I'm currently in a campaign with relics. We recently hit level 10 and got our first major gift and the monk got Psychic Scream.
Now, I always knew it's a strong one, but seeing it in action makes me think it's beyond strong. Like WAY out of line. It seems brutally effective.
Now granted, we just had a fight against a large (like 15 or something) number of Hill Giants in their cave, so those were 3 levels below us, had low Will saves and were forced to fight in tight quarters. It was THE ideal situation for it and the monk used Scream multiple times, usually hitting at least 3 or 4 giants for 5d10 mental.
It just seems broken. Two actions for [Level/2]d10 mental damage in a 20 ft emanation that only hits enemies. Usable at will. And it's a purely mental effect (which kind of makes sense) so it doesn't trigger AoOs or require a free hand and can probably even be used while paralyzed.
So... am I missing something here? Is there some part of the rules that tones this down?
And if not: What would you suggest to change about it as a countermeasure? I think it at least needs a cooldown. Anything between 1d4 rounds and an hour. Not sure where the sweet spot lies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Envision has the concentrate trait, so it can trigger things like Distracting Explosion, Disruptive Stare or Implement's Interruption.
As for toning it down, that's up to the DM as he controls when power are given, what powers are given and if other treasure/loot gains are modified.
Yeah, that seems way out of line for an at-will ability. A cooldown will make it fine though in my opinion.
Comparing to Electric Arc.
Spell level is approximately equal to half of item level.
Expected value of damage:
At spell level 5: 5d4+5 is 17.5 and 5d10 is 27.5
At spell level 8: 8d4+5 is 25 and 8d10 is 44
So the trend seems to me to be about 33% to 50% more damage.
But Psychic Scream can hit more than two enemies without risking allies. And that seems to me to be the bigger problem. I think to bring it in line with spell and cantrip effects it should damage allies in the area as well as enemies.
I mean. It is the Major gift of a Relic. Shouldn't it be a bit out of balance?
I would hate to see balanced Relics. Relics are the Cherry on top of the Campaign. They are the MacGuffin you give the players to let them swing above their level in awesome set pieces.
They are the Ultimate version of whatever mundane item they happen to take the form of, at least as far as I am concerned. Relics should be where the designers can take the balance gloves off and just go crazy. Because they aren't meant for long stretches of standard play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with beowulf. It's like asking to tone down Mythic powers in 1e. These are supposed to be ridiculously OP abilities. The GM should balance it by throwing more severe encounters at you, or enemies that resist Mental while being weak to another party member's relic.
For example, if you ever come up against some oozes that scream will do literally 0 damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These are supposed to be ridiculously OP abilities.
This is not supported by the book at all:
Keep in mind that relic gifts are often a little more powerful than other items with the same Price even when they start out, and they often scale without any additional costs, so PCs with relics will usually be a bit more powerful.
The relics are supposed to be mostly in line with what the game already offers.
I mean. It is the Major gift of a Relic. Shouldn't it be a bit out of balance?
Then why are other major relics nowhere near as powerful? Closest equivalent in power I could find was from the fire gift. That one deals the same damage (except it's fire of course), risks friendly fire, affects a 30 ft cone and has a 1d4 round cooldown.
Others are literally just "cast a 5th level spell once per day". Psychic Scream is more like an at-will focus spell - and a pretty damn good one at that.
Yea I'd just put a once per minute cool down on it or a d4 cooldown
I mean. It is the Major gift of a Relic. Shouldn't it be a bit out of balance?
It is one of two Major Gifts that the relic will get. And it gets its first one at level 9. At least if following the table for relics.
The capstone gift is the Grand Gift at level 17.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that relics are completely optional and only given out by GMs who want to allow players to use them, they can be as powerful as an exploding sun for all it matters. They are not available for sale or are a guaranteed drop for loot. No player is ever owed one. If a GM decides to allow them in the game, then it is 100% the responsibility of the GM to “balance” them if need be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a GM decides to allow them in the game, then it is 100% the responsibility of the GM to “balance” them if need be.
That is kind of a problem. GMs should be able to rely on the stated power rating of an item, ability, spell, ... in order to know what is appropriate. That power rating is normally listed in terms of level of some variety. In this case it is at the item level that the Major Gifts are first given.
Otherwise we end up in a place where the GM is following the printed official tables and may give a blanket statement that 'you can each pick a Major Gift for your relic' and some characters get unexpectedly more benefit from that than others.
Expecting that every GM is an expert rules and math analyst is a bad expectation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that relics are completely optional and only given out by GMs who want to allow players to use them, they can be as powerful as an exploding sun for all it matters. They are not available for sale or are a guaranteed drop for loot. No player is ever owed one. If a GM decides to allow them in the game, then it is 100% the responsibility of the GM to “balance” them if need be.
This is all true, but it's unlikely that most GMs will have the experience or take the time to do a side by side comparison with every item and realize this is an outlier. Having a public discussion about it is slightly useful.
Given that relics are completely optional and only given out by GMs who want to allow players to use them, they can be as powerful as an exploding sun for all it matters. They are not available for sale or are a guaranteed drop for loot. No player is ever owed one. If a GM decides to allow them in the game, then it is 100% the responsibility of the GM to “balance” them if need be.This is all true, but it's unlikely that most GMs will have the experience or take the time to do a side by side comparison with every item and realize this is an outlier. Having a public discussion about it is slightly useful.
Having a discussion about how to make a relic more toned down for a game is understandable and fine. That’s different than saying any one of them needs to be. My point is the latter.
Also, don’t introduce items into a game that are 100% optional with their own special rules if you don’t feel comfortable enough with the rules to use them. I guess that’s just my two cents. :)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s different than saying any one of them needs to be.
Yeah, but the concern is that one of them is poorly balanced with the others. So y'know, people are talking about it, as people are known to do about things that feel out of balance.
Also, don’t introduce items into a game that are 100% optional with their own special rules if you don’t feel comfortable enough with the rules to use them.
This is a really patronizing take. It's not about feeling comfortable. It's that ideally game mechanics should be kind of consistent with each other, and when something is out of whack... again people tend to talk about it.
IDK "don't talk about game balance because the GM should just fix everything themselves" just feels like a really strange way to approach forum discussions.
This is a really patronizing take. It's not about feeling comfortable. It's that ideally game mechanics should be kind of consistent with each other, and when something is out of whack... again people tend to talk about it.IDK "don't talk about game balance because the GM should just fix everything themselves" just feels like a really strange way to approach forum discussions.
I would agree regarding your first quoted paragraph except that relics in the very description of them admits they are not “balanced” as we normally would expect with other items and spells. I also agree that the psychic scream power mentioned by the OP is incredibly more powerful than most everything else in the game. With that, I also believe that they (relics) are allowed to be more powerful than other magic items of similar level.
I support discussions about rule theory and it’s applications and by no means intend to come off as patronizing. I do not mean to step on anyones toes regarding that. I do, however, feel that relics are by no means a standard item and should be given a ton of forethought and care before introducing them to a game.
As a side note: I have a hunch that relics were the creation of a single developer and were not scrutinized that extensively before being added to the system rules. I personally see them as a half-step away from homebrew content and due to that, don’t feel they need any blanket adjustments. I also know that my opinions have no more weight that anyone else’s here. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs fixing stuff should always be a last resort for when there is no FAQ, Errata, or any sort of dev guidance on how to solve an issue.
Also, if you aren't allowed to talk about the rules in the rules forum what the heck are you supposed to talk about here then?
Here is the thing, I disagree that there is anything to fix. If a GM gives the players a Deathstar, then one shouldn’t be upset when they begin blowing up planets. The rules for relics refer repeatedly to GM decisions of what powers they gain as well as when they meet the criteria to level. It seems to me that discussing how to lower their power when the very nature of them is GM discretion is strange. /shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem mostly boils down to Psychic Scream being way better than anything else in the game, including other relic gifts. It's better than even the Grand Gifts of any Relic, nearly as strong as the (already very very good) amp'ed Shatter Mind of the Psychic - except it doesn't cost you a Focus Point or trigger the most common reaction.
For what it's worth, the Psychic Scream user of our party said it needed to be toned down himself after dealing over 420 damage with it the fight against the hill giants. GM and the group agreed to add a 1d4 rounds cooldown to it for the time being, with the option to adjust again it if we still feel it's necessary.
|
Yeah it's way over the top, feels like some limitation got lost in editing, or someone hadn't gotten the memo that unlike PF1, immunity to mental isn't widespread.
Cooldown seems like the right call. It's okay that a relic feels powerful and you want to use it every fight, but it shouldn't be the thing you do every round. Cooldown is a good way of letting it stay powerful without overuse.
You could even go a step further: warm-up time. A bit like Starfinder Solarians. At the start of the combat, the power isn't ready yet. After (three?) rounds you're ready to pop. After you pop, you need to charge up again. That does go together very nicely with the "burst, only enemies" design. Let them get close and then teach them a lesson. That also seems a bit like a psychic using Unleash Psyche. And it fits nicely with the theme of building up a scream as you're struggling in combat.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the thing, I disagree that there is anything to fix. If a GM gives the players a Deathstar, then one shouldn’t be upset when they begin blowing up planets.
Well, if the Paizo devs print a Deathstar capable of destroying the planet as a level 9 vehicle, I'll probably call them out on that too.
Well, if the Paizo devs print a Deathstar capable of destroying the planet as a level 9 vehicle, I'll probably call them out on that too.
Well, only of it then tells you that the level might not actually be 9th level and to check it before giving it to players and it's up to the DM what systems work on it...
Well, if the Paizo devs print a Deathstar capable of destroying the planet as a level 9 vehicle, I'll probably call them out on that too.Well, only of it then tells you that the level might not actually be 9th level and to check it before giving it to players and it's up to the DM what systems work on it...
Vehicles are a subsystem that was also added in the gamemastery guide along with Relics.
As the name implies, subsystems are extensions of the main rules system that allow you to explore a particular topic or style of play at your table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, if the Paizo devs print a Deathstar capable of destroying the planet as a level 9 vehicle, I'll probably call them out on that too.Well, only of it then tells you that the level might not actually be 9th level and to check it before giving it to players and it's up to the DM what systems work on it...Vehicles are a subsystem that was also added in the gamemastery guide along with Relics.
As the name implies, subsystems are extensions of the main rules system that allow you to explore a particular topic or style of play at your table.
Moot. Does the section on Vehicles SPECIFICALLY point out to the GM that everything about it [like what power you get and when you get them] it totally up to the them? Does it tell you if you DO allow players to make them "they will likely be more powerful than under the standard method"? Does it tell you that using them without adjustment "means PCs will be much more powerful"? One of these things is not like the other... A relic and a wagon aren't the same thing.
Does the section on Vehicles SPECIFICALLY point out to the GM that everything about it [like what power you get and when you get them] it totally up to the them? Does it tell you if you DO allow players to make them "they will likely be more powerful than under the standard method"? Does it tell you that using them without adjustment "means PCs will be much more powerful"?
What, specifically, does the Relic rules say that you are using for this indication that it can and will and is intended to make the characters much more powerful?
What I am seeing is this:
The decision to add relics to the game is entirely up to you as the GM.
Yeah, so is everything else in the gamemastery guide.
And this:
If you decide to add them, you’ll need to adjust treasure somewhat.
Sure. Because relics are going to take up permanent item treasure slots.
And finally this:
Though these rules assume you as the GM are providing relic gifts as a form of treasure with input from the players, you can instead have the players make all the decisions for their relics. Encourage the players to choose different styles of items and aspects to match their characters’ themes, rather than simply choosing the most powerful combination of options.
...
In fact, if the player tries to optimize the combinations, they will likely be more powerful than under the standard method.
While that indicates that combinations of various abilities may end up being more synergistic than an eclectic collection of abilities, it still doesn't really say that using Relics makes a character with a Relic more powerful than one without one.
And it doesn't address the complaint of this thread - the idea that the GM needs to be aware that one ability that lists itself as being suitable at level 9 is actually much more powerful than any other item or spell or even any different Relic ability available at that level.
And it doesn't address the complaint of this thread - the idea that the GM needs to be aware that one ability that lists itself as being suitable at level 9 is actually much more powerful than any other item or spell or even any different Relic ability available at that level.
It applies to the fact that the section gives several warning that it's up to the GM when and what abilities it gets: to do so, you'd have to actually look at and understand the abilities either before you allow relics at all or before giving/allowing it to be taken. IMO, the fact that a selection is more powerful than others seems secondary. It's an optional ability in an optional subsystem that's unlikely to ever see errata [remembers word casting] after all. While it may be that this could use a looking at, I doubt it will be: it's one of the reason to give any of these subsystems a full look over before using as they'll never get the same oversight and review a mainstream rule gets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It applies to the fact that the section gives several warning that it's up to the GM when and what abilities it gets: to do so, you'd have to actually look at and understand the abilities either before you allow relics at all or before giving/allowing it to be taken.
But that is the point that I am trying to get to the bottom of. I don't see any more warnings on Relics than I do on Vehicles. And less than I see for Proficiency Without Level or Automatic Bonus Progression.
So why when someone points out that one of the Relic options looks way out of bounds on its actual effectiveness than its level rating would suggest do we get people giving this 'well, buyer beware - it's your own fault for not noticing' attitude?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the thing, I disagree that there is anything to fix. If a GM gives the players a Deathstar, then one shouldn’t be upset when they begin blowing up planets.
If it was just about giving the players a death star, with the acknowledgement that the goal was to give the players a planet-destroying weapon, you'd have a point.
But what we're given is a list of things that are specifically called out as being "a little more powerful" than normal options, and players are asked to choose between a bicycle, a carriage, or a death star, and the game is presenting all of these options as ostensibly equal with each other.
That's why it's a problem.
It seems to me that discussing how to lower their power when the very nature of them is GM discretion is strange.
The whole game is GM discretion. Every single uncommon, rare, and unique option is GM fiat... and, to be honest, so are the common ones when it comes down to it since rule 0 is a cornerstone of the game.
I don't really see that as a good reason to be completely haphazard with ability design.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But that is the point that I am trying to get to the bottom of. I don't see any more warnings on Relics than I do on Vehicles. And less than I see for Proficiency Without Level or Automatic Bonus Progression.
Dude, it specifically tell you that if you let players pick their own powers, "they will likely be more powerful than under the standard method." This should let you know that some option/abilities are strong enough to change your power. "If you decide to add them, you’ll need to adjust treasure somewhat" as "PCs with relics will usually be a bit more powerful". This is telling the GM that it alters power and that in itself necessitates checking things out to see how much more powerful: unless you assume that everyone's 'a bit' is the same.
So why when someone points out that one of the Relic options looks way out of bounds on its actual effectiveness than its level rating would suggest do we get people giving this 'well, buyer beware - it's your own fault for not noticing' attitude?
Because it is? It's an optional system that's unlikely to ever get changes to it. What can I say other than what he already said? If they think it's too strong, their table can fix it as needed but I don't think anything we do here will get it fixed. It's like getting a car without an inspection on it in an as/is sale: if it's a lemon, it's your fault for not checking it first not the guy that says it 'runs well'. I've got a PILE of questions on the normal rules I want answers to so I can't do much more than shrug on an optional subsystem having less balancing than it should. There isn't a rules answer to be had" Now if this was an advice thread, there is things to be said.
Dude, it specifically tell you that if you let players pick their own powers, "they will likely be more powerful than under the standard method."
In the context of the sidebar in question, the "standard method" is apparently having the GM pick the Relic powers thematically.
unless you assume that everyone's 'a bit' is the same.
And why wouldn't/shouldn't I assume that? That is pretty much what I assume item level to mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And why wouldn't/shouldn't I assume that? That is pretty much what I assume item level to mean.
Mainly because it's not 'ready for prime time' but an optional rule: I don't see why anyone would think it got the same review, editing and playtesting a standard rule got. Variant/optional rules for d&d and pathfinder have always been a bit hit or miss. You can find issues in the race builder, horror rules, mythic, words of power...
Or Heaven's Thunder.
The point is that when someone finds one of them, we should bring it up on the rules forum and point it out.
We shouldn't get comments like this.
It's like asking to tone down Mythic powers in 1e. These are supposed to be ridiculously OP abilities. The GM should balance it by throwing more severe encounters at you, or enemies that resist Mental while being weak to another party member's relic.
When the rest of the Relic powers are relatively in line for their level.
Or Heaven's Thunder.
The point is that when someone finds one of them, we should bring it up on the rules forum and point it out.
We shouldn't get comments like this.
It's like asking to tone down Mythic powers in 1e. These are supposed to be ridiculously OP abilities. The GM should balance it by throwing more severe encounters at you, or enemies that resist Mental while being weak to another party member's relic.When the rest of the Relic powers are relatively in line for their level.
*shrug* after the initial post, what rules debate is there? It'd be a very short thread. There isn't anything but Advice or Homebrew to talk about, as it's 100% clear what it says it does and we have a ruling on what to do with things we find problematic.
On Cordell Kintner's post, I don't see any issue with it: they are seeing it as I did, that it's an optional rule that isn't vetted like normal rules so you may find powers that are out of the norm [higher or lower]. It's not crazy to see Relic rules, think back to what relics have been like in prior editions and expect them to be on the more powerful side.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Au contraire, I think gifts are actually (mostly) way too weak. I tend to give my players some very powerful and flashy (but level appropriate) boons with their relics.
Au contraire, I think gifts are actually (mostly) way too weak. I tend to give my players some very powerful and flashy (but level appropriate) boons with their relics.
Yeah, that's my general impression as well. GM let us choose one relic aspect and chose the other one for us. I really had trouble picking anything because none of the aspects seemed good enough, even less so if you look at the gifts across all levels.
Au contraire, I think gifts are actually (mostly) way too weak. I tend to give my players some very powerful and flashy (but level appropriate) boons with their relics.
You may have misunderstood me then: "it's an optional rule that isn't vetted like normal rules so you may find powers that are out of the norm [higher or lower]." This means that I'd expect the abilities might be higher or lower than you might expect for an item of that level. The last sentence should have said 'It's not crazy to see Relic rules, think back to what relics have been like in prior editions and expect them to be on the more or less powerful side' to be clearer.
Au contraire, I think gifts are actually (mostly) way too weak. I tend to give my players some very powerful and flashy (but level appropriate) boons with their relics.You may have misunderstood me then: "it's an optional rule that isn't vetted like normal rules so you may find powers that are out of the norm [higher or lower]." This means that I'd expect the abilities might be higher or lower than you might expect for an item of that level. The last sentence should have said 'It's not crazy to see Relic rules, think back to what relics have been like in prior editions and expect them to be on the more or less powerful side' to be clearer.
I was not answering to you actually, I would have quoted your message if I did xD
Just answering the OP question
after the initial post, what rules debate is there? It'd be a very short thread.
It is in the rules forum because I would assume that is where the rules devs go when they want to see what the community is having problems with. Either problems in understanding a rule, or problems in balance.
And if it was just the original post and an answer of 'yeah, that seems out of whack', then that would be fine.
But then we have other people weighing in with 'nah, that seems perfectly reasonable that this one power is way more powerful than the others'. So if we don't argue the point, what are the game devs skimming this forum in 30 seconds going to assume?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is in the rules forum because I would assume that is where the rules devs go when they want to see what the community is having problems with. Either problems in understanding a rule, or problems in balance.
And if it was just the original post and an answer of 'yeah, that seems out of whack', then that would be fine.
No argument with the first post.
But then we have other people weighing in with 'nah, that seems perfectly reasonable that this one power is way more powerful than the others'. So if we don't argue the point, what are the game devs skimming this forum in 30 seconds going to assume?
Why would they need a long thread to skim through? If the power is truly out of balance, reading the first post and glancing at the power is all that's needed right? You saying it's overpowered or me saying it isn't really wouldn't be a factor. The only benefit to extra posting is there might be a better chance the thread gets looked a with a higher post count.
It isn't about the size of the thread. The problem is if post #3 is "nah, that's just a you problem" and no one refutes that.
It isn't about the size of the thread. The problem is if post #3 is "nah, that's just a you problem" and no one refutes that.
I still don't see the issue, unless there is some weighted standard for how many agree vs how many disagree that factors into someone looking over a thread and then basing an opinion on how deserving it is on errata/FAQ's. The OP made all the salient points after all so why would it matter what post #3 says if post #1 is worthy of notice?
PS: the treasure vault has new relic abilities and relic sets [one of which includes psychic scream] so the OP may be in luck and something changes in the new book.