Well, if we can't even rely on a shared comprehension of English between players and the GM, any exercise in this discussion is pointless. Every Rule in the Core Books and expanded setting require parsing. Some Rules may be parsed in different ways... Others are much more clearly defined.
The point of Geas is that you have to come up with a set of circumstances that adhere to the rules of the spell and allow your opponent no way to counteract them. If you can come up with a command that brooks no counter, under any valid interpretation of the command, then you have a good Geas for this sort of fight.
Divine Source - Nobility Domain is hardly an exploit, though it is certainly strong if you want to use geas as a battle ender.
My Geas: "For one year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain within a 30 ft radius of your current location, both physically and mentally, without using magic items, casting spells, or using your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide, daily, the minimum services and needs required to keep you alive."
...
Give me an interpretation of this that allows the opponent any room to do anything that he might be good at. I'm no lawyer, so I certainly could have overlooked something.
Well, if we can't even rely on a shared comprehension of English between players and the GM, any exercise in this discussion is pointless. Every Rule in the Core Books and expanded setting require parsing. Some Rules may be parsed in different ways... Others are much more clearly defined.
Rule language is more defined.
Geas commands do not use rule language because the characters do not speak meta.
My Geas: "For one year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain within a 30 ft radius of your current location, both physically and mentally, without using magic items, casting spells, or using your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide, daily, the minimum services and needs required to keep you alive."
...
Give me an interpretation of this that allows the opponent any room to do anything that he might be good at. I'm no lawyer, so I certainly could have overlooked something.
Location in reference to what?
If the planet is rotating, does that mean I need to move to maintain my postion or does that mean my position is relative to a point?
If my position is relative to a point then it can move. I define the relevant point as myself, so as I move the area moves with me. You did not specific how the radius was fixed.
The exact wording of your command prevents me from doing actions that would make me escape the 30ft radius. Allowing me to do any action I want since none of them would remove me from that location.
The only thing I cannot do is use abilities that would cause me to expand to a greater than 30ft radius.
NOTE: We did not even have to get into real shenanigans for this one.
Ok, that's valid. Some changes (note that this is a good purpose of this forum, to make watertight strategy)
My Geas: "For one year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain within a 30 ft radius of myself, both physically and mentally. Also, you may not use magic items, cast spells, or use your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide, daily, the minimum services and needs required to keep you alive."
Geas never limits you to a single instruction. In fact, it tells us the geased creature must follow the given instructions (plural) (EDIT: where one of the suggested interpretations of instructions is to 'refrain from a course of activity' -- where the course of activity here is 'leave my Blindsense' and 'cause any occurrence of magic or supernatural effects')
Senko, yeah, it definitely is class-independent. A commoner could own the right items and be mythic enough for this strategy, as proposed.
Once we confirm that a valid action actually exists for the mythic options to succeed, we can start trying to replace needed moves with Fighter options.
Ok, that's valid. Some changes (note that this is a good purpose of this forum, to make watertight strategy)
My Geas: "For one year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain within a 30 ft radius of myself, both physically and mentally. Also, you may not use magic items, cast spells, or use your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide, daily, the minimum services and needs required to keep you alive."
You did not specify what kind of year. Earth years are so long and mars years are longer. The universe is infinite, so I spend one second following the command which is a year for some celestial body somewhere.
Ok, that's also valid (though celestial mechanics denies planetary years on the order of seconds -- just to be far enough away from a star to not be *in* the star -- your point stands).
My Geas: "For one [insert setting planet here] year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain within a 30 ft radius of myself, both physically and mentally. Also, you may not use magic items, cast spells, or use your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide the minimum services and needs required to keep you alive at least once every [insert setting planet here] day.
Ok, that's also valid (though celestial mechanics denies planetary years on the order of seconds -- just to be far enough away from a star to not be *in* the star -- your point stands).
My Geas: "For one [insert setting planet here] year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain within a 30 ft radius of myself, both physically and mentally. Also, you may not use magic items, cast spells, or use your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide the minimum services and needs required to keep you alive at least once every [insert setting planet here] day.
You did not specific what kind of feet. Feet is also something people walk with. I choose deity feet, which can be infinitely large. 30 of those feet stacked end to end is plenty of distance to work with.
"As though to breathe were life!" -- Ulysses. You did not define what being "alive" meant. I can define it as using magic items, casting spells, and using my own supernatural or spell like abilities. Since you cannot provide those services, I am free to act.
Sure that's ok still can be countered by changing the wording.
My Geas: "For one [insert setting planet here] year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain visible, within my line of sight, such that you may reach my person reasonably within 6 seconds time. Also, you may not use magic items, cast spells, or use your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide the minimum services and needs required to keep you from starvation and dehydration at least once every [insert setting planet here] day."
I would be happy to play the fighter character but I am not willing to post the build publicly until after the scenario. I will of course share the build with the GM or group of GM's.
|
If this actually becomes a pbp deathmatch, then I'd suggest the following, in the interest of fairness.
1. One single deathmatch is not conclusive. It needs to be something on the order of best 5 of 9. With the arena changed in between different matches. Ideally, with different PCs and players.
2. No details about the arena are shared publicly before the match is concluded.
3. And quite obviously, neither build should be shared publicly before the match.
Wealth allowed: Wizard gets 20th level WBL. Fighter gets 1.5 x 20th level WBL (he does, after all, have 10 mythic ranks). Each character is allowed to purchase up to half of their wealth in gear at crafted prices.
Let it also be noted - The wizard character must define his spells prepared before the deathmatch. Also, he much establish the actual parameters of his contingency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For distance...use meters. A meter is intrinsically defined as the vibrational bandwidth of a specific band of light.
Better yet, use 'as generally accepted in Golarion' as the definition for all your 'undefined' terms, which essentially mean you default to the most common one, not the most extreme.
I will note that you did not forbid the mage from attacking you. Or commanding others to attack you. That is a big oversight.
==Aelryinth
so wait, i've seen at least two fighter builds, has anyone dropped a proper wizard build here yet?
as of page 5 i've only seen:
player A: "okay, my fighter is kitted out and ready to go!"
player B: "[scan's player A's sheet] you lack X, i exploit that with Y spell."
player A: "that's well and good, but im not seeing a real wizard here to actually cast it at me, just an ethereal voice."
Sure that's ok still can be countered by changing the wording.
My Geas: "For one [insert setting planet here] year, starting immediately at the end of this command, you are to remain visible, within my line of sight, such that you may reach my person reasonably within 6 seconds time. Also, you may not use magic items, cast spells, or use your own supernatural or spell like abilities, so long as I provide the minimum services and needs required to keep you from starvation and dehydration at least once every [insert setting planet here] day."
Actually let's end this. If you cast tongues on yourself, your command is not given in common or english, but instead in a language the target understands. You can then give the intent of your commands and be understood.
|
some other rules I would suggest:
please provide buff order and list duration in rounds.
wish cannot be used for anything greater then listed in the spell. Limited wish (or any spell for that matter) cannot target the opponent until the match begins.
Do we allow leadership? I say no, we can always change our minds but this keeps builds easier to manage. I would also suggest either no simulacrums or a limit to them that isn't purely wealth based (such as no more than 7 as that's the limit to planeshift), do the same with planar ally/binding spells. Allow Gate but must be cast during the match and not before. I would also ban blood money.
Standard WBL, wizards must calculate spellbook cost, crafting can give 25% increase in WBL.
So... nerf all caster stuff. Lets ban Spell Parry and Power Attack while we are at it. And a limit to crafting!? Blasphemy. I want my massive bonus wealth out of Craft Wondrous Item thank you very much.
Leadership ban is a good idea though. We want to compare one class against another. Not two classes.
Trust me Anzy, limiting crafting is very much in your favor. The build I was working on had ALL item crafting feats, effectively doubling WBL. Not a bad trick for a tier 1 ability.
|
|
Admittedly Divine Source has some problems with it (what’s the caster level or save DCs of those spell-like abilities?). Even assuming worst case scenario based on the wording of other abilities (CL=Mythic Tier and DC=10+Tier+Cha) that still means you get Wish for free once per day. And that is nothing to sneeze at. You can enter the domain of GM arbitration by getting Miracle as a SLA and asking for big stuff from gods like “Kill that dumb wizard over who’s trying to kill me” as soon as your daily mythic commune ability lets you know someone is out to get you.
2x Mythic Tier
Aelryinth, I neglected physical assault because I did not think it would be an issue for a fighter (wizard coming up and trying to smack him is like... The fighter's ideal situation)
That said, it'd be fine to add it in.
And commanding others: yeah probably should add that in. But it'd be a lot easier to find the wizard if he has a bunch of non-undetectable minions near him.
I'm not sure Truespeech would be sufficient, though Aelryinth's suggestion makes it better than the previous change. I'd revert to the 'be within 30 ft of my person' rule, and add the following line. 'Units of measurement are defined by the Golarion standard system'
I think we've gotten to the point where it is clear that phrasing may be altered until it is binding. I only wish I had enough training to have made it obvious with my first attempt. With high enough skill points in Profession-Lawyer, you could probably argue a binding contract.
|
|
Look we have people volunteering to be GMs submit your builds to them and let's see this fight otherwise it's "oh did I say x well I really meant Y because I forgot to account for your ability T but if this was real I would have." as people keep shifting builds to counter new tactics they wouldn't have known for going in.
Still working on a build, and still need a baseline ruling on WBL with crafting.
Demigod fighter can craft literally everything via Master Craftsman, doubling his WBL.
Ultimate Campaign is in the Core Rulebook line, and tells us that 1 crafting feat means +25% to WBL, and 2 feats gives +50%. Further crafting feats confer no benefit in character generation. All items are counted against this increased WBL by it's listed price, not cost to craft.
By the Rules, Mythic Tiers have no impact on WBL in character generation.
Ultimate Campaign is in the Core Rulebook line, and tells us that 1 crafting feat means +25% to WBL, and 2 feats gives +50%. Further crafting feats confer no benefit in character generation. All items are counted against this increased WBL by it's listed price, not cost to craft.
By the Rules, Mythic Tiers have no impact on WBL in character generation.
This is probably the fairest option for all parties.
Huh. Just went back to the section. Turns out it wasn't as clear cut as I remembered. I posted the most generous reading... for those interested
Ultimate Campaign: Campaign Systems, Magic Item Creation
As a guideline, allowing a crafting PC to exceed the Character Wealth by Level guidelines by about 25% is fair, or even up to 50% if the PC has multiple crafting feats.
Still, an unbiased reading almost has to read it generously, or nobody ever takes the off color crafting feats (Craft wondrous is a must if you are not generous, for instance)
But it will stop the wizard from dropping Explosive Runes within 10ft during Time Stop.Declaring Time Stop won't help since the Wizard probably won't be casting it within 10 ft. of you.Fighter pre-buff: scroll of Spellbane, CL20.
Declare Time Stop, Disjunction, and two other troublesome spells.
Also, would declaring wish and limited wish protect you from a caster using them to copy the effects of a different spell?
Sorry to disappoint, but Time Stop is instantaneous. So the Wizard can move up to you in apparent time without concern.
Sorry to disappoint, but Time Stop says you can't enter the area of an anti-magic field during TS, and Spellbane acts as AMF to the declared spells.Sorry to disappoint, but Time Stop is instantaneous. So the Wizard can move up to you in apparent time without concern.But it will stop the wizard from dropping Explosive Runes within 10ft during Time Stop.Declaring Time Stop won't help since the Wizard probably won't be casting it within 10 ft. of you.Fighter pre-buff: scroll of Spellbane, CL20.
Declare Time Stop, Disjunction, and two other troublesome spells.
Also, would declaring wish and limited wish protect you from a caster using them to copy the effects of a different spell?
Huh. Right. Fair point. Still won't help. They can just be dropped thre from 15 ft. above it.
Why don't you just make the Spellbane against Explosive Runes? I cant think of a huge number of things one does in Time Stop that require the caster to approach.
Yeah, it is pretty meta-gamey. I've been operating under the assumption that both duelists are attempting to learn as much as possible through divination/knowledge checks as possible. If Explosive Runes are a tactic the character employs enough to have stacks and stacks prepared for a duel, then some sort of divination/knowledge will likely provide some insight about that. (The other assumption, that the tactic was never used before by the caster, would have to have been played out -- if you want the benefit, you need to allow the drawbacks)
Yeah, it is pretty meta-gamey. I've been operating under the assumption that both duelists are attempting to learn as much as possible through divination/knowledge checks as possible. If Explosive Runes are a tactic the character employs enough to have stacks and stacks prepared for a duel, then some sort of divination/knowledge will likely provide some insight about that. (The other assumption, that the tactic was never used before by the caster, would have to have been played out -- if you want the benefit, you need to allow the drawbacks)
But this is stated as the obvious goto attack for all wizards ever. Remember that this was the tactic employed by "generic wizard" who was so generic that his abilities could be argued sans stat block. Pretty much anything mentioned in this thread is up for grabs for protections to be in place against.
|
|
On the subject of X vs Y are these solo builds to fight a wizard/fighter or a build that assumes the character normally operates in a party and designed for general adventuring? That is are we talking about a fighter who spent 20 levels training just to fight a wizard or have you grabbed a random 20/10 fighter from somewhere to face your challenge?
I believe there's a lich wizard build on one of the later pages.
Meh, the undetectable/invisible/flying tactic is so limited in number of abilities/items required that any fighter could have been doing it and adventuring just fine (albeit at levels > 12 or so)
Generally, though, the assumption is usually that everything that can be optimized against this fight in particular, is optimized.
For the geas, one of the commands simply needs to be:
"I also forbid you from trying to interpret these commands in a way that would allow you to violate any clear intent of the wording"
Which prevents a great deal of the nonsense Marroar Gellantara is coming up with. The statement is self-protective: you can try to weasel what 'interpret' or 'clear intent' means, but by doing so you violate this command. Unfortunately the high intelligence of a character works against him or her in this situation, as it makes the intent clearer. A dumb opponent may honestly find your intent unclear, but a smart opponent will struggle to do so.
With any 'weasel words' situation you should always make sure one of the binding statements is an 'in good faith' sentence. Current day law does this, and trying to get out of clear violations of the law via legalise usually ends very poorly for the perpetrator.
"I also forbid you from trying to interpret these commands in a way that would allow you to violate any clear intent of the wording"
Without tongues.
You did not specify clear intent. Thus the clear intent is the intent I want. Now I don't have to twist your command, this phrase makes the command auto-fail. You have prevented me from interpreting it any other way.
trying to get out of clear violations of the law via legalise usually ends very poorly for the perpetrator.
You must have cheap lawyers.
Geas has a 1 round casting time.
Have fun making those Concentration checks.
Geas has a 1 round casting time.
Have fun making those Concentration checks.
Limited Wish/Wish gets around that.
So people resolved the "limited wish gives a save" thing? Darn.
Is there a way for that fighter to get Spell Resistance? You'd think there'd be some way for Mythics. Shuts down that geas a bit better. Hey, be a svirfneblin! Problem solved! ;D
"I also forbid you from trying to interpret these commands in a way that would allow you to violate any clear intent of the wording"Without tongues.
You did not specify clear intent. Thus the clear intent is the intent I want. Now I don't have to twist your command, this phrase makes the command auto-fail. You have prevented me from interpreting it any other way.
You've violated the clear intent with this interpretation. Do not pass go.
You, as a person, have also violated the clear intent of Geas as an spell, which is clearly intended to provide action restriction without requiring a 60 page supporting document to prevent weasel wording.
How am I supposed to know the clear intent? Sure, if I said that, I'd mean this, but he's a wizard. Wizards ain't right in the head, y'know.
That'll teach you to geas a lawyer. Geas isn't intended as a way to instant-end a climactic battle, it's intended as a way to force people on quests. I generally saw it as a, "We beat this guy, now let's ship him out for a while."
Giving a fighter a deliberately deadly quest with the express intention of using said quest to enable killing him is clearly a bit unfair and therefore probably not the intent of the spell (which is a terribly crafted spell, in fairness), so I don't see why we have to play nice while you make us go fight Baal. :P
How am I supposed to know the clear intent? Sure, if I said that, I'd mean this, but he's a wizard. Wizards ain't right in the head, y'know.
Sure, you can still wiggle with a caveat like that a hell of a lot.
What you can't do, for example, is say 'cannot perform a violent action' means 'I can now kill the wizard with my sword because it is the sword performing the violent action' or similar, which is violation of clear intent.
It's like, you could never try to claim that you aren't guilty of 'murder' because 'murder' means a group of crows and you've never even seen a group of crows in your life. This is violation of clear intent no matter how many times you try to state you can never be sure what those crafty lawyers really mean.
Furthermore, you do not have to define common usage words as long as you have a clear intent or reasonable interpretation caveat. Clear intent is in itself a common usage word. Although if you were very low INT and thus incapable of understanding the intent of another creature you could easily bypass this restriction, none of the players in the current thread have created INT 4 character.
Additionally, you cannot interpret 'clear intent of these commands' to mean your own intent, because you did not create those commands. Intent has a fixed meaning in this context.
I'm sorry but, creating alternate word meanings to shift interpretation is being deliberately obtuse in this case and would clearly not fly given any adjudication. Your entire argument is becoming 'nu-uh I don't have to because reasons', which isn't a very convincing argument at all.
Actually, I can rule out "no violent actions" pretty easy. I roll Sense Motive.
If I realize the wizard is intending to immediately kill me, I'm pretty sure the "quest" falls under an act that "would result in certain death". That is why geas doesn't work as a very effective murder tool.
Actually, I can rule out "no violent actions" pretty easy. I roll Sense Motive.
If I realize the wizard is intending to immediately kill me, I'm pretty sure the "quest" falls under an act that "would result in certain death". That is why geas doesn't work as a very effective murder tool.
You are moving the goalposts here. I've made no assumptions as to the wizard's next move. Of course you can get out of it if you can reasonably expect certain death from those commands because caveat built into the spell. What you can't do is twist the words in bad faith to mean something they clearly are not intended to do, which was the original argument.
*edit*
I should clarify, most of the 'nu-uhing' has come from Marroar Gellantara rather than you specifically, kobold.
Also, presumably the wizard could roll a bluff vs the sense motive in that circumstance at the very least, but we're getting a little sidetracked. In an actual game I think using it in the initial context (battle to the death) would always fail assuming the fighter is savvy: presumably he realises the loss of even one of his actions as a result of the geas means his certain death. The wizard is prevented from using the wording of the geas to overrule his acknowledgement of this fact by the very same common sense rules that prevent the fighter from exploiting it.