|
I don't want to start no argument with nobody, but I've seen in the last week on this forum threads about potential munchkin power plays; i. e. specifically:
1)the warlock being in some peoples' opinion a tad imbalanced
2)the potential for a weapon of "true strike."
A lot of munchkinny stuff is kinda in-your-face and one can see it right off the bat for what it is, but these two seem a little on the sneaky side; they might be able to sneak past a vigilant game master and hose up a game, thus leading to the ultimate game master's revenge.
So....is there any place on the 'net where they have these little potential rules foibles codified?
...is there any place on the 'net where they have these little potential rules foibles codified?
Probably not :/
I think the jury's out on the Warlock. It's also going to be hard to make an argument to many that anything from WotC is going to be a violation of the rules, in spirit if not in fact.
Jack
|
|
I'd just like to be able to respond better to special instances like, "sure, you can play a warlock, but the eldritch blast is a ranged attack, NOT a ranged touch attack." And then I could sic some drow on the guy.
Or, "yes you CAN make a hammer of true strike, but guess what? it costs 4 million gold, and will take 160,000 exp. to build."
I want to be able to deal with these little potential quirks without going, "No. You can't do THAT. The suggestion of it gives me...a disturbance in the force,..." I'd like to know WHY and HOW.
Either that, or it's send in the gnolls. Lotsa lotsa gnolls. To cleanse the land of munchkins. Get them my minions!!!
Or, "yes you CAN make a hammer of true strike, but guess what? it costs 4 million gold, and will take 160,000 exp. to build."
Actually, If you look at the SRD or epic handbook, you'll see something like this:
The experience point cost to create an epic magic item is determined differently than for a normal magic item. For all epic magic items other than scrolls, divide the market price by 100, then add 10,000 XP to the result. The final number is the experience point cost to create the item.
So the +20 attack roll weapon is going to cost 4 million GP and have an exp. cost of 50,000. It's mostly academic, as most games don't reach a point where even 50,000 experience in one level is attainable, let alone expendable, but it's worth noting.
Not sure about the Warlock.
But the DMG is pretty clear on the weapon of true striking, spells that create attack bonuses, saving throw bonuses, ac bonuses etc.. are in a special category where one pays by the added bonus to the item in question. Since the addition of true strike is a what an insight bonus and its +20 should be based on the value in the ELH which is 8 million gp. That should be doubled since it is like a luck bonus and stacks with the attack bonus, and then multiplied by 1.5 because it is an ability added to an already magically enchanted item, which makes it cost 24 million gps. If that doesn't make your players gulp in surprise then I don't know what will!
Now of course if they are 50th level, well why not. :)
I think an item that can cast true strike "x" number of times per day is not inconceivable--and one could use the rules in the back of the magic item section to adjudicate them. A +20 weapon (i.e. one that's permanently under a true strike effect) is, however, a +20 weapon--and it should be prohibitively expensive for any character that isn't somewhere in the 40th level range, I'd think. The former is reasonable, the latter is a sword of munchkinizing in the hands of 99.999% of all PCs.
Take this argument over to the Warlock thread.
He may not "seem" that way, but he is.
I think an item that can cast true strike "x" number of times per day is not inconceivable--and one could use the rules in the back of the magic item section to adjudicate them. A +20 weapon (i.e. one that's permanently under a true strike effect) is, however, a +20 weapon--and it should be prohibitively expensive for any character that isn't somewhere in the 40th level range, I'd think. The former is reasonable, the latter is a sword of munchkinizing in the hands of 99.999% of all PCs.
IMHO, anyone who even aspires for their character to HAVE one of those makes it clear to me that the player wishes to flout the rules...
It aggravates me to think of how some players have gotten so ingrained in a 'WIN/LOSE' frame of thinking that they can't even enjoy an RPG without having to "compete" for riches, levels, feats, etc.
I pity those who can't enjoy the game as intended and have to seek some shortcut to "winning"...they miss the entire point of the game - the journey.
M
|
I think an item that can cast true strike "x" number of times per day is not inconceivable--and one could use the rules in the back of the magic item section to adjudicate them. A +20 weapon (i.e. one that's permanently under a true strike effect) is, however, a +20 weapon--and it should be prohibitively expensive for any character that isn't somewhere in the 40th level range, I'd think. The former is reasonable, the latter is a sword of munchkinizing in the hands of 99.999% of all PCs.IMHO, anyone who even aspires for their character to HAVE one of those makes it clear to me that the player wishes to flout the rules...
It aggravates me to think of how some players have gotten so ingrained in a 'WIN/LOSE' frame of thinking that they can't even enjoy an RPG without having to "compete" for riches, levels, feats, etc.
I pity those who can't enjoy the game as intended and have to seek some shortcut to "winning"...they miss the entire point of the game - the journey.
M
I couldn't agree more.
Some magical items should just not be possible, and a Sword of True Striking is obviously one of them. However, even people who should know much better fall into this trap - there was a "Ring of Haste" in an official D&D adventure some time back (I forget which one, but I think it was one of the "Forge of Fury" etc. series) that permanently hasted the wearer. Y'know - extra attack every turn, double move, +4 AC... The price: somewhere around 30.000 gp, which was technically correct for a continuous 3rd level spell, but completely unbalanced. That ring has undoubtedly inspired countless munchkins afterwards - I just tell them no, with explanations neither given nor deserved.
|
So....is there any place on the 'net where they have these little potential rules foibles codified?Doubtful, though the euphemistically titled "Character Optimization" thread over at the WotC message boards may give you some insight to the most problematic race/class/ability combinations and creative rules interpretations.
The online articles "Rules of the Game" at the WotC site are also useful to point out potential problems. Their current thread talks about problems with polymorph and similar spells -- The War Troll from Monstrous Manual 3 really screws up some balance intended with those spells.
Item munchkinizing is why I keep magic items simple to the spartan degree. I don't use or allow any item from outside the DMG and even a substantial number of items therein. The most common of these are wondrous items; anything other than ability boosters, manuals/tomes and bracers of armor must be OKed by myself before creation or purchase. Any item at all that operates on #/day or rounds/day is not allowed on principle. Also on my hit list are many rings; I don't even like rings of invisibility--seems similar to the weapon of truestrike fiasco. Oh, and special weapons and armor/shields are absolutely forbidden as I have never found a convincing reason for these specific items to have powers that are not on the random generation chart.
|
|
I think we all agree that a weapon with permanent True Strike is unbalanced, but does anyone think the problem is less to do with the item creation feats than the spell itself?
+20 bonus?!?!?!
for insight?!?!
I don't know what the authors use to get their 'insight'; I think were smoking crack when they came up with that one.
Back when I was a young seedling DM, the sorcerer in the party cast true strike permanancy on one of the drow fighters scimitars (he had two already enchanted with +'s) I didnt know it was illegal but Im glad he is out of the group now. It realy screwed up the game having a huge muchkin and all the other stuff he did...
I have munchkin players, and I have to combat their attempts at cheap exploits around every turn.
I was foolish enough to bestow the Magic of Faerun ring of spellbattle upon the party rogue/sorcerer (who happened to be a drow in disguise... another minor mistake). The items' description in Magic of Faerun states that a PC can use it to make a spellcraft check to redirect a caster's spell as he/she sees fit. What a disaster that was. Every round in which an opponent tried to cast a spell, that PC would say, "Spellcraft check." He'd usually pass (his dice are loaded, I'm certain), and then whatever spell I wanted to use on the party was redirected, often at the foe, of course.
*When Complete Arcane came out, the ring of spellbattle was in their, and I made special note of the fact that the phrase, "once per day" was conveniently added. Nothing like fixing a huge mistake incredibly late.
When I was finally able to kill the PC (using a distanced empowered horrid wilting), the PC, of course, went into this days-long argument about how what I did was "BS." It was a nightmare. Not because of the argument, but because of the realization that that player seeks to exploit the game in any way possible. It's something DMs must fight against. My players have this "Neverwinter Nights" attitude. I have to remind them that it's not about suiting up and maxing out. It's about playing a realistic game of D&D.
Much like the enlightened must combat ignorance, so too must the DM combat the exploitive player.
I used to have players who...
Okay, this term is not in my lexicon. Is it "were munchkins" or "munchkinized"? Noun or Verb? Anyway...
I must admit my arguments against where weak, but as DM, I believe that it is my power to say yes and no. Even on things as simple as filling out spellbooks, the players must ask if the spell is available. I'm pretty loose with the items I allow, but some of the more unwieldly items are only given as quest items, and some classes are given prerequisites. A racial restriction usually is enough to turn people away, especially those who are die-hard (insert race here). I have a person who always wanted to be a specific class, but all I had to say was "in my campaign, drow can't be that."
Problem solved.(He was obsessed with Drizz't)
I think we all agree that a weapon with permanent True Strike is unbalanced, but does anyone think the problem is less to do with the item creation feats than the spell itself?
Actually, I think that the spell's fine as written. Basically, it allows an Arcane Caster to spend one round ensuring that the spell he casts next round has its desired effect -- because there's little so frustrating as having your big "Kill Spell" negated because you can't seem to roll above a six that night. It only applies to one attack, so if a spell requires multiple attack rolls (like a higher level scorching ray, for example) it only affects one, and can obviously only be used a limited number of times per day.
That being said, another piece of potential cheese to watch out for is the Changeling Warshaper. Because Changelings (a race in Eberron) have the shapechanger subtype, they can qualify for the class at fourth level, gaining Immunity to Stunning and Critical Hits at fifth. That's one of those things where even though the RAW pretty clearly allows it, it's imbalancing enough that I'll actually step in and limit character options. (I'm a very "hands off" DM, and figure that unless it grossly imbalances the game or destroys party cohesion, people can play whatever they want.)
I'm kinda new to being a Warlock, but as for what I see my warlock character is not all that powerful, and has some intresting role playing(no I don't mean evil). It's one of my part time characters and his name is Trimas. Still though, what's so powerful. Even if I could do 10d6(not high enough lvl) it's not like i'll roll high all the time, and our paladin outshines me in the melee, health, and AC department. Invocations are only good when used right and even then it doesn't overpower me. Infact without invocations Warlocks wouldn't be even with other classes. But if someone could tell me why you think warlocks are overpowering when a person with pure melee could out damage me? As for all of the people that agree with me and think warlocks are not overpowered I think your right. Oh yeah I didn't choose a warlock for their power. I am not a munchkin and never will be. Trust me on that one. Just to mention, when I began the warlock I always thought he was underpowered, I actually enjoy some of the talk about warlocks being tough :)
~Flabulater OUT!
Back when I was a young seedling DM, the sorcerer in the party cast true strike permanancy on one of the drow fighters scimitars (he had two already enchanted with +'s) I didnt know it was illegal but Im glad he is out of the group now. It realy screwed up the game having a huge muchkin and all the other stuff he did...
Hey Onrie, I cast greater magic weapon and permanancy on one of his weapons, I didn't cast permanancy true strike, I already knew that it wasn't allowed so I didn't do it. So I didn't put true strike permanancy, you must be thinking of when I did cast true strike on him but it wasn't with permanancy. You have a bad memory, but yeah I am a bit glad he left two. Your just trying to make me look like a munchkin I will have my revenge! :)
~Flabulater OUT!
I think we all agree that a weapon with permanent True Strike is unbalanced, but does anyone think the problem is less to do with the item creation feats than the spell itself?
I read this on the WotC site awhile ago and thought that it applied to this conversation...
Use the Correct Formula: One item people frequently ask me about is a ring oftrue strike. The spell provides a whopping +20 insight bonus on attack rolls and negates miss chances arising from concealed targets. It's only 1st level, however, because it is a personal range spell with a duration of 1 round. That means you can normally manage one attack every 2 rounds when using the spell. Also, you can't bestow it on an ally (except for a familiar or animal companion) because of its personal range.
Assuming such a ring worked whenever it was needed and has a caster level of 1st, it would cost a mere 2,000 gp by the formula for a use-activated spell effect (in this case, 1 x 1 x 2,000 gp). Sharp-eyed readers will note that any continuously functioning item has a cost adjustment of x4 (see the footnotes to Table 7-33), which bumps up the ring's cost to 8,000 gp. That's a real bargain for an item that provides so much boost to a user's combat power. Much too great a bargain.
So, what would our example ring of true strike be worth? Insight bonuses aren't included on Table 7-33, but a weapon bonus has a cost equal to the bonus squared x 2,000 gp, so a +20 weapon would cost 800,000 gp. One can argue that the ring isn't quite as good as a +20 weapon because it doesn't provide a damage bonus. That, however, ignores the very potent ability to negate most miss chances. Also, the ring's insight bonus works with any sort of attack the wearer makes. On top of all that, the insight bonus stacks with any enhancement bonus from a magic weapon the wearer might wield. Still, 800,000 gp is a lot of cash and the lack of a damage bonus is significant, so some price reduction is in order. A 50% reduction might be in order, or 400,000 gp for the ring.
Would you pay 400,000 gp for a ring of true striking? I would if I could afford it. At a price of 400,000 gp, our mythical ring of true strike is something only an epic-level character could afford. That's fine, because epic play is where the ring belongs.
Anyway, that was posted on the WotC site under the heading Creating Magic Items: Part 6 or 7, I think.
I have found that there is a huge responsibility inherent in the DM's job description to limit the treasure found to levels that the DM is happy with. He won't like it, but a 10th level fighter does almost as much damage with a masterwork longsword as he can do with a +1 Mithril, Gobiln Bane longsword (provided that he isn't fighting gobins). And keep in mind that everything that the PC's get in the way of treasure has some inherent value. So the deed to the dilapitaded observatory, the +1 inherent bonus to Charisma from a freakish puzzle solved, a spell that burned itself into the character's mind have just as much value (or more) than the 30,000gp Staff of Something-or-other. I use the total party treasure tables as a bible so the encounters don't get too out of hand trying to balance a real challenge with the treasure and xp gained from that challenge. I only mentioned the above opinion because it doesn't really matter if the PC wants a ring, sword, or vest of True Strike, the costs are so prohibitive at even 400,000gp that any DM should have no problems mitigating the obsessive desires of the questing PC.
Also keep in mind that unless the PC in question can actually make the item, he will have to request its commission from a manufacturing wizard. I am certain that said wizard will not have the 16000 xp points to lose to create such an item, and I am also certain that the PC will be very upset that the wizard (who is bound to fail) still charged the PC 200,000gp in base resources - which is lost in the failed attempt. Harsh, but accurate and probably the "real" reason that such an item doesn't exist.
Celric