| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I regard the GM's decision as a bad ruling is that when there was a bad interaction between an item from 3.5 and a spell from a Pathfinder hardcover (ie, the core books) the GM chose to ban the PF spell rather than the 3.5 item. Pathfinder isn't always balanced, and there's a good reason so many people (myself included) ban synthesists and other broken builds from their games, but when there's a conflict between Pathfinder content and non-Pathfinder content, it's generally a bad ruling to side against the system you're playing.
And... yes, even a 5-year-old would expect that a player who has been using a spell to make use of potions without expending them will continue doing so if given even more powerful potions. This whole thread really boils down to one question: "What exactly was the GM expecting would happen when they approved the elixir into the game?" Clearly there was some sort of disconnect between the expectations of the GM and what actually happened, but what happened is exactly what should have been expected.
You're 100% correct that it's their table and the GM certainly has every right to make any decision they like for their table. That doesn't mean that those decisions are 'good', just that they are permitted and there's little that can be done about it unless you're playing at the table and feel it's significant enough to be worth quitting over. But consider this: what the GM has done is say, "Stay on my railroad or else." The player is now stuck in the difficult position of being unable to even attempt solutions which are 'outside the box' for risk of losing another spell, another class ability, or even his seat at the table. That doesn't add to the fun, it just adds to the GM being able to narrate a non-interactive story.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kinda understand the DM's decision to ban alchemical allocation, it might seem to him that it's too much hassle to house rule an uncertain number of interactions between alchemical allocation and other things and it seems that much easier to ban it completely. I would have tried to come up with a way to alter it before i ban it completely but i think understand his decision.
@MechE_
Actually the blood money spell was updated for PF when RotRL AE was released, and like the 3.5 version of the spell* it is a very thematic spell that have one serious flaw in it's design, it doesn't have a gp limit on the material it can create, if it did the spell wouldn't be so bad.
*which in my opinion was a worse offender for balance purposes but more thematically appropriate
Yes I know that summoners get as a 3rd level spell, that's the class that wrecked havoc with spell level (mostly).Then... yes... it can be a potion?
Yes, technically you can get it as a 3rd level potion because it appears as 3rd level on the summoner's spell list, but you shouldn't, the summoner class (and especially it's spell list) was a very ill-thought class (for some parts, for other parts it was very well-thought) and you really shouldn't try to use those flaws for your own gain.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Mackenzie Kavanaugh
Maybe the DM didn't know about the existance of alchemical allocation when he let the player craft the elixir of shadowalking or maybe he thought that the alchemical allocation extract only works with potions or maybe he didn't have the time to think when he approved the creation of the elixir. The issue is that you can't know what he was thinking.
@Tacticslion
It is my opinion that when you ban something serious that a player uses in his build you should offer a free and complete rebuild to use if he wants.
It is my opinion that when you ban something serious that a player uses in his build you should offer a free and complete rebuild to use if he wants.
+1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Tacticslion
It is my opinion that when you ban something serious that a player uses in his build you should offer a free and complete rebuild to use if he wants.
I don't know how anyone could get the conclusion that I do not ascribe to the same idea from my post; if it's not clear, I support the idea, for the most part. Hence,
As a corollary, I would recommend, if possible, the GM toss the PC that lost the ability some kind of bone**...
... which is what that means. The follow-up,
** As a further corollary, Weirdo's post sums up the entirety of my... "iffyness" on this whole thing. Whether or not the player is intentionally being disruptive, they are being disruptive to the game. The GM obviously - for whatever reason - can't handle or doesn't think they can handle the use of those effects together in that way. Thus, they'd have to be exceedingly careful about permitting the PC in question anything new in exchange. This can lead to the PC feeling shortchanged and trying to eke out greater advantages, which causes the GM to feel justifiably overwhelmed... and so on. It's a vicious cycle.
Explains my hesitation: in this case, it feels like the relationship between GM and player is... not one of trust. That means that the GM is likely hesitant to allow a complete rebuild without vetting it first, and fully and properly vetting things likely takes time that, from the OP's description, I'm not sure the GM has.
My recommendation would simply be to allow the alchemist to take a different extract or two. As Weirdo pointed out, there are a ton of useful extracts at that level. And it hardly seems like the alchemist relied on the single trick.
If he did, however, yes, he needs to allow a rebuild, because he invalidated an entire concept.
Personally, I'd try to allow a story element to the whole thing, but, then again, I'm not that GM or player. And I don't know how the player would take to a rebuild, thus just unilaterally noting "full rebuild, go!" could make it more awkward than it needs to be.
Effectively, whether or not a "full" rebuild should even be on the table varies from group to group - some see that as necessary, others see that as excessive. Whether or not that is the option would depend on the players.
I kinda understand the DM's decision to ban alchemical allocation, it might seem to him that it's too much hassle to house rule an uncertain number of interactions between alchemical allocation and other things and it seems that much easier to ban it completely. I would have tried to come up with a way to alter it before i ban it completely but i think understand his decision.
This, in a nutshell, is the opinion I hold as well. Frankly, banning is not something I tend to do. It's not something I usually have to do, because, in the end, I can mostly roll with what the players bring up, or the players (whoever they are) self-regulate.
That said, I can entirely see the GM's decision-making process.
Weirdo already covered this:
Banning Alchemical Allocation entirely seems like an extreme reaction, but I can't help but wonder if it's a result of frustration with how you have approached the game. Your reaction to a possible ban on the Elixir of Shadewalking was "I'll just get a Potion of Dimension Door instead," which completely ignores the fact that your GM's main problem with the Elixir was getting access to a high-level spell at low levels - a problem which would still apply with Dimension Door.
... this is easily a rational basis for the decision. "Player created [problem] with elements A and B; if I remove element B, [problem] will still occur with elements C, D, or E. Thus, I remove element A."
This is entirely rational. Not my style of gaming or GMing, at all, but entirely understandable.
This is even more true if the GM is rushed, has a heavy life-schedule (which, given the OP's assertion that getting a meeting with said GM is difficult, seems likely), or is otherwise strongly distracted.
And... yes, even a 5-year-old would expect that a player who has been using a spell to make use of potions without expending them will continue doing so if given even more powerful potions. This whole thread really boils down to one question: "What exactly was the GM expecting would happen when they approved the elixir into the game?"
You are being both disingenuous and hyperbolic, while showing it with a straight face. No.
What did the GM expect? The GM expected them to use the elixir - once - and be done. Hence the now-banning of alchemical allocation. I mean, c'mon. Even a five-year-old can see that. (That turn of phrase is, by the way, meant in humor.)
Clearly there was some sort of disconnect between the expectations of the GM and what actually happened, but what happened is exactly what should have been expected.
In a perfect world, sure. Purposefully or not, you don't seem to be acknowledging that the GM might not have everything his or her players can possibly do in mind before allowing certain things... and that comes off as both exceedingly arrogant and bespeaks of very little empathy, at least in this case.
The fact is the GM made a mistake, yes.
The GM took the route they took in order to fix that mistake. Whether or not it is the route you or I would have taken doesn't mean it's the wrong reaction. It just means that it's the one they took.
Disparaging a person we've not even heard speak for a decision that could have a reasonable basis (whether or not it actually does) by noting the childishness of their oversight (which, in fact, is not childish, all things considered) is simply the wrong way to go about it.
For the record, I don't think the OP 'abused' anything. That doesn't mean the GM was incorrect in their response. I'd want to hear more from both sides before making that decision, and, in the end, I hope they all have a good gaming experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<stuff>
This wasn't the first time OP had used alchemical allocation, as OP has stated that it had previously been used for flight, so the GM would have been aware of the spell, what it was used for, and that it meant being able to re-use potions. It is entirely possible that OP was deceptive and failed to inform the GM that the text for alchemical allocation allowed it to be used with elixirs as well as potions, and therefore the GM didn't know that this elixir would be used in combination with it to grant the use of a 6th level spell via a 2nd level spell. However, that's still only a reason to ban the elixir or rule that alchemical allocation doesn't work with the elixir.
'Busy' is the adjective that people keep applying to this GM, and I can't help but feel that 'busy' GMs need to stick to core PF only, never permit anything from 3.5, 3rd party, adventure paths/modules not currently being played, etc. If you don't have time to even talk to players outside of the game, you certainly don't have time to look into how those players might try to break your game. And breaking the game is the only reason players ask for stuff from outside sources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And breaking the game is the only reason players ask for stuff from outside sources.
When combined with thejeff's point, this quote right here explains a loooooooooooooooooooot of the disconnect between what you've been saying and what seems clear to me.
It is simply untrue that "breaking the game" is the end goal for players asking for things.
The 3.5 game is part of the official line of pathfinder stuff - the APs didn't get auto-rebooted when PF switched from being 3.5-based to PF-based. They are, unless updated (as Rise of the Runelords was) generally considered both canonical and entirely compatible.
Heck, the tagline upon which PF was originally sold was "3.5 Lives THRIVES!" which, you know, is pretty indicative that Pathfinder was, at least originally, considered synonymous with 3.5 by the very people who made Pathfinder. Drawing exceedingly sharp distinctions between the two doesn't really work that well for a multitude of reasons.
The fact is, anything with enough options is likely to have elements that clash.
Blood Money, as an example, exists, and was updated into modern PF from the original 3.5 in it's full, broken glory. Hence, even if the AP was updated to 3.5, regardless of the interaction with alchemical allocation, to all appearances, we have, in our hands, evidence that, barring specific statements or evidence to the contrary, it's entirely reasonable in PF that an alchemist could expect access to the elixir that caused this whole thing. I mean, it's effectively already happened once.
That's why I can find it reasonable that the GM ban one thing that definitively could cause problems - the formula - rather than potentially a large number of things that might cause problems that are still official Paizo products.
This wasn't the first time OP had used alchemical allocation, as OP has stated that it had previously been used for flight, so the GM would have been aware of the spell, what it was used for, and that it meant being able to re-use potions. It is entirely possible that OP was deceptive and failed to inform the GM that the text for alchemical allocation allowed it to be used with elixirs as well as potions, and therefore the GM didn't know that this elixir would be used in combination with it to grant the use of a 6th level spell via a 2nd level spell. However, that's still only a reason to ban the elixir or rule that alchemical allocation doesn't work with the elixir.
This is decent logic, but it's flaw lies in the fact that it presumes several things:
- that the GM was entirely okay with alchemical allocation the whole time; he possibly was not, as it caused some problems, but not "enough" - whatever that critical mass was- that the player was deceptive, and the GM wasn't distracted or automatically presumed everyone seeks to break the game with everything they request; the player could have been entirely straightforward and a good GM may still have made the same mistake while being distracted... or simply not thinking of that player breaking the game
- that the GM didn't think about the consequences and banned the "wrong" thing; it's quite possible that said GM, after the issues that arose currently, took a look at what the future held and either decided that alchemical allocation would cause problems, or that alchemical allocation was more likely to cause problems (due to messing with wealth) than a single elixir (which would cost money each time)
The thing is, as I said, it's not the conclusion I would come to, but it's a valid one in the GMing world at large (just not the only valid one).
I've allowed people to "break" my game before, and even slightly encouraged it... it was fun to watch them get themselves into ever-greater trouble as they presumed they'd found ways to abuse the system that others had never thought of. I've also allowed people to "get away with it" before. I've twice asked a player to change what they were going to do - once because I literally couldn't conceive of how to progress the campaign, and once because the player was going to get themselves killed and/or shatter the game for the other players. I've never exactly banned things, but I thrice warned players of mine that if they did <X>, it would cause their character to either die or be entirely negated for a time (two out of three of the players decided to to <X> anyway, and, for reasons that still baffle me, were entirely shocked when it went exactly the way I told them it would happen before they ever put pencil to paper, and reminded them of while they were creating said character and in the intervening time since. I've once told a player that their actions were negated and dropped them from the game at the same time.
As a player, I've broken a few games, voluntarily undergone a nerf (suggested by me, or the GM) for the sake of a few others, and both accidentally and purposefully been over-, under-, or median-powered either compared to the GMs game or other players (though most of the time, I ignore any sort of power level and go for "this is what I want to be able to do" instead, often tending toward higher power spectrum while still following the flow of the story - and usually that's the basis of what I ask for, regardless of source).
The point of all this? Different GMs handle different things differently, based on their own current abilities, insight, and ideas. Ultimately, alchemical allocation, in the GMs mind, at least, seems to be the source of the trouble, hence it was banned instead of the elixir.
One of the more fascinating things - and one of the things that prevents us from coming to a conclusion about the GM - is that the GM may or may not have made any of these decisions or insights consciously. It's quite possible it just "felt right" and whatever reasons are entirely subconscious, whether the ones I've come up with, or their own. People are complex. That's why I'm against assigning motives or saying "he obviously should have <Y>!" because I'm not aware of the full situation, and it makes it kind of difficult to know why he did what he did.
(For the record, I find the elixir less potentially-problematic than the formula, even though I'd likely not ban the formula. A one-use spell-effect isn't really a big deal, regardless of its format. Making one-use spell-effects into effectively limitless-use spell-effects can easily cause issues.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sort of reaction does not bode well. Is the GM going to ban all save-or-die spells too? Weapons that deal more than 1d6 damage? Over-reacting like this after allowing you to use a non-Pathfinder item (the elixir is from 3.5) is just ridiculous.
I've got poison conversion and a $#!7-ton of drow poison so I've got save-or-die explosives.
Why not rule that Alchemical Allocation only works once per potion or elixir?
Personally I had assumed that he would just disallow use of the spell with elixirs and make it potions-only.
That spell working with wondrous items is kind of weird.Eh, while I don't like the idea, I can entirely see the GM's response, here. He doesn't want to come up with weird house rules with uncertain results down the line, and, frankly, from his perspective, it's probably just easier to ban it (and the arguments it may or may not cause) then to worry about fiddly half-measures or trying to figure out balance for it on the fly.
I do agree that it's a bit too strong of a reaction... but it's a sane one, and it makes sense from a lot of different perspectives, and is an attempt by the GM to keep the campaign rolling, while moving the game forward. That's what GMs do.
I am sorry for the weakening of your character, though.
Except... it IS a weird house rule...?
His argument was that his own alchemist from a different game never used it, but his alchemist is a Mr. Hyde build, I play the bombslinger build...
Seek Thoughts and Detect Thoughts are campaign-ruiners though and I use them a lot.Are you using them to ruin the campaign?
That depends, if you consider ending the game without conflict ruining the campaign then yes.
I personally don't see it as ruining the campaign but I think the DM does because he wants the conflict?Sure a three-session module shouldn't end in two hours, but with the Seek Thoughts spell (and with the ability to shadow walk tons of people) that tends to speed things up.
Yes, technically you can get it as a 3rd level potion because it appears as 3rd level on the summoner's spell list, but you shouldn't, the summoner class (and especially it's spell list) was a very ill-thought class (for some parts, for other parts it was very well-thought) and you really shouldn't try to use those flaws for your own gain.
Paizo has had plenty of time to errata the problems and even HAS already made some errata, by now they should be done fixing what was a rush to print.
This wasn't the first time OP had used alchemical allocation, as OP has stated that it had previously been used for flight, so the GM would have been aware of the spell, what it was used for, and that it meant being able to re-use potions. It is entirely possible that OP was deceptive and failed to inform the GM that the text for alchemical allocation allowed it to be used with elixirs as well as potions, and therefore the GM didn't know that this elixir would be used in combination with it to grant the use of a 6th level spell via a 2nd level spell. However, that's still only a reason to ban the elixir or rule that alchemical allocation doesn't work with the elixir.
The DM raved about his own alchemist for a different game so I had assumed that the fan-favorite alchemist spell was known by him already.
You keep talking about this being from 3.5, which is true, but I really suspect most people wouldn't even think about it that way. Just that it was from a Paizo Pathfinder source. Says Pathfinder right on the cover, it's just that meant something different back then.
Yeah, again we didn't know it wasn't PFS since it was found in a PFS source.
Except... it IS a weird house rule...?
Clarification: no, it is a house-rule, not a weird house-rule. There is a difference.
For example, what is simpler?
Ban: alchemical allocation, which causes problems (as I know from experience)
Ban: shadow walk elixir, and possibly (but not definitively) any other elixir, potion, or other item that, for reasons that I may or may not be able to guess at now, might cause problems later on
The obvious answer is number one is simpler. Number two is a weird house-rule because it needs a lot fiddly responses on a case-by-case basis, and has no internal or external consistency except "does this break the game at this particular moment?" which will vastly vary from game to game. On the other hand, number one solves the same problems as number two, but also allows the GM the greater flexibility to grant (or not) various published elements that his players like with greater confidence that infinite loops (which are what the actual problem is) don't arise.
On infinite loops: oh, there are tons of these, by the way. They are ludicrously easy to create, and most of them are easily built using just the Core rulebook or, earlier than that, just the Player's Handbook from the 3.5 game. They can easily disrupt games in ways that GMs can't always foresee.
I say that to say this: he banned alchemical allocation because it created an infinite loop that also bypassed parts of the adventure. My recommendation, if you want to continue to play the game and not have him ban things is to temper your own use. In-character, create an excuse. Perhaps it's "unstable" and would likely "cause problems" if used too many times in rapid succession or something. I dunno, check out primal magic effects tables or the rod of wonder, presume it's aimed at you, and have your character not want to undergo those potentially terrible effects.
As a comparative note, a "Mr. Hyde" type build would see tremendous amounts of more utility from alchemical allocation than a "bomber" build. Way more. Because the "Mr. Hyde" build would need a ton of different buffs to consistently ready themselves for just about anything, and having a host of potions on-hand would be insanely useful - he could simply prepare the one formula repeatedly and hold onto the different potions to gain their benefits.
Regardless, what he's actually saying isn't that "my build is worse than your build" but rather "it doesn't work in my game with my play style" whether he realizes that or not. It's your job, as a player, to decide if you still want to play with him, given that playstyle/expectation clash. If you wish to continue to play, control yourself, and keep your own character in check. You'll have less problems with the GM that way, I think.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except... it IS a weird house rule...?Clarification: no, it is a house-rule, not a weird house-rule. There is a difference.
For example, what is simpler?
Ban: alchemical allocation, which causes problems (as I know from experience)
Ban: shadow walk elixir, and possibly (but not definitively) any other elixir, potion, or other item that, for reasons that I may or may not be able to guess at now, might cause problems later on
The obvious answer is number one is simpler. Number two is a weird house-rule because it needs a lot fiddly responses on a case-by-case basis, and has no internal or external consistency except "does this break the game at this particular moment?" which will vastly vary from game to game. On the other hand, number one solves the same problems as number two, but also allows the GM the greater flexibility to grant (or not) various published elements that his players like with greater confidence that infinite loops (which are what the actual problem is) don't arise.
On infinite loops: oh, there are tons of these, by the way. They are ludicrously easy to create, and most of them are easily built using just the Core rulebook or, earlier than that, just the Player's Handbook from the 3.5 game. They can easily disrupt games in ways that GMs can't always foresee.
I say that to say this: he banned alchemical allocation because it created an infinite loop that also bypassed parts of the adventure. My recommendation, if you want to continue to play the game and not have him ban things is to temper your own use. In-character, create an excuse. Perhaps it's "unstable" and would likely "cause problems" if used too many times in rapid succession or something. I dunno, check out primal magic effects tables or the rod of wonder, presume it's aimed at you, and have your character not want to undergo those potentially terrible effects.
As a comparative note, a "Mr. Hyde" type build would see tremendous amounts...
No no it is definitely weird.
Simplicity doesn't make it less weird.
Ah. I see you're set in refusing to see it's utility and logic because it inconveniences your play-style - a completely understandable stance, especially as a player wherein most things revolve around your character idea instead of the campaign as a whole. I apologize for entering into a dialogue where discourse other than agreement is clearly unwanted. I do hope your game goes smoothly, however, and I do hope you find peace and enjoyment in a roll other than as the GM in some games.
Ah. I see you're set in refusing to see it's utility and logic because it inconveniences your play-style - a completely understandable stance, especially as a player wherein most things revolve around your character idea instead of the campaign as a whole. I apologize for entering into a dialogue where discourse other than agreement is clearly unwanted. I do hope your game goes smoothly, however, and I do hope you find peace and enjoyment in a roll other than as the GM in some games.
No... I see the utility and logic, that doesn't make it not weird though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That sort of reaction does not bode well. Is the GM going to ban all save-or-die spells too? Weapons that deal more than 1d6 damage? Over-reacting like this after allowing you to use a non-Pathfinder item (the elixir is from 3.5) is just ridiculous.I've got poison conversion and a $#!7-ton of drow poison so I've got save-or-die explosives.
That s%~~-ton of drow poison is also a s*%%-ton of gold (with 75gp per dose).
Yes, technically you can get it as a 3rd level potion because it appears as 3rd level on the summoner's spell list, but you shouldn't, the summoner class (and especially it's spell list) was a very ill-thought class (for some parts, for other parts it was very well-thought) and you really shouldn't try to use those flaws for your own gain.Paizo has had plenty of time to errata the problems and even HAS already made some errata, by now they should be done fixing what was a rush to print.
How exactly did you went from "ill-thought (parts of it) class" to "rushed to print class"?
|
And breaking the game is the only reason players ask for stuff from outside sources.
That's assuming the worst from players. As well as outside sources imo. Pathfinder is sold as being compatiable with 3.5. So why would a player not ask if he could use something from that edition. I usually don't allow it but I don't automatically ban any requests either. To be honest the main reason I allow 3.5 material. Is that sometimes it's simply better and more useful than the PF material. Their rules, feats, archtypes that I would need to be paid at least six figures to take. So much material that is simply not worth the paper it's printed on imo. I had such high hopes for Craft Ooze that I would rather drop out of a game then be forced to take such a bad option.
I'm also glad I'm not a designer on the rpg as well. People demanded that PF be 3.5 compitable. Meaning that flaws in the game had to remain for the most part untouched. Only to find that the same people doing the demanding are not really losing the 3.5 material. A lost opprtunity to fix the flaws.
That's kind of sucky, sorry to see that happen. Sometimes, as a player, it seems like you have to be empathic enough to tell what sort of campaign your DM wants to play and then basically pander to their wants. If you have a smart way of neutralizing an encounter, just don't do it. I know that your alchemist is likely very clever and should probably be able to come up with those kinds of tricks, but it doesn't seem like your DM can keep up so, unfortunately, this is the kind of choice you have to make.
@Leo1925 There's Paizo staff that have openly stated that the summoner should have gone through another playtesting round before printing.
As for the GM's decision to ban, he should have banned 3.5 material before Paizo hardcover abilities.
Yes i know but, to me, this means "we should have put more thought in this one" rather than "we delivered not finished because there was no time". The summoner class works very well and doesn't show signs of a rushed job, in fact it works too well, that's why i think that the issue is one of poor designing and not poor execution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had the best GM lesson of my life given to me by Alfred Leonardi - I was beta testing a runescape game for him and he frankly body slammed my ideas of what 'my' story was within about 5 minutes.
Essentially you can never count on players to do what you want them to do. It doesn't matter what story you have and how cool it is - the game isn't played just by the GM - if the players don't have agency in the game and can't actually choose to do anything then what fun is it.
Does this mean players should be allowed broken things? Nope - using shadow walk as a 2nd level spell is broken - my 'nerf' would be to take the lumps when it happened and then create an entire adventure in the plane of shadow. If the players are there when they aren't high enough level for it - too bad - they chose to use the plane and so results predictably will be they either escape not wanting to go back or worse. Problem solves itself - the shadow plane is nasty. Just having a pack of 10-15 shadows looking for the player drawn by the 'sweet smell of fresh living beings' is enough to really do nasty things.
I also wouldn't allow a player to have a 'I kill it' button - but that's besides the point. A player has to sit at the table with the understanding that the rules are there not to be broken, but to create a challenge for players to overcome with the opportunity to fail. There should never be a 'god mode' at a tabletop RPG.
At the same time the GM should expect the players to do the unexpected and as long as it's within the rules go with the flow and let the players shape the story. If there is a railroad (say like an adventure path) then it should be stated up front that you are playing 'x' and the expectation would be to stay on the story track within reason.
These days I let my players do what they want - if that means they take a 'lead' and go in the wrong direction then whatever - it's just another adventure :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love your post Ckorik, but there are two things I wish to hedge on/slightly disagree with:
There should never be a 'god mode' at a tabletop RPG.
I think that having a 'god mode' is not inherently 'wrong' - in fact, I believe that whether a 'god mode' exists or is used or not entirely depends on the player(s), the GM, and the game and story they want to tell together. That said, for most people and most games, it's certainly true that a 'god mode' would ruin the story and experience for them.
For the second, while I agree that your assertion of how to GM is the 'best' way of doing things, I want to note only that sometimes GMs simply don't have the mental wherewithal to do that kind of adaptation. The best thing for any GM to do would be to roll with whatever the PCs come up with... on the other hand, pre-published adventures are extremely popular for a reason (and APs for that matter). That reason is that GMs are often really, really busy, and a bit too busy to really prep and go with a free-form adventure.
Point in fact, I'm usually pretty good with free-form adventures, or I have been in the past, but there are times when I just can't do it, despite my deep knowledge of the system and usual ability to wing it, simply because I'm tired, distracted, have a lot of other life-stress, or something else.
These things crush spontaneity pretty thoroughly.
The best GMing is that which allows the PCs to do anything or go anywhere, no matter how off-the-rails it goes.
The more common and solid GMing is "here is a large area - feel free to play in it, but if you go too far, I'm simply not going to be able to handle it" - and this second one covers a vast panapoly of games and styles. It can be a more "rail-ish" style (where the GM uses the environs to self-correct the problem or put the PCs back on track somehow) or a more sandbox... but there is usually some sort of leeway in all of them.
The problem area is usually (again, depending on the group) when the rails become too obvious and thus unfun.
The major problem arises when people lack the words to say these kinds of things themselves, or lack the self-insight to understand what they think or feel or what they're aiming for. Communication and personal honesty is key, but it's not as easy as sitting down to talk with people, unfortunately.
And, uh, otherwise, that's a great post. :)
Kared, you've made an excellent post with really insightful points, but two letters I'd adapt for higher accuracy...
That is not fun for many DMs.
... otherwise, carry on! Excellent points being made!
i mean, you do not see wizards asking for a spell to let them reuse any scroll they want.
First scrolls exist from every level, potions only 1-3.
Second, you do not see alchemists create demiplanes, casting wishes and the like. Using the wizard as an example why some other class' feature is too strong is absurd.Edit: And besides: Sorcerers can get an item that allows them to reuse scrolls. The mnemonic vestment.
If there's no Summoner in the party, then there's nobody to craft potions of stoneskin and the GM will never have to worry about it. If there is a Summoner in the party, and they happen to take Brew Potion, you still have the option of ruling that potions are always created at their Sorcerer/Wizard level, not their Summoner level, ruling out stoneskin. Seriously, the GM controls the loot and gets unlimited veto power on items that aren't in the book. Potions of stoneskin aren't in the book, and the only people trying to get them are people who think it's kosher to make a Samsaran Wizard who casts haste as a level 2 spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no Summoner in the party, then there's nobody to craft potions of stoneskin and the GM will never have to worry about it. If there is a Summoner in the party, and they happen to take Brew Potion, you still have the option of ruling that potions are always created at their Sorcerer/Wizard level, not their Summoner level, ruling out stoneskin. Seriously, the GM controls the loot and gets unlimited veto power on items that aren't in the book. Potions of stoneskin aren't in the book, and the only people trying to get them are people who think it's kosher to make a Samsaran Wizard who casts haste as a level 2 spell.
That would be silly...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's no Summoner in the party, then there's nobody to craft potions of stoneskin and the GM will never have to worry about it. If there is a Summoner in the party, and they happen to take Brew Potion, you still have the option of ruling that potions are always created at their Sorcerer/Wizard level, not their Summoner level, ruling out stoneskin. Seriously, the GM controls the loot and gets unlimited veto power on items that aren't in the book. Potions of stoneskin aren't in the book, and the only people trying to get them are people who think it's kosher to make a Samsaran Wizard who casts haste as a level 2 spell.
Actually you aren't correct on that one, it's true that you always default to the wizard, cleric and druid lists for determining the level of the scroll, potion and wand, so you can't buy 1st level wands of lesser restoration because lesser restoration might be 1st level for paladins but it's 2nd level for clerics. The issue is that when you go for a potion of stoneskin the only choice you have is the 3rd level stoneskin that the summoner gets because there are no 4th level potions in order to default to wizard.
This thread is reminding me why it's so much safer to just ban the entire Summoner class and prohibit any and all related content than to worry about stuff like whether alchemical allocation might be overpowered.
This thread is reminding me why it's so much safer to just ban the entire Summoner class and prohibit any and all related content than to worry about stuff like whether alchemical allocation might be overpowered.
I agree with you on the summoner, although i am begining to think that alchemical allocation could benefit from a house rule or two.
This thread is reminding me why it's so much safer to just ban the entire Summoner class and prohibit any and all related content than to worry about stuff like whether alchemical allocation might be overpowered.I agree with you on the summoner, although i am begining to think that alchemical allocation could benefit from a house rule or two.
I don't have an issue with Alchemical Allocation, but whoever designated the value of each evolution according to points must have been high when doing so.
I don't have an issue with Alchemical Allocation, but whoever designated the value of each evolution according to points must have been high when doing so.This thread is reminding me why it's so much safer to just ban the entire Summoner class and prohibit any and all related content than to worry about stuff like whether alchemical allocation might be overpowered.I agree with you on the summoner, although i am begining to think that alchemical allocation could benefit from a house rule or two.
As I mentioned up thread, it really is just easier to ban the summoner for me.
I'm considering putting a houserule in place that in order to use Alchemical Allocation on a potion, your caster level must meet or exceed that of the potion. Still a very valuable trick at mid levels for increasing flexibility of spells normally cast out of combat - why prepare one barkskin and one lesser restoration when you could prepare two alchemical allocations and use them during the adventuring day as needed? Doubly so for third level spells once available - what wizard wouldn't drool over paying a second level spell slot (even at the cost of a standard action) to renew a third level spell?!?!? Of course, the problem you would run into here is that you'd have to remake the potions every few levels to avoid them falling behind in terms of useablity, but so what - you can sell them for exactly what it cost you to make them and just remake the higher levels ones, no big deal.
...
In response to some of these
2)a)This is a really bizarre position to take. It's like telling the bard they can't sing near or use heroism on the party wildshape druid because doing so makes the druid even more broken. The party member has spent a feat on being able to craft. They now have the ability to turn gold into magic items given a market to purchase crafting supplies and sufficient time. How do you as a GM plan to stop them handing items to other party members without using blatant GM fiat and literally telling the crafter "No, your character is physically/mentally incapable of giving the druid that cloak of resistance you just made".
c)It's a wondrous item, not a potion. Just skip the prereq and make a DC21 check. A frigging level 1 wizard can make that (20 int + 1rank + valet familiar)
3)By the guidelines that the GM section presents as a good default to use for handling item purchases, any item of a certain value or less has a 75% chance of being found in a settlement. For a metropolis, the value is 16k, more than enough to get CL20 SL9 potions. The GM *can* change this, but the majority of GMs will be following this barring extremely overt attempts to abuse the system. It is reasonable for a level 4 alchemist to pick up a cl5 sl3 Good Hope potion. A cl10 sl2 Heroism is fairly reasonable too. To my knowledge there is no list of potions that are buyable by default(or rules that indicate such) so if *any* potions are available then any cl or sl of potion should be available given that the potion is cheap enough, unless the GM chooses to go against the item purchase guidelines and limit availability.
As for the "Bad things happen when you use something the GM doesn't like", that is just being passive aggressive. Warping the universe in order to dick over players is exactly what a GM should *not* be doing. If they have an issue with a player's use of something they should talk with the player, not try to punish the player for being intelligent by making up things that have never existed in the setting and continue to not exist for everybody that is not in close proximity to the PCs. Not to mention that it is usually part of the social contract that the GM doesn't change the rules players are using without telling the players. If you informed the players when they started using shadow walk that it is possible to encounter beasties in the shadow plane then that is acceptable, but putting some random horrible thing in their path that nobody had any idea could be there to attack them (according to the description of Shadow Walk), including the wizard with a +20 to their knowledge(Planes) check, is just screwy and unfun and frankly a betrayal of trust by the GM.
|
How would you have it restricted though?
An anchoring aura device or similar to stop teleportation into the area. No doubt the NPCs have noticed hostages disappearing, and a smart one would spend the money on this to make sure teleports are not the cause.
Also, hiring and posting more guards at a minimum, who will not walk away.
Finally, moving the hostages so you have to find them again, and maybe limiting knowledge of where they are so most of the bad guys don't know exactly and can't give it away.
This tactic of porting in and out should work a maximum of two times on any group before they change their strategy.
But there are ways to stop you without gimping the spell that are more "fair" and make sense and less ... what he is doing now.
|
Just noticed this thread with its recent raise dead.
As others have said, the elixir of shadewalking is a somewhat obscure item from a 3.5 era adventure path, and even then it's so super rare it wouldn't typically ever get into a PCs hands. There are like 4 elixirs in print in the hands of two assassins in a level 10+ adventure.
Basically it's meant for the Red Mantis assassins to escape from an assassination attempt without leaving a trail behind, and even then the assassins still get in to murder their respective marks through "ordinary means" (which involve stealth/invisibility) because of the unpredictability of arriving where you intend.
Additionally, Red Mantis assassins are clocking in at CR12 before they seem to be trusted with this valuable elixir.
As a GM, it would be super rare for a elixir of shadewalking to get into the hands of any PC - they'd have to basically be in the right adventure at the right time, and lure a Red Mantis assassin into a trap and prevent them from getting away, which is fairly hard given the assassin has access to the elixir for a getaway!
Alchemical allocation is fine within the conventions of a typical campaign, and when I say typical, where you are playing without crafting rules (which break almost any campaign) and where access to magic items is not greater than usual (i.e. there aren't higher caster level barkskin potions available at the local apothecary and they typically show up at the appropriate level on badguys, and even then require you to find a way to stop the bad guy from drinking it).
If I were the GM in this case, I'd hopefully realize I made a mistake by allowing unfettered access to magic items ahead of the appropriate level, have a frank talk with my players about the mistake I made and how it's thwarting the intended story and go back to running the campaign with magic/gear/items that would typically be available to characters at their current levels.