|
- No revisions to alignment and prepared casting. Those are staples of D&D/Pathfinder. :) Also, no big revisions to the Paladin, it is about perfect right now.
There really has to be something done with Prepared (fire and forget) casting. The old dino is confusing to new players and really has been put on a back burner as the Spontainous casters have taken hold. Being an old staple doesn't mean that it needs to stay the same and the rest of the design cater to the old guy with the walker.
Keep the spellbook, prepare the spells into "Known" slots, and cast per day according to how many slots you have.
I agree that Alignment doesn't need "fixing." I do think that a more indepth explaination can be proffered for them, where "evil" isn't always "Auto bad guy."
- Some fixes to the skill system. Perception is the most important skill in the game, why doesn't every class have it as a class skill? Diplomacy is also extremely important and maybe too good. Climb/Swim still should be combined to remove clutter. Some class skill lists have strange omissions (no Acrobatics on the Ranger, but on the Barbarian?) or are very bad (Fighter).
Simply, there are classes that are more perceptive than others. Perhaps have Perception be a universal class skill (along with a few other skills) and have the more perceptive classes gain a class bonus to their check, perhaps even have it be conditional.
Craft/Profession/Perform need to be separate from skills, used more in backgrounds and such and have a universal "trade" skill be used for what the character has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I look at this thread, I see more people complaining about prepared casting, usually over misconceptions on how the flavor works. You're not "forgetting" the spell after you use it. Instead, all preparations have been expended. A wizard cannot cast the spell again for the same reason you can't fire a muzzle-loaded gun after you just made a shot. It doesn't matter how many bullets you have. Unless you have another gun with the same type of bullet ready to fire, you still have to put more gunpowder in and prime the gun if you want to fire another shot.
As for Perception, I think it should be an innate statistic that all creatures have, like Initiative. This would also help fix many problems related to it, like Stealth and the trap system.
All the hate of prepared casting and the proposed replacement systems all reduce the challenge of casting as well--
The point of prepared casting is anticipating what you will need in a particular day and choosing how to allocate those resources--
Any system that takes that away and makes it "prepare your spells and you can use any of the ones you prepare any number of times per day" is a huge power boost to Wizards because you take away the need for them to prepare enough of any one thing.
If you made Perception like initiative then instead of some characters having more, all characters would have between +0 and +5 or so based on just the attribute and there would be one feat to get +4 to it and basically nothing else much. . . that doesn't really solve any problems, it just makes all characters what characters without it as a class skill are now or a little worse.
Dislike of prepared casting has nothing to do with logic Cyrad. It's emotional, and you can't reason with emotions.
That being said, it's perfectly fine to not like it. Tastes and preferences don't need reasons.
Totally agreed. If people don't like prepared casting, that's fine. But I roll my eyes every time I see someone say "THEY SHOULD GET RID OF VANCIAN OR PREPARED SPELLCASTING." That would be like if I said they should stop making crunchy peanut butter because I like it smooth. It's ridiculous. A little variety is a beautiful thing.
In fact, part of the reason we have Pathfinder is because Wizards nixed vancian spellcasting entirely. Wizards shot themselves in the foot. Why would Paizo ever do the same? Especially when there's plenty of high quality alternate spell systems available from 3rd party providers?
I don't even like prepared casting myself but I don't feel like it needs to be gotten rid of, so long as alternatives are presented.
Which there are-- there are now three choices for casting-- Sorcerer (true spontaneous, set spells known), Arcanist (spontaneous from spells prepared for day), and Wizard (true prepared). . . I don't see any reason that any of them needs to be killed and removed from the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, part of the reason we have Pathfinder is because Wizards nixed vancian spellcasting entirely. Wizards shot themselves in the foot. Why would Paizo ever do the same?
"4E did it and also failed, therefore doing anything similar to any little thing 4E did will cause my thing to fail too! That's how it works, right? Every individual thing a game did was responsible equally for it going under!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
=
"4E did it and also failed, therefore doing anything similar to any little thing 4E did will cause my thing to fail too! That's how it works, right? Every individual thing a game did was responsible equally for it going under!"
I agree with your sarcasm.
I want Vancian casting AND other forms of casting in the new version. I want lots of different kinds of classes with different kinds of resources that are assigned and used in different ways.
I think Anima: Beyond Fantasy is an example of a game that did this. Too bad it f$~#ed up so bad with every other part of the game's design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep Vancian casting. But stop giving prepared casters ways to cheat the system. Get rid of Pearls of Power and the hundred and one other ways that let them cast spells they didn't bother to prepare that day. Make casting a spell from a scroll burn the appropriate spell slot, etc.
I would be interested in this. Scrolls and wands do tend to take the vancian from casting.
Keep Vancian casting. But stop giving prepared casters ways to cheat the system. Get rid of Pearls of Power and the hundred and one other ways that let them cast spells they didn't bother to prepare that day. Make casting a spell from a scroll burn the appropriate spell slot, etc.I would be interested in this. Scrolls and wands do tend to take the vancian from casting.
Except scrolls and wands permanently expend WBL for temporary gains. . . and pearls of power only let you recall a spell you already cast-- i.e. you get a second use of one spell, but you have to have prepared it, used it once, then needed it a second time again?
"4E did it and also failed, therefore doing anything similar to any little thing 4E did will cause my thing to fail too! That's how it works, right? Every individual thing a game did was responsible equally for it going under!"
In fact, part of the reason we have Pathfinder is because Wizards nixed vancian spellcasting entirely. Wizards shot themselves in the foot. Why would Paizo ever do the same?
Thanks for twisting my words into something completely different so you can make a smug rebuttal!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point is, why bother to have both prepared and spontaneous casters if you essentially give prepared casters the ability to cast spontaneously? If you are going to limit prepared casters to what they have prepared, actually do it. Stop giving them the spontaneous spellcaster's toolbox as well.
For things like scrolls, wands, bound object...maybe impose a penalty on prepared casters for going outside their wheelhouse. Maybe casting a spell from those sources burns one spell slot higher than the actual spell.
Thanks for twisting my words into something completely different so you can make a smug rebuttal!"4E did it and also failed, therefore doing anything similar to any little thing 4E did will cause my thing to fail too! That's how it works, right? Every individual thing a game did was responsible equally for it going under!"
In fact, part of the reason we have Pathfinder is because Wizards nixed vancian spellcasting entirely. Wizards shot themselves in the foot. Why would Paizo ever do the same?
I don't see how I twisted your words at all. I don't see any other way to read that.
You've conflated "4E failed" and "4E removed Vancian casting" into
4E failed because it removed Vancian casting" and then go onto say PF should never move on from it because 4E tried it and failed.
Yeah, and while we are at it lets make sure that items that let martials cast spells or use SLA are taken out too-- fighter has no business using boots of flying or riding on a magic carpet, he should be allowed to use ONLY magic weapons and armor-- and no special abilities, those are too "spell-ey" blank pluses to hit and damage and all other items banned from fightors.
/sarcasm
Seriously, you can't just eliminate magic items assisting one kind of class on some sort of principle. Like I said, scrolls permanently reduce your available WBL, and you still have to have the foresight to have the one you need available.
Wands or other items that mimic/ cast spells and are on a X/day basis instead of charges I can see doing away with, but those are few and far between without dipping into the custom items rules, and I would say most people have banned the rampant abuses of those items.
Like I said, scrolls permanently reduce your available WBL
Yes, you said it, but you're not correct.
The way WBL works is that consumables only count against your WBL while you have them stored up, not after they're used. Much like Raise Dead magic, expensive material components, and such.
They're meant to be replaced. Short term wealth loss, but not a long term reduction of overall wealth.
Y
Like I said, scrolls permanently reduce your available WBLYes, you said it, but you're not correct.
The way WBL works is that consumables only count against your WBL while you have them stored up, not after they're used. Much like Raise Dead magic, expensive material components, and such.
They're meant to be replaced. Short term wealth loss, but not a long term reduction of overall wealth.
Assuming you have an Obamacare option that gives you the exact wealth by level you are supposed to have each time you gain a level?
That's not the way most games work. . . you gain a certain amount of gold through what you do throughout the game. If you spend that gold on scrolls and wands then its gone-- you aren't getting a "refund" on it to catch you back up with a party member who didn't expend any resources on consumables.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to talk about specifics; most of what I'd want to see has been covered. But more than any of that, I'd like PF2 to feature a total change in the development mind set.
Instead of coming up with fluff and then grudgingly assigning crunch to it haphazardly, I'd like to see a system in which the mechanical stuff all works like a swiss watch, and then the cool flavor laid over it so that you can't see the gears beneath.
That means no more trap options or Timmy Cards. It means no more spending a feat on stuff that's worse than the stuff you get without a feat. It means no more of this "balance is for evil people with agendas" stuff. It means no more Martials Can't Have Nice Things. It means no more heavy reliance on Rule Zero to fix everything.
Contrary to the usual canard, this will NOT turn PF into 4e. It would simply make it a game that's simultaneously playable as a game AND as a storytime, because the rules would directly lead to the type of game people play, instead of working at odds to it.
Y
Like I said, scrolls permanently reduce your available WBLYes, you said it, but you're not correct.
The way WBL works is that consumables only count against your WBL while you have them stored up, not after they're used. Much like Raise Dead magic, expensive material components, and such.
They're meant to be replaced. Short term wealth loss, but not a long term reduction of overall wealth.
Assuming you have an Obamacare option that gives you the exact wealth by level you are supposed to have each time you gain a level?
That's not the way most games work. . . you gain a certain amount of gold through what you do throughout the game. If you spend that gold on scrolls and wands then its gone-- you aren't getting a "refund" on it to catch you back up with a party member who didn't expend any resources on consumables.
Likewise the treasure you gain going forward isn't magically disappearing because you spent a chunk of your WBL on scrolls.
It's part of the reason treasure in APs are designed the way they are, a certain amount is expected to be wrapped up in consumables, resurrections, Restorations, things like that.
So there's roughly 125% WBL put into each one, assuming the players find all of it.
And realistically, most campaigns are going to end up that way. Unless you're meticulously ticking off every penny the players spend and making sure you don't throw ANY gear or money at them until they reach the next wealth threshold, WBLs not going to be a hard cap. Nor should it be. It's a guideline.
Y
Like I said, scrolls permanently reduce your available WBLYes, you said it, but you're not correct.
The way WBL works is that consumables only count against your WBL while you have them stored up, not after they're used. Much like Raise Dead magic, expensive material components, and such.
They're meant to be replaced. Short term wealth loss, but not a long term reduction of overall wealth.
Assuming you have an Obamacare option that gives you the exact wealth by level you are supposed to have each time you gain a level?
That's not the way most games work. . . you gain a certain amount of gold through what you do throughout the game. If you spend that gold on scrolls and wands then its gone-- you aren't getting a "refund" on it to catch you back up with a party member who didn't expend any resources on consumables.
Likewise the treasure you gain going forward isn't magically disappearing because you spent a chunk of your WBL on scrolls.
It's part of the reason treasure in APs are designed the way they are, a certain amount is expected to be wrapped up in consumables, resurrections, Restorations, things like that.
So there's roughly 125% WBL put into each one, assuming the players find all of it.
And realistically, most campaigns are going to end up that way. Unless you're meticulously ticking off every penny the players spend and making sure you don't throw ANY gear or money at them until they reach the next wealth threshold, WBLs not going to be a hard cap. Nor should it be. It's a guideline.
Agreed on the WBL being a Guideline.
But...APs give out around 125% of WBL? really?
Knew there was a reason I disliked canned adventures.
Except scrolls and wands permanently expend WBL for temporary gains. . . and pearls of power only let you recall a spell you already cast-- i.e. you get a second use of one spell, but you have to have prepared it, used it once, then needed it a second time again?Keep Vancian casting. But stop giving prepared casters ways to cheat the system. Get rid of Pearls of Power and the hundred and one other ways that let them cast spells they didn't bother to prepare that day. Make casting a spell from a scroll burn the appropriate spell slot, etc.I would be interested in this. Scrolls and wands do tend to take the vancian from casting.
Because it breaks the flavor of being prepared casters if you can just pop a spell out you need spontaneously yeah?
Because Vancian casting is by definition very little but powerful casting.
Having the ability to throw out 100 spells a day even with consumables is ridiculous by true Vancian casting standards.
Y
Like I said, scrolls permanently reduce your available WBLYes, you said it, but you're not correct.
The way WBL works is that consumables only count against your WBL while you have them stored up, not after they're used. Much like Raise Dead magic, expensive material components, and such.
They're meant to be replaced. Short term wealth loss, but not a long term reduction of overall wealth.
Assuming you have an Obamacare option that gives you the exact wealth by level you are supposed to have each time you gain a level?
That's not the way most games work. . . you gain a certain amount of gold through what you do throughout the game. If you spend that gold on scrolls and wands then its gone-- you aren't getting a "refund" on it to catch you back up with a party member who didn't expend any resources on consumables.
Likewise the treasure you gain going forward isn't magically disappearing because you spent a chunk of your WBL on scrolls.
It's part of the reason treasure in APs are designed the way they are, a certain amount is expected to be wrapped up in consumables, resurrections, Restorations, things like that.
So there's roughly 125% WBL put into each one, assuming the players find all of it.
And realistically, most campaigns are going to end up that way. Unless you're meticulously ticking off every penny the players spend and making sure you don't throw ANY gear or money at them until they reach the next wealth threshold, WBLs not going to be a hard cap. Nor should it be. It's a guideline.
Agreed on the WBL being a Guideline.
But...
APs give out around 125% of WBL? really?
Knew there was a reason I disliked canned adventures.
Try one, you might be surprised. Carrion Crown is especially good IMO.
They give out 125% WBL for a few reasons.
1.) A lot of it is missable. That extra 25% could be spread out among multiple things, or just one big thing that's easy to overlook.
2.) The aforementioned consumables thing.
3.) The "strip the walls phenomenon" not being universal. For example, there's plenty of wealth in Carrion Crown...if your characters are willing to take everything that's not nailed down (and anything that can be pried up is not nailed down). If not, they'll be a bit poor (I think at best in CC you'll have 90% WBL if you don't go around taking everything, and maybe 105% if you do).
Assuming you have an Obamacare option that gives you the exact wealth by level you are supposed to have each time you gain a level?What?
Seriously, what?
An Obamacare Dwarf or something who comes around and uses Wealth Redistribution when you gain a level to make sure you spent exactly the proscribed amount on consumables? He comes in and takes the extra wealth that sneaky players tried to not spend on consumables and refills up the players who wasted too much. . . right? That happens? (this is a joke, sorry if its over anyone's head or wasn't clear initially)
If I spend 1000 gold on a wand, I am permanently missing 1000 gold off my character sheet that could have been spent on a non-consumable option.
If I spend 1000 gold per session on consumables then eventually you are substantially behind the player who saved his WBL (or his extra 25% if that is actually true) and spent only on permanent options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I spend 1000 gold on a wand, I am permanently missing 1000 gold off my character sheet that could have been spent on a non-consumable option.If I spend 1000 gold per session on consumables then eventually you are substantially behind the player who saved his WBL (or his extra 25% if that is actually true) and spent only on permanent options.
For those of you reading the thread, this isn't actually how WBL works.
It's not this way because otherwise death leads to an infinite cycle of death due to losing more and more Wealth for resurrections and thus being weaker and weaker at later stages of the game and thus dying more easily.
Thanks for twisting my words into something completely different so you can make a smug rebuttal!"4E did it and also failed, therefore doing anything similar to any little thing 4E did will cause my thing to fail too! That's how it works, right? Every individual thing a game did was responsible equally for it going under!"
In fact, part of the reason we have Pathfinder is because Wizards nixed vancian spellcasting entirely. Wizards shot themselves in the foot. Why would Paizo ever do the same?I don't see how I twisted your words at all. I don't see any other way to read that.
You've conflated "4E failed" and "4E removed Vancian casting" into
4E failed because it removed Vancian casting" and then go onto say PF should never move on from it because 4E tried it and failed.
I never said 4th Edition failed. I said Wizards of the Coast shot themselves in a foot. They splintered their game's community and created a strong competitor because they removed Vancian spellcasting and other iconic systems that people liked. I said this statement in the context that vancian/prepared casting shouldn't be removed for the sake of a minority of people that don't prefer it.
My point is, why bother to have both prepared and spontaneous casters if you essentially give prepared casters the ability to cast spontaneously?
Yeah, this really annoys me. Though, I do think it works for a spellcaster like the magus as it allows them to still have damage spells without having to waste all their spell slots.
If I spend 1000 gold on a wand, I am permanently missing 1000 gold off my character sheet that could have been spent on a non-consumable option.If I spend 1000 gold per session on consumables then eventually you are substantially behind the player who saved his WBL (or his extra 25% if that is actually true) and spent only on permanent options.
For those of you reading the thread, this isn't actually how WBL works.
It's not this way because otherwise death leads to an infinite cycle of death due to losing more and more Wealth for resurrections and thus being weaker and weaker at later stages of the game and thus dying more easily.
Enlighten me then, on how wbl works?
Every game I have ever seen wbl is used at character creation if its higher than level 1, then not at all because treasure is given out and gold acquired based on the monsters you slay or the jobs you accomplish for hire. I've never seen or heard of a DM checking to make sure that he is giving out exactly WBL, or refilling people who did spend gold on scrolls, ect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enlighten me then, on how wbl works?Every game I have ever seen wbl is used at character creation if its higher than level 1, then not at all because treasure is given out and gold acquired based on the monsters you slay or the jobs you accomplish for hire. I've never seen or heard of a DM checking to make sure that he is giving out exactly WBL, or refilling people who did spend gold on scrolls, ect.
I don't believe you care what I have to say anyways, but I'll humor you or whatever.
WBL is used as a guideline/rule. A PC who is level 10 should have about 62,000 upon leveling up to 10. He then begins to acquire gold towards 82,000 to be around when he hits level 11.
EDIT: It's a common misconception that WBL is a switch that floods the gold in upon leveling up. This is not how it works as I said above.
EDIT #2: Past consumables are not reflective of a character's ability to fight. You can't say that "Oh man that Potion of Cure Mod I used at level 3 is totally affecting me" when you're level 20.
Paizo themselves put about 25% more wealth in their adventures to account for consumables, resurrections and restorations.
Developer views on Resurrection is that they didn't even want to put a price or penalty on it since it detaches players from their characters since theres a price and effort wall by the party to resurrect said character. I imagine the Developers would be further against it if it meant that the character was going to be demonstratively less valuable from there on since they have permanently reduced wealth. If a Player feels their character is going to be of less worth than creating a new character, I'd imagine their attachment to said character would plummet.
|
|
The point of prepared casting is anticipating what you will need in a particular day and choosing how to allocate those resources--
Exactly. Right now it more resembles doing that, but if you allocated them.wrong, it doesn't matter, because you have a dozen or so ways you can essentially cast spontaneously. Except from a much wider pool than the actual spontaneous casters get.
Agreed on the WBL being a Guideline.
But...
APs give out around 125% of WBL? really?
Knew there was a reason I disliked canned adventures.Try one, you might be surprised. Carrion Crown is especially good IMO.
They give out 125% WBL for a few reasons.
1.) A lot of it is missable. That extra 25% could be spread out among multiple things, or just one big thing that's easy to overlook.
2.) The aforementioned consumables thing.
3.) The "strip the walls phenomenon" not being universal. For example, there's plenty of wealth in Carrion Crown...if your characters are willing to take everything that's not nailed down (and anything that can be pried up is not nailed down). If not, they'll be a bit poor (I think at best in CC you'll have 90% WBL if you don't go around taking everything, and maybe 105% if you do).
I seriously doubt it; unless the GM does the exact same thing I do with them and use them as seeds and massively alters the story to fit his vision and the actions/reactions of the players. And to be honest I have met damn few GMs that can do just that. Most just treat the modules as strict plots and twists that can never be altered. And in every one I have looked over or played in the twists were trite, over used, and depressingly predictable. (granted the predictability could stem from my voracious reading/viewing habits and overall age... What is unique and new to that 20 something GM is old hat to this 40 *mumble* greybeard).
Enlighten me then, on how wbl works?Every game I have ever seen wbl is used at character creation if its higher than level 1, then not at all because treasure is given out and gold acquired based on the monsters you slay or the jobs you accomplish for hire. I've never seen or heard of a DM checking to make sure that he is giving out exactly WBL, or refilling people who did spend gold on scrolls, ect.
I don't believe you care what I have to say anyways, but I'll humor you or whatever.
WBL is used as a guideline/rule. A PC who is level 10 should have about 62,000 upon leveling up to 10. He then begins to acquire gold towards 82,000 to be around when he hits level 11.
EDIT: It's a common misconception that WBL is a switch that floods the gold in upon leveling up. This is not how it works as I said above.
EDIT #2: Past consumables are not reflective of a character's ability to fight. You can't say that "Oh man that Potion of Cure Mod I used at level 3 is totally affecting me" when you're level 20.
Paizo themselves put about 25% more wealth in their adventures to account for consumables, resurrections and restorations.
Developer views on Resurrection is that they didn't even want to put a price or penalty on it since it detaches players from their characters since theres a price and effort wall by the party to resurrect said character. I imagine the Developers would be further against it if it meant that the character was going to be demonstratively less valuable from there on since they have permanently reduced wealth. If a Player feels their character is going to be of less worth than creating a new character, I'd imagine their attachment to said character would plummet.
But you acknowledge that whether or not consumables are purchased or used has no actual effect on the amount of wealth given out?
In the same party we have two players. . .
Player A, purchases and uses consumables-- a few flasks per level plus a dozen scrolls, plus maintaining a library of 3 each of every spell in his spell book to achieve the "tons of resources that it doesn't feel like vancian casting" phenomena
Player B, strictly refuses to use any consumables-- he won't even buy a scroll to add the spell to his spellbook, simply waiting for Player A to do so then copying it from his party member's spell book. He doesn't have the library of scrolls stashed away, but he has accumulated more wealth in non-consumable items because they are getting the same share of the same treasure, but he is not using consumables.
Whatever percent this is-- 25% or 10% or 1%, its still effectively expending wealth for temporary gains, and the player who does not do so is still "ahead" in wealth not tied up in consumable objects.
A single potion used several levels ago won't make a difference, but a pattern of buying/using consumables as you go along will-- and it will eventually put you effectively behind someone who does not.
And importantly, it still requires preparation to have the right scrolls/potions, and still uses some amount of resource management (substituting gold cost for daily spell slots) and is not an unlimited resource.
|
Assuming you have an Obamacare option that gives you the exact wealth by level you are supposed to have each time you gain a level?
That's not the way most games work. . . you gain a certain amount of gold through what you do throughout the game. If you spend that gold on scrolls and wands then its gone-- you aren't getting a "refund" on it to catch you back up with a party member who didn't expend any resources on consumables.
It may not be how your game works, it may not be how I want my games to work, and it may even be against the intent of the designers, but you would be wrong to believe that it isn't common practice to play that way.
If you check out any thread, that begins 'Our PCs seem underpowered, what are we doing wrong?', the posters will ask the OP how much value of gear the PCs have. Not 'How much have the PCs been given over the course of the campaign?'.
The OP will give a figure (X), the posters will reply 'There's your problem right there; they should each have 1.5X, 2X, 2.5X, (or whatever), your GM isn't giving out the right amount of treasure, and is a bad person, who should be ashamed of themselves.'.
No-one will ask if they are blowing it on consumables, or on spells with expensive material components. They will measure the GM's competence to run the game, on 'How much gp value of gear does the GM's PCs have at any given moment?'.
The same applies within advice to GMs;
'Audit your PCs' wealth occasionally, see how they compare with WBL.'
'If PCs are below WBL, consider their APL to be lower, and go easy on them.'
'If the PCs are behind, adjust future treasure accordingly, to bring them nearer the expected WBL figure.'
A post by SKR several months ago questioned whether it was time to remove material components from the game, as they did not make much difference to play. Even expensive material components were no longer serving the purpose they were originally intended.
The example given was, when a PC dies, and the party spend 5000gp raising them, it is merely a temporary expense, until the GM has to make it up to them, by adding an extra 5000gp to subsequent loot drops.
In light of that, modern GMs are under pressure, to 'top up' PC wealth to the figures provided, no questions asked, regarding what the PCs did with the money.
And as soon as players realise that, they cease to worry about saving their cash for anything except the bigger items on their wishlist. The day-to-day expense of adventuring can be taken care of, via consumables, which give a bigger bang for the buck, precisely because they are consumable, but which cost them effectively nothing.
PC Group 1 can ration themselves, spending nothing while saving for +2 stat boosters.
PC Group 2 can chug potions of +4 stat boosting before every encounter.
PC Group 1 has a harder time beating the encounters, takes more knocks, uses more healing, uses more daily resources.
PC Group 2 sails through the encounters, take less damage, use less healing, use less daily resources.
PC Group 1 gain the typical treasure for the encounter.
PC Group 2 gain that typical treasure, plus extra treasure, 'to make up for the potions they spent, and bring them back up to WBL'.
PC Group 1 are still saving, so go into the next encounters weakened.
PC Group 2 immediately buy another sack of potions, to go into the next encounters with stats +4 higher than Group 1.
The casters in Group 1 try hard to cover all the bases, run out of spells earlier, and have to retreat earlier.
The casters in Group 2 know they can save their precious prepared slots for spells that require full caster level, everything else can be covered by scroll/potion/wand. They blow through encounters more easily, get further through adventures, gain more treasure, plus get paid extra to cover their 'expenses'.
It sucks that it plays out this way, but it does, at a great many tables.
I brought this up during the Arcanist playtest; lots of posters were complaining that the ability to drain charges from items was a false economy, it would be prohibitively costly, and leave the Arcanist's party impoverished.
I gave the same arguments as above, which proved that there was zero downside to the tactic, since anyone with such an ability would ensure they had a huge supply of low-level items, as well as using all the chaff found items that would only otherwise have been sold for half price. Given the choice of selling a non-stackable barkskin/bullstrength/etc potion for 150gp, or draining it to power a dimension door ability, or apply metamagic on the run, to their best spells, what would you do?
I'd drain it every time, even if it permanently cost me.
And if you're playing in a game where the GM tracks WBL, consumables have an effective cost of zero. So why would you do anything else?
But you acknowledge that whether or not consumables are purchased or used has no actual effect on the amount of wealth given out?
S:It does have an effect, one who keeps loading up on scrolls, waiting for just the right moment has those counted against his WBL. To permanently reduce his Wealth, when such scrolls are no longer affecting his actions is just poor design.
In the same party we have two players. . .
Player A, purchases and uses consumables-- a few flasks per level plus a dozen scrolls, plus maintaining a library of 3 each of every spell in his spell book to achieve the "tons of resources that it doesn't feel like vancian casting" phenomena
S:Player A has consumables counted against him. If Player A uses all of his consumables, then yes he should be re-compensated since his character will no longer reflect the intended power(From wealth) of his character level.
Player B, strictly refuses to use any consumables-- he won't even buy a scroll to add the spell to his spellbook, simply waiting for Player A to do so then copying it from his party member's spell book. He doesn't have the library of scrolls stashed away, but he has accumulated more wealth in non-consumable items because they are getting the same share of the same treasure, but he is not using consumables.
Whatever percent this is-- 25% or 10% or 1%, its still effectively expending wealth for temporary gains, and the player who does not do so is still "ahead" in wealth not tied up in consumable objects.
A single potion used several levels ago won't make a difference, but a pattern of buying/using consumables as you go along will-- and it will eventually put you effectively behind someone who does not.
S:This is fundamentally wrong and goes against the design philosophy the Devs support. By your logic, there is for some reason, a developed win condition for abstaining from consumables, resurrections, and Restorations. You also have Player B essentially leeching free money off of A which is something I also disagree with.
And importantly, it still requires preparation to have the right scrolls/potions, and still uses some amount of resource management (substituting gold cost for daily spell slots) and is not an unlimited resource.
Consumables should be counted against WBL when they affect your actions. They should not be counted when they no longer do so because that doesn't fly when you compare two characters. One used consumables to get this far and one didn't. The latter should not be more powerful at this point than the former. Balance means that the former is handy in burst situations whereas the latter will be more effective over the long run.
Wealth given out should adhere loosely to the WBL guidelines. So yes I believe consumables do change how you dole out money.
Player A and Player B walk into a dungeon. Player A expends 5,000 gold worth of consumables to get through the dungeon. Player B spent 5,000 on permanent power. Player A should be re-compensated 5,000 gold at the end of the dungeon. They both get rewards as normal.
EDIT: Snorter I disagree with your breakdown on the premise that it is easy to see where consumables will fall off if encounters are closely put together or farther apart. If you're running ultra mega dungeon where every fight is right through the next door, then yes, consumables will look extremely good. But a wilderness survival game or a game where fights aren't completely obvious will see more consumables mitigated. It's a pick your poison deal where Consumables have a burst benefit and permanent items have an over time benefit.
Saving gold to acquire bigger items is a character philosophy I don't believe in and requires metagaming. If I have 2,000 gold, my character is not going to think or know, "OH MAN, IF I SAVE 2,000 MORE I CAN GET A +2 STRENGTH BELT!"
I seriously doubt it; unless the GM does the exact same thing I do with them and use them as seeds and massively alters the story to fit his vision and the actions/reactions of the players. And to be honest I have met damn few GMs that can do just that. Most just treat the modules as strict plots and twists that can never be altered. And in every one I have looked over or played in the twists were trite, over used, and depressingly predictable. (granted the predictability could stem from my voracious reading/viewing habits and overall age... What is unique and new to that 20 something GM is old hat to this 40 *mumble* greybeard).Agreed on the WBL being a Guideline.
But...
APs give out around 125% of WBL? really?
Knew there was a reason I disliked canned adventures.Try one, you might be surprised. Carrion Crown is especially good IMO.
They give out 125% WBL for a few reasons.
1.) A lot of it is missable. That extra 25% could be spread out among multiple things, or just one big thing that's easy to overlook.
2.) The aforementioned consumables thing.
3.) The "strip the walls phenomenon" not being universal. For example, there's plenty of wealth in Carrion Crown...if your characters are willing to take everything that's not nailed down (and anything that can be pried up is not nailed down). If not, they'll be a bit poor (I think at best in CC you'll have 90% WBL if you don't go around taking everything, and maybe 105% if you do).
There is nothing new under the sun, and all that.
The plot doesn't have to be utterly unique to be engaging. Carrion Crown I like because of the atmosphere, rather than the plot (which needs a bit of work).
Player A and Player B walk into a dungeon. Player A expends 5,000 gold worth of consumables to get through the dungeon. Player B spent 5,000 on permanent power. Player A should be re-compensated 5,000 gold at the end of the dungeon. They both get rewards as normal.
So in this situation there are 4 players, and at the end of the dungeon they get 20,000 gold.
Player C does the math and says "Score! We each get 5,000 gold!"
Player D nods in agreement. Player B, checks his math and realizes he can use this to add an extra +1 to one of his items to help out. . .
then Player A speaks up . .. "Not so fast! I spent 5,000 gold worth of scrolls in there-- so I need that 5,000 then that leave 15,000 to divide four ways, so you all get only 3750 and I will take my total of 8750"
This is how you think it should go?
You can make an argument that player B is leaching, or you can make as convincing an argument that player A is burning through stuff to gain an unfair advantage and being greedy.
Either way player B, C, and D aren't letting that happen and enforcing it would be the death knell of plenty of games.
Player A and Player B walk into a dungeon. Player A expends 5,000 gold worth of consumables to get through the dungeon. Player B spent 5,000 on permanent power. Player A should be re-compensated 5,000 gold at the end of the dungeon. They both get rewards as normal.So in this situation there are 4 players, and at the end of the dungeon they get 20,000 gold.
Player C does the math and says "Score! We each get 5,000 gold!"
Player D nods in agreement. Player B, checks his math and realizes he can use this to add an extra +1 to one of his items to help out. . .
then Player A speaks up . .. "Not so fast! I spent 5,000 gold worth of scrolls in there-- so I need that 5,000 then that leave 15,000 to divide four ways, so you all get only 3750 and I will take my total of 8750"
This is how you think it should go?
You can make an argument that player B is leaching, or you can make as convincing an argument that player A is burning through stuff to gain an unfair advantage and being greedy.
Either way player B, C, and D aren't letting that happen and enforcing it would be the death knell of plenty of games.
Another common misconception. An intelligent DM who knows his player likes consumables may just so happen to leave a bunch of nice looking potions in the treasure trove to recompensate the player.
A DM who forces the restock out of other player's pockets isn't using the WBL properly.
Player A and B have different playstyles, but Player B is definitely leeching. Player A has more burst capability, Player B has more effective abilities over the long run.
@Snorter I really dislike abilities that "drain" or otherwise use up magic items for just that reason-- the 3.5/Eberron Artificier and the BoED Ancestral Relic were two really bad examples of that which divided parties and took the amount of treasure and wealth you gave out sideways in odd ways.
The pressure to "top up" parties is mostly a social construct, and I don't agree with the principles behind it-- I give the players what they earn regardless of the WBL.
But, I've never felt that consumables were giving one player or one group of player a significant advantage and personally I use them sparingly when I am a player-- I'm not casting a scroll unless I have no viable memorized options, and if I ever get in a situation where I have no viable memorized options then I have failed already as a Wizard.
I seriously doubt it; unless the GM does the exact same thing I do with them and use them as seeds and massively alters the story to fit his vision and the actions/reactions of the players. And to be honest I have met damn few GMs that can do just that. Most just treat the modules as strict plots and twists that can never be altered. And in every one I have looked over or played in the twists were trite, over used, and depressingly predictable. (granted the predictability could stem from my voracious reading/viewing habits and overall age... What is unique and new to that 20 something GM is old hat to this 40 *mumble* greybeard).Agreed on the WBL being a Guideline.
But...
APs give out around 125% of WBL? really?
Knew there was a reason I disliked canned adventures.Try one, you might be surprised. Carrion Crown is especially good IMO.
They give out 125% WBL for a few reasons.
1.) A lot of it is missable. That extra 25% could be spread out among multiple things, or just one big thing that's easy to overlook.
2.) The aforementioned consumables thing.
3.) The "strip the walls phenomenon" not being universal. For example, there's plenty of wealth in Carrion Crown...if your characters are willing to take everything that's not nailed down (and anything that can be pried up is not nailed down). If not, they'll be a bit poor (I think at best in CC you'll have 90% WBL if you don't go around taking everything, and maybe 105% if you do).
There is nothing new under the sun, and all that.
The plot doesn't have to be utterly unique to be engaging. Carrion Crown I like because of the atmosphere, rather than the plot (which needs a bit of work).
Atmosphere I can get from any setting. It is plots and twists that keep me from getting bored. (and with me having a severe case of ADHD boredom is the GMs worst enemy).
Throw out the script and use the general plot, invent your own twists based upon my actions and reactions in game (it is possible to catch me off guard with a twist if I do not see it coming a mile off). That is how you keep me coming back to your table as a PC. (and as a regularly requested GM myself, I seldom get the opportunity to PC; so getting me to sit at your table consistently is a mark of high praise for your skill as a GM).
Player A and Player B walk into a dungeon. Player A expends 5,000 gold worth of consumables to get through the dungeon. Player B spent 5,000 on permanent power. Player A should be re-compensated 5,000 gold at the end of the dungeon. They both get rewards as normal.So in this situation there are 4 players, and at the end of the dungeon they get 20,000 gold.
Player C does the math and says "Score! We each get 5,000 gold!"
Player D nods in agreement. Player B, checks his math and realizes he can use this to add an extra +1 to one of his items to help out. . .
then Player A speaks up . .. "Not so fast! I spent 5,000 gold worth of scrolls in there-- so I need that 5,000 then that leave 15,000 to divide four ways, so you all get only 3750 and I will take my total of 8750"
This is how you think it should go?
You can make an argument that player B is leaching, or you can make as convincing an argument that player A is burning through stuff to gain an unfair advantage and being greedy.
Either way player B, C, and D aren't letting that happen and enforcing it would be the death knell of plenty of games.
Another common misconception. An intelligent DM who knows his player likes consumables may just so happen to leave a bunch of nice looking potions in the treasure trove to recompensate the player.
A DM who forces the restock out of other player's pockets isn't using the WBL properly.
Player A and B have different playstyles, but Player B is definitely leeching. Player A has more burst capability, Player B has more effective abilities over the long run.
And I think that any player who finds the need to burn through 5,000 gold worth of consumables is not an intelligent player. . . its a play style and GMing style issue not really a systems question.
And if part of why you don't like vancian casting is because scrolls let you circumvent that, but you think that an "intelligent DM" should restock scrolls for players who burn through consumables recklessly then I see a major logic flaw in those two conflicting arguments
But if you aren't on the "lets throw out vancian casting" then by all means. . .
Edit: and even if the DM is seeding those scrolls, player's B, C, and D could still contend that those should be split equally or sold and liquidated-- it doesn't matter what form the treasure is in, there's still a "price" on consumption unless the DM is specifically mandating/fiating that a character who USES more GETS more compared to a true equal split.
Edit: again, barring a party agreement or some kind of "group fund"-- but even then a player using more of the group fund and burning through resources is draining the party as much/more than the player who relies primarily on his class abilities.
And I think that any player who finds the need to burn through 5,000 gold worth of consumables is not an intelligent player. . . its a play style and GMing style issue not really a systems question.And if part of why you don't like vancian casting is because scrolls let you circumvent that, but you think that an "intelligent DM" should restock scrolls for players who burn through consumables recklessly then I see a major logic flaw in those two conflicting arguments.
Ah so you just penalize a player who wants to use consumables more. It's most definitely a system issue. If a character whose supposed to have 2,000 gold spends it on consumables, uses those consumables and then is no longer benefiting from them at a later point, can you honestly say he still has 2,000 gold worth of gear?
Don't get me wrong, I dig Vancian casting. It's just with wands, pearls of power and other resources available, it's not really Vancian casting.
I never even said recklessly, but you're quite fond to put words in others mouths.
There are other systems who do Vancian casting better justice than Dungeons and Dragons. I find that hilarious.
Edit: and even if the DM is seeding those scrolls, player's B, C, and D could still contend that those should be split equally or sold and liquidated-- it doesn't matter what form the treasure is in, there's still a "price" on consumption unless the DM is specifically mandating/fiating that a character who USES more GETS more compared to a true equal split.
Edit: again, barring a party agreement or some kind of "group fund"-- but even then a player using more of the group fund and burning through resources is draining the party as much/more than the player who relies primarily on his class abilities.
These problems you see aren't there if you run it right. A Character who is recompensated still has the same gold amount as everyone else. A character who uses more gets more only in the sense that he still gets the same total amount of gold as everyone else.
Player A and Player B walk into a dungeon. Player A expends 5,000 gold worth of consumables to get through the dungeon. Player B spent 5,000 on permanent power. Player A should be re-compensated 5,000 gold at the end of the dungeon. They both get rewards as normal.So in this situation there are 4 players, and at the end of the dungeon they get 20,000 gold.
Player C does the math and says "Score! We each get 5,000 gold!"
Player D nods in agreement. Player B, checks his math and realizes he can use this to add an extra +1 to one of his items to help out. . .
then Player A speaks up . .. "Not so fast! I spent 5,000 gold worth of scrolls in there-- so I need that 5,000 then that leave 15,000 to divide four ways, so you all get only 3750 and I will take my total of 8750"
This is how you think it should go?
You can make an argument that player B is leaching, or you can make as convincing an argument that player A is burning through stuff to gain an unfair advantage and being greedy.
Either way player B, C, and D aren't letting that happen and enforcing it would be the death knell of plenty of games.
Another common misconception. An intelligent DM who knows his player likes consumables may just so happen to leave a bunch of nice looking potions in the treasure trove to recompensate the player.
A DM who forces the restock out of other player's pockets isn't using the WBL properly.
Player A and B have different playstyles, but Player B is definitely leeching. Player A has more burst capability, Player B has more effective abilities over the long run.
See now the bolded part paints a disturbing picture about expectations IMO.
You are going to have to explain to me how Player B is leeching. No one forced player A to expend his wealth on consumables or to get carried away in his use of them either.
@Nathanael Love: In your scenario...
Were I Player A I would have tracked every consumable I utilized that directly affected each player and charged them appropriately at the conclusion of the adventure. ("eating" the cost of any consumables that benefited the party as a whole).
Were I player B I would only compensate A for the consumables he offered that directly impacted my performance. And nothing more.
See now the bolded part paints a disturbing picture about expectations IMO.
You are going to have to explain to me how Player B is leeching. No one forced player A to expend his wealth on consumables or to get carried away in his use of them either.
How so? If a Player is undergeared for his level, you allow him to regear no? Do you just let him perform less effectively than the other players forever if he uses consumables?
Player B is leeching because he let Player A purchase the item and then effectively gets said item for free.
And I think that any player who finds the need to burn through 5,000 gold worth of consumables is not an intelligent player. . . its a play style and GMing style issue not really a systems question.And if part of why you don't like vancian casting is because scrolls let you circumvent that, but you think that an "intelligent DM" should restock scrolls for players who burn through consumables recklessly then I see a major logic flaw in those two conflicting arguments.
Ah so you just penalize a player who wants to use consumables more. It's most definitely a system issue. If a character whose supposed to have 2,000 gold spends it on consumables, uses those consumables and then is no longer benefiting from them at a later point, can you honestly say he still has 2,000 gold worth of gear?
Don't get me wrong, I dig Vancian casting. It's just with wands, pearls of power and other resources available, it's not really Vancian casting.
I never even said recklessly, but you're quite fond to put words in others mouths.
There are other systems who do Vancian casting better justice than Dungeons and Dragons. I find that hilarious.
And you can't acknowledge that your system where consumables are essentially not consumed is contributing to the problem you are referencing?
Yes-- if my wands and scrolls effectively recharge after I use them every time then of course it conflicts with the limited nature of the spell casting system.
These problems you see aren't there if you run it right. A Character who is recompensated still has the same gold amount as everyone else. A character who uses more gets more only in the sense that he...Edit: and even if the DM is seeding those scrolls, player's B, C, and D could still contend that those should be split equally or sold and liquidated-- it doesn't matter what form the treasure is in, there's still a "price" on consumption unless the DM is specifically mandating/fiating that a character who USES more GETS more compared to a true equal split.
Edit: again, barring a party agreement or some kind of "group fund"-- but even then a player using more of the group fund and burning through resources is draining the party as much/more than the player who relies primarily on his class abilities.
No-- he has more gold. He has a Wand that cost 500 gold that he used then he got another for "recompensated" value. He actually has used and burnt through MORE of the party resources.
What you are suggesting is essentially zero cost consumables or infinite wands and scrolls and that leads to all sorts of problems that I could not even begin to get into.
But you are correct-- a Wizard with Wand of Infinite Fireballs and Scroll of Infinite Magic Missiles which he knows the DM will "recompensate" him for has absolutely no resemblance of Vancian magic and you might as well not use the spell preparation system at all if you are going to hand out items like that.
In the system you are describing the Wizard essentially has Infinite Spells Per day with all spells known limited by nothing. . .that's not the way the game was designed to run.
No-- he has more gold. He has a Wand that cost 500 gold that he used then he got another for "recompensated" value. He actually has used and burnt through MORE of the party resources.
What you are suggesting is essentially zero cost consumables or infinite wands and scrolls and that leads to all sorts of problems that I could not even begin to get into.
But you are correct-- a Wizard with Wand of Infinite Fireballs and Scroll of Infinite Magic Missiles which he knows the DM will "recompensate" him for has absolutely no resemblance of Vancian magic and you might as well not use the spell preparation system at all if you are going to hand out items like that.
No he doesn't have more gold. He has the same total amount of gold as everyone else. He hasn't burnt through more "party resources" because everyone has their own WBL.
I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. The only thing I am suggesting is that if someone is undergeared, you regear them.
If the fighter's 100,000 gold sword is destroyed permanently, has he lost 100,000 gold permanently forever and will always be 100,000 gold less than his party members?