And I disagree with this. When I allowed taking 10, EVERYONE was doing it so they can get gear that they would not have access to due to money and/or the normal crafting rules requirements. This does break the game rather quickly and rather efficiently. You make them gamble...well it curves a lot of the powergaming crafting, and by the time they can reliably do it, they are within 2 levels of when they could normally get the item...not 5 or more...and if you roll and get lucky anyways, I have less issue with that.I disagree. The only thing players get to control are their characters they should at least get to do that. Magic items are a part of the building process. That does not mean give them everything they want, but if they have the gold to acquire it they should be able to have it. The only time I have seen loot break the game is when you give players ridiculous amounts of money.Although to put where the discussion has ended up in perspective with the original question, I can only say this.
In my own experience as a player and from behind the screen, nothing within the rules can break a game faster than allowing players to pick their own magic items.
Jason's post was about allowing people to have items they wanted, not about crafting.
|
And I disagree with this. When I allowed taking 10, EVERYONE was doing it so they can get gear that they would not have access to due to money and/or the normal crafting rules requirements.You are going to have to explain how taking the average result on a d20 result gave them the ability to get items they couldn't get through normal crafting rules. And how taking 10 somehow gave them more money.
Because all you need is +17 (with taking 10) to make a +5 tome. So inclass is +3, Int +5, headband +2...level 7 and you take 10. 9 without the headband. With NO risk. If you roll and I have rule that says that failure loses component costs and failure of 5 or more makes a cursed item...well at level 7 you have a 45% chance of losing a TON of gold and 20% of a cursed item. If you wanna be more certain, your gonna have to wait several levels. Yes I realize that at level 7, you most likely won´t have the component costs...but that is my issue with the mechanics. It´s when you can with 100% certainty make magic items that should normally be beyond you. And if you take skill focus...well that gets even worse even faster. So yeah, you roll in my games. Actually I do, behind a screen so you never know. I even have a 1 always make a cursed item, 20 makes something extra special. For instance, a feather token swan boat craft that rolled a 1 might have it sink when more then so many feet from shore while one that rolled a 20 would be good for 10 uses. Most people seem to like this rule oddly enough. Even the ones that don´t like risking the money until they are certain of success.
Because all you need is +17 (with taking 10) to make a +5 tome. So inclass is +3, Int +5, headband +2...level 7 and you take 10. 9 without the headband. With NO risk.
Which neither gives you more money than you have to make it nor does it violate the normal crafting rules because if he had rolled the die and got 10-20, he would have made it.
Yes I realize that at level 7, you most likely won´t have the component costs...but that is my issue with the mechanics.
That you are allowing people to make something they don't have the money for? Well stop allowing the Bank of Golarion loan them money.
It´s when you can with 100% certainty make magic items that should normally be beyond you.
Except taking 10 does not allow you to make items that are beyond you. By definition, taking 10 can only allow you to make items you could make on average. If you can succeed by taking 10, you have a 50% certainty of being able to make said magic item. Now, if you needed to roll a 21 to make the item, then without taking 21, you couldn't make the magic item with 100% certainty. If you have such an determined hatred for magic item crafting that you throw math and reason out the window, then why do you let people in your games make magic items?
|
|
Because all you need is +17 (with taking 10) to make a +5 tome. So inclass is +3, Int +5, headband +2...level 7 and you take 10. 9 without the headband. With NO risk.
Sorry, this is just so much bunk. (btw I guess you mean a +4 headband?)
If this is such a nightmare for you.. imagine a law domain cleric being hired to help.. then they could do so at level 5! Or with spell focus and a headband (or a human feat) at level 2!!
Imagine a level 2 character making a +5 tome! This has to be broken, right!?!
I mean all there's left is the SMALL matter of the cash....
Sorry, in case you didn't notice the sarcasm taking 10 is not a power trip.
Take 10 is specifically for skill rolls that you could fail on a low roll and believe you would succeed on an average (or slightly below average) roll. You might want the players to always have that element of risk, but the rules let them do this.
-James
Ummm I did SPECIFICALLY mention the money right? Or are you just gonna ignore what I said. My issue is WHEN you can possibly do it with NO risk. Yes skill focus makes it even lower...and that´s kinda my point.
The law domain doesn´t work. It lasts for 1 round.
I was listing the bonuses so the +2 would be from a +4 headbead.
I know what the RAW is...I don´t care. I´m saying this is MY houserule for games I run. My players even agree this is more balanced...so really, what RAW and you say is irrelevant in this case. I do abuse the HELL out of this in my RAW oriented group...which is why I know this sucker is rather broken by RAW. And yes we use strict WBL in that group.
Because all you need is +17 (with taking 10) to make a +5 tome. So inclass is +3, Int +5, headband +2...level 7 and you take 10. 9 without the headband. With NO risk. If you roll and I have rule that says that failure loses component costs and failure of 5 or more makes a cursed item...well at level 7 you have a 45% chance of losing a TON of gold and 20% of a cursed item. If you wanna be more certain, your gonna have to wait several levels. Yes I realize that at level 7, you most likely won´t have the component costs...but that is my issue with the mechanics. It´s when you can with 100% certainty make magic items that should normally be beyond you. And if you take skill focus...well that gets even worse even faster. So yeah, you roll in my games. Actually I do, behind a screen so you never know. I even have a 1 always make a cursed item, 20 makes something extra special. For instance, a feather token swan boat craft that rolled a 1 might have it sink when more then so many feet from shore while one that rolled a 20 would be good for 10 uses. Most people seem to like this rule oddly enough. Even the ones that don´t like risking the money until they are certain of success.
And I disagree with this. When I allowed taking 10, EVERYONE was doing it so they can get gear that they would not have access to due to money and/or the normal crafting rules requirements.You are going to have to explain how taking the average result on a d20 result gave them the ability to get items they couldn't get through normal crafting rules. And how taking 10 somehow gave them more money.
Are you saying the craft rules are too easy?
Yeah, that seems pretty comprehensive. Having a craft check go awry and months of work go to waste doesn't sound like much fun for the players, so I think allowing taking 10 is in the interest of keeping a fun game flowing.
OTOH, though, how do cursed items then ever get into existance? Spellcasters who like to gamble, perhaps? :p
Spellcasters who wanted power at lower levels and did not take 10.
And by the way... CasterLevel can be substitued by a +5 on the craft check? That, is the problem IMO.
Spellcasters who wanted power at lower levels and did not take 10.
And by the way... CasterLevel can be substitued by a +5 on the craft check? That, is the problem IMO.
And I think having to add five to the difficulty class for not meeting the caster level is in itself highly debatable--its simply not listed as a perquisite most of the time.
And I think having to add five to the difficulty class for not meeting the caster level is in itself highly debatable--its simply not listed as a perquisite most of the time.Spellcasters who wanted power at lower levels and did not take 10.
And by the way... CasterLevel can be substitued by a +5 on the craft check? That, is the problem IMO.
Don't you think it should be considered a prerequisite?
And a prerequisite that HAS to be met, much like the Feat requirement.
Well I do.
And I think having to add five to the difficulty class for not meeting the caster level is in itself highly debatable--its simply not listed as a perquisite most of the time.Spellcasters who wanted power at lower levels and did not take 10.
And by the way... CasterLevel can be substitued by a +5 on the craft check? That, is the problem IMO.
Don't you think it should be considered a prerequisite?
And a prerequisite that HAS to be met, much like the Feat requirement.
Well I do.
Actually, I don't.
If that were the case, many items that are meant for low-level play (such as pearls of power) would never see use. They would be unobtainable at low levels, and practically useless by the time you are able to craft them.
And I think having to add five to the difficulty class for not meeting the caster level is in itself highly debatable--its simply not listed as a perquisite most of the time.Spellcasters who wanted power at lower levels and did not take 10.
And by the way... CasterLevel can be substitued by a +5 on the craft check? That, is the problem IMO.
Don't you think it should be considered a prerequisite?
And a prerequisite that HAS to be met, much like the Feat requirement.
Well I do.
Actually, I don't.
If that were the case, many items that are meant for low-level play (such as pearls of power) would never see use. They would be unobtainable at low levels, and practically useless by the time you are able to craft them.
In that case the caster level should be lowered. Each pearl of power having its own caster level is not a bad idea. Attaching random caster levels to item does not make much sense to me.
Edit: cast changed to case
Attaching random caster levels to item does not make much sense to me.
Well what else are you going to do when the item doesn't follow the formulaic guidelines.
Attaching random caster levels to item does not make much sense to me.Well what else are you going to do when the item doesn't follow the formulaic guidelines.
As the DM I can change the rules for my game, but randomness in a game with so many specific rules just does not make sense. That is all I am saying. I don't think the rule, or lack of a rule, will be changed but its something to think about.
I will also say I am coming at the magic item creation issue as though it should be moderately difficult, and not almost automatic unless the caster is trying to create something well beyond their means. I know 3.5 was automatic as long as you met the prerequisites so Paizo may have intended to keep the same level of ease.
|
|
Are you saying the craft rules are too easy?
I´m saying the craft rules are too easy to make items that should be WELL beyond your means. I mean honestly, it has been clarified that the CL isn´t a requirement in most cases so you don´t even have to add 5 for not being the right caster level. Forcing a roll makes this somewhat of a smaller issue as making items of your own CL is pretty much an auto success. It only becomes a risk when you make items that are more ¨powerful¨ then you should have. Now note that I don´t agree with the CL req of most items anyways...like having the stat boost items be the same for all bonuses.
I´m saying the craft rules are too easy to make items that should be WELL beyond your means. I mean honestly, it has been clarified that the CL isn´t a requirement in most cases so you don´t even have to add 5 for not being the right caster level. Forcing a roll makes this somewhat of a smaller issue as making items of your own CL is pretty much an auto success. It only becomes a risk when you make items that are more ¨powerful¨ then you should have. Now note that I don´t agree with the CL req of most items anyways...like having the stat boost items be the same for all bonuses.
Are you saying the craft rules are too easy?
I agree with you. I would rather ditch the roll, since the DC is so low that it does not matter anyway, and just go by caster level for creating items, for the ones that have a reasonable caster level that is.
The other option is to have it trivially easy to make things up to your level, but things beyond your level get increasing DC's. I don't have the free time to come up with a formula that makes it possible to make high level items, without making it nigh impossible. I guess I will put it on my to do list.|
|
You're not supposed to obtain the bulk of the items by crafting them. You're supposed to be getting them by knocking on the door of that 10 by 10 foot room, beat on the orc guarding the chest and take his stuff.And I think having to add five to the difficulty class for not meeting the caster level is in itself highly debatable--its simply not listed as a perquisite most of the time.Spellcasters who wanted power at lower levels and did not take 10.
And by the way... CasterLevel can be substitued by a +5 on the craft check? That, is the problem IMO.
Don't you think it should be considered a prerequisite?
And a prerequisite that HAS to be met, much like the Feat requirement.
Well I do.
Actually, I don't.
If that were the case, many items that are meant for low-level play (such as pearls of power) would never see use. They would be unobtainable at low levels, and practically useless by the time you are able to craft them.
Indeed, you have to play the game right. ;P
I'll play my harp again. Ditch the WBL rules and gold piece costs. Just tell your players when they can have the items they want. It'll save a lot of headaches.
Indeed, you have to play the game right. ;P
I'll play my harp again. Ditch the WBL rules and gold piece costs. Just tell your players when they can have the items they want. It'll save a lot of headaches.
Metagame or in game? Because one way looks pretty boring (the metagame) BTW, I don't follow the WBL rules myself, but they are a nice guide for players and GMs new to the game. If a PC is getting too much wealth, it somehow eventually gets confiscated through the course of the campaign.
I think it's GREAT that you can substitute caster level by a +5 on the check. This allows for a greater versatility of the rules, and has led me as a DM to use the Item Creation Feats for rituals - powerful spells cast over several days, requiring lots of special substances. "Crafting" a ritual is the same as crafting an item with a use-activated single-use spell-like ability. I've made some adjustments though: I infact LOWER the price by 50% due to having to craft it at the same place and having to use it immediately after creation, and increase the crafting time to one day per 100gp in it's price. I also usually put a lower-level spell as a prerequisite as well as the ritualized spell in question.
This is great in low-level play. For example, the current group I DM has the 2nd-level PC's be up against a 3rd level orc cleric and his goons. While a 3rd level cleric may be nasty in this world, he's not really a threat to a whole town - except that he can use rituals to raise the dead. "Crafting" the ritual Animate Dead costs 375 gold pieces and takes 4 full days of casting, making it a good idea to stop him before those 4 days has passed. The prerequisites are CL 5+, Animate Dead, and Desecrate. Thus, the DC for the cleric is 15 since he has Desecrate but not the others.
This is a long, whiny post.
Please don't think I'm picking on you here, this is a response to more than your post, but I'd love to see your numbers along with a percentage of time they are relevant. It has most definitely NOT been my experience that the paladin is underpowered against evil opponents of any kind vs the pure fighter, sneak attacking rogue, dervish, wizard, tanking cleric, or ranger-archer (all of which I have in a party right now). Every class SHOULD have it's time in the sun, but there are two things I'm having a very difficult time buying:
The paladins code is a downside. How? In role-playing land righteousness still freely grants you qualm-free killing of anyone with a little 'e' attached to their alignment. Others can still be knocked out, punished, jailed, etc. All the paladin has to do is protest a little and get "fooled" into avoiding the other PC's actions for 10 minutes to gain any information benefits non-coded PCs may bring (healing covers torture wounds). It grants LOADS of role-playing opportunities and a valid in-game reason to stand on a moral high ground.
In my experience there are always morally questionable things to come up in a campaign. To me (and the other dms in my group) protesting is not good enough. A paladin may not sit idly by and watch his code offended by his comrades. If the party is torturing a prisoner, he must stop it. If he finds out that he was decieved (you know that whole sense motive class skill thing) and the party did something unlawful or evil, he must take action to rectify the wrong. If he fails to do this with any kind of regularity he falls.
If the party needs to break into the noble's house to find information on the political plot, he cannot participate. I have seen many encounters where the paladin essentially had to bow out and not participate. I have as a paladin fallen because i chose to participate (amusingly enough it involved smiting an animated chair...long story, but smiter of chairs is a hard title to shake off). If the whole group takes the high road its not an issue, but that in my experience is rare. Someone always wants to do things the underhanded way. With a paladin in the group, as awesome as they are, its a difficult and potentially party splitting option.
Restricting the paladin's combat benefits to evil opponents is a real restriction. How?
I feel like I'm being told that, if I want to challenge the party as a whole, I need to think non-evil. However, that's not the campaign I want to run. What if I want BAD bad guys, not just morally challenged, insane, or stupid bad guys? I do mix it up, as at least one person here has suggested, but really, unless I'm running a campaign to screw with the player who chose a paladin (elemental, or perhaps a "moral quandary" campaign filled with neutral opponents making the "wrong" choices), we're going to come back to evil 80% or more of the time.
Bad guys hire mercenaries. They arent always evil. Politicians can get in the party's way without being evil. Animals and many magical beasts are of a neutral alignment. Druids may try to destroy a town that is encroching on their territory without being inherantly evil. Guards that work for the secretly evil mayor/king/leader guy arent always evil. If you are always fighting evil, then that greatly increases the paladins power, but the monster manual, and every published adventure I have ever read suggest that all evil campaigns are rare if they exist at all.
My other option of course, is to either kill or completely incapacitate the paladin as quickly as possible. I've come very close to the former several times because I CAN'T ignore the paladin. At 9th level he's got the whole +6 to hit (16 Cha, Divine Bond), +18 to damage, and bypasses all DR until my baddie is dead. What this does is force me to class a major villain outside the reasonable abilities of other party members to deal with and focus on the paladin in order to make the encounter last longer then 2 rounds. If the paladin goes down quickly (which he must before he can swift-action heal himself), things get MUCH more challenging for the other PCs. Of course, the half orc Ordained Champion of Gorum reluctantly bursting to heal will often just bring the paladin back . . .
Do you often have the bbeg alone? This is a major mistake. Single enemy encounters simply dont work in 3.x/pathfinder. Dont do them. Put minions in the paladins way. He then either has to wait to use his smite, and thus not be that effective for the first few rounds of combat, or smite the minions (assuming they are evil) and then not have a smite left for the big bad. You can mitigate the paladin cutting your big bad guy to pieces immediately without outright killing/incapacitating him. And when the paladin finally does fight his way through the minions and smites the bad guy, this is when he is supposed to shine. Its his moment in the sun, let him have it.
I don't like this. I don't want the paladin to commonly be the center of attention in a party of 7, and I don't want the player to feel like I'm picking on him just so I can keep the encounter interesting for the other players.
What else is in your party? Is your paladin a full plate wearing slow plotting ball of smity death? Play to the rest of the party's strengths. Make the ground slippery (requiring acrobatics checks to move), require movement, flight, magic, or stealth to defeat the encounter. You can let other characters shine without directly opposing the paladin. If you tell us what else in your party im sure we can come up with ideas.
Essentially, what I'm getting at is that the difference between an evil encounter vs. a neutral encounter becomes ludicrous when you throw a paladin in the mix. Paladins should definitely get their time in the limelight, just not 80% of the time, and not at such a high lumen count that they clearly outclass the other party members; after all, we're talking about a group of Heroes here. Alignment of the bad guys alone should NOT be the deciding factor in who gets to stand out.
I dont know where you get 80% from. Its not untill 10th level that a paladin could even smite in all of a 4 encounter day. Do you have short days in your campaign? Rethink that. If there are 4 or 5 fights in a day, the paladin has to pick and choose when he smites, this gives the other characters a chance to shine. If you mix in some non-obvious neutral enemies (mercenaries or misguided neutral/good npcs) then all of a sudden the paladin cant smite willy nilly, and has to stop and detect first, which takes time, makes the encounter longer, and gives other characters time in the spotlight. Or he takes a chance, and sometimes his smite fizzles.
Finally, from experience, I can pretty much guarantee that your major encounters opponents (which the paladin saves his smites for) are going to consist largely of evil outsiders, undead, and evil dragons after about 10th level. Anything else requires class levels or advancement, which not all of us have time for.
Well that is not the case in my game, most enemies are in fact NOT one of those. Perhaps the 'final' boss is, but that happens like once in 5 or 6 sessions. And there i dont mind the paladin stealing the show. Also if you are worried about higher CR enemies without having to create them with levels, look at the various 3.5 sources. Convert them over to pathfinder (you can even go the simple way and JUST figure out their cmb/cmd) then you have a whole host of non-outsider/dragon/undead enemies to choose from. You can also grab npcs from a host of sources such as Pathfinder Database to pull npcs that are not one of the big 3 and not have to create them yourself.
Not to mention, if the paladin is saving his smites for the big bad guys, then arent there
Not that it matters, but I'm coming from 25+ years playing DnD in all it's incarnations, most of it judging; I tinker with house rules constantly. I should also mention that my players are all Living Greyhawk veterans and absolute sharks at character building and tactics. I generally have to be very creative with encounter design to keep things interesting for them.
Experienced and smart players are hard to challenge ofcourse, but that is part of the fun of dming for them isnt it? If it stops being fun, its time to pass the mantle of DM on to someone else for a while, and recharge.
But in summary, yes, if you put no moral ambiguity, and fight mostly evil enemies, with an evil outsider/dragon/undead showing up as the big bad all by himself every session, the paladin will be overpowered. But I have never played in, or read an adventure that had this sort of a situation. Certainly the paizo adventure paths do not behave this way. And I expect they are probably a good example of what kind of game the PFRPG works best in.
|
Hi All,
we had an encounter recently in my campaign featuring a young green dragon. My party consists of 3 level 7 characters. One of them is a Half-Orc paladin. He and the others managed to kill the dragon in 2 rounds. But without the others he would have killed it in 3 rounds. No big magic equipment just using class skills.
He has str 18 and chr 16. He used a nonmagical great axe. He had 2 rounds to prepare and used magic weapon and bull strength. And he also used smite evil.
So at level 7 he attacked the dragon:
+17/+12
He dealt
d12+24 damage
With each hit. No damage reduction.He hit the dragon 4 times in 2 rounds for approx 120 points of damage. The dragon had 133. The dragon did approx 40 points of damage in these 2 rounds (breath weapon 1st round, 7 attacks the second).
My problem is that this should have been a CR9 encounter for a level7 party. I don't think it is ok for a level 7 character to defeat a CR9 encounter without effort. And he can do it 3 times a day easily, using lay on hands to heal himself in betwean battles.
I agree that the Paladin is the champion of good, but this is way too powerful. None of the other classes can do this. A fighter or a barbarian may be able to defeat the dragon alone, with luck and serious injuries. A spellcaster can maybe defeat the dragon with a lucky spell, but they have to overcome spell resistance too.
I know that nerfing classes are not a popular thing. I would recommend reducing the duration of the smite for a single round. He can still kill the dragon in 3 rounds but he is using all 3 smite attempts to do so.
What do you think?
Brain
Like many of the others, I have real questions about how the combat was under-played from the dragon's side. A young green dragon is CR8, not CR9.
1) How did the paladin have two rounds to buff with those spells and the dragon, with the dragon's +15 perception and blindsense and darkvision? If it was in a dungeon (why would a green dragon be indoors?), someone casting buff spells would merely present a perception check of DC 10 + 1 per 10', so the dragon, 40' from the "door" would have to roll a -1 on a D20 to detect them.
Besides, you'd be more likely to encounter a young green dragon resting just underwater and out of sight than one standing in a dungeon. He detects you, you don't detect him. Think of a wolf spider.
2) How did the paladin get 4 attacks in the first two rounds? Did the paladin take two full attack options? Did someone teleport him into melee? This math makes no sense, and makes me question the entire encounter. Most likely the dragon's first action would be either entangle spell or 6d6 acid damage from a distance, getting as many party members as possible.
3) Why was the dragon focusing on the Half-orc? Was it because of the damage? This dragon is built for power attack, cleave, and great cleave. When (if) he closed, he would have likely used flight as a move action to coast overhead and land in the back ranks, using bite with reach to attack with power attack the least armored foe, attacking at +10 to hit with a bite and doing 2d6+16 points of damage, and then cleaved at +10 to the next least armored opponent, and if that hit, striking yet a third.
4) A prepared party of 4 7th level characters, fully stocked on spells, etc, and one of whom is a paladin should not have a terrific challenge with a young CR8 dragon. Weak casters may die, but that's about it.
Edit--I guess he's actually a juvenile green dragon, so a little more hp and to hit and damage, and he has frightful presence, which may shake up the back rows (not the paladin), otherwise same tactics.
|
|
For the record, in the Adventure Path Council of Thieves I am GMing, the only party member deaths have been:
--A mystic theurge, who died to an Erinyes. However, he was rezzed the next round by the Breath of Life scroll found earlier in the adventure.
--And a paladin.
Yes, the paladin is the only death, defeated by 3 shadows in melee as the exhausted party was making a hasty exit from the Nessian Spiral. She was turned in to a shadow herself after taking 17 points of strength damage in two rounds,and they had to kill her after she raised as a shadow herself. Gruesomely awesome end to my wife's character.