I hate "GM may I" interactions. Whenever I run into a situation where I'm told if I can come up with a cool background for it or I'm otherwise expected to tap into another person's head to justify something I want to do I just move on. It saves a lot of arguments and headaches and is not what I look for when I play Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd go a step further and say it helps new players as well. When they read something in the Core rules that clearly says they can do "X," and the DM turns around and says, "No; that's cheesy!", but at the same time lets them do "Y," it sends a mixed message, suggesting that the hobby consists of an arbitrary "mother-may-I" game with the DM, rather than an adventure game with clear-cut guidelines.
Clarifying rules issues like these helps new players and new DMs, and can only help encourage new people to stick with the hobby. Refusing to do so makes new players confused, leads new DMs to think they don't have the tools they need to do their job, and can discourage these new groups from playing.
IMHO: I have video games for when I want clear-cut rules. PF/D&D is the place I go when I prefer to have rulings.
I can't in skyrim equipped a cheese wheal in two hands and attempted to sunder my opponents weapon, but in PF I can. Sure the rules say (improvised weapon, sunder attempted), but a GM can go "the sword cuts your cheese in half" even though there is NO SUPPORT for that in RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the DM's gameFalse.There may be such games out there where the effort put out by the players is comparable to the work, expense, and time that the DM puts in, not to mention what the DM has to put up with it, I've yet to see any of them though.
A gaming table can generally survive the loss of one player. It's not going anywhere if it's the DM that walks.
PFS
The next GM will pick up where the last one left off.
Which bring up the philosophical question: "If a GM asks for initiative at a table with no players, is there an encounter?"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the DM's gameFalse.There may be such games out there where the effort put out by the players is comparable to the work, expense, and time that the DM puts in, not to mention what the DM has to put up with it, I've yet to see any of them though.
A gaming table can generally survive the loss of one player. It's not going anywhere if it's the DM that walks.
I can tell you that I definitely put the most work, time, and expense into the games I run, but that doesn't make them "my games."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't in skyrim equipped a cheese wheal in two hands and attempted to sunder my opponents weapon, but in PF I can. Sure the rules say (improvised weapon, sunder attempted), but a GM can go "the sword cuts your cheese in half" even though there is NO SUPPORT for that in RAW.
You haven't looked through mods enough, I see.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't in skyrim equipped a cheese wheal in two hands and attempted to sunder my opponents weapon, but in PF I can. Sure the rules say (improvised weapon, sunder attempted), but a GM can go "the sword cuts your cheese in half" even though there is NO SUPPORT for that in RAW.You haven't looked through mods enough, I see.
Like my video games need house-rules pfff or community DLC. *sarcasm*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the DM's gameFalse.There may be such games out there where the effort put out by the players is comparable to the work, expense, and time that the DM puts in, not to mention what the DM has to put up with it, I've yet to see any of them though.
A gaming table can generally survive the loss of one player. It's not going anywhere if it's the DM that walks.
PFS
The next GM will pick up where the last one left off.
Which bring up the philosophical question: "If a GM asks for initiative at a table with no players, is there an encounter?"
PFS--destroying traditional tabletop roleplay every single day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFS--destroying traditional tabletop roleplay every single day.It IS the DM's gameFalse.There may be such games out there where the effort put out by the players is comparable to the work, expense, and time that the DM puts in, not to mention what the DM has to put up with it, I've yet to see any of them though.
A gaming table can generally survive the loss of one player. It's not going anywhere if it's the DM that walks.
PFS
The next GM will pick up where the last one left off.
Which bring up the philosophical question: "If a GM asks for initiative at a table with no players, is there an encounter?"
PFS--destroying martial options left and right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the DM's gameFalse.There may be such games out there where the effort put out by the players is comparable to the work, expense, and time that the DM puts in, not to mention what the DM has to put up with it, I've yet to see any of them though.
A gaming table can generally survive the loss of one player. It's not going anywhere if it's the DM that walks.
I've seen gaming tables survive just fine when the GM throws a hissyfit over the players refusing to fawn over the length and girth of his metaphorical GM-penis. All it takes is one of the players being willing to take over the position, or knowing someone who would be.
Granted, it might mean a new campaign, but usually GMs don't ragequit in the middle of campaigns that were going along just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the DM's gameFalse.There may be such games out there where the effort put out by the players is comparable to the work, expense, and time that the DM puts in, not to mention what the DM has to put up with it, I've yet to see any of them though.
A gaming table can generally survive the loss of one player. It's not going anywhere if it's the DM that walks.
I've seen gaming tables survive just fine when the GM throws a hissyfit over the players refusing to fawn over the length and girth of his metaphorical GM-penis. All it takes is one of the players being willing to take over the position, or knowing someone who would be.
Granted, it might mean a new campaign, but usually GMs don't ragequit in the middle of campaigns that were going along just fine.
Happened to me. GM I was playing with for more than 3 years rage quit right in the middle of a game that was going well until about 20 minutes before he flipped his shiz. We moved the game to my house and I started to GM, only missed one session. That dude later tried to snipe players back from my game but no one trusted him. Our game is still going strong almost 2 years later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's more often player rage-quitting but it happens to DM's too.
But let's get back to Simulacrum, OK?
Ooh, I didn't think of that, good point, CWheezy.
Incidentally, has anyone actually used the spell to get wishes like that?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know... due to recent events I can't help but wonder that if people utilized simulacrum to get wishes in PFS and it became a "thing," then it'd be nerfed into the ground in a heartbeat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, has anyone actually used the spell to get wishes like that?
In 3.5 there were long essays written on how to restructure the entire economy of the campaign world to account for it.
James has given his opinion on both (non-rules-binding of course!) here:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qqqi&page=3?How-are-people-supposed-to-tal k-to-Paizo-exactly
“Simulacrum, in my opinion, is one of the best spells due to the possibilities for adventures it creates... and one of the worst spells due to the possibilities for player characters it creates! :-)
And here's my personal take on the scry & fry scene for folks to use in their games if they want:
It doesn't work. Scrying allows you to observe a creature, but teleportation requires you know a location. Scrying a creature isn't scrying a location, therefore you can't scry on a creature and then teleport to it.
It's all about semantics, but that's often enough to justify overruling an element of game play that was both never intended to be an option and that tends to lessen the fun of game play overall, in my opinion.”
A shame that tis will never get errated.
A shame that tis will never get errated.
Why not?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I wanted to be uncharitable I'd say "Because it's not a martial option".
If I wanted to be slightly nicer, "Because the Design Team doesn't see problems at high levels as being problems at all".
Ugh.
As a DM, I'd just say "no."
And that should end it.
Fascinating way to weave rules - but damn silly in the end.
Reminds me of the "bag of rats" cleave trick that allows a high level fighter to solo slay a great wyrm red dragon.
Also, another thing to just say "no" to and move the campaign session along.
Ugh.
As a DM, I'd just say "no."
And that should end it.
Fascinating way to weave rules - but damn silly in the end.
Reminds me of the "bag of rats" cleave trick that allows a high level fighter to solo slay a great wyrm red dragon.
Also, another thing to just say "no" to and move the campaign session along.
Well, yes. You make a point. But there's a couple problems. First some players will read of this "ugh" here and think it's perfectly Ok, thus leading to arguments. Next, too many debates here are predicated on assuming this actually works.
It's an easy fix.
Now that we have a new staffer and FAQs are being done, maybe this might get answered?
IIRC I think this is one of those things Mark said he would like to see fixed so it is most likely on their list, but I have no idea of where it is on the totem pole.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, has anyone actually used the spell to get wishes like that?In 3.5 there were long essays written on how to restructure the entire economy of the campaign world to account for it.
To be fair, if you're going to go restructuring the economy, you don't need simulacrum or wish to do it. Teleport and create food & water are more than enough. (See: Tippyverse.)
To be fair, if you're going to go restructuring the economy, you don't need simulacrum or wish to do it. Teleport and create food & water are more than enough. (See: Tippyverse.)Incidentally, has anyone actually used the spell to get wishes like that?In 3.5 there were long essays written on how to restructure the entire economy of the campaign world to account for it.
Good point.
IIRC I think this is one of those things Mark said he would like to see fixed so it is most likely on their list, but I have no idea of where it is on the totem pole.
Yes, but complicated questions/answers are usually on backburner they say. So less likely it will be answered.
Random question time...just what is the "Bag Of Rats" cleave trick that lets a high level fighter solo slay a great wyrm red dragon? if I might be so boldly curious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random question time...just what is the "Bag Of Rats" cleave trick that lets a high level fighter solo slay a great wyrm red dragon? if I might be so boldly curious.
Thanks!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Although in pathfinder, the feat you need is Improved Cleaving Finish, correct?
Correct. It's a total of 5 feats, Str 13, and BAB +6 for ICF, then another 5 feats, Dex and Int 13, and BAB +4 for Whirlwind Attack. Using a human fighter for bonus feats, that ends up as... three feats at level 1, and ten at level 8. You'd also need to raise two stats you don't usually want or need, costing precious points at chargen. Or a whole lot of gold for +Int headbands if you dump Int anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, 5e aside, I still think it would be cool to have some examples or rules of thumb to guide us in applying simulacrum to monsters with special or spell-like abilities in Pathfinder. The current rules certainly seem to leave 'appropriate' wide open with plenty of room for a FAQ to offer guidelines without contradicting anything - are there any legacy issues preventing a resolution here, of which I am unaware?
Well, 5e aside, I still think it would be cool to have some examples or rules of thumb to guide us in applying simulacrum to monsters with special or spell-like abilities in Pathfinder. The current rules certainly seem to leave 'appropriate' wide open with plenty of room for a FAQ to offer guidelines without contradicting anything - are there any legacy issues preventing a resolution here, of which I am unaware?
No. The sheer volume of monsters with SLAs, all of which would have to be considered, and the rarity with which Simulacrum is used, both make fixing Simulacrum an uneconomical use of time as compared to DMs banning it/using common sense to prevent players from unbalancing the game. There are bigger issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a rather easy fix. Heck, you can just say that Simulacrums dont get SLA.
|
Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent". This falls under "do you, as a DM, want this in your game".
You have two sides of viewing the rules, do the rules say "I can do it" and "is there no rule telling me I can't". As a player, insisting on the latter can cause serious friction and can be obnoxious. Without trying to get a game developer to give you an OK on it, the most important person to get an OK on it is the DM himself/herself. In my games, regardless of who chimed in or if there was a FAQ, this would get nixed. Other DMs I have played with would gladly allow it, with the notion that wishes are some of the most dangerous things you could ever do. They were brutal with interpreting wishes. Three chances a day to bring about the doom of your whole party and those around you, bring it on!
Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent". This falls under "do you, as a DM, want this in your game".
You have two sides of viewing the rules, do the rules say "I can do it" and "is there no rule telling me I can't". As a player, insisting on the latter can cause serious friction and can be obnoxious. Without trying to get a game developer to give you an OK on it, the most important person to get an OK on it is the DM himself/herself. In my games, regardless of who chimed in or if there was a FAQ, this would get nixed. Other DMs I have played with would gladly allow it, with the notion that wishes are some of the most dangerous things you could ever do. They were brutal with interpreting wishes. Three chances a day to bring about the doom of your whole party and those around you, bring it on!
Using the "safe" options of Wish is strong enough and honestly I've never seen a point to using greater effects. If you can't instantly win while using the safe options, that's not a problem with Wish.
Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent".
I dont know how often it occurs "in the wild". But several rather vocal and popular posters here have mentioned this many, many times as one of the reasons why spellcasters are over-powered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know how often it occurs "in the wild". But several rather vocal and popular posters here have mentioned this many, many times as one of the reasons why spellcasters are over-powered.Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent".
Sure? I guess?
But it's not one of the big reasons spellcasters are over-powered. If you think they are, anyway. There are about 100 things you can support the case with before rolling around to wishful thinking about wishes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know how often it occurs "in the wild". But several rather vocal and popular posters here have mentioned this many, many times as one of the reasons why spellcasters are over-powered.Something to think about here with this case regarding FAQ.
FAQ = Frequently Asked Questions.
Is this problem a frequent occurrence or is it a hedge case that has never really happened anywhere other than a musing mind. It doesn't really sound "Frequent".
Even disregarding sno-cone wish machines and just focusing on the fact that spell gives you a half leveled (or more if you are sneaky) copy of yourself is incredibly potent. This side effect also has the bonus of being the completely intended way of using the spell. Even if one were to completely disregard SLAs, there's a host of potent SU abilities you can get from simulacrums. I for example am a huge fan of Nocticula Simulacrums for Profane Ascension and as a means to remove mind-affecting immunity from enemies.
Spellcasters have many ways of getting free Wishes, sno-cone Wish machine is just the easiest. Outside of that there's Blood Money + Wish, Planar Binding, and for Wizards the True Name discovery. Technically that last one is probably the easiest source of free wishes but it is more limited then others.