|
i was referencing a general term, not PFS specifically. i still avoid PFS like the plague, but maybe if they lifted a great deal of their restrictions on what options were allowed as far as race, class, feats, spells, alignment and magic items. i would happily play.
Yet, as others have said you are posting the the PFS boards, You have stated in the past that you have no interest in PFS, playing pfs, or doing pfs so please leave the pfs boards be. The game isn't that restrictive to be honest and I am tired of hearing this dead argument from people that don't play pfs saying it is. For Avoiding PFS like the plague you sure don't avoid the forums for it.
i can't stand the tolkein races with a passion and even then, aasimaar and tiefling aren't enough options for me, plus, if i want a boon, i have to drive all the way to nevada during mid october. something i can't really do
Don't play us. There are cons online, and in almost every state, especially the ones that have venture officers.
i like my antiheroes and other morally questionable characters that despite being the lowest of moral depravity, are still doing things that benefit the heroic side of the screen, even if the acts...
Evil characters don't normally behave like this, but to each their own. Allowing Evil characters in PFS would go against the core tennants of Explore Report Co-Operate, I would rather not get into alignment discussions here and will let this mainly be
i don't like the idea of a chronicle sheet telling me what magic items i can buy
In a home game if a gm doesn't want you to have an item, they will prevent you from having said item, there is no diff here than PFS
there are so many characters i want to try that would just be outright illegal for PFS due to using 3rd party options, 3.5 material, highly specific banned archetypes, exotic human crossbreeds that some of which, would require homebrewing or at least unrestricted access to the advanced race guide chapters 1-3 and pre-errataed versions of options PFS demanded erratas and PFS specific houserules for, such as a few altered traits or custom or illegal magic items, or being able to take leadership and item creation feats
the fact i like playing with all this stuff, i don't beleive makes me a munchkin, it's just i play a very different style of pathfinder which is incompatible with PFS and i dislike the humanocentricy that is golarion. i like when humans are one of many species, not the dominant species that takes up 90% of the planet.
Expecting people to know alternate rules and other things that are not part of the core rules just makes things more complicated.
|
|
Really? To me it seemed most people who GM and VO´s are sharing the opinion that it is either too strong and powerful or at least underpriced.
Adding to that, that many of the same are speaking against the ioun stone resonant power.
Oh, you could also begin to pray to a certain halfling goddess, she let´s you reroll willsaves once a day^^
|
|
For an additional -2, tell them they have time to buy popcorn on the way if they hurry.I did this, but told them to report that demons were attacking to thier venture captain.I think one of my favorite suggestions would be "You're outmatched; better go back to town and get help!"
>:D
They ran into the next room had to find the VC then roleplay the situation infront of people that should not know demons are attacking.
So it is not like I made them watch the fight.
Really? To me it seemed most people who GM and VO´s are sharing the opinion that it is either too strong and powerful or at least underpriced.
GMs and VO's are more important? Always thought we were supposed to avoid elitism...
That´s not what i said. This board has an increasing tendency to get everything understood wrong somehow.
Its all in text. Hard to read tone and the like. Was asking why you pointed them out.
Edit: Weren't we talking about mind buttressing or something like that...
|
|
Nay, what i meant was more like poeple who regularly run games.
I admitt though, my communication skill might be a bit messed up at the moment due to high stress levels and using very abstract technical language most of the day i´m not sure i understand myself^^
Alas, redemption is only some weeks away.
Nay, what i meant was more like poeple who regularly run games.
Well, one of things you miss if you look at the stars is games played as a player in PFS and games run/played outside of PFS, or even inside of other organized campaigns. I know I've probably put more time in games outside of PFS than in, even since I started playing PFS.
I admitt though, my communication skill might be a bit messed up at the moment due to high stress levels and using very abstract technical language most of the day i´m not sure i understand myself^^
Stress and a computer never go well together, or at least in my opinion.
|
... stuff
1. PFS GMs are required to run scenarios as written, which is done to help facilitate consistency between different runs of a scenario (this is by no means a complete solution, but its still important to have for the campaign). As a result, taking a poll to allow enchantment or not is in violation of the rules.
2. Most NPCs have tactics that dictate their general strategy (at a high level) and what they do with their abilities. Your concern could be addressed by 1. having NPC tactics that prohibit inappropriate use of these abilities in ways that make people uncomfortable, 2. being more specific about what the suggestions/commands are.
3. Its a general understanding in PFS that GMs should not do things that make their players feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in the PFS environment. I don't really think anyone out there would force your PC to do something blatantly offensive or taboo at the table. At the very least, I think if you raised a concern that you think they are inappropriately abusing said ability, almost every PFS GM will be willing to work out a compromise that makes sense for the scenario.
4. This has been touched upon before, but just because you don't like these kind of effects doesn't mean the campaign should stop writing content that utilizes it. That makes it more difficult to write interesting scenarios, as it reduces the number of available options. Consider if a PFS scenario was to be written about the Runelord of Lust. Not including the enchantment school abilities because someone might abuse it to be inappropriate at a table would make this scenario effectively impossible. A potentially interesting adventure eliminated because of fear of GM abuse when GM abuse is already discouraged and managed by the campaign? Seems redundant and impractical.
5. PFS has rules in place to prevent harassment at the table. Campaign management enforces these rules and they are always willing to listen and help with your concerns.
I think most of your argument is rooted in impractical and unreasonable doubts of PFS GMs. It's not really fair to assume that PFS GMs are going to be "creepy" or inappropriate with these abilities in the first place, so not including them in scenarios doesn't make sense. Campaign management already cares a great deal that players are not alienated by inappropriate conduct at a table, so your thought is excessive and doesn't make a lot of sense.
In short, if you can't trust the people participating in the campaign to be reasonable, sane, and civil with the things they do at a table, then you are probably right to not play PFS. I understand that you find these abilities distasteful, but your concern is not really universal as most people don't seem to have this profound dislike for them.
More importantly, the solution to your problem does not lie in the unbanning of a subjectively unbalanced item enchantment. Your problem is entirely based on your perception of acceptable behavior at the table. Please take your concern to another topic, because it is 100% unrelated to this conversation.
Developer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since we're at 250 posts on the topic (about 225 without derails), I'm curious as if we could get a response from PFS management about the enchantment. Or at the very least their thoughts as to why the enchantment is/should be banned.
The mind-buttressing armor enchantment is a very potent bit of magic for its price. I fully recognize that the effective price scales up as one adds additional enchantments, establishing an unwritten opportunity cost and possible limitation by the nature of Fame.
Immunity to any effect is a pricey creature. See the periapt of health (only 7,500 gp but protects against a slow-acting, rarely lethal affliction), periapt of proof against poison (protects against a fairly common condition that tends to hinder but not kill outright), and other items. If you'd prefer class abilities, look at sorcerer bloodlines, elemental domains, and oracle revelations, which tend to grant immunity to one or more features between levels 17–20. There are some exceptions, such as oracle curses and martial artist monks, but the rules system seems to put a premium on permanent, absolute immunity as opposed to a generous bonus on saves or temporary protection.
When Mike and I discussed the enchantment, we decided that given the breadth of encounters in scenarios, the nature of some of these encounters, and our plans for the future, we would keep mind-buttressing off the list of Additional Resources until such a time as we see fit to include it on a Chronicle sheet or revisit its current status. What I have read in this thread, which I have followed since its creation, has not changed my view on the matter.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
See the periapt of health (only 7,500 gp but protects against a slow-acting, rarely lethal affliction), periapt of proof against poison (protects against a fairly common condition that tends to hinder but not kill outright), and other items.
Necklace of adaptation? That's 9k for immunity to two of the most famously powerful conjuration attacks, plus immunity to drowning and suffocation.
|
|
When Mike and I discussed the enchantment, we decided that given the breadth of encounters in scenarios, the nature of some of these encounters, and our plans for the future, we would keep mind-buttressing off the list of Additional Resources until such a time as we see fit to include it on a Chronicle sheet or revisit its current status.
I love the idea of adding banned goodies on chronicles. Now all we we need are higher more CL items and I would be estatic.
|
|
See the periapt of health (only 7,500 gp but protects against a slow-acting, rarely lethal affliction), periapt of proof against poison (protects against a fairly common condition that tends to hinder but not kill outright), and other items.Necklace of adaptation? That's 9k for immunity to two of the most famously powerful conjuration attacks, plus immunity to drowning and suffocation.
Necklace is a pretty valuable slot.
When Mike and I discussed the enchantment, we decided that given the breadth of encounters in scenarios, the nature of some of these encounters, and our plans for the future, we would keep mind-buttressing off the list of Additional Resources until such a time as we see fit to include it on a Chronicle sheet or revisit its current status.I love the idea of adding banned goodies on chronicles. Now all we we need are higher more CL items and I would be estatic.
I hate the idea. If it was good enough to be put on a chronicle sheet you may as well allow it in the first place. Better to put flavorful boons that don't take things away, but instead reward you and give you a memory for your experience.
Necklace is a pretty valuable slot.See the periapt of health (only 7,500 gp but protects against a slow-acting, rarely lethal affliction), periapt of proof against poison (protects against a fairly common condition that tends to hinder but not kill outright), and other items.Necklace of adaptation? That's 9k for immunity to two of the most famously powerful conjuration attacks, plus immunity to drowning and suffocation.
Yarr, tis your natural armor bonus slot(though I've never been a big fan of the slot based design, and there are occasionally other ways to get things. Like spells! All hail spellcasters dontcha' know.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Necklace is a pretty valuable slot.See the periapt of health (only 7,500 gp but protects against a slow-acting, rarely lethal affliction), periapt of proof against poison (protects against a fairly common condition that tends to hinder but not kill outright), and other items.Necklace of adaptation? That's 9k for immunity to two of the most famously powerful conjuration attacks, plus immunity to drowning and suffocation.
So are two points on armor's exponential price ladder. Also, the necklace can be used by anyone, not just by martials with middling AC.
|
When Mike and I discussed the enchantment, we decided that given the breadth of encounters in scenarios, the nature of some of these encounters, and our plans for the future, we would keep mind-buttressing off the list of Additional Resources until such a time as we see fit to include it on a Chronicle sheet or revisit its current status.I love the idea of adding banned goodies on chronicles. Now all we we need are higher more CL items and I would be estatic.I hate the idea. If it was good enough to be put on a chronicle sheet you may as well allow it in the first place. Better to put flavorful boons that don't take things away, but instead reward you and give you a memory for your experience.
Placing it on a chronicle sheet mean that the management decide at what level you will find it and in what form. AFAIK it will be a specific item, as (example) a +2 full plate of Mind buttressing that will be found only if you play at level 9+, not the ability to add Mind buttressing to any medium/heavy armor, made in whatever material you like.
|
|
Really? To me it seemed most people who GM and VO´s are sharing the opinion that it is either too strong and powerful or at least underpriced.GMs and VO's are more important? Always thought we were supposed to avoid elitism...
Now who's making a strawman?
He's clearly not saying anyone is better than anyone else, but saying that some of the people who might have a better-than-the-average amount of insight into the campaign (among them VOs and GMs with multiple stars) have mostly, if not entirely, voices the opinion that they think it is too overpowered or underpriced for the campaign.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I am fairly sure that fear is an ongoing mental effect which controls what you can or cannot do and so should be affected by the spindle.The clear spindle is not the end-all solution to everything. Fear and Confusion can still go through. Phantasmal Killer as well.Necklace is a pretty valuable slot.Although you could counter balance the loss of the necklace slot with an Ioun Stone and it's resonance.
Nope. The source of the fear does not get to exercise any sort of control over you or give you any commands. See the FAQ for further elaboration on how to tell if a given effect is included.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Same reason why Sleep/Deep Slumber and Confusion bypass it. It's an ongoing effect, but it works because after the spell is cast the magic is done and you are just left with a condition.That is not what the FAQ says. What is actually says is:
The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")It deals with sleep and confusion. I can see why both are included. Someone puts you to sleep with the sleep spell but nothing prevents someone from aking you back up. Confusion creates no absolute control over what you do it simply makes your actions random. Fear effects are simply not addressed by the FAQ.
Something like the Fear Spell very much has a duration. The magic is not done and the effect could be dispelled or removed with something like remove fear. It exercises ongoing control, preventing you from taking actions and cannot be removed by mundane methods like sleep can.
Well for starters, fear is not a charm or compulsion effect; it's a fear effect. So that disqualifies it right there.
Secondly, something like fear only controls you by making you run away in the same way that create pit "controls" you by forcing you to jump to the side. Yes, mechanically, your character is forced to take certain actions, but the caster isn't mentally forcing you to cower or run away; he or she is making you afraid, and your character chooses (albeit in an altered state of mind) to cower or run away in response to that emotion.
|
|
Same reason why Sleep/Deep Slumber and Confusion bypass it. It's an ongoing effect, but it works because after the spell is cast the magic is done and you are just left with a condition.That is not what the FAQ says. What is actually says is:
The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")It deals with sleep and confusion. I can see why both are included. Someone puts you to sleep with the sleep spell but nothing prevents someone from aking you back up. Confusion creates no absolute control over what you do it simply makes your actions random. Fear effects are simply not addressed by the FAQ.
So I fail to see a difference in me saying 'the magic is done and you are left with a condition (being asleep)', and you saying 'nothing prevents someone from waking you up because you are under no magical compulsion to continue sleeping'.
As far as Fear is concerned, you are more than welcome to rule it that way at your table if you want. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fear, though is a mind-controlling effect, it is not a charm or compulsion effect, or have them as a descriptor.. The spellcaster is not telling the person to run, but the person who is affected by the fear effect is thinking, "oh crap, this person is scary, better run away"
|
|
So I fail to see a difference in me saying 'the magic is done and you are left with a condition (being asleep)', and you saying 'nothing prevents someone from waking you up because you are under no magical compulsion to continue sleeping'.
As far as Fear is concerned, you are more than welcome to rule it that way at your table if you want. :)
The sleep spell does not force you to remain asleep. Anyone can wake you up. The fear spell keeps you frightened for its duration. Someone giving you a slap and telling you to get ahold of yourself will do nothing because the spell continues to force the condition on you for the duration.
It exercises ongoing control.
Ah, see I thought you were against my wording just on Sleep, not comparign the two. I see now.
In response...Confusion also forces you under the effects for the duration of the spell, yet still gets by. Also, the FAQ which you linked specifies it stops 'charm and compulsion' effects. Fear has neither keyword.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It exercises ongoing control.
No, it doesn't. Control implies the caster can give commands or somehow directly affect your actions. Fear is simply a condition that says you either take -2 to rolls (shaken), run away (frightened), or REALLY run away (panicked). The caster of cause fear has no control over you. The PLAYER still makes the decision of where to run to, for example.
|
|
The Protection from Evil spell needs to be errataed to explicitly state what the FAQ does, because they're contradictory in terminology and without knowing of the FAQs existence, I can't see how anyone would rule the spell the way it should be.
I'm not one of the people who refuse to admit when a new FAQ is actually an erratum, but in this case, I believe that I always ran it the way the FAQ says.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The Protection from Evil spell needs to be errataed to explicitly state what the FAQ does, because they're contradictory in terminology and without knowing of the FAQs existence, I can't see how anyone would rule the spell the way it should be.I'm not one of the people who refuse to admit when a new FAQ is actually an erratum, but in this case, I believe that I always ran it the way the FAQ says.
Indeed, I don't see any conflict between the spell text and the FAQ whatsoever.
|
|
Mh mind-affecting, mind control and ongoing controll are pretty different things. The "Peacemaker" feat uses that language too and there are examples for NOT ongoing control stated.
Your words of peace ring true and are much more difficult for others to resist.Prerequisites: Charisma 13, good alignment.
Benefit: The DC to resist spells you cast to ensure peace or force
aggressive creatures to become peaceful increases by +2. This
affects spells that dissuade creatures from aggressive actions
without exerting long-term or absolute control over them, and
without leaving them defenseless. These spells include, but are not
limited to, calm animals , calm emotions , command, compassionate
ally, enthrall, euphoric tranquility , sanctuary, and serenity .
I think some also confuse the word controll here as in something like battlefield controll. Protection from alignment prevents only direct action controll through an effect from that alignment.
|
Also the fear spell imposes the mind affecting Frightened condition on you for the duration. Burning Disarm doesnt prevent you from picking up your weapon, fear prevents you from taking actions.
I would like to echo that fear effects and mind-effecting effects in and of themselves do not innately "exercise mental control" over their subjects, in so far as the game mechanics of Pathfinder are concerned.
Human common sense might lead one to believe if you are made to do anything at all that you haven't chosen freely for yourself that you have been controlled, and while that is understandable, it is not quite in line with the game mechanics definition.
Game mechanics mental control refers specifically to effects that allow the employer to give instructions to the subject which will be obeyed to the best of it's ability/understanding.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure if it helps, but I evaluate the question of control from the perspective of the caster or the spell itself. Might sound weird, but spells like command, charm person, dominate, etc. allow the caster to exercise some level of control over the target by giving them instructions which they are, in varying degrees, compelled to follow. Hence, prot evil or the ioun stone will block those effects. Other spells like confusion, fear, etc. allow the spell to exercise the control. The caster is not the one influencing the target's decision making and therefore the wards do not function. My 2cp and YMMV :-)
|
|
I am not really in support of introducing an armour enchantment that picks up the entire Enchantment school of magic, stuffs it in a cardboard box, seals the box with masking tape, then deposits the box in the attic, never to be seen again.My response to you is are you also ok with a level 1 spell being able to seal up the conjuration school in a box as well? Because that's a situation that we have already.
What level 1 spell is this? certainly not Protection From Evil, It only interferes with Evil summons so Grease, Glitterdust, black tentacles, acid spray are all fine as are non evil summons like earth elementals and fiendish creatures(template does not alter alignment),