|
@Tacticslion
choosing the stats or natural ability vs getting whatever you get from birth
True, but you are looking it from the single character point of view. If X hasn't the innate talent/hasn't been chosen, etc. he can't be a <insert class name>.
Reality and population numbers work the opposite way. Every 1.000 persons, X have perfect pitch and can be singers (I would make some comment about how some famous singer voice, but it is not relevant). Some of them get the training to become bards (note that singing and bards or even the perform skills aren't anymore synonymous. Only 2 of the basic bards abilities require a perform check, and both can be done using several different specializations of the skill).
Every 1.000 persons Y get some bloodline that allow them to cast spells. Some of them go on and develop that ability.
Cleric and Druids are trained classes. They can have a natural calling for what they do, but it is not a requirement. there requirement is faith in a specific deity or in the natural world.
choosing vs being chosen
Here we agree.
Oracles and to a lesser extent witches are chosen by some particular entity. Both links are heavily underplayed by Paizo, leaving the decision if that link has some in game effect to the single gaming group. The net result is that generally it has none unless the GM and player like to spend time on side quests and personal development.
On the other hand I think that having a witch (or a whole group) being chose by the "Spirit of the Rift Valley" as the protector of that area will work very well. The power of the witches could even vane if they move too far from the area.
And in literature witches routinely contact otherworldly powers to get their powers. In a world like Golarion you don't need to sell your soul to the Devil to get powers. They could have contacted an inevitable, a solar, an elemental lord or any other member of a very long list of powerful entities.
Like a cleric get his power from a promise of life long devotion, a witch can get his powers from some kind of bargain with a powerful entity.
If we use that approach it become fairly easy to imagine a witch training an apprentice as a replacement or even as a gift for his patron.
|
Whether a C is a PC or NPC, we can assume that figuring out the best career path for themselves occupies far more time that we, as Players, allocate to it within the rest of our lives. In fact you could argue, and I have frequently heard the argument made the other way, that NPCs are unfairly much better versed in the rules governing their own world than PCs can ever be.
I will reiterate that it is hard to predict, and all we can possibly do is reach some sort of consensus.
That's... a hard claim to make. They'll be substantially more versed in the common minutae and the day-to-day rhythms, the normal language and social interaction with people and animals, and so on, in myriads of ways we can't hope to fathom... but they'll never know as much as player without cracking open a book and learning that a sorcerer who has <insert XP number here> gains <insert level here> and access to <insert spell level here> per day.
Don't get me wrong - you can approximate metagame knowledge as in-game knowledge. I'm versed in how you do it and have made the argument that, to some extent, it must be done. But you can't get exact numbers in many cases, and even when you do, it'll look a lot more like our subtle variations to those in-world or else come off like an Order of the Stick style meta-world filled with meta-knowledge.
I'm not entirely sure I understand your point.
Are you saying that the game world must somehow accommodate an "elite" group of people caused by metagaming?
That's OOTS style, surely.
Perhaps you're not saying that - I don't know.
To my mind we have to explain metagaming in game world terms, maybe as luck, acumen, what have you. There's no reason why an NPC shouldn't be created using the same metagming techniques as PCs.
Some people in the world just seem to have all their pegs lined up in a row - others don't.
And here's where I think you're going wrong.
Witches are chosen by their patron, not the other way around.
You chose your career because you liked it and excelled at it and were able to be trained in it due to natural talent.
Witches don't do that.
Apart from PC witches.
First of all, like I said before, I don't really like giving PCs any more advantages than they already have. The world is easy enough for PCs as it is without adding some crippling factor to the NPC population forcing them down non-optimal career paths.
Secondly, taking your point, we can still apply a bit of "survival of the fittest" / "supply and demand" to the set up (similar to what I think Diego just said above). If 20 patrons all choose their witch every few weeks, some of those witches will rise to prominence, others will fade to obscurity. In extreme cases the patron that forces their witch down some useless route will eventually become irrelevant. The witches that end up being dominant in the world will be the ones that were fortuitously steered down the right path. Even if they didn't make the choice themselves, the effect on the world will be the same.
In terms of PC optimisation, my view of the world is that PCs, for all their careful optimising and planning, only reproduce what NPCs do naturally within the game world anyway. In fact, they probably do it worse, because a lot of the time mini-maxers get caught out by their own mathematical tunnel vision. Again in my view of the world, PCs die an awful lot more than NPCs do, so I don't see them in any way as more successful.
And solars wouldn't rule the world(s) because they want to. They would rule the world(s) because there are active, nearly-as-powerful malevolent forces at work.
Also, the quips and quotes are not really helpful to your point - it would be useful for all good souls if Solars took over everything. It would be their duty to sacrifice themselves by taking over the everything if they had it in their ability to do so and that's what was required. And, checking the Solar entry, they're more than ready to do something like that.
Sorry you didn't like my quotes, but I think they are entirely helpful and what's wrong with a bit of humour anyway.
We are about to move on to an alignment debate if we're not careful, but I completely reject the notion that my life would be improved if such-and-such "good" entity took over everything regardless of what they sacrificed. Either in this world or the RPG one. Additionally, one only has to look at the religions of our own world to see plenty of examples of omnipotent "good" powers that for some reason or another choose not to interfere.
Who knows what motivates these hyper-intelligent hyper-powerful beings in the RPG world. I think we should assume that a creature with an intelligence of 20+ is not going to be fully described by a bestiary entry or fully governed by some trivial reading of its alignment.
3rd edition changed this by making this 95% contingent of the game world a bit more interesting with NPC classes, however I personally haven't lost the concept that they cannot actually progress in any other class.This right here is a contradiction in your stated methodology of world design. Why can they not progress in other classes? What prevents them? What form of arbitration - that isn't part of the game world rules - are you using to determine this?
Well, touché I suppose, though it isn't that difficult to explain. Maybe NPC classes are just easier, or less in need of expensive tuition. All I'm wanting to do is introduce something that was there in the original version of the game anyway, which is that PC classes are too difficult for the majority to pursue.
That's where your problem runs. You're focusing on fiat that reinforces your "everything is bad" interpretation instead of fiat that reinforces the "this will work out" interpretation. Switch fiats. Neither requires that much effort and mostly works with RAW. It'll go easier on you. :)
Erm. Am I? Everything is bad?! I'm lost.
What I think I'm trying to do is reduce "fiat" of any sort. As much as possible, that is.
Richard
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 times at first level, 3 if you are a wizard specialized in conjurations and 4 if you are a sorcerer, assuming you aren't using anything for defence.
If our bear don't fail its check he will move 30' instead of 40' as moving within the greased area cost double, so the caster is well within striking range.
Here's the thing; if the caster goes first, the bear may not even get a chance to move at all. Plus, one standard attack from a bear is still better than a full attack, which is what you're subjecting Robin the Boy Fighter to with the slumber thing.
Grease is perceptible and animals are smart enough to avoid slippery areas. It is a tactic that can work well in a area delimited by narrow confines like a dungeon or a gully, but in woods or plains it has all the problems people see with slumber, its usefulness is very situational and it require some expendable cannon fodder between you and the bear.
BTW, your ally is giving cover to the bear.
How is that relevant? You can cast it on the bear's space, or even in an ideal situation while it is moving. Allies are good, but the bow-wielding grease sorcerer actually has a reasonable chance of shutting down the bear on their own, which someone with slumber hex basically cannot do. Risky? Yes. But far less risky than relying on slumber hex.
Good luck hitting it with a first level spellcaster using a bow (that was the initial example, elf spellcaster with a bow and grease). AC 16, +4 for the cover, maybe even +4 for the ally in melee. That is a AC of 20 or 24.
Killing a bear with a shortbow (NPC, so half value gear) on the average require 12 successful hits. With a AC of 16 and a +2 to hit at fist level we are speaking of something like 36 attacks.
If that spellcaster want to live he need plenty of burly warriors with longspears.
Exactly like the one with slumber.
Why wouldn't your ally just stand out of the way? They could actually move between you and the bear, then ready an action to move directly behind the bear as soon as it passes them.
+2 to to hit? I was thinking more along the lines of +23. Or maybe I'll summon something. Or maybe I'll just back up 30 feet and take a shot.
High risk? Absolutely. But still much more practical than slumber hex. If I have burly warriors with me, at least they don't have to move next to the bear and stop.
Putting something to sleep for 1-2 rounds just isn't that helpful unless you have a melee friend that can go toe to toe with it in terms of a full attack for at least one round. Also, they should be the forgiving kind, in case the bear makes its saving throw. As noted many, many times, you only get one shot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's not really that much fiat needed. I actually broke down how money works in a fairly believable way in a blog article of mine, and it was based entirely on the mechanics of the game, and is a method I use to get an idea of how much a community is worth in terms of moving cash and how much financial clout a ruler of his community has. Yet money is one of those things that is widely considered eternally and unabashedly broken.
I myself approach world building from both a conceptual idea and the mechanics. If I'm going to have the entirety of the mechanics in my world then my world needs to reflect that. Because of that, things like running water are not uncommon in my campaigns because create water is a cantrip and creating resetting magical traps of create water just requires a few hundred gold pieces and a 3rd level adept. This in turn opens up awesome possibilities not available in the real world, such as the ability to find small settlements in otherwise inhospitable lands such as deserts (while create water isn't very effective for full-scale farming, it's plenty for drinking, bathing, washing, and watering your tomatoes).
I don't find the slumber hex to be world changing. Nor game changing. Ideal scenario, you have a witch, and the witch gets lucky. I find it more likely that a giant would get taken down by a bunch of nobodies with slings. Alchemical weapons are indeed game changers. They are a great equalizer between humanoids and things that are bigger and more resilient than them. Launching a flask of alchemist fire from a sling (do-able since you can load a sling with bullets or impromptu things like random rocks, and even if your GM imposes a -4 penalty for it being an improvised weapon it's a touch attack so you're still not doing badly) allows a lot of nobodies to bombard a big creature with alchemical weapons.
I explained this is why you likely won't see many golems on a fantasy battlefield. A platoon of mundane soldiers can just grenade the thing and destroy it in a round or two. Alchemical weapons are cheap for what they are capable of doing, and cheap enough that your average nonheroic 1st level warrior (such as a soldier or town guard) can carry a few of them on them as part of their standard gear package.
To show how common alchemical goodies are, you can buy them freely in thorpes. Though thorps lack the manpower to really drive off a CR 9 frost giant, they have enough manpower to make a giant think twice about whether or not it's worth trying to rob them. Even 20 people chucking alchemist fire from slings equates to a potential of around 20d6+20d6 points of fire damage (140 damage average, though some will miss and some will crit). And that's from 1 round of alchemical weapons pelting the giant. Since it's a frost-giant you mentioned, he takes 50% more damage (putting a single round volley of alchemist fires into the realm of dead giant).
Alchemical weapons are a much bigger deal. Anyone, including commoners, can decide they want to learn to create alchemical weapons. You just need to invest ranks into Craft (Alchemy). They are cheap. The average person in PF makes 20 gp per month and spends 10 gp in living expenses and taxes. That means every 2 months, the average citizen can purchase an alchemical weapon if they need to. Their government would also make between 5-10 gp off each citizen (potentially more if they were driven into a a poor lifestyle rather than common) which can be used to pay guards and purchase alchemical weapons in case of some giant monster attack.
Even a thorpe wouldn't be defenseless against a lone giant, even if the entire population was nothing but adepts, aristocrats, commoners, experts, and warriors.
The Slumber-loving Witch in my campaign was actually beaten by an opponent who used the Slumber Hex on her.
That said Slumber-loving Witch was an elf and gave up the sleep immunity for another racial trait was... interesting, since I was not aware of that when I created the encounter. She still lives, though!
Are you saying that the game world must somehow accommodate an "elite" group of people caused by metagaming?
That's OOTS style, surely.
Perhaps you're not saying that - I don't know.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that they can have a valid understanding of what works and what doesn't (though wizards can objectively measure INT as a numerical score (via detect thoughts), everyone can get the specific strength score of anyone else, and hit dice and hit points are measurable in a "more than X" or "less than Y" sort of way.
To my mind we have to explain metagaming in game world terms, maybe as luck, acumen, what have you. There's no reason why an NPC shouldn't be created using the same metagming techniques as PCs.
... okay, but this is where you're running into problems.
1) NPCs are created using the same metagming techniques as the PCs. The difference is in who is making the decision and why.2) In the world, as I was trying to say, the people do explain it in world terms, whatever that is.
3) The players do not.
Let me try again.
The player has metagame knowledge. This metagame knowledge is necessary to abstract their interaction with a world that they don't live in. This metagame knowledge is far more detailed than anything anyone in the world would ever know.
The GM has the same metagame knowledge for the same reasons.
The NON-player characters do not have this metagame knowledge. As the GM makes all choices about their creation, it is entirely up to the GMs fiat how optimized they are - not up to the rules, but up to his fiat. There are no strict rules governing who can be what class or why. THAT SAID, if a GM follows the fluff of the witch class it won't be common enough for people to choose to become witches. This bears out when you consider an NPC doesn't exist until a GM makes them.
The player character does not have this metagame knowledge, despite the player having it. The player character benefits from the player's out-of-character knowledge because that's the function of player-player character interaction.
Claiming otherwise is applying fiat beyond the standard presumptions of the world for specific purposes.
Let's look at the story (fluff) for the Iconic Witch, Feiya. Bear in mind, she's meant to be a player character. Full write-up is here.
That happiness came to a sudden halt on the fateful day that brought her to the attention of a recently sundered coven of witches who dwelled on the border with Irrisen. Led by a particularly cruel green hag named Nysima, the coven had lost its youngest member to a squad of Blackravens from Trollheim and was still reeling from its sudden loss of power. They witnessed the child as she skipped away from the caravan stop, following a family of deer deep into the woods, and immediately set upon her.
There’s no telling what cruelties the witches would have visited upon the girl had they not suffered their recent loss. As it was, another, no less horrific, fate awaited young Feiya. The two crones seized the child and whisked her away to the east, their mad cackling drowning out the young girl’s terrified screams. By the time they reached their snow- and thatch-covered huts, they had given the child a new name and were already envisioning the return of their lost powers.
The next twelve years were a blur of pain, terror, and misery as Feiya endured the crones’ sadistic attempts to teach her their dark craft. Alternating between tutelage and torture, the witches frequently let their cruel natures impede their instruction. For while the young girl showed unmistakable promise and aptitude, she also possessed a defiance that only the harshest of punishments could suppress. On numerous occasions, Feiya tried to escape her imprisonment, only to be tracked down and captured after no more than a few hours. The retributions for these failed attempts have scarred her body and mind in ways that no magic can ever heal.
One brisk autumn day, after being beaten for failing to properly brew a batch of poisonous blue whinnis, Feiya was sent off to gather herbs. While harvesting more whinnis root, she spied a fox watching her from atop a large rime-covered rock. Unlike the region’s typical arctic specimens, this creature had a striking red and orange coloration that stood in stark contrast to the endless snow. There was something about the way the creature watched her that beckoned to Feiya. She approached carefully, and was astonished by his calm and focus. As she neared, the fox trotted a small distance away, turned, and gave her a look that was clearly an invitation to follow. This process was repeated again and again, and before she knew it, Feiya was following the fox on another escape attempt.
By sundown, the two witches had realized Feiya’s intentions. Furious, they set off in pursuit, confident that, as with all previous instances, their hunt would be brief. This time, however, Feiya had guidance. The fox led her along trails never before seen by human nor hag, staying always just ahead and out of reach. When she needed nourishment, the fox led her to game and fresh water. When she needed rest, it stood vigil while she slept. In this manner, Feiya was able to elude capture for more than two weeks.
One particularly cold evening, however, Feiya’s luck ran out. With her pursuers hot on her trail and the fox nowhere to be seen, she found herself trapped in a river valley surrounded on three sides by impassable mountains. Feiya could sense the witches closing in, could hear their promises of pain on the chilling wind. She took shelter in a shallow cave behind the waterfall that fed the river, a curious little grotto whose far wall was emblazoned with a crude carving of a butterfly. Like an animal run to ground, Feiya steeled herself for the coming confrontation. She had come too far this time to surrender without a fight. She determined then and there that her days of living under someone else’s yoke were over. She would have her freedom, either in this life or the next.
It was at that moment that the fox reappeared. Only now, there was something different in the way he approached her. He had always shown a preternatural intelligence, but as Feiya stared into his eyes, she saw a consciousness and a determination that would have frightened her had she not come to trust the animal so implicitly. As she watched him, Feiya was startled by a sudden and overwhelming flurry of sensations invading her mind. She sank, dazed, to the cave floor as the feelings slowly crystallized into coherence. Less a voice than a series of emotions, the promise it offered was unmistakable. Feiya said nothing, but her acceptance was as clear as it was quick.
What followed will forever haunt Feiya’s dreams. Raspy promises of pain and suffering rose above the din of the waterfall as the witches drew near to cave mouth. Feiya could see the outlines of their hunched bodies just beyond the blanket of cascading water, but before she could act, another sound arose. It started as a low rumble, then quickly gained volume, drowning out both hags and water and sending tremors through the cave floor. Then the valley erupted with the screeching and roaring of what could only have been a forest’s worth of wild animals, punctured occasionally by the shrill curse of a hag.
Long minutes passed as Feiya stood, too frightened to move. Then, as gradually as it began, the noise subsided until all that remained was the crash of the waterfall. Feiya crouched down behind a rocky outcropping, afraid to leave the shelter of the cave. As the minutes turned into hours, exhaustion claimed her, and, despite her anxiety, she succumbed to a fitful sleep.
When dawn finally arrived, Feiya stepped out from the cave, not quite sure what she was expecting to see. A fresh blanket of snow had covered the land, hiding any clues she might have found concerning the events of the previous night. Yet the feeling of relief was palpable. The fox crept up and paused at her side. She was finally free.
Feiya never discusses the events of that night, nor the particulars of the strange pact she entered into. She may one day try to track down the parents she barely remembers, but for now she is content to roam the world, relishing her freedom, seeking new experiences, and developing her newfound power. Though she desperately desires the company of others, formative years spent away from civilized society have left Feiya lacking in social graces, and her awkwardness often leads to unfortunate misunderstandings. Nevertheless, her inherent good nature tends to win out, and her occasional flares of temper are countered by her steadfast loyalty to her friends. Feiya relishes travel, and having identified the butterfly carving in the waterfall cave as the found-mark of a Desnan priest, she gladly embraces that faith, hoping that her wanderings may cast more light on who she really is—and what entity fosters her magical abilities.
That right there shows that, despite the fact that she clearly had the aptitude - the potential and innate ability - it was not until she made a pact with an otherworldly entity that first came to her that she was able to become a witch.
In metagame terms, the player chose "human witch", chose the familiar "fox", chose the stats, the feats, the skills, the spells, and the (heh) slumber hex.
In the in-world terms, the character was harshly beaten for years, forced to learn things that didn't work, and eventually made a pact with an otherworldly entity that sought her out and led her to safety due to its own nature and whims - Feiya could never have hoped to force the entity, whatever it was, to give her the power it did.
You say that you don't want fiat, but then you say you don't want PCs to have advantages that NPCs don't have.
That means you're going to want to customize every monster in the Bestiary - after all, those were designed with all 10s and 11s in their stats and without the benefit of looking in the various books.
That means you're going to want to make sure that all the creatures with spells like wish anywhere near them have absolutely perfect everything - fabricate, masterwork transformation, and create demiplane, an permanency (for lots of eternal-buffs) all are able to be imitated with the wish spell.
There's no reason a pit fiend should not have every useful perament spell on themselves, for example... unless you use fiat to explain it away in the game-world that you're creating.
You can't say, "I don't want to use fiat" but then use fiat.
Erm. Am I? Everything is bad?! I'm lost.
The "everything is bad" was intended as a humorous statement. The fact that you see Slumber as game changing is only because you apply specific fiat that forces slumber out of it's inherently supposed obscurity into something that everyone and their mother can and should have access to.
You're saying there's a line between "extremely rare" and "all over the place", and I'm saying that where you choose to put that line is entirely up to you as game designer.
Paizo has put the line safely into the, "it's fine because people don't use metagame knowledge to optimize their race/class choices and NPCs aren't built by players".
|
|
There's not really that much fiat needed. I actually broke down how money works in a fairly believable way in a blog article of mine, and it was based entirely on the mechanics of the game, and is a method I use to get an idea of how much a community is worth in terms of moving cash and how much financial clout a ruler of his community has. Yet money is one of those things that is widely considered eternally and unabashedly broken.
I tried to figure out economics once on the basis that it should be directly proportional to CR, the idea being that the more dangerous you are the more money you're worth to kill.
Economics is indeed one of those things that I struggle with in the fantasy world, so if you want to post up a link to your blog entry please do.
Richard
@Tacticslion
choosing the stats or natural ability vs getting whatever you get from birthTrue, but you are looking it from the single character point of view. If X hasn't the innate talent/hasn't been chosen, etc. he can't be a <insert class name>.
Reality and population numbers work the opposite way. Every 1.000 persons, X have perfect pitch and can be singers (I would make some comment about how some famous singer voice, but it is not relevant). Some of them get the training to become bards (note that singing and bards or even the perform skills aren't anymore synonymous. Only 2 of the basic bards abilities require a perform check, and both can be done using several different specializations of the skill).
Every 1.000 persons Y get some bloodline that allow them to cast spells. Some of them go on and develop that ability.
I'm not actually disagreeing on this. That... only makes my point stronger, actually.
choosing vs being chosen
Here we agree.
Oracles and to a lesser extent witches are chosen by some particular entity. Both links are heavily underplayed by Paizo, leaving the decision if that link has some in game effect to the single gaming group. The net result is that generally it has none unless the GM and player like to spend time on side quests and personal development.On the other hand I think that having a witch (or a whole group) being chose by the "Spirit of the Rift Valley" as the protector of that area will work very well. The power of the witches could even vane if they move too far from the area.
And in literature witches routinely contact otherworldly powers to get their powers. In a world like Golarion you don't need to sell your soul to the Devil to get powers. They could have contacted an inevitable, a solar, an elemental lord or any other member of a very long list of powerful entities.
Like a cleric get his power from a promise of life long devotion, a witch can get his powers from some kind of bargain with a powerful entity.
If we use that approach it become fairly easy to imagine a witch training an apprentice as a replacement or even as a gift for his patron.
Sure. We can envision lots of things.
But the fact is that's fiat! All of it! Thus, and here's the kicker, it's only as common as the GM wants it to be.
That's what I mean. If you don't make all (or even most, or even many) of your NPCs like they were PCs, you wouldn't end up with this problem.
The Runelords, some of the most powerful and terrible villains around, are single class super-specialist wizards who also blow feats to specialize in wielding pole arms.
That's not even close to being optimized. But why aren't they optimized? Because it doesn't matter and because they don't need to be to overpower the rest of the world because the rest of the world isn't optimized either.
I mean, if you're just looking for immortality, why ever become a lich? No need to bother - there are other methods. Why bother with the Sun Orchid Elixir instead of just the Immortality discover?
Those kinds of questions just go on like that under that sort of presumption.
|
|
...
If I've understood you correctly, and I did read all of your last post twice (apart from Feiya's story which I only read once!), then what I think you're saying is this.
The population of the world is split into three:
1) PCs, created using PC metagame knowledge (or not)
2) NPCs, created using GM fiat
3) Everyone else
I believe that your argument is that the choices which govern (1) and (2) are not applicable to (3). This latter group are completely true to trope - whatever that might be. As soon as you want to break the mould with anyone in (3), they become a (2).
Is that right?
I also think your saying that if you start applying the freedoms of (2) to your (3) en-masse the world breaks.
Have I got that right too?
Richard
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Economics is indeed one of those things that I struggle with in the fantasy world, so if you want to post up a link to your blog entry please do.
Sure thing. Economics in Pathfinder and D&D. It basically explains how wealth can work based on the mechanics. It derives conclusions from things that are mechanically set in the rules, such as the amount of money that you can make with skills, different forms of currency (such as with trade goods), and discusses how nobles/rulers/governments can acquire their money and where it can then turn around and go. Finally it explains how the traffic of magic items and spellcasting services fit into the world and how it's really not so improbable.
I tried to figure out economics once on the basis that it should be directly proportional to CR, the idea being that the more dangerous you are the more money you're worth to kill.
Richard
CR vs Wealth is going to give you some really dodgy results. While the two are loosely connected from a purely gaming perspective, a lot of creatures with high CRs don't have any money at all. Tigers for example don't have any treasure or equipment to loot, so getting jumped by a tiger in the jungle is just going to reward you with some scars (though a clever GM might allow the PCs to sell the tiger's pelt, claws, bones, and teeth for something similar to the average treasure of the tiger's CR).
There is indeed a correlation to CR and treasure, but that's more tied to the risk vs reward of adventuring. Higher CR enemies tend to have more wealth (same with PCs). Likewise, dungeons with tons more traps tend to be guarding more treasure. That sort of thing. But adventuring doesn't an economy make in itself. It might cause a settlement to expand suddenly if an ancient dungeon is discovered nearby, but the majority of the world is going to function based on the average Joe. The other 95% of the population who is pulling around 3-7 gp per week.
There's also, humorously, a way that magic helps to reduce inflation. Things like planar ally and planar binding are generally more successful when you are forking over bribes. Bribes that are removed from the world afterwards. Likewise, a number of magic spells consume valuable components or require the sacrifice of valuables to make the spells work (for example, bless water requires 25 gp worth of materials that are consumed in the process).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if a lot of people could choose to be a 1st level Justin Timberlake, they would. Some people even try. But most people don't have that potentiality. Still, Justin Timerlake exists, for good or ill.
When you play a roleplaying game, you can decide to play the Justin Timberlake, rather than the people who aspired to such abilities but fell short. You also don't play people who died in infancy or freak pitchfork accidents or spotted tick fever.
PCs have what is known statistically as a "selection bias." Adventurers have those traits which, if you have them, make you an adventurer.
Economics is indeed one of those things that I struggle with in the fantasy world, so if you want to post up a link to your blog entry please do.Sure thing. Economics in Pathfinder and D&D. It basically explains how wealth can work based on the mechanics. It derives conclusions from things that are mechanically set in the rules, such as the amount of money that you can make with skills, different forms of currency (such as with trade goods), and discusses how nobles/rulers/governments can acquire their money and where it can then turn around and go. Finally it explains how the traffic of magic items and spellcasting services fit into the world and how it's really not so improbable.
Your link is broken.
Magic's effects on life in a fantasy world
Seem to be the ones you were referring to.
Thank you very much Caedwyr. You are correct. I'ma go see if I can edit the previous post to fix the links 'cause I'm a little OCD like that. :P
In higher level play you need to take an ever broader look at the universe of options. For example: wish. There is an entire race of beings whose job it is to keep reality in check. Abuse those magics and you should expect a visitation eventually. Things like this matter.
Also, the higher you get the more rare you are. At level 1, you're one in a billion. At level 20, you're one out of a billion. There's a difference. You probably no longer really care or are involved in goblin raids. You care about casting out pit fiends and fending off terrors to an entire planet or plane of existence.
Back to items and economy, you can't buy high end gear in almost any city. As such, each piece is the culmination of half a year or more of crafting by someone and is more than likely looted than bought. It's equally hard to sell for anything near its actual value.
|
|
Everyone has its limit at how much Mary Sue the PC are.Again, this doesn't water down internal consistency - it simply means that the group of player characters end up as optimized as the players make them, regardless of the tendencies of the world at large, not because the characters choose something (outside of strange but potentially interesting role playing), but because the players do.
It's worth noting that at one time, Luke Skywalker was the only 1st level Jedi in a galaxy of several trillion people. Bilbo Baggins was one of a handful of halfling adventurers in every generation, most of them his relatives (on the Took side). Conan was a master linguist and a skilled tactician; most Cimmerians were not even literate. It should never be assumed that PCs are in any way typical.
Even when PCs and NPCs use the same rules, as with NPCs with adventuring classes, there exists a PC/NPC divide. NPCs are made to serve a purpose in the world; a PC is made to serve the purposes of one player.
... where's the "Mary Sue" in all this? My apologies, but I don't understand the reference as it's being used here.
(I think I'm familiar with the most normal uses of the term.)
Mary Sue as the PC gets all the tools and are the perfect pearls that shall be always better than the NPC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think if a lot of people could choose to be a 1st level Justin Timberlake, they would. Some people even try. But most people don't have that potentiality. Still, Justin Timerlake exists, for good or ill.
When you play a roleplaying game, you can decide to play the Justin Timberlake, rather than the people who aspired to such abilities but fell short. You also don't play people who died in infancy or freak pitchfork accidents or spotted tick fever.
PCs have what is known statistically as a "selection bias." Adventurers have those traits which, if you have them, make you an adventurer.
These are great points. It also goes with the idea that adventuring is dangerous and it kind of weeds out the non-heroic ones. Adventuring is a high risk, high reward sort of profession. It's one of the reasons that adventurers are sometimes viewed with a mixture of awe and curiosity, and sometimes disdain by people who live a more mundane life.
It's not to say that some people don't decide that they're going to try to be adventurers and go out to ancient tombs to find treasures, or decide that they can be heroes that drive the kobolds out of the mines. It's just most of them don't come back, or realize that they're risking their lives and retire early if they had any success at all.
I mean, the average gold you make from a single CR 1 encounter, split 4 ways is 65 gp. To put that into perspective, the average monthly income of an untrained commoner taking 10 on Profession or Craft checks is 20 gp, and 10 gp of that gets eaten in living expenses. So you just made like 3+ months worth of gold from that single CR 1 encounter. A full adventure could give you a year's worth of money or more.
Mary Sue as the PC gets all the tools and are the perfect pearls that shall be always better than the NPC.Everyone has its limit at how much Mary Sue the PC are.It's worth noting that at one time, Luke Skywalker was the only 1st level Jedi in a galaxy of several trillion people. Bilbo Baggins was one of a handful of halfling adventurers in every generation, most of them his relatives (on the Took side). Conan was a master linguist and a skilled tactician; most Cimmerians were not even literate. It should never be assumed that PCs are in any way typical.
Even when PCs and NPCs use the same rules, as with NPCs with adventuring classes, there exists a PC/NPC divide. NPCs are made to serve a purpose in the world; a PC is made to serve the purposes of one player.
... where's the "Mary Sue" in all this? My apologies, but I don't understand the reference as it's being used here.
(I think I'm familiar with the most normal uses of the term.)
But I'm not seeing this in the above scenarios or holding that idea of gameplay at all.
I'm probably just not seeing what you're trying to say - if that's the case, I'm sorry.
What I'm trying to say (which is backed up by the stories noted above) is that it's all somewhat fiat-based, even when you want to run under the rules presumptions.
In the cases of those characters who were the "PCs" of the story noted above they ran, I wouldn't classify them as "Mary Sue" - they all had definitive, highly exploitable flaws that nearly led to their undoing on more than one occasion - not because they were overly specialized, either, but just because they had characteristics including strengths and weaknesses. They were still noticeably a cut above the average member of their race and exceedingly rare besides.
... aaaaaaaaaaand they were opposed by NPCs that also had PC class levels (at least some of them; I doubt the Imperial Commanders had PC class levels, regardless of what Star Wars d20 would have us believe). :)
In other words,
Even when PCs and NPCs use the same rules, as with NPCs with adventuring classes, there exists a PC/NPC divide. NPCs are made to serve a purpose in the world; a PC is made to serve the purposes of one player.
And to be clear, when I build my worlds, I build them with the presumptions that PCs and get what NPCs (monsters or otherwise) theoretically have access to if they go through the same processes... and vice verse.
... but I also don't presume anyone will go through the same process as anyone else.
And I also don't presume that the various NPCs are built with metagame knowledge (unless it's metagame knowledge that can be expressed as in-game knowledge through reasonable extrapolations on our part, such as the limits and abilities of spells).
... subjective stuff ...Totally agree. Like I said before, though, I write stuff which I publish, so I need to know what people in general feel is acceptably realistic.
As soon as the witch is deemed a threat then they will focus fire and kill her.Actually, I realised fairly recently that they would never know who it was. At least, as far as I can tell, using an SU is imperceptible.
Richard
Every game I have played in the GM lets the SU be known. Now the rules are silent, but even a silent, stilled spell can be recognized and spellcrafted by the rules, so I don't see why the slumber hex would not be recognized.
This is one again up to personal taste, and since it takes a standard action it should seem obvious that the witch is doing something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am saying that slumber is so awesome that it is a decent option even for this relatively crappy character who has...It is a decent option, however your assertion was that it was awesomesauce and needs a nerf. This just isn't bearing out.
It is 100% bearing out. I threw down the gauntlet and asked anyone to present anything that I could not show slumber to be stronger than. No one has succeeded. I don't know what else I can possibly do. And I didn't backpedal at all. That character was brought up in response to Diego after I made my full disclosure about having a character with slumber. She was never intended to support my argument in any way. You kept trying to turn it into that because you know you have to twist what I'm saying in order for it to seem like you have any kind of point whatever. So, back to sensible talk. Gauntlet re-thrown. Your move.
You have to be within 30 feet, a few monsters types are immune to it. You get one chance per monster and being within 30 feet if the save is made could get you killed. It is good, but not as great as you think it is.
Personally I think evil eye is better. Evil eye is mind affecting but it still affects more things than slumber does. You can keep trying, and even when you fail it takes affect. Dropping saves, attack rolls, AC and saves can cripple a monster. You just die over the course of a few rounds, but dead is dead. This is real game experience not theorycrafting. I found evil eye to be much more annoying as a GM.
edit: Spellcasting is a class ability. That is better than slumber. Familiars and Animal Companions are also class abilities. They are better. Eidolons are class abilities. They are better.
edit2: If I am late because I am still reading then give credit to whoever thought of these first. :)
It can be disjuncted and a/m fielded all the same.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Alchemical stuff...
I somewhat agree with you and somewhat disagree. While the PC don't have problems with alchemical items spoilage and accidents, a "real" village or combat unit depending on them will have that problem. A single accident with a alchemist fire flask in the deposit can wipe out a village or a combat unit. During the Renaissance Black powder for firearm generally was stored as such only in small quantities. The largest part was stored as sulphur, charcoal and saltpetre and mixed as needed. While black powder can last practically forever if stored properly, the chance of a accidental explosion are fairly high. I think that the same would apply for alchemist fire. Acid strong enough to be useful as a weapon has its set of problems, as any chemist can attest.
Then storing enough of the stuff to make a difference in a fight is expensive. probably a reasonable expense, but we see plenty of examples in real life where we or our government don't make reasonable expense to prevent a possible catastrophe, even when the prevention measures would cost way less that reconstructing after the catastrophe.
The golem comment is interesting. It make animated objects, with their hardness, way more interesting.
Alchemical stuff and slings. I would be very vary of throwing a vial of alchemical fire or acid with a sling. Again the risk of accidents would be fairly high, seeing how a sling work and the need to use a breakable container.
A staff sling (you can find a description in the 1st and 2nd edition of AD&D, or with a web search) on the other hand should present less risks, so the tactic will work well. Not a adventurer weapon, but for a a vilalge militia or even a military unit? Great.
A last comment: the Purify Food and Drink cantrip will be way more world changing than Create water. Recovering spoiled food is practically the same thing as conserving it. Practically the advent of canned food and refrigeration in one cantrip.
Change your create water trap into a Purify food container that work every time that it is opened and you have a refrigerator.
Cast it on grain contaminated by ergot and will make it edible.
Starvation would be way less common than in a typical Medieval or Renaissance setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand where the discussions are funneling down to and I do understand where you guys are coming from.
However I have difficulty, I must admit, abandoning the premise that the fantasy world should be a natural repercussion of the rules.
Paying attention to logic means we can have the sorts of discussions we've been having in this thread even during the game. As long as we, as players, and GMs, believe that the setting makes reasonable sense, then we can start interacting with it in terms of its own logic, rather than in terms of the rules.
I know there is a limit to this, but it's a limit I'm quite careful about pushing. And when I write material for other GMs to use, I worry quite a lot about setting-logic.
I'm also not terribly keen on the idea that PCs should have options available to them which the NPCs don't.
To my mind the game is the most fun when not only does the world feel real but also the PCs only have *some* measured / controlled advantage.
In D&D/Pathfinder PC advantage comes down to superior stats and access to PC classes in a world where only 5% of the remainder of the population is good enough to do the same. That's enough of an advantage for me - I don't really need the odds to be further tilted in my favour by being, for example, the only witch that can choose her patron.
I can accept the fact that every character in this fantasy world whose skin I inhabit is one of the superior ones. We none of us want to role-play farmers. However once I'm part of the PC-classed elite, I'm happy for all of us, PCs and NPCs, to be in the same boat.
If the world loses too much of its logic or I start to become too *special* within it then, within reason, which I know is woolly and subjective and all the rest of it, I start to disengage from it.
Finally I would like to say that whilst I think that these discussions we've been having are fascinating, lead to further appreciation and understanding, I do not believe that they can ever be conclusive.
I posted earlier about how...
You basically have two options.
1. Suspension of beleif, and not worrying too much about rules when writing. If the players insist on the NPC's working like PC's built to survive then the fantasy world died long ago, and there is no campaign setting.
2. You can realize slumber and other things are acceptable risk. When you do anything in life there is risk assessment. As I have said before the chances of a witch existing, having the slumber hex, not running and not dying, and having commoners brave enough to not die is so small that the chances are likely 1 in 10000 or worse. That makes them a non-issue and non-issues don't change game worlds or any other world.
You said you are doing this to set up your writing, but we have pointed out that the minute a lone giant attacks a village directly we will be questioning the stupidity of the giant. In a movie CR and such things don't exist so maybe you can say the giant's skin is so tough arrows dont matter. He may even allow himself to be stabbed as he laughs at those puny humans, but you want your story to use game mechanics and giants attacking villages head on will die, even if witches never exist.
The arrows from the militia are the real concern since the giant will be getting targeted from over a 100 feet away. People are real quick to out logical errors a lot faster than any logistical ones<----Read movie plot holes if you want examples.
I am not gonna ask why the witch did not use or have the slumber hex. I am going to ask how did the giant make it into the village alive in broad daylight unharmed, why is he killing instead of stealing(less likely to be killed).
The amount of resistance to the terrible logic of the giant's solo raids means you should worry about logic/tactics more than class abilities.
PS: It seems you did not reply to post explaining why a direct attack is a bad idea. Another poster had a great writeup on it. :)
Other than that all I can say is write it how you want. It is YOUR story, but just know if monster X takes action Y you may get resistance.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Economics is indeed one of those things that I struggle with in the fantasy world, so if you want to post up a link to your blog entry please do.Sure thing. Economics in Pathfinder and D&D. It basically explains how wealth can work based on the mechanics. It derives conclusions from things that are mechanically set in the rules, such as the amount of money that you can make with skills, different forms of currency (such as with trade goods), and discusses how nobles/rulers/governments can acquire their money and where it can then turn around and go. Finally it explains how the traffic of magic items and spellcasting services fit into the world and how it's really not so improbable.
Interesting, and I agree with you. I think that the industrial revolution give us an idea of what can be accomplished with magic. It is not a 1:1 relationship as some thing is easier with magic, other with technology, but it give us an idea of the impact of magic.
Have you read this thread by Abraham spalding? I think that some of his numbers about the probable income of a family are more precise than yours (especially the part about child income), but the final result is the same: "Peasants aren't so poor".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel: Your article seems decent for the lower levels, but how well does it hold up to the higher levels and the costs that start getting thrown around. I've read a number of things on the economy, and while it works okay at lower levels, the part that tends to diverge from our expectations happens as the levels go up. The Wish Economy and some of the approaches taken in Kirthfinder are attempts to deal with this situation, but I'm interested in hearing what you might have to say on the subject.
There is an article in the "The final wish" adventure about overusing wishes. Short version. reworking reality is dangerous. It push back.
One wish, within the standard spell parameters: no problem.10 wishes in a day, within the standard spell parameters: almost certainly not a problem.
1 wish every day for a year, even if limited to the standard spell parametrises: you get holes in the reality around you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, chemistry works different in D&D than it does in reality. When was the last time you saw a base that dealt damage as opposed to acid? Or an acid that only affected flesh or only affected metal? The closest I can think of is certain oozes who don't dissolve stone or metal objects.
Likewise, I don't really see a problem with having lots of alchemist fire around. They already do. As I pointed out, the rules assume you can walk into any thorpe and stock up on alchemical goods. That means the alchemist fire / acid / frost / whatever is already there. It just takes some people to put it to use.
Also, again, with the sling thing. In D&D, you're not going to accidentally slip and throw the alchemist fire directly behind you. Alchemical weapons are by and large one of the biggest arguments for humans to be able to exist in a fantasy world like the ones presented in D&D games.
Let's look at a few things. In D&D, you have a lot of predators. Many of them bigger than you. Some of them nearly as smart as you (and a few are smarter). Plenty of them make the worst predators of our reality look like lapdogs. For example, a grizzly bear? CR 4. Not even a shining example of CR 4 either since it's just a brute. Nah we got junk like Trolls (CR 5), basilisks (CR 5), Dire Lions (CR 5), Manticore (CR 5 flying intelligent predators that shoot knives from their butt).
What makes human settlements not just free-fun and profit for any ol' monstrous monstrosity? Organization, numbers, and the ability to set yo' butt on fire. :P
Wow, that's what I get for going AFK before finishing a post. One moment whilst I read all the new posts. :P
I prefer to look for explanations that fit everybody's world rather than let the GM and players paper over the cracks. If possible.
Impossible. People will always agree on how things should be in fantasy. With that aside if you are only writing the campaign world, much like Golarion is written, it is up to the GM to establish his own consistency. Even if slumber was on the level of Wish, but a first level ability as a GM I would just say in my campaign world there are a very small number of witches, and they stay hidden because people are generally afraid of them.
I see Slumber Hex in a similar way. It's not going to flip the world on its head, but it's going to make a difference.
Richard
That is because to you even a very small chance of something happening means a great thing. To most people, something so small is not worried about.
As an example if a plane crashes it is a terrible event that will make the news, but the chances are so small that people get on planes anyway without worrying about it, and personally I consider the slumber problem less likely to occur than a plane crashing in our world. You see it as much greater due to how you would run an encounter.
Let's say giants raid a village. A witch slumbers a giant. Well one giant dies<-----I am agreeing to move the story along. Killing one giant is not going to stop a raid, and since we are using game mechanics the giants will have line of sight, and the spell component pouch will also be noticed.
There is no noncontrived situation where all of these giants are dying to slumber across the world enough for other giants to care. If a giant dies in Cheliax, the ones in Mwangi Expanse will not hear about it, and even if they do, they just wont care.
Tell me as a giant why I should care.
Remember that witches are rare. They need to have a specific ability. They are easy to kill, if they don't run away and at best I am sleeping for one or two rounds, and my giant buddies are with me.
Better yet, as the giant in charge tell me why I should be worried. Most likely I can raid dozens of villages and never lose a giant to humans.
I would be more worried about what has happened to make me attack settlements instead of hunting animals which is a lot safer.
So I guess to add to the low percentage would be the fact that the raids are likely to never take place.
So let's go back to my plane example where people almost never even need to get on planes to go to another country*, and you will see the planes crashing just exponentially became even more of a non-issue.
*I have no idea why we would not need a plane to travel overseas. I am just making a point.. :)
|
|
Mary Sue as the PC gets all the tools and are the perfect pearls that shall be always better than the NPC.Everyone has its limit at how much Mary Sue the PC are.It's worth noting that at one time, Luke Skywalker was the only 1st level Jedi in a galaxy of several trillion people. Bilbo Baggins was one of a handful of halfling adventurers in every generation, most of them his relatives (on the Took side). Conan was a master linguist and a skilled tactician; most Cimmerians were not even literate. It should never be assumed that PCs are in any way typical.
Even when PCs and NPCs use the same rules, as with NPCs with adventuring classes, there exists a PC/NPC divide. NPCs are made to serve a purpose in the world; a PC is made to serve the purposes of one player.
... where's the "Mary Sue" in all this? My apologies, but I don't understand the reference as it's being used here.
(I think I'm familiar with the most normal uses of the term.)But I'm not seeing this in the above scenarios or holding that idea of gameplay at all.
I'm probably just not seeing what you're trying to say - if that's the case, I'm sorry.
What I'm trying to say (which is backed up by the stories noted above) is that it's all somewhat fiat-based, even when you want to run under the rules presumptions.
In the cases of those characters who were the "PCs" of the story noted above they ran, I wouldn't classify them as "Mary Sue" - they all had definitive, highly exploitable flaws that nearly led to their undoing on more than one occasion - not because they were overly specialized, either, but just because they had characteristics including strengths and weaknesses. They were still noticeably a cut above the average member of their race and exceedingly rare besides.
... aaaaaaaaaaand they...
it was not a reply to the specific post, but the general tone of "You are making NPC with the same options as the PC? Wrong, WRONG, " that some poster use.
|
|
... subjective stuff ...Totally agree. Like I said before, though, I write stuff which I publish, so I need to know what people in general feel is acceptably realistic.
As soon as the witch is deemed a threat then they will focus fire and kill her.Actually, I realised fairly recently that they would never know who it was. At least, as far as I can tell, using an SU is imperceptible.
Richard
Every game I have played in the GM lets the SU be known. Now the rules are silent, but even a silent, stilled spell can be recognized and spellcrafted by the rules, so I don't see why the slumber hex would not be recognized.
This is one again up to personal taste, and since it takes a standard action it should seem obvious that the witch is doing something.
As I read the rules, the target know that he has been attacked by someone or something, but he don't know where the attack originated.
The problem is that originally SU abilities were mostly things like breath weapons, gaze attacks and so on, things that are easy to spot and recognize. There were exceptions, but fairly rare.
Now we have tons of SU abilities, mostly from character classes.
Who of 20 very similarly dressed peasants listening the tax man explaining how they need to pay a new tax has put him to sleep so that he fell from his horse? You don't have anything to detect the culprit unless you already know who is the witch.
|
|
I am saying that slumber is so awesome that it is a decent option even for this relatively crappy character who has...It is a decent option, however your assertion was that it was awesomesauce and needs a nerf. This just isn't bearing out.
It is 100% bearing out. I threw down the gauntlet and asked anyone to present anything that I could not show slumber to be stronger than. No one has succeeded. I don't know what else I can possibly do. And I didn't backpedal at all. That character was brought up in response to Diego after I made my full disclosure about having a character with slumber. She was never intended to support my argument in any way. You kept trying to turn it into that because you know you have to twist what I'm saying in order for it to seem like you have any kind of point whatever. So, back to sensible talk. Gauntlet re-thrown. Your move.
You have to be within 30 feet, a few monsters types are immune to it. You get one chance per monster and being within 30 feet if the save is made could get you killed. It is good, but not as great as you think it is.
Personally I think evil eye is better. Evil eye is mind affecting but it still affects more things than slumber does. You can keep trying, and even when you fail it takes affect. Dropping saves, attack rolls, AC and saves can cripple a monster. You just die over the course of a few rounds, but dead is dead. This is real game experience not theorycrafting. I found evil eye to be much more annoying as a GM.
edit: Spellcasting is a class ability. That is better than slumber. Familiars and Animal Companions are also class abilities. They are better. Eidolons are class abilities. They are better.
edit2: If I am late because I am still reading then give credit to whoever thought of these first. :)
To repeat it again: Slumber isn't a class ability, Hex is a class ability.
Slumber is a 1/11 of a class ability.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel: Your article seems decent for the lower levels, but how well does it hold up to the higher levels and the costs that start getting thrown around. I've read a number of things on the economy, and while it works okay at lower levels, the part that tends to diverge from our expectations happens as the levels go up. The Wish Economy and some of the approaches taken in Kirthfinder are attempts to deal with this situation, but I'm interested in hearing what you might have to say on the subject.
IIRC, the "wish economy" was based around this idea Wish and Econimics from 3.x. Assuming we're talking the same sort of thing here, there's a few things that immediately spring to mind.
1. Wish got nerfed. While in 3.x, wish could give you gold and magic items, you can't do that in Pathfinder. Perhaps humorously, you can't wish for the most common wish - wealth.*
Because of this, it's more difficult to create a "wish economy", because wishing for wealth is not one of those things that you can't do without subjecting yourself to the whims of fate (or worse, the GM).
2. The core game actually acknowledges this to some degree. Notice that in the core rules, you can't reliably find items with a value in excess of 16,000 gp. You can scroll down this page to item availability by community size and you'll quickly come to find that while it's relatively easy to get items below 16,000 gp in value, making them quite common, more expensive items are incredibly rare.
This brings me to recant something I've said in many discussions about high levels. You are guaranteed up to a +2 weapon, +3 armor, +4 resistance, and +4 stat items. Beyond those, you have to beg, borrow, craft, quest, steal, or trade to find the good stuff.
So there is truth in the idea that money becomes less valuable at high levels. It's a natural thing really. It's highly likely that particularly powerful entities don't even bother with coins, or trade in some sort of special currency (4E went with "astral diamonds" which are pretty cool).
3. I can't comment on how Kirthfinder deals with it. I should probably read through Kirthfinder in its entirety, if only for the fact I've heard many great things about it. :)
4. Assuming that the majority of the people in the world aren't super humans, the 16,000 gp cap is also pretty sensible. It's not very hard to believe that there's quite a few adepts out there in the world producing magical items, but most of them are probably no more than 5th level (maybe a few exceptions since Craft Ring and Craft Rod require such goofy caster levels, but such items are usually pretty expensive on their own).
Now a 3rd level to 5th level adept can amass quite a nice Spellcraft check to comfortably make even medium magical items with by taking 10. In my own campaigns, the lion's share of magic items are made by adepts who are essentially professional magicians that sell basic spellcasting services and craft magic items. Why? Because it works and I like that their CR and capability stays relatively low.
Of course, this also means that items that have particularly high caster level requirements (as upper medium and major items often do) that make it difficult to create them while taking 10 for these individuals, and thus such items are rarer or not bothered with. Or because there's not much of a market for such things, while you can craft tons of +1 and +2 swords and be assured somebody is going to not only want them but be able to afford to pay for them.
5. After a certain level, the material plane is probably not where you need to be looking for your trading needs. Planar creatures are powerful and many of them are naturally magical and capable of creating and using exceptionally powerful magic items. As an example, your typical ghaele is running around with weaponry you can't expect to purchase on the material plane in a metropolis.
Planar beings probably use their own forms of currency. Pit fiends barter in souls of outsiders because they can literally harvest souls with their trap the soul SLA and compel outsiders to perform services for them.
EDIT: Forgot my note. D:
*: Technically wish when used by an efreeti can be used to wish for material wealth, it just has to be done indirectly. The way it can be done is that you can use the CL 11th wish to fabricate something. Due to the way fabricate works, you can produce literally anything with fabricate as a SLA ignoring the components. So you could fabricate a 11 cubic feet of any sort of metal you wanted, such as platinum.
However, that's not actually an effect of the wish spell so much as it is the fabricate spell, so wish is still nerfed, it's just there's a way around it anyway if you want to abuse fabricate.
There was a modified version of the Wish Economy discussed during the alpha phase of Pathfinder. Lots of interesting discussion. Some of it, as you've pointed out is less relevant due to the changes to Wish, but some of the other issues with regards to the capability of players to acquire wealth beyond that expected by their level still exist. Kirthfinder has a method of dealing with this, but it's an issue for how the adventure world and the types of adventures that can occur.
Thank you very much Caedwyr. I'll have to look into this. It seems very interesting and I love a good world-building read. :)
|
|
1. Suspension of beleif, and not worrying too much about rules when writing. If the players insist on the NPC's working like PC's built to survive then the fantasy world died long ago, and there is no campaign setting.
Well, I don't agree with the last point of yours, but anyway this whole thing about ignoring the rules I think is dangerous.
The rules provide the logical underpinning to the setting. This logical foundation then gives the PCs the freedom to interact with the setting in *their own* way, rather that in the ways that might have been envisaged by either the writer or the GM.
There is a limit, I know, but I believe that building logical sandboxes provides a more satisfying RPG experience than writing narratives where the players have a very limited choice about what they do.
I don't really think the writer should be telling his story, I think the players should be telling theirs.
You can, of course, push the job of papering over the cracks in your setting logic onto the GM, but I don't think that's very GM friendly, especially as he's likely to have to do it on the spur of the moment in the middle of a game session.
Equally I try very hard not to put a GM in the position where he's more or less forced to say: "sorry - this adventure doesn't cater for that; this isn't a perfect simulation of fantasy reality, please do something else."
And although I know you can't keep everybody happy about where logicality lies, it's a worthy aim, and as such it's worth canvassing general opinion before you put pen to paper.
PS: It seems you did not reply to post explaining why a direct attack is a bad idea. Another poster had a great writeup on it. :)
I didn't deliberately ignore it. Keeping up with this thread has been quite a task over the last few days (weeks) and I just missed it. Please point it out again.
Richard
... subjective stuff ...Totally agree. Like I said before, though, I write stuff which I publish, so I need to know what people in general feel is acceptably realistic.
As soon as the witch is deemed a threat then they will focus fire and kill her.Actually, I realised fairly recently that they would never know who it was. At least, as far as I can tell, using an SU is imperceptible.
Richard
Every game I have played in the GM lets the SU be known. Now the rules are silent, but even a silent, stilled spell can be recognized and spellcrafted by the rules, so I don't see why the slumber hex would not be recognized.
This is one again up to personal taste, and since it takes a standard action it should seem obvious that the witch is doing something.
As I read the rules, the target know that he has been attacked by someone or something, but he don't know where the attack originated.
The problem is that originally SU abilities were mostly things like breath weapons, gaze attacks and so on, things that are easy to spot and recognize. There were exceptions, but fairly rare.
Now we have tons of SU abilities, mostly from character classes.Who of 20 very similarly dressed peasants listening the tax man explaining how they need to pay a new tax has put him to sleep so that he fell from his horse? You don't have anything to detect the culprit unless you already know who is the witch.
The rules are silent on how the hex works. There is no rule one way or the other. It might be worth an FAQ to find intent though, but I don't expect for Paizo to allow witches to just chill out of sight and slumber everyone or even evil eye them.
I am saying that slumber is so awesome that it is a decent option even for this relatively crappy character who has...It is a decent option, however your assertion was that it was awesomesauce and needs a nerf. This just isn't bearing out.
It is 100% bearing out. I threw down the gauntlet and asked anyone to present anything that I could not show slumber to be stronger than. No one has succeeded. I don't know what else I can possibly do. And I didn't backpedal at all. That character was brought up in response to Diego after I made my full disclosure about having a character with slumber. She was never intended to support my argument in any way. You kept trying to turn it into that because you know you have to twist what I'm saying in order for it to seem like you have any kind of point whatever. So, back to sensible talk. Gauntlet re-thrown. Your move.
You have to be within 30 feet, a few monsters types are immune to it. You get one chance per monster and being within 30 feet if the save is made could get you killed. It is good, but not as great as you think it is.
Personally I think evil eye is better. Evil eye is mind affecting but it still affects more things than slumber does. You can keep trying, and even when you fail it takes affect. Dropping saves, attack rolls, AC and saves can cripple a monster. You just die over the course of a few rounds, but dead is dead. This is real game experience not theorycrafting. I found evil eye to be much more annoying as a GM.
edit: Spellcasting is a class ability. That is better than slumber. Familiars and Animal Companions are also class abilities. They are better. Eidolons are class abilities. They are better.
edit2: If I am late because I am still reading then give credit to whoever thought of these first. :)
To repeat it again: Slumber isn't a class ability, Hex is a class ability.
Slumber...
Animal companions still win since they are part of "Nature Bond", and not a class ability by that logic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules provide the logical underpinning to the setting.
The setting provides the underpinning to the rules. You can run out of rules without running out of setting. As long as you have setting, you can devise the rules you need. Rules are pitiless and uncaring things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Suspension of beleif, and not worrying too much about rules when writing. If the players insist on the NPC's working like PC's built to survive then the fantasy world died long ago, and there is no campaign setting.Well, I don't agree with the last point of yours, but anyway this whole thing about ignoring the rules I think is dangerous.
It has been shown that realistically the ecology of the monsters in D&D/Pathfinder can not be realistically supported. If NPC's are built like PC's then many of them will have the best options and some wizard with the immortality ability should have taken over the world a long time ago. The game world falls apart if you use the rules to write a story. That is why the story comes before the rules. If you try to write a story based on rules and support an entire setting it will fall apart somewhere.
There is a limit, I know, but I believe that building logical sandboxes provides a more satisfying RPG experience than writing narratives where the players have a very limited choice about what they do.
I agree, but the rules dont suport teh story like you want them to
I don't really think the writer should be telling his story, I think the players should be telling theirs.
That is entirely different than try to incorporate every possible rule into the story. Often tactics more than certain abilities determine the outcome of the battle. Your giant idea show that. That is why your giants will die in my game as I have shown before.
You can, of course, push the job of papering over the cracks in your setting logic onto the GM, but I don't think that's very GM friendly, especially as he's likely to have to do it on the spur of the moment in the middle of a game session.
You can not cover every possible player tactic or question that comes up in a setting. You are one person. This has also been proven by us not agreeing with your one giant assualt idea, and one poster use real life example of animals(a lot dumber than giants) picking people off. A large giant could eat a medium sized person, not even needing a cow. A cow would be ideal for more than one giant unless it was a huge giant. Even then the cow may be enough for one giant.
Equally I try very hard not to put a GM in the position where he's more or less forced to say: "sorry - this adventure doesn't cater for that; this isn't a perfect simulation of fantasy reality, please do something else."
If you are writing an adventure the GM will have to adjust things. No one adventure as written works for every group. Once again your lone giant idea shows that. If he is half way decent and the story makes sense he will not have to say "do something else". I have never seen that happen. There is also not perfect simulation of fanatasy reality because everyone has a someone different idea of what it should be. The lone giant works for me in a novel or book, but not in writing backed up by rules because I would expect for him to die by the rules, but in a novel I can make up my own reasons as to how he can take over village or hamlet. I am sure you if you present your other writings here someone will find holes(in their opinion) in your writings, but others might love the story/adventure.
And although I know you can't keep everybody happy about where logicality lies, it's a worthy aim, and as such it's worth canvassing general opinion before you put pen to paper.
I didn't deliberately ignore it. Keeping up with this thread has been quite a task over the last few days (weeks) and I just missed it. Please point it out again.
Richard
I will try to find it.
edit: Click me for the example
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, that's what I get for going AFK before finishing a post. One moment whilst I read all the new posts. :P
Happens to me all the time, bro.
it was not a reply to the specific post, but the general tone of "You are making NPC with the same options as the PC? Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!" that some poster use.
Ah, gotcha.
Let my try to rephrase, then: it's not "Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!" so much as it is going to inherently create problems in any sort of a "standard" world, regardless of what class you use.
Again, let me point to the high level threats in PF: balors, Rune Lords, Tar-Baphon, Pit Fiends, and so on. These guys are not good solo creatures. They're powerful, and they have some ability to be solo boss monsters (quickened abilities help out here) but their hit points and the action economy don't favor their survival against even lower level threats. They are un-optimized in many respects.
Pathfinder's Golarion isn't built on the idea that most NPCs have access to player-style "build" information. One world actually did this kind of thing (to a limited extent), and has been highly reviled for it ever since: Forgotten Realms. There is often the complaint of "superheroes" in the setting making the PCs feel needless. I don't feel that this harmed the setting, but then again FR didn't use PF, and even those "super-powerful" NPCs weren't even close to being built in the most optimized way.
So, again, it's not like most NPCs are presumed in most settings to have PC options.
IF you presume this, then NPCs, monsters, and other creatures become inordinately more powerful - even if you don't allow simulacra to grant wishes, there is NO reason for a Solar not to have a number of simulacra of itself equal to the number of 24 hour increments it's been alive minus the occasional summon from someone else and minus any that have been destroyed along the way... which should be relatively rare, over all, because they're working with, you know, a solar. Suddenly you've got a metric ton of 11HD, 10th caster level clerics with best base attack, best saves, and super-high stats (though no notable ability to heal themselves). I mean if even one Solar did this, at the end of a year, you'd have 365 of these puppies. At the end of a century, you'd have 36,500 of them. At the end of a millennium (most solars are implied to be much older) you'd have 365,000. That's a ludicrous amount of those.
Or, conversely, you'd only need one - one - good efreeti dedicated to the cause (easily acquired with a helm of opposite alignment, even if you otherwise presumed alignments were inherent) and the solar could triple that number.
I mean, let's do just a hint of math.
astral projection is a ninth level necromancy spell.
Rune Lords are usually really really high level wizards. Usually around level 18 or higher, if I'm not mistaken. At level 18, they've got (at least) two ninth level spells per day.
They can easily afford one ring of three wishes, and can cast astral projection.
So why don't they have a ton of lesser Zuthas running around? I mean, that guy was clearly higher than level 18.
Whatever reason you wish to give - and hear me, here - that you don't have the omniverse flooded with simulacra all over the place, you're applying fiat and preventing NPCs access to things that PCs have access to.
Simulacrum isn't the only offender here, of course.
Don't allow the wish->fabricate trick?
Good thing there's True Creation, then! Sure, it's only 5k per use, but, dudes, that racks up pretty quickly. There's not a reason in the world an efreeti wouldn't agree to a "daily 5k". Oh, but efreeti's can't directly benefit from their wishes? No problem! They enter into a pact with a mortal who gets 15k/day. That mortal then invests the 15k. How? It doesn't matter, even in the slightest. So long as there is some sort of profit created. I mean, they could, given a little time, craft themselves a ring of three wishes, then astral projection, then start turning profit for the efreeti. That's... not really a bad deal for the efreeti in any way.
Heck, it doesn't have to be a mortal. Perhaps its that one good efreeti working with the solar. Or perhaps we've got it backwards. Perhaps the efreeti summons and binds non-genie outsiders to create a deal - the non-genie uses wishes to create wealth while the genie sits back and profits.
Too many wishes being used cause reality to break down? There's nothing in the rules that says that. That's setting-specific fiat built in order to "paper over" potential holes.
Ilja has pointed out before that there is no logical reason why any given highly intelligent efreeti (more than most people) doesn't keep wish-slaves. I even discussed that point with her very thoroughly and vehemently - she is right, of course, but that would change the CR of every encounter with them, though, making their current entry completely worthless. They would definitely not be a "CR 8" anymore. If you say, "They can't benefit from it." then you're applying fiat.
One of the reasons this discussion has focused on things like wishes is that they're easy to notice and talk about. But wishes are not the only thing that causes problems.
Wish
Simulacrum
Fabricate
True Creation
Continual Flame
Animate Dead
Astral Projection
Create Demiplane
Permanency
... are just off the top of my head. There are more that I know I'm not thinking about in this thread that cause things to go out of whack. And these abilities are not uncommon. If you presume NPCs (including monsters) don't use these abilities like a player would... you're applying fiat to preserve the setting.
If you presume that monsters are different somehow than NPCs... you're applying fiat to preserve the setting.
If you apply any sort of limitation that those spells and effects don't have... you're applying fiat to preserve the setting.
And that's just the thing. Fiat isn't a bad thing at all.
The rules inform the story, but they don't create it.
Rules can be considered bones: without them, the body has no solid structure (though there are some creatures that do just fine without, thank you very much!), but with them, you have limits and focus - you have a range of movement permitted and tendencies that are followed. Yet bones on their own are kind of worthless except as a curiosity. They can't move themselves, they can't do anything on their own and can really go any which direction you want them to at all. Instead, they need muscle, ligaments, and skin to round them out (and those things need more things besides, if we want a living body) and, curiously enough, with all that stuff there, suddenly the bones start losing the freedom to move in every direction, even away from each other.
And that's what the argument "NPCs are different from PCs" comes from. In the world, there's relatively little difference - NPCs and PCs are both ultimately just Cs, but the fact that PCs are Cs that are build by the Ps (the players) mean that they're different from the NPCs, which are Cs build by the GM for the sake of the setting using the presumptions of the setting.
That's not to say that you can't build a "better" body by allowing the rules to have their head, as it were, in informing the creation of the setting. Just be aware, though, that you're going to suddenly have a lot of vestigal rules elements, including NPC classes and most of the PC races.
In this regard, Slumber isn't unique, and it isn't game changing. It's one element among a host and thus not going to concern creatures who are aware of the tendencies of action economy (in different terms, of course) and how massed smaller things can overwhelm bigger ones.
Yes, there are going to be hedge or corner cases where Slumber can cause significant and aberrant results. But there's a lot of other things that are far more disruptive if allowed that existed long before slumber did.
I think cantrips and orisons that produce small amounts of matter and energy are actually the most troublesome things to deal with from a worldbuilding standpoint. They're everywhere, and they can have potentially vast effects. At a minimum, I assume that while they are technically unlimited, I as a GM can rule it's simply too tiring to sit there for eight hours a day creating water.
I don't actually worry too much about higher level spells. The fabricate thing always assumes that, first, there is a caster of sufficient level who has invested ranks in the appropriate Craft, and second, such individuals have nothing more pressing to do with their abilities than mess with the local economy. You know what sorcerers with fabricate actually probably do for dough? Fabricate siege engines and bridges.
There might be a few dwarven clerics who specialize in fabricating suits of adamantine platemail, but that actually only helps explain why every Tom, Dick, and Gimli can run around in the stuff at high levels when from a worldbuilding standpoint, it's such a pain in the neck to make. Normally, it takes crews months to make the stuff. Every generation or so, though, some dwarven monarch commissions their high priest to fabricate a dozen or so suits for their troll-slaying commando unit. High level magic is rare, and even if you could make a comfortable living at it, you are probably focused on other things. Plus, the market for adamantine platemail is limited.
If some wizard also happens to be a skilled art forger, that could be troublesome, but I think actually makes for a good story.
|
|
Read it carefully: it inhibit the character from using a category of actions, it don't stop him from acting.
I did read it. Depending on the situation it could mean life or death for the party. Espcially if more than one character fails th save.
The cleric? Channel instead of cure spell.
On himself. I would not allow the cleric to heal others with a spell or Channel. If the cleric goal was to heal someone than he can't. He has to do something opposite of what he wants to do.
A witch? Spells plus special abilities. That power will never completely stop her.
Or the alchemist as well. Still imo it is more effective against classes from the core.
The only people that would be completely screwed are pure melee characters.
This ability would screw witha Fighter. The other melee classes not as much imo.
I think cantrips and orisons that produce small amounts of matter and energy are actually the most troublesome things to deal with from a worldbuilding standpoint. They're everywhere, and they can have potentially vast effects. At a minimum, I assume that while they are technically unlimited, I as a GM can rule it's simply too tiring to sit there for eight hours a day creating water.
I don't actually worry too much about higher level spells. The fabricate thing always assumes that, first, there is a caster of sufficient level who has invested ranks in the appropriate Craft, and second, such individuals have nothing more pressing to do with their abilities than mess with the local economy. You know what sorcerers with fabricate actually probably do for dough? Fabricate siege engines and bridges.
There might be a few dwarven clerics who specialize in fabricating suits of adamantine platemail, but that actually only helps explain why every Tom, Dick, and Gimli can run around in the stuff at high levels when from a worldbuilding standpoint, it's such a pain in the neck to make. Normally, it takes crews months to make the stuff. Every generation or so, though, some dwarven monarch commissions their high priest to fabricate a dozen or so suits for their troll-slaying commando unit. High level magic is rare, and even if you could make a comfortable living at it, you are probably focused on other things. Plus, the market for adamantine platemail is limited.
If some wizard also happens to be a skilled art forger, that could be troublesome, but I think actually makes for a good story.
See, right here are examples of setting-specific presumptions in detail.
(By they by, Crafter's Fortune eliminates many problems with craft, since Wizards have high INT scores anyway, it's similar to getting two free ranks in a skill you don't have or five in a skill you have.) :)
Fiat in action at its finest.
One thing to keep in mind, though, is that, unless consumed, the water from creat water doesn't just hang around - It specifically notes, "This water disappears after 1 day if not consumed."
Of course, what that means exactly, seems to be up for debate. In my reading "consumed" could mean "by plants", but I would doubt that they'd drink enough without constant use of the stuff to change a desert. And I suspect the intent is to be consumed "by creatures". Still - interesting points to ponder when considering fiat. :)
Oh, and adepts don't have cantrip or orison class feature, meaning they don't have unlimited spells per day (unless there's some errata I don't know about).
EDIT: I forgot to mention this before
Keeping up with this thread has been quite a task over the last few days (weeks) and I just missed it.
Richard
I know, right? Every time you think you're done. But hey: you created a really popular topic! That's always nice! :)
|
|
The rules are silent on how the hex works. There is no rule one way or the other. It might be worth an FAQ to find intent though, but I don't expect for Paizo to allow witches to just chill out of sight and slumber everyone or even evil eye them.... subjective stuff ...Totally agree. Like I said before, though, I write stuff which I publish, so I need to know what people in general feel is acceptably realistic.
As soon as the witch is deemed a threat then they will focus fire and kill her.Actually, I realised fairly recently that they would never know who it was. At least, as far as I can tell, using an SU is imperceptible.
Richard
Every game I have played in the GM lets the SU be known. Now the rules are silent, but even a silent, stilled spell can be recognized and spellcrafted by the rules, so I don't see why the slumber hex would not be recognized.
This is one again up to personal taste, and since it takes a standard action it should seem obvious that the witch is doing something.
As I read the rules, the target know that he has been attacked by someone or something, but he don't know where the attack originated.
The problem is that originally SU abilities were mostly things like breath weapons, gaze attacks and so on, things that are easy to spot and recognize. There were exceptions, but fairly rare.
Now we have tons of SU abilities, mostly from character classes.Who of 20 very similarly dressed peasants listening the tax man explaining how they need to pay a new tax has put him to sleep so that he fell from his horse? You don't have anything to detect the culprit unless you already know who is the witch.
The rules are silent, but exactly for that reason you default to the general rule for Supernatural abilities. And the general rule is that the source of SU abilities is perceptible only if the SU ability description say so.
See, right here are examples of setting-specific presumptions in detail.
To some extent, sure. But more generally, my point is that if you assume a high level wizard wants to sit around making goods with fabricate for mundane cash, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. That would be like Mick Jagger trying to make extra cash by playing birthday parties. Whatever a wizard decided to make too much of, it would quickly devalue the cost of that good, anyway.
But there are always things you need a lot of, suddenly, that are quite expensive. Things like, oh, siege engines and bridges. When a nation faces an existential threat, the rulers tend to spend everything they have on hand to ensure the continuity of their nation and their rulership over it.
There have been, over the years, many worker demonstrations over economic factors that made their jobs redundant. Like the textile workers of rioting over mechanical looms. Imagine, then, if the economic factor were one guy, essentially irreplaceable. If a wizard starts messing with the local trades, without seeing they get their cut, it might become really tempting to see that wizard eliminated, or maybe just paid off. That's one of the differences between magic and industrial technology; it requires the active effort of a gifted person to do. Imagine if you needed a Steve Jobs, not to simply lead the design of iPhones, but also to build them. Magic is very powerful, but tends to be stuck at the craftsman economic level.
Even if you do something outlandish, like building an army of golem-like armorsmiths or a magic item that produces 100 lbs. of quality iron ore from thin air every day, the existence of such a thing usually rests on the actions of one or two individuals, and usually benefits them only. It's not easily copied. While ultimately, free steel might mess up all sorts of sectors of the economy, if it's only bleeding out of the economy of one particularly martial nation, it's not going to radically change the look and feel of the game world. "There's a wizard who can create gold out of thin air," isn't entirely different in its effects from, "We've just made contact with Peru and we're plundering all its gold."
|
|
Animal companions still win since they are part of "Nature Bond", and not a class ability by that logic.To repeat it again: Slumber isn't a class ability, HexI am saying that slumber is so awesome that it is a decent option even for this relatively crappy character who has...It is a decent option, however your assertion was that it was awesomesauce and needs a nerf. This just isn't bearing out.
It is 100% bearing out. I threw down the gauntlet and asked anyone to present anything that I could not show slumber to be stronger than. No one has succeeded. I don't know what else I can possibly do. And I didn't backpedal at all. That character was brought up in response to Diego after I made my full disclosure about having a character with slumber. She was never intended to support my argument in any way. You kept trying to turn it into that because you know you have to twist what I'm saying in order for it to seem like you have any kind of point whatever. So, back to sensible talk. Gauntlet re-thrown. Your move.
You have to be within 30 feet, a few monsters types are immune to it. You get one chance per monster and being within 30 feet if the save is made could get you killed. It is good, but not as great as you think it is.
Personally I think evil eye is better. Evil eye is mind affecting but it still affects more things than slumber does. You can keep trying, and even when you fail it takes affect. Dropping saves, attack rolls, AC and saves can cripple a monster. You just die over the course of a few rounds, but dead is dead. This is real game experience not theorycrafting. I found evil eye to be much more annoying as a GM.
edit: Spellcasting is a class ability. That is better than slumber. Familiars and Animal Companions are also class abilities. They are better. Eidolons are class abilities. They are better.
edit2: If I am late because I am still reading then give credit to whoever thought of these first. :)
Not true. Nature bond has is a this or that choice, not 11 stackable choices.
So you will have:
Nature bond - animal companion or a cleric domain
VS
Hex - level 1 slumber, level 2 cauldron,, level 4 - whatever and so on.
That is what you should compare.
If you want to compare one of the choices of nature bond to the slumber hex, you will have to compare them as the same level choice.
So:
benefits of a first level animal companion
VS
having slumber at level 1
benefits of a second level animal companion
VS
having slumber at level 1 and cauldron at level 2 (or whatever combination of hexes you chose)
You guys really need to compare a piece of a feature vs a whole feature to find something better than slumber?