Pathfinder is PvP

[Xexyz]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sure, if you want your deities to be capable of stuff like that go for it. I'd never put that in my setting but how you GM is your choice.

They probably are. Not that I've put any real thought into it because it's not something I would actually introduce into my campaign, but conceptually it's an example of how much more powerful deities [in my world] are than mortal wizards.

[Buri Reborn]

I've seen comment here how Golarion deities would do things. You just go straight to destroyed. No damage is involved.

[Ashiel]

The issue is that the only thing I listed that was rules tomfoolery was the using wish to get a really OP magic item. However, as was pointed out in a latter post, it was highly unnecessary.

Everything else is just standard 3.5 SRD material using those spells as they were intended.

Genesis? As intended.
Polymorph any object? It literally is intended to let you turn rocks into living creatures (or vice versa).
Everything else is trivial PHB stuff.

[Buri Reborn]

Which, one of the main design goals for Pathfinder as a whole was to remove said brokenness which they did.

[kyrt-ryder]

while we're discussing Jehova feats by a Wizard, Fireball ignites combustible materials [such as wood.] Fireball also is launched as a tiny ball of poop that can be shot through very small openings. Fireball ALSO does not expand beyond the constraints of the space it kabooms in.

Thus there was such a small hole in the top of the wood pile Elija built for the challenge against the prophets of Baal.

Wet wood doesn't burn you say? It does evaporate when exposed to extreme heat.

First fireball, great big puff of steam, second fireball, wood on fire. As wood burns follow up with Disintegrate to take care of the Alter itself, and another Disintegrate for the water trench around it [a single body of water is considered a single object for such purposes IIRC]

[Xexyz]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Technically they're playing the game as it was written, and you're altering it via GM Fiat. [No shame in altering the game, I've practically rewritten Pathfinder entirely for my own purposes. Bear in mind when I discuss Pathfinder unless I explicitly mention my houserules I'm discussing the actual game-as-written as best I understand it.]

Which is totally awesome if your players are happy with it. I'm the type of player who expects restrictions and house-rules and 'GM interpretations' laid out in advance.

What does that have to do with the current discussion at hand?!?!?! We (you, me, and Ashiel) were talking about what each of us in our respective homebrew worlds conceptualizes what the gods are capable of. Last time I checked, there's never been anything published by Paizo that explicitly spells out exactly what deities are and are not capable of. In my world deities are capable of greater magical feats than mortal wizards. Period. End of story. It's a waste of my intellectual energy to sit down and consider, "well, here's everything a mortal wizard can do, so I better make sure a deity is capable of X,Y and Z in order to be logically consistent".

Really the thing that all this is making clear is that I seem to approach the game in a fundamentally different fashion than the rest of you.

[kyrt-ryder]

True enough. Paizo actually takes a similar perspective on the gods as you seem to. 'All powerful beings beyond threat' basically.

Sorry for the derail Xexyz.

EDIT: although... I am curious now that I think about it.

Why exactly do you want the gods to be so powerful? Do you want to keep them in the background out of the player's sphere of influence?

[Personally speaking I LIKE my players either joining or dethroning (or at least 'lone-wolfing' it with occasional interactions as equals) the gods at the end of the rare campaign that reaches level 17-20, but that's just me.]

[Ashiel]

Buri Reborn wrote:

I've seen comment here how Golarion deities would do things. You just go straight to destroyed. No damage is involved.

Thing is, Golarion can't even get its ducks in order. Deities be dyin', fightin' mortals (and losing in some cases), sometimes having stats (such as some mantis god who's killable who kills people who would threaten the gods...), etc, etc.

Honestly, gods being infallible doesn't really work in the genre when gods are also interacting with the setting. It gets silly quick.

[Xexyz]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

EDIT: although... I am curious now that I think about it.

Why exactly do you want the gods to be so powerful? Do you want to keep them in the background out of the player's sphere of influence?

[Personally speaking I LIKE my players either joining or dethroning (or at least 'lone-wolfing' it with occasional interactions as equals) the gods at the end of the rare campaign that reaches level 17-20, but that's just me.]

I will answer this, but I swear if someone responds with some claptrap about how the rules/spells/whatever of the system imply X so therefore my reasons are unsound, I will get very salty.

I've got to think about how to answer because some of my players occasionally read the forums and some of what I say may be spoiler-ish.

[Ashiel]

You didn't answer my question though. Exactly how much more godly than godly does something have to get before it's godly?

[Buri Reborn]

Ashiel wrote:

Thing is, Golarion can't even get its ducks in order. Deities be dyin', fightin' mortals (and losing in some cases), sometimes having stats (such as some mantis god who's killable who kills people who would threaten the gods...), etc, etc.

Honestly, gods being infallible doesn't really work in the genre when gods are also interacting with the setting. It gets silly quick.

I don't think any setting where gods are actual beings is nearly so stable. I mean, Golarion has gone 100 whole years without a god dying. ;)

[kyrt-ryder]

Buri Reborn wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Thing is, Golarion can't even get its ducks in order. Deities be dyin', fightin' mortals (and losing in some cases), sometimes having stats (such as some mantis god who's killable who kills people who would threaten the gods...), etc, etc.

Honestly, gods being infallible doesn't really work in the genre when gods are also interacting with the setting. It gets silly quick.

I don't think any setting where gods are actual beings is nearly so stable. I mean, Golarion has gone 100 whole years without a god dying. ;)

IMO the best settings with active gods are the ones where ALL OF THEM that partook in the creation myth are dead and gone.

[kyrt-ryder]

Xexyz wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

EDIT: although... I am curious now that I think about it.

Why exactly do you want the gods to be so powerful? Do you want to keep them in the background out of the player's sphere of influence?

[Personally speaking I LIKE my players either joining or dethroning (or at least 'lone-wolfing' it with occasional interactions as equals) the gods at the end of the rare campaign that reaches level 17-20, but that's just me.]

I will answer this, but I swear if someone responds with some claptrap about how the rules/spells/whatever of the system imply X so therefore my reasons are unsound, I will get very salty.

I've got to think about how to answer because some of my players occasionally read the forums and some of what I say may be spoiler-ish.

Thanks for your patience. I know those of us who act a little too scholarly with the nitty gritty of the rules can be kind of annoying :P

[Xexyz]

Ashiel wrote:

You didn't answer my question though. Exactly how much more godly than godly does something have to get before it's godly?

I don't know how to answer this; the question seems nonsensical. Let me spin it around. If a level 17 wizard is godly, how much lesser than a 17th level wizard can you be before you're considered non-godly?

My reasoning - as it applies to my homebrew world - goes something like this:

There are a class of beings which consist of the gods of my homebrew world.
Beings less powerful than they are not gods.
Mortal wizards are less powerful than they.
Therefore, mortal wizards are not gods.

[Buri Reborn]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

IMO the best settings with active gods are the ones where ALL OF THEM that partook in the creation myth are dead and gone.

You can have that, but in no setting with gods is there harmony amongst them or between them and lesser beings. There's always some plot or some research in how one can become the other or somesuch. Golarion isn't special in this regard to any degree.

[Milo v3]

Xexyz wrote:

I don't know how to answer this; the question seems nonsensical. Let me spin it around. If a level 17 wizard is godly, how much lesser than a 17th level wizard can you be before you're considered non-godly?

My reasoning - as it applies to my homebrew world - goes something like this:

There are a class of beings which consist of the gods of my homebrew world.
Beings less powerful than they are not gods.
Mortal wizards are less powerful than they.
Therefore, mortal wizards are not gods.

That's completely arbitary though....

[Xexyz]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

EDIT: although... I am curious now that I think about it.

Why exactly do you want the gods to be so powerful? Do you want to keep them in the background out of the player's sphere of influence?

[Personally speaking I LIKE my players either joining or dethroning (or at least 'lone-wolfing' it with occasional interactions as equals) the gods at the end of the rare campaign that reaches level 17-20, but that's just me.]

I'm going to leave out the particulars of my homebrew world since I don't think they're especially relevant. But after thinking about it, the reason seems self-evident to me. In every version of D&D, the gods grant spells. The gods can grant spells to hundreds - if not thousands - of worshippers every day without so much as a second thought. The implication of this seems to then be that the gods are enormously powerful. So it seems reasonable to imagine the gods performing feats of magic that are the equivalent of casting a thousand miracles all at once; or a powerful earthquake spell that affects an entire country, etc.

(I know there's a power in the Mythic Adventures book that allows a PC with mythic tiers to grant spells, but I haven't incorporated much mythic content into my game, and in any event that power would not be available to any mythic character.)

[Bob Bob Bob]

Xexyz wrote:

Hmmm, now that I'm thinking about it, flavor probably isn't the best word to use. Instead of flavor, think playstyle. You have playstyles that consist of various things such as doing damage to monsters to eventually kill them, playstyles that emphasize controlling the battlefield, ones that focus on buffing allies or debuffing enemies, healing, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, those playstyles can be resource-based or not, and the types of resources can vary as well.

Inevitably some playstyles will become better than others for overcoming the typical obstacle, which effectively makes some classes more powerful than others. The problem (the fundamental problem I spoke of earlier) then becomes how do you balance the classes without homogenizing them? Balance inexorably leads toward homogenization as class X gets buffed so it's better at playstyle A, while class Y gets nerfed so it's worse at playstyle A.

I don't want that to happen to Pathfinder. I would rather the current imbalances continue to exist than those balances be fixed at the cost of class homogenization.

Playstyle probably isn't the best word. You probably mean "role". And, as has been stated repeatedly, the Paladin (bonus damage vs EVIL!), the Ranger (bonus damage vs specific creature types), and the Barbarian (bonus damage ALL THE TIME until they get tired) are all relatively balanced against each other, especially with regards to "dealing damage to monsters". I think the Paladin is on top overall, but only because of the non-combat stuff they get.

Sure, perfect balance is probably impossible without everything being the same. That doesn't mean you stop trying to balance things period. Are you really saying that no time should be spent making sure that Alice, the person who can summon a monster with CR equal to her level every battle should be balanced with Bob, the guy who knows which end of the sword goes in the enemy (the pointy one)?

Oh, and in Eberron the gods granted nothing. You could worship your left shoe, if you believed hard enough it gave you spells.

[HWalsh]

ChainsawSam wrote:

CWheezy wrote:

CBDunkerson wrote:

The only way for the classes to be equal would be to have only one class.

Nirvana fallacy

Quote:

That being said, a 3rd level fighter in melee combat with a 3rd level wizard isn't 'equal'... the wizard has virtually no hope.

Actually, wizards generally have all their options all the time. You want to try running this? My guess is a well built wizards wind 9/10 times.

What do you mean "well built?"

Does the Wizard have Color Spray? There's ~70% chance that ends the encounter right there.

It doesn't even have to be well built.

The guy asserted a situation where an encounter, somehow, magically, starts with a Fighter standing directly on a Wizard's toes in an attempt to present a case that the readers would assume is heavily in the Fighter's favor and he didn't even take into account even the most obvious counters the Wizard has in his arsenal.

Never mind the fact that if the fight didn't start immediately in melee range it's a completely different argument.

In a complete vacuum with no precast spells, no context, and starting in melee range, the Fighter is presumed to win if the Wizard does nothing but fight back with his staff so everything is OK!

Okay. Here we go:

Fighter (level 3) vs Wizard (level 3)

I'm going to use 2 builds that were actually used in one of my games at these levels. These are equally optimized builds.

Wizard, Conjuration Specialist (one of the most powerful types)
Human
HP 16 (Rolls: +13 (6+3+4) +3 from favored class)
AC 14 (3 from dex, 1 from an armored kilt)
Int 19
Init: +7 (+3 from Dex, +4 from Familiar (A Hare))
Feats: Spell Focus: Conjuration, Spell Specialization: Conjuration, Wizard's Tattoo: Conjuration

Spells Prepared:
1st Level: Mage Armor, Shield, Color Spray, Summon Monster I,
2nd Level: Invisibility, Summon Monster II, Summon Monster II

Fighter Loadout 1
"The Archer"

Human
HP 30 (Rolls: +21 (10+5+6) +3 (from favored class) +6 (Con bonus))
AC 18 (4 from Dex, +4 (Hide Armor (Dex allowed is +5 due to armor training))
Init: +8 (+4 from Dex, +4 from Improved Init)
Feats: Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Weapon Focus Longbow, Deadly Aim, Improved Initiative

Saves:
Fort +3, Reflex +5, Will +0 (-1 from Wisdom)
Weapon: Masterwork Composite Longbow (+1) (+9 to hit 1d8+1 Damage)

Fight: (Note, I'll be using average rolls for all of this to remove variance)

Initiative:
Wizard 17
Fighter 18

The battle starts at 30 feet

Round 1:
The Fighter closes to 15 feet, readies an action to shoot if the Wizard attempts to cast.

The Wizard retreats 30 feet and attempts to cast invisibility.

The Fighter shoots. The shot hits (18 (10+8) vs AC 14) and does 7 damage to the Wizard (4+1+2) the Wizard is now at 9 HP. The Wizard rolls concentration 16 (10+6) vs DC 19, the Wizard's spell fails.

Round 2

The Fighter uses a full attack action. The shot hits (16 (10+6) vs AC 14) and does 7 damage, (4+1+2) to the Wizard, the Wizard is at 2 HP, the second shot (Rapid Shot) hits (16 (10+6) vs AC 14) and also does 7 damage, the Wizard is at -5 AC. The Archer wins.

-----

Now, I know what you are saying:

"Well the Wizard could have won if he had gone first!"

Sure, he could have.

"The Archer could have missed one of those shots!"

Sure, he could have.

"The Wizard could have had Mage Armor cast! That would have changed things considerably!"

Sure, he could have. The first shot still would have likely hit, the second 2 would have missed. Of course, the Fighter could also have used a Tanglefoot Bag and stuck the Wizard to the floor in the second round after the invisibility had been stopped. There are tons of shoulda, coulda, woulda, mighta.

This is about as even a fight as one can get. This one was so cut down the middle even the slightest difference could have changed it. Which... Sounds pretty balanced to me...

This is actually not as bad as my Rogue vs Wizard test where the Rogue went first, starting at 60 ft, and the Wizard died in the first round before casting a spell.

(Human Rogue, level 3, went first, which triggered sneak attack damage was 3d6+5 and using average variance it came to (4+3+4+5))

Then there was the one where the Wizard went first and color sprayed the Fighter and killed the Fighter on round 3.

I was seeing around 50/50

[Xexyz]

Milo v3 wrote:

That's completely arbitary though....

Of course it's arbitrary; it can't really be anything but arbitrary.

[Xexyz]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Sure, perfect balance is probably impossible without everything being the same. That doesn't mean you stop trying to balance things period. Are you really saying that no time should be spent making sure that Alice, the person who can summon a monster with CR equal to her level every battle should be balanced with Bob, the guy who knows which end of the sword goes in the enemy (the pointy one)?

No, of course not. But I'm really tired of the way people around here talk as if perfect balance is simple and easy and the only reason we don't have it is because those dastardly writers on the development team are villainously keeping it from us because reasons.

[kyrt-ryder]

Xexyz wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

EDIT: although... I am curious now that I think about it.

Why exactly do you want the gods to be so powerful? Do you want to keep them in the background out of the player's sphere of influence?

[Personally speaking I LIKE my players either joining or dethroning (or at least 'lone-wolfing' it with occasional interactions as equals) the gods at the end of the rare campaign that reaches level 17-20, but that's just me.]

I'm going to leave out the particulars of my homebrew world since I don't think they're especially relevant. But after thinking about it, the reason seems self-evident to me. In every version of D&D, the gods grant spells. The gods can grant spells to hundreds - if not thousands - of worshippers every day without so much as a second thought. The implication of this seems to then be that the gods are enormously powerful. So it seems reasonable to imagine the gods performing feats of magic that are the equivalent of casting a thousand miracles all at once; or a powerful earthquake spell that affects an entire country, etc.

Heh, that's part of what I meant by characters of 17th level and above becoming deities.

They can attract worshipers whose faith in them allows them to work divine magic.

You sidestepped your own setting quirks, but I'll provide one of mine. The gods don't grant magic in my games, Faith grants magic, the gods are just icons of sufficient power and glory so as to generate divine magic in their faithful. Except spellcasting after reaching 17th level those are borne out of the caster's own divinity of course.

It's the same reason some clerics [and pretty much all Druids] cast divine magic without worshiping a god at all. Because it isn't god-granted-magic, it's simply divine in nature.

EDIT: for further detail, characters level 13-16 are classified as Demi-gods and members of their cults can receive up to 4th level spells.

[Ashiel]

Well, I consider godly things to be godly. Like, we have things like lava in reality, we have lava in Pathfinder. I can see lava deals Xd6 fire damage, ergo when I see an ancient red wyrm breath a hotter breath weapon I can certainly say "Holy crap! That wyrm's breath is hotter than lava!"

When we have accounts of gods in reality and then I see creatures rivaling or meeting them pound for pound in Pathfinder, I can say "wow, that's a godlike creature".

So my question is, when we have accounts of godly things to compare to, how much godly does something have to be before it qualifies as a god? I don't think that the question is hard to comprehend or silly at all.

How much of an immortal miracle working being do you have to be before you can be considered a god?

[Xexyz]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Heh, that's part of what I meant by characters of 17th level and above becoming deities.

They can attract worshipers whose faith in them allows them to work divine magic.

You sidestepped your own setting quirks, but I'll provide one of mine. The gods don't grant magic in my games, Faith grants magic, the gods are just icons of sufficient power and glory so as to generate divine magic in their faithful. Except spellcasting after reaching 17th level those are borne out of the caster's own divinity of course.

It's the same reason some clerics [and pretty much all Druids] cast divine magic without worshiping a god at all. Because it isn't god-granted-magic, it's simply divine in nature.

EDIT: for further detail, characters level 13-16 are classified as Demi-gods and members of their cults can receive up to 4th level spells.

My setting has the opposite premise but has the same logical consequenses. In my setting, faith and belief in the gods grants you spells; There are (almost) no divine casters which derive their spells from anything other than the gods. Furthermore, the magic the gods use is fundamentally different from the magic they grant and the magic all mortal spellcasters use.

The single exception are some druids. In my game druids are very rare, and even among their numbers many worship the Llynnain, the Goddess of Nature. The ones who don't [worship Llynnain] worship the Beast Gods, which were the pantheon of gods which reigned before the current pantheon drove them from power. Because of this most druids, if discovered, are hunted down and killed by the agents of several of the evil gods.

[Milo v3]

Xexyz wrote:

Of course it's arbitrary; it can't really be anything but arbitrary.

Why? Even back in 3e it wasn't arbitrary.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Xexyz wrote:

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

Sure, perfect balance is probably impossible without everything being the same. That doesn't mean you stop trying to balance things period. Are you really saying that no time should be spent making sure that Alice, the person who can summon a monster with CR equal to her level every battle should be balanced with Bob, the guy who knows which end of the sword goes in the enemy (the pointy one)?

No, of course not. But I'm really tired of the way people around here talk as if perfect balance is simple and easy and the only reason we don't have it is because those dastardly writers on the development team are villainously keeping it from us because reasons.

If you can show me one instance of that I'd be very surprised. I've seen people say perfect balance is easy sarcastically, usually followed by a reference to 4e. I've seen people say better balance is easy (and they're right, since any improvement is automatically "better" balance) and usually follow up with their houserules. I've seen people complain that Paizo will never balance things as long as they continue to operate under the assumption that caster/martial disparity is a "myth propagated by people with agendas".

So... yeah, it's easier to make things better balanced than they currently are (change Bravery to a straight Will bonus, boom, done) and Paizo's design philosophy seems to actively oppose doing so. I can't find the link right now but I swear one of the developers has said that archetypes will never be more powerful than their base class. Which is a problem, when the base class sucks.

[Xexyz]

Ashiel wrote:

Well, I consider godly things to be godly. Like, we have things like lava in reality, we have lava in Pathfinder. I can see lava deals Xd6 fire damage, ergo when I see an ancient red wyrm breath a hotter breath weapon I can certainly say "Holy crap! That wyrm's breath is hotter than lava!"

When we have accounts of gods in reality and then I see creatures rivaling or meeting them pound for pound in Pathfinder, I can say "wow, that's a godlike creature".

So my question is, when we have accounts of godly things to compare to, how much godly does something have to be before it qualifies as a god? I don't think that the question is hard to comprehend or silly at all.

How much of an immortal miracle working being do you have to be before you can be considered a god?

Are you asking in abstract or are you asking as it pertains to my setting? I can answer the latter, but not the former.

[ulgulanoth]

Didn't fighters had access to a feat that let them goad a caster into melee attacking them? And it was nerfed straight out the box because everyone said it was broken?

If fighters are so weak, just let them have that feat as it was written out the gate for free and things should even out somewhat

[Ashiel]

Xexyz wrote:

Ashiel wrote:

Well, I consider godly things to be godly. Like, we have things like lava in reality, we have lava in Pathfinder. I can see lava deals Xd6 fire damage, ergo when I see an ancient red wyrm breath a hotter breath weapon I can certainly say "Holy crap! That wyrm's breath is hotter than lava!"

When we have accounts of gods in reality and then I see creatures rivaling or meeting them pound for pound in Pathfinder, I can say "wow, that's a godlike creature".

So my question is, when we have accounts of godly things to compare to, how much godly does something have to be before it qualifies as a god? I don't think that the question is hard to comprehend or silly at all.

How much of an immortal miracle working being do you have to be before you can be considered a god?

Are you asking in abstract or are you asking as it pertains to my setting? I can answer the latter, but not the former.

Neither, I think. I mean, it seems like for us to know what a god is, we would have to know what a god is. We've got defined beings in mythology and religion that qualify and most of our supernatural beings in D&D/Pathfinder are based on these.

As I look at what we in reality define as gods, I can comprehend the scale. D&D is a level-based system. It's a scaling progression of power. I don't see the need to arbitrarily keep trying to raise the bar past "god" so that you can say that creatures of that power level are "not god".

At a certain point it just becomes god, god+, god++, god+++, god^god, and other silliness.

It seems to me the solution would be that, if you simply cannot have non-deity powered beings that aren't deities, just don't let them reach that point like an E6 game or something. Reaching godlike power but then hamfisting it so that "it's like a god but not really because gods are more godly" seems bizarre and I honestly don't understand it. What do you have to define it at that point?

[Ashiel]

ulgulanoth wrote:

Didn't fighters had access to a feat that let them goad a caster into melee attacking them? And it was nerfed straight out the box because everyone said it was broken?

If fighters are so weak, just let them have that feat as it was written out the gate for free and things should even out somewhat

Fighters were just as vulnerable to the feat as anyone else. The feat was horrible and was mostly lambasted because of the grotesque meta-monstrosity that it was. Someone could make your Paladin fall with that feat because it made you choose to do something of your own accord, no mind control at all. Just a skill check and you decided that you were going to attack this person. Avowed pacifist? Nah. Orphan give you the finger? You give him your axe!

I'm of the opinion that an aggro-taunt system is definitely not needed. Ways of actually hindering people would be nice though. Being able to do things like catch enemies in your reach and hold them there, causing status ailments, making AoOs if nearby enemies attack anyone except you, and other cool reasons to say "Hey, look at me or I'ma bury my axe in your skull" would be nice.

[kyrt-ryder]

Great suggestion Ashiel.

E6 would also solve the issue Xexyz is running into with random encounters fading away.

[kyrt-ryder]

Ashiel wrote:

ulgulanoth wrote:

Didn't fighters had access to a feat that let them goad a caster into melee attacking them? And it was nerfed straight out the box because everyone said it was broken?

If fighters are so weak, just let them have that feat as it was written out the gate for free and things should even out somewhat

Fighters were just as vulnerable to the feat as anyone else. The feat was horrible and was mostly lambasted because of the grotesque meta-monstrosity that it was. Someone could make your Paladin fall with that feat because it made you choose to do something of your own accord, no mind control at all. Just a skill check and you decided that you were going to attack this person. Avowed pacifist? Nah. Orphan give you the finger? You give him your axe!

I'm of the opinion that an aggro-taunt system is definitely not needed. Ways of actually hindering people would be nice though. Being able to do things like catch enemies in your reach and hold them there, causing status ailments, making AoOs if nearby enemies attack anyone except you, and other cool reasons to say "Hey, look at me or I'ma bury my axe in your skull" would be nice.

Immediate-Action Charges help a LOT. Giving the martial the ability to respond to an enemy AND get in their face at the same time.

Assuming they have the ability to get into the enemy's face at all of course.

[Bob Bob Bob]

That's basically what 4e did with the marking mechanic. Once someone was "marked" they would suffer a variety of consequences if they attacked someone other than the person who marked them. I think one of them was an AoO, one of them was just a penalty to attack everyone but the marker, I don't remember the rest.

[Ashiel]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Great suggestion Ashiel.

E6 would also solve the issue Xexyz is running into with random encounters fading away.

Well I try not to be that person who's always jumpin' in going "Hey, you want E6" or whatever but we're talking a leveled RPG system here. Levels are a representation of power on a scale that goes from normal dude (3 hp commoner) to stand-in for god (a solar that can literally not be killed except by destroying them with incredibly strong magical weapons and spells keyed to the energy diametrically opposed to its very existence, who can perform miracles casually, who can raise the dead, heal the sick, avert a comet, etc).

I don't see a need to continue inching the godly section of the scale ever higher to try and pretend that those climbing it are still just mortals, anymore than I see a need to try and make a CR 1/3 orc a relevant fear for a party of 8th level PCs. It's fighting against the power scales.

I also, still, do not get how one becomes more godly than godly. There comes a point where the only next reasonable step is narrative control over everything which doesn't work very well in a fantasy setting (especially one with multiple deities) and relegates them to either obscenely boring or so distant as to not exist at all (making them more of a legend but having no actual function).

If you don't want things to scale past a certain point, that's fine. E-whatever helps a lot in that regard. I just don't see the point in trying to stretch the scale ever onward with no real explanation as to what constitutes as "god+".

[TarkXT]

Milo v3 wrote:

Xexyz wrote:

Very well. My answer to your previous question is that even in 3rd edition, what did and did not constitute a god was arbitrary from the perspective of the writer. Within the context of the game world(s) themselves, there were definitions, but from the context of the writer choosing the parameters of what defined a god in 3rd ed, those choices were arbitrary.

TarkXT wrote:

Which is true. The actual capabilities of a god is always left up to the narrator.

No. A god in 3e has a mechanical definition of creature with a divine rank. There are actual specific defined rules for what is capable of gods in 3e. They have stat blocks. Many are even so poorly optimized that 18th level parties can defeat them.

I can count on no hands the number of people who took that book seriously.

[Rhedyn]

The presocratic philosopher Xenophanes decided that Zeus was not a true God because he had to nod his head to cause Olympus to shake. A true God would not have needed to move their head.

I distinguish gods into two categories: True and Relevant.

Relevant gods can exert great influence on either your life or afterlife.

True Gods are supreme beings (omnipotent and omnipotent) to the creatures of their creation(universe). They could create relevant deities for their mortals, reshape the cosmos, and alter the past at will. Fundamentally, their universe exist within them, thus always subect to their wills.

A god could be both relevant and true. Many DMs create a relevant God that appears to be the True God of their world. Thus very they are very powerful. (Though a DM is not the true God of their world since they don't know what the other players are thinking)

[Xexyz]

Ashiel wrote:

Well I try not to be that person who's always jumpin' in going "Hey, you want E6" or whatever but we're talking a leveled RPG system here. Levels are a representation of power on a scale that goes from normal dude (3 hp commoner) to stand-in for god (a solar that can literally not be killed except by destroying them with incredibly strong magical weapons and spells keyed to the energy diametrically opposed to its very existence, who can perform miracles casually, who can raise the dead, heal the sick, avert a comet, etc).

I don't see a need to continue inching the godly section of the scale ever higher to try and pretend that those climbing it are still just mortals, anymore than I see a need to try and make a CR 1/3 orc a relevant fear for a party of 8th level PCs. It's fighting against the power scales.

I also, still, do not get how one becomes more godly than godly. There comes a point where the only next reasonable step is narrative control over everything which doesn't work very well in a fantasy setting (especially one with multiple deities) and relegates them to either obscenely boring or so distant as to not exist at all (making them more of a legend but having no actual function).

If you don't want things to scale past a certain point, that's fine. E-whatever helps a lot in that regard. I just don't see the point in trying to stretch the scale ever onward with no real explanation as to what constitutes as "god+".

It's not just about power levels though, at least the way I'm defining such things in my game. Just like being able to fly doesn't make one a bird, being able to all the stuff 17th level wizards can do doesn't make one a god [in my setting].