I don't let gamers who "game" the system at the expense of story into my games. So it's never a problem. But for those gamists out there, how in the heck is it fun to find and play the "I win" card. That's lame and unskilled. I can "game" with the best of them, but I would never stoop to such low tactics. I'll willingly "ignore" such loopholes and still mop the floor with the blood of whatever is thrown at me.
So how would it hurt you to have that loophole closed? It seems like your post just boils down to: "I don't care; I do my own thing anyways."
|
The problem is that SLAs do not use material components. This isn't the only place where that's problematic.
That may be, but efreeti with 25K worth of diamonds kinda makes no sense either, and certainly doesn't mesh with the stories (which invariably present the wish experience as something along of the lines of, "It is done," and that's it). It may be that specific patches is actually the better way to fix things, depending on how many cases are out there.
For one thing, the idea that changing the SLA rules would resolve the problem ignores the fact that there are SLAs that don't map to actual spells, and so there might or might not be listed components for any given ability.
Do you have a list of the SRD SLAs that are problematic? It might be nice to have an idea what the scope of the issue is.
|
|
Its that the Efreet has every incentive to give it away for free.
[This is not, in any way shape or form, a shot at you or anyone else in this thread, elsewhere on the boards, or in fact any person ahywhere at all, living or dead.]
The same thing can be said about humans and courtesy, and yet it manifestly not the case that we are always nice to one another.
A couple solutions:
Efreeti only grant limited wishes while Efreeti Nobles and similarly powerful genies of other types cast full wishes.
and/or...
(This is my personal favorite)
Require that in order to summon a genie, one must know its name. Its one thing to stumble upon an imprisoned genie and get some wishes, its another to summon it yourself. Nowhere in the genie mythos does it specify the mechanics of summoning so therefore maybe the mage who first summoned the genie knew its name. Additionally, any one mortal can only benefit from the wishes of any one genie once per year or even once per five years no matter what.
and/or...
Also, create a spell (if one doesn't already exist) that would summon wish abusing spellcasters to the City of Brass or similar location for punishment, very sever punishment at the hands of an enraged noble genie who is mightily offended that this silly mortal dares to keep enslaving his/her people. Or this can simple be as a curse of signifigant power that can only be removed by a great service to the genie race in question. If they abuse it again they are summoned again and summarily executed.
Problem solved.
|
|
Heh.
Lately, when I read threads like this, it makes me so very aware that though we might use the same books, the actual game some people play looks absolutely nothing like mine.
Same here. Every time I read one of these threads I truly despair. I have never had anything like this come up in my games. My players have never tried to take advantage. I guess none of us look at the system this way.
I can't believe any player would want to "win" by pulling one of these tactics. Yes, I know they exist, but it confuses me how such a tactic can be fun. And if I ever had a player like this in my game they wouldn't be there for very long, I don't care how close of a friend they might be. Either I would ask them to leave or they would not find my games to their tastes.
I am starting to doubt that it is possible to close all of these loopholes across the board. I am split on whether or not such an attempt should even be made. Do the players who pull this crap represent a majority of the player base? Probably not. Should the fixes cater to the actions of overactive munchkinism?
I guess my answer to that question is "yes, so long as it doesn't inhibit the fun of everyone else." So, if some of the more common grievances can be cured without unduly impacting backwards compatibility or restricting the fun of less abusive players, then let's do it.
I wish I had more to say on this matter. I really can't think of any major fixes at this time because this line of thinking is so alien to how I play. I have a pretty sound knowledge of the rules but this train of thought throws me so much that I just don't know how to address it. I need a little more time to dwell on it. Hopefully I will have something more concrete when we get to this part of the playtest feedback. So far, I have to say, there have been some good suggestions.
|
Without wishing to discuss it ad nauseum, I also dispute the OPs assumptions. Assuming an infinite number of Efreet due to the scale of the elemental plane is NOT a foregone conclusion. Most of the assumptions that predicate his conclusion are similarly flawed. Simply because your opinion matches a specific assumption does not make it fact. However, the wish problem is an actual issue, so lets look at that.
Adding a true name clause for the planar binding spells has a couple of unintended consequences that I happen to like. First, it should severely limit the number of creatures most wizards could summon. In fact, it puts the number, type, and variety completely into GM control. I like this because it can safely resolve gamist munchkinism, and also adds a very nice in game dynamic. Even if you allow your player to find the true name of a wish giver, that is the end of the chain. true names are closely guarded secrets. there is no guarantee that your summoned efreet even knows a single one.
Second, wizards would be summoning the same Efreet, djinn, balor, or whatever with each use of the spell - unless they adventured or sought additional true names to use (which, of course, they may not find). Without treating said creature in a respectful manner, the value of their true name will swiftly deteriorate. After being abused/extorted/charmed into submission more than once, a creature of this power would obviously attempt to arrange revenge. The circumstances to enact such revenge should be well within their means.
|
|
That said... the concept of genies granting wishes is awesome and classic and needs to stay in the game.
Tis a conundrum.
Forgive me if this has been said before;
I agree with this 'trope.I also think that if I was a Pasha of the efreetis, and some dirtside mortal was wasting my mystic mana by grabbing my minions and making them make shiny twinkly pigstickers for them, this would draw my attention. I'd roll up on his tower and slap him down with a crew of efreeti.
The next mudsider with a little bit of knowhow and a whole lot of lack of common sense might have to ask me if this arrangement was okay.
Pashas of the efreeti didn't get where they are by giving wishes away left and right to whatever douche demanded them.
Elric had to have deals cut with these elemental lord jokers, man. They don't play.
(edit)so, essentially, I agree with the guy right above me.
Loox like this one can not only be taken care of in-game, it actually inspires a reason for a random monster (sic) encounter. That's good for gaming, man.
|
|
So how would it hurt you to have that loophole closed? It seems like your post just boils down to: "I don't care; I do my own thing anyways."
Ding! Ding! You are correct!
Wedge issues aren't really worth the effort to close in a formal way (ie for pathfinder community to waste time and effort on). There are bigger fish to fry.
To put it another way: If a game is "broken" by spellcasters planar binding efreeti and milking them for wishes, the problem lies with the players and DM, not the system. This issue is not a systemic issue. It's a wedge issue. Wedge issues are BEST resolved by each gaming group.
Here's a rule of thumb:
If a problem can be solved in a few minutes time by a gaming group, then it should be solved by a gaming group.
If a problem can NOT be solved by the gaming group but it can be solved by the community, then it should be solved by the gaming community (gaming boards, Organized play like pathfinder, etc)
If a problem cannot be solved by the gaming community, likely you have a systemic problem with the rule-set. It can only be solved by the designers.
Where does the efreet-trapping issue fall? IMO, each gaming group can best solve this issue.
I understand there is a desire to fix EVERYTHING with 3rd edition and put it in Pathfinder. That's a good thing, but we should be discussing systemic issues with the 3E rule-set and fix those FIRST, then the big issues likely to get in the way of organized gaming like pathfinder society, and then and only then , polish the system with "fixing" wedge issues.
All of this within the time alloted. I honestly don't think its possible to fix "everything" in the coming year. I would hate to see so much effort wasted on details and wedge issues and let some systemic issues slip by because there wasn't enough play-testing, energy, time, etc.
Heh.
Lately, when I read threads like this, it makes me so very aware that though we might use the same books, the actual game some people play looks absolutely nothing like mine.
Same here. Every time I read one of these threads I truly despair. I have never had anything like this come up in my games. My players have never tried to take advantage. I guess none of us look at the system this way.
I can't believe any player would want to "win" by pulling one of these tactics. Yes, I know they exist, but it confuses me how such a tactic can be fun. And if I ever had a player like this in my game they wouldn't be there for very long, I don't care how close of a friend they might be. Either I would ask them to leave or they would not find my games to their tastes.
I must agree.
My players would try that kind of crap when we were maybe between 14-18yrs old but now there is no way they would do the kind of nonsense I have seen reported on message boards. I hear a lot about fixing things that have absolutely never come up in my games and a lot of loopholes seem like loopholes because of really crappy players who want to game the system and play it like some boardgame or videogame that you can actually win.
Pathfinder will not be able to fix all the loopholes exploitable by munchkin gamers and it shouldn't be asked to. The fact is that the more airtight a system becomes the more utterly suffocating it becomes. This is how 4e is for me because it suffers under the Tyranny of Balance which sacrifices everything so that everyone is equal all the time. DMs need to act like DMs and smack down attempts to cheat via loopholes.
I ran 2e for years and there were some pretty gaping holes in that system and still I had no difficulty DMing and changing the rules when necessary to make things work properly. I'm not saying that seriously flawed rules shouldn't be fixed officially just that every possible weakness cannot be patched.
Adding a true name clause for the planar binding spells has a couple of unintended consequences that I happen to like. First, it should severely limit the number of creatures most wizards could summon. In fact, it puts the number, type, and variety completely into GM control. I like this because it can safely resolve gamist munchkinism, and also adds a very nice in game dynamic. Even if you allow your player to find the true name of a wish giver, that is the end of the chain. true names are closely guarded secrets. there is no guarantee that your summoned efreet even knows a single one.
Absolutely!
Well of course I feel that way this is my solution as well. ;)
This solution is painfully obvious and removes the necessity of a full workaround that involves little mechanical changes for a very obscure problem. Often the minimalist solution is the way to go.
Unfortunately, a lot of the hand wringing and wailing about how broken 3.5e is because of issues like this that become a big issue when they are minor issues at best. The internet, like 24hr news cycles helps a small issue snowball. Not that 3.5e doesn't have issues, it does as all game systems do. However, I think that the nitpicky need to have everything absolutely spelled out in sacred scripture ie. the official rules is a 3.5e generational problem.
When I ran 1e and 2e I, like all the DMs I knew, would create a quick fix that would be a houserule. Dragon Magazine had a rule claification Q&A area but most gamers didn't subscribe so they had to do it themselves. 3.5e is rules heavy IMO and because of this it created a reliance on a rule for every situation. IMO this is one of the biggest of 3.5e "problems".
Here's a rule of thumb:
If a problem can be solved in a few minutes time by a gaming group, then it should be solved by a gaming group.
If a problem can NOT be solved by the gaming group but it can be solved by the community, then it should be solved by the gaming community (gaming boards, Organized play like pathfinder, etc)
Here's my rule of thumb:
If a small change makes some people happy and doesn't make anyone unhappy, make it.
|
|
Adding a true name clause for the planar binding spells has a couple of unintended consequences that I happen to like. First, it should severely limit the number of creatures most wizards could summon. In fact, it puts the number, type, and variety completely into GM control. I like this because it can safely resolve gamist munchkinism, and also adds a very nice in game dynamic. Even if you allow your player to find the true name of a wish giver, that is the end of the chain. true names are closely guarded secrets. there is no guarantee that your summoned efreet even knows a single one.
Absolutely!
Well of course I feel that way this is my solution as well. ;)
This solution is painfully obvious and removes the necessity of a full workaround that involves little mechanical changes for a very obscure problem. Often the minimalist solution is the way to go.
I think I am inclined to agree. I want to believe the solution to the planar binding issue really is one of "fluffy mechanics" rather than some hard and fast rules that might end up being more stifling than helpful.
I like the concept of true names. It has a heritage in fiction and lore, it opens the door to other useful mechanics and story elements, and it provides the DM with the tool to limit abuse of the planar binding spells in his game.
First of all, you cannot threaten to keep the efreeti bound indefinitely. Magic circle against evil can only bind a called creature for 1 day / level.
Second, you must make an opposed Charisma check to compel the efreeti's service. If you roll a natural 1 on that check, the efreeti immediately breaks free.
Third, Fiendish Codex II has guidelines for how rewards increase your Charisma check — and how the difficulty of the commanded task reduces it. If the total reward/difficulty modifier is less than +0, the creature will not agree to the task no matter how high your Charisma bonus is. While this is not a core rule, it should be quite useful for any DM who thinks conjuring creatures is too easy.
"That on the first day of Tallaq, in the year three hundred and seventy eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all genies held as slaves by non-genies within any plane or designated part of a plane, the people whereof shall then be an act of war against the elemental planes and all genies, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Noble Houses of the Djinni and the Sultan of the Efreeti, including the slaves and subjects therein, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such genie, and will do no act or acts to repress such genies, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom (unless it be to enslave said genies ourselves)."
"From this day forward, enslavement of any genie by any non-genie shall be considered an act of war against all genies. The can of whoop-ass, opened upon which act, shall be in no way limited to any measure of 'reasonable response' but shall possibly exceed exponentially the expected scale of whoop-ass."
"This agreement has been entered into by the undersigned:
Darren Al-Tei of the House of Lost Socks,
...
Of course, if Efreeti are wandering around with diamonds in their pockets so they can actually use their SLA, adventurers will chain bind them just to beat them up for 25kgp diamonds.
This suddenly brought back memories of the "Intercontinental Union of Disgusting Characters"!
Some of the characters in the Union were mugging the local centaurs for their 1,000,000 GP gems (technically possible with the 1e treasure tables, and important in a system where treasure GP converted directly to XP).
The Union itself had an entry-interview question as follows: "What is your saving throw against effects which give no saving throw?"
For interested readers: see here!
|
Editing a monster, or several, for the sake of a spell seems to me to be.. overly cumbersome.
Rather, we need to edit the spell.
When it was seen that monsters could summon monsters could summon monsters could summon monsters, the game was changed simply to add the sentence prohibiting summoned creatures from using their summoning powers.
It seems to me that a similar such limitation could be tacked onto any such spell that can call or gate or summon or whatever, a monster from the MM.
A limitation such as:
Creatures called using this spell are inhibited from casting or using any form or ability of Wish or Miracle, whether as a spell or a Spell Like Ability.This could be tacked onto:
Lesser Planar Ally (and it's normal and greater buddies)
Gate
Any other spell or whatnot that has the effect.
This!
Just a few sentences and the option is killed stone-dead - lovely stuff.
|
|
Here's my rule of thumb:
If a small change makes some people happy and doesn't make anyone unhappy, make it.
I agree. But lets face it, we all have different ways to solve this issue, thus for your rule of thumb to work, ie "doesn't make anyone unhappy", we are talking about an individual group. We are in agreement.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
You're not an outsider, therefore Planar Binding cannot be cast on you.You are considered an outsider when the native to the plane is on their own plane and trying to bind you to their plane. IOW, you are an outsider to the Plane of Fire when the summoner/binder is a genie in the City of Brass.That is not correct.
What plane you are on, what plane you are native to, and what plane others, who are attempting to effect you with a spell, are on have no bearing on your creature type.
You are either of the type Outsider, or you are not.
You may or may not have the (extraplanar) subtype, depending on your current plane, your native plane, and the plane of the creature trying to affect you with a spell, but your type does not change.
It's true. Which probably should give outsider spellcasters the incentive to research new spells like mortal binding in order to take revenge on pesky mortals who keep pissing them off. Such spells would not be in the Player's Handbook either because they are not known by/shared with mortals or because they can't be cast by them. If you allow outsiders as PC races, then maybe you have a reason to introduce them as castable spells for PCs. Until then, hold it in reserve.
PS - As to the whole idea of the legalese genies and the "screw you" wishes, that was absolutely a staple of 1st and 2nd Ed games back in the olden days. A wish was often more trouble than it was worth, especially if it came from a creature with a bad attitude like a genie. Ultimately, though, that's just aggravation and a game of oneupsmanship in the legalese. Pass.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Of course, if Efreeti are wandering around with diamonds in their pockets so they can actually use their SLA, adventurers will chain bind them just to beat them up for 25kgp diamonds.
This suddenly brought back memories of the "Intercontinental Union of Disgusting Characters"!
Some of the characters in the Union were mugging the local centaurs for their 1,000,000 GP gems (technically possible with the 1e treasure tables, and important in a system where treasure GP converted directly to XP).
The Union itself had an entry-interview question as follows: "What is your saving throw against effects which give no saving throw?"
For interested readers: see here!
Love that story! Ah the memories. Sick Sword, I will always love you... :)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Editing a monster, or several, for the sake of a spell seems to me to be.. overly cumbersome.
Rather, we need to edit the spell.
When it was seen that monsters could summon monsters could summon monsters could summon monsters, the game was changed simply to add the sentence prohibiting summoned creatures from using their summoning powers.
It seems to me that a similar such limitation could be tacked onto any such spell that can call or gate or summon or whatever, a monster from the MM.
A limitation such as:
Creatures called using this spell are inhibited from casting or using any form or ability of Wish or Miracle, whether as a spell or a Spell Like Ability.This could be tacked onto:
Lesser Planar Ally (and it's normal and greater buddies)
Gate
Any other spell or whatnot that has the effect.
This!
Just a few sentences and the option is killed stone-dead - lovely stuff.
Agreed! FTW!
And while we're at it, add a codicil to gate that the called creature will never agree to obviously self-destructive commands (closing the "gate in your enemy and then kill them for 1 round/level" idiot loophole).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Its that the Efreet has every incentive to give it away for free.[This is not, in any way shape or form, a shot at you or anyone else in this thread, elsewhere on the boards, or in fact any person ahywhere at all, living or dead.]
The same thing can be said about humans and courtesy, and yet it manifestly not the case that we are always nice to one another.
ZING! Well played, good sir.
Wouldn't a phrase like:
"No spell or variant of a spell (or spell-like ability) can duplicate, give acces or generate the effect of any equal or higher level spell"
solve a lot of that?
|
|
Stupid question, but what does a 25k gp diamond look like?
At 1/3 per troy ounce of gold = gold piece at $825/ounce you get a diamond worth $6,883,333.33.
So, what does a $7 million dollar diamond look like?
Here's a 12 million dollar diamond, as of 2006.
IMarv
But you must remember that diamonds are valued slightly differently in a D&D campaign world - since every caster uses them for spell components, there is much more demand for them.
|
The problem with editing Calling spells such as Gate or Planar Binding, is that the Efreeti still have the Wish-granting power, which could still be accessed in other ways, such as by Compulsion or Charm spells cast upon an Efreeti, a really amazing Leadership / Cohort, a Diplomacy check through the roof, etc. And then there are the shapeshifters who can use Supernatural abilities or whatever.
Instead of changing a dozen different rules scattered throughout the game, and *still* have the problem that Efreeti can grant Wishes like crazy and the entire City of Brass should be made of Adamantine and they feast on Ki-Rin steaks brought to them by their pet Titans while the Tarrasque guards the door, the Efreeti's 'wish' needs to be redefined. Efreeti aren't dumb, and they are very organized. It's not like an Efreeti wouldn't be strongly motivated to seek out a human and say, "I'll grant you one Wish, but only after you read this scroll I wrote up, which details a Wish you'll be making to make *me* more powerful. If it goes well, I'll be back tomorrow, and we can each have another Wish..."
Yes, genies 'grant wishes.' That's the lore, but nowhere in Aladdin did it state that the genie had an SLA that equalled a 9th level Wish spell. Give genies some sort of Major Creation or Polymorph Any Object-like ability that allows them to create food and clothing and all that cool stuff, but not magic items. It's also quite fitting the nature of the genre for genie-crafted stuff to not be permanant, in most cases. If the 'wisher' asks for something that can't just be created or conjured by a creation or polymorph spell, such as ressurecting a dead companion, the genie might have to task this 'wish' out to another Efreeti who has Cleric levels.
The root of the problem, in short, is not Calling spells. It's not Diplomacy. It's not Leadership. It's not PC monsters. It's not shapeshifting. It's not Summoning. It's not Charm/Compulsion spells. It's that some 'monsters' have powers that are ridiculously broken in the hands of players.
Adjust Efreeti Wishes, Barghest Feed, Shadow/Wraith/Spectre/Vampire Create Spawn, Shambling Mound 'get Con when hit by Lightning', Ooze 'split into two monsters when hit,' etc. powers and suddenly the game becomes able to support such classic fantasy fare as charm spells, summoning spells, binding and negotiating with genies and devils, shapeshifting, etc. as well as such not-so-classic fare as leadership and 'monster parties.'
The powers can be kept thematic, while the various 'infinite Genie Wish loops' or 'infinite Barghest HD loops' or 'infinite Shadow spawn loops' or 'infinite Shambler Con loops' or 'infinite Black Puddings loops' are plugged up.
|
|
I have kind of an interesting take on this, since right now I'm playing a malconvoker who is just sort of reaching his stride in a savage tide campaign.
If you aren't sure what a malconvoker is, its a prestige from the complete scoundrel that is basically a non-evil character, who uses evil outsiders to do his bidding. Essentially, its the idea that I can make evil serve against evil.
They get bonuses if they bluff evil summoned creatures, and whatever their base class was, they get the planar bindings added to their spell lists.
So, with that said, I obviously -like- the idea of these spells and I don't want to see them nerfed too badly. However, when I first looked at the class and thought 'that is pretty need' I headed over to the WotC boards to do a bit of surfing about them and get an idea of what feats I should keep an eye on for the future, and thats where this problem first was obvious to me.
Now, I can't see my character using a wish except in the most dire of circumstances simply because that is not his style and he is a bit too cocky to normally make much use of his creatures except as meat-shields who he doesn't mind having fall in the line of duty(as opposed to the barbarian who is a meat-shield he would rather keep up).
I would have thought the various restrictions placed on the binding spells would have done a good job to hold back some of this abuse, but people find impressive ways to get past it, from debuffing the creatures charisma before trying to bargain with it, all the way to geases that they can't complete while they are trapped in the circle to let it wear its stats down, people will always find a way.
I think that the idea of idea of Ifreeti doing lesser wish, with a greater version(or perhaps just specific, more powerful ones) being able to do a full on wish. It seems that would save a lot of the potentials for abuse that is inherent with this use of the spell, without removing the spells flavor.
Of course this can't totally solve the problem, James mentioned making it so that only 19hd Ifreeti can do wish and that can always be gotten around by players as well, the malconvoker gets to add a HD or two onto the max of his planar bindings by the end of his prestige. I know that splat books can't really be taken into account, I just want to point out that no solution will completely plug every hole.
The poster above this one did make a good point though. Perhaps simply add language to limit the level of any SLAs of bound/gated creatures to the spell that brought them? This doesn't entirely solve it(a heightened binding could still get unlimited wishes without the material cost, for the crafting example someone gave above) but it does at least plug the situation until the caster is tossing out 9th level spells anyway.
As a final thought, from this way too long post, maybe a solution would be simply to change the way that ifreeti cast wish? It already specifically says that their wish cannot benefit outsiders, maybe it is granted them by the most powerful of the city of brass much like if it was a clerical spell. It would explain why the ifreeti are already under a restriction to not benefit themselves, and would have something in the RAW that would allow a GM to simply say 'The ifreet is -unable- to grant that wish, even if he feels it would be in his best interest.'
-Tarlane
Just a thought... would it perhaps be useful to work in some sort of rule regarding wishes that essentially says, "No more than one (or three) wishes can be granted to a specific mortal in a year."?
...and possibly "Only the binder of a planar ally may request a wish of it." if we think that a binder will gather a bunch of buddies to help chain up the wishes.
On the single point of crafting books +5:
I do not feel the change to the craft specifications of the Tomes is a mistake. As such it will now take 138 days, and 69K gp, to craft a single +5 Tome. Having an Efreet around to cast Wish for you merely supplies the spell (which wouldn't require the component in any case during crafting).
Free Wishes? Maybe there's a problem there.
Free Wishes = Free Books? - not a problem.
And Squirrel... your math-fu is weak. Setting aside the cardinality of the infinities, which you accurately stated are simply guessing at, you are still doomed. You have an infinite number of potential djinn and efreet who may report their binding to a superior, who represent another infinity reporting to their superior. This goes on until you reach an ultimate ruler who could quickly decide to create a elemental database of summoners, and target the abusers with infinite power.
And if they need any help? Just offer Joe the Fighter a wish if he'll use two to damage the defenses of summoners.
So what I'm getting from a lot of posters is a few things:
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."
Yet again, we have a bunch of fail concentrated into one thread. Allow me to demonstrate why:
1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."
2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."
3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."
Your fail arguments against making this change are invalid.
|
|
The problem with editing Calling spells such as Gate or Planar Binding, is that the Efreeti still have the Wish-granting power, which could still be accessed in other ways, such as by Compulsion or Charm spells cast upon an Efreeti, a really amazing Leadership / Cohort, a Diplomacy check through the roof, etc. And then there are the shapeshifters who can use Supernatural abilities or whatever.
But if the PC has to visit the City of Brass so that he/she can kidnap an Efreet it becomes less of a convenient wish-machine and more of a perilous journey across the planes to a really scary place. Or I suppose they could travel into the desert wilderness following ancient maps to the ancient City of Efreeti, which is quite an incredible adventure just to hassle an Efreet for a wish.
And it also becomes a great way to tell the player; "Only if you buy me the City of Brass boxed set." :D
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Is this really broken if you have to persuade the creature to aid you?YES. "Hey, Efreeti. Gimme three wishes and I'll make first one for your benefit and the other two for mine. Everybody wins."
The Efreeti would have to be brain-dead to turn down an offer like that.
Or, they could be Efreeti. Efreeti are "infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature, and ability to beguile or mislead". I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the problem here. Please explain to me very slowly why this isn't a dream come true for a DM in terms of opening up elaborate revenge-laden story lines that will drive the plot out in very interesting directions.
So, cardinals of infinities and all aside :-),
it sounds like just explicitly defining which classes of powers you can access of summoned creatures (ala the new Polymorph spells) is a good way to go, breaking down into Lesser/Standard/Greater Planar Binding...
Making the Efreeti's Wish Granting ability limited on a 'global' scale would also tend to limit it's power, i.e. 3 wishes/recipient/year FROM ALL ('INFINITE') EFREET AS A WHOLE: The power comes from the collective whole of Efreeti, & individual Efreet just channel this, they don't hold their own individual store of Wishes.
As well, there might be better ways to moderate Wish instead of the 'reducing one ability to raise another': Such as saying ALL sources of Wish are INHERENTLY limited to 3 Wishes per year per recipient, but that's it, that's how Wishes function.
Its not the ability to get access to a 9th level spell that's broken.
I disagree. Getting 9th level spells from a 6th level spell in my mind is broken.
If you could find a outsider or elemental to bind that could grant astral projection and other 9th level spells at will for the cost of a 6th level spell I would have issues with that as well. The fact that you could possibly convince a high level NPC somewhere to give you his time for free does not change this.
Psychic_Robot: What is unreasonable about people posting feedback about how issues affect THEIR gameplay? If people aren't convinced certain issues affect THEIR game, who's to argue with them? If you want to share how YOU actually play D&D/3.5, that'd be interesting & relavent, but so are others' experience.
I'm not some 'expert'(!?) on high-level planar entities, but I posted a few simple, straightforward 'fixes' for this issue, that seem to be viable additions to the ruleset Paizo is working on, and that even play off changes already made (Polymorph), so seem likely to actually be adopted... If you feel you have a viable improvement to an aspect of the game, please do share it, otherwise... what's up!?
Constantly complaining about people not being up to your standards, inevitably leads to the question WHY one is spending one's time amongst company so "beneath" you... Or whether there's other issues really at play, hm? I mean, I don't go visit right-wing synagogues and get upset if they're all Zionists or start berating the local K-Mart for not carrying organic free-trade coffee, right...?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So what I'm getting from a lot of posters is a few things:
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."Yet again, we have a bunch of fail concentrated into one thread.
Fail?
I, and others, attempt to engage your thesis, and all you can do is insult us? (By the way, "fail" is a verb. The noun you need for the object of the preposition is "failure." Learn to write like a grown-up.)
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over. I'm sure this will tickle you pink, and you'll have leave to call me a whiner or something equally mature. But you'll need to post it elsewhere, because I won't see it here.
|
|
The universe is not infinitely large. It does have a size. The exact size is hard to know right now, and depends on astronomical assumptions. Basically, its no larger than (age of the universe) * (speed of light), because some variant of the big bang theory or a close relative is proveably true.Edit: Sorry, its a volume, not a distance - that's the radius.
I think that you are talking about the part of the universe that we can actually 'see' (which is actually more like a volume with a radius of 3*(age of the universe) * (speed of light) as the universe has been expanding since light just arriving at our location today had left its source; exact multiple depends on the relative density of the universe).
Aha: Linkage (Ned Wright's entire cosmology FAQ is pretty cool, actually).
EDIT: Nothing in science is 'proveably true', though (but to be scientific at all, at least as per the falsificationist viewpoint which I hold, it has to in principle be proveable false).
|
|
So what I'm getting from a lot of posters is a few things:
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."Yet again, we have a bunch of fail concentrated into one thread. Allow me to demonstrate why:
1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."
2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."
3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."
Your fail arguments against making this change are invalid.
Wow.
So you create a bunch of strawmen, knock them down with a word and then hold that forth as proof you are right?
Did anybody say they didn't follow the rules in this thread? I believe the point some of us would argue is that the rules as written give the DM a lot of leeway here. Which is a slightly different argument than rule 0.
Somebody specifically said that he didn't play D&D "RAW."
As well, there might be better ways to moderate Wish instead of the 'reducing one ability to raise another': Such as saying ALL sources of Wish are INHERENTLY limited to 3 Wishes per year per recipient, but that's it, that's how Wishes function.
Actually, this I like. It's like my idea,
"No more than one (or three) wishes can be granted to a specific mortal in a year."
But much, much more efficient. I was thinking of it as a limit on genie granting, but hedging out all crazy ways to crank up the wishes could be even more helpful!
I applaud. ^-^
I would hazard a guess that NOBODY plays the RAW...the developer and designers posts about their games are a very salient case in point.
That's not an excuse NOT to fix something.
It seems like most people posting here are doing so because it complements their enjoyment of gaming in their real life, which is an applaudable aim, enhancing their enjoyment of life.
I think you seriously need to look at your own purposes for posting here, Psychic_Robot, and if your aim is either not enhancing enjoyment of actual gaming in your own life, or is for whatever reason, aimed AGAINST other people's enjoyment of their hobbies, that really seems to question the value of your posts here, AS MUCH FOR YOURSELF AS FOR THE REST OF THE POSTERS.
If you'd enjoy designing the most amazing RPG system ever invented, and feel hampered by posters here (though most game designers are interested in how OTHERS like playing, except those designing games only for themselves), please go ahead and write one yourself, print up a small run and sell or give it away as you please. Anything else is an utter waste of life, wouldn't you agree?
|
|
Some great stuff....
I wanted to say that you have some wonderfully salient points Set. Unfortunately it looks like they may have gotten lost in the furor.
Perhaps the real solution is looking at it from a creature design point of view. I guess my only worry would be this: PFRPG is supposed to preserve backwards compatibility. In your opinion, would changing creatures overly much hinder that? Or would maintaining thematic integrity help prevent this issue? Is it even that much of an issue?
This isn't a challenge, just an honest question to get you thinking and to hear more of your opinions on this.
|
|
So what I'm getting from a lot of posters is a few things:
1. "My players don't try to do this, so it's not broken."
2. "I don't follow the rules-as-written, so it's not broken."
3. "Use Rule 0."Yet again, we have a bunch of fail concentrated into one thread. Allow me to demonstrate why:
1. "My players have never had a problem with the difference in power levels between fighters and wizards. Everything is fine; don't change fighters or wizards."
2. "I took away the druid's ability to [3e] wild shape and cast ninth-level spells, so the class isn't broken. Don't change the druid class at all."
3. "One time, one of my players was trying to use [3e] shapechange to turn into a choker to cast an extra spell in the round. I said that he couldn't, so it's not broken."
Your fail arguments against making this change are invalid.
Sorry buddy, its the core assumptions of the OP that were challenged here. Sucessfully, i might add on at least a few of the his points.
Much like many of the 'Den crowd arguments, if the core assumptions are disputed, the argument falls apart like a house of cards.
And btw, no one here has said there is no problem. Most of the thread discusses solutions to the acknowledged problem with planar binding The issue, here, is that many of us dispute some of the claims made in the OP. Since you don't have agreement on the core assumptions, the solutions posited vary accordingly.
a final note, the only 'epic fail' i've seen around here is the diplomacy checks made by some of the Den crowd. try to actually join a discussion without ridiculing those who don't agree with you.