Addressing the "Is it as broken as the wizard Fallacy"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Felyndiira wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:

Softballing.

Retraining is optional and costs gold
gold on "cheap" items starts to add up pretty quick.
The ability to perform other actions is the primary strength/versatility of summons which makes summons you dont communicate with sub optimal.

Aquan, Terran, Celestial, Abyssal, Infernal is enough for most summoners. So, 2 from INT and three ranks in linguistics. Not in any way a major investment.

If we're talking about costs adding up, we should be bringing up the snowballing cost of things like fly and see invis potions for the fighter, not a one-time purchase that gets you every language you need.

Several races can get 2 languages for 1 point making it even easier.


Ryan Freire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Even if the fighter gains bluff, and diplomacy as additional class skills he likely isnt going to have to the skill points to support them unless he puts his favored class points into skills, but even them he's still only even with the summoner who can do the same thing. The summoner's charisma bonus is likely going to trump the fighter having a class skill unless he sacrifices something else that makes him good at being a fighter. The summoner can get the same results with minimal loss(ie spellcraft).

Basically the fighter as face is barely keeping up, if he is keeping up, and losing more in combat while trying to be a face.

AWT gives ranks = to BAB as does AAT, and if your GM doesn't make you direct your summons he's taking it easy on you. Having to communicate with and direct summons is an intended weakness of the spells and one of the major reasons summon monster trumps summon natures ally, ease of communication.

But its the usual case, people softball primary casters then complain about how OP they get.

You may have missed it, but I did say most outsiders speak common. That is not the same as "you don't need to communicate with it in order to control it".

The fact that it speaks common means I can communicate with it, and I even mentioned that handle animal is needed for the summoned animals. So if I mentioned that handle animal is needed, then it follows that I don't think someone without ranks in handle animal should be able to direct summoned animals.

So I really dont know where you got that idea from that rules are not being followed.

I'll address the other part of what you said after this is addressed.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
As it turned out, it did a great many fantasy settings, mostly badly, and a great many non-fantasy settings, generally worse.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree here. To me, the 3E FRCS is still the best Campaign Setting book ever written, with Eberron 3.5 being a close second. Golarion was originally written for 3.X as well, and isn't too shabby either. Not to speak of a lot of great settings that are playable with Pathfinder Rules, like Kobold Press's Midgard, FGG's Lost Lands, and so on. Wheel of Time was awesome, and I still have fond memories of the Lands of the Dioamond Throne and Ptolus. Scarred Lands, the Iron Kingdoms, the list goes on and on.

And as far as non-fantasy settings are concerned, I'll mention CoC d20 and Star Wars (I admit that I prefer the Saga edition over the original), which I had quite some fun with. Don't know about M&M as this isn't my genre, but obviously it was successful enough that it still exists (and without d20, it probably would never have).

And I'm not saying that CoC d20 is better than Chaosium's CoC RPG (because it isn't). I'm saying that it is good enough that I can use it with my players that would never agree to learn a new system just because their GM has a thing for the Great Old Ones. As I can probably easily convince them to give Cubicle 7' Adventures in Middle-Earth a try when they were very hesitant about trying out the One Ring RPG.

I mean I even have difficulties to get them to play The Dark Eye, and there's not even any language barrier in play that they can hide behind.

But in the end (and that was my actual point) to me it's much more important that I can do so many things with the system that it is important that it does one thing perfectly well. The importance of class balance is overrated in my opinion, I'm also convinced that the problems in threads like this are overexaggerated anyways, so in the end, I'm quite happy with the state of the game as is (especially as it will probably never turn into a much more low-magic, low-powered game that I'd prefer over that; luckily I can do that for myself).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Don't know about M&M as this isn't my genre, but obviously it was successful enough that it still exists (and without d20, it probably would never have).

M&M is considered by many to be among the best superhero RPGs that have been published. And no, it absolutely wouldn't exist without d20.

It's also gotten away from being super-close to the base d20 rules, but it is still more than close enough that I can usually take someone who is familiar with playing Pathfinder and get them playing M&M in about fifteen minutes. (Not making a character, but playing.)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
But its the usual case, people softball primary casters then complain about how OP they get.

Really the opposite is true. Generally the campaigns where people follow the rules, adventure path/module, and dice, are the ones that often experience the Caster/Martial Disparity the most. The more the GM dictates the action by decree, the easier it is to control the power and success rate of casters compared to other classes.*

The C/M D is baked into some of the most fundamental aspects of the game such as point buy, crafting and Wealth By Level, action uses, success rates, etc. Generally the only effective way to control the C/M D among experienced players is by general agreements (often unspoken, or even unconscious) not to disrupt the game.

The main goal of resolving the C/M D is not for experienced groups, but rather so that newer players and GMs don't have to learn these lessons through hours of frustration and failed campaigns. Also, there are some groups that play organized play, where the GM is constrained in how much they can alter the rules. Furthermore, many potential solutions to the C/M D would involving the GM taking more control over the game, rather then having printed rules. A good example of this is how crafting was handled in AD&D- "consult a sage" (aka ask the GM) rather then having almost everything available to the player.

* Note: Both by-the-book and GM decree are 100% legit play styles that are intended ways to play the game. The difficulty is that it takes a while to figure these things out and it is often counter intuitive. It is intended that groups will alter the game to suit their tastes, but it should not be required to avoid one type of class disrupting the game.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fergie wrote:
The main goal of resolving the C/M D is not for experienced groups, but rather so that newer players and GMs don't have to learn these lessons through hours of frustration and failed campaigns.

I'm not sure if that's even that big a problem for newer players and GMs. From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the CM/D is a highly theoretical thing in so far, as it never popped up at tables I was involved in. Especially not when we still were learning the system (and I remember in our very first D&D 3E game, that the wizard player was constantly complaining about not being able to do much while the barbarian of our group felled opponents with ease; it took some time to figure out how to play a wizard efficiently).

So in my opinion, while the CM/D exists (and to me, there's no question about that), it can become a problem as soon as you develop the necessary game mastery to make the most out of your character. I also think that around this time, a player has sufficient knowledge of the game to know how disastrous it can be if they try to steal the spotlight from their fellow co-players. And there is nothing more easy than not to do that.

To me that comes very easy in so far that I (the player) am not assuming that just because an option stands in a rulebook, my character would know about it or has access to it. I also do not try to optimize my chances of success (over a certain point that is) and I'm quite content to let other people do their job and not trying to overshadow them just because theoretically, my wizard could do it better than them.

My main problem with solving CM/D is that I want(!) magic to be stronger than the sword. I don't want a level 20 fighter to be able to go one-on-one with a level 20 wizard and have a realistic chance of success. So changing the system this way would most probably make me stop playing it. On the other hand, I'd like to see the designers heavily nerf the tier 1 classes but that won't happen as well because of the public outcry of all those who would lose some of their oh-so-valuable toys. So until someone comes up with a clever solution of how to solve that gordic knot in a way that makes everyone happy, I'd rather preserve the status quo.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm guessing you've never introduced someone who runs blue decks in Magic to D&D. :P

Also, I find the notion that a 20th level Fighter should be fundamentally and unarguably weaker than a 20th-level Wizard anathema to the very idea of levels and challenge ratings, and should not be the default. If a Fighter is presented as an equally viable adventurer, they should be an equally viable adventurer, and any deviation from that can happen at the table level.


Omnius wrote:
I'm guessing you've never introduced someone who runs blue decks in Magic to D&D. :P

I mean I routinely play Black and Blue decks but I tend to get overwhelmed on prepared casters.


I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Fergie wrote:
The main goal of resolving the C/M D is not for experienced groups, but rather so that newer players and GMs don't have to learn these lessons through hours of frustration and failed campaigns.
I'm not sure if that's even that big a problem for newer players and GMs. From my (admittedly anecdotal) experience, the CM/D is a highly theoretical thing in so far, as it never popped up at tables I was involved in. Especially not when we still were learning the system (and I remember in our very first D&D 3E game, that the wizard player was constantly complaining about not being able to do much while the barbarian of our group felled opponents with ease; it took some time to figure out how to play a wizard efficiently).

My (equally anecdotal) experience says otherwise, though it's never the Wizard. It's always the Cleric or Druid. The full access to their list at all times means that even bad players can grab the perfect spell (with a little planning). The most memorable one for me was when the Druid, a very new player who built a wildshape bruiser, realized he could make a tornado. With a little starting help, sure, but @#$%ing tornado. The party was literally cleanup after he destroyed a bandit camp and he even did most of that (Call Lightning Storm).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.

There are noob questions in here all the time. The newer people also tend to read the rules more literally. So people are still buying into the game. Old player also bring them in. I ran a game for some people about 2 years ago. They werent brand new but they did start in 2016.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.

Just for reference, I'm currently in a game with several players who are brand new to Pathfinder. It's still a thing that happens.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Omnius wrote:
I'm guessing you've never introduced someone who runs blue decks in Magic to D&D. :P
I mean I routinely play Black and Blue decks but I tend to get overwhelmed on prepared casters.

Well, obviously. I'd say your type of character is a... bruiser.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Yes but this is also IMO the wizards biggest weakness, that being you need to know whats coming in order to be as destructive as that.

This is a false statement. A Wizard does not have to know anything and can still carry the party.

I feel like there's a total lack of understanding the true superiority of us wizards in this thread...


Rub-Eta wrote:
Malik Gyan Daumantas wrote:
Yes but this is also IMO the wizards biggest weakness, that being you need to know whats coming in order to be as destructive as that.

This is a false statement. A Wizard does not have to know anything and can still carry the party.

I feel like there's a total lack of understanding the true superiority of us wizards in this thread...

See now your just trying to summon the BARBARIAN of AM


1 person marked this as a favorite.

BARBARIAN NOT EVEN GOING TO BOTHER. BARBARIAN HAVE PHD FOR SAKE OF PETE, WIZARD WHO AM NOT KNOWING ANYTHING NOT ABOUT BE MAKING MAGIC PARTICULARLY GREAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT AM BEING SAID OR NOT SAID.

INSTITUTIONALIZED LEARNING AM THING FOR REASON, BARBARIAN JUST SAYING.


Avoron wrote:
Envall wrote:
I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.
Just for reference, I'm currently in a game with several players who are brand new to Pathfinder. It's still a thing that happens.

Seconding this, my group (a small PbP group on another site) has been gradually adding people who have never played an RPG before period, let alone Pathfinder, since 2014.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:
I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.
There are noob questions in here all the time. The newer people also tend to read the rules more literally. So people are still buying into the game. Old player also bring them in. I ran a game for some people about 2 years ago. They werent brand new but they did start in 2016.

I can't count how many times I've seen people new come in, here and elsewhere, that want to add some Racial Traits to their race because the game says they get 2 free traits: totally understandable when you pick up the game for the first time.


Trinam wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Omnius wrote:
I'm guessing you've never introduced someone who runs blue decks in Magic to D&D. :P
I mean I routinely play Black and Blue decks but I tend to get overwhelmed on prepared casters.

Well, obviously. I'd say your type of character is a... bruiser.

:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

"I get it!" ; Loud voice in the back.

Though that would probably be Green-Red if we were serious.


Avoron wrote:
Just for reference, I'm currently in a game with several players who are brand new to Pathfinder. It's still a thing that happens.

Newer players are generally introduced to games by a group that they're interested in spending time with, so the age of the game doesn't matter. I regularly introduce people to games from 1997, 1994, and 1984 because they're good games still.

Someone who hears "roleplaying games sound fun, maybe I'll give it a try" will probably just find whatever pick-up-and-play game is local to them, which does have a bias for novelty.


WormysQueue wrote:
Especially not when we still were learning the system (and I remember in our very first D&D 3E game, that the wizard player was constantly complaining about not being able to do much while the barbarian of our group felled opponents with ease; it took some time to figure out how to play a wizard efficiently).

I think that is an excellent example of why the C/M D can be so difficult for less experienced GM's to recognize and balance. The first experience of game imbalance is usually the low level fighter or barbarian whacking some kobold or goblin for 20 points of damage. Sometimes it is the rogue pulling off a two weapon sneak attack. The new GM is unprepared for this, and often it is difficult to even challenge the level 2 raging barbarian or fighter. The first impulse is to apply limits to make the martials more "realistic" and also to ramp up the hit points on the monsters and hostile NPCs. The wizard can also pull off some upsets through spells like sleep and color spray, but the saving throws are often rolled behind the screen, and the GM can dictate the action as they see fit, whereas the fighters rolls are right there on the table. Also, for many spells, it is still the martial who deals the killing blow, so it isn't always obvious what decided the encounter.

Flash forward to around 7th-8th level, and things are drastically different. Monsters have multiple attacks, reach, fly, damage reduction and other nasty abilities. They don't go down to 1 hit like before, (especially since the GM maxed their hp) and their attacks connect often, and effectively. The martial character often has to spend actions moving, switching weapons, or drinking a potion or using an item. The caster has three dozen different spells, and has figured out how to target monsters weak saves. The caster has also begun to figure out combos like darkvision on the PCs and then dropping a darkness spell on the monsters. Add in crafting, additional actions through summons, and a few other tricks and suddenly it is the wizard who defines how encounters happen.

This shift in the game is slow and often subtle and inconsistent. It usually happens before the GM recognizes it, and understands how to deal with it. Often other factors obscure it like boisterous players or odd dice luck. It is also totally possible that some other character could be disrupting the game like an archer/gunslinger or even grappling monk. It is a very difficult adjustment for a new GM to make, and it would be nice if they did not have to fix these issues in the first place.

Silver Crusade

Wizards are OP?
Someone should tell the Wizard in the group I'm in for Strange Aeons. My little 16 year old tele/chaoskeneitc is outstripping him for damage the Paladin is buffing everyone else (because his build means that sticking close to him negates fear checks for everyone else), the Warpriest is out-CCing him (grapplers are disgusting).

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Omnius wrote:
I'm guessing you've never introduced someone who runs blue decks in Magic to D&D. :P

I've only known one person who played Magic (and that was way before we met) and I've absolutely no idea what a blue deck is.

Quote:
Also, I find the notion that a 20th level Fighter should be fundamentally and unarguably weaker than a 20th-level Wizard anathema to the very idea of levels and challenge ratings

Well as far as levels are concerned, I still remember times when every class had their own level progression, so the idea that characters at the same level (or better: with the same amount of experience points) are very different in power level is not foreign to me. I do agree with you regarding challenge ratings, but then I think that CR is really one of the worse ideas the 3E designers had. But that's another topic and my reasons for that opinion have nothing to do with CM/D.

In the end, it's about the worlds I want to play in. In most of those worlds, magic is stronger than the sword and I'm fine if my system of choice reflects that in class design (if CM/D must be so pronounced as it is nowadays is another question. In my perfect dream world, there would be different versions of each class for every Tier from 1 to 4, but as this will never happen, I'll take what I get and I'll prefer the state of the art over any system that presents all classes in the same tier, but only presents a single tier x.


...

I thought this was a topic about whether or not wizards are overpowered. What the bloody hell does CR being a bad game design (it’s not by the way) have to do with this?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:

...

I thought this was a topic about whether or not wizards are overpowered. What the bloody hell does CR being a bad game design (it’s not by the way) have to do with this?

I believe that's why Wormys left that line at, "But that's another topic and my reasons for that opinion have nothing to do with CM/D," instead of actually going into it.

If you'd like to have that discussion, feel free to make a thread about it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

everyone posting after AM's post are in the wrong that was the official end of the thread.


It's not a fallacy as much as a different way of looking at it.

I see the game as an escape from a defective reality. In the game, working together allows PCs to advance and thrive. If a wizard can dominate the game without fighters, it's a table failure. This is why dungeons, underground and open air, always need a dead magic zone. Doors or barriers that reflect magic are good too.

In the game, things make sense, and there is room to tailor it to deal with selfish players. If a PC dominates every encounter, the big bad will hire or summon someone who can disable that one character, and the other characters will have to start actually pulling their own weight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Reksew_Trebla wrote:
I thought this was a topic about whether or not wizards are overpowered. What the bloody hell does CR being a bad game design (it’s not by the way) have to do with this?

It's a fairly natural progression:

"Wizards are overpowered!"
"I like Wizards being more powerful than Fighters!"
"But that breaks the CR system!"
"Who cares? CR is boring and bad!"


Goth Guru wrote:
In the game, things make sense, and there is room to tailor it to deal with selfish players. If a PC dominates every encounter, the big bad will hire or summon someone who can disable that one character, and the other characters will have to start actually pulling their own weight.

Or the group can handle it like adults if one person is ruining the game for everyone. If they don't cooperate they can leave the group. Making a player feel targeted definitely won't fix anything.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Goth Guru wrote:

It's not a fallacy as much as a different way of looking at it.

I see the game as an escape from a defective reality. In the game, working together allows PCs to advance and thrive. If a wizard can dominate the game without fighters, it's a table failure. This is why dungeons, underground and open air, always need a dead magic zone. Doors or barriers that reflect magic are good too.

In the game, things make sense, and there is room to tailor it to deal with selfish players. If a PC dominates every encounter, the big bad will hire or summon someone who can disable that one character, and the other characters will have to start actually pulling their own weight.

It's okay to put blame on the system for having problems, mate. The system has problems. Those problems can be improved upon. While, yes, there are table tricks you can do to work around a problem, they do not make the problem go away, and not doing those work-arounds does not make you a failure, it makes the system flawed in ways that it is productive to be aware of, so that it can be actively, openly, and deliberately addressed in a fair and reasoned manner.

After all, if players actively engaging the rules of the game generates negative play experience, then the game is not doing its job as a game.

That a game is imbalanced as a result of its rules is no fault of the player. It is a fault of the game. If you must manually rebalance the game in-play due to imbalance in the rules, that is a failure of the game. If one does not do, it is no, principally, a player or GM failure, nor is it greed.

Now, as to the proposal of things like dead magic zones is you get into the kryptonite problem. Imagine you have Superman and The Shoveler standing next to one another in a system that actually cares about how powerful you are. (Most modern superhero games are story games where your actual level of power is completely irrelevant to the rules of the game.)

Superman can fly, he's strong enough to move planets, can move at the speed of light, has laser vision, freeze breath, hypnosis, literal invulnerability, X-ray vision, memory deletion, healing trance, beyond genius intellect, impossibly acute senses, and let us not forget super weaving.

The Shoveler is a man with a shovel.

The dead magic zone argument is like saying that duo is balanced because you can have kryptonite show up to disable Superman.

Except, when you have to balance the game by pointing to one player and saying, "Now is the part where you're not allowed to play so that someone else gets the chance to do something," then your game was never remotely balanced in the first place.

Also, the dead magic proposal does not work at higher levels. You disable the casters' magic, but you also disable the muggles' Iron Man suite which they need to do their job, and which the math of higher-level encounters are dependent on, as while HP and accuracy tend to scale with level, damage and AC generally scale with magical swag, so you just broke the math of the game and the muggles are about to get squished. Ironically, with so few options left to deal with the dead magic zone, magic still ends up the answer, generally by using a calling effect to ring up a big, scary friend who still remains effective in that zone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Oberoni fallacy ("If it can be fixed, then it isn't broken!") has been mentioned a few times.

To me the important question is, "How hard is it to fix?"

If a problem that can be fixed by banning a few spells, then it's a minor problem.

If the problem can only be fixed by adding 'dead magic zones', or forcing 15 encounters per day, then it's a major problem. Sometimes I just want to run an adventure path, and prewritten adventures that have these restrictions are incredibly rare.


The only way to call up something that ignores dead magic is a ritual, which does not require spell casting ability. It does require cooperation, which is the real point I was trying to make.


All of the Planar Binding spells are instantaneous conjuration effects, and creatures called with them persist in a dead magic zone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.

I started 1.5-2 years ago when a friend asked me to play in a game of his despite never having playing a table-top game before.


Omnius wrote:
All of the Planar Binding spells are instantaneous conjuration effects, and creatures called with them persist in a dead magic zone.

It's my own experience but most DMs/games I've seen limit or ban Summon spells.

Actually this leads to something I want to ask but I'll make a new topic due to it only being tangentially related.


MerlinCross wrote:
Omnius wrote:
All of the Planar Binding spells are instantaneous conjuration effects, and creatures called with them persist in a dead magic zone.

It's my own experience but most DMs/games I've seen limit or ban Summon spells.

Actually this leads to something I want to ask but I'll make a new topic due to it only being tangentially related.

Planar binding is another one of those things it seems like people handwave the long term consequences of either via expenditure of wealth by level, or RP consequences of resentful powerful outsiders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:
Omnius wrote:
All of the Planar Binding spells are instantaneous conjuration effects, and creatures called with them persist in a dead magic zone.

It's my own experience but most DMs/games I've seen limit or ban Summon spells.

Actually this leads to something I want to ask but I'll make a new topic due to it only being tangentially related.

Planar binding is another one of those things it seems like people handwave the long term consequences of either via expenditure of wealth by level, or RP consequences of resentful powerful outsiders.

Planar Binding is one of those things where revenge "may happen", and most outsiders don't have access to spells that allow them to travel across planes. If they did they'd be more active in taking over the material plan. If you keep calling the same outsider it would make sense for him to try to come after you depending on the situation. The GM could say he has a way to make it back, but it gets old if every outside has someone who can bring him back because they might owe him a favor, or he has special contacts.

It's also possible to make a fair deal with the outsider so he doesn't want to kill you, and most casters are binding things that the party can defeat, so it's mostly a nonissue.

Since the called outsider can take "artistic interpretation" with some request it's better to make a deal they actually agree with.

In game's I've seen, the outside is normally treated well, and has been given a bonus(not every time) to avoid them coming back later, but of course my table is not every table so YMMV.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:
To me the important question is, "How hard is it to fix?"

That, and I'll add: "Will fixing it produce a better game for as much people as possible, and if not, is it worth fixing?"

As far as CM/D is concerned, I don't think that it would be that hard to fix. The problem seems to be more on the line of fixing it without annoying a significant part of your audience. The existence of Pathfinder as a system is proof that you can lose a lot of customers by chosing the wrong fix; and just to be clear about that, from a design standpoint, I think that the 4E approach was vastly superior to 3.x or Pathfinder, so I do think their fix was valid, it just wasn't what a lot of people wanted.

Btw. regarding Oberoni, I don't think that the system isn't broken because you can fix it. I think it isn't broken because you can play the system without fixing anything and still not run into any of those problems. Doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement.


MerlinCross wrote:

It's my own experience but most DMs/games I've seen limit or ban Summon spells.

Actually this leads to something I want to ask but I'll make a new topic due to it only being tangentially related.

I don't think I've ever seen summoning outright banned. Only strong insistence that the summoner have their stuff together; if the stat block ain't ready to go, you ain't summoning it.

Banning summons (as in the Summon Monster spells) is one of those Big Deal rulings.

That said, Planar Binding is not summoning. It's calling. They're two entirely different cans of worms.

Ryan Freire wrote:
Planar binding is another one of those things it seems like people handwave the long term consequences of either via expenditure of wealth by level, or RP consequences of resentful powerful outsiders.

Granted, I'm not talking about use of Planar Binding left right and center. I'm talking about Planar Binding to deal with the rather severe circumstance of the dead magic zone.

WormysQueue wrote:
Btw. regarding Oberoni, I don't think that the system isn't broken because you can fix it. I think it isn't broken because you can play the system without fixing anything and still not run into any of those problems. Doesn't mean that there is no room for improvement.

That's... an angle that I disagree with for completely different reasons.

Just because you do not run into a problem does not mean the problem is not there. Your argument is like saying a video game does not have a glitch because you didn't go to the part of the game that has the glitch.


Re calling: that’s why you kill the outsider permanently after it completes your task. It’s physically on the prime, so you can do that. Either that or flesh to stone them. Or some other permanent stasis trap type thing.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Re calling: that’s why you kill the outsider permanently after it completes your task. It’s physically on the prime, so you can do that. Either that or flesh to stone them. Or some other permanent stasis trap type thing.

I'll take things that get you a reputation and hunted by an outsider strike force for 500 Alex.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Omnius wrote:
Just because you do not run into a problem does not mean the problem is not there. Your argument is like saying a video game does not have a glitch because you didn't go to the part of the game that has the glitch.

First, I've said several times that CM/D is in fact there and yes, it can become a problem.

And second, and more importantly, I don't think that you have to avoid playing parts of the game so as not to run into that issue. That's a bit of an issue I have with a lot of those discussions because quite often the critics seem to suggest that you'll invariably run into that problem when you play the game as intended. And I don't think that is true at all, because I never did once in nearly 20 years and from this and alot of other discussions, I'm quite sure that I'm not the only one. And I also don't think that I'm playing the game wrong.

So if there are ways to play the game so that the issue doesn't come up even without you doing something explicitely to avoid that issue, the question how to solve that issue for other players becomes a bit more complicated, because you need to be aware of the fact that there might be players out there that enjoy the game as is and might not be too happy about the changes you make to accomodate that other part of your player base. Especially when that problem is as deeply ingrained in the system as CM/D is with the worst offenders being part of the Core Rules.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Re calling: that’s why you kill the outsider permanently after it completes your task. It’s physically on the prime, so you can do that. Either that or flesh to stone them. Or some other permanent stasis trap type thing.

The problem with this is that the outsider might be reporting directly to another outsider who actually cares about his whereabout for whatever reason. Also depending on how many outsiders exist in that GM's world you killing so many of a specific type of outside could still draw attention. It's not much different than attacking some random NPC*, who is actually related to someone important in the city. This has never happened in my as a GM, but I've seen it once as a player.

*This wasn't the GM making that up on the spot. It was just a player whose PC was a bully going after the wrong guy.

PS: Of course if the GM is the type to have outsiders come after you, even after making a fair deal, then it makes sense for you to kill him. Table variance is something that all of us as players have to account for.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Re calling: that’s why you kill the outsider permanently after it completes your task. It’s physically on the prime, so you can do that. Either that or flesh to stone them. Or some other permanent stasis trap type thing.

Or, you know, you could call an outsider sympathetic to your cause, perhaps one that serves your deity, and be polite to them and explain the situation and why you called them, and ask nicely, and compensate them well, and then when you're done say thank you.


Omnius wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Re calling: that’s why you kill the outsider permanently after it completes your task. It’s physically on the prime, so you can do that. Either that or flesh to stone them. Or some other permanent stasis trap type thing.
Or, you know, you could call an outsider sympathetic to your cause, perhaps one that serves your deity, and be polite to them and explain the situation and why you called them, and ask nicely, and compensate them well, and then when you're done say thank you.

But that means no devil steaks!!! :P [and no blood for infernal healings!]


Also Wraithstrike, Good aligned outsiders get truespeech, remarkably few other outsiders (that work with summon monster) actually speak common. Mephits yes, other elementals no. I'll concede that Abyssal OR Infernal and draconic + the elemental languages will probably be all you need but thats still like 6 skill ranks + or - stats invested in int for a class that has no real need for it.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Also Wraithstrike, Good aligned outsiders get truespeech, remarkably few other outsiders (that work with summon monster) actually speak common. Mephits yes, other elementals no. I'll concede that Abyssal OR Infernal and draconic + the elemental languages will probably be all you need but thats still like 6 skill ranks + or - stats invested in int for a class that has no real need for it.

Traveler's Translator [1,550 gp, Weight —, slotless] gets you an additional language that you can change. So you can either buy one for each language you need or focus on summons that have one language/day. By the time you're summoning creatures that need complicated directions, you can afford as many languages you want.

Secondly, you can retrain to get int+1 bonus languages.

Third, traits like [Unintentional Linguist, Regional Influence, Abyssal Eavesdropper, Elemental Negotiator, Elemental Ties, Feral Speech, Dungeon Dweller and Outer Dragon Blood] give you a bonus language from the list you made so you could gain 3 JUST from traits.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Also Wraithstrike, Good aligned outsiders get truespeech, remarkably few other outsiders (that work with summon monster) actually speak common. Mephits yes, other elementals no. I'll concede that Abyssal OR Infernal and draconic + the elemental languages will probably be all you need but thats still like 6 skill ranks + or - stats invested in int for a class that has no real need for it.

Let's look at the summon monster list, and see which ones the best ones per level courtesy of Treantmonk, but edited based on my experience.

6 ranks, which I see as a trivial investment may not even be needed.

It's not really worth it until Summon Monster 3. The best choices are the leopard with pounce, and the wolf with trap.

Before I go any further SM 1 and 2 also have animals as their best choices.

Actually until you get to SM 6 the animals are clearly running away with the show. They still do the most damage here, but you get some versatility with the Lillend(true speech), Succubus(common), and Shadow Demon(common). With the animals being able to smite bad guys they're still the top choice outside of certain situations.

At this point you are already more than halfway to level 20, and many GM's on don't like to go past 15 based on previous discussions on the boards.

But let's keep going.

SM 7 the decent choices are huge or bigger in size. From those you have the elementals(variouslanguages, but not common), and the Bebilith(Abyssal). They're smart enough to make decent decision if you dont want to spend a skill point.

SM 8 You have 3 choices, and only decent one is the elementals. Of course you go with 1d3+1 SM 6 monsters, but at this level other than taking hit point damge I dont see them being as effective. Personally I've never bothered with SM 8, but that's just me.

SM 9 and its back to glory. The only two choices I see that are worth taking are the Ghaele(truespeech) and the Trumpet Archon(truspeech). Both cast as 13th and 14th level clerics respectively.

I don't see the point of burning skill points for 3 spells. The 2 or 3 viable choices that you can't talk to can make decent combat decisions on their own, which is another point I made earlier.

edit: I forgot we were specifically discussing the summoner so ignore any comments I may have made about not taking certain SM spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
As it turned out, it did a great many fantasy settings, mostly badly, and a great many non-fantasy settings, generally worse.

Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree here. To me, the 3E FRCS is still the best Campaign Setting book ever written, with Eberron 3.5 being a close second. Golarion was originally written for 3.X as well, and isn't too shabby either. Not to speak of a lot of great settings that are playable with Pathfinder Rules, like Kobold Press's Midgard, FGG's Lost Lands, and so on. Wheel of Time was awesome, and I still have fond memories of the Lands of the Dioamond Throne and Ptolus. Scarred Lands, the Iron Kingdoms, the list goes on and on.

And as far as non-fantasy settings are concerned, I'll mention CoC d20 and Star Wars (I admit that I prefer the Saga edition over the original), which I had quite some fun with. Don't know about M&M as this isn't my genre, but obviously it was successful enough that it still exists (and without d20, it probably would never have).

And I'm not saying that CoC d20 is better than Chaosium's CoC RPG (because it isn't). I'm saying that it is good enough that I can use it with my players that would never agree to learn a new system just because their GM has a thing for the Great Old Ones. As I can probably easily convince them to give Cubicle 7' Adventures in Middle-Earth a try when they were very hesitant about trying out the One Ring RPG.

I mean I even have difficulties to get them to play The Dark Eye, and there's not even any language barrier in play that they can hide behind.

But in the end (and that was my actual point) to me it's much more important that I can do so many things with the system that it is important that it does one thing perfectly well. The importance of class balance is overrated in my opinion, I'm also convinced that the problems in threads like this are overexaggerated anyways, so in the end, I'm quite happy with the state of the game as is (especially as it will probably never turn into a much...

I have fond memories of a 17-player campaign of Mechwarrior, fond memories doesn't mean it was a well designed game though.

301 to 349 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Addressing the "Is it as broken as the wizard Fallacy" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.