Recent Posts
What Brooks said.
Actually more than what Brooks said:
The designers should come up with the challenges, not ruin the player's fun by saying exactly why this won't work or that won't work. The question is "Did the adventurer's find a way to solve the problem?" If the answer is yes then good job move along. The answer should never be, "But they didn't do it the way I wanted them too!"
Because they never will. That's why they are adventurers.
NOTHING pisses me off more than being in the middle of a dungeon and having my tenth idea shot down because, "Oh that doesn't work here." Especially when each solution uses something completely different than the last one.
Stone shape? Doesn't work
Dimension door? Doesn't work
Change shape into an ooze and slide out? Doesn't work
Dispel the magic? Can't possibly work -- caster level 30 when you are level 9
Paizo has already had enough products where "It doesn't work because everything other than combat doesn't work here." in it.
Abraham, you are right, but designing a game for Pathfinder, and not taking the improved power of at-will 0-level spells into account is like thinking you can put a chasm in the party's way to force them to go around it, but not realizing that that you're designing an adventure for 6th level PCs where they're like to be able to fly.
depends if you consider the issue was kingmaker was written without considering existing contrips or if cantrips need an overhaul.
personally I think the former, cantrips are very weak magic the guy wrote the adventures could have included a small text about how certain cantrips can't be used to overcome these problems and given a few RP explantians why not,
more a kingmaker problem than any real problem with cantrips.
I disagree that the designer/author/editor of a particular AP or module or adventure or whatever should spend valuable time and effort anticipating every possible contingency that potential players of the module might encounter and then chew up valuable space in the text to address every eventuality. In my opinion the DM needs to be able to jump in there and adjudicate those very situations that their players come up with and, as the original poster has indicated, this thread has given him some things to think about regarding cantrips.
-Brooks
doesn't need to chew up alot of text one simple line. "This challenge is meant to be difficult and cannot be overcome using cantrips"
if a player is smart enough to come up with a cnatrip solution the GM shouldn't have too much trouble comming up with a reason on the fly why it wouldn't work in this case.
What Brooks said.
Actually more than what Brooks said:
The designers should come up with the challenges, not ruin the player's fun by saying exactly why this won't work or that won't work. The question is "Did the adventurer's find a way to solve the problem?" If the answer is yes then good job move along. The answer should never be, "But they didn't do it the way I wanted them too!"
Because they never will. That's why they are adventurers.
NOTHING pisses me off more than being in the middle of a dungeon and having my tenth idea shot down because, "Oh that doesn't work here." Especially when each solution uses something completely different than the last one.
Stone shape? Doesn't work
Dimension door? Doesn't work
Change shape into an ooze and slide out? Doesn't work
Dispel the magic? Can't possibly work -- caster level 30 when you are level 9Paizo has already had enough products where "It doesn't work because everything other than combat doesn't work here." in it.
there's nothing wrong with an antimgaic zone in a dungeon it might be anyoing for the wizard but it far from out of the realm of possibility.
if you were said level 30 caster bad guy surely you'd create antimagic zones to hamper intruders.
wizards travel with fighters for a reason, jsut like fighting your way through wont always work, there is not always a spell soultion to a problem.
Abraham, you are right, but designing a game for Pathfinder, and not taking the improved power of at-will 0-level spells into account is like thinking you can put a chasm in the party's way to force them to go around it, but not realizing that that you're designing an adventure for 6th level PCs where they're like to be able to fly.
not at all. especially in this case when the "problem" is not even real.
If they fly they spend resources -- which are then not available for other things.
doesn't need to chew up alot of text one simple line. "This challenge is meant to be difficult and cannot be overcome using cantrips"
Why? Leaving aside the issue that 99 times out of 100, it just doesn't work regardless of whether the DM wants it to work or not, why? What's wrong with PCs overcoming challenges in creative ways? What's wrong with actually getting some use out of 0-level spells? Why do you have to squelch creativity and enforce draconian "sorry, this challenge can only be solved in proscribed methods" rules that are entirely against the very meaning of a role-playing game?
Furthermore, why should Paizo have to waste space on every single encounter in every single one of their adventures stating that cantrips can't be used to overcome them?
depends if you consider the issue was kingmaker was written without considering existing contrips or if cantrips need an overhaul.
personally I think the former, cantrips are very weak magic the guy wrote the adventures could have included a small text about how certain cantrips can't be used to overcome these problems and given a few RP explantians why not,
more a kingmaker problem than any real problem with cantrips.
I disagree that the designer/author/editor of a particular AP or module or adventure or whatever should spend valuable time and effort anticipating every possible contingency that potential players of the module might encounter and then chew up valuable space in the text to address every eventuality. In my opinion the DM needs to be able to jump in there and adjudicate those very situations that their players come up with and, as the original poster has indicated, this thread has given him some things to think about regarding cantrips.
-Brooks
doesn't need to chew up alot of text one simple line. "This challenge is meant to be difficult and cannot be overcome using cantrips"
if a player is smart enough to come up with a cnatrip solution the GM shouldn't have too much trouble comming up with a reason on the fly why it wouldn't work in this case.
I still have to disagree; it is not the designer's job to forsee every possible eventuality and warn the DM about them. Why not include a few lines than another challenge is intended to be difficult and is not meant to be overcome by magic missiles. Or watch out that this monster is meant to be dangerous, be warned if one of your players manages a critical against it with a light pick.
I apologize if I sound flip, but I still maintain that the author is not supposed to do any of these things, they are supposed to present an interesting and challenging scenario that the DM is then required to adjudicate.
-Brooks
Edited for grammar.
there's nothing wrong with an antimgaic zone in a dungeon it might be anyoing for the wizard but it far from out of the realm of possibility.if you were said level 30 caster bad guy surely you'd create antimagic zones to hamper intruders.
wizards travel with fighters for a reason, jsut like fighting your way through wont always work, there is not always a spell soultion to a problem.
A zone is fine. You got me wrong. It's when every situation ends up being "you can't use level appropriqte tactics beyond boom because everywhere is set so nothing else works."
Like the school and end of RotRL.
doesn't need to chew up alot of text one simple line. "This challenge is meant to be difficult and cannot be overcome using cantrips"Why? Leaving aside the issue that 99 times out of 100, it just doesn't work regardless of whether the DM wants it to work or not, why? What's wrong with PCs overcoming challenges in creative ways? What's wrong with actually getting some use out of 0-level spells? Why do you have to squelch creativity and enforce draconian "sorry, this challenge can only be solved in proscribed methods" rules that are entirely against the very meaning of a role-playing game?
Furthermore, why should Paizo have to waste space on every single encounter in every single one of their adventures stating that cantrips can't be used to overcome them?
nothing wrong with solving a problem in a cretive way but playing pathfinder is meant to be fun and if a difficult challenge is overcome to often by a "creative" solution then it get boring fr everyone not solving the solution with clever magic
having just play'd a wizard in RoTR there were times I held myself back from using magic to exploit an encounter and turn it from diffuclt and fun into easy and boring for everyone else.
I win buttons are not fun for the people who don't get to push them.
Abraham, you are right, but designing a game for Pathfinder, and not taking the improved power of at-will 0-level spells into account is like thinking you can put a chasm in the party's way to force them to go around it, but not realizing that that you're designing an adventure for 6th level PCs where they're like to be able to fly.not at all. especially in this case when the "problem" is not even real.
If they fly they spend resources -- which are then not available for other things.
a) I wasn't referring to the problem at hand. I was commenting on the impact of at-will 0-level spells on adventure design in general.
b) you didn't really get my point with the chasm example. The fictitious designer in my example puts in the chasm to make the players take a detour to reach, for example to force them to go a certain way where part of the adventure lies, but forgets that his adventurers are likely to be easily able to overcome the supposedly unsurmountable obstacle, and thus his adventure will simply not work. The chasm and the fly ar simply examples for any obstacle and its solution that becomes available at a certain level. That situation is basically what can easily happen if you don't take at-will 0-level spells into account when designing adventures
doesn't need to chew up alot of text one simple line. "This challenge is meant to be difficult and cannot be overcome using cantrips"Why? Leaving aside the issue that 99 times out of 100, it just doesn't work regardless of whether the DM wants it to work or not, why? What's wrong with PCs overcoming challenges in creative ways? What's wrong with actually getting some use out of 0-level spells? Why do you have to squelch creativity and enforce draconian "sorry, this challenge can only be solved in proscribed methods" rules that are entirely against the very meaning of a role-playing game?
Furthermore, why should Paizo have to waste space on every single encounter in every single one of their adventures stating that cantrips can't be used to overcome them?
nothing wrong with solving a problem in a cretive way but playing pathfinder is meant to be fun and if a difficult challenge is overcome to often by a "creative" solution then it get boring fr everyone not solving the solution with clever magic
having just play'd a wizard in RoTR there were times I held myself back from using magic to exploit an encounter and turn it from diffuclt and fun into easy and boring for everyone else.
I win buttons are not fun for the people who don't get to push them.
So, rather than allow DMs to decide for themselves what works and what doesn't, you'd have Paizo dictate that, sorry, magic just isn't a valid solution, for absolutely no justification whatsoever? What if the DM doesn't like that there's no justification? Screw him? Why is it more "right" to dictate solutions to open-ended problems in an adventure that is literally built as a sandbox than it is to let DMs do what their job is and decide what works and what doesn't? Especially when it cuts down on the amount of adventure we get for our money?
depends if you consider the issue was kingmaker was written without considering existing contrips or if cantrips need an overhaul.
personally I think the former, cantrips are very weak magic the guy wrote the adventures could have included a small text about how certain cantrips can't be used to overcome these problems and given a few RP explantians why not,
more a kingmaker problem than any real problem with cantrips.
I disagree that the designer/author/editor of a particular AP or module or adventure or whatever should spend valuable time and effort anticipating every possible contingency that potential players of the module might encounter and then chew up valuable space in the text to address every eventuality. In my opinion the DM needs to be able to jump in there and adjudicate those very situations that their players come up with and, as the original poster has indicated, this thread has given him some things to think about regarding cantrips.
-Brooks
Agree with you on this.
there's nothing wrong with an antimgaic zone in a dungeon it might be anyoing for the wizard but it far from out of the realm of possibility.if you were said level 30 caster bad guy surely you'd create antimagic zones to hamper intruders.
wizards travel with fighters for a reason, jsut like fighting your way through wont always work, there is not always a spell soultion to a problem.
A zone is fine. You got me wrong. It's when every situation ends up being "you can't use level appropriqte tactics beyond boom because everywhere is set so nothing else works."
Like the school and end of RotRL.
in those cases it up to the GM to mediate, if the sitatuion and making it so the wizard is having no fun then its up to the GM to give him some love so some of his creative ideas do work.
by the same token its up to the GM to stop a wizards creative uses turing a challenge for the whole group into an easy solo enoucnter for the caster with the group looking on and contributing nothing beucase they are then bored.
no one should shine all the time in a group beucase it means somone else isn't having as much fun as they could.
There are essentially an infinite number of ways a PC can interact with any single encounter. It's simply not feasible to list rules for every possible situation for every possible encounter. Instead, an adventure designer simply presents the situation at hand and covers the most obvious possibilities. The rest HAS to be left to the individual GM; his job, after all, is to not only present the game to the PCs, but to decide on how the world reacts to the PCs' actions.
If this were a video game... the authors, developers, and editors would be the programmers of the game while the GM was the computer system on which the game runs. We don't require computer programmers to build the computer on which their programs run, so we shouldn't expect the same from RPG designers.
I'm just saying that a good adventure designer should be aware of the character's level-appropriate or otherwise probable abilities to overcome obstacles.
I believe that you are correct that a good designer should be able to anticipate party resources and abilities when putting together both encounters, an entire module, and an entire series of modules or an AP. However, I also believe that designing challenging encounters for a level-appropriate encounter does not, and should not, involve the designer attempting to anticipate every potential player response to their encounter.
Design the encounter to be challenging and rewarding for the appropriate level characters; yes!
Spend hours of valuable time and lines of valuable text warning the DM about potential strategies of their players, not matter how far-fetched; no!
It seems that there are a number of issues being raised on this thread recently and I would not confuse good game design with including text to warn potential DMs that their potential players may, at some point, choose to potentially use a cantrip to assist with the encounter.
-Brooks
doesn't need to chew up alot of text one simple line. "This challenge is meant to be difficult and cannot be overcome using cantrips"
if a player is smart enough to come up with a cnatrip solution the GM shouldn't have too much trouble comming up with a reason on the fly why it wouldn't work in this case.
It's difficult to express how much I disagree with this. As a GM, if I ever saw that line in a published product, I'd view anything further from that author with deep suspicion.
If your players can figure out how to solve a problem with a cantrip (or with a waterskin and a chocolate chip cookie, for that matter), then congratulate them on their creativity.
If a challenge is meant to be too difficult to be solved with a cantrip, then design a challenge too difficult to be solved with a cantrip. A fiat that something cannot work because it irritates the GM that you figured an easy way around something is damaging to the game, and sends the message to the players that creativity is irrelevant.
Stepping back to the original discussion (and sidestepping the arguments for or against cantrips working here in the first place - already very adequately covered by others here), I'd point out odds are good that in either location, the longer the PCs take in setting up their clever plan, the more likely the inhabitants will notice them. The Mites have regular hunting parties entering and leaving at twilight, and the Stag Lord's fortress is a hub for all local bandit bands, so giving a cumulative percentage chance that someone would stumble over the party (say, 5% per hour) would be quite fair on the GMs part. Certainly, anything noisy (like perpetual spell-casting or reconstructing a catapult) would certainly increase the odds, or give the inhabitants regular Perception checks to notice something interesting is going on nearby - especially where they have one or more people on watch.
There's been a lot of good advice on this thread on how to keep players from abusing unlimited cantrips, be it Create Water, Detect Magic, Guidance, etc. I highly recommend it to anyone who likes the unlimited cantrips and intends to continue using them the RAW way.
However, I have to agree with the few posters here who have just house-ruled limits on cantrips. It is a much simpler and more elegant solution for those of us who see potential for abuse and (in my case at least) find the idea of unlimited magic of any type, no matter how minor, out of keeping with the tradition of the game. It eliminates any possible chance for the type of abuse cited by several here, without having to get into long discussions with players about why their grand schemes won't work because of issues like volume, etc. I also somewhat agree with the design philosophy when cantrips were first created years ago - that 0-level spells shouldn't have a major impact on the game.
I personally decreed 15 per day +1 per caster level for our campaign. Some of my players complained a bit, but in practice we are finding this generous limit (it is, after all, more than three times as many as allowed in any previous edition) does not keep them from doing anything in a practical sense. It does keep me from wasting time adjudicating stupid ideas involving spamming cantrips and orisons.
And one last note on the Create Water issue. While the many people who have pointed out the difficulty/impossiblity of flooding the caverns are absolutely correct, pumping that much water into the complex probably would have the end effect the players were looking for, mites abandoning their nest in panic. While it wouldn't flood the caverns, the amount of water discussed would begin to damage the caverns and impact structural integrity pretty quickly, assuming that the caves are in dirt/soil rather than hardened rock, which I do from the description. And of course, that doesn't even take into account the damage to the mites' stuff. Just look at the damage a leaking toilet letting out a few gallons an hour does to a house in pretty short order, and then multiple that by a thousand or so.
There's been a lot of good advice on this thread on how to keep players from abusing unlimited cantrips,
"Abusing" is an extremely confrontational word, especially given peoples' description of unlimited cantrip "abuse."
The only "abuse" I see is DMs unable to accept the fact that spellcasters can cast all but useless spells infinitely and that means they can actually be used for something so when the players TRY to use it for something, DMs spazz the hell out.
There's been a lot of good advice on this thread on how to keep players from abusing unlimited cantrips,"Abusing" is an extremely confrontational word, especially given peoples' description of unlimited cantrip "abuse."
The only "abuse" I see is DMs unable to accept the fact that spellcasters can cast all but useless spells infinitely and that means they can actually be used for something so when the players TRY to use it for something, DMs spazz the hell out.
My apologies for any offense I may have offered through my use of terminology. I was not, in any way intending to be confrontational, but rather just using the same term many other posters have used throughout the thread. I can't say I truly understand what you find so confrontational about the term (certainly not so confrontational as something like, oh, say "spazz the hell out" :)), but I accept that as your opinion.
I stated my position on the issue, clearly identified it as a houserule that I like, but you can take or leave, and have no intention of getting into a pissing contest about it. Besides, look what I chose for my avatar. Mine really is bigger. :)
You can houserule whatever you want. I was making the point that you can't spit around here without hitting a DM nearly tearing his hair out over someone trying to use Create Water to do something interesting.
"Omg omg omg, the players want to flush out a cave/flood a city/make infinite jars of Holy Water/power a giant water wheel to give Pikachu his powers back."
If they would stop being so histrionic about how the players are using the spell and instead think about what the players are doing, they might actually come up with a REAL reason the players can't do it without having to ban all 0 level spells just because of Create Water because honestly, most of the creative uses of Create Water are either ignoring the details of the spell or just don't work logistically.
If players come up with creative ways to deal with a problem or foes, I never discourage them. 'Go for it' is my motto.
Instead of contempting nerfing cantrips in this case, look at the how the players are trying to solve the problem and then look for the holes in their plan or logic.
Case in point - flood the mites.
Holes in logic:
Can't create enough water to do want they want. Already mentioned but bears repeating. They simply can't generate enough water to flood the mite caverns. That means their plan is not going to work.
Second, even if they could accomplish it somehow, the mites are not going to sit around and be drowned. Simple solution - mites have a exit tunnel and flee (remember, the party is a the entrance doing the water thing) or attack the party by surprise after exiting several hundred feet away.
What most likely would happen - I would tell the party after 6 hours of casting create water, nothing has emerged and the water is NOT slooshing out of the entrance so do they want to continue? Chances are, the party is abandon the plan because gods know when they will achieve the result they desire, if ever. Players tend to be rather impatient and will not continue with a course of action if there is no tangible result.
Now the Catapult plan
Holes in logic - moving a catapult over a significant distance of terrain without roads. I saw a show on people building some medieval siege artillery and it took 50 guys to move a trenchbuchet a short distance (the point of the experiment was to see how medieval soldiers would build a trenchbuchet and manuever it). The conclusion of the historians on the show - medieval siege artillery was build at the point of usage, not moved from point A to point B. Reason - the manpower costs and the time was very significant.
Second, firing the catapult is manpower intensive and slow. Back to the show - it took the crew 5 shots to get on target and that was after a computer simulation told them the approximate range their catapult build could achieve and them building the catapult at that point.
The Stag Lord and his cronies are not going to have a party of adventures sit several hundred yards and lob rocks at the fort. After the first shot (most likely off the mark), they are going to sally out and deal with the party.
Taking the catapult from Oleg's and having the party level the fort for distance and the Stag Lord with it has so many holes for failure of the concept that I can drive a car through them.
It is a neat idea in creative thinking but logically, it not feasible for a party of 4 to 6 adventurers to ever pull off their desire outcome.
Basically, spells do not have to be nerfed. Any application of cantrips are on large scale will have obstacles to the implementation, being it time, volume, scale of magnitude or whatever. And that allows the bad guys to react or avoid.
You can houserule whatever you want. I was making the point that you can't spit around here without hitting a DM nearly tearing his hair out over someone trying to use Create Water to do something interesting.
"Omg omg omg, the players want to flush out a cave/flood a city/make infinite jars of Holy Water/power a giant water wheel to give Pikachu his powers back."
If they would stop being so histrionic about how the players are using the spell and instead think about what the players are doing, they might actually come up with a REAL reason the players can't do it without having to ban all 0 level spells just because of Create Water because honestly, most of the creative uses of Create Water are either ignoring the details of the spell or just don't work logistically.
This was an awesome thread. Great debates from both 'schools' of thought. The only thing my pcs spam is detect magic but only after each fight. They don't want to miss anything valuable. I can't really fault em on that thought. I'm so glad for the most part 'gamers' are intelligent and creative. Why would we want to squash their creativity? I am having more fun running this campaign than I have ever any campaign. Of course my son is playing d&d for the first time and my nephews. They actually asked their parents to roll up characters to join us. They were having so much fun. It is refreshing to run a campaign where everything is new to the group. It brought me back so many years ago to my first time. lol!
thnx,
PJ
Basically, spells do not have to be nerfed. Any application of cantrips are on large scale will have obstacles to the implementation, being it time, volume, scale of magnitude or whatever. And that allows the bad guys to react or avoid.
Yea, they're dragging a broken down siege weapon. I'd reduce their stop speed straight towards the stag lord's castle. I'd reduce their top speed to about 2 miles/day. So it would take them a solid week to cross a single hex. In that time, one of the Stag Lord's cronies would have discovered what is going on and the SL would have ambushed them. The spell would have taken alot of usage, but it could be done. So you shouldn't have let them off with something like "yea they get it repaired in short order."
As far as the mites go, they play as dirty as kobolds do. Filling up their home with water should have brought them out (of their back doors) and all of them at once jumped the PCs.
Don't punish the players for coming up with imaginative ideas. Come up with sneakier ways for their plans to be complicated. >:)
Yea, they're dragging a broken down siege weapon. I'd reduce their stop speed straight towards the stag lord's castle. I'd reduce their top speed to about 2 miles/day.
One character with 20 Str could drag a light catapult by himself. He might not move as fast, but it certainly isn't going to reduce his speed to 1/12 of daily speed.
One character with 20 Str could drag a light catapult by himself. He might not move as fast, but it certainly isn't going to reduce his speed to 1/12 of daily speed.
Yea, they're dragging a broken down siege weapon. I'd reduce their stop speed straight towards the stag lord's castle. I'd reduce their top speed to about 2 miles/day.
I've always taken the drag rules to mean that, by exerting all his strength, a character can drag an object that heavy a relatively short distance over a flat and relatively hard surface. It's a whole different thing to drag it miles and miles for hours each day, up and down hills, through varied terrain, across rivers and through forests. That ain't happening unless you are taking a trip well into the land of incredibly buff guys and impossibly shapely women wearing spandex. Catapults are moved by teams of horses or oxen, not individual characters, and they slow down the movement of any army or party a lot. Perhaps not as much as DMcCoy1693 posits, but his basic theory that it will slow them down considerably is spot on. I would say it would take top speed down to no more than 10 or 15 feet, max.
I've always taken the drag rules to mean that, by exerting all his strength, a character can drag an object that heavy a relatively short distance over a flat and relatively hard surface. It's a whole different thing to drag it miles and miles for hours each day, up and down hills, through varied terrain, across rivers and through forests. That ain't happening unless you are taking a trip well into the land of incredibly buff guys and impossibly shapely women wearing spandex. Catapults are moved by teams of horses or oxen, not individual characters, and they slow down the movement of any army or party a lot. Perhaps not as much as DMcCoy1693 posits, but his basic theory that it will slow them down considerably is spot on. I would say it would take top speed down to no more than 10 or 15 feet, max.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
I'll admit I was exaggerating. I'd setting for 4-6 miles/day, but it is not going to be fast at all. The opportunity for the SL to sober up and set up an ambush at some point in their journey should be near 100%.
But like Brian said, they're moved by teams of horses. You might have 1 guy in the party that is Str 20 by 4th level, but you're not going to have a whole party that is str 20. And that is with wheels. But if the balistas are broken down, than the wheels are going to be completely useless. They'd have to start from scratch to build something for them to move it. Ultimately it might speed up their movement, but they are going to require an upfront construction time of ... a week or two. And if none of them put ranks into crafting, then they might as well go back to rostov and buy a cart.
Plus, I've always taken mending to be just that, the ability to mend a broken item. Its the magical equivalent of duct tape or super glue. If something is described as "broken down," its beyond mending's ability to fix it. Mending is basically a cure spell for objects. Cure spells fix hp loss. They don't cover ability damage, poison, lost levels, death, etc. "Broken down" tells me that its ability scores are near 0. Oh, sure its hp can be repaired, but if its got a -5 Con modifier, what good is it going to do?
Light catapults are no heavier than a wagon, and as you can plainly see on the map of Oleg's, they are wheeled. They are intended to be transported. And, again, why do you feel the need to rain on your PCs' parade? A single light catapult really isn't going to do much except make the PCs feel like badasses.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
As a large quadruped, that heavy horse can haul 3x the weight a medium biped can. Pushing that catapult by man-power with no roads and rough terrain, 1-2 miles is probably not too unreasonable depending on the specifics of the terrain. And this isn't raining on the PCs' parade. Some actions they may take may not be very efficient. Pushing a catapult cross country - not very efficient. Let them learn that and figure out what they need to do to make it work.
As a large quadruped, that heavy horse can haul 3x the weight a medium biped can. Pushing that catapult by man-power with no roads and rough terrain, 1-2 miles is probably not too unreasonable depending on the specifics of the terrain. And this isn't raining on the PCs' parade. Some actions they may take may not be very efficient. Pushing a catapult cross country - not very efficient. Let them learn that and figure out what they need to do to make it work.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
Agreed. He's not making it impossible or just saying they can't do it. He's just making rulings for it that are reasonably difficult. If they really want the catapult, they'll either take the time or come up with a better way of transporting it.
Agreed. He's not making it impossible or just saying they can't do it. He's just making rulings for it that are reasonably difficult. If they really want the catapult, they'll either take the time or come up with a better way of transporting it.As a large quadruped, that heavy horse can haul 3x the weight a medium biped can. Pushing that catapult by man-power with no roads and rough terrain, 1-2 miles is probably not too unreasonable depending on the specifics of the terrain. And this isn't raining on the PCs' parade. Some actions they may take may not be very efficient. Pushing a catapult cross country - not very efficient. Let them learn that and figure out what they need to do to make it work.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
Actually, he said that he wouldn't even let them get the catapult to the fort. They'd be ambushed arbitrarily at some point along the journey.
How slow do you think they would move with the catapults? Horses move 50, so even encumbered they move 35. They can drag 5000 lbs in light load, still moving the 50 by the rules. The hills will reduce their speed by half, but that is the same as the PCs. It takes no longer for the catapults to get to the stag lord fort than the PCs, so there is no reason to suspect that the Stag Lord should have any more advanced warning than if the PCs rode up to his camp.
The big problem I see with them is crossing the river, but there are plenty of creative solutions to that, including bringing your own barges like my PCs are planning.
Actually, he said that he wouldn't even let them get the catapult to the fort. They'd be ambushed arbitrarily at some point along the journey.Agreed. He's not making it impossible or just saying they can't do it. He's just making rulings for it that are reasonably difficult. If they really want the catapult, they'll either take the time or come up with a better way of transporting it.As a large quadruped, that heavy horse can haul 3x the weight a medium biped can. Pushing that catapult by man-power with no roads and rough terrain, 1-2 miles is probably not too unreasonable depending on the specifics of the terrain. And this isn't raining on the PCs' parade. Some actions they may take may not be very efficient. Pushing a catapult cross country - not very efficient. Let them learn that and figure out what they need to do to make it work.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
Forgot that. I agree that I would call foul on automatically having them ambushed. Slower speed would mean more chance of encounters, though, and hauling that thing around with you would probably reduce your tactical options. You're not going to sneak up on anything, and you can't retreat very well unless you abandon it. I think it might also be reasonable, if they have a bandit encounter, to assume that the Stag Lord would be forewarned and organize counter-measures like an ambush or siege weapons of his own. Again, the idea isn't to kill creative thinking, just point out realistic obstadles that need to be overcome with even more thinking.
Actually, he said that he wouldn't even let them get the catapult to the fort. They'd be ambushed arbitrarily at some point along the journey.Agreed. He's not making it impossible or just saying they can't do it. He's just making rulings for it that are reasonably difficult. If they really want the catapult, they'll either take the time or come up with a better way of transporting it.As a large quadruped, that heavy horse can haul 3x the weight a medium biped can. Pushing that catapult by man-power with no roads and rough terrain, 1-2 miles is probably not too unreasonable depending on the specifics of the terrain. And this isn't raining on the PCs' parade. Some actions they may take may not be very efficient. Pushing a catapult cross country - not very efficient. Let them learn that and figure out what they need to do to make it work.
Heavy Horses only have 20 str. What you really need is some sort of wheels.
I don't think the ambush is arbitrary at all. It's based on the fact that the Stag Lord has cronies and bandits out lurking in the woods, and given that it'd be pretty near impossible to travel with any kind of stealth while dragging the catapult, chances are pretty high that the party would be spotted by one of the SL's goons at a much greater distance than they would be spotting him. Seeing something potentially dangerous to the fort, said goon then returns to the SL's fort, whereupon the bandit leaders plan an ambush.
EDIT: Ninja'd
How slow do you think they would move with the catapults? Horses move 50, so even encumbered they move 35. They can drag 5000 lbs in light load, still moving the 50 by the rules. The hills will reduce their speed by half, but that is the same as the PCs. It takes no longer for the catapults to get to the stag lord fort than the PCs, so there is no reason to suspect that the Stag Lord should have any more advanced warning than if the PCs rode up to his camp.
The big problem I see with them is crossing the river, but there are plenty of creative solutions to that, including bringing your own barges like my PCs are planning.
I would agree, if there were roads. I believe (don't have the AP with me now) the catapult has wheels, which work much better on roads than off. Actually even worse if they don't have roads. You have to look beyond the RAW for this and make some reasonable rulings, perhaps educated a bit by historical knowledge of how difficult it was to move siege weapons in real life. Folks on horseback or on foot ar only slowed by a certain amount by being in difficult terrain or just offroad. Wagons, artillery pieces, siege weapos, etc., are slowed a lot more. That's why good roads are absolutely vital both for commerce and for moving armies. A standard wargame rule, considered realistic by folks far more experienced than I, is that a road multiplies speed by 3, to give you an idea of how roads make a difference.
I would agree, if there were roads. I believe (don't have the AP with me now) the catapult has wheels, which work much better on roads than off. Actually even worse if they don't have roads. You have to look beyond the RAW for this and make some reasonable rulings, perhaps educated a bit by historical knowledge of how difficult it was to move siege weapons in real life. Folks on horseback or on foot ar only slowed by a certain amount by being in difficult terrain or just offroad. Wagons, artillery pieces, siege weapos, etc., are slowed a lot more. That's why good roads are absolutely vital both for commerce and for moving armies. A standard wargame rule, considered realistic by folks far more experienced than I, is that a road multiplies speed by 3, to give you an idea of how roads make a difference.How slow do you think they would move with the catapults? Horses move 50, so even encumbered they move 35. They can drag 5000 lbs in light load, still moving the 50 by the rules. The hills will reduce their speed by half, but that is the same as the PCs. It takes no longer for the catapults to get to the stag lord fort than the PCs, so there is no reason to suspect that the Stag Lord should have any more advanced warning than if the PCs rode up to his camp.
The big problem I see with them is crossing the river, but there are plenty of creative solutions to that, including bringing your own barges like my PCs are planning.
And the standard D&D rule, which I mentioned, is it slowing you by half. You are still moving faster than a halfling walking. With 1/3, you are about the same speed as said halfling.
Judging by the speed of the Oregon trail on wikipedia, 3mph for a wagon, a wagon team has movement of about 25 over trackless terrain, or 1/2 of what it is base.
After reading it though, I am convinced that you should only multiply only the top of what an animal can move by 5 for dragging, and not each load bracket. So if the horse is dragging more than 500, it is in medium load. That fits with the wagon weights and size of the horse/ox teams.
If you consider that it is easy to wheel even a small siege weapon intact around the Stolen Lands, then could you please explain why is it so tricky pushing an eldery relative in a wheelchair across the slightly sloping cut grass of an English country churchyard on an afternoon when the sun is shining and the ground is relatively dry and firm?
For one thing, pushing is considerably harder than pulling. That's why horses are attached to the front of wagons. For another, with a wheelchair, the weight is all distributed in a fairly small space with very narrow wheels, while with a siege engine the weight (while greater) is spread out over a wider area and has much wider wheels.
As to the Romans, whilst I can't quote Wikipedia, I have an idea that they had some pretty darned good technical specialists who could have broken down their equipment for transport if they needed to do so, and reassembled it at the other end.
So why can't the PCs do that? The premise of half of this thread is, "OH NO! THE PCS HAVE A SIEGE ENGINE! THE CAMPAIGN IS DOOMED!".
They also had some pretty good roads for getting things around their empire.
And how many times did they siege their own cities, hmm? They didn't build roads until after the areas were conquered.