His BAB is still a 20 he has a -2 on the attacks but gains attacks for the whole BAB.
IE at 6th level a fighter 5/monk 1 would have 3 attacks on a flurry at BAB 6/6/1 the actual numbers before str and feats is 4/4/-1 this doesn't make him lose that last attack though.
I'm not worried about the number of attacks, just the BAB for now.
So you agree that the Flurry BAB is +18, not +20 as the FAQ says?
His BASE attack bonus is +20
(This determines his number of attacks, among other things)
His MODIFIED attack bonus is +18
(Well, part of it is - other modifiers as Strength and Magic will apply too, presumably)
Something that we've tried with good results is using a level / 2 bonus to everyone's AC but removing deflection bonuses and enhancements to natural armour. This handily removes 2 of the "big six" items (if that's your bag) but there are a few gotchas (Barkskin and Nymphs both need a bit of rewording, for example).
It doesn't apply to racial hit dice unless the creature also has class levels, so it comes into play for classed boss monsters and monster PCs but not for everything in the Bestiary. The good folks at Paizo usually pile on natrual armour or something to get standard monster AC up to where it should be for "normals", anyway.
I am Australian and play mostly in my native language, Strine. Some words are a bit tricky to translate: Barbarian becomes "bogan", and rogue becomes "citizen", for example. Blackguard becomes "Hanson" or "immigrant" depending on which dialect you speak.
"I sneak attack the guard" becomes "I king-hit the bouncer", and "I cast magic missile at the Troll" becomes "I throw a shoe at the Prime Minister".
Gaming works ok with a mixture of "Strine-glish" for the most part, though.
disclaimer:
This is a (poor) lampoon of the Australian accent / vernacular. No offense or disrespect for non-native speakers of English is intended.
A reasonable house rule that is getting unfairly pilloried
Don't worry about all the negative nancies around here, Gebby, these boards are full of 'em.
The rule looks fine to me as a house rule... it will take a little finagling at the table and when designing encounters, but then all house rules do.
I may try out something like it myself... I too have been looking for ways to de-emphasise Con and cut back the high level hit point inflation while providing a little boost at the start.
In our long running homebrew setting, the three races all share a common hominid ancestor. Humans are direct descendants, orcs and elves branched off thanks to interloping goblinoid and fey immortals. Orcs and elves are not able to procreate. However the same progenitors are also the ancestors of the two gith races and grimlocks as well.
In game, the ancestor species has been mentioned in ancient writings. Their relics, cave paintings and even remains have been found during adventures across several campaigns. I am planning a great reveal at the conclusion of a future campaign based around a time-war between illithids (from the end of time) and aboleths (from the dawn)...
and is more believable, for those simulationists like myself who feel that marking doesn't make sense in the world of fantasy physics.
A circumstance penalty being imposed because someone is trying to distract you by forcing his sword in your face is perfectly believable.
Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
Minions don't work well for the same reasons - PF tries to emulate a fantasy reality, and its rules don't play well with concessions to better gameplay for gameplay's sake.
A 150hp fighter routinely surviving 200ft falls emulates a fantasy reality? But a guy dropping out of a fight because he got stabbed is a concession to gameplay? Minions can work just fine in a game with abstract hit points.
Rules such as these are not everyone's cup of tea, for sure, but they can work just fine in PF for folks who like them - they're both functional and believable within the context of abstract combat systems
• Minions: This seems relatively easy to add to me and I think can be lifted whole cloth. Has anyone tried this?
Yep. We have a "mook" Simple template, which is pretty basic and effective. It just gives two special qualities, one that provides the "drop in one hit" mook-effect and another that standardizes their attacks. I can post details if you like.
Finarin Panjoro wrote:
• Dynamic Combats: I liked that 4E had made virtually all forms of attacks into standard actions, including multiple weapon attacks. This made it so that the player’s move action never needed to expended on anything other than actually moving. Any thoughts on a way to incorporate this into Pathfinder?
We've been trialling a rule wherein you can trade any one iterative attack to move up to half your speed (or two to move your full speed, three to move 1.5 times speed). You forgo these in pairs if you're using two-weapon fighting, and you cannot forgo natural attacks since this ability arises from training with weapons (just like the iterative attacks themselves). I posted it here a few weeks back, to much chirping of crickets and rolling of tumbleweed.
Finarin Panjoro wrote:
• Simplified Conditions and Modifiers: This addresses the High Calculation Combat Effects issue that I had with 3.5 (see part one). Penalties applied to fixed traits like attack, defense, skill use, action availability, etc. No Con drain or caster level changes. I’m considering adopting a similar condition track and then creating a...
We already use "combat advantage" as short-hand for "denied a dexterity bonus to AC", but aside from that we use the PFRPG conditions.
Hope this is at least a bit useful.
Finarin Panjoro wrote:
• Defender Viability (marking): I liked that a tank had a way to demand the attention of a given enemy or penalize him for going after someone else. I’ve been considering a feat chain that would allow a marking mechanic into the game for those interested in taking it. Has anyone tried something like this?
Yep, we added a chain of feats - Melee Mark, Improved, Greater. Same mechanic as 4e fighter (attack 'em and they're marked). Being marked gives you a -2 circumstance penalty on attack rolls and save DCs against everyone aside from the marker. The improved and greater versions just increase the penalty so it remains meaningful at higher levels.
To be honest, though, they've only seen use for one character. I guess there are better things to burn feats on than being sticky.
On the topic of the defensive option, does the AC bonus apply to touch attacks and/or flat footed AC?
Like a dodge bonus - so it applies to touch attacks but is lost when you lose your Dex bonus to AC.
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of trading attacks for cool things that aren't just bigger numbers - i.e. your suggestion about the duelist's parry/counter-attack ability.
RE: Movement, I think half speed works out OK. Moving 15ft is three times further than just a 5ft-step. Add a few speed boosts (haste, monk levels, a couple of Fleet feats) and you could be covering 20-30ft with that half move. Also, at +16 BAB you can move full speed and still attack twice.
What about getting some combat manoeuvres or conditions in on the action? Any ideas how those sorts of things might be traded in for iterative attacks?
Also, any thoughts about when/how this sort of thing might get a bit wonky or abusable?
I edited the above response for clarity. Sorry if you already read the older one.
Kierato wrote:
The Duelist gains the ability to give up one attack to use it to latter parry an attack against them or an adjacent ally, and at higher levels can counter attack with the same ability. Just a thought.
I'm tempted to say let them move their full speed with mobile attack since many warriors can only move 30 ft or less. 10-15 ft. won't get you very far.
Good ideas both. Do you think the Duelist parry would be a better way to model the "defensive" tactical option? It already has in-game precedent.
Do you lose your highest attacks, lowest attacks, or whatever attacks you choose to gain these benefits.
As I said in the OP, you can choose which to lose but it assumes you will drop the lowest one.
Kierato wrote:
Does the movement provided by mobile attack have to be used all at once or can it be split up.
This is exactly the kind of feedback I wanted... helping me to nail down stuff I missed! Thanks :)
In my head, it works like this: use it when you take it, and any left over is lost. E.g. With three attacks and 30ft speed you could:
(1) Make an attack, move up to 15ft, attack again
(2) move up to 15ft, and attack twice
(3) attack twice and move up to 15ft
(4) full attack three times
(5) take a move action (30ft) and a standard action (one attack)
Kierato wrote:
Mon wrote:
The same thinking also applies for Vital Strike/Cleave/etc. Structurally, we feel you shouldn't need a specific feat in the game just to move and deal decent damage (YMMV). Since these aren't feats, they free-up (or don't consume) feat slots for other nifty goodies - a good thing given that there are so many cool feats in PF.
This comment gives me the impression that you are under-valuing these feats, even if that is not your intent. After all, the whole point of them is so that warrior types can move and still contribute meaningfully in combat.
I am not sure what you mean by undervalue... this isn't at all about how effective/valuable those feats are. We've used them in play, we know how they work out. Nor does it disregard the fact that those feats do indeed let you move and contribute meaningfully (that's a given).
It is the idealistic view that warriors should be able to move and contribute meaningfully without burning feats to do so, and with the feats they don't spend getting an ability that we feel should be built-in they can buy a few more of the 100s of other cool PF feats. Or they can spend feats and become better at moving-and-contributing than warriors who choose not to focus on that as part of their concept.
To be honest, moving and attacking is only a small part of the idea... a starting-point "utility" effect alongside "defensive" (Elsusive Attack) and "offensive" (Decisive Attack) options to get creative juices flowing. The main thing is giving warriors more stuff to do within the action economy. Other effects would be more than welcome, if you have any ideas! (In fact, that's kind of what I am fishing for with the thread).
They're not feats, they are combat options that anybody can do.
We're aware of the mobile fighter, but thanks for the heads up anyway :) This is more of a system-wide house rule proposal* that addresses a perceived disparity between casters and warriors in the action economy, not something that is fighter-class-specific.
The same thinking also applies for Vital Strike/Cleave/etc. Structurally, we feel you shouldn't need a specific feat in the game just to move and deal decent damage (YMMV). Since these aren't feats, they free-up (or don't consume) feat slots for other nifty goodies - a good thing given that there are so many cool feats in PF.
I am interested in your thoughts on ways that the rules might unbalance the game, or interactions I haven't considered/foreseen.
This is just an idea for a few homebrew combat rules, not a suggestion to change the game as written. The intention is to add new combat options that use iterative attacks as the primary resource/currency. Essentially, finding more things to do with them.
Why? (longish):
There seems to be some thought and discussion in the d20 corner of cyberspace about the action economy being biased in favour of casters. Casters can move and alter reality, while the warriors have to stand still to grate cheese. The implication being that warriors are disadvantaged because they can't do their best stuff if they move, and that warriors are also tedious to play because they just stand there and roll attacks or CMB checks. It seems to me and my main group that there is some truth in this.
If that's not your experience then this thread is probably not for you as you clearly won't like or want the proposed house rule.
Here are some proposals, untested, to get started. All are variations of the Full Attack action that trade out the second, third, and/or fourth attacks for other tactical goodies. Usually, the attacks with the lowest bonus would be the ones that are sacrificed, but you could choose any iterative attack if you needed to (for example) move between attacks.
At this stage, they only apply for iterative attacks derived directly from base attack bonus and not for extra attacks gained due to natural weapons or multi-weapon fighting. The flavour reason being that they arise from combat training with weapons, just as iterative attacks themselves do. The mechanical reason being that Two-weapon warriors, elderly dragons, etc could otherwise get sick bonuses and still make a tremendous number of attacks.
What would be the effect of these on PF and other d20 games? If they turn out to be poorly implemented, is there a better way that we could use iterative attacks to give more tactical options? Or is the whole idea structurally unsound? If so, why?
Elusive Attack
A character with a base attack bonus of +6 or higher can lose one iterative attack in order to gain a +2 bonus to his AC and CMD until the start of his next turn. A character with a base attack bonus of +11 can lose two attacks to gain a +4 bonus, and a character with a base attack bonus of +16 can lose three attacks to gain a +6 bonus.
Decisive Attack
A character with a base attack bonus of +6 or higher can lose one iterative attack in order to add half of his base attack bonus to damage rolls until the end of his turn. A character with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher can lose two iterative attacks in order to add his full base attack bonus, and a character with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher can lose three iterative attacks in order to add 1 1/2 times his base attack bonus to damage.
Mobile Attack
A character with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher can lose one iterative attack in order to move up to half his speed. A character with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher can lose two iterative attacks in order to move a distance up to his speed.
For offence, I basically make sure I have one SOD/SOS spell that targets each save, and take heighten spell as a feat so they stay useful forever. Make sure there is no HD cap, though, and be aware of limitations like a second save for hideous laughter or, for resilient sphere, many otherwise ideal targets (low-ref casters) having dispel magic on hand.
I am also a tremendous fan of shadow magic and summons, for the versatility. Summon III and VI are usually enough since they aren't so great in combat anyway. For defence it is all about miss % since AC sux anyway.
Nothing compared to a wizard, but great for a spam-tastic sorcerer.
Checkout the rule from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, where casters can "weave" spells. Weaving Up allows you to combine three slots of one level to get a single slot of the next level up. Weaving Down lets you unravel a spell slot to gain two slots of the next level down. The reason you get less for weaving down is so that caster's don't get insane numbers of spells, I believe. Anyway, the deterrent is that it's not as efficient in terms of spell levels, rather than mana burn or whatever.
Anyhoo, the Arcana Evolved magic system uses the same premise as yours does so it might be good to check it out.
I am especially excited about archetypes since we haven't used prestige-classes since about 2002 or 2003 - this seems like JUST the thing for our group. :D
And a debuffing bard? Sweet way to turn the class on its head! Reminds me of the Jester from the Dragon Compendium.
No, I'm asking all the "undead should not be sneak/critable, because OMG how do you crit a skeleton" people. It's all fun and games until you face the rules in action, and that particular immunity was a major PITA of 3.0/3.5.
So why the extra reduction in damage? It just adds another layer of complexity that isn't really needed.
Because it adds flavour and an extra layer of (mechanical) depth to those creature types by re-enforcing the fact that hitting them is like hitting a statue or a corpse rather than a vital being.
Sure it isn't needed. But neither is ice cream.
aside:
LOL how times have changed.
Folks used to take us to task about even allowing sneak attacks and crits against undead/constructs back in 3.x (we told them it was targeting a structural weakness). Now we have to justify it for the other reason... because structural weaknesses aren't as easy to splatter with a sword as a kidney :D
In 3.5 Undead and constructs were immune to critical hits and precision damage. In pathfinder they are just as vulnerable to crits as any human.
Does anyone think a compromise position should be adopted? Maybe give them medium fortification so they can shrug off 50% of crits but still have weak spots.
Been doing (almost) exactly that for about 8 years. Works well. Now with PFRPG that particular house rule has jumped from one side of the fence to the other (from giving more damage than RAW to giving less), but the balance has felt right in all of our games for nigh on a decade.
Remember, at no point did Dulsin suggest removing crits/sneaks vs undead and constructs - he said halve the extra damage. So head-shotting a zombie is still better, and you can whack a crack in the body of a golem and make it crumble... just not as easily as you can on squishy things with vital organs.
You know, we've been doing something similar with unarmed strikes for YEARS but it never occurred to me to extend it to other weapons. Neat idea.
For unarmed strikes, we've used...
Simple: 1d3 non-lethal, counts as unarmed
Martial: 1d4 lethal or non-lethal, counts as armed
Exotic: 1d6 lethal or non-lethal, armed, can use as a secondary natural weapon if your hands are full (kicks, bites, headbutts, knees, elbows, shoulder barges etc).
You can use a strike one proficiency-step above your level with -4 to hit. Improved Unarmed Strike feat is deprecated. Monks get exotic unarmed strike proficiency for free at first level.
This might be a bit much for some folks, but it makes all melee classes into decent brawlers if they want/need to be, which was what we were shooting for.
We also have a feat, Harness Ki, which is like an item creation feat but only for enhancing your own unarmed strike. Prerequisite is Stunning Fist. Instead of spending gold, you sacrifice it to your ancestors or donate it to a monastery or something. Instead of spending downtime crafting, you spend it meditating and training. Yoinked, of course, from the OA samurai's Ancestral Daisho way back when.
I really like the look of these changes and additions. I was hoping the Cavalier charge abilities would be usable mounted or on foot (to facilitate dungeon-crawling a little more), but it's such an easy house rule that it doesn't matter.
It's not that the extra spell per level thing is game breaking (as many have said, it isn't), it is that it is so clearly superior to the alternatives. I defy anyone to convince me that one feat (20hp) is equivalent to the following spells-known progression: 3/2/2/2/2/2/2/2/3. Even when you're only getting cantrips, detect magic at will > a hit point and it only gets better from there...
Just to change tune, though, since I am actually positive about the preview overall :) ...
The rest look AWESOME! I especially like the toothy racial trait for half-orcs and the elven wizard's extra uses of school powers. Also, something like Stonesinger for dwarves is long overdue I reckon.
You misspelled Stabracadabra (or Stabracadabrist!) ;D
I think Stabracadabra would make for a cool magus class feature that allows them to cast a spell and make one attack during the same action... or something. Just as a nod to the community and all that. :P
What about, instead of doing that, make it so that to heal with channel energy you have to touch the recipient?
[snip]
but that way they can still use their channeling to heal with, yet they can't heal at range. Also they'd only be able to heal 1 person per channel instead of the whole party.
This is pretty close to our house rule. Our rule is : living targets need to be touched, undead targets can be affected in the burst. This also stops the negative-energy-fireball clerics.
Works well enough for us, and fits into our flavour preference.
We've long used a rule that is different in implementation but similar in outcome:
reviving the dead:
Raise Dead and similar spells work as written within one round per spell level of the time of death. After this time, the soul has traveled beyond the spell's reach on the journey to the afterlife. The Gentle Repose spell, if cast within two rounds of death, extends this time frame. After the time limit has expired, it may be possible for high level characters to journey to the outer planes and obtain the departed soul - if they can somehow wrest it from the guardian of the dead on whichever plane it now resides (depending on the campaign's cosmology).
This works wonders for us, and has since about 1995 or thereabouts when we first implemented it back in 2e. We have assassinations and plot-related-murders, AND a get-out-of-jail free card for PCs who are killed in random encounters or whatever, AND a way for mythic villains/heroes to be resurrected generations later as a plot element.
Also, it's not really a house rule so much as a campaign/cosmology matter thanks to the "willing and able to return" clause in the spells.
Have Cake. Will Eat :)
So, I guess, I just want to say that I like your rule. I think something like it should be hard coded into PFRPG 2E.
We've been doing exactly this for ohh...about 8 years now. Worked like a charm in 3.x and still using it in PF.
Are you saying you use a system like the one I'm talking about, the 3.X system of immunity, or the one Pathfinder now uses?
The one you're talking about.
Cool! Mind if I ask what made your group house rule this?
It started out as a feat cooked up for a whiny rogue in an undead-heavy game... Structural Weakness or Find Weakness or somesuch I think we called it. Over time it just kinda found its way into the monster and rogue-class sections of our house rules doc.
I like the fact that there are very few things immune to critical hits and sneak attack in Pathfinder. It always sucked to start a standard game as a Rogue and then have the DM decide to go full on undead. Having played to 10th level as a Rogue I am starting to feel a little guilty (Rogues are my favored class, so I worry about this sort of thing). I was wondering if people thought a middle ground might work. Give undead, constructs, plants, etc a resistance to critical damage. They only take 1/2 damage from precision damage (sneak attack) and lower the critical multiplier of a weapon down one step (to a minimum of X1.5). This would mean these monsters where a bit tougher but you don't negate a class ability and you still get to do more on a critical. I'd also change Fortification over to this.
We've been doing exactly this for ohh...about 8 years now. Worked like a charm in 3.x and still using it in PF.
I make Gnolls into Monstrous Humanoids. After all, they look like monsters, they're blatantly described as hyena-like people and they have racial hit dice, so why aren't they?
Re: Gnolls, me too!
IMC: (some still from 3e/pre-PFRPG)
Athatch are giants... if two heads doesn't change a giant into an abberation, three arms certainly doesn't.
Beholders have an animate object ray in place of the charm person ray. They already have charm monster... what a waste of an eye.
Dragon DR is only overcome by weapons with the dragon bane quality. DR/magic is useless at the levels where they are encountered. Given how special dragon encounters are in our long running campaign, seeking out a special dragon-slaying weapon before the big event is part of the flavour.
Right, and then the genuinely scarce stuff is valuable. Like it is in, you know, real-world economics.
You mean like gold ;)
...and the premises for the discussion oscillate once again from "Powerful people have unlimited resources artificially limited by mutual agreement" to " Powerful people have limited resources".
:-/
Not at all...
1. It was a joke
2. At no point did I ever say powerful people have unlimited resources... quite the opposite in fact. Nor did I say that they have any kind of artificial limitation from mutual agreement.
:-/
We could wipe out hunger with much weaker magic than wish in D&D... Even non-powerful people have access to basically unlimited curing of disease. But the existence of disease is never addressed because... it id D&D.
The Wish Economy is valid within D&D because it worked (past tense, 3.0 only) for a certain style of D&D gaming just as well as medical care, starvation, raising the dead, and number of other possible game breakers (that are much much much more widely available) work.
I'd like to change direction here because I feel I am being swept down a path that I don't want to follow... a path of defending a position that isn't mine... and that shouldn't need to be defended at all.
My position (for the third time) is that the Three Economies essay is cool for people who want to use it. I am not actually one of those people (as I have stated earlier)... but I do think it is a bit of fun - being both an economics buff and gamer.
Do I think it holds water and an economic model? Of course not. And it is not meant to. No attempt at social analysis will hold water in D&D land where there are clerics who can cure disease and raise the dead, and a million DMs with a million ways of doing things.
Do I think it is cheesy? Sure thing. But it could be killed in 10 seconds flat by any DM worth his salt who dislikes it (if it still worked under PF at all, which it doesn't).
Do I think it is a valid in-game explanation for some groups' play style? Absolutely.
The Wish Economy (I didn't make this up, google it) was an interesting phenomenon in 3.5. Basically, by the book,
Just... just.... stop it right there. The Books, the RAW, are meant to be a starting point for Gamemastering, not a set of FORTRAN punch cards that dictate campaign design and execution.
In my campaigns the rules are a start point... but not the end. For each campaign there are going to be principles that cant' be written down but should be are matters of common sense, and driven with the idea that actions have consequences. And for awhile you may get away with something like this... but ultimately someone extremely powerful is going to take offense and dedicate themselves to make sure any such presumptious mortal is going to regret the day they were born.
Well said.
And for some people, playing around with silly theories about how things would work in such a world is part of the fun.
Why? Because the people who have these things that they desire are also fabulously wealthy and can cook up a boatload of gold with little or no effort - so they aren't as willing to part with something that they do perceive as rare/valuable (said dragonslayer) for something that they already have in great abundance and can easily get more of (gold).
But then why is anyone poor in a world where the Archbishop of Pelor can whomp up a king's ransom for every peasant? Or, alternatively, why does gold have any value in Fooland when the King of Barland can trivially ruin the gold economy by flooding it with money?
(Lame answers I've received in the past include: "The Church of Pelor really wants people to be poor and miserable, and kings don't really want to ruin the economies of their enemies." and "Wait, did I say limitless money? I meant a bunch of money.")
I already said your point was fair enough and then offered my view - not as disagreement but an alternative.
But, if you insist...
You're forgetting (or not familiar with) the base assumptions of the Wish Economy model itself and the concept of scarcity in general...
* Acording to the assumptions upon which the model is based, peasants have almost no use for gold because in the turnip economy it has no real value and could actually be dangerous.
* Also the number of characters who can actually do it is assumed to be very low and to transcend the "mortal" economy and standard power structures. Your examples are of people who aren't above it simply by virtue of their position (but, for the sake of argument, let's say that they are part of the wish economy anyway).
* Money is not the only scarce resource... not by a long shot. Time, knowledge, goodwill, and any number of other barriers will limit what can be achieved even with unlimited wealth.
Why are there poor people?
* The short answer...for the same reason that there are sick people, poisoned people, and deaf people in a world where a (great, great) many more clerics have the power to remove these maladies...
* It doesn't matter how much money he has... even if he's one of the few mortals who can transend the mortal economy and barter with angels, he is still bound by the scarcity of time, scarcity of knowledge (who/what/where?), scarcity of any number of other things besides money.
* Let him use his essentially unlimited income to go around setting up hospitals, soup kitchens, schools, and so forth as much as he likes. It makes no difference there will still be poor people because time is a limited resource just as money is, and the assertion of the idea is that the 'mighty' (those with essentially unlimited wealth).
* Meanwhile, the enemies of pelor are trashing the countryside.
Why wouldn't the King Flood the Economy of his enemy?
Another assumption, not only of the Wish Economy essay, but also of Feudal systems in general, is that Lords want to keep the wealth among the Lords. The King of Barland Won't flood the economy of Fooland with gold because the Kind of Fooland could do it back to the King of Barland just as trivially. And then neither of them would be kings because the thing that separates King from serf is essentially wealth.
As I said, your position is fair enough. For you. Mine is fair enough too. For me. They can exist together.
Let me just state something before my position gets misconstrued...
I am not an advocate of enshrining the Wish Economy in the official rules of the game.
Further, I like the idea of twisting Efreet wishes to mess up the Wish Economy... it is tasty goodness and I think ~11th level is too soon to implement the wish economy.
However, at higher levels, handwaving trivial purchases and making PCs work for the big stuff is all good IMO and using something like the Wish economy to give an in-game explanation from around 15th level (or maybe 17th) sounds good to me.
Personally, I understand the wish economy, but its not one I want to play with necessarily. Its perfectly valid, but so is the efreet transporting the stuff from your enemy who now wants to kill you. And the second adds more plot to the game.
You win the thread! This is the most sensible thing I have read yet.
Caineach wrote:
The biggest problem I have with the wish economy is deflation. There is no reason for anything the efreet can create to have any value, or for there to be any cost difference in any of it.
Value is maintained by the rarity of consumers with such buying power.
<1% of the market (those who can get an efreet to be their b@~*# or otherwise use magic to trivially obtain large quantities of gold) can't eat enough hamburgers to significantly affect price levels in the hamburger market thanks to the law of diminishing marginal returns. No matter how much money they have.
Although they might have a smallish multiplier-effect on the amount of money circulating in the economy thanks to their large spending.
They'd also have an effect on markets for luxury goods... but it would be inflationary not deflationary.
Yes, but it would make +2 swords more common than +1. Add on some special straight cost effects as well that do not multiply but simply stack to get the cost up to the 15K. People would want to get as much as they could out of each efreet. Now, as there are tons of +2 swords on the market, why doesn't their price go down?
No, because there aren't nearly enough people doing it. As I said in another post, the very few people capable of it aren't going to have a huge effect on price because A. they are extremely rare as far as market participants go, and B. they don't buy hundreds of swords.
Even if sufficient powerful spellcasters exist who can trivially use magic to generate such wealth, the effect would be inflationary not deflationary... the increase in production of +2 swords would be the end result of that demand not a spontaneous oversupply or somesuch.
The sticking point for me is that there are logically individuals and organizations that will care about both gold and powerful magic items, and wouldn't mind trading one for the other. E.g. the Church of Pelor needs gold to run their hospitals and the Archbishop needs a +5 mace of disruption. Or the King of Fooland needs a +5 dragonbane sword for killing dragons and he needs gold to pay his army.
Fair enough.
However that's not a sticking point in my view... that's THE point.
They may want to use gold to buy that +5 mace or dragonbane sword, but the folks who have them won't part with them for mere gold.
i.e. High level PCs (or kings) can use their gold for things like strongholds, armies, hirelings, running hospitals, etc.
But for +5 keen thundering dragon bane swords they use favours, go on quests, barter with another character, Kill a rival, or whatever.
Why? Because the people who have these things that they desire are also fabulously wealthy and can cook up a boatload of gold with little or no effort - so they aren't as willing to part with something that they do perceive as rare/valuable (said dragonslayer) for something that they already have in great abundance and can easily get more of (gold).
Personally, I understand the wish economy, but its not one I want to play with necessarily. Its perfectly valid, but so is the efreet transporting the stuff from your enemy who now wants to kill you. And the second adds more plot to the game.
You win the thread! This is the most sensible thing I have read yet.
Caineach wrote:
The biggest problem I have with the wish economy is deflation. There is no reason for anything the efreet can create to have any value, or for there to be any cost difference in any of it.
Value is maintained by the rarity of consumers with such buying power.
<1% of the market (those who can get an efreet to be their b+!~+ or otherwise use magic to trivially obtain large quantities of gold) can't eat enough hamburgers to significantly affect price levels in the hamburger market thanks to the law of diminishing marginal returns. No matter how much money they have.
Although they might have a smallish multiplier-effect on the amount of money circulating in the economy thanks to their large spending.
They'd also have an effect on markets for luxury goods... but it would be inflationary not deflationary.
Running things that way; allowing infinite money. Yeah the system is broken, and yeah I'd like to be able to hand out money for player to use on things besides gear (and it's not like infinite money to spend on non-combat realted things isn't going to break the game either) but it's still simpler to just say "no infinite money loops."
For some folks, it's easier to say "you can't use money to break the game". Which is what the Wish Economy does.
So does the Wealth Check mechanic in d20 modern, by the way.
While I don't advocate MIB's punch-you-in-the-face style responses, I can feel his frustration at posters who say they are just disagreeing with him when they are, in fact, missing the point. There seems to be a fairly wide-spread and profound lack of understanding about what is actually meant by "Wish Economy". Many folks seem to believe that it is some kind of cheesy rules loophole, a means to stop measuring character power from items, or else an attempt to cheat for a short-cut to power.
It is none of these things. Not even a little bit.
It is, simply put, an in-game explanation using strict (3.0) RAW that can be used by a DM who like a certain style of play. I.e. he doesn't like to allow magic-mart style shopping in his game beyond a certain point, and wants to handwave minor expenses so as to get on with the game.
That's all.
As the OP says, something sort-of like it has actually been built into PFRPG with the item-availability-by-settlement-size rules. If it costs more than 16k you've gotta provide something a little less pedestrian than just gold to get it - luck (with the random items), crafting it yourself, finding it as treasure, or whatever.
Not exactly the same, sure, 'cause you still gotta track every last copper by strict RAW.
In conclusion, if you want to ban or restrict Efreet-binding-for-cash-wishes in your game because you feel it is cheesy and cheating then more power to you (PFRPG already put the kybosh in this for you, actually).
If you want to track every coin spent then please do. It is all good.
This sort of thing is, afterall, a matter of taste.
However, if you want to use the Wish-Economy explanation (or anything else) as a means stop tracking pennies at high levels and make characters work a little harder than just dumping gold for their >12th level items then that is all good too.
Neither approach actually changes the game very much.
From the link: In a campaign with very common magic, all magic items might be available for purchase in a metropolis.
Emphasis mine. This line doesn't apply to a 'standard assumptions' campaign.
However, given that a DoEW costs 9k, you're 75% likely to find one with little effort in any metropolis even in a 'standard assumptions' campaign. So you can still have yourself a magical town water supply if you're rich and patient enough.
Xaaon of Korvosa wrote:
That's the max value of the 3d4 major items...not everything together.
It is true that the 16k is not the total value of everything together.
However it is not the max value of the 3d4 major items either. It means that things costing 16k or less are 75% likely to be available without looking very hard. The minor/medium/major items are in addition to that and not subject to a 16k price limit:
There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale. These items are randomly determined and are broken down by category (minor, medium, or major).
Again, emphasis mine.
Full Name
Sacer Knyga
Race
Human
Classes/Levels
Inquisitor (Living Grimoire) 1
Size
Medium
Age
26
Special Abilities
Liberation Domain
Alignment
CG
Deity
Black Butterfly
Strength
17
Dexterity
14
Constitution
12
Intelligence
15
Wisdom
10
Charisma
9
About Sacer Knyga
Sacer Knyga
Male human inquisitor (living grimoire) 1
CG Medium humanoid (human)
Init +7; Perception +4
Defenses:
AC 19, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+6 armor, +1 shield, +2 Dex)
hp 10 (1d8+2)
Saves Fort +3, Ref +2, Will +2
Offense:
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee Holy Book +4 (1d6+3; 1d6+4 if flanking)
Ranged attacks +2
(CL 1st, concentration +4)
Core Stats: Str 17, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 15, Wis 10, Cha 9
Base Atk +0; CMB +3; CMD 15
Feats Combat Expertise, Improved Initiative
Skills Intimidate +4, Knowledge (Arcana) +6 , Knowledge (Dungeoneering) +6, Knowledge (Nature) +6 , Knowledge (Planes) +6 , Knowledge (Religion) +6 , Perception +4 , Sense Motive +5 , Spellcraft +6
Languages Common, Aklo, Celestial
Combat Gear Other Gear holy book, breastplate (mwk), buckler, wayfiner, scroll of shield of faith
Special Abilities:
Arcane Temper (Trait) You have quick reactions and fierce concentration. You gain a +1 trait bonus on concentration and initiative checks.
Dirty Fighter (Trait) You wouldn’t have lived to make it out of childhood without the aid of a sibling, friend, or companion you could always count on to distract your enemies long enough for you to do a little bit more damage than normal. When you hit a foe you are flanking, you deal 1 additional point of damage (this damage is added to your base damage, and is multiplied on a critical hit). This additional damage is a trait bonus.
Holy Book (Su) At 1st level, a living grimoire forms a supernatural bond with a large ironbound tome containing the holy text of his deity and learns to use it as a weapon. When wielding the holy book as a weapon, he deals base damage as if it were a cold iron light mace (but see Sacred Word below), is considered proficient with the book, takes no improvised weapon penalty, and gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls with the book. The tome serves as his holy symbol and divine focus, and can be enchanted as a magic weapon. He can replace his bonded tome with another book at any time, though he must perform a 24-hour binding ritual to attune himself to the new book. This ability replaces monster lore.
Liberation (Su) You have the ability to ignore impediments to your mobility. For a number of rounds per day equal to your cleric level, you can move normally regardless of magical effects that impede movement, as if you were affected by freedom of movement. This effect occurs automatically as soon as it applies. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Sacred Word (Su) At 1st level, a living grimoire learns to charge his holy book with the power of his faith. The inquisitor gains the benefits of the warpriest’s sacred weapon class ability, but the benefits apply only to his bonded holy book. Like a warpriest’s sacred weapon, the living grimoire’s book deals damage based on the inquisitor’s level, not the book’s base damage (unless the inquisitor chooses to use the book’s base damage).
At 4th level, the living grimoire gains the ability to enhance his holy book with divine power as a swift action. This ability grants the holy book a +1 enhancement bonus. For every 4 inquisitor levels the living grimoire has beyond 4th, this bonus increases by 1 (to a maximum of +5 at 20th level). These bonuses stack with any existing bonuses the holy book might have, to a maximum of +5. The living grimoire can enhance his holy book to have any of the special abilities listed in the warpriest’s sacred weapon ability, subject to the same alignment restrictions, but adds bane to the general special ability list. Adding any of these special abilities to the holy book consumes an amount of enhancement bonus equal to the special ability’s base price modifier. The holy book must have at least a +1 enhancement bonus before the living grimoire can add any special abilities to it. The living grimoire can use this ability a number of rounds per day equal to his inquisitor level, but these rounds don’t need to be consecutive. As with the warpriest sacred weapon ability, he determines the enhancement bonus and special abilities the first time he uses the ability each day, and they cannot be changed until the next day.
Spells A living grimoire must prepare his spells ahead of time, and can know any number of inquisitor spells. He uses Intelligence instead of Wisdom as his key spellcasting ability score (to determine his spell DCs, bonus spells per day, modifier on concentration checks, and so on), and to determine the effects and number of uses of his domain powers.
The living grimoire receives the same number of spell slots per day as a warpriest of his inquisitor level, and receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Intelligence score. He must choose and prepare his spells ahead of time by choosing a time each day for 1 hour of quiet contemplation while he studies his holy book.
At 1st level, the living grimoire’s holy book contains all 0-level inquisitor spells plus three 1st-level inquisitor spells of his choice. He also selects a number of additional 1st-level inquisitor spells equal to his Intelligence modifier to add to his holy book. At each new inquisitor level, he gains two new inquisitor spells of any spell levels he can cast (based on his new inquisitor level) for his holy book. At any time, he can learn inquisitor spells from scrolls or other written sources and add inquisitor spells he finds to his holy book. This ability alters orisons and spellcasting and replaces cunning initiative.
Weapon and Armor Proficiency An inquisitor is proficient with all simple weapons, plus the hand crossbow, longbow, repeating crossbow, shortbow, and the favored weapon of her deity. She is also proficient with light armor, medium armor, and shields (except tower shields).
