But we've established in this thread that gentleman's agreements are bad because it means that if you need to have them that some aspect of the game is unbalanced or overpowered. So therefore, I guess, this means the GM is the most overpowered thing in the game, ever!I imagine it's the gentleman's agreement that you will have roughly CR appropriate encounters.[Suddenly GM finds that no one wants to play his game and is all lonely]Do you have a point?
Do YOU have a point? No body argued that if a GM wanted to he can kill the whole party off, he can.... but at that point he won't be a GM for much longer...
I love how casters are broken because of non-core-rules spells like blood money, misreading simulacrum, ignoring the consequences of planar binding, and adding timeless quality to demiplanes when you can't.
Anyone going to post real reasons? Like how LoTR would have been a 5 minute movie if Gandolf used invisibility on him and Frodo and then teleported to mount doom.
Play core only, casters are still the best. I actually believe the gap between wizards and other classes is FURTHER in a core only game. LOTR is a low fantasy world, pathfinder is (generally) high fantasy.
I was under the impression that quite a few wizards left a few spell slots open and spent fifteen minutes to fill it with the 'appropriate spell' after some sort of scouting... or a minute in pathfinder if you invest a feat.
They do. Always leave a slot open at each level!
How many wizards actually heavily invest in Stealth? Few, I'd wager. And even those that do are unlikely invest in it AS heavily as a stealth-based rogue.
But they can. Average wizard is getting as many (or more as many rogues dump int) by level 5 or so. He usually doesn't (my wizard does) because sneaking is the job of "the corpse", not god.
[Suddenly GM finds that no one wants to play his game and is all lonely]Do you have a point?
Well, at the very least for purpose of these discussions you need to basically talk in terms of RAW. I use penetration rating instead of touch AC on guns, but I don't go into one of these threads saying guns aren't broken because you can just use a different mechanic, unless the OP is asking for ways to balance it. Once you do that any chance of having a reasonable "mechanics" discussion breaks down. Everyone has house rules, but rule and power debates (and the like) need be done on a RAW basis.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I've ranted about people spouting things like "Pepperoni Phallus!" in the past, in the case of this thread, a quick Googling of "Oberoni Fallacy" is probably worthwhile for the people who think that arguing "The DM fixes it, so there's no problem!" is at all logically consistent.
But we've established in this thread that gentleman's agreements are bad because it means that if you need to have them that some aspect of the game is unbalanced or overpowered. So therefore, I guess, this means the GM is the most overpowered thing in the game, ever!
If you hear the words in your head said with a smile and the slightest bit of sarcasm, then they would have been as I had envisioned them. However, one must work very hard to convey tone on the internet. I apologize if I wasn't as clear as I'd hoped.
And of course. The Storyteller is the god/referee. But bad refs don't get repeat gigs... and sometimes slashed tires and keyed hoods. People can get pretty intense with their sports/hobbies/interests.
I haven't played that long, since a few years ago, but so far spells have only been a problem when people don't read them and assume they do all kinds of things.
In games I GM casters wound up some of the weakest change actersdue to not bybeing able to 15 min workday without consequence, encountering grapplers, the ton of anti-caster items and NPCs that do things like disarm holy symbols/wands attack in the middle of castings and one shot them.
I've had entire parties of full casters fail miserably because of groups of monks rogues and fighters that win initiative. Players reacted by trying to cast a spell, gets hit with a readied arrow and fails to cast. The archers kept this up while the melee guys started nearly one shorting them.
As much as I've ranted about people spouting things like "Pepperoni Phallus!" in the past, in the case of this thread, a quick Googling of "Oberoni Fallacy" is probably worthwhile for the people who think that arguing "The DM fixes it, so there's no problem!" is at all logically consistent.
Thanks for that! I don't know how many times I've said that, didn't know there was an elegant rule for it already spelled out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've had entire parties of full casters fail miserably because of groups of monks rogues and fighters that win initiative. Players reacted by trying to cast a spell, gets hit with a readied arrow and fails to cast. The archers kept this up while the melee guys started nearly one shorting them.
That would be because they didn't THINK.
"I ready an action to cast when he acts" sidesteps that issue nicely.
Worst case scenario, nobody does anything.
It's not ideal but it's better than going "The stove is hot...ow...is it still hot? Owww...maybe it won't be this time...owww".
In games I GM casters wound up some of the weakest change actersdue to not bybeing able to 15 min workday without consequence,
I agree, the 15 minute adventuring day is one of the biggest problems with full casters, but as you get higher and higher level it becomes neigh impossible to stop without GM fiat or cutting some super cheese. There are so many spells designed to encourage the 15 minute adventuring day at higher levels its nuts.
In games I GM casters wound up some of the weakest change actersdue to not bybeing able to 15 min workday without consequence, encountering grapplers, the ton of anti-caster items and NPCs that do things like disarm holy symbols/wands attack in the middle of castings and one shot them.
I've had entire parties of full casters fail miserably because of groups of monks rogues and fighters that win initiative. Players reacted by trying to cast a spell, gets hit with a readied arrow and fails to cast. The archers kept this up while the melee guys started nearly one shorting them.
Do they not avoid the combat at all or pre buff? Lots of ways to get out of either of those situations.
How many wizards actually heavily invest in Stealth? Few, I'd wager. And even those that do are unlikely invest in it AS heavily as a stealth-based rogue.
Whether a wizard wants to put ranks in stealth is up to him really. He's int based so he ends up with plenty of skill points. I've had at least two wizards in the past 2 years who were maxing ranks in stealth. He doesn't wear armor either, so no ACP problems. I've had better face and stealth skills than the party rogue before, though I always saved it for those moments he wasn't around since that's what the player wanted to do most.
Now the cleric on the other hand... Lots of days I've seen
It depends on what kind of full caster it is. If he's intelligence based, he can probably cover the skill monkey role just fine with minimal loss to his primary duties.
If he's charisma based, he'll probably make an excellent face.
If he's Wisdom based, he's probably in for a bit of a hard time in the skill department, but he can do a credible job if he's open to multiclassing a little.
Do they not avoid the combat at all or pre buff? Lots of ways to get out of either of those situations.In games I GM casters wound up some of the weakest change actersdue to not bybeing able to 15 min workday without consequence, encountering grapplers, the ton of anti-caster items and NPCs that do things like disarm holy symbols/wands attack in the middle of castings and one shot them.
I've had entire parties of full casters fail miserably because of groups of monks rogues and fighters that win initiative. Players reacted by trying to cast a spell, gets hit with a readied arrow and fails to cast. The archers kept this up while the melee guys started nearly one shorting them.
They don't always know when combat is coming.
In games I GM casters wound up some of the weakest change actersdue to not bybeing able to 15 min workday without consequence,I agree, the 15 minute adventuring day is one of the biggest problems with full casters, but as you get higher and higher level it becomes neigh impossible to stop without GM fiat or cutting some super cheese. There are so many spells designed to encourage the 15 minute adventuring day at higher levels its nuts.
Ridiculous. If the party stops before I'm good and ready for them to stop, they'll simply have the consequences of that choice to face when they come back to the adventure.
The entire concept of a "gentlemen's agreement" being inferior to mechanics when it comes to balancing the game is a red herring. There are elements that the DM has to balance, because that's the position's job.
The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.
They don't always know when combat is coming.Do they not avoid the combat at all or pre buff? Lots of ways to get out of either of those situations.In games I GM casters wound up some of the weakest change actersdue to not bybeing able to 15 min workday without consequence, encountering grapplers, the ton of anti-caster items and NPCs that do things like disarm holy symbols/wands attack in the middle of castings and one shot them.
I've had entire parties of full casters fail miserably because of groups of monks rogues and fighters that win initiative. Players reacted by trying to cast a spell, gets hit with a readied arrow and fails to cast. The archers kept this up while the melee guys started nearly one shorting them.
Well yeah, but there are all day and hour/lvl spells, quickened spells, silent/still, and based on what you know about the area your traveling through, you should probably start 10/min spells when you enter the dungeon, min/lvl and round/lvl just before you enter something obviously dangerous, round/lvl in combat maybe. You can also use tactics to avoid taking hits from those prepped shots. There are also supernatural abilities and spell like! Just feels like standing in fire or trying to fight pantless to me not to do these things.
Anyways, not a big fan of having to build my game around a particular thing. That's probably where it hits me hardest.
They don't always know when combat is coming.
Are they lining up and walking into dungeons like good little soldiers? In my campaigns, at median to high levels casters tend to use divinations to figure out what's going on, and then choose when and where to act. The opposition of course uses all kinds of spells to try and prevent them, and the PC casters then use more spells (or otherwise manipulate the situation in other ways) to open other avenues so that they're not playing a reactive role.
I find that the #1 gentleman's agreement for people who don't see casters as being overpowered is this one: "Thou shalt follow the railroad, wherever it shall lead." If you take them off that leash and allow their intelligence and creativity to inform the use of their abilities, the game skews heavily towards divinations and prep, and against repeated mystery combats.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.
So the fact a full caster can create his own demiplane, make skill checks a joke, or send in the clones and play god in so many ways isn't part of some sort of imbalance?
So what are mechanical imbalances that bother you then?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that rather difficult to believe. At level 10 with skill focus, a +5 competence booster and a 24 dex you are still only looking at a +28. You might hit +30 with a racial bonus. Maybe an extra +4 if you are also small.
The equivalent wizard who doesnt bother with the feat but has bought the same dirt cheap competence boost, a 16 dex and has taken the same number of ranks is looking at +38 with invisibility. Of course the wizard could also be adding an extra +5 with reduce person or elemental body 1. They also are not going to be automatically detected by something with darkvision as soon as you lose cover or concealment.
Don't forget that being Invisible does not make you silent, and can also be detected with a simple Detect Magic.
|
|
The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.So the fact a full caster can create his own demiplane, make skill checks a joke, or send in the clones and play god in so many ways isn't part of some sort of imbalance?
So what are mechanical imbalances that bother you then?
Where does all this endless wealth come from? Lots of spells require money and if you are going to spend all that money then it leaves you with less magic items.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that being Invisible does not make you silent, and can also be detected with a simple Detect Magic.I find that rather difficult to believe. At level 10 with skill focus, a +5 competence booster and a 24 dex you are still only looking at a +28. You might hit +30 with a racial bonus. Maybe an extra +4 if you are also small.
The equivalent wizard who doesnt bother with the feat but has bought the same dirt cheap competence boost, a 16 dex and has taken the same number of ranks is looking at +38 with invisibility. Of course the wizard could also be adding an extra +5 with reduce person or elemental body 1. They also are not going to be automatically detected by something with darkvision as soon as you lose cover or concealment.
It gives you a +20 bonus on stealth checks when you are moving... so yes it makes you more silent, since Move Silently is now part of stealth. Please read the rules. Misinformation is bad mmm'kay?
Where does all this endless wealth come from? Lots of spells require money and if you are going to spend all that money then it leaves you with less magic items.The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.So the fact a full caster can create his own demiplane, make skill checks a joke, or send in the clones and play god in so many ways isn't part of some sort of imbalance?
So what are mechanical imbalances that bother you then?
Repeat after me: Blood Money OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do YOU have a point? No body argued that if a GM wanted to he can kill the whole party off, he can.... but at that point he won't be a GM for much longer...
Yes, which I made in the post you so flippantly dismissed or didn't understand. So I'll try to be more clear. On this thread, the argument has been made that spellcasters are only "not-overpowered" if there's some gentleman's agreement between the spellcaster players and the rest of the players; the implicit implication being that "gentlemen's agreements" are evidence that spellcasters are overpowered. So I pointed out that the entire game requires a collection of gentlemen's agreements in order to function at all; otherwise the hypothetical "rocks fall, everyone dies" scenario becomes legitimate. If that particular gentlemen's agreement of "GM will not inflict grossly inappropriate encounters on the players" is ok, then why is the gentlemen's agreement of "spellcaster players will not abuse rules loopholes in order to break the game" not ok? Why is that particular agreement seen as a sign of weakness in the game?
In addition, the argument has been made that spellcasters are overpowered because they have "narrative power". Well, every player who plays the game, regardless of what class they play, has narrative power. You gave the example of a wizard going to her timeless demiplane and creating an army of simulacrum Cthulu's to presumably break an encounter, dungeon, or other scenario that the GM has prepared as evidence of spellcasters being overpowered. My response to that is so what? It doesn't take a wizard with an army of simulacrums to break the game, it takes one PC of any class to decide to assassinate the Duke instead of taking up his offer to the PCs to quest to find the legendary macguffin.
The whole idea that because a single spell can replace a skill or other class ability, spellcasters are overpowered is, to me, a video game mentality that believes everything needs to be mechanically balanced and equivalent. That's certainly not an invalid way to play the game, but you need to understand there are other approaches to playing a game like Pathfinder. Personally, I don't want class parity; I want it to be okay that certain classes may be more mechanically powerful than other classes because it makes sense thematically. It certainly doesn't stop people from playing fighters, rogues, and other "underpowered" classes at my table.
To be succinct, I don't care about hypothetical arguments about this or that class is overpowered in a vacuum. I only care about what happens at my table. And at my table, currently, neither myself nor my players feels that casters are overpowered. So therefore they're not, and that's the reality of my game.
The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.
The 'free Wish' bit is total nonsense. The idea is that, in addition to several prep spells and a wondrous item or two, you can get a greater Ring of Inner Fortitude to effectively increase the resources provided by Blood Money. Because preventing the blood flow that becomes the spell component substitutes is the same thing as actually letting said blood flow and get turned into money, right?
That said, Blood Money is a cool but VERY powerful spell. If it were Constitution it drained, which it really should as lack of proper amounts of blood has been known to cause death, it'd be better.
If you hear the words in your head said with a smile and the slightest bit of sarcasm, then they would have been as I had envisioned them.
Fear not, that is indeed how I read your words. =)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On this thread, the argument has been made that spellcasters are only "not-overpowered" if there's some gentleman's agreement between the spellcaster players and the rest of the players; the implicit implication being that "gentlemen's agreements" are evidence that spellcasters are overpowered. So I pointed out that the entire game requires a collection of gentlemen's agreements in order to function at all; otherwise the hypothetical "rocks fall, everyone dies" scenario becomes legitimate.
That's true if the DM also ignores all of the guidelines concerning encounter building, CR, and so forth. Which, if you're playing Magical Story Hour, is probably the case.
If we take a baseline scenario in which the DM actually uses those guidelines, or uses preprinted modules and APs (such as the ones that out hosts produce), then your point loses most of its focus, or becomes something along the lines of "I live in Greenland, and I'm telling you that mosquitoes do not exist."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Xexyz, please reread my initial post. The mere fact that a spellcaster subscribes to a gentleman's agreement in no way makes the class any less powerful. The mere fact that the GM can do that^10 does not change that fact either. The main issue after all is that the Rogue and Fighter can't even pretend to do that stuff.
Also, just because you approach the game with the idea that its ok that casters are superior, doesn't mean that trying to achieve parity is a bad idea. Also, just because casters aren't overpowered at your table is fundamentally meaningless. Your players may simply not have the skill to play such a wizard, which as I stated in my opening post is much rarer then you would think from spending time on the boards. In short, the reality of your game... is not reality.
It gives you a +20 bonus on stealth checks when you are moving... so yes it makes you more silent, since Move Silently is now part of stealth. Please read the rules. Misinformation is bad mmm'kay?
Ummm...
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
What was that about misinformation?
The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.The 'free Wish' bit is total nonsense. The idea is that, in addition to several prep spells and a wondrous item or two, you can get a greater Ring of Inner Fortitude to effectively increase the resources provided by Blood Money. Because preventing the blood flow that becomes the spell component substitutes is the same thing as actually letting said blood flow and get turned into money, right?
That said, Blood Money is a cool but VERY powerful spell. If it were Constitution it drained, which it really should as lack of proper amounts of blood has been known to cause death, it'd be better.
The Ring of Inner Fortitude thing totally works. The buff spells also totally work. And that's just the hard way to get 51 STR. The easy way is to just use Magic Jar/Marionette Possession on a high STR creature (casters have lots of ways to get those) and then cast it from your shiny new body. Nixon's back baby! Aroooo!
Considering casters are made up almost entirely of their spells, if their spells are broken or have the choice of being overpowered, then yes, they are overpowered.Blood moneyYou're trying to use one or two poorly worded spells to argue the entire class is broken.
That one spell is broken. The class as a whole is not.
Except- the Devs did not consider this spell should be on every list, and it shouldn't be. It occurs in RotRL. It's not in the CRB, the APG, ultimate Magic... in fact no-where in the PRD.
If your wizard has it, it's because he's found it in one module of RotRL. In theory. Now, sure, the DM can allow any one to mine supplements and AP's for spells, Feats, & Traits- even if the campaign doesn't occur there. But that's the DM's prerogative.
So, other than a RotRL campaign, bringing in Blood Money is a Houserule.
I find that the #1 gentleman's agreement for people who don't see casters as being overpowered is this one: "Thou shalt follow the railroad, wherever it shall lead." If you take them off that leash and allow their intelligence and creativity to inform the use of their abilities, the game skews heavily towards divinations and prep, and against repeated mystery combats.
Divination is my #1 concern for potential problems, but I've scrutinized them (I think) pretty well and they're not that bad. For example I know of no divination spell that can be reliably and regularly used to always detect an enemy ambush, with the possible exception of Foresight - which is a 9th level spell.
Considering casters are made up almost entirely of their spells, if their spells are broken or have the choice of being overpowered, then yes, they are overpowered.Blood moneyYou're trying to use one or two poorly worded spells to argue the entire class is broken.
That one spell is broken. The class as a whole is not.
Except- the Devs did not consider this spell should be on every list, and it shouldn't be. It occurs in RotRL. It's not in the CRB, the APG, ultimate Magic... in fact no-where in the PRD.
If your wizard has it, it's because he's found it in one module of RotRL. In theory. Now, sure, the DM can allow any one to mine supplements and AP's for spells, Feats, & Traits- even if the campaign doesn't occur there. But that's the DM's prerogative.
So, other than a RotRL campaign, bringing in Blood Money is a Houserule.
Uh... not if your requirements are "Anything published by Paizo is allowed." Because you don't need that one guy to exist to pick that spell.
The Ring of Inner Fortitude thing totally works. The buff spells also totally work. And that's just the hard way to get 51 STR. The easy way is to just use Magic Jar/Marionette Possession on a high STR creature (casters have lots of ways to get those) and then cast it from your shiny new body. Nixon's back baby! Aroooo!
If your GM allows one of the most nonsensical readings of a spell I've ever seen, sure it does!
Where does all this endless wealth come from? Lots of spells require money and if you are going to spend all that money then it leaves you with less magic items.The sheer amount of nonsense in this debate has masked most legitimate concerns with mechanical imbalance. The fake demiplanes and simulacrum pretend problems are ruining things for real issues.So the fact a full caster can create his own demiplane, make skill checks a joke, or send in the clones and play god in so many ways isn't part of some sort of imbalance?
So what are mechanical imbalances that bother you then?
Most spells don't(including fly and invisibility) or by the time you can cast them you have access to a wealth that can afford them. Its also a consumable cost, so you'll eventually get it back. Ideally. The cost scales linearly, rather than exponentially, so as you level you'll be able to cast these things with greater ease. I don't think anyone's mentioned an 'endless wealth' for spellcasting.
Or your GM can allow blood money.
It gives you a +20 bonus on stealth checks when you are moving... so yes it makes you more silent, since Move Silently is now part of stealth. Please read the rules. Misinformation is bad mmm'kay?Ummm...
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.What was that about misinformation?
As I learned from playing Magic... Reading is tech. andreww already addressed your flaws, but really for future reference its easier to just assume statements I make are RAW accurate, unless you have a significant amount of evidence otherwise.
Are spellcasters such as Wizards really as big of problem when defeating encounters as people make them out to be?
NO
The Ring of Inner Fortitude thing totally works. The buff spells also totally work. And that's just the hard way to get 51 STR. The easy way is to just use Magic Jar/Marionette Possession on a high STR creature (casters have lots of ways to get those) and then cast it from your shiny new body. Nixon's back baby! Aroooo!If your GM allows one of the most nonsensical readings of a spell I've ever seen, sure it does!
The Ring can't prevent Damage unless damage is actually done. Are you suggesting that Blood Money doesn't deal STR damage? Or did you just not read it?
He didnt say it made you silent, he said you still gain the bonus even when moving. Which you do. Invisibility makes it harder to hear or see you because stealth isn't divided into two skills anymore.
Yes, he did actually.
It gives you a +20 bonus on stealth checks when you are moving... so yes it makes you more silent, since Move Silently is now part of stealth.
It still provides a Stealth bonus because Stealth is now about vision and sound. The bonus is cut by 50%, losing the non-visual half, when moving because movement = sound. Is this really under debate?
Question: Does giving you a +20 bonus to stealth make you move more silently?
Answer: Yes.
I didn't say it makes your more silent then when you stand still. I said it makes you more silent then when you didn't have it. Which it does. Try again, Cerberus Seven. You'll get it right... well eventually I'm sure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I learned from playing Magic... Reading is tech. andreww already addressed your flaws, but really for future reference its easier to just assume statements I make are RAW accurate, unless you have a significant amount of evidence otherwise.It gives you a +20 bonus on stealth checks when you are moving... so yes it makes you more silent, since Move Silently is now part of stealth. Please read the rules. Misinformation is bad mmm'kay?Ummm...
Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as swimming in water or stepping in a puddle). If a check is required, a stationary invisible creature has a +40 bonus on its Stealth checks. This bonus is reduced to +20 if the creature is moving. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.What was that about misinformation?
I think you need to scale back the arrogance here. Some things you say may be RAW, but how you interpret it are a different matter.
I cast black tentacles on this thread.
Xexyz, please reread my initial post. The mere fact that a spellcaster subscribes to a gentleman's agreement in no way makes the class any less powerful. The mere fact that the GM can do that^10 does not change that fact either. The main issue after all is that the Rogue and Fighter can't even pretend to do that stuff.
Also, just because you approach the game with the idea that its ok that casters are superior, doesn't mean that trying to achieve parity is a bad idea. Also, just because casters aren't overpowered at your table is fundamentally meaningless. Your players may simply not have the skill to play such a wizard, which as I stated in my opening post is much rarer then you would think from spending time on the boards. In short, the reality of your game... is not reality.
I did read your post, and it's all irrelevant from my perspective. "Overpowered" is a purely subjective term. Can the spellcaster do things better than the fighter or rogue can, and other things the fighter and rogue can't do at all? Sure. But I'm fine with that, so that means to me spellcasters aren't overpowered. I'll start worrying about casters being overpowered when nobody at my table wants to play anything but a spellcaster.
The only thing I don't want to see is an attempt to arrive at pure mechanical parity between casters and marshals, because to me that can only be achieved in two ways: either casters are nerfed to the point where they're barely casters anymore because their abilities are so weak, or marshals are buffed with magic-like abilities such that the game feels like like high-fantasy and more like superheroes in chainmail. I'm pretty much happy with the way things are, for the most part.
What nonsensical reading? That blood money gives you free money to cast spells with? That is very explicitly what it does. The fact that it is an idiotic spell which should never have been printed is beside the point.The Ring of Inner Fortitude thing totally works. The buff spells also totally work. And that's just the hard way to get 51 STR. The easy way is to just use Magic Jar/Marionette Possession on a high STR creature (casters have lots of ways to get those) and then cast it from your shiny new body. Nixon's back baby! Aroooo!If your GM allows one of the most nonsensical readings of a spell I've ever seen, sure it does!
Okay, I swear this is the last time I'll ever tackle this topic in the forums.
As part of this spell's casting, you must cut one of your hands, releasing a stream of blood that causes you to take 1d6 points of damage. When you cast another spell in that same round, your blood transforms into one material component of your choice required by that second spell. Even valuable components worth more than 1 gp can be created, but creating such material components requires an additional cost of 1 point of Strength damage, plus a further point of damage for every full 500 gp of the component's value (so a component worth 500–999 gp costs a total of 2 points, 1,000–1,500 costs 3, etc.). You cannot create magic items with blood money.
A greater ring of inner fortitude reduces ability damage or temporary penalties by 6 points and reduces ability drain by 3 points.
If you cast a 6 Str point Blood Money with one of these rings on, the ring prevents it and you get nothing. This principle applies for all values of the ability score damage done. There is less blood being let as a result of the rings effect, so less material to work with.
Now, I supposed you COULD argue that an uber version of one of these rings would let you leak a full gallon of blood to cast the best Wish ever and then you'd be walking around with a pint or two to power your body for a few months with no ill effect, but that is THE silliest thing I've heard of in a long time. If the ring instead read that it prevents ill effects from ability score damage instead of the damage itself, I'd say you have a case.