant.
You could have used Meteor, Suffocation, Petrification, Call Lightning or a simple dagger, and the result would be the same... Because it's a consequence of your actions, not the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, math is hard. We needed a break, obviously.
Im sure people will rail at me and tell me im oh so wrong,
But AD&D had it right... which is why character levels only went so far (10-12 if I recall depending on class)
I think Gygax already knew the game broke down at too high of a level.
E6-E8 games are popular because they are fun, and the best blend of gyagaxian and 3.PF gaming (gygax character generation isnt and custom of current rules, gygax game play and monster power level is much better)
My table always gets bored to pieces around 13th+ level.
There is no rule for what happens when you kill a commoner so feel free to make it up. However there is a line in Planar Binding about the creature seeking revenge. Not "You'll be attacked by its allies", not "You'll be hunted by heaven/hell", the only consequence of casting Planar Binding is "the creature may seek revenge".
Basically you are arguing that Fireball will deal you fire damage outside its range because conjuring that much heat in a small space would naturally do so...
Anzyr, the thing is that killing a creature is very likely to cause its allies to seek revenge on you.
It's not a house-rule anymore than any other event that happens to the player characters. That's not the GM creating a modification to the rules, that's him creating a reasonable consequence to your actions.
Allies of the called creature are not attacking you because of the Planar Binding spell, they are attacking you because you killed their ally (and killing that ally is not a part of the spell.)
When an enemy seeks revenge because you fried one of their friends with Fireball, they are not doing it because you cast Fireball, they are doing it because you hurt their friend.
These vengeful creatures are not a houserule to the Fireball spell, because their action have nothing to do with the spell. They have to do with you killing one of their friends... How (and possibly also why) you did it is irrelevant.
You could have used Meteor, Suffocation, Petrification, Call Lightning or a simple dagger, and the result would be the same... Because it's a consequence of your actions, not the spell.
Woah now! You're not supposed to ice them yourself... thats just bad form. Just make sure their orders are quite fatal (or arrange for them to become so) and your quite within the spell. Sure I could use my "imagination" about the consequences of repeatedly calling creatures and having them all die in the line of the duty, but my imagination tells me that demons don't really keep attendance and while Yerithez might of owed Dalithusth a favor, I don't think their going to look to close at where at Yerithez went. Hell, I could "imagine" a demon rewarding me for offing their direct superior and since we're playing imagination with the rules, lets say that said demon rewards me with magic items and gold.
There you have it, Planar Binding gets you free gold on top of a disposable minion. Thanks imagination.
And with that backstabbingly treacherous post~ Happy Holidays (and before you ask, why no I don't have anything hidden behind my back).
|
Im sure people will rail at me and tell me im oh so wrong,
But AD&D had it right... which is why character levels only went so far (10-12 if I recall depending on class)
I think Gygax already knew the game broke down at too high of a level.
E6-E8 games are popular because they are fun, and the best blend of gyagaxian and 3.PF gaming (gygax character generation isnt and custom of current rules, gygax game play and monster power level is much better)
My table always gets bored to pieces around 13th+ level.
I'm in a similar boat. I prefer 3.5/PF mechanics, but I've started running my games with the assumption that a level somewhere between 12 and 14 is the level cap for mortals. I've started following the "Demographics of Herosim" as presented in "Adventurer, Conqueror, King" (http://www.autarch.co/blog/demographics-heroism/) Generals and archmages and high priests and the like cap out at 12. So do PCs in most campaigns. 6th level spells are the highest level that most casters can ever expect to have access to. Sometimes, someone very, very remarkable comes along and makes it to level 13 or 14, but when they do, it is truly an event.
This matches up with Pathfinder Society's level spread as well. The retirement cap in PFS is 12. Anything past that is essentially PFS's "epic level". Anecdotally, most people who I have spoken to or read who express an opinion on what levels "work" in the d20 system always cap the "fun" levels at 12-14.
Personally, I think 12 is the safest number. My reasoning is that 13+ is where the mathematical cracks begin to show, and 13+ is when 7th level spells become available, which IMO is the moment where casters go from "squishy, but godly when conditions are right" to "godly pretty much all of the time".
There's also a point around the beginning of the double-digit levels when prepared casters gain the ability to all but respect themselves on a daily basis while the mundanes have to become overspecialized one-trick ponies in order to have anything on their resume that they do better than a caster. IME, that's also in the 12-14 range.
I'm GMing an Eberron game right now that I allowed to go to 15, and I very nearly regret it. I've only run a few combats at 15th level so far, but it's a feel-bad for the players - even highly optimized PCs can lose an init roll and die to the pounce-charger. Mundanes require xmas-tree magic item loadouts and buffstacks from the casters in order to have a chance of succeeding on mundane tasks, because without caster-countermeasures provided by other casters, they'll have all of their mundane utility taken way by enemy casters.
I know this is all anecdotal, but I suppose my TL;DR point is that I'm throwing in another vote for "the game is fun and balanced with usable math and a place for casters and mundanes to shine until levels above 12, and PFS capping out at 12 appears to be an implicit agreement from someone on the Pathfinder team"
Honestly, if someone told me that their PF game had a good chance of going above 12, I would play a character with at least 2/3 casting.
On the AD&D point, weren't the levels about 10-12 in older editions meant to transition the PCs out of the adventuring life and into a realm-management minigame in which the mundanes remained relevant by taking on leadership tasks that the casters didn't have time for because they were too busy with research/prayer/solving large-scale problems with world-shaking spells?
I'll tell you my experience in multiple high level games.
1. The casters can attack any save. So if an opponent has a weak save like a dragon with weak reflex save, the player will attack it. With access to metamagic rods and spells that have an automatic save reduction effect like Prediction of Failure or no save like Enervate or calcific touch, a single creature has next to no chance of challenging a high level party.
2. Physical damage reaches a point where he who crits wins. Player or enemy doesn't matter.
3. The Invulnerable Rager Human Barbarian with Superstition, Come and Get Me, and the like is almost impossible to challenge consistently. I'm not talking about occasionally exploiting range or reach (which is usually countered with Step Up). This class stands so far above the other physical damage dealers that having one in the group massively overshadows their capabilities. It turns most encounters into Barbarian charges enemy, shrugs off all his attacks due to DR, shrugs off all magical attacks because of Superstition, and destroys the enemy with Raging Brutality and Come and Get Me.
This class is too much better than every other class. Not sure why Paizo decided to allow this. I don't think all the abilities together were tested at high level.
4. It takes a huge amount of work to prepare a high level adventure.
5. Healing is important at high level if the DM runs a challenging campaign. Damage is fast and furious both ways. The group with no healer will lose against the group with a healer 99% of the time. If the DM runs an average campaign reading out of the module, you can get by with no healer and will probably destroy everything you face.
6. Hit points are far too low for single creatures like dragons. If Paizo wants to capture of the feel of powerful, mythical huge creatures, they need to give them some kind of hit point bonus based on size and mythical status. 400 or so hit points is nothing for a high level party to mow through. That's two or three rounds. It's not real fun as a DM to run a fight with a Titan or Dragon and have it die within 18 seconds. That's not very mythical or scary.
Conclusion: It takes a tremendous amount of work to challenge a high level party. You have to do the math yourself. Paizo can't account for all character combinations the higher level the characters get, so game design should focus more on not providing player options that trivialize encounters. At the moment there are far too many abilities that trivialize encounters and make DMing not particularly fun. This isn't only a high level problem as a problem of certain abilities like witch sleep hex or classes with abilities that are vastly better than other classes like Come and Get Me or the Invulnerable Rager Archetype. Be nice to see Paizo tone things down and do more high level testing to iron out the kings past level 10 or so.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please show me RAW where other creatures may seek revenge for it.
Page 8, Core rulebook.
"Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world."
Another creature seeking revenge would be a threat the PCs face. Which as per the quoted paragraph is a decision the GM is able to make.
Now, I suppose you could make an interesting RAW vs RAI argument that the Game Master only controls the rest of the 'world' meaning that they have no control over extraplanar creatures. However it seems pretty clearly RAI that it's the entire multiverse of the campaign setting.
|
|
Woah now! You're not supposed to ice them yourself... thats just bad form. Just make sure their orders are quite fatal (or arrange for them to become so) and your quite within the spell.
That seems a bit different of a tune.
Ok... what part of that prevents me from killing them off while they are under my control?
Woah now! You're not supposed to ice them yourself... thats just bad form. Just make sure their orders are quite fatal (or arrange for them to become so) and your quite within the spell.That seems a bit different of a tune.
Ok... what part of that prevents me from killing them off while they are under my control?If the outsider can escape, you have made a mistake.
Come on TOZ let people save face when needed.
Also the second quote was about when binding the outsider at the start of the contract.
Im sure people will rail at me and tell me im oh so wrong,
But AD&D had it right... which is why character levels only went so far (10-12 if I recall depending on class)
People might well od this on the basis that you are actually wrong.
All but a few 1e classes (Assassin, Druid) had unlimited advancement. The Cleric and Wizard spells per day table went to 29. 2e as I recall wen to at least 20. BECMI went to 36 and beyond with the Immortals box set.
Right. Most of the base classes had charts that only went so far, but you were supposed to infer the rest. From OD&D thru AD&D this was the case, except for some offbeat classes like Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, having run high level Pathfinder, I find that running it from level 1 to higher levels is easier than starting at higher levels. Usually it's because when you run it from level one, you are used to the party dynamics and can adapt to the characters' playstyles easier.
|
Right. Most of the base classes had charts that only went so far, but you were supposed to infer the rest. From OD&D thru AD&D this was the case, except for some offbeat classes like Druid.Im sure people will rail at me and tell me im oh so wrong,
But AD&D had it right... which is why character levels only went so far (10-12 if I recall depending on class)
People might well od this on the basis that you are actually wrong.
All but a few 1e classes (Assassin, Druid) had unlimited advancement. The Cleric and Wizard spells per day table went to 29. 2e as I recall wen to at least 20. BECMI went to 36 and beyond with the Immortals box set.
Well, BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia Basic gave a hard level limit of 36 for humans (except for mystics, capped at level 16), 12 for dwarves, 10 for elves, and 8 for halflings...although the demihumans could continue to advanced their attack rank (equivalent of base attack bonus) for some while after they reached their maximum level. Things were also kept sightly more sane by limiting hit dice to 9 hit dice...after that leveling only gave a set number of hit points to be added, with no CON bonuses.
EDIT: I somehow missed that thenobledrake had ninja'd me on this by over an hour.
I think BECMI was a slightly different, but i have the Rules Cyclopedia in front of me, and so I'm using it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The DM should be scanning every level for party balance and no tactic that the pcs would/could use should be off the cards. Then the chasm may be a little less, the characters more balance when compared against each other (note not monsters!) and the game will be more fun.
On the other hand, somethings you do might not be fun for a player, like burning spellbooks, going out of your way to nerf players ingame, or sundering weapons. Those things aren't for everyone.
Even if you fix it, the 'chasm' between players is still very possible and its a little awkward to lay that on a human being rather than making that balance inherent with the system itself.
Personally, having run high level Pathfinder, I find that running it from level 1 to higher levels is easier than starting at higher levels. Usually it's because when you run it from level one, you are used to the party dynamics and can adapt to the characters' playstyles easier.
I remember one game I played I leveled from one to eight and retired the character to play a new one at 9th*. Anyways, I started playing a new character and this wizard was loaded with spells. My DM was so lost that I actually made a list of notes with a list of buffs, what spells I planned to use, and some contingencies and notes about dedicated spell slot(he will always use this spell when he goes to bed, his familiar does this and this and can do this, and he will always have buff X/Y/Z and he has these drawbacks...) and I gave him a second character sheet of what I created(was my first draft, but extra paper for him to look at and had all my information). He then proceeded to ignore all that and still be shocked... but still I learned it can be a little bit of a shock in the first place.
Anyways... Since then if I play a dedicated game I like to offer to give notes to my GM so they aren't shocked at a revelation. Or they can turn it down and then be shocked, but to each their own.
* Long story involving a stinky sewer and a very angry wet fighter. Its apparently a bad idea to try to drown the enemies in the sewer while you are still in it.
Please show me RAW where other creatures may seek revenge for it.Page 8, Core rulebook.
"Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world."
Another creature seeking revenge would be a threat the PCs face. Which as per the quoted paragraph is a decision the GM is able to make.
Now, I suppose you could make an interesting RAW vs RAI argument that the Game Master only controls the rest of the 'world' meaning that they have no control over extraplanar creatures. However it seems pretty clearly RAI that it's the entire multiverse of the campaign setting.
No the argument is that Rule 0 isn't RAW, because it can't be discussed or interpreted. Your GM might make Natural 1's critical fumbles, that is not RAW though and shouldn't be discussed as a reason why Full BAB classes are bad. Similarly, attempting to add outside circumstances besides "The creature may seek revenge" is a meaningless discussion. RAW, clearly the creature can seek revenge, but the spell is quite specific about that being the only drawback. You can cite Rule 0 all you want and if in your games you want it turn heaven/hell against the caster fine, but that's not any more RAW then it is that you get free treasure from people who you Klingon Promotioned for casting it. You can argue Planar Binding is not strong, but please use the actual rules to do so, not Rule 0.
@TOZ I have no need to save face, my argument is consistent in that the only RAW consequence of Planar Binding is that the creature might seek revenge. Discussing consequences outside of that is meaningless (and not RAW) for the reason proscribed above. (Also, I have suggested more then once you yourself are not offing the creature, but arranging for it to be offed.)
Please show me RAW where other creatures may seek revenge for it.Page 8, Core rulebook.
"Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world."
Another creature seeking revenge would be a threat the PCs face. Which as per the quoted paragraph is a decision the GM is able to make.
Now, I suppose you could make an interesting RAW vs RAI argument that the Game Master only controls the rest of the 'world' meaning that they have no control over extraplanar creatures. However it seems pretty clearly RAI that it's the entire multiverse of the campaign setting.
No the argument is that Rule 0 isn't RAW, because it can't be discussed or interpreted. Your GM might make Natural 1's critical fumbles, that is not RAW though and shouldn't be discussed as a reason why Full BAB classes are bad. Similarly, attempting to add outside circumstances besides "The creature may seek revenge" is a meaningless discussion. RAW, clearly the creature can seek revenge, but the spell is quite specific about that being the only drawback. You can cite Rule 0 all you want and if in your games you want it turn heaven/hell against the caster fine, but that's not any more RAW then it is that you get free treasure from people who you Klingon Promotioned for casting it. You can argue Planar Binding is not strong, but please use the actual rules to do so, not Rule 0.
@TOZ I have no need to save face, my argument is consistent in that the only RAW consequence of Planar Binding is that the creature might seek revenge. Discussing consequences outside of that is meaningless (and not RAW) for the reason proscribed above. (Also, I have suggested more then once you yourself are not offing the...
Person cites rule.
You call rule, rule 0.
Person did not cite rule 0...
What part of "Helping them tell this story is the Game Master (or GM), who decides what threats the player characters (or PCs) face and what sorts of rewards they earn for succeeding at their quest. Think of it as a cooperative storytelling game, where the players play the protagonists and the Game Master acts as the narrator, controlling the rest of the world." is rule 0 to you?
Who cares about the RAW?
I do! RAI is important, but normally when RAW and RAI conflict an FAQ or errata is made. I prefer not guessing at the RAI in games.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well... I think that the constant search for RAW answers actually does damage some things. Gygax was probably correct in asserting that the game has become a bit too 'rules heavy'.
For example, just this week I read a thread asking if a character climbing a wall on a rope could toss a grappling hook to pull an enemy off of the wall that was shooting down at him. That is a great idea, full of flavor and cinematic action... but the RAW says that you need to score a crit to grapple a target with a grappling hook (it is detailed as a weapon in the ISWG) so the RAW puts a real damper on that idea.
Oftentimes, the attempt to fill in the blanks with RAW instead of imagination makes for a less dramatic game. The "open space" becomes a great area for a good GM to make the game better.... and the more you fill those things in, the less room there is for cool-factor to overcome specific rules.
I am not opposed to granularity... but some things really should be written as methods for adjudication without spelling out specific applications. Things like Power Attack seem like they could very reasonably just fit into a set of basic combat options. Most combat maneuvers work similarly, but then the specific applications tend to make those maneuvers that are given rule-space the only ones that are usable.
This, of course, extends to Improved Maneuver feats, where it becomes rather rare that a character without a maneuver feat will truly attempt one. Prerequisites also have that odd effect... you need a 13 intelligence to learn how to really trip someone appropriately... it steps on the ideas of how that sort of combat tactic might crop up.
I guess what I am saying is that there is a tipping point, where RAW has become so robust and inclusive of so many contingencies... that anything outside of that seems like it is somehow "breaking the rules". Anzyr's ideas about planar binding are a great example. By RAW he is probably correct... but that sort of rigid rules-lawyering really damages the game. RAW ends up getting used as a weapon to say "no" to all sorts of things... but the whole point of the game is to craft a story. As soon as a player can start pointing to RAW to say that logic is somehow overridden (EG: planar creatures cannot intervene as I murder their compatriots because I have this single sentence in a spell description) you have a problem. And the GM can then be seen as the bad guy for doing things that really just make sense.
RAI is what really matters... the story is what really matters. Quibbling about the absolute RAW is pointless... because the RAW is just a set of guidelines. If you forget that... if you miss out on the goal of the rules and get stuck following everything to the letter... you are missing out on what makes TTRPGs great.
|
|
I think BECMI was a slightly different, but i have the Rules Cyclopedia in front of me, and so I'm using it.While there are a few differences between the boxed sets of BECM and the eventual compilation of them that is the Rules Cyclopedia, level limits are not among them - excluding that the Mystic class wasn't actually fully detailed until the Rules Cyclopedia.
The Immortal rules, however, have some pretty significant differences between the original Immortal Rules boxed set and the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set that was released to be used with the Rules Cyclopedia.
...I think it was Wrath of the Immortals that I liked better because it had 36 levels to progress through just like the "standard" game at that point so the character progression didn't feel as disjointed as in the previous Immortal rules - but my memory of that portion of the game, which I rarely used, is pretty hazy.
For whatever reason, I was thinking that BECMI had different maximum hit dice for some of the classes, but that's probably just me mixing a bit of Original flavor and AD&D into my memory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Answering the thread: becaus the defense dont keep up with the offense