The Waking Rune on Hard Mode - Wish Us Luck!


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:


I just want to point out that if you do follow the rules where she does her best to kill the party with her limited wishes it actually is mandatory. It's not hyperbole. If I know I can kill the party by parking a magicbane bandersnatch on their faces and she knows it in game choosing instead to fireball, black tentacles, or feeblemind is soft balling. The shortest most efficient route to a TPK is her goal. So yes, if you know of this and don't use it this is soft balling.

Hard facts are if there is an optimal tactic (and it's really hard to argue this isn't) then choosing not do do so is not running rules as written. By knowing about this you are in fact soft balling if you don't use it. I pride myself on being an arbiter of reality when I GM as such if it's possible f or the bad guy to shoot you in the head before you react he should do so. In this case calling in godzilla is far more powerful than anything else she can do. She is supposed to kill them if she can. She CAN KILL THEM so she is supposed to KILL them. This Kills them.

I have already quoted her tactics. I will quote them again.

Quote:
"Kurshu uses ranged spells to harm intruders, favoring any outsiders with her attacks. If an outsider dies, Kurshu eagerly feeds on its corpse to regain her lost strength. Otherwise she is flexible in her tactics and uses her mobility, spells, and abilities to best effect."

Not her tactics:

- Kurshu uses optimal tactics as decided by a crowdsourced messageboard thread.
- She follows the shortest, most efficient route to a TPK
- She summons a bandersnatch
- She uses the exact same tactics regardless of what challenges her

I believe that using her flexible-by-design tactics to do different things follows the rules as written a lot more than using the exact same tactic every time she is engaged in combat.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Yes and the Choice for the GM was to take it to impossible mode. Limited wish to cast simulacrum I maintain is outside the rules and more powerful then the spells intent. The problem is the way people were killed not that they were killed.

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Yes and the Choice for the GM was to take it to impossible mode. Limited wish to cast simulacrum I maintain is outside the rules and more powerful then the spells intent. The problem is the way people were killed not that they were killed.

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

Because there is 1 gm and 4-6 players and GMs should be held to a higher standard. To even suggest it is okay to be blood thirsty and use less then honest tactics because 1 of your players might have cheesy grey zone build is insane.

Sounds like for you it is players vs gm not players vs the adventure

5/5

FiddlersGreen wrote:
Undone wrote:
Wraithkin wrote:
Undone wrote:
Also just as a note I don't care about this specific session. It's of little/no concern to me. What I care about is the broader implications of this. If you can do this so can I, and I will, on both sides of the screen.
Good news, I wasn't actually at any point addressing you. I'm also not the GM that ran this game.

I was following this thread fairly closely earlier I just felt I should clarify that point.

I've no problem with krune ** spoiler omitted ** permakilling them. I've only got a problem because this is an absurd silly way to die that shouldn't be legal, ever.

By RAW, would a 5PP body-retrieval service be able to bring the body back to the society from that location? XD

I am not certain there would be anything left to return. You would also lose all of your gear which at this level is the more difficult issue.

Silver Crusade

andreww wrote:
FiddlersGreen wrote:
Undone wrote:
Wraithkin wrote:
Undone wrote:
Also just as a note I don't care about this specific session. It's of little/no concern to me. What I care about is the broader implications of this. If you can do this so can I, and I will, on both sides of the screen.
Good news, I wasn't actually at any point addressing you. I'm also not the GM that ran this game.

I was following this thread fairly closely earlier I just felt I should clarify that point.

I've no problem with krune ** spoiler omitted ** permakilling them. I've only got a problem because this is an absurd silly way to die that shouldn't be legal, ever.

By RAW, would a 5PP body-retrieval service be able to bring the body back to the society from that location? XD
I am not certain there would be anything left to return. You would also lose all of your gear which at this level is the more difficult issue.

A wish got them there I would allow a wish to be used for corpse retrieval. "I wish to have the body of Needza Naim with all his gear to materialize before me as he was before he was wished away."

The only way you can't get a 5pp retrieval is not having the PP.


Dear J, (Velsa-IronRage)

I am unsure if it is I you were talking about being the one on the couch expressing my displeasure. I am Ian. I remember a game in which we came together to test impossibilities. Revenge for some of our prior defeats at the hand of Krune. To play something we were very likely not succeed at, yet have a good time doing so with the company of fellow Pathfinders (The true reward). We had laughs and joy in the intro. We almost got that dava to join without pay! For the greater good of course (I and my character are CG). If only she had at a bite of that cookie! :cough: wafer :cough:. They were tasty.

I did have a conversation on the sofa with my fellows after their demise, but none of that had to do with the game. We chatted of plays, people on stage. The things on our minds and of things that made us happy. I came to the game to play with my friends and play with them I did.

I think the game was ran correctly and fairly. Does that mean there will be vast differences between judge to judge? Yes, of course! It is the same with all scenarios. So we got an excellent GM that knows what she is doing. Well good. The more I know, the better I know how to build.

Should such a hyper variable be included into PFS in the future scenarios? I don't know. It appears to cause some dissent, but it also proves more of a challenge. I'm there to be with people, not to win.

I can understand your frustration. I did not bring a melee fighter, which is normally my specialty, to the fight. After hearing others were not bringing their A-game-characters I decided to do the same. I expected death as no less. To quote myself in response to the game inquiry sent to me by a venture officer ". . . I thought we were all on the same page of 'we came, we saw, we died, we laughed about it over a pint.' If our party comp was different we could have stood a chance, but we happened to be mostly casters in an AMF."

I have no doubt we would have wrecked it if we brought our A game.

In the future chat with me about it before posting how you thought I felt, if it is me you were talking about.

-Guy on the couch.

Edit: "if we brought our A game".

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I managed to avoid most of the spoilers regarding the scenario, but the question seems to boil down to: "Can limited wish as a SLA be used to open pandoras box and replicate simularcrum, to create a variant creature without increasing the casting time ?"

I doubt in on a number of levels, but the real question is always should you do so. GMs are empowered to limit unclear player abilities (let's say the designers forgot to print a X times per day limit), and have to deal with the ramifications of a number of intentionally vague rules.

In this case while there is a slim chance that this turns out to be RAW and RAI (we will likely never get a FAQ to this specific issue) I think adding a such a creature to an encounter like this seems like overkill, after all unless I am missing something the new creature could solo most adventure paths fights to completion ... including rise of the runelords.

So yeah this is exactly the same issue as players using simulcarum to get infinite castings of wish.

Pretty pointless to argue that particular issue, but some video games with dungeon creation force the designer to complete the dungeon at least once, and frankly this would likely result in a TPK 99 % of the time.

In this case the GM presented the players with a situation they could not overcome, and while bad preparation and party composition can sometimes result in such an outcome, this tactic seems to actively negate any amount of preparation.

Without knowing what exactly was discussed before the game began, I am unwilling to unfairly judge any participant (not that anybody would care ), but I am willing to say, that this kind of tactic is quite appalling to me, on either side of the table.

It might be my admittedly limited experience with PFS, but it feels like the scenarios are quite challenging when it comes to the preparation and rules mastery required of the players, and consequently many players tend to grab every advantage they can get.

Not sure how to feel about that in this context. I have no problems when MMOs do it, but the consequences for failure are usually much more limited. I really like the hard mode concept for scenarios, since it is a very optional system.

Oh well, it seems most of the players at this table were happy with the result, and no character permanently died, I guess that is a result.

The Exchange 4/5

READ, Read I did. do I think it was an illegal option, maybe. it is highly gray. BUT, YES BUT- after reading everything I am OK with it in this case. Why because, 4 of 6 players had prior knowledge of scenario. With this party spent 13,000 on buffs with that knowledge in mind. Than there is the statement "We want Hard Mode" "but will bring B team". She had to search for a way to challenge the group and did. I think A team PC's would have still took damage and some deaths but would have survived and gone on.
Would like a FAQ that makes this illegal use of Limited Wish. but having read the Rules thread on this. I think this maybe the only spell to ban because it is a HUGE Gray area just to use normally.

Liberty's Edge

Fine mort. 1/2 the table was upset. It didnt seem that way when you immediately left the table and made a comment about being pounced straight to dead. Fine i get it. I am done arguing it and i will just have to either quit pfs altogether, drive an extra 30 mins to play somewhere else, or avoid this gm and those who posted's tables. More then likely it will mean that h and i + friends will stop pfs.

I cant imagine a team that could take at lvl 11 a ac 33 beast with antimagic aura with 15 reach who can hit anywhere in the room by climbing on the walls.

If you can show me a reasonable group i will even concede that it was hard not impossible.

Liberty's Edge

Jeff Morse wrote:

READ, Read I did. do I think it was an illegal option, maybe. it is highly gray. BUT, YES BUT- after reading everything I am OK with it in this case. Why because, 4 of 6 players had prior knowledge of scenario. With this party spent 13,000 on buffs with that knowledge in mind. Than there is the statement "We want Hard Mode" "but will bring B team". She had to search for a way to challenge the group and did. I think A team PC's would have still took damage and some deaths but would have survived and gone on.

Would like a FAQ that makes this illegal use of Limited Wish. but having read the Rules thread on this. I think this maybe the only spell to ban because it is a HUGE Gray area just to use normally.

Those replaying only had knowledge of the first 10 feet last time. They all died. So it really is a moot point they were replaying it because none of the buffs were direct at the first fight they had ie avoid meta gaming.

Second the gm also knew the group makeup for more then a year. So this creature by the same token wad meta against the group

I maintain show me the reasonable a team that could have won this fight and i will concede the point. Look up magicbane bandersnatch 1/2 its hit points and remember you are goung to have to reach 15 up a wall with no magic items to hit it.

Lantern Lodge

Velsa-IronRage wrote:
I cant imagine a team that could take at lvl 11 a ac 33 beast with antimagic aura with 15 reach who can hit anywhere in the room by climbing on the walls.

The antimagic is the real problem. Without it, that creature could easily be stomped by optimized lvl 11 characters.

With it, it would still be possible to defeat, but we would be talking niche parties built to face such things. A group of big game hunter gunslingers or the like.


My concern is if limited wish can always stand in as a standard action simulacrum then this encounter is whatever her knowledge arcana can dream up. There are a lot of things at CR 20 or below and there is no way a party can handle all of them no matter how well prepped or diverse it is.

Lantern Lodge

Andrew Christian wrote:
Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

You're point is well taken.

That said, I think you should keep in mind that the player's have a narrowly defined level spectrum from which to draw their resources. Sure, they may choose to employ gray areas or perfectly white areas that just stack together into ridiculous synergy or numbers, but they are always within the perimeter of that spectrum. A CR 12 foe making them fight a CR 20 (with antimagic no less) is well outside of it's level spectrum.

Just something to consider.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

For the sake of discussion, I was just trying to create a half HD version of the Bandersnatch for the sake of comparison (Hero Lab doesn't help, since reducing HD is not implemented .. and for the simulacrumissue.. we don't really have concrete rules for that) and even if you take the time to recalculate the attacks (it is losing 12 HD..) unless the creature is attacking an animal companion in plate armor, it will pretty much hit most of the time.

I guess the DM took the time to create a statblock for it, but it only really matters if the party has a chance to deal with it. Two zen archers, maybe a couple of pet classes and or swashbucklers, yeah with a lot of lucky dice rolls, they could beat that creature....of course that just leaves the creator.

It all boils down to this line in the simulacrum spell.

Simulacrum wrote:

Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

In this specific case, the creature would lose BAB, saves, feats and hp - other areas like natural armor and special abilities are not covered...

Liberty's Edge

Zen archer with out any bonuses from magic item reasonably has + 16 on first 2 attacks 5 wis 9 bab 1 weapons focus. You still need a 17. And that is niche. In 30 months of play i have seen 2 zen archers.

Swashbuckler also cant reach it.

5/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

For the sake of discussion, I was just trying to create a half HD version of the Bandersnatch for the sake of comparison (Hero Lab doesn't help, since reducing HD is not implemented .. and for the simulacrumissue.. we don't really have concrete rules for that) and even if you take the time to recalculate the attacks (it is losing 12 HD..) unless the creature is attacking an animal companion in plate armor, it will pretty much hit most of the time.

I guess the DM took the time to create a statblock for it, but it only really matters if the party has a chance to deal with it. Two zen archers, maybe a couple of pet classes and or swashbucklers, yeah with a lot of lucky dice rolls, they could beat that creature....of course that just leaves the creator.

It all boils down to this line in the simulacrum spell.

Simulacrum wrote:

Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

In this specific case, the creature would lose BAB, saves, feats and hp - other areas like natural armor and special abilities are not covered...

I've stayed out of this...but special abilities are specifically covered in the part you bolded about the spell. I don't know as a 10HD~11HD creature should appropriately have a permanent spell effect of a 6th level spell...

IMO there are several VERY gray areas about this tactic, and I'll leave it at that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lormyr wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
I cant imagine a team that could take at lvl 11 a ac 33 beast with antimagic aura with 15 reach who can hit anywhere in the room by climbing on the walls.
The antimagic is the real problem. Without it, that creature could easily be stomped by optimized lvl 11 characters.

Indeed. Although a demilich wailing or an aura from the great old one simulacrum would be just as problematic.

Spoiler:
d10 Hit Die.
Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression).
Good Fortitude and Reflex saves.
Skill points equal to 2 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit Die. The following are class skills for magical beasts: Acrobatics, Climb, Fly, Perception, Stealth, Swim.

Quote:
In this specific case, the creature would lose BAB, saves, feats and hp - other areas like natural armor and special abilities are not covered...

Natural armor for a CR 8 must fit this part of the spell or not be legal.

Quote:
and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD

As such it should have a CR 8 worth of stats. Technically by RAI it shouldn't have the AMF since it's below level 11.

Quote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

"They're terrible people that ruin my 4 hours I should ruin their 40 hour character."

Retaliation is not a good option and if you were in my area that attitude would be so alarming I'd message Mike.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Velsa-IronRage wrote:

Zen archer with out any bonuses from magic item reasonably has + 16 on first 2 attacks 5 wis 9 bab 1 weapons focus. You still need a 17. And that is niche. In 30 months of play i have seen 2 zen archers.

Swashbuckler also cant reach it.

Well I think we both understand that I am grasping at straws here, it is a very nasty encounter.

Without knowing the layout of the room, they should be able to get at least soft cover (or eat the AOOs/opportune parry them) and throw daggers (with their precision damage, not a bad option).

My point is that you could craft a party that could deal with this situation, but that would only be an intellectual exercise at this point. As created this encounter will devastate 99 % of all parties.

Kevin Ingle wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

For the sake of discussion, I was just trying to create a half HD version of the Bandersnatch for the sake of comparison (Hero Lab doesn't help, since reducing HD is not implemented .. and for the simulacrumissue.. we don't really have concrete rules for that) and even if you take the time to recalculate the attacks (it is losing 12 HD..) unless the creature is attacking an animal companion in plate armor, it will pretty much hit most of the time.

I guess the DM took the time to create a statblock for it, but it only really matters if the party has a chance to deal with it. Two zen archers, maybe a couple of pet classes and or swashbucklers, yeah with a lot of lucky dice rolls, they could beat that creature....of course that just leaves the creator.

It all boils down to this line in the simulacrum spell.

Simulacrum wrote:

Simulacrum creates an illusory duplicate of any creature. The duplicate creature is partially real and formed from ice or snow. It appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD). You can't create a simulacrum of a creature whose HD or levels exceed twice your caster level. You must make a Disguise check when you cast the spell to determine how good the likeness is. A creature familiar with the original might detect the ruse with a successful Perception check (opposed by the caster's Disguise check) or a DC 20 Sense Motive check.

In this specific case, the creature would lose BAB, saves, feats and hp - other areas like natural armor and special abilities are not covered...

I've stayed out of this...but special abilities are specifically covered in the part you bolded about the spell. I don't know as a 10HD~11HD creature should appropriately have a permanent spell effect of a 6th level spell...

IMO...

Yeah sorry about that, I meant to write that we have no explicit rules for special abilities, we do have appropriate charts for something like damage and natural armor, but scaling something like special abilities.. simply can'T be done via chart.

Unfortunately that discussion doesn't help, since I doubt that the GM chose that monster as simulacrum, only to scale it properly ( that antimagic effect would be the very first thing I would downgrade, maybe to a high CR/spell immunity/spell turning effect).

I would love to see the final stats the GM used, but I could not in all good conscience suggest for that person to post them here... no matter his version, someone will not be very happy with it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

2 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

Trollbill I agree wholeheartedly with that statement, but I have to add something.

Once the cheese reaches a certain level it negatively affects other players, scenarios get harder, DCs rise, and their contribution to the overall scenario success becomes minuscule. There is a very good reason why I actively decided against taking the slumber hex with the characters that have access to it...

However GMs can't play that particular game of escalation, since they have all the advantages, and have the responsibility to maintain a healthy play environment.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Undone wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

You are the first table I have ever heard of encountering a bandersnatch simulacrum in this scenario.

Were all those other tables (my own play through included) 'run wrong'?

I've heard of other TPK's in the Kurshu encounter using a different tactic for limited wish.
Have you heard of another group which survived a magicbane bandersnatch?

No. But why does that matter? They were playing hard mode. GM made a choice.

End of story.

Indeed. The GM made a choice.

As long as the GM takes responsibility for that choice, and doesn't try to use excuses like 'the scenario said best use' and 'it isn't against the rules to use a magicbane bandersnatch' to imply he didn't have alternatives, I'm fine with it. I make decisions about how to handle scenarios every time I run. Sometimes those decisions lead to or away from TPKs. And obviously, I would have made a decision away from this particular TPK. Perhaps towards another one, perhaps not.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.

A number of posters are remarking on the 'several grey area' rulings on this tactic, which I want to spell out for those catching up. (For the purposes of this post I'm ignoring whether it ever should be used, and also ignoring the flagrant meta-gaming.)

1. The use of limited wish to cast simulacrum. Limited wish can, among other things, "duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower" or "duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower." Simulacrum is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell, but also appears on the summoner list as a 5th level spell--thus the argument that limited wish can be used to duplicate simulacrum. However, there are two problems with that. First, simulacrum is not a "non-sorcerer/wizard spell" because it is a sorcerer/wizard spell of 7th level. (As an aside, I might be willing to accept the use of a spell that appears on the, say, cleric spell list at lower level than the sorcerer/wizard spell list on account of the fact that a divine spell is fundamentally different from an arcane spell in a way that a magus spell is not different from a sorcerer/wizard spell.) Second, limited wish also specifies that it can "produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" (emphasis added), meaning that there is a RAI ceiling on the power level of limited wish, which simulacrum obviously breaks. To me, at least, this makes the tactic illegal all by itself.

2. The reduction of simulacrum's 12-hour casting time to a single standard action. Limited wish states that it "duplicates any [spell]..." but it does not state that it "duplicates the effects of any [spell]..." which makes the reduction to a standard action a little dubious. Furthermore, limited wish calls out which elements of the duplicated spell change: "A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save DC is for a 7th-level spell." It says nothing about altering the casting time. There are other, lengthy threads on the legality of this so I'll just stop there.

3. The elimination of the material component. Limited wish has a material component of a diamond worth 1,500 gp, which Kurshu doesn't need because it's cast as a spell-like ability rather than simply cast as a spell. So good so far. However, limited wish states that "when a limited wish spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 1,000 gp, you must provide that component (in addition to the 1,500 gp diamond component for this spell)," meaning the 10,000 gp of powdered rubies required for a magicbane bandersnatch must ordinarily be provided as part of the limited wish. Remember, limited wish duplicates the spell, not the effects of the spell, so this also becomes a bit of a stretch. Out of all the stretches in this, though, this is the one I'm most willing to buy.

4. That Kurshu even knows of magicbane bandersnatches. This is plain and simple a Knowledge (Arcana) check. However, the Core Rulebook states that for "particularly rare" creatures, "the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more" (emphasis added). Since normal bandersnatches are "rare in the extreme," thus requiring the higher DC check to have knowledge of them, knowledge of a variant bandersnatch should be even more rare. If I was the GM, this check would be DC 20 + CR, or DC 40 in the case of a magicbane bandersnatch. This DC is outside of Kurshu's take 10, which, as Walter has pointed out, she cannot do anyway. A roll would therefore be required, a roll at which Kurshu would fail more often than not.

5. That a simulacrum rendering of a magicbane bandersnatch retains the antimagic field aura of an ordinary magicbane bandersnatch. Simulacrum states that the created creature "appears to be the same as the original, but it has only half of the real creature's levels or HD (and the appropriate hit points, feats, skill ranks, and special abilities for a creature of that level or HD)." There are several considerations that, to me, clearly indicate that the replica magicbane bandersnatch would not have the antimagic field aura of a normal magicbane bandersnatch. First, if everything is cut strictly in half, the normal aura of 20ft should be cut to 10ft, substantially changing the tactical situation during that particular encounter. Second, antimagic field is, at its lowest, a 6th level spell with a radius of 10ft, and having a constant effect over a larger area is rather out of line for an 11 HD creature. Third, the magicbane aura is what grants the bandersnatch a higher CR--thus this should be one of the first special abilities lost when the creature's overall efficacy is cut in half by the simulacrum spell.

And there you have it. I think it's pretty clear that this was not legal.

Liberty's Edge

May Contain Meerkats wrote:

A number of posters are remarking on the 'several grey area' rulings on this tactic, which I want to spell out for those catching up. (For the purposes of this post I'm ignoring whether it ever should be used, and also ignoring the flagrant meta-gaming.)

1. The use of limited wish to cast simulacrum. Limited wish can, among other things, "duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower" or "duplicate any non-sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower." Simulacrum is a 7th level sorcerer/wizard spell, but also appears on the summoner list as a 5th level spell--thus the argument that limited wish can be used to duplicate simulacrum. However, there are two problems with that. First, simulacrum is not a "non-sorcerer/wizard spell" because it is a sorcerer/wizard spell of 7th level. (As an aside, I might be willing to accept the use of a spell that appears on the, say, cleric spell list at lower level than the sorcerer/wizard spell list on account of the fact that a divine spell is fundamentally different from an arcane spell in a way that a magus spell is not different from a sorcerer/wizard spell.) Second, limited wish also specifies that it can "produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" (emphasis added), meaning that there is a RAI ceiling on the power level of limited wish, which simulacrum obviously breaks. To me, at least, this makes the tactic illegal all by itself.

2. The reduction of simulacrum's 12-hour casting time to a single standard action. Limited wish states that it "duplicates any [spell]..." but it does not state that it "duplicates the effects of any [spell]..." which makes the reduction to a standard action a little dubious. Furthermore, limited wish calls out which elements of the duplicated spell change: "A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal, but the save...

As stated by a few of those at the game they maintain that it is legal. So unless we get a FAQ...

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
As stated by a few of those at the game they maintain that it is legal.

For their table. Not for mine.

Liberty's Edge

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
As stated by a few of those at the game they maintain that it is legal.
For their table. Not for mine.

Sadly Arizona is a 4-6 hour drive.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Velsa-IronRage wrote:
As stated by a few of those at the game they maintain that it is legal.
For their table. Not for mine.

I already talked to my VC to make sure he wouldn't allow it (Because we think it's insane) and from what it looks like in this thread most VO's would say it doesn't work.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

My reply was not indicative of my GM style. After all, despite it being a TPK for you and your friends, you know I did my best to not be adversarial when I ran you through this scenario.

But Bonekeep and Hardmode sets a particular social contract. It is more adversarial by its very nature, and as such, you find the GMs getting extra creatice and pulling out all stops in deadly tactics.

The warnings are clear. And in this particular situation the GM made it abundantly clear what they were getting into.

The fact they got exactly what the GM promised and were unpleasantly surprised is not the GMs fault.

Liberty's Edge

Andrew Christian wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

My reply was not indicative of my GM style. After all, despite it being a TPK for you and your friends, you know I did my best to not be adversarial when I ran you through this scenario.

But Bonekeep and Hardmode sets a particular social contract. It is more adversarial by its very nature, and as such, you find the GMs getting extra creatice and pulling out all stops in deadly tactics.

The warnings are clear. And in this particular situation the GM made it abundantly clear what they were getting into.

The fact they got exactly what the GM promised and were unpleasantly surprised is not the GMs fault.

There is a confusion between hardmode and impossible. I played bonekeep 1 and there was the same contract and yet nothing even in the same city let alone the same ballpark as this.

Secondly It gives you the hard mode changes in the guide. These reduction have been removed these things have been added. This tactic is not specific to hard mode.

A good example to this is... I want to work out extra hard today so I am going to go on the treadmill and change the mode to hard work out. So in your case you asked for hard mode so the treadmill now starts the speed at the record of the fastest man in the world... 1 in 6 billion could run that fast but it is ok... you deserve it you asked for hard mode.


Andrew Christian wrote:


But Bonekeep and Hardmode sets a particular social contract. It is more adversarial by its very nature, and as such, you find the GMs getting extra creatice and pulling out all stops in deadly tactics.

The warnings are clear. And in this particular situation the GM made it abundantly clear what they were getting into.

The fact they got exactly what the GM promised and were unpleasantly surprised is not the GMs fault.

Can you explain to me what hard mode has to do with this?

Does normal mode strip her of limited wish?*

Does low tier strip her of limited wish?*

Does low tier 4 player strip her of limited wish?**

So can you please explain to me what if anything makes hard mode matter about this question?

*It doesn't
**It does

Sovereign Court

Hard mode removes some negative levels and decreases the impact of other debuffs. It does not change tactics.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Andrew Christian wrote:
trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

Players use gray areas all the time to build nearly unbeatable monstrosities and RAW is thrown in the GM's faces all the time that they have no choice but to deal with it.

I'll leave that comment stand as is.

And here we see the basic flaw in adversarial GMing philosophy. The assumption that, because some players have sometimes been abusive to GMs, then GMs have a right to be abusive to all players.

Don't get me wrong. I can certainly understand the frustration of having to deal with unstoppable cracked out characters. But that doesn't mean GMs have the right to take out that frustration on everyone else.

My reply was not indicative of my GM style. After all, despite it being a TPK for you and your friends, you know I did my best to not be adversarial when I ran you through this scenario.

My comment was directed against the philosophy that your comment is indicative of. It was not a direct accusation. I will admit, though, that at least on these forums, you seem to come off as more player hostile than when I actually played under you. But, then again, this is the internet and everyone comes off as more hostile then they do in person.

Spoiler:
I finally got around to GMing the Waking Rune myself. Heaven knows I made some mistakes in GMing because there are a huge amount of rules to keep track of, but you might want to brush up on the rules for Dancing Weapons before you run this again.:-)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then it sounds like the GM softballed you. could have cast three magicbane bandersnatches.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually it sounds like the GM made a mistake by misinterpreting the rules. It happens, but we should seek to discourage further use of this tactic rather than excuse it.

Even though hard mode is designed to be hard, I'm unsure if the point is to create tactics difficult to the point where it's not possible, or at least highly unlikely, to succeed. But if someone wants to run their game like that, that's between them and their player base.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

It is likely I missed the 4 round thing on the dancing aspect. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't, the weapon had special effects that made its dancing property act differently.

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Andrew Christian wrote:
It is likely I missed the 4 round thing on the dancing aspect. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't, the weapon had special effects that made its dancing property act differently.

Okay, reeeally getting off topic here but:

Dancing Weapons have to stay in the square of the guy who activated them. You had it fly out and engage my Gunslinger.

Dancing Weapons can't make Attacks of Opportunity while they're dancing. You had it disarm my Gunslinger with an AoO.

I point this out solely because I know you want to be fair to your players and feel you would appreciate this being pointed out for future reference, not because I have any hard feelings about it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Andrew Christian wrote:
Then it sounds like the GM softballed you. could have cast three magicbane bandersnatches.

Actually, Velsa mentioned that the witch managed to get a slumber hex off before the second limited wish was cast, and then the bandersnatch cut the witch off again with its aura.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

trollbill wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
It is likely I missed the 4 round thing on the dancing aspect. If I remember correctly, and it's possible I don't, the weapon had special effects that made its dancing property act differently.

Okay, reeeally getting off topic here but:

Dancing Weapons have to stay in the square of the guy who activated them. You had it fly out and engage my Gunslinger.

Dancing Weapons can't make Attacks of Opportunity while they're dancing. You had it disarm my Gunslinger with an AoO.

I point this out solely because I know you want to be fair to your players and feel you would appreciate this being pointed out for future reference, not because I have any hard feelings about it.

Oh, I do appreciate it. Helps me with further Rules Fu for later. So thank you.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

...we just disrupted the limited wish...

Liberty's Edge

Limited Wish is in the Core book which was before Summoner spells were published, Summoner spells are similar enough to Wizard / Sorcerer spells they would have likely been included as forbidden in the spell description had they existed at the time.

Scarab Sages

Hey Velsa. The higher ups sent you an email saying that what they did was legal, right?

Scarab Sages

Cuz I thought you said it was legal. If it IS legal why are you waiting on FAQ?

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

It's generally legal for me, as a GM, to decide to have my NPCs hit a PC that falls unconscious in combat, rather than switching to an alternate target. But most of the time I will choose not to do that. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you should expect it to be done every time.

Factors that go into that decision include:

  • Is there a reasonable alternate target?
  • Do the stated tactics make killing PCs an explicit goal?
  • Is there a PC who can heal/channel, or can an unconscious enemy safely be ignored?
  • ... and so on

Sovereign Court

Muja wrote:
Cuz I thought you said it was legal. If it IS legal why are you waiting on FAQ?

You may have missed a substantial amount of posts pointing out why it isn't legal.

Also, no devs were consulted, just VOs.

Scarab Sages

No, I he said

"After going up the chain with a complaint I received the recommendations for the game.

It appears to be a legal tactic to do this to your players which to me is disheartening."

I'm wondering why he wants MORE from them when they already told him it was legal.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Muja wrote:
Cuz I thought you said it was legal. If it IS legal why are you waiting on FAQ?

You may have missed a substantial amount of posts pointing out why it isn't legal.

Also, no devs were consulted, just VOs.

Well as you may have noticed, I never make mistakes. Nevar.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muja wrote:

No, I he said

"After going up the chain with a complaint I received the recommendations for the game.

It appears to be a legal tactic to do this to your players which to me is disheartening."

I'm wondering why he wants MORE from them when they already told him it was legal.

I assume he want's a FAQ by the rules team that clarifies the situation with limited wish regarding spells with material components over 1000 GP, casting time, range an other factors.

Which would not be a bad thing.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Don't forget to add a ruling on what constitutes as a wizard/sorcerer and non-wizard/sorcerer spell, which is what partly caused this discussion here.

There is already another discussion about using limited wish to cast planeshift (level 7 on sorcerer/wizard, but 5 on the cleric list). This bit got added to that one as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Acedio wrote:
Muja wrote:
Cuz I thought you said it was legal. If it IS legal why are you waiting on FAQ?

You may have missed a substantial amount of posts pointing out why it isn't legal.

Also, no devs were consulted, just VOs.

Well as you may have noticed, I never make mistakes. Nevar.

When you fix a mistake it becomes an accident.

It's only a mistake when you refuse to correct it.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Damanta wrote:

Don't forget to add a ruling on what constitutes as a wizard/sorcerer and non-wizard/sorcerer spell, which is what partly caused this discussion here.

There is already another discussion about using limited wish to cast planeshift (level 7 on sorcerer/wizard, but 5 on the cleric list). This bit got added to that one as well.

Yeah, I think that particular situation (summoner was printed much later than the CRB) is the reason by dear hunter doesn't get early access to some druid spells.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Damanta wrote:

Don't forget to add a ruling on what constitutes as a wizard/sorcerer and non-wizard/sorcerer spell, which is what partly caused this discussion here.

There is already another discussion about using limited wish to cast planeshift (level 7 on sorcerer/wizard, but 5 on the cleric list). This bit got added to that one as well.

Yeah, I think that particular situation (summoner was printed much later than the CRB) is the reason by dear hunter doesn't get early access to some druid spells.

Yeah, even though it's partially mitigated by also getting the ranger spell list, but that's only good for early entry with a few spells. (1st level resist energy and 4th level animal growth are the only two that come to mind right now), and ofcourse getting lead blades for my melee hunter is awesome :).

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / The Waking Rune on Hard Mode - Wish Us Luck! All Messageboards