... where, in Mongolia, is a settlement with a value greater than a metropolis?
More than 25.000 people?
In ten different places, actually. Cities in mongoliaHowever, if you are less ambitious, you can buy viking longships in Mongolia in prosperous large towns, which is easier than Metropolis, probably. And has the extra fun of being viking.
Yes: none at all (towns are too small, as the base limit is 2k for large towns, and each of those is 4k+weapon cost.)
Which only means you'll have to go to Korvosa, Magnimar, Riddleport, and make my point still valid, and your counter argument a moot point.
Also, Base Value can be increased by settlements qualities, like Magically Attuned, Notorious or Prosperous.
You can buy a +1 Dwarven Axe in a nation of islationist elves.Yeah, it's probably been there for ages, ever since those dwarves that came through died.
Yep. They came in that invasion with those kung-fu storm giants that hated gelatinous cubes, because I rolled 75% or less for the huge +1 Ooze Bane Nunchaku too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladin potions are cheaper. By the rules that makes them more frequently available.No, that's not true. By the rules, that makes them more desirable, which is different. Paladins have an aligment restriction, and little incentive to take Brew Potion, while Alchemists get it for free, so the number of available paladin potion makers is way lower than the rest of potion makers combined, by far.
Paladin made potions *exist*. That doesn't mean they are *common*
I meant that by the rules they are more common because you can find them in more places. For example, you can find 50 gp potions in pretty much any settlement. Now as to the why they are so frequent is something we must seek the answer for. Perhaps it is because it is easier to become a Paladin than a Cleric (it takes less years of practice and being Lawful Good isn't difficult), perhaps Paladins are apt to hand out their spells (they don't even need the feat, they can just donate the spells during their downtime). Perhaps orders of Paladins spend their downtime doing this very thing because they can (and providing affordable weapons against evil and medicines for the sick is very Paladin-y).
Who knows? What we do know is that they're within the GP limits of pretty much every settlement which makes them available in most every settlement, and if they aren't, they likely are when it restocks.
... where, in Mongolia, is a settlement with a value greater than a metropolis?More than 25.000 people?
In ten different places, actually. Cities in mongoliaHowever, if you are less ambitious, you can buy viking longships in Mongolia in prosperous large towns, which is easier than Metropolis, probably. And has the extra fun of being viking.
Yes: none at all (towns are too small, as the base limit is 2k for large towns, and each of those is 4k+weapon cost.)Which only means you'll have to go to Korvosa, Magnimar, Riddleport, and make my point still valid, and your counter argument a moot point.
Also, Base Value can be increased by settlements qualities, like Magically Attuned, Notorious or Prosperous.
Yep. They came in that invasion with those kung-fu storm giants that hated gelatinous cubes, because I rolled 75% or less for the huge +1 Ooze Bane Nunchaku too.You can buy a +1 Dwarven Axe in a nation of islationist elves.Yeah, it's probably been there for ages, ever since those dwarves that came through died.
Likely that giant monk was an adventurer and hated oozes. He decided to attack the elves and died.
The question stands, who plays by what rules?
Should players playing by RAW *expect* the 75% rule to be in play, and challenge a GM that 'did the homework' and fully inventoried the settlements?
-If not, is the GM supposed to present this facade that items not available in the town failed the check, and may become available within the week?
-Is the GM obligated to provide player-desired quantities of items that he planned to be available in fixed quantities within an immediate time frame?
Shortcuts for GMs are a good thing, since it can help manage and maintain 'worlds in progress' and handwave attention to detail, but it's another thing when GM Shortcuts are built as Player Rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... where, in Mongolia, is a settlement with a value greater than a metropolis?
Golarion's nearest equivalent to Mongolia is Hongal. The population of the capital is 8,227.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Should players playing by RAW *expect* the 75% rule to be in play, and challenge a GM that 'did the homework' and fully inventoried the settlements?
Pathfinder provides two systems for magic item availability in settlements. In one system, it's virtually impossible for players to find the items they want. In the other system, it's ridiculously easy.
It's up to the GM to decide which they prefer. Do you want to cripple certain gear-dependent character types, or allow characters to buy incredibly specific items whenever they want? (Coming up with an alternative system is also an option.)
The question stands, who plays by what rules?
Should players playing by RAW *expect* the 75% rule to be in play, and challenge a GM that 'did the homework' and fully inventoried the settlements?
By the RAW. It appears not. If you took the first option alternate options are needless.
-If not, is the GM supposed to present this facade that items not available in the town failed the check, and may become available within the week?-Is the GM obligated to provide player-desired quantities of items that he planned to be available in fixed quantities within an immediate time frame?
I'm sorry its late, and I'm tired. Can you clarify these questions for me?
I'm sorry its late, and I'm tired. Can you clarify these questions for me?
It's late for me too, mind if I take the pass? o.o
I'll run the game as best as my adapatations can keep up. I prefer to keep the rules as close to RAW as possible. Characters that start at level 1 are easy to maintain, even when I throw in custom gear of no computable value.
It's the characters that come in at higher levels and are issued a blank check. That's where things get rowdy in terms of what players try to get away with, I've found. Not just PF, but old 3.x as well.
There's a lot of expansion material I still want to incorporate, but it's also making it difficult to ensure that my challenges are appropriate when players are given free access to over-adapt. Very simply, someone utters the word 'Vampire', and suddenly there are super soakers, garden hoses, and two dozen very confused diplo-charmed low level clerics tasked with blessing a thousand-gallon tank of water in the back of a wagon.
This may be a non-RAW example, but a general idea of how a few thousand gold and a blank check to buy anything can unhinge significant challenges. I would honestly allow this out of amusement, but may impede the process of planting the next hooks.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
You can't buy partially used wands using the <75% rule, that goes against the nature of wands (which are so cheap because you are effectively buying the magic in bulk) and against the rules, partially charged wands are custom items and as such you can't buy them with the <75% rule, the same way you can't buy (using that rule) a belt of +4 STR +2 CON, because such an item is a custom item.
Likely that giant monk was an adventurer and hated oozes. He decided to attack the elves and died.
Repeteadly. Because I'm going to keep rolling 75% for +1 ooze bane nunchakus, just to mock the stupid system. And if I miss the 75% chance for +1 ooze bane nunchaku, I'll inmediatly ask for a huge +1 Ooze bane tonfa, ir maybe a tiny +1 ooze bane Longspear, from the old and famous Pixie Phalanx Of Gelatinous Cube Extermination. Just because it's free to ask, you spend no time or resources, and it's fun to laugh at it when RAW males 0 sense
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repeteadly. Because I'm going to keep rolling 75% for +1 ooze bane nunchakus, just to mock the stupid system. And if I miss the 75% chance for +1 ooze bane nunchaku, I'll inmediatly ask for a huge +1 Ooze bane tonfa, ir maybe a tiny +1 ooze bane Longspear, from the old and famous Pixie Phalanx Of Gelatinous Cube Extermination. Just because it's free to ask, you spend no time or resources, and it's fun to laugh at it when RAW males 0 sense
Likely that giant monk was an adventurer and hated oozes. He decided to attack the elves and died.
If you're in the area, see if they have any Medium +1 Ooze-bane Scimitars. I'm good for it, I swear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Repeteadly. Because I'm going to keep rolling 75% for +1 ooze bane nunchakus, just to mock the stupid system. And if I miss the 75% chance for +1 ooze bane nunchaku, I'll inmediatly ask for a huge +1 Ooze bane tonfa, ir maybe a tiny +1 ooze bane Longspear, from the old and famous Pixie Phalanx Of Gelatinous Cube Extermination. Just because it's free to ask, you spend no time or resources, and it's fun to laugh at it when RAW males 0 sense
This is a perfect example of why a GM should not use the rules: a player being a jerk to prove the point. That would be an incredibly un-fun session for me, as a fellow player, and as a GM.
On the other hand, if the party needed something specific, I'd push the system through its paces to see if we could get what we needed and stop.
This is similar to the fact that Wealth By Level is a guideline that is part of the rules. However someone taking a legal feat can instantly double the party's effective wealth (well, "instantly" meaning "over the course of one day for every 1,000 gp value").
That's a playstyle difference, and the primary source of the importance of Rule 0.
DO NOT USE the 75% rule, if it doesn't work for your game. I mean, it's written right there, guys.
I know I do! :D
Repeteadly. Because I'm going to keep rolling 75% for +1 ooze bane nunchakus, just to mock the stupid system. And if I miss the 75% chance for +1 ooze bane nunchaku, I'll inmediatly ask for a huge +1 Ooze bane tonfa, ir maybe a tiny +1 ooze bane Longspear, from the old and famous Pixie Phalanx Of Gelatinous Cube Extermination. Just because it's free to ask, you spend no time or resources, and it's fun to laugh at it when RAW males 0 senseThis is a perfect example of why a GM should not use the rules: a player being a jerk to prove the point. That would be an incredibly un-fun session for me, as a fellow player, and as a GM.
On the other hand, if the party needed something specific, I'd push the system through its paces to see if we could get what we needed and stop.
This is similar to the fact that Wealth By Level is a guideline that is part of the rules. However someone taking a legal feat can instantly double the party's effective wealth (well, "instantly" meaning "over the course of one day for every 1,000 gp value").
That's a playstyle difference, and the primary source of the importance of Rule 0.
DO NOT USE the 75% rule, if it doesn't work for your game. I mean, it's written right there, guys.
The thing is, you find muy behavior above "being a jerk", because it ruins your game. I agree. I'd like to point, though, that probably that +1 ooze bane tiny sized longspear won't break anything mechanically (unlike WBL and Craft Woundreous Item). I'm not going to kill the BBEG with it, it's not going to slow down the game with complicated rules... The only thing that it breaks, is *your inmersion*. That's it. The game is no longer fun, because *you are no longer inmersed into the Fantasy World it is simulating*. No mechanical unbalance is needed for it, no rule is broken. Just tearing the little veil that splits "our world" from "their world"
So, I think we can agree that breaking inmersion is bad for the game, can we? You have said that the above example would make the game unfun for you, even if I don't use the huge nunchaku at all. We can also agree that different people might hace different "breaking points". For example, that I buy a tiny oozebane longspear in a site where it obviously shouldn't be one, breaks yours. That I buy a small sized ooze bane nunchaku for my halfling monk, because we suspect we are going to find some oozes later in the adventure, breaks some other guys inmersion *just as much*.
Because for some people, the break of inmersion doesn't come from the fact I'm trying to buy specific items that clearly shouldnt be in 75% of the settlements with apropiated wealth level with the purpose of laughing at the system. The break comes from the fact that the system is laughable to begin with, and using it RAW, without intervention of GM and/or use of common sense, destroy the game experience, regardless of the player really wanting that +1 ooze bane small nunchaku for his character or not
The fact that I should be able to find greyflame furious +1 meteor hammers in the middle of Osirion 75% of the time in appropiated sized settlements just because I decided to play a paladin/fighter(viking) with weapon focus "meteor hammers" is inmersion breaking by itself.
The rule is bad, because it doesn't take in account rarity of the item. A small sized furious nunchaku for the rare halflings barbarian/monk is so common as a +2 longsword, or as a +1 Orc Bane Dwarven Waraxe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The obly thing that it breaks, is *your inmersión*.
No, you're incorrect. It's not because it breaks my immersion, it's because you're doing it for no purpose other than to make fun of the system. That's boring, and time-consuming, and it doesn't benefit any of the other players. Getting what we need to keep playing? Benefits the players. Wasting time to mock the system? Doesn't benefit the players.
That's it. The game is no longer fin, because *you are no longer inmersed into the Fantasy World it is simulating*. No mechanical unbalance is needed for it, no rule is broken.
Your presupposition of why it's a jerk move is incorrect, because you're looking at this from a different angle than I am. Which is fine. But it's important to realize.
So, I think we can agree that breaking inmersion is bad for the gsme, can we? We can also agree that different people might hace different "breaking points".
This disagrees with nothing I've ever said on this thread. When, in fact, I said:
DO NOT USE the 75% rule, if it doesn't work for your game. I mean, it's written right there, guys.
EDIT: because my infant is crying, so... head-ache and snark. Blech. :/ Sorry.
Getting what we need to keep playing?
But... does the halfing monk/barbarian really needs a +1 small furious nunchaku? Couldn't he play with, say, a +2 small nunchaku? Is the game going to stop if he doesn't have it? Or even better, does he needs the +1 small furious nunchaku right now, as if he were entitled to ask for instant gratification? Couldn't he spend some time looking for a magic item crafter, and then commision the item (which takes just 8 days or so to build), and witht the desirable side effect of not breaking the inmersion (of others with a different inmersion breaking point) with the fact that settlement marketplace become a blurry limbo of meta-items that become reality at players' whim, when they ask for it?
The fact that you, gustavo iglesias, do not personally enjoy a given rule does not make it a 'bad rule', nor does it make it not RAW or RAI. It just means that that particular rule is bad for you.
And that's why house rules are a thing.
Corollary of that is that no rule can be bad, ever, in no circumstance. I disagree with such corollary (rules can be bad, even if I might be wrong with this one), and therefore I disagree with your premise.
Getting what we need to keep playing?But... does the halfing monk/barbarian really needs a +1 small furious nunchaku? Couldn't he play with, say, a +2 small nunchaku? Is the game going to stop if he doesn't have it? Or even better, does he needs the +1 small furious nunchaku right now, as if he were entitled to ask for instant gratification? Couldn't he spend some time looking for a magic item crafter, and then commision the item (which takes just 8 days or so to build), and witht the desirable side effect of not breaking the inmersion (of others with a different inmersion breaking point) with the fact that settlement marketplace become a blurry limbo of meta-items that become reality at players' whim, when they ask for it?
The interesting thing about this argument is that it only arises in the circumstance that a particular group's playstyle clashes with the rule. That's it. The problem is that the rules also give an explicit "out" for not using them to the GM. Hence, don't play with it if it clashes with your table.
The entire reason this discussion was brought up was wands (and other consumables). That said, specific weapons, yes, can be relatively paramount to a character build: it's one of the reasons that Weapon Focus/Specialization is generally frowned upon as a feat, because it's so weapon-dependent.
That nunchaku actively alters the halfling barbarian's combat capability. That is why they are seeking it. If you deny them in the shop, but give it to them later on, what are you accomplishing?
- In some instances, the sense of accomplishment. Buying something in a shop can feel anticlimactic. For certain groups.
- In some cases, the ability of a GM to maintain control. Having ready access to character-building equipment can cause strain between player and GM (in the case of play-style clash), but is generally used to moderate challenges according to the GM's sense of "balance" and "proper" gameplay (for, what the GM believes to be, the maximum "fun" value).
- In some cases, it's the pettiness of maintaining control just to have power over something, or to try to force a moral or social lesson on players. This is the least-common case, but one that does exist.
- Some other reason that I can't think of.
Corollary of that is that no rule can be bad, ever, in no circumstance. I disagree with such corollary (rules can be bad, even if I might be wrong with this one), and therefore I disagree with your premise.The fact that you, gustavo iglesias, do not personally enjoy a given rule does not make it a 'bad rule', nor does it make it not RAW or RAI. It just means that that particular rule is bad for you.
And that's why house rules are a thing.
The corollary is not an automatic corollary. It is, in fact, a straw-corollary, and hence your rejection is based on a flawed premise and is, itself, flawed.
<shrug>
This seems like mostly a non-problem, since the Rules As Written are particularly vague, offering nearly any option the DM wants to adopt.
I like to pre-stock magic shops - armorers, weaponsmiths, potionshops, temples, etc. For me, the easiest way is to use a website like http://donjon.bin.sh/pathfinder/magic/shop.html and copy/paste into word, occasionally modifying the results if they seem too weird.
One of the things I like about this website is that it offers a random description of the magic items that feels like a good seed for coming up with increasingly personalized results. It makes magic items seem special.
And for those who feel that their characters are irredemably gimped by not having access to the ultra-special snowflake items that they obsess over, I can only say... "Pfffffft". Despite the WBL tables and player expectations for stat-boosting items, weapons, armor, save-enhancing items and so on, I maintain that they will do just fine with whatever magic the DM sees fit to seed his dungeons with. Your expectations regarding level-appropriate gear are merely a breeze in a clever DMs hair. The games works just fine with minimal gear, or with huge quantities of tailor-made gear. IT's all a question of feeling and atmosphere, and that is most assuredly the province of the individual DM to determine.
YMMV.
That nunchaku actively alters the halfling barbarian's combat capability. That is why they are seeking it. If you deny them in the shop, but give it to them later on, what are you accomplishing?
I just asked the question, but I'll also answer it, to the degree I'm able.
- In some instances, the sense of accomplishment. Buying something in a shop can feel anticlimactic. For certain groups.
- In some cases, the ability of a GM to maintain control. Having ready access to character-building equipment can cause strain between player and GM (in the case of play-style clash), but is generally used to moderate challenges according to the GM's sense of "balance" and "proper" gameplay (for, what the GM believes to be, the maximum "fun" value).
- In some cases, it's the pettiness of maintaining control just to have power over something, or to try to force a moral or social lesson on players. This is the least-common case, but one that does exist.
- Some other reason that I can't think of. Please feel free to come up with them!
In my case, none of the above. I like unconventional chars myself, and I encourage them as a GM as well. I do understand that magic items are part of some of those builds (if it should be that way, is another topic). I'm not afraid of player power or player empowerment.
In my case, it's just to keep the thin veil of inmersion. We all use suspension of disbelief while playing the game, in a number of situations. "time pockets" when players take full rounds while the rest of the world is freezed, for example. That suspension of disbelief is stretched sometimes, and some people is more tolerant than others to it. Some are more tolerant in certain situations (ie: there's a thread somewhere about Hydras, and why you can cut their necks, but not a dragon's neck. I'm not bothered for that, it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief or destroy my inmersion.
However, the protean nature of the extra-dimensional magic mart does. It's impossible that the magic shop has 75% of each possible combination of magic weapons and magic abilities. Think for a moment: that's a +1 ooze bane nunchaku, +1 furious nunchaku, +2 nunkchaku, +1 corrosive nunchaku, +1 defending nunchaku, and so on. Then it's the same for Kamas, Shianghams, Sais, and the other bunch of monk weapons. Then for non monk weapons. In small size, for the halfling monk, and large size, for the characters with Titan Fighter or Titan Mauler. Then cold iron, silver and adamantine versions. And that's only for up to +2 weapons. You have +3 (which grow exponentially in combinations), and you have armors and shields as well. That's thousands of magic items, worth millions of gold, lying in the shop. The other option, is that the shop has just a few, maybe half a dozen, magic items, which are made of a protean ectoplasm, and take form when the PC projects its whim. "I want a +1 furious nunchaku", and the nunchaku appear. "no wait, I'd rather take a kama. I think. Make it Cold Iron. " and the nunchaku dissapear, and a cold iron kama appear.
That breaks the inmersion, at least for me. And it's unneeded, because there are a lot of ways for the player to get what he wants, without needing such break of inmersion. I encourage my players, as a GM, to take craft magic items feats. I encourage my fellow playes, as a PC, to take them as well, in a coordinated manner, so we cover most of our bases.
I DO use the 75% rule, for most consumables, staple adventurers items and low level standard weapons. Like potions of heroism, handy haversacks, adaptive compound bows, rings of protection, weapons, cloaks of resistance... I also use the rule for other magic items, in a case by case situation: The player ask "can I roll to see if there's magic item X in this town?", and more often than not, I let him. But not always, in any situation regardless of where they are, the settlement culture, the magic item searched, etc.
I also use the rule to see if there's an artisan that can craft magic items, if there's none described in the town. For example, you could roll to see if there's a paladin with brew potion, and if there's one, you can buy lvl 1 lesser restoration potions from him, or a druid with scribe scroll for some druid only spells, or a blacksmith who could make up to +2 weapons. If there's one, you can commission your items, no matter how rare, because all crafters can do all weapons. This way the halfling can get his +1 furious nunchaku, without needing to stretch the suspension of disbelief into either a wallmart with 6.000 combinations of weapons and several millions of gold pieces worth of material, or a protean ectoplasmmic metaweapon of shapeshifting nature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What breaks immersion to you fits naturally into the world to me. That small ooze-bane nunchaku in the land of the elves? Well, no elf is likely to want to buy it, so I might describe Mort the salesman as pulling it out of a box coated in dust, talking about how it's been in this shop since his grandfather ran it, seven hundred fifty years ago, waiting for the time when it would be needed.
I totally visualized this in my mind while reading it and I found it awesome. I'm also glad to see I'm not the only one who likes spicing up a trip the the merchants now and then. (^_^)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Ashiel, how did you price G.I.N.A and the other traps?
-Nearyn
Hey Ashiel, how did you price G.I.N.A and the other traps?
-Nearyn
It's been a while, but I'm 99.99% sure I used the standard rules for magical traps (see environment section of the PRD) and just made them intelligent magic items (basic sentience only adds +250 gp to the market price of an item, then you add some more for various features).
It's been a while, but I'm 99.99% sure I used the standard rules for magical traps (see environment section of the PRD) and just made them intelligent magic items (basic sentience only adds +250 gp to the market price of an item, then you add some more for various features).Hey Ashiel, how did you price G.I.N.A and the other traps?
-Nearyn
thx a bunch, I'll try to run the numbers :)
-Nearyn
It's been a while, but I'm 99.99% sure I used the standard rules for magical traps (see environment section of the PRD) and just made them intelligent magic items (basic sentience only adds +250 gp to the market price of an item, then you add some more for various features).Hey Ashiel, how did you price G.I.N.A and the other traps?
-Nearyn
Isn't there a slight chance that since they sentient thieves could convince through diplomacy or bluff their way around the traps?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not if it's against their Intended Purpose, as I recall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I make up a settlement I try to randomize as much as possible. I roll up each element; D12 for qualities, 1d5 (a D10 but 1-2 =1, 3-4 = 2, etc) for government type, etc. When it comes time for magic items I randomly roll these too.
The downside is the really bizarre combos. I had a village with a quality that gave it a 3000 GP limit. I then rolled up a random magic item: +2 longsword. WTF? So I just made it a +1 sword.
Then the thought occurred to me: who would need to SELL such an item? I suppose I could have a sword dealer in a remote town but it just didn't appeal to me. Then I thought: what if "sell" is just another word for "trade?"
Think about it: there are MANY adventures that start off with "the PCs will be paid X for going and doing the quest..." so why not use some of these magic items as the promised payment.
Suddenly my whole outlook on all of this changed. Sure consumables might still be sold out of some little shop or off of a cart, but stuff like swords, armor, wondrous items and other permanent "big" items for PCs could be plot hooks.
With the village/sword combo I knew that the area was going to be threatened by the fey so I put the sword in the hands of a commoner. He'll "pay" the party with the +1 longsword if they help rid the apple orchard of a group of mites whose vermin are blighting the trees.
What are you even talking about?Now I'm confused, are you trying to troll?
Trolling is beneath me. I was mostly questioning because pretty much 100% of everything that you said was false, or seemed to be. Like, what does it have to do with WBL or NPC WBL? Why does being able to buy common items commonly break immersion? It actually is supported by RAW (the contrary is not). I don't really see why this would suddenly cause PCs to suddenly combine together and transform into the MegaMurderHoboZorde and start attacking villages if they wouldn't have already (Ryric pointed out that it's not just magic items but mundane items which are even sillier in some cases, so I mean if they're not burning towns for full plate they probably aren't doing it for a scroll of knock).
Plus all the bitterness. Why so bitter? We're all friends here. Have a cookie. :)
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea that different number of changes == different item == another 75% chance for the item to be there. In the absence of any RAW on this point, I don't see how anyone can claim that the RAW is firmly their side. If I choose to only let a player roll once for a wand of X and you choose to let them have one roll for each charge, there is nothing that says either of us is doing it wrong. Beyond that, several people have pointed out how from a RAI perspective your interpretation trivializes the 75% roll to the point of "why even bother?".
That said, I see several people who are jumping on a single poster, and pulling their comments WAY out of context. They were responding specifically to my comment(you know the one right above theirs), which was in the context of whether there is any RAW to support the different number of charges == different item == new chance to roll 75%, and the RAI implications of the different interpretations. Their unforgivable sin was apparently forgetting to quote me.
I am sorry, but you are mistaken. I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea that different number of changes == different item == another 75% chance for the item to be there.
Then you either haven't really read anything - you either skimmed looking to prove your point or ignored the evidence presented.
In the absence of any RAW on this point, I don't see how anyone can claim that the RAW is firmly their side. If I choose to only let a player roll once for a wand of X and you choose to let them have one roll for each charge, there is nothing that says either of us is doing it wrong. Beyond that, several people have pointed out how from a RAI perspective your interpretation trivializes the 75% roll to the point of "why even bother?".
There is RAW. You may choose to interpret it differently. That's interpretation, not RAW.
That said, I see several people who are jumping on a single poster, and pulling their comments WAY out of context. They were responding specifically to my comment(you know the one right above theirs), which was in the context of whether there is any RAW to support the different number of charges == different item == new chance to roll 75%, and the RAI implications of the different interpretations. Their unforgivable sin was apparently forgetting to quote me.
You definitely missed a number of posts that were removed. They gave a great deal more context than you can currently see.
This post should make that clear.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd before I can even post, someone who hasn't read the thread:
It most certainly does not. Wands can ONLY be created as 50 charge items. Wands of other than 50 charges are custom items and as such that availability is determined solely by the GM. The proprieter may (and mostly iike will) have wands of fewer charges but those would be placed by the GM like any other form of non-random treasure.New thread.
You can have a 75% chance to find an appropriately-valued magic item, which includes wands at reduced charges, as defined by Charges, Doses, and Multiple Uses:
[
Please read the whole thread first. Thanks! :D
1-minute EDIT: it is definitively possible that you've read the thread, but you've bypassed a large number of arguments to post on an earlier assertion. Hence the assumption.
The continued wailing of RAW this or RAW that for a section that repeatedly calls for gm adjudication is rather amusing.
The 75% for each charge and each caster level is certainly one way to play the game but insisting that is raw is laughable.
Please read the whole thread first. Thanks! :D
1-minute EDIT: it is definitively possible that you've read the thread, but you've bypassed a large number of arguments to post on an earlier assertion. Hence the assumption.
In the interest of keeping things civil. Yes, I did read the whole thread and no, the link you posted does not back up your claim that different number of charges == different magic item for the purpose of the 75% roll. It only shows that different number of charges == different price. There is still quite a logical hurdle to jump over to get to different price == different item for the 75% roll. Further, it has been pointed out in this thread why the "different price == different item" does not automatically follow as you seem to think it does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the interest of keeping things civil. Yes, I did read the whole thread and no, the link you posted does not back up your claim that different number of charges == different magic item for the purpose of the 75% roll. It only shows that different number of charges == different price. There is still quite a logical hurdle to jump over to get to different price == different item for the 75% roll. Further, it has been pointed out in this thread why the "different price == different item" does not automatically follow as you seem to think it does.
First, the part you quoted for the above was explicitly to Laz, not to you! I thought that would be obvious by placing it directly under a quote by him, instead of your own (to which I had more exacting responses and several variable options listed beyond straight-forwardly "not reading the thread", though that was an option).
Second, the fact that you do not find it convincing - which is fine, and entirely valid for an opinion - is entirely irrelevant to the fact that evidence has, in fact, been presented, and functions without major "logical leaps".
If you are unable to follow it, alas.
If you are unwilling to follow it, fair enough, that's you're choice.
Stating,
I have yet to see any RAW to back up the idea
... is a falsehood, intentional or not, and should be avoided, because, as the four pages in this thread have shown, it has been addressed.
Again, if you are personally unconvinced by said evidence is irrelevant to the fact that said evidence has been presented.
Thanks! :D
The continued wailing of RAW this or RAW that for a section that repeatedly calls for gm adjudication is rather amusing.
The 75% for each charge and each caster level is certainly one way to play the game but insisting that is raw is laughable.
I find your continued lack of recognition of anyone's opinion other than your own regrettable.
The fact that you are as condescending as you are is... a shame, really. It is, in fact, laughable, but not for the reasons you seem to imagine.
As noted before, I do hope you continue to have good gaming experiences, however, and please feel free to present more convincing arguments on the matter!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is of note that that under certain folkses interpretation that one cannot have multiples of the same item either.
Just found that mindset peculiar.