| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're asking a really good question, Dosgamer, and I can't answer it.
I know that at the moment, my 13th-level, 6th-tier PCs are considering attacking Nocticula instead of allowing her to continue her meddling ways. And they have a chance of beating her.
So four 15-point, non-optimized 13/6 PCs might be able to beat a CR 30/10 mythic demon lord.
That speaks poorly for the rest of my campaign.
But if they *didn't* have mythic?
I think the ridiculous demon lord auras (DC 45 Will save or gouge out your own eyes, no protective spells apply) make the fights impossible for non-mythic PCs.
Get rid of the auras, and I think a group of 20th-level PCs have an excellent chance of winning.
I'd like to think that 13th level characters couldn't beat a demon lord but I certainly wouldn't call it impossible. I was pretty sure that my PCs couldn't beat Shamira either but it never came up.
In terms for this AP; the PCs will have above average to way above average wealth that probably includes some artifacts.
Also I think that most people that suggest dropping mythic from the AP mean to drop mythic from the PCs only. The bad guys need all the help they can.
I'd like to think that 13th level characters couldn't beat a demon lord but I certainly wouldn't call it impossible. I was pretty sure that my PCs couldn't beat Shamira either but it never came up.
In terms for this AP; the PCs will have above average to way above average wealth that probably includes some artifacts.
Also I think that most people that suggest dropping mythic from the AP mean to drop mythic from the PCs only. The bad guys need all the help they can.
Oh, it's all "on paper" at the moment. *IF* the fighter and the sorceress could work out a way to get full-round actions on her before she acted, they could easily hit her for the 800+ points of damage necessary to "kill" her the first time. The "problem" is that they're extremely unlikely to beat her initiative, and if she gets an action, she's going to either fully heal herself, flee, or both.
So it's more of a, "What if?" situation: If the fighter and sorceress both beat Nocticula in initiative, they could combine to kill her before she got an action.
And she's supposedly more powerful than the final boss in the game.
What are things going to look like with 7 more levels and 4 more mythic tiers?
I shudder at the destruction that is coming.
Well you can't hurt other creatures during time stop, so maybe not?
Augmented Mythic Time Stop allows you to take a number creatures with you into the time stop. No save.
I think you're asking a really good question, Dosgamer, and I can't answer it.
I know that at the moment, my 13th-level, 6th-tier PCs are considering attacking Nocticula instead of allowing her to continue her meddling ways. And they have a chance of beating her.
There's a chance if they win initiative. If not, game over.
I'm a bit sad that your campaign didn't get to play with the redemptive side of meeting Nocticula. :)
Here's a thought, been thinking about running it on my own some time, but differently than how it was when I was a player.
I've not GM'd it previously, played in it though.
Run the AP with normal level characters, but when they hit level 20, use the suggestion in the CRB for XP beyond level 20 (so doubling basically). Each level they get above level 20, they get a level of mythic also. Because of the XP requirements, I doubt they are going to get super high mythic levels, but even then...the worst probably would mean the sixth book being a pushover and the others being decent without having to mess any with the stats in the books?
Thoughts?
|
I still don't understand why they at least tried not to do some optmizing on the npcs. I get that the design philosophy is that every AP has to be for complete noobs to the hobby. Yet in the case of this AP it was a huge mistake imo. It's not the best AP for both a novice DM and players to be introduced to the hobby. Second all they had to was put a disclaimer on every module that said "for experienced players and DMs only". It's bad enough the regular APs suffer from the npcs being underpowered. Im a Mythic one it's asking for trouble imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since WotR is under powered what about having a party made entirely of rogues:)
the first couple books might be a challenge, book four would be a blast!
I'd like to think that 13th level characters couldn't beat a demon lord but I certainly wouldn't call it impossible. I was pretty sure that my PCs couldn't beat Shamira either but it never came up.
In terms for this AP; the PCs will have above average to way above average wealth that probably includes some artifacts.
Also I think that most people that suggest dropping mythic from the AP mean to drop mythic from the PCs only. The bad guys need all the help they can.
Oh, it's all "on paper" at the moment. *IF* the fighter and the sorceress could work out a way to get full-round actions on her before she acted, they could easily hit her for the 800+ points of damage necessary to "kill" her the first time. The "problem" is that they're extremely unlikely to beat her initiative, and if she gets an action, she's going to either fully heal herself, flee, or both.
So it's more of a, "What if?" situation: If the fighter and sorceress both beat Nocticula in initiative, they could combine to kill her before she got an action.
And she's supposedly more powerful than the final boss in the game.
What are things going to look like with 7 more levels and 4 more mythic tiers?
I shudder at the destruction that is coming.
Why would she flee? Couldn't she just mind-control two characters (she can do one as a swift action) and then just have your party kill each other. Honestly, unless you roll a 20 on your will save, I don't know how you don't just get destroyed by her mind controlling as long as she gets even one turn.
Why would she flee? Couldn't she just mind-control two characters (she can do one as a swift action) and then just have your party kill each other. Honestly, unless you roll a 20 on your will save, I don't know how you don't just get destroyed by her mind controlling as long as she gets even one turn.I'd like to think that 13th level characters couldn't beat a demon lord but I certainly wouldn't call it impossible. I was pretty sure that my PCs couldn't beat Shamira either but it never came up.
In terms for this AP; the PCs will have above average to way above average wealth that probably includes some artifacts.
Also I think that most people that suggest dropping mythic from the AP mean to drop mythic from the PCs only. The bad guys need all the help they can.
Oh, it's all "on paper" at the moment. *IF* the fighter and the sorceress could work out a way to get full-round actions on her before she acted, they could easily hit her for the 800+ points of damage necessary to "kill" her the first time. The "problem" is that they're extremely unlikely to beat her initiative, and if she gets an action, she's going to either fully heal herself, flee, or both.
So it's more of a, "What if?" situation: If the fighter and sorceress both beat Nocticula in initiative, they could combine to kill her before she got an action.
And she's supposedly more powerful than the final boss in the game.
What are things going to look like with 7 more levels and 4 more mythic tiers?
I shudder at the destruction that is coming.
*IF* you ignore her "aura of cheesiness" (which you pretty much have to, since otherwise they can't attack her in the first place), then Protection from Evil makes you completely immune to her mind effects, and she doesn't have quickened dispelling to get rid of it.
We've always felt Protection from Evil was one of the cheesiest, most powerful spells in the game. In Wrath of the Righteous it's a game-breaker. I have to give all my bad guys Dispel Magic, which is similarly cheesy, but at least it gets me away from fights like the one where the "BBEG" was all about mind controlling PCs, and it was basically, "Well, the BBEG doesn't have Dispel Magic, and none of its abilities can affect you without it, so I guess it just runs away."
A bit more than anticlimactic.
EDIT: The text of the spell is pretty darned clear on this subject.
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
So it all boils down to another, "As a GM, do I just put in mooks that spam Dispel Magic in every fight, or do I just accept that my PCs are never going to get mind controlled?"
The answer is obviously a delicate balance: Not every fight should have dispelling mooks, but intelligent enemies who use mind control as one of their main attacks and who have studied the PCs should absolutely have such mooks.
Why would she flee? Couldn't she just mind-control two characters (she can do one as a swift action) and then just have your party kill each other. Honestly, unless you roll a 20 on your will save, I don't know how you don't just get destroyed by her mind controlling as long as she gets even one turn.I'd like to think that 13th level characters couldn't beat a demon lord but I certainly wouldn't call it impossible. I was pretty sure that my PCs couldn't beat Shamira either but it never came up.
In terms for this AP; the PCs will have above average to way above average wealth that probably includes some artifacts.
Also I think that most people that suggest dropping mythic from the AP mean to drop mythic from the PCs only. The bad guys need all the help they can.
Oh, it's all "on paper" at the moment. *IF* the fighter and the sorceress could work out a way to get full-round actions on her before she acted, they could easily hit her for the 800+ points of damage necessary to "kill" her the first time. The "problem" is that they're extremely unlikely to beat her initiative, and if she gets an action, she's going to either fully heal herself, flee, or both.
So it's more of a, "What if?" situation: If the fighter and sorceress both beat Nocticula in initiative, they could combine to kill her before she got an action.
And she's supposedly more powerful than the final boss in the game.
What are things going to look like with 7 more levels and 4 more mythic tiers?
I shudder at the destruction that is coming.
*IF* you ignore her "aura of cheesiness" (which you pretty much have to, since otherwise they can't attack her in the first place), then Protection from Evil makes you completely immune to her mind effects, and she doesn't have quickened dispelling to get rid of it.
We've always felt Protection from Evil was one of the cheesiest, most powerful spells in the game. In Wrath of the...
Ah, gotcha. I didn't ignore the aura of cheesiness, so even if my group wanted to fight, they pretty much had no shot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, gotcha. I didn't ignore the aura of cheesiness, so even if my group wanted to fight, they pretty much had no shot.
Nah, this was just a GM and a player BS'ing over a couple of beers (well, a beer for him and a gin & tonic for me) about whether mythic was so broken that a group of 13/6 PCs could take out a CR 30 enemy.
So my first point was, "You can't even attack her, so why bother?"
And he went on with, "Well, *if* we could..."
So just theorycrafting. Not an actual fight.
EDIT: And yes, I've read the, "What kind of man are you? What you drink describes who you are," and learned that a gin & tonic man is "boring".
And I was tickled pink, and decided it described me perfectly!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i wonder what Rum and Coke says, besides "Arrr! i mean to conquer the Briny Deep!"
or what Hard Root Beer says:)
great now theres another useless factoid i get to search out today:)
edit: turns out it says i'm a communist:-) time to load up my iTunes account with The Leningrad Cowboys
edit 2: wait, is communism the one where the many give all their stuff to the few for an unlimited supply of vodka, not sure how rum enters into the picture, mayhaps a better search is in order:)
edit 3: Mens Health is the place to look, not Cracked lol lesson learned:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i wonder what Rum and Coke says, besides "Arrr! i mean to conquer the Briny Deep!"
or what Hard Root Beer says:)great now theres another useless factoid i get to search out today:)
edit: turns out it says i'm a communist:-) time to load up my iTunes account with The Leningrad Cowboys
edit 2: wait, is communism the one where the many give all their stuff to the few for unlimited supply of vodka, not sure how rum enters into the picture, mayhaps a better search is in order:)
edit 3: mens health is the place to look, not Cracked lol lesson learned:)
LOL. Yeah, in my youth I was an avid communist/anarchist/libertarian, feeling, "Just leave people alone, and they'll be OK."
As I got older and more pessimistic, I learned that, on an individual basis, people are wonderful, beautiful, marvelous creatures. But as soon as 6 or more individuals identify themselves as a "group", they become the most vile, evil, sadistic tyrants ever imagined by the most twisted writings of the most deranged authors in history.
So I have very odd political views, based on the "individuals are wonderful, groups are monsters" viewpoint. Makes life interesting...
Aw, carp! Are we running off-topic yet again?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what does Scotch say about a chap?
And it's not a true tangent until yours truly joins in. ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
do you want the Cracked answer, or Mens Health? :)
Mens Health: you're all about projecting masculinity and want others to respect your authority
Cracked surprisingly did not cover Scotch:(
another site says you're either:
A) a Cop 3 days from retirement that just lost his partner, or....
B) you just walked out of a cliche 50s movie and are ready to kick some ass! (without spilling the scotch, of course:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what does Scotch say about a chap?
And it's not a true tangent until yours truly joins in. ;)
It absolutely depends on the scotch.
I'm a Dalwhinnie man, but we all already know I'm boring.
My wife will kill for an 18-year-old Ardbeg.
Lagavulin also evaporates from our house at an alarming rate...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You claim to be boring, but you're also part of my dream Paizo Forum Pathfinder RPG Team I'd GM for. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You claim to be boring, but you're also part of my dream Paizo Forum Pathfinder RPG Team I'd GM for. ;)
LOL. I think I make *most* teams!
My idea of a fantastic 3-day weekend:
- Clean the house, do the laundry, and get a few repairs done.
- Buy $300 worth of high-end alcohol for my friends.
- Spend 5-6 hours cooking a vast amount of good eats. (And another $200 down the tubes...)
- Spend 10 hours prepping a fantastic game.
- Run a 2-day gaming marathon where my players end up fat and comatose on booze and great food, until I have to have them hauled away by Uber, and their only recollection of the weekend is, "Great game, man!"
Yeah. I'm a mini Las Vegas.
(But don't try to get married here. The kids'll just mess up your wedding.)
You can get married at my place, I did:)
my dad is a Quaker minister
it was 87 degrees and I wore a Hawaiian shirt:)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can get married at my place, I did:)
my dad is a Quaker minister
it was 87 degrees and I wore a Hawaiian shirt:)
At least it wasn't 87 degrees with you in an annuraaq and parka.
Yeah, my brother and his friend got themselves ordained as ministers as a drunken joke. For some reason, my wife psychically *knew* the moment I imagined having one of them marry us, and there was a big, fat, "NO!" in her eyes...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You claim to be boring, but you're also part of my dream Paizo Forum Pathfinder RPG Team I'd GM for. ;)LOL. I think I make *most* teams!
My idea of a fantastic 3-day weekend:
- Clean the house, do the laundry, and get a few repairs done.
- Buy $300 worth of high-end alcohol for my friends.
- Spend 5-6 hours cooking a vast amount of good eats. (And another $200 down the tubes...)
- Spend 10 hours prepping a fantastic game.
- Run a 2-day gaming marathon where my players end up fat and comatose on booze and great food, until I have to have them hauled away by Uber, and their only recollection of the weekend is, "Great game, man!"Yeah. I'm a mini Las Vegas.
(But don't try to get married here. The kids'll just mess up your wedding.)
I can make the pies, i literally make the best pies:-)
*IF* you ignore her "aura of cheesiness" (which you pretty much have to, since otherwise they can't attack her in the first place), then Protection from Evil makes you completely immune to her mind effects, and she doesn't have quickened dispelling to get rid of it.
We've always felt Protection from Evil was one of the cheesiest, most powerful spells in the game. In Wrath of the Righteous it's a game-breaker. I have to give all my bad guys Dispel Magic, which is similarly cheesy, but at least it gets me away from fights like the one where the "BBEG" was all about mind controlling PCs, and it was basically, "Well, the BBEG doesn't have Dispel Magic, and none of its abilities can affect you without it, so I guess it just runs away."
A bit more than anticlimactic.
Well, yeah, her having that aura kind of is one of the things which prevents TPK's by player stupidity. Why would you ever want to take it away from her?
EDIT: The text of the spell is pretty darned clear on this subject.
PRD wrote:Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.So it all boils down to another, "As a GM, do I just put in mooks that spam Dispel Magic in every fight, or do I just accept that my PCs are never going to get mind controlled?"
The answer is obviously a delicate balance: Not every fight should have dispelling mooks, but intelligent enemies who use mind control as one of their main attacks and who have studied the PCs should absolutely have such mooks.
Actually, the text is quite clear that you first have to get mind controlled, then you get a new saving throw (with a +2 morale bonus, ooooh how useful against Nocci's DC) and if you succeed at that one, you get the immunity. So, um, no, it doesn't make you immune overall to mind control.
And please stop the OT stuff, there's an entire forum for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And please stop the OT stuff, there's an entire forum for that.
Oh come on now, we're just having a bit of fun, the issues of the AP have been discussed over and over again, at least we're not calling each other names or being a@@~&$$s about stuff, which is usually how things go off-topic:)
edit: and its winter, my kids are just now getting over being sick for a week (myself included) so i could use a little OT silliness today, cut us some slack:) its certainly not hurting you in any way:)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the text is quite clear that you first have to get mind controlled, then you get a new saving throw (with a +2 morale bonus, ooooh how useful against Nocci's DC) and if you succeed at that one, you get the immunity. So, um, no, it doesn't make you immune overall to mind control.EDIT: The text of the spell is pretty darned clear on this subject.
PRD wrote:Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect. If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
Actually, the text -seems- quite clear, but our Carrion Crown group had quite the issue with my fighter being constantly mind controlled and our "rules lawyers" pored over the FAQs and forums.
I'll see whether I can track down the linkys for you, but my impression from my colleagues' research was that that section of Protection from Evil always applies, even though it has oddly been put in a paragraph that starts with, "IF you are under the effects."
I'll try to track it down for you...
EDIT: Ooooh, interesting:
(1) It's not in the FAQ, so there's no "official" statement that I can find.
(2) All parties agree that it only suppresses the effect for the duration of the spell, so once Protection from Evil wears off...
(3) There is no solid agreement on the final sentence. If it's a separate effect, it's really poorly-written. (The most powerful effect is at the end of the paragraph?)
So since I wasn't involved in the original research (the RAWyers in our group were all over it, so I didn't want to deal with them), it looks like I've got some legwork to see whether PFS has a ruling on it or some such...
(Yeah, we're a home group so we can do whatever we want, but totally breaking a spell all our groups have come to rely on mid-campaign would be... unpopular...)
We had the exact same type of research you did, and found that it was left unclear by the devs. Since everybody agreed that it is ridiculous that a level one spell foils everything up to demon lords, we went with the more subdued interpretation of the spell.
There are bosses of entire AP's who'd otherwise get completely neutered by this level one spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We had the exact same type of research you did, and found that it was left unclear by the devs. Since everybody agreed that it is ridiculous that a level one spell foils everything up to demon lords, we went with the more subdued interpretation of the spell.
There are bosses of entire AP's who'd otherwise get completely neutered by this level one spell.
Well, GothBard and I have already gone over it and are in agreement with you; especially since Suppress Charms and Compulsions is one level higher and MUCH weaker by the more liberal interpretation.
So we're going to discuss changing it before the game today.
I agree with you; it really doesn't look THAT unclear. I have no idea why our previous colleagues ruled the way they did, other than that they wanted EVERYTHING to go in their favor.
(Hmm.... and we no longer game with them. Coincidence?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Very likely not. ^^
|
|
The spell no longer makes you immune to mental control, it's just harder to control you as it takes 2 failed saves instead of 1 to get dominated. Immunity was a 3.5 thing.
Incorrect. Quoting the Core Rulebook, page 327 under the description of "Protection from Evil":
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
Lol that spell is f@!%ed up!
not a single character in any of our campaigns have it so i've never read it before:)
Well, to stop the derail here, I posted on the Rules forum. That area is notoriously player-friendly, but it's so far 100% on the side of, "Yep. Blanket immunity."
I'll wait 'til the weekdays and see whether anyone at Paizo cares to clarify.
(Unfortunately, the only one I know who regularly chats on the boards is James, and I know he won't touch Rules questions, so I may be stuck accepting it as is: The most overpowered 1st level spell ever conceived.)
...that may well be the first time I've seen the word "friendly" in a description of the Rules forum...
Well, you just have to have no opinion whatsoever, and agree with everyone.
Kind of like being lobotomized...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, it is actually great for the game that protection from evil is so good, because wow are dominate and spells like it dumb to play. Herp a derp I'ma vampire and I now control you for the next 10 days!
You do realize my campaigns will now be flooded with vampires, just so I can use that line, now I just gotta work on the dance....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, there is a simple solution to this. Modify the spell.
Protection from Evil (and its variations) protect against charm and dominate-like effects for spells of 3rd level or less.
Improved Protection from Evil (and its variations) is a 4th level spell that protects against charm and dominate-like effects for spells of 6th level or less.
Greater Protection from Evil (and variations) is a 7th level spell that would protect against charm and dominate-like effects for ALL non-Mythic spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dangit Tangent, why do you have to be so smart?
The spell no longer makes you immune to mental control, it's just harder to control you as it takes 2 failed saves instead of 1 to get dominated. Immunity was a 3.5 thing.Incorrect. Quoting the Core Rulebook, page 327 under the description of "Protection from Evil":
While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
Incomplete quoting of rules doesn't really help with determining the full effect of the spell. Check some posts above, where it is quoted in full and where we discuss why therefore the "total immunity" interpretation doesn't work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<sigh> Okay, let's go through this in detail
Second, the subject immediately receives another saving throw (if one was allowed to begin with) against any spells or effects that possess or exercise mental control over the creature (including enchantment [charm] effects and enchantment [compulsion] effects, such as charm person, command, and dominate person. This saving throw is made with a +2 morale bonus, using the same DC as the original effect.
Full stop here. This clearly delineates that the character with PfE gets a second saving throw if s/he failed the first one. This makes it pretty clear that you don't get a blank check immunity from the spell.
If successful, such effects are suppressed for the duration of this spell. The effects resume when the duration of this spell expires. While under the effects of this spell, the target is immune to any new attempts to possess or exercise mental control over the target.
And this part says that you need to succeed at this second saving throw to get the immunity (and suppression of the first effect, which had to be successful to trigger PfE in the first place) against mental control effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two things.
1.) Taking this last sentence as meaning the target was immune to all mind control effects from the start does make the preceding sentences of the spell completely meaningless. Hence, this interpretation makes no sense.
2.) Even if you want to take the meaning that the spell makes you immune to all mind control from the start, that doesn't work, because in the sentence the word "new" delineates that the prior sentences dealing with mind control are to be taken into account, meaning that the simplistic interpretation of this singular sentence is wrong.