Malachi Tarchannen wrote:
And that's why the targets of the spell in that situation get total concealment, and so you have a 50% miss chance.
Oh, so it does! Haha, my mistake. Thanks!
I'm not sure if this is the right forum for this, but it looks like there's something weird going on with the layout in the Skills chapter in the beta. Some skill descriptions have normal case in their headers, while some have all uppercase, and I don't see any pattern or meaning behind the difference in the two. Even stranger, Heal has normal case in the skill name in the header, but then the parenthetical is uppercase.
It's a little thing, yeah, but I figured you'd want to know tiny layout problems like this as much as tiny rules problems that might pop up.
Frank Trollman wrote:
Heh. Unfortunately, even that's not an option for me. My setting of choice is Planescape, so even if I did stick to low levels, I still would have to keep in mind these consequences, and either rewrite pre-existing material so that they express themselves, or figure out why they don't. I mean, it doesn't make sense for, just to give an example, the Dao to have their millions of earth elemental slaves toiling away in the plane of Mineral if they can just find someone they can use their Limited Wish with and split the magicked-up proceeds.
Though I do have to acknowledge, some of the high-ups in Sigil were said to have enough resources to buy and sell multiple Prime worlds if they so desired.
But anyway, even at low levels, the players would in some way bump elbows with the elite classes, just by the setting's nature. Certainly not in combat, but in some way. So as it is, I'm going to have to figure out something to do.
Ah well. At least, if nothing else, that Mount Celestia trick wouldn't work there. Don't follow a path of morality, you're not getting above Lunia, no matter what fancy magic tricks you've got. Thank heavens for small favors, eh? :D
Anyway, thanks for posting this thread if nothing else. It's given me something to think about, at least.
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
The power and the immortality, I'd imagine. Keep in mind, you don't get a phylactery with Deathless. If someone manages to kill you, that's it, with no chance to come back. Plus you don't get all the lich-specific abilities.
Right, but he's talking about if an item is damaged but not yet at 0 hp.
That's a good point, I didn't think of that issue. That would be problematic if it was codified into the system.
There's just something that rubs me the wrong way about picturing wizards using something like Wish as the basis for an economy. It'd be nice if I could better describe why exactly I don't like the idea, because that might give me better ground to propose an alternative. But as it is, all I can say is I don't, and I'm not exactly sure why. I guess it's like it takes a little bit of the wonder out of magic, to reduce it to something so small. It doesn't feel...escapist enough, I suppose. It's not fantastic enough, which is funny considering I'm talking about mages regularly magicking up enchanted equipment out of nothing at all; hard to get more fantastic than that, and yet it still feels cold.
I do still acknowledge that yes, as is this issue still exists at high levels. But unfortunately even though I don't like Frank's solution and don't really want to play with it on either side of the screen, I can't think of a better answer either.
Okay, good, I was worried for a second.
Well then, with this in mind, is there any easy way to do that sort of skill point audit for a multiclassed character besides just keeping track of what points you spent under what class as you leveled up?
Because while this is true, the rules should still be edited to remove such cases for clarity. In 99% of campaigns, it wouldn't be allowed, yes; it's the fact that the rules as written allow it, and thus they should be rewritten to make them fall in line with common sense.
You know, this is a good point, and it's never occured to me before.
I know back in 2e, you got an Int-based bonus to the number of Proficiencies you got, but you were limited to taking Int- and Wis-based skills; at the time, the mental ones, essentially. Maybe a similar change could be made here, say that your Int bonus can only apply to Int-based skills?
Of course, then there's the problem of why Int gets that bonus and no other stat, so maybe it would make more sense to drop the Int bonus entirely.
Fake Healer wrote:
No it hasn't. There's no feat chains anymore, but you're still limited to using one combat feat per round. That's why Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot were removed from the Combat Feat list.
Frank Trollman wrote:
I see your point here. But this puts me, and DMs like me I would assume, in a conundrum.
I want to play D&D. However, I don't want to play in a setting where wishing items into existence is so common as to be the basis for an economy, because that just doesn't seem fun to me. And I also don't see an alternate system, because the problem you bring up is a real one.
So, what are DMs and players that feel similarly to me supposed to do? And I'm saying now, "play a different system" isn't an option, because I don't want to play a different system, I want to play D&D.
So, what alternative solutions to the Wish economy exist at these high levels, Frank? All I can think of myself is either "don't play with players that want to do stupid gold accumulation tricks" or "just pretend that society is exactly the same, only it has magic that hasn't actually effected society at all ever", but neither of those deals with the actual issue. And I can't imagine that this is the only possible, workable, simple system that's ever been thought of for the issue.
I mean, I think this is why so many people are resisting it. Because the idea of wizards Wishing up magic items for trade just isn't fun to them; the various objections are just more detailed ways of expressing this opinion, or the specific form the opinion takes for them.
Edit: I think Geraint might be on to something - I missed his post before. What if the higher level items don't have an actual price at all? That is, they can't be easily bought? Go back to a pseudo-2e like system. These items have "prices" associated with them, but these values are solely for balancing purposes, there's no way to actually be assured of being able to purchase them...well, anywhere. That way, high level characters can't grind up gold from the low level quests or use other tricks to be able to get access to items much more powerful than they should otherwise have.
In fact, I realize now that this is basically what I've been doing, though not so strict. When a PC wants an item in my game, I consider if it's one that could reasonably be obtained in the general area they're at, and if so, I let them take it. But then again, I've never really DMed a 3.5 game that went that high of a level, so the issue of Wishes never really came up for me.
What about this, combined with simply striking the magic item conjuring from the Wish description?
Praetor Gradivus wrote:
No, no, I'm not calling Frank silly. I'm saying the rule is silly. You're right about the extraplanar travel issue, yes. But all creatures gain the extraplanar subtype and are susceptible to banishment when off of their homeplane, not just Outsiders. So your human, halfling, elf, etc. party members could be banished back to the Prime just like the others.
But according to the rules excerpt from Players Guide to Faerun that Frank posted, even if they're from the Prime, they can be Banished from the Prime...to the Prime. How does that work? That is what I am saying is silly.
(The Clueless deal was me using some Planescape Cant as a lighthearted way of resolving the contradiction.)
As for the Tiefling Cha mod comment, that was a joke. Frank refered to them as one of the "ugly races" before, meaning an evil race. So I made a pun based on the term, and the fact that usually tieflings are shown as quite the opposite. As a second example, Annah from Planescape: Torment.
Big Jake wrote:
The DMG specifically mentions farmer as an example of a Commoner, unfortunately for this case.
Andrew Betts wrote:
You know, I'd like to do this myself, since I'm sure I've made an arithmetic error here and there on some characters, but I've always run into trouble with multiclassing. How do you handle things there?
...Or have I been doing skills wrong for years? The way I've been doing it, a skill only counts as class in terms of points spent per rank if it's a class skill for the class you're leveling at the time. Is this wrong?
Frank Trollman wrote:
That's ridiculous. Where exactly are they banished to? Banishment says it's a more powerful version of dismissal, which means that all aspects of dismissal apply unless specifically contradicted in the description of banishment. Dismissal specifies that it sends its target back to its home plane, and banishment says nothing about where its targets end up, thus this aspect of dismissal still applies to banishment. A tiefling's home plane is most likely the Prime. So where does this Primeborn tiefling end up? That's an idiotic rule that can't even be applied ever, and if a rule can't be applied, it may as well not exist.
Personally, I'd chalk that up to Faerunians just being silly Clueless, wrong about yet another planar thing, much as how they're wrong about the Dark of their own cosmology. Green Fields indeed.
Also, on tieflings being an "ugly race": did you see their 3.0 MM picture? That alone's an argument against a Cha penalty, I'd say. :D
Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
(Note that I'm not saying it's a bad thing. Just that it's silly to say there's no real world stuff in the Golarion pantheon.
And also expressing a bit of irritation at calling the Oerthian deities interchangeable. >:)
If it's every two caster levels, no modifier, then it's every even caster level.
If it's every two caster levels after something, then it's two caster levels after it, then four, then six, etc.
Same pattern for any "every N levels/caster levels" ability.
I've never seen something that varied from this standard in 3.5 or Pathfinder, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's the definitions WotC and Paizo have in their style guides. Do you have an example of a place where one of these isn't used in this manner?
Keep in mind, Conjuration is a damage-dealing school too, but mostly for actual, physical damage, like actually hitting someone with physical acid. Conjuration has only acid at 1d6, while Evocation has any energy at 1d4.
Still a bit tilted, and you're right that Evocation's ability should be more damage focused, perhaps. But it's not like Conjuration isn't a school of dealing damage in addition to summoning in its own right.
Xaaon of Xen'Drik wrote:
No, they only lose the bonus when they prepare spells from prohibited schools. They don't lose access to any of the level-based abilities.
If it requires that sort of component then it's not meant to be a regular, everyday spell. Not every spell you can memorize should be.
You know that 5/2 is less than 3 attacks per round, right? 5/2 is 3 one round and 2 the next, 5 every 2 rounds.
There's something amusing about saying lovecraftian creatures aren't covered well in literature. :D
Also I understand the way you feel when it comes to being a simulationist. I do not think the 3.5 system with skill ranks is good at that either. The character does not have to do anything in particular to get those ranks and where they place them. Player "Oh, I think I will take this skill now." GM: "Why? You have never thought about using it before and you never trained in game how to do that." See, unless you have GM house rules that you have to do some in game training to learn how to do something, which all players I know would shun, then it is a very similar problem to both systems.
You don't need a house rule. DMG, page 197 gives rules for requiring an instructor to learn a new feat or skill or improve an existing skill.
The problem with that is you'd have folks dropping into bard or rogue for one level just to get the extra skills, and then using the rest of their advancement as normal.
Personally, I like the idea of all classes getting 4+Int, or if nothing else, not having any class get more than 6+Int.
With the new school-based class abilities, I really don't think this is an issue. Each wizard except the abjuration specialist has some sort of offensive ability they can use at will, meaning you no longer run into that problem of low-level mages being useless after expending their allotment of spells per day; even abjurers have a useful at-will combat ability at 1st level. And really, when are high-level mages ever going to run out of spells?
When would this problem come up anyway?
Charlie Brooks wrote:
Unless I'm misreading things, this Universal school power seems pretty potent at low levels. My elven wizard has a 13 Strength and an 18 Intelligence. At 1st level, he can either attack someone in melee with a +1 to hit and damage, or he can back off and concentrate to have a spectral hand wield said weapon, fighting with a +4 to hit and damage to anyone within 30 feet. Essentially, I can have fighting skill about equal with the group's warrior at 1st level. At higher levels, it's more beneficial to me to fight with the Hand of the Apprentice than it is to draw a dagger and throw it myself. While wizards are supposed to be better with magical than blades, it still strikes me as odd.
Concentrating is a standard action, right? So what makes this any different from the Evocation or Necromancy 1st level power? It's basically taking in one of the good ideas from 4e, making it so wizards aren't useless after they burn all their memorized spells.
No offense, but how do you know that your set of DMs well-represents the game as a whole? I mean, maybe that's what every DM you've gamed with has done, but every DM I've gamed with actually has calculated the XP for it, including myself. That's including figuring out story awards etc. as well. So from my perspective, if I were to go just from personal experience, I'd say it's entirely the case that people do.
Kurt Wilson wrote:
That doesn't matter, though, because in the long run, it would have done about 5 per hit. After 50, 100, 500 swings, it would be fairly close to what it would have been if it was 5 per hit. The average is just that, the average, regardless of what the standard deviation or probability distribution of the actual results is; over the long haul, you get about the same result with a 2d4 per hit as you would if you got 5 with each hit.