it really depends on the senses being used to detect the creature
I quote this sentence because it's just plain wrong. You don't need to detect the creature at all, you can even Dispel Magic on an undetected creature. For example by targeting the decoy of a Mislead.
Another example: A creature casts Bless and you are aware of it. Then it moves behind a wall, so you have no more line of effect nor line of sight on the creature. You can target the effect of Bless on a creature you have line of sight and effect on and dispel it. So you don't care if you can see/hear/touch the creature, it's just irrelevant.Moreover, you rarely use sight to detect effects. If your friend is under Dominate, you'll use Sense Motive, if you are under the effect of Bane, you don't even use a sense beside your ability to know you are affected by an effect, if the enemy casts Bless and you recognized it, you don't use a sense again you just use your awareness of them having cast Bless.
This whole discussion on "senses" is pointless in case of Dispel Magic. You can force the player to locate the creature using a precise sense, but it's a houserule, not RAW.
Also, an effect can't be Hidden, only creatures can. And creatures aren't targets of Dispel.
Yes. From an extremely legalistic point of view, there should never be a miss chance to Dispel Magic as it doesn't target creatures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it really depends on the senses being used to detect the creatureI quote this sentence because it's just plain wrong. You don't need to detect the creature at all, you can even Dispel Magic on an undetected creature. For example by targeting the decoy of a Mislead.
Another example: A creature casts Bless and you are aware of it. Then it moves behind a wall, so you have no more line of effect nor line of sight on the creature. You can target the effect of Bless on a creature you have line of sight and effect on and dispel it. So you don't care if you can see/hear/touch the creature, it's just irrelevant.
Moreover, you rarely use sight to detect effects. If your friend is under Dominate, you'll use Sense Motive, if you are under the effect of Bane, you don't even use a sense beside your ability to know you are affected by an effect, if the enemy casts Bless and you recognized it, you don't use a sense again you just use your awareness of them having cast Bless.This whole discussion on "senses" is pointless in case of Dispel Magic. You can force the player to locate the creature using a precise sense, but it's a houserule, not RAW.
Also, an effect can't be Hidden, only creatures can. And creatures aren't targets of Dispel.Yes. From an extremely legalistic point of view, there should never be a miss chance to Dispel Magic as it doesn't target creatures.
If you can't detect the creature, which is also where the effect is located, because the spell affects the creature, and is the effect, then you can't be sure that they went invisible until you see further activity from an unseen source, at the very least. If a creature simply casts Disappearance and tries to run away, how are you going to be aware that they simply didn't just Dimension Door out without further information telling your character what precisely just happened, such as from Recognize Spell, or from a Perception check succeeding at their Stealth DC and picking the right burst or cone area to investigate? I highly doubt metagaming and targeting an effect that you aren't certain is or isn't there, is an intended way to run a spell, suggesting that it is doesn't really help your case much.
Just as well, I don't buy that spell effects can't be hidden (not necessarily like the condition, but hidden in general), otherwise spells like Charm don't actually work as intended, and feats like Conceal Spell and Silent Spell actually don't do anything that they're intended for. Sure, the spells need to explicitly call that out, and you probably need feats for it to apply to any given spell, but saying it can't be done under any circumstance, especially if spells and feats make it so, is just plain wrong too.
Backing to OP and continuing my list.
2º LvL
Inner Radiance Torrent: One of the few divine (but also occult) offensive damage spells that are not alignment dependent and does a good area damage. This spell is so strong as a fireball but it's line effect, force damage, and may blind in a critical failure. Probably the best damage spell for divine and even occult casters during mostly low spellslots but it's somehow limited for PFS.
8º LvL
Uncontrollable Dance: This spell is extremely action penalty to target and at same time makes target flat-footed and can also be used as a guaranteed AoO to closer martials. Even against opponents stronger than spell level it's not too limited to it's Incapacitant trait once the spell success still very good.
9º LvL
Implosion: Once was one of the best offensive spell for divine casters (in 3.5 is an multi-target instant kill spell, in PF1 give 10 dmg per spellcaster level) it's now a Arcane/Primal spellMassacre: Other of the best offensive spell in the game and including this also is a divine spell too! Does a tremendous amount of damage in a line and if it critical hits instant kills! And also doesn't have incapacitant trait! The spell drawback is that if it doesn't kill anything the spell backs to caster causing 30 negative damage. Yet this can be relative easily circumvented using a Negative Healing ancestry/heritage/class/archetype.
Overwhelming Presence: It's mechanically a very improved Sanctuary spell the opponents even if succeeds in their will saves can't use hostile actions against caster and needs to use 1-action paying tribute to the caster. Even having Incapacitation trait this spell still useful against stronger opponents.
Storm of Vengeance: It's a very good spell to keep in Effortless Concentration or even using your 3º action due it's large area effect but can difficult ranged allies so it's only recommended if your allies aren't ranged focused or are spellcasters too.
Weird: Another non-incapacitant that can instantly kills like Massacre. The main difference is that this spell doesn't have a drawback and can affect any number of creatures you want to target in a 120 feet range! If not critical success in will save each target receives a good amount of damage, becomes frightened and if critical fail have to do a fort check to not die and "just" receives the doble damage and run away!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Inner Radiance Torrent isn't allowed in PFS because its damage is off expected norms and it's going to receive eventual errata.
Thanks for noting this. As others said, this is what is printed, but also you are correct to suspect that a spell that gets more and more powerful relatively as you heighten it compared to its initial damage might have a mistake, as we intend for the opposite. To that end, damage spells will basically always scale at or less than their initial damage divided by their spell level. In this case, there was a doubling error on our end and as you suspected, it should scale at 2d4 for initial, 2d4 for the extra actions. This is on the queue for errata to fix.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Massacre doesn't have incapacitation trait but only affects creatures 17 and below. Creatures above that only take 30 damage.
I think Inner Radiance Torrent isn't allowed in PFS because its damage is off expected norms and it's going to receive eventual errata.Thanks for noting this. As others said, this is what is printed, but also you are correct to suspect that a spell that gets more and more powerful relatively as you heighten it compared to its initial damage might have a mistake, as we intend for the opposite. To that end, damage spells will basically always scale at or less than their initial damage divided by their spell level. In this case, there was a doubling error on our end and as you suspected, it should scale at 2d4 for initial, 2d4 for the extra actions. This is on the queue for errata to fix.Mark's post
My recommendation would be allow it to play as written at its base level. But halve the scaling damage if it gets heightened, or just not allow it to be cast heightened till its gets errated.
I think Inner Radiance Torrent isn't allowed in PFS because its damage is off expected norms and it's going to receive eventual errata.Thanks for noting this. As others said, this is what is printed, but also you are correct to suspect that a spell that gets more and more powerful relatively as you heighten it compared to its initial damage might have a mistake, as we intend for the opposite. To that end, damage spells will basically always scale at or less than their initial damage divided by their spell level. In this case, there was a doubling error on our end and as you suspected, it should scale at 2d4 for initial, 2d4 for the extra actions. This is on the queue for errata to fix.Mark's post
I didn't know this. It was too good for a force divine spell kkkkk
Massacre doesn't have incapacitation trait but only affects creatures 17 and below. Creatures above that only take 30 damage.
I didn't notice that. Well noted. I don't recommend this spell anymore.
It was too good for a force divine spell kkkkk
Yes its is an odd fish. Occult and Divine don't have much area of effect damage. Divine probably shouldn't get it as an area spell at all, especially not at this level. Occult does have some so maybe its is OK. But the scaling is ridiculous.
The bottom line is Arcane and Primal are the traditions that should have the good staple area damage spells. At least at low levels.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell was really strong, probably too strong, but unfortunately the suggested errata makes it pretty terrible.
I def wish if the scaling gets lowered they would add something nice to it like Dazzled on failed save. That would give it a niche instead of just being bad damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell was really strong, probably too strong, but unfortunately the suggested errata makes it pretty terrible.
I really hope they reconsider when the errata hits and it gets changed to +3d4 or +5d4 every 2 levels. +2d4 on a line effect is just too bad.
My final spell list:
3º LvL:
Aqueous Orb: This spell is little tricky and hard to understand but is very interesting. It's a sustained water orb that you can "roll" for 10 feet for each action you use to "sustain" it (this spell can use more than one sustain action per turn). When it enter in an occupied square the creature in this square need to do a Reflex save against caster spell DC to not be engulfed. After this the creature has no choice than swimming (DC 10) out of the orb wasting one action. Usually this is automatic success for creature of this level due their athletics training but the things becomes different when the opponent is a spellcaster. Usually these opponents have no athletics training making then a higher chance to keep engulfed. And creature a creature engulfed by this spell is considered fighting underwater this not only gives penalties like flat-footed and -2 circumstance penalty to melee slashing or bludgeoning attacks that pass through water but specially prevents spellcasters to cast spells with verbal components due the consequences of fall unconscious without air and starts to drown.
These mechanics turns this spell extremely efficient against medium size enemy spellcasters even monsters from bestiary (many of those who casts don't have athletics) even in higher levels only using a lvl 3 spell.
10º LvL:
Alter Reality/Miracle/Primal Phenomenon/Wish: Probably the best spell for mostly players. This spell allows the caster to cast any 9º lvl spell of same tradition or 7º lvl of other tradition without any preparation or even needing that this spell exists in your repertory/spellbook. Also there's no restriction about rarity. Your GM can put some restriction but by default you can choose any spell from any book that you have access. This maybe no appear to good but remember that spells learned during class progression restricts access to common only unless you find/buy and learn from an external source using Learn a Spell. In the end it's an excelent wildcard spell that you can use once/twice per day when you need.Cataclysmp: The strongest AoE damage spell with longest range of the game.
Time Stop: An excelente preparation spell. Specially against bosses. Many people may don't understand how this spell can still be usefull in PF2. But this dependents of your strategy. For example a Bard that casts this spell can use the stoped time to cast Disappearance Presence in first round, Fiery Body and Fly in second round and then Regenerate as 3º round making the caster fully prepared for a hard fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've used Aqueous Orb extensively with my Water Oracle and... it's quite bad actually.
I've found a few issues with the spell that make it way worse than what you can expect:
- If the enemy succeeds at the save, they can move wherever they want. So it's basically a free step. Helping the enemies is nothing I want to do, ever.
- The enemy is not forced to move. If you succeed at the save, you can just stand where you are even if there's the orb on the same square (and even if it's highly illogical). So it can't be used as an automatic "get free of every grapple attempt" spell. I find that normal, but it's important to realize it.
So, overall, it's a far too random spell. You sometimes screw with the enemy positioning and sometimes help them go where they want. Even if the actual impact on the battlefield is high, it's a mixed impact and nothing really positive to the party. Considering the high cost (spell slot and actions) it's better to just cast something less random.
I believe we should make sure to outline the behemoth that is Dinosaur Fort in here.
It creates a fort... made out of dinosaurs, crewed by dinosaurs, FOR dinosaur minded people!
But in all seriousness I believe a good one to put in would be:
while damage wise its not comparable to lets say a 10th level meteor swarm its quite a versatile spell, occupying space, dealing various elemental damages, inflicting conditions and repositioning people.
Your link is invalid, Alastar.
I didn't put Summon Kaiju because even being a thematic interesting it's effects are mediocre for a lvl 10 spell. In practice wish-like spells are way more versatile and stronger. In practice if you need versatility wish-like spells could do things like "I want to cast a meteor storm that gives only cold damage againts these red dragon swarm". This fits in "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" and is easily acceptable for most GMs. And some special comets of pure cold will appear and splash over your opponents.
I didn't put Summon Kaiju because even being a thematic interesting it's effects are mediocre for a lvl 10 spell. In practice wish-like spells are way more versatile and stronger. In practice if you need versatility wish-like spells could do things like "I want to cast a meteor storm that gives only cold damage againts these red dragon swarm". This fits in "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" and is easily acceptable for most GMs. And some special comets of pure cold will appear and splash over your opponents.
That's an abusive way of using Wish.
You can't tailor a spell that does exactly what you want. Like "I need a 25ft. of range spell that affects 3 squares separated by a chess cavalier movement, deals Good Damage with a basic will save and the highest damage I can find for a level 9 spell."
Your link is invalid, Alastar.
hmmm, weird, don't know why... sorry I didn't catch it in time!
Exactly. If was to build a entire it's harder but just change a damage type inside same group type (energy type) sounds OK to me. It's inside the guide lines:
You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
Duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower.
Duplicate any non-arcane spell of 7th level or lower.
Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.
Reverse certain effects that refer to the wish spell.
The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect.
It's more harder to change other things like area, range, effects, condition but even these may fall in this guide line keeps to GM to analise allow, refuse, do partial effect or more fun add some side effects. Ex.: A player may wish "I want to unleash the Mogaru fury into my enemies" but once this effect is stronger than lvl 9 spell (due Summon Kaiju be a lvl 10 spell) a GM could allow it but in uncontrolled way. Instead of hit only your foes the spell will try to hit all creatures due the trying to wish something stronger then the spell could face).
This is perfectly fine in this RAW description, just need to talk with the GM to it analises and decides what to do (he can simply deny due the work but yet this spell by RAW opens a myriad of possibilities for both player and GM to use it.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you stretch the point to absurdity yeah, but they were just talking about changing a damage type, not tailoring an entirely new spell together from cobbled effects.I didn't put Summon Kaiju because even being a thematic interesting it's effects are mediocre for a lvl 10 spell. In practice wish-like spells are way more versatile and stronger. In practice if you need versatility wish-like spells could do things like "I want to cast a meteor storm that gives only cold damage againts these red dragon swarm". This fits in "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" and is easily acceptable for most GMs. And some special comets of pure cold will appear and splash over your opponents.That's an abusive way of using Wish.
You can't tailor a spell that does exactly what you want. Like "I need a 25ft. of range spell that affects 3 squares separated by a chess cavalier movement, deals Good Damage with a basic will save and the highest damage I can find for a level 9 spell."
When a situation is not codified by the rules, it's the GM's job to come up with a resolution.
So if you say "I blast the dragons with an iceberg swarm." it's fine. The GM may (or may not) choose to use a cold-based Meteor Swarm for the resolution of your spell. But coming up with your own resolution to a non-codified situation is stepping on your GMs toes.That's why I say it's an abusive way of using Wish. Not because it's not RAW but because you are not supposed to come up with new rules as a player (and a new spell is a new rule).
So is it fine, or is it abusive? Because you started your post by saying that was fine, and then finishing by saying its not. You also seemed to agree that changing a damage type wasn't a big deal, which was the main thrust of my post so ... I'm genuinely kind of confused what you're getting at here?
Not to mention that the penultimate option for the Wish-esque spells states "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects," which suggests input from the player making the wish. Yeah the GM can veto their suggestion if its out of line, or place riders on it ... but so what? They can do that with anything.
Changing the spells damage type is gm dependent, casting a meteor swarm as is is not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm genuinely kind of confused what you're getting at here?
Maybe the order between posts made it unclear, so I'll rephrase it.
I'm making the distinction between:- My sentence: "I blast the dragons with an iceberg swarm."
- YuriP sentence: "I want to cast a meteor storm that gives only cold damage againts these red dragon swarm"
In the first case, I say what I want to do and because we are in a situation that is not codified in the game (there's no such spell) I let the GM choose the mechanical resolution to my actions. It's fine.
In the second case, YuriP comes with a houserule (a cold-based Meteor Swarm spell), and tries to push it on the GM for the resolution of a non-codified situation. That's abusive.
As a GM, I really don't like when a player is pushing houserules on me. And I feel a lot of players don't even realize when they do it.
It's the GM's job to handle the rules, not the player's one. If someone has to come with a houserule, it's definitely the GM.
Yet even you don't like, it's in the RAW description of the spells. Opening an entire space to allow players to wish any spell effect that falls in same power level of a lvl 9 spell of same tradition. If not we wouldn't have the "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" in spell description. If was to use only what is written in spells only the 2 first statements would be enough.
I don't even consider it as a houserule once it's perfectly allowed in the spell effects description. It's RAW! kkkkk
1st Heal, Soothe (both are good every level), Fear, Magic Missile (good every three when you have no other spells that would be directly applicable)
Biting words, my favorite 1st level spell (signature) on my bard. Damage is not too bad, but the follow up actions are truly terrific. One action to do the same damage again on following rounds, which works very good with all the other single actions of a bard. Or add true strike from a transmutation staff. Shadow signet helps.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet even you don't like, it's in the RAW description of the spells. Opening an entire space to allow players to wish any spell effect that falls in same power level of a lvl 9 spell of same tradition. If not we wouldn't have the "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" in spell description. If was to use only what is written in spells only the 2 first statements would be enough.
I don't even consider it as a houserule once it's perfectly allowed in the spell effects description. It's RAW! kkkkk
It's only perfectly allowed and RAW in your interpretation of the spell. Elemental damage type is a power factor, and changing the damage type of a spell on the fly is a way to modify its power. Thus a cold meteor swarm could be considered to be of a higher power level than a standard meteor swarm.
Otherwise, why stop there? Why not a force meteor swarm? A good damage meteor swarm ? Per your argument, these are in line power level wise ?
Why not make it so that the meteor swarm also drains people on a failed save? That is the effect of polar ray and other spells,polar ray is an 8th level spell, therefore it is in line with the power level of a 9th level spell.
As a Gm I would certainly not allow a cold, good or force damage meteor swarm, and I don't feel like most GM's should. It doesn't fall in line with the spell, other spells sacrifice power for versatility (like summon kaiju) and picking your element is so powerful that there is no mechanic to do that in the game (AFAIK).
If a player wants to blast an area with cold damage, they can use wish to cast a 9th level cone of cold. If they want to blast an area with good damage, they can use wish to cast a 7th level Divine Decree.
Now some GM's might allow it, but I do take offense at your claim that it's RAW because it definitely is not.
So how do you face with "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" in your opinion?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you face with "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" in your opinion?
Exact spell heightened to appropriate level, or voice your wish and let GM decide.
An effect who's power level is in line with Meteor Swarm is Meteor swarm, not cold meteor swarm. One of Meteor Swarm's key components is that it deals both fire and bludgeoning damage in a large area, which is a blessing and a curse. Altering those damage types or area is altering its power component and therefore it is not in line with itself afterwards.
Wish and in-line spells are extremely broad to account for both grandfathering and GM discretion. Many GM's will rule differently, and this is what the spell entail. I let my players know that arguing with me about what they want wishes to do every time they cast it is a swift invitation for the banhammer to come down harsh because it takes away from play time, game time and general enjoyment for everyone else when you start dicking around with those spells.
The ability to cast any 9th level or lower spell, or 7th level or lower spell for out of list, on top of canceling specific effects that require wish like effects, is powerful enough on its own, one might say already much more than a lot of other 10th level spells, there is no need to add whacky shenanigans on top.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you face with "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" in your opinion?
It depends on what you want to achieve.
If you want to produce an effect that is better (in the current situation) than any other spell up to 9, then you are trying to cheese out more power by making up your own spell.If you want to produce an effect that just doesn't exist in the game then it's fine as you are trying to "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects".
In your example, your goal is to combine the highest damaging spell (Meteor Swarm) with the best damage type in the current situation (Cold) and end up with a spell that is more devastating than any other in the game in the current situation. You're not trying to be in line with a level 9 spell, you're trying to be better than any other level 9 spell in the current situation.
Now, if you want someone to fall in love with you, then your only solution is to "Produce an effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" because there's no such spell in the game.
Edit: Ninja'd by Alastar with nearly the same post. Hi buddy!
^^ Hi!^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Biting words, my favorite 1st level spell (signature) on my bard. Damage is not too bad, but the follow up actions are truly terrific. One action to do the same damage again on following rounds, which works very good with all the other single actions of a bard. Or add true strike from a transmutation staff. Shadow signet helps.1st Heal, Soothe (both are good every level), Fear, Magic Missile (good every three when you have no other spells that would be directly applicable)
Biting Words being a Linguistic spell, it's not really good unless you are in a humanoid centric campaign or if you are under the effect of Tongues. That's a pretty big drawback.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the first case, I say what I want to do and because we are in a situation that is not codified in the game (there's no such spell) I let the GM choose the mechanical resolution to my actions. It's fine.In the second case, YuriP comes with a houserule (a cold-based Meteor Swarm spell), and tries to push it on the GM for the resolution of a non-codified situation. That's abusive.
That looks like a mighty fine line to me. Practically invisible some might say. Arbitrary even. I for one would offer that it is a sensible line, just slightly in the wrong place.
It shouldn't fall on the divide between flavor descriptions and mechanical descriptions; after all, everyone communicates a little differently. Why would you want to shut down one avenue of communication?
Rather, it should fall on the divide between metely communicating one's desire/intent, and expecting to overrule the GM.
I've seen people offer rules suggestions like YuriP's example all the time, and as long as they aren't being pushy about it or trying to override the GM, that's totally fine.
It can hardly be considered abusive for a player to make their stated desires clearly known with an out of game description of game mechanics. Especially since many GMs take it upon themselves to ABUSE their power by unnecessarily distorting wish effects to work against the players' *ahem* wishes.
Honestly, I can't think of a better way to shut down productive and clear communication than for the GM to cry "abuse!" anytime a player offered such a suggestion.
It'd be much better to say "Yes" or "Yes, but [slightly different mechanical effect]" and keep the game moving.
In the first case, I say what I want to do and because we are in a situation that is not codified in the game (there's no such spell) I let the GM choose the mechanical resolution to my actions. It's fine.In the second case, YuriP comes with a houserule (a cold-based Meteor Swarm spell), and tries to push it on the GM for the resolution of a non-codified situation. That's abusive.
That looks like a mighty fine line to me. Practically invisible some might say. Arbitrary even.
I've seen people offer rules suggestions like YuriP's example all the time, and as long as they aren't being pushy about it or trying to override the GM, that's totally fine.
It can hardly be considered abusive for a player to make their stated desires clearly known with an out of game description of game mechanics. Especially since many GMs take it upon themselves to ABUSE their power by unnecessarily distorting wish effects to work against the players' *ahem* wishes.
Honestly, I can't think of a better way to shut down productive and clear communication than for the GM to cry "abuse!" anytime a player offered such a suggestion.
It'd be much better to say "Yes" or "Yes, but [slightly different mechanical effect]" and keep the game moving.
I agree with you on principle and each table is not the same.
But what you are describing is a FAR CRY from claiming that being able to pop cold meteor swarm is RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that I've expanded on my post above, AlastarOG.
But what you are describing is a FAR CRY from claiming that being able to pop cold meteor swarm is RAW.
I never made any claim whatsoever as to what is or is not RAW in this instance. I spoke directly to the social dynamic between GMs and players and possible ramifications of taking certain stances in such relationships.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^ Hi!^^
I have the impression that the concept of "pushing a houserule to the GM" is subtle to most players when, for GMs, it's something you pretty much feel even if you don't necessarily know what words to put on it.
The most common example is with skill checks. Like:
GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: Can I use Thievery instead?
God I dislike that. Because the only thing I hear is: I want to use my bigger bonus, please please please please!!!!!
On the other hand, this situation:
GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: What blocks the door?
GM: It looks like the hinges are stuck.
Player: I have oil, maybe I can unstuck them?
GM: Why not, you can roll a Thievery check.
From a pure mechanical standpoint, it's exactly the same result: you use Thievery instead of Athletics. But for the GM it's not at all the same. In the first case, you just have the feeling that the player wants to push for mechanical advantage and it's extremely unpleasant. In the second case, the player is engaging with the challenge and finds a creative solution, it's more rewarding from a GM standpoint.
Note that I've expanded on my post above, AlastarOG.
But what you are describing is a FAR CRY from claiming that being able to pop cold meteor swarm is RAW.I never made any claim whatsoever as to what is or is not RAW in this instance. I spoke directly to the social dynamic between GMs and players and possible ramifications of taking certain stances in such relationships.
Sorry if I mispoke, I meant that while your approach was reasonable, YuriP's claim that this was in fact RAW was not.
So asking can I use thievery too break down a door would be asking for a house rule and a bit stupid.
If the GM says that you can use Athletics, chances are high that:
- You can't use Thievery.- You can use Thievery but only if you come up with a creative solution as by default you can't use Thievery.
Otherwise, the GM would have just said that you can use Athletics or Thievery.
unless the door is glued shut (and you don't have universal solvent) or barred from the outside thievery should work.
See how you push the houserule? You understand why the GM can just be annoyed by a player explaining them how they should handle their doors?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most common example is with skill checks. Like:
GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: Can I use Thievery instead?
I do agree that the player in this example should probably elaborate a bit further on HOW they think the alt skill could be used to get past the obstacle. That's just good roleplaying and clear communication.
I don't believe picking the alt skill and/or coming up with appropriate flavor necessarily need fall to the GM (though they certainly do have final say).
As an aside, had I been hosting in that example, I would have maintained it as an Athletics check to Force Open, but with a circumstance bonus or lowered DC due to the oil.
I do agree that the player in this example should probably elaborate a bit further on HOW they think the alt skill could be used to get past the obstacle.
From my experience, the how is not often the player's concern in such a case. If the player was interested in the how they would engage with the obstacle not just randomly try a skill with a better bonus than the ones the GM is asking for.
The only exception is with Lores, as the GM may not know about the PC's ones.As an aside, had I been hosting in that example, I would have maintained it as an Athletics check to Force Open, but with a circumstance bonus or lowered DC due to the oil.
My example was not necessarily the best one but I wanted to show the logic.
I don't believe picking the alt skill and/or coming up with appropriate flavor necessarily need fall to the GM (though they certainly do have final say).
I agree. But it should be a negotiation on the challenge and not on the rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how do you face with "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects" in your opinion?Exact spell heightened to appropriate level, or voice your wish and let GM decide.
To "heightened to appropriate level" we don't need that statement once Heightened Spells rules already says that.
About change the damage type of meteor storm from fire to cold I don't think that changes the power level of the spell. To say that due this changes turns the spell stronger due the situation (to hit a bunch of fire dragons) turns the spell stronger is similar to say that players in hell using anti-fiends spells like Searing Light are unbalanced due the spell being way more power efficient than mostly spells in this situation. So when said power in general the game don't consider the situation as part of it so I don't see changes the damage type as a power change.
Also we already have spells and abilities that change the damage type without any other external balances like mostly breath spells and spells like
Eidolon's Wrath so I don't think that a player wishes to a cold variation of Meteor Storm would be a problem not even fall outside power level of the effect. So IMO this still falls in "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects".
The fact if you are being creative with an spell usage don't means that you are being abusive with it. If someone uses an Illusory Object to create an illusion of a jail protecting the casters this still in scope of the effect description. So if someone uses a wish to do changes in a spell that still fits in their power level they also fits its description scope.
Honestly, I can't think of a better way to shut down productive and clear communication than for the GM to cry "abuse!" anytime a player offered such a suggestion.
It'd be much better to say "Yes" or "Yes, but [slightly different mechanical effect]" and keep the game moving.
I agree. It's important to remember the GM is also a player that only have a different role that is he/she in charge to keep the game rolling fairly and fun. So if you keep all time following the rules strictly like a lawyer you will probably will fall in a common situation where no one will enjoy.
Thats example of change damage type of Meteor Storm for example. As GM if you try to think "OK, if for some reason I chose that these dragons was white instead of red and this player wishes to use Meteor Storm as wish will work without any complains so why not allow it as cold damage like he's asking?"
I have the impression that the concept of "pushing a houserule to the GM" is subtle to most players when, for GMs, it's something you pretty much feel even if you don't necessarily know what words to put on it.
The most common example is with skill checks. Like:
GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: Can I use Thievery instead?God I dislike that. Because the only thing I hear is: I want to use my bigger bonus, please please please please!!!!!
On the other hand, this situation:
GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: What blocks the door?
GM: It looks like the hinges are stuck.
Player: I have oil, maybe I can unstuck them?
GM: Why not, you can roll a Thievery check.From a pure mechanical standpoint, it's exactly the same result: you use Thievery instead of Athletics. But for the GM it's not at all the same. In the first case, you just have the feeling that the player wants to push for mechanical advantage and it's extremely unpleasant. In the second case, the player is engaging with the challenge and finds a creative solution, it's more rewarding from a GM standpoint.
IMO you are just worring too much about it.
There's nothing wrong to a player desire to be a powerplayer or to gain the protagonist using their abilities. As GM you only need to avoid this become boring or that this player take this attention all the time or that the game broke in some way.
In this example "Player: Can I use Thievery instead?" I just say: "OK how do you intent to use thievery in this situation?". I know he only wants to use their biggest bonus but there's no problem about this. Not all players can role play well and may fall in such situations and many times just need a help. So just make him to think better many times solves the question to they still use their best abilities to do what they want. Maybe he/she just think better and uses the atletics or notice that he/she could try to put oil in it or maybe just try to enter in a window instead.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
^^ Hi!^^I have the impression that the concept of "pushing a houserule to the GM" is subtle to most players when, for GMs, it's something you pretty much feel even if you don't necessarily know what words to put on it.
The most common example is with skill checks. Like:
GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: Can I use Thievery instead?God I dislike that. Because the only thing I hear is: I want to use my bigger bonus, please please please please!!!!!
I totally and utterly understand where you're coming from but this is one of those places where different people have different tastes.
As a GM I like it when a player comes up with alternate suggestions. Makes my job easier. Now, I DO want them to be polite about it "Perhaps we could use a meteor swarm that does cold damage for the wish?" AND I INSIST that they accept my "no, thats too powerful, just use a level 9 cone of cold" answer.
|
|
There's nothing wrong to a player desire to be a powerplayer
In this context there most certainly is.
You have instantly changed the situation from
"the player is making an honest suggestion as to what feels balanced" to
"The player is deliberately trying to get an advantage."
You've just instantly changed my default position as a GM from
"Probably reasonable, lets see if I agree" to
"Almost certainly unreasonable, lets make sure"
You've changed what should be a cooperative exchange to a confrontational exchange.
I GM for players in both categories. The reasonable players get one heck of a lot more of their suggestions accepted than the power gamers.
There's nothing wrong to a player desire to be a powerplayerIn this context there most certainly is.
You have instantly changed the situation from
"the player is making an honest suggestion as to what feels balanced" to
"The player is deliberately trying to get an advantage."You've just instantly changed my default position as a GM from
"Probably reasonable, lets see if I agree" to
"Almost certainly unreasonable, lets make sure"You've changed what should be a cooperative exchange to a confrontational exchange.
I GM for players in both categories. The reasonable players get one heck of a lot more of their suggestions accepted than the power gamers.
Yep. Proper communication is key.