This new 24 hour duration spell from Ultimat Magic removes all aging penalties!
Venerable wizards of doom here I come!
Any GM worth his salt should try his damnedest to kill off a twinked character like that before he actually reaches the necessary spell level. Okay, you want to start with STR 4, DEX 4 and CON 4? Be my guest.
The best thing would of course be to not even allow sillyness like this in the first place.
"Oh, a venerable wizard you say? Ok let me roll for when you die of old age. Oops, looks like you had a weak heart and that adventuring took too much of a toll on you, what's your next character concept?"
On a more serious note, if you're playing a character in a campaign that is starting at level 13 and you want to spend a spell in your highest slot every day to be Venerable and take out the age penalties that's not too terrible. It's incredibly cheesy but most campaigns don't start that high, or go for long past that point, so it isn't a huge problem.
If someone is playing in an AP or something and purposely starts with an very old or venerable wizard who is searching for immortality a spell like that is a great way to reward a player for suffering through some pretty terrible drawbacks through the early levels as long as the party as a whole agrees with it.
How is it "cheesy" to have to cast a 7th-level spell every day to offset the physical penalties for being venerable? It doesn't actually make you younger, it doesn't stop you from dying of a heart attack or liver disease, and so on, it just offsets the penalties for being really old.
How is it "cheesy" to have to cast a 7th-level spell every day to offset the physical penalties for being venerable? It doesn't actually make you younger, it doesn't stop you from dying of a heart attack or liver disease, and so on, it just offsets the penalties for being really old.
It's not cheesy at all. Some people just seem to reflexively cry "broken," or "overpowered," or "cheesy" without actually thinking about it or looking a the spell/option/ability in the first place. Kind of a pet peeve of mine, to tell you the truth.
Edit: As for the spell itself, I kind of like it. I'm currently playing a venerable witch in Kingmaker. I started out old, and the campaign spanned the course of 25 years. I will be picking that spell up as soon as I can.
Any GM worth his salt should try his damnedest to kill off a twinked character like that before he actually reaches the necessary spell level. Okay, you want to start with STR 4, DEX 4 and CON 4? Be my guest.
The best thing would of course be to not even allow sillyness like this in the first place.
It helps stats that most casters don't use, and most characters don't get to that age anyway. It is mostly a non-issue. If it is an issue then dispel magic is available which makes it a non-issue again.
How is it "cheesy" to have to cast a 7th-level spell every day to offset the physical penalties for being venerable? It doesn't actually make you younger, it doesn't stop you from dying of a heart attack or liver disease, and so on, it just offsets the penalties for being really old.
It's cheesy only if you start at 13th level in the campaign and plan the character specifically to trade a single spell slot for an effective +3 to all mental stats with none of the downsides that come from playing the old character through all of the rest of the levels.
The spell itself is fine I think, as I noted in my last post it makes a great way to reward a PC wizard who is searching for immortality, it's the idea of looking at a campaign and having the mindset of "I get to start at 13th level so if I'm venerable I can just be a specialist wizard and one of those extra spell slots will give me +3 to my casting stat, a higher will save, and let me dump charisma to 7 for the points" that I'm calling cheesy.
|
Because it encourages minmaxing and starting a game as an older age catrogry....mostly a pure metagaming decision...
Wait, you're saying old spellcasters aren't wonderfully appropriate thematically? Because every white-bearded Wizard ever would seem to disagree with you...
I mean really guys, you need to be 13th level just to get the Venerable version, and it only lasts a day!
Because it encourages minmaxing and starting a game as an older age catrogry....mostly a pure metagaming decision...
Perhaps in your group, but in mine, some of us like to start out as an older character because it fits a character concept; the crusty old farmer whose sick and tired of goblins burning his crops decides to take up sword and shield is a perfect example of this (that was the background of a 1st level fighter in my group).
it would be nice if people stopped making blanket statements like "because it encourages minmaxing..." Not everyone is out to break the system.
Because it encourages minmaxing and starting a game as an older age catrogry....mostly a pure metagaming decision...
Most GM don't allow you to start at old age, and even if they do you still have to live long enough to get access to the spell. If you live that long with a diminished con score then you probably don't need the spell anyway.
In short those that need it probably won't live to see it, and the rest probably won't pick it up once they realize they have been doing fine without it. Now of course if a game starts at that high of a level a player might want to try it, but I think this is one of those "looks better on paper than it actually is" issues.
Because it encourages minmaxing and starting a game as an older age catrogry....mostly a pure metagaming decision...
This said it better than I did. The cheesy thing about it is for those high level characters that are built using this spell purely as a metagame decision to max out their casting stat for the DC increase. The spell itself is not overpowered, it's high level and 999/1000 characters will never be venerable even playing Kingmaker as slow as possible during a campaign. The post of making venerable wizards of doom with this spell starting at high level specifically to exploit that is what I find cheesy.
I wouldn't mind having a character start at middle age, because a net +1/-1 is not the biggest thing. I wouldn't mind a character who starts looking old... the iconic wizard with his white beard is quite under-represented with the way the system works.
But, yeah, I do mind someone min-maxing his character out the wazoo, and then expecting the GM to play along. If you show up with a character who has all physical stats way below 10, I'll do my level best to show you why people like that very seldomly survive being an adventurer.
That being said, I am not even averse to the spells themselves, because they seem much more material for old NPC's the group meets. Which, btw., is not a double standard... the old evil overlord in his fortress is a staple of fantasy storytelling, too, and since he will be an active opponent for about one session of play, it behooves a GM to try to make the encounter memorable.
Here's how you test your players:
Player: "I want to play an old character for the concept."
GM: "Sure. You can use the normal non-aged stats and just roleplay being older."
Note the reaction carefully.
Here's how you test your players:
Player: "I want to play an old character for the concept."
GM: "Sure. You can use the normal non-aged stats and just roleplay being older."
Note the reaction carefully.
Pretty much that. I wouldn't mind a player wanting to play an old crusty Wizard with normal stats at all.
Well you can play anything if you make it believeable. Give him some quirks that offset the cheesyness.
I have made a 75 year old 1st level wizard once. On his adventures I played him forgetful, cranky, quirky. He used half of his spells just to make things easier and more comfortable for him (floating disc to carry stuff, unseen servant to take care of physical labor, arcane marks on his underwear,...) which left him with a lot less slots for actual battle.
Here's how you test your players:
Player: "I want to play an old character for the concept."
GM: "Sure. You can use the normal non-aged stats and just roleplay being older."
Note the reaction carefully.
My group already knows how I feel about that. When 4E came out and I noticed that there were no age rules AT ALL, I called them all up excitedly about how I could finally play the characters I wanted without being hindered by rules that did little more than promote minmaxing and restrict character age choices to young adult and middle aged. Why shouldn't I be able to play a venerable wizard that's tough as iron or an aged fighter who can't even see the right side of a barn? With the rules as written, that was impossible.
Now, with Ultimate Magic, I can at least do the first one.
Since Pathfinder DOES include the aging rules, however, I see absolutely nothing that says I can't start with a 1st-level venerable character if I wanted. Any GM who disallows out of hand via GM fiat* is nothing more than proof that he shouldn't be GMing (if you can't handle something as simple as age, God forbid your players bring something complicated to your attention).
* Hopefully, if your GM does this, it is for altruistic reasons, such as a concern that your character would be too weak and would bring down the rest of the party (that is, there level of fun).
Here's how you test your players:
Player: "I want to play an old character for the concept."
GM: "Sure. You can use the normal non-aged stats and just roleplay being older."
Note the reaction carefully.
My group already knows how I feel about that. When 4E came out and I noticed that there were no age rules AT ALL, I called them all up excitedly about how I could finally play the characters I wanted without being hindered by rules that did little more than promote minmaxing and restrict character age choices to young adult and middle aged. Why shouldn't I be able to play a venerable wizard that's tough as iron or an aged fighter who can't even see the right side of a barn? With the rules as written, that was impossible.
Now, with Ultimate Magic, I can at least do the first one.
Since Pathfinder DOES include the aging rules, however, I see absolutely nothing that says I can't start with a 1st-level venerable character if I wanted. Any GM who disallows out of hand via GM fiat* is nothing more than proof that he shouldn't be GMing (if you can't handle something as simple as age, God forbid your players bring something complicated to your attention).
* Hopefully, if your GM does this, it is for altruistic reasons, such as a concern that your character would be too weak and would bring down the rest of the party (that is, there level of fun).
Most GM's don't allow it. Not allowing does not equal not being able to handle things. Maybe he just things you are trying to min-max a character and says no out of principle. If you really just want the age you can do so without the penalties.
|
Wait, you're saying old spellcasters aren't wonderfully appropriate thematically? Because every white-bearded Wizard ever would seem to disagree with you...I mean really guys, you need to be 13th level just to get the Venerable version, and it only lasts a day!
I haven't said that...i would totally have most of my old NPC wizards have that spell on their list or an item that casts it once a day, but if a Player makes a PC wizard that is venerable and then takes this spell, i see it as metagaming and trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Perhaps in your group, but in mine, some of us like to start out as an older character because it fits a character concept; the crusty old farmer whose sick and tired of goblins burning his crops decides to take up sword and shield is a perfect example of this (that was the background of a 1st level fighter in my group).
it would be nice if people stopped making blanket statements like "because it encourages minmaxing..." Not everyone is out to break the system.
A concept is one thing, it is for roleplaying purposes, but then, i allow a player to play with normal stats and just roleplay an older person. There is no need to penalize players for wanting to roleplay a cool concept. And, yes, as much as this spell is useful for older characters, it does encourage minmaxing, because all minmaxers will look at the spell and think::"Cool, now i can make the venerable wizard and if i leave str, con and dex at 10, and dump cha to 7, i can have a wizard who will have 23 int at first level, and if we start play at 13th level i will have 26 base int, and if i use one of my slots, i will have no plhysical penalties"
I am not saying that everyone will do that, but a lot of people will. Or will try.Most GM don't allow you to start at old age, and even if they do you still have to live long enough to get access to the spell. If you live that long with a diminished con score then you probably don't need the spell anyway.
In short those that need it probably won't live to see it, and the rest probably won't pick it up once they realize they have been doing fine without it. Now of course if a game starts at that high of a level a player might want to try it, but I think this is one of those "looks better on paper than it actually is" issues.
True, and some GMs don't start play at 1st level. To be honest, if a player wants to play a venerable wizard at 1st level, hell yeah i will alow him to gain access to the spell, i might even get him some elixirs of the thing if he survives to be 4th level, so he can use it in dangerous situations(more dangerous).
If my players want to play an elderly character, I let them point buy with lower than normal physical stats. If they want to age a character mid-game, I let them rearrange their point buy to take points out of str, dex and con and put them into their mental stats at the same costs as building a character.
It works fine so far.
Most GM's don't allow it. Not allowing does not equal not being able to handle things. Maybe he just things you are trying to min-max a character and says no out of principle. If you really just want the age you can do so without the penalties.
Out of principle? How much arrogance does a GM need to believe that load? Principles have nothing to do with gaming. Find out if such a character will increase the fun of all involved, or decrease it, and make a decision based on that. Simple. Principle? It's just an excuse for a GM to make a fiat ruling out of hand. To me it's like a parent saying "because I said so."
In my experience, GMs have either allowed aged characters (in full) because they can handle what comes with the territory, or they outlaw anything that isn't a young adult entirely (not even giving the no stat option you mentioned) because they are jerks who shouldn't be GMing.
I would be perfectly fine with a no stat option, particularly in a point buy game, because then I could build exactly what I wanted as per my concept.
...but if a Player makes a PC wizard that is venerable and then takes this spell, i see it as metagaming and trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Wow. Just wow. Hope I never play under you.
This is no more metagaming than a two-handed strength fighter taking power attack. That's not metagaming. That's building an effective character.
Also, if it isn't jeopardizing anyone else's fun, what the hell is wrong with having one's cake and eating it too? I thought this game was supposed to be about fun. Who made you the fun police?
EDIT: Going to bed. Seems I'm cranky, presumably from lack of sleep.
Most GM's don't allow it. Not allowing does not equal not being able to handle things. Maybe he just things you are trying to min-max a character and says no out of principle. If you really just want the age you can do so without the penalties.Out of principle? How much arrogance does a GM need to believe that load? Principles have nothing to do with gaming. Find out if such a character will increase the fun of all involved, or decrease it, and make a decision based on that. Simple. Principle? It's just an excuse for a GM to make a fiat ruling out of hand. To me it's like a parent saying "because I said so."
In my experience, GMs have either allowed aged characters (in full) because they can handle what comes with the territory, or they outlaw anything that isn't a young adult entirely (not even giving the no stat option you mentioned) because they are jerks who shouldn't be GMing.
I would be perfectly fine with a no stat option, particularly in a point buy game, because then I could build exactly what I wanted as per my concept.
It depends on the principle. :)
He might explain the principle so it is not like saying "I told you so,". Well there are GM's that say no without explaining, but I would not game with them.I do agree that those GM's were jerks. There is no reason to limit something that has no adverse affect on the game. I am a pro-player GM of course.
It depends on the principle. :)
He might explain the principle so it is not like saying "I told you so,". Well there are GM's that say no without explaining, but I would not game with them.I do agree that those GM's were jerks. There is no reason to limit something that has no adverse affect on the game. I am a pro-player GM of course.
I LIKE this post.
|
|
Wow. Just wow. Hope I never play under you.This is no more metagaming than a two-handed strength fighter taking power attack. That's not metagaming. That's building an effective character.
Also, if it isn't jeopardizing anyone else's fun, what the hell is wrong with having one's cake and eating it too? I thought this game was supposed to be about fun. Who made you the fun police?
EDIT: Going to bed. Seems I'm cranky, presumably from lack of sleep.
First, i don't think that you playing under me will ever happen simply because i live in Serbia. Too bad though because i would love to have you in one of my games and see if you have fun. My proudest moment as a GM was when one of my (now regular) players told me that i have shown him that d20 modern can be awesome fun. And he hated the system before that session. My players have fun, unless they are lying through their teeth after every session when i ask them if i should fix anything, try doing something differently and whether they had fun.
A fighter taking power attack is an effective choice. A player making a 13th level character and taking venerable penalties and bonuses and then using this spell to negate those penalties is a cheater and a metagamer. One slot per day is to small a penalty for not having a -6 to all physical stats.
Also, have you continued reading my post to the end or did you just hang on to that sentence? Because i said that i have no problem with a venerable wizard concept, i would allow it, and if a player started that character as venerable on low levels and made it work, i would certainly reward that player, by supplying elixirs of greater age resistance sometimes.
I simply have an issue with minmaxers and personaly forbid minmaxing in my games.
Most GM's don't allow it. Not allowing does not equal not being able to handle things. Maybe he just things you are trying to min-max a character and says no out of principle. If you really just want the age you can do so without the penalties.
Exactly. God forbid we evil, bad GM's don't want to deal with twinked out characters and impossibly high save DC's for SOD spells. It's not as if that would unbalance the game and force us to throw things at the party which the normally sanely built characters are not ready to deal with, right? RIGHT?!?
Exactly. God forbid we evil, bad GM's don't want to deal with twinked out characters and impossibly high save DC's for SOD spells. It's not as if that would unbalance the game and force us to throw things at the party which the normally sanely built characters are not ready to deal with, right? RIGHT?!?
God forbid I pay $50 so I don't have to make my own rules for the game to work regardless of player options, wait that's exactly why I pay that....
God forbid I pay $50 so I don't have to make my own rules for the game to work regardless of player options, wait that's exactly why I pay that....
Exactly. God forbid we evil, bad GM's don't want to deal with twinked out characters and impossibly high save DC's for SOD spells. It's not as if that would unbalance the game and force us to throw things at the party which the normally sanely built characters are not ready to deal with, right? RIGHT?!?
Eh? Care to repeat that in a form which makes sense in regards to what I wrote?
I would absolutely let a wizard who played venerable from 1st level (or aged there over a looooong campaign) develop the spell. And as others have said, a wizard wanting to start at 13th level just so he could twink his mental scores would get more scrutiny.
Honestly though - I think aging bonuses are dumb, anyway, and shouldn't exist.
BS. This is NOT a computer game - and that so called logical argument "the oberoni fallacy" is BS too.
You are ignoring a very important fact - pen and paper RPGs are build at the core with the concept a thinking human being is needed to adjudicate the rules.
While the rules are there to provide a strong framework and guidance - I have NEVER seen an RPG that was not quick to point out that a GM is meant to be a stabilizing force to address minutia that the rules could not accomodate in a concise fashion and unintended interactions or abuse not intended by the designers.
If as a player (or worse yet GM), you want to rules to be the end all be all arbiter with no option for rational human decision-making, go play an MMO.
Unfortunately, PFS is much closer to the computer game analogy. Players run by RAW and GMs must accommodate them regardless of absurdity so long as their nonsense is rules-legal.
Unfortunately, PFS is much closer to the computer game analogy. Players run by RAW and GMs must accommodate them regardless of absurdity so long as their nonsense is rules-legal.
Yep. While ultimately it is up to the GM to allow things or not, having hours long discussions with players why their special brand of twinkishness is bad for the campaign as a whole is not fun.
Out of principle? How much arrogance does a GM need to believe that load? Principles have nothing to do with gaming.
Reminds me of a quote:
Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.
Because it encourages minmaxing and starting a game as an older age catrogry....mostly a pure metagaming decision...
Is it a metagaming decision for a fighter to start out young so they don't receive any physical attribute penalties?
|
|
Because it encourages minmaxing and starting a game as an older age catrogry....mostly a pure metagaming decision...Is it a metagaming decision for a fighter to start out young so they don't receive any physical attribute penalties?
No, because the game assumes that characters start out young. It is worked in the rules. And, as i told ravingdork, read my entire post.
Creating a level 13 wizard who is venerable and then taking this spell is metagaming, twinking and minmaxing. And as such forbidden at my table.
On the other hand, if a player makes a venerable lvl1 wizard and actually plays him till lvl 13 and takes the spell, i will hapilly let him spend a slot every day so he wouldn't die going up the stairs.
On the other hand, if a player makes a venerable lvl1 wizard and actually plays him till lvl 13 and takes the spell, i will hapilly let him spend a slot every day so he wouldn't die going up the stairs.
I guess much of my disgust for such a character concept stems from my guess that the player then would expect a lot of hand-holding and pulling of punches from me, so that his PC then gets to actually experience the higher levels.
Am I missing something here?
Couldn't you already do this kind of min/maxing by starting old, living long enough to have the money and then getting reincarnated (in that fresh, new, young adult body with your mental stats intact)?
I mean, yes, negative levels suck, but lets compare the cost of getting those removed as compared to a level 7 spell every day.
So, with that in mind, wouldn't you say that this spell isn't so much for min/max sort of people (because a better mechanism already exists, and I'd certainly prefer a new body that can't be dispelled -- seems a much better deal) -- but rather for people who want to play old for the sake of it?
On the other hand, if a player makes a venerable lvl1 wizard and actually plays him till lvl 13 and takes the spell, i will hapilly let him spend a slot every day so he wouldn't die going up the stairs.I guess much of my disgust for such a character concept stems from my guess that the player then would expect a lot of hand-holding and pulling of punches from me, so that his PC then gets to actually experience the higher levels.
I wouldn't. If I give my character some sort of weakness, I'm doing it with the expectation that it'll be a problem sometimes.
And really, how big a deal is being venerable? It's +3 to all mental scores. As a spellcaster, unless you're a mystic theurge, this is effectively a +3 to one score as far as relevance goes. This is basically casting a 7th level spell to give you a +3 to your spellcasting stat for a day. There are 2nd level spells that do better.
And really, how big a deal is being venerable? It's +3 to all mental scores. As a spellcaster, unless you're a mystic theurge, this is effectively a +3 to one score as far as relevance goes. This is basically casting a 7th level spell to give you a +3 to your spellcasting stat for a day. There are 2nd level spells that do better.
And it's permanent. And stacks with every stat booster and inherent bonus and feat you can get to boost your DC's. So, yes, another +2 to the DC of SoD spells is rather big, because they already can be boosted to insane amounts by min-maxers. Not even to mention all the other things which can be done with one extra-high stat via feats and class abilities.
And a +3 to a mental ability does not represent a +2 to spell DCs, but a +1 by the way.
It makes getting that +2 quite easier and cheaper. At different levels of play, it will be an extra +2
Man. Have GMs been burned so many times by their player that they've grown so cynical and untrusting? Or is it just those of us on the forums, because we are exposed to all the negatives that happen in other groups?
Also, I would like to apologize for my earlier posts. They were out of line.
I guess, as some GMs no longer trust their players, I've developed an attitude of thinking the worst of GMs.
If you start playing your character at maximum age, and survive to make it to the level needed to cast that spell, your DM is doing something wrong. And I don't mean cheesy, "I'm the DM and you have a heart attack hurhurhur" kind of stuff.
You have -6 to all three of your physical abilities! A stiff breeze will kill you. Start at first level and a single shot from a goblin will, too. I know you would need to either be extremely lucky or for your DM to be extremely incompetent for you to survive all the way to 13. And a +3 to a mental ability does not represent a +2 to spell DCs, but a +1 by the way.
I made it all the way to level 10 on 36 hit points, 2 Str, 6 Dex, and 10 Con. My GM did NOT go easy on us. I roleplayed that crap out of that character and used plenty of survival tactics.
As a DM I don't usually punish people who min-max, but there are limits to that too. The venerable 1st level wizard would be allowed, but he would also be faced with numerous challenges taking advantage of his physical weakness, you can bet on that.
This seems like the appropriate way of handling it, provided those challenges stem out of the player's choice to play a physically weak character and not the GM arbitrarily deciding, "ooh what an easy target, let's pick on him for a bit."
Man. Have GMs been burned so many times by their player that they've grown so cynical and untrusting? Or is it just those of us on the forums, because we are exposed to all the negatives that happen in other groups?
Also, I would like to apologize for my earlier posts. They were out of line.
I guess, as some GMs no longer trust their players, I've developed an attitude of thinking the worst of GMs.
If you'd have to deal with some guys for ten years who just don't get that their gameplay choice objectively makes the game worse for the majority of other players in the group, then you'd get more than a bit cynical, too. ^^
I made it all the way to level 10 on 36 hit points, 2 Str, 6 Dex, and 10 Con. My GM did NOT go easy on us. I roleplayed that crap out of that character and used plenty of survival tactics.
Dude if this is the PC I think it is, the one you posted some fights for. Then yes he took it very,very easy on you guys. Under any other Gm in that thread, that fight would have been the last for that group.