I feel like many of the martial players would like if Wizards played like Shadowcasters from 3.5 Tome of Magic...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...No, that's just extending one of the major complaints about martials (stupid taxes) to spellcasters. Making casters deal with the same Improved X crap that martials deal with just means that wizard players will start complaining about it, too.
It says it doesn't make you magically silent and that other conditions can you make you detectable. Which has nothing to do with the +20 stealth bonus that allows you able to move more quietly. This is very straight forward.
Scenario: wizard A casts Invisibility, wizard B casts See Invisibility. If light conditions are otherwise normal, does wizard A get a +20 bonus to his Stealth check for attempting to sneak past wizard B?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It says it doesn't make you magically silent and that other conditions can you make you detectable. Which has nothing to do with the +20 stealth bonus that allows you able to move more quietly. This is very straight forward.Scenario: wizard A casts Invisibility, wizard B casts See Invisibility. If light conditions are otherwise normal, does wizard A get a +20 bonus to his Stealth check for attempting to sneak past wizard B?
To be fair on Anzyr, you can construct nonsensical scenarios in the other direction quite easily too.
For example:
a) You are invisible and attempting to sneak past a guard 20ft away.
b) As above, but halfway along the path there is a curtain between you and the guard blocking his sight.
In example a) you are getting a +20 bonus to your stealth, I don't think anyone would disagree there.
In example b), if invisibility is purely visual, you would have to assume the +20 bonus no longer applies once you move behind the curtain - but this is utterly nonsensical. Why would moving behind (not touching) a curtain suddenly make it DRASTICALLY easier for the guard to detect you?
Ultimately, 'stealth' as an abstraction and simplification of the 3.5 rules can only approximate the 'silent' and 'hidden' aspects of remaining undetected. Thus, even though realistically invisibility does not make you quieter, there are situations where it does do so abstractly, due to the lack of granularity in stealth mechanics.
(To be fair to you also, Anzyr is taking things a little too far. Clearly invisibility is not MEANT to make you quieter, and no DM would let you get away with such an interpretation more generally... The problem lies in poorly written stealth rules, which is something the devs have acknowledged but can't really do anything about.)
Blood Money. Arguement now invalid...I think this CAN be an issue if the gm lets players walk all over them. One way to keep spell asters from roflstomping encounters is to force them to play by their own rules.
Okay, you want to cast WISH? Fine, where are your spell components? No, I know you have the money, but you need to USE that money to buy them. No, I know you didn't buy components last time you were in town.
Isn't that a spell that in golarion is only known by one single individual? So how would someone get that spell without GM fiat?
Isn't that a spell that in golarion is only known by one single individual? So how would someone get that spell without GM fiat?Blood Money. Arguement now invalid...I think this CAN be an issue if the gm lets players walk all over them. One way to keep spell asters from roflstomping encounters is to force them to play by their own rules.
Okay, you want to cast WISH? Fine, where are your spell components? No, I know you have the money, but you need to USE that money to buy them. No, I know you didn't buy components last time you were in town.
It is pfs legal without needing to unlock it, so it's pretty common. Generally if it's not banned in pfs, it's probably legal in most open content games.
I myself have 2 casters on golarion who know that spell, and I've seen it on several other casters as well.
Isn't that a spell that in golarion is only known by one single individual? So how would someone get that spell without GM fiat?Blood Money. Arguement now invalid...I think this CAN be an issue if the gm lets players walk all over them. One way to keep spell asters from roflstomping encounters is to force them to play by their own rules.
Okay, you want to cast WISH? Fine, where are your spell components? No, I know you have the money, but you need to USE that money to buy them. No, I know you didn't buy components last time you were in town.
Wizards explicitly get 2 spells/level and don't need a source to learn these spells.
Sorcerors get ALL of their spells without needing a source.
Of course, a GM could just ban the spell.... but as you imply, GM fiat is a not a strong argumentative stance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a non-core spell that was invented and only known by a single person that is now dead is necessarily
Note also that the rules do not state that just because something has a wizard/sorcerer 1 designation, that means it's on the wizard's spell list.
As you may note, the spell level designation is described as this:
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects.
It does not say that any spell with such a designation is on the class' spell list. And note what the sorcerer spell feature says:
These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through study
So, the feature notes that some spells castable by sorcerers are unusual, not on the spell list, and have to be understood through study.
That would be spells such as blood money.
Whether or not you have access to blood money is completely GM fiat, in both directions.
What pfs allows or not is irrelevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much the only way to keep a super 9/9 spellcaster from ruining your game is gentlemen's agreement or enemy spellcasters.Yep. And using Enemy spellcasters is really difficult to balance since the idea is generally to challenge the players not just flat out kill them.
And considering how binary a lot of spells are, especially at higher levels, a lot of fights end up becoming coin tosses.
I am very old school. Every encounter does not have to be winnable. I always try to include encounters that will cause TPK if the party does not try to avoid it, or bypass it through noncombat means. I always try to include situations where players can not play using their optimal abilities. Do I do this every encounter, of course not. But I try to throw those end at least once per session, and we average more than 4 encounters per session.
It's all about developing clues, foreshadowing, plots, and nice twists.
Just to weigh in on the original question. Once you can simply wish the heart of any character to your hand and watch them die. Any boss becomes ridiculously easy. Unless they are undead, etc
Just to weigh in on the original question. Once you can simply wish the heart of any character to your hand and watch them die. Any boss becomes ridiculously easy. Unless they are undead, etc
Seems a waste of 25k when you could accomplish it in so many other, cheaper, more reliable ways.
Seriously using Wish for anything but the things listed in the spell specifically is like ASKING for your GM to put your balls in a vise and squeeeeeeeze.
Just to weigh in on the original question. Once you can simply wish the heart of any character to your hand and watch them die. Any boss becomes ridiculously easy. Unless they are undead, etcSeems a waste of 25k when you could accomplish it in so many other, cheaper, more reliable ways.
Seriously using Wish for anything but the things listed in the spell specifically is like ASKING for your GM to put your balls in a vise and squeeeeeeeze.
the op mentioned "Are spellcasters as big a problem as some make them out to be?"
I'd like for your party to face a villain with a ring of 3 wishes. besides, all the hip people use wishes to tear out people hearts, like Tar-Baphon (didn't end so well for him that one time, you can't have them all)
and before you go, that's an item, yes it is, and its a lot cheaper to just wish for it :P
I don't think a non-core spell that was invented and only known by a single person that is now dead is necessarily
Note also that the rules do not state that just because something has a wizard/sorcerer 1 designation, that means it's on the wizard's spell list.
As you may note, the spell level designation is described as this:
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects.It does not say that any spell with such a designation is on the class' spell list. And note what the sorcerer spell feature says:
These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through studySo, the feature notes that some spells castable by sorcerers are unusual, not on the spell list, and have to be understood through study.
That would be spells such as blood money.
Whether or not you have access to blood money is completely GM fiat, in both directions.
What pfs allows or not is irrelevant.
The spell itself literally spells you what class' spell lists its on. Let's look:
Blood Money
School transmutation; Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1
So it's on the Magus, Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch's spell list and is a first level spell. See how easy these things are when you just look it up? And since you can learn any spell on your classes list when you level up, access to Blood Money isn't any more fiat then access to Icy Prison.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's on the Magus, Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch's spell list and is a first level spell. See how easy these things are when you just look it up? And since you can learn any spell on your classes list when you level up, access to Blood Money isn't any more fiat then access to Icy Prison.
Access to AP specific material is always GM Fiat.
So it's on the Magus, Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch's spell list and is a first level spell. See how easy these things are when you just look it up? And since you can learn any spell on your classes list when you level up, access to Blood Money isn't any more fiat then access to Icy Prison.Access to AP specific material is always GM Fiat.
Oh I'm not saying access to material isn't GM fiat if you look at my post, I'm saying access to blood money isn't any more GM fiat then access to another spell published in a book that isn't CRB.
Access to AP specific material is always GM Fiat.Access to anything is always GM fiat. The GM could say "The only spell you have access to is color spray" and leave it at that. That makes it a less than useful assertion.
The GM could say "no casters".
There, now spellcasters are no longer a problem in my game, ergo not a problem for anyone!... well, okay, maybe that's not exactly how it works.
Isn't that a spell that in golarion is only known by one single individual? So how would someone get that spell without GM fiat?Blood Money. Arguement now invalid...I think this CAN be an issue if the gm lets players walk all over them. One way to keep spell asters from roflstomping encounters is to force them to play by their own rules.
Okay, you want to cast WISH? Fine, where are your spell components? No, I know you have the money, but you need to USE that money to buy them. No, I know you didn't buy components last time you were in town.
Wizards explicitly get 2 spells/level and don't need a source to learn these spells.
Sorcerors get ALL of their spells without needing a source.
Of course, a GM could just ban the spell.... but as you imply, GM fiat is a not a strong argumentative stance.
That's NOT "Dm Fiat". The DM duty is to set the parameters of the campaign. Generally, this includes saying which books are allowed. Many DM's allow just Core & APG, many other allow anything on the PRD.
Thus in a game where the DM has allowed 'anything on the PRD" that spell would only show up in a RotRL campaign, after a certain encounter.
Just to weigh in on the original question. Once you can simply wish the heart of any character to your hand and watch them die. Any boss becomes ridiculously easy. Unless they are undead, etcSeems a waste of 25k when you could accomplish it in so many other, cheaper, more reliable ways.
Seriously using Wish for anything but the things listed in the spell specifically is like ASKING for your GM to put your balls in a vise and squeeeeeeeze.
Yep. "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)"
I'd have the heart there- along with the rest of the monster, still in his chest.
But he does make a point- 9th level spells are game breaking, but they are supposed to be that way.
I don't think a non-core spell that was invented and only known by a single person that is now dead is necessarily
Note also that the rules do not state that just because something has a wizard/sorcerer 1 designation, that means it's on the wizard's spell list.
As you may note, the spell level designation is described as this:
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects.It does not say that any spell with such a designation is on the class' spell list. And note what the sorcerer spell feature says:
These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through studySo, the feature notes that some spells castable by sorcerers are unusual, not on the spell list, and have to be understood through study.
That would be spells such as blood money.
Whether or not you have access to blood money is completely GM fiat, in both directions.
What pfs allows or not is irrelevant.
The spell itself literally spells you what class' spell lists its on. Let's look:
Blood Money
School transmutation; Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1
So it's on the Magus, Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch's spell list and is a first level spell. See how easy these things are when you just look it up? And since you can learn any spell on your classes list when you level up, access to Blood Money isn't any more fiat then access to Icy Prison.
Actually, if one wants to get pedantic- like you are with stealth- he's right and you're wrong. That line is ACCESS. It's not part of a LIST.
If you look on the PRD or in your CRB you will see the term "spell lists":
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spellLists.html
No such term occurs before Blood Money.
Access to AP specific material is always GM Fiat.Access to anything is always GM fiat. The GM could say "The only spell you have access to is color spray" and leave it at that. That makes it a less than useful assertion.
Actually you're right and he's wrong. But only due to wording.
Picking which books sources to allow is part of a DM's duty. I mean, if he said nothing you could start with all 3.5 stuff, all 3PP , 100 points to build your PC and 20th level with full Mythic. Every DM MUST set some parameters.
Saying however, that certain select spells are banned is indeed "DM Fiat".
Picking which books sources to allow is part of a DM's duty.
An argument could be made that it's also part of the players' duty -- i.e., that it should be a group decision. But that said, whichever way you look at it, predetermined parameters that are clearly expressed and applied consistently are not what come to mind when I hear the word "fiat."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have the heart there- along with the rest of the monster, still in his chest.
Works for me.
But he does make a point- 9th level spells are game breaking, but they are supposed to be that way.
Not sure if that's the best way for the game to be though. I always thought it was best to reserve those things in a special place in the book for narrative rituals, rather than trivialized with easy access and use. Not that its not fun, but that well... the guy using the 9th level spells is standing next to the guy who hits things with a stick and has hit things with a stick pretty much the same way since sixth level(1-5 it was actually easier...), and as far as CR and APL are concerned, these guys are worth the same thing. Any sane GM is probably going to think otherwise, but its worth noting.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of trying to plan around those superpowerful abilities or having to use a particular 4 encounter a day paradigm because I feel like its making my job to create a story and narrative and challenges that much harder and meticulous.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Picking which books sources to allow is part of a DM's duty.An argument could be made that it's also part of the players' duty -- i.e., that it should be a group decision. But that said, whichever way you look at it, predetermined parameters that are clearly expressed and applied consistently are not what come to mind when I hear the word "fiat."
Sure, I agree that the players should have input into the decision.
But we agree- predetermined parameters are Not "DM fiat".
I don't think a non-core spell that was invented and only known by a single person that is now dead is necessarily
Note also that the rules do not state that just because something has a wizard/sorcerer 1 designation, that means it's on the wizard's spell list.
As you may note, the spell level designation is described as this:
The next line of a spell description gives the spell's level, a number between 0 and 9 that defines the spell's relative power. This number is preceded by a list of classes whose members can cast the spell. A spell's level affects the DC for any save allowed against its effects.It does not say that any spell with such a designation is on the class' spell list. And note what the sorcerer spell feature says:
These new spells can be common spells chosen from the sorcerer/wizard spell list, or they can be unusual spells that the sorcerer has gained some understanding of through studySo, the feature notes that some spells castable by sorcerers are unusual, not on the spell list, and have to be understood through study.
That would be spells such as blood money.
Whether or not you have access to blood money is completely GM fiat, in both directions.
What pfs allows or not is irrelevant.
The spell itself literally spells you what class' spell lists its on. Let's look:
Blood Money
School transmutation; Level magus 1, sorcerer/wizard 1, witch 1
So it's on the Magus, Sorcerer, Wizard and Witch's spell list and is a first level spell. See how easy these things are when you just look it up? And since you can learn any spell on your classes list when you level up, access to Blood Money isn't any more fiat then access to Icy Prison.
Actually, if one wants to get pedantic- like you are with stealth- he's right and you're wrong. That line is ACCESS. It's not part of a LIST.
If you look on the PRD or in your CRB you will...
The fact that you have access means it is on your spell list. Each class has its own spell list and that list is identified in that line. It is a level 1 spell on the magus, sorcerer/wizard, and witch list. Saying it is merely "access" is incorrect.
Actually, if one wants to get pedantic- like you are with stealth- he's right and you're wrong. That line is ACCESS. It's not part of a LIST.The fact that you have access means it is on your spell list. Each class has its own spell list and that list is identified in that line. It is a level 1 spell on the magus, sorcerer/wizard, and witch list. Saying it is merely "access" is incorrect.
He already said this. He said he was acting like you with Invisibility = quieter, which is the same thing as saying he, like you, was wrong.
To reply to your demiplane blather, I already stated I don't have an issue with a spellcaster creating a demiplane. I know they exist. Cool. Groovy. They cause me zero problems in the game, beyond making sure that when my spellcasters choose to create one, it is an impressive and awesome event for them.
The "fake demiplanes and other pretend problems" is in regards to the other claptrap you spew forth frequently, claiming that this ability is somehow game breaking. I guess if all you have is the poor individual your game browbeats into rolling the dice for the monsters, a DM could provide little in the way of needed adjustment, but for the vast majority of actual played games, as rare as the tarrasque double wielding the Sword of Kas and Axe of Dwarvish Lords.
About the only thing we agree on is that Blood Money ought to be fixed. Temporary strength changes ought not to function to serve as 'payment'. Most of your arguments are poor, both in character and coherence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe AP specific sources weren't meant for the general game?
Maybe that's why the spell didn't come out in a rule book?
Crazy, I know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of your arguments are poor, both in character and coherence.
I think that's overly condemning -- I think Anzyr's arguments simply come from a direction most people not looking in. He always seems to start from the standpoint that the game is based on the RAW, and everything proceeds from there. He doesn't put it through a filter of RAI or RAP ("rules as played") or RAGM ("rules as GMed") or whatever*. For people always looking at things through those filters, his arguments can seem out of phase or downright distorted.
I guess if all you have is the poor individual your game browbeats into rolling the dice for the monsters, a DM could provide little in the way of needed adjustment, but for the vast majority of actual played games, as rare as the tarrasque double wielding the Sword of Kas and Axe of Dwarvish Lords.
Actually, iirc, Anzyr has posted he plays pretty normal PF, thus all these weird antics appear to be purely theory crafting.
I am pretty sure Anzyr does't play that way, and in fact, from what I have seen, NO ONE plays that way, altho I guess it's possible.
Did anyone have a serious long term 3.5 game where someone played Pun-Pun?
The thing is- saying that spell casters ARE a big problem becuase there's cheese where they COULD become a problem is disingenuous.
And, that's not Oberoni. It doesn't require DM fiat or scads of house rules to keep cheese in check. Just don't play with jerks. Try playing with grown-ups.
Mind you, yes, in 3.5 spell casters completely dominate the game after they get access to 9th level spells. I imagine it's similar in PF, maybe not quite as bad.
But in normal IRL games, during most commonly played levels, played with mature non-jerks, they are not a big problem for any decent DM.
Most of your arguments are poor, both in character and coherence.I think that's overly condemning -- I think Anzyr's arguments simply come from a direction most people not looking in. He always seems to start from the standpoint that the game is based on the RAW, and everything proceeds from there. He doesn't put it through a filter of RAI or RAP ("rules as played") or RAGM ("rules as GMed") or whatever*. For people always looking at things through those filters, his arguments can seem out of phase or downright distorted.
[ooc]* In fact, the only data selection method he uses the most is parsimony, so that "Sor/Wiz 1" means exactly that.
RAW is also a filter.
No one plays general Pathfinder. There is even a lot of table variation among PFS tables (see illusions).
I guess if all you have is the poor individual your game browbeats into rolling the dice for the monsters, a DM could provide little in the way of needed adjustment, but for the vast majority of actual played games, as rare as the tarrasque double wielding the Sword of Kas and Axe of Dwarvish Lords.Actually, iirc, Anzyr has posted he plays pretty normal PF, thus all these weird antics appear to be purely theory crafting.
I am pretty sure Anzyr does't play that way, and in fact, from what I have seen, NO ONE plays that way, altho I guess it's possible.
Did anyone have a serious long term 3.5 game where someone played Pun-Pun?
The thing is- saying that spell casters ARE a big problem becuase there's cheese where they COULD become a problem is disingenuous.
And, that's not Oberoni. It doesn't require DM fiat or scads of house rules to keep cheese in check. Just don't play with jerks. Try playing with grown-ups.
Mind you, yes, in 3.5 spell casters completely dominate the game after they get access to 9th level spells. I imagine it's similar in PF, maybe not quite as bad.
But in normal IRL games, during most commonly played levels, played with mature non-jerks, they are not a big problem for any decent DM.
Yeah the lack of non-cheese examples of caster greatness is astounding.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My own experience is that once wizards hit level 5 (3rd level spells) the game changes and challenging encounters have to be designed with a wizard in mind, and once wizards hit level 11 (6th level spells) the game changes again and in order to be a challenge the encounters have to be designed around the wizard instead of just accounting for the wizard. Clerics, sorcs & druids also present a problem to challenge without overwhelming mundane characters, but wizards are by far the worst.
My experience matches this as well.
If I have a party where the closest thing to a spellcaster is a bard or Inquisitor, it really feels like we're playing a different type of game than one with full casters, with big dynamic shifts around the levels you mentioned. I have to start thinking not just about what would be a good encounter to include in the game, but I have to expand that to everything surrounding the encounter to try and account for all of the possible permutations on the planned adventure the wizard can bring to bear.
How many ways can he bypass these encounters, and how many can he bypass?
Does he have alternatives for circumventing the need for the macguffin?
Is it going to hurt or help the story if I let him use his abilities to subvert the intended plot?
Etc.
For example:
In RotRL there's an encounter where a powerful BBEG with a host of SLA's awaits at the top of a tower filled with devilish traps designed to chew through the party's resources, and an intelligent murderous golem that can mess their day up. My party had a wizard, so we flew to the top of the tower, spotted the hiding BBEG with see invisibility, got the drop on her and defeated her before her minions could enter the fray, bottlenecked them at a ladder and destroyed them, and them used the golembane scarab and other items we found on her to take care of that problem. Having a Wizard in our group literally let us turn the adventure upside down and defeat it handily.
As a GM, if you want to be able to give your group a decent challenge, you have to be able to take their options into account. It becomes harder to do this as levels get higher and they have dozens of options that can potentially be used in hundreds of combinations and permutations. That difficulty is compounded further if only one member of the party actually has those options. Do I scrap things I had planned if something separates the party? What do I do if I've designed this cunningly devilish death trap to ensure the wizard doesn't run roughshod over the adventure and he's sick that night or gets spectacularly unlucky and gets disabled or captured early in the adventure? This adventure built to account for a craftsman with an entire workshop of specialty tools is now being tackled by a group of unskilled laborers with a hammer and saw.
There are higher priorities than not dying?Because not being able to swim when you spend 80% of your time on a boat is an...interesting choice to say the least.
So far it seems to be working for Victarion Greyjoy.
Yeah the lack of non-cheese examples of caster greatness is astounding.
Cute. Just declare every instance of OP casters as "cheese," and therefore maintain that casters aren't overpowered at all, because everything overpowered about them you dismiss as "pure cheese." Even when the hard-core limburger like planar binding, simulacrum, scry & fry, and so on are all written directly into the Core rules.
Most of your arguments are poor, both in character and coherence.Pot, kettle, black.
Well there is a difference between us. My goal when I post is to provide the correct information, while his appears to be to criticize posted information he disagrees with regardless of its truth or validity. Also, his criticism involves language that I consider to be improper for an actual discussion. Finally, I think you'll find my posts only take on a less pleasant tone when the person they're directed at is not making valid or informed arguments.
Actually, if one wants to get pedantic- like you are with stealth- he's right and you're wrong. That line is ACCESS. It's not part of a LIST.The fact that you have access means it is on your spell list. Each class has its own spell list and that list is identified in that line. It is a level 1 spell on the magus, sorcerer/wizard, and witch list. Saying it is merely "access" is incorrect.He already said this. He said he was acting like you with Invisibility = quieter, which is the same thing as saying he, like you, was wrong.
To reply to your demiplane blather, I already stated I don't have an issue with a spellcaster creating a demiplane. I know they exist. Cool. Groovy. They cause me zero problems in the game, beyond making sure that when my spellcasters choose to create one, it is an impressive and awesome event for them.
The "fake demiplanes and other pretend problems" is in regards to the other claptrap you spew forth frequently, claiming that this ability is somehow game breaking. I guess if all you have is the poor individual your game browbeats into rolling the dice for the monsters, a DM could provide little in the way of needed adjustment, but for the vast majority of actual played games, as rare as the tarrasque double wielding the Sword of Kas and Axe of Dwarvish Lords.
About the only thing we agree on is that Blood Money ought to be fixed. Temporary strength changes ought not to function to serve as 'payment'. Most of your arguments are poor, both in character and coherence.
The difference is that by making you better at stealth, invisibility will actually let you move more quietly.
Sor/Wizard 1 is not merely access, so he is wrong. It is in fact its spell list by class and level. So his attempt at pedantry was... poorly planned/constructed.
Also, again... at high levels and yes in "real game play" demiplanes are a thing. Even with gentleman's agreements they see real game play. The mere fact that they don't *in your games* is a terrible argument against them.
And, that's not Oberoni.
Technically it is; Oberoni says you can't claim there's no problem at the same time you're taking steps to ameliorate or remove that problem. "Play with grown-ups" (which is your general term for a constellation of unwritten rules and unspoken gentlemen's agreements, that are obvious to you and I by virtue of playing for 100 years, but that's totally opaque and incomprehensible to new players) is being proposed as a solution, not a fundamental state of nature. Ergo, the problem exists at some level, since we're having to evolve solutions to overcome it.
Yeah the lack of non-cheese examples of caster greatness is astounding.Cute. Just declare every instance of OP casters as "cheese," and therefore maintain that casters aren't overpowered at all, because everything overpowered about them you dismiss as "pure cheese." Even when the hard-core limburger like planar binding, simulacrum, scry & fry, and so on are all written directly into the Core rules.
Simulacrum is VERY doubtful. There's nothing to say that a lower HD Efritti gets Wish, for example. This could use a FAQ, but I don't think ANYONE plays that way.
Scry & fry is there only due to a legacy wording, which is a little doubtful , not RAI, and JJ sez that it's wrong. I admit that a FAQ would be nice. I have asked for one.
And, that's not Oberoni.Technically it is; Oberoni says you can't claim there's no problem at the same time you're taking steps to ameliorate or remove that problem. "Play with grown-ups" (which is your general term for a constellation of unwritten rules and unspoken gentlemen's agreements, that are obvious to you and I by virtue of playing for 100 years, but that's totally opaque and incomprehensible to new players) is being proposed as a solution, not a fundamental state of nature. Ergo, the problem exists at some level, since we're having to evolve solutions to overcome it.
Just having the DM set reasonable parameters on what sources to use is not Oberoni.
Nor is "Don't play with jerks".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit that a FAQ would be nice. I have asked for one.
Indeed, and I seconded the motion. There are a lot of problems with the RAW, particularly the spells, that you solve with "just being grown ups" and that I try to solve (with mixed success) with written houserules. The fact that we can solve them does NOT mean they aren't there.
Shoot, even JJ's post on scry & fry makes it clear that he's houseruling against the RAW.
Nor is "Don't play with jerks".
If that's your solution to problems in the game, then that's an admission those problems exist.
If, in some alternate universe, a perfect set of game rules was evolved by some super-being, then even jerks wouldn't be able to screw it up. We're not there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just having the DM set reasonable parameters on what sources to use is not Oberoni.
"Simulacrums can create problems RAW, but you can houserule 'no simulacrums', therefore simulacrums can't be a problem" is an example of oberoni fallacy.
The biggest issue with the idealism, imo, is that there aren't big red waving signs, or even subtle signs, that anything is ever broken or has the potential to cause a problem. The only thing you can really depend on is your own system mastery to tell you something might cause a problem or you might want to plan around it. Drops a pretty big bomb on anyone who just started.
I admit that a FAQ would be nice. I have asked for one.Indeed, and I seconded the motion. There are a lot of problems with the RAW, particularly the spells, that you solve with "just being grown ups" and that I try to solve (with mixed success) with written houserules. The fact that we can solve them does NOT mean they aren't there.
Shoot, even JJ's post on scry & fry makes it clear that he's houseruling against the RAW.
Not the post I have seen. He just said that seeing a person does not mean you necessarily see a location.
Even so, the line goes “Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying."
Note the words "possibly" and "such as".
If it said: “Viewed once” is a place that you have seen once, which you can do by scrying." then yes, it'd be clear.
But we both agree- that line needs to be FAQed.
And for some reason they have not done so.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big thing that makes Simulacrum overpowered particularly in PF is due to the changes made to it. First, it no longer requires a body part (admittedly Eschew Materials could cover this issue before) making it easier to cast in PF. And Second, it no longer costs XP to use which makes it much more likely a new player will attempt to use it. While experienced 3.5 players knew that XP was a river and thus XP costs were no big deal to pay, new players would avoid XP costs like the plague. Furthermore, using Simulacrum to get a SLA is really very clever (it looks less so to us because we all know about it and have for quite some time) and a new player might very well think that it is completely intended.