After accounting for scroll costs, and adding in the price to scribe the scrolls into your spellbook, twenty spells per spell level comes out to about 300k. Considering there aren't 24 spells worth taking at most levels, you're more likely to take maybe half as many, and some of those will come from friendly discount magi and filching the BBEG's spellbook. That brings it down to the range of 100k-150k to get every spell worth having, which leaves a nice little nest egg for buying other gear, on a class for whom gear is really just a bonus.
And this talk of taxation explicitly on scrolls (but not the swords) and magi jealously guarding their spells when scrolls are magic items like any other, on the market like any other and restrictions specifically on scrolls and spells? That's getting back to specifically and deliberately persecuting one party member without basis in the rules. Ya shouldn't have to do that. And if the DM is specifically setting out to get the Wizard, then of course anyone else will look at least a little better in comparison, but that comparison is just plain not fair.
As for the talk of how to fix the Wizard? I find the mechanic allowing them to acquire so many spells to be fundamentally unreasonable. It was fair in the older editions, when there weren't hundreds upon hundreds of spells, but now? Not so much. It's another relic that got grandfathered into a system where it's inappropriate. A cap on their spells known would be a good way to go, though I prefer not to take such measures if there's a working rule out there already. It's really not there in Pathfinder, but in 3.5, there was Wu Jen, Warlock, Beguiler, Warmage, Dread Necromancer, Psion, generic Spellcaster, and more, to the point where the Wizard class could just be cut out entirely in favor of more balanced alternatives that can represent any character who would otherwise have been represented the Wizard class with little trouble.
And this talk of taxation explicitly on scrolls (but not the swords) and magi jealously guarding their spells when scrolls are magic items like any other, on the market like any other and restrictions specifically on scrolls and spells? That's getting back to specifically and deliberately persecuting one party member without basis in the rules. Ya shouldn't have to do that. And if the DM is specifically setting out to get the Wizard, then of course anyone else will look at least a little better in comparison, but that comparison is just plain not fair.
4/10
Nice try though. The post discusses RAW. It provides a cost even when those scrolls/BBEG spellbook is found. Then the DM determines contents.
As for the talk of how to fix the Wizard? I find the mechanic allowing them to acquire so many spells to be fundamentally unreasonable. It was fair in the older editions, when there weren't hundreds upon hundreds of spells, but now? Not so much.
Wow, guess you've never seen the 4 volume tome for 1st/2nd edition. There are a lot more spells than 3rd edition has ever seen. You're showing your ignorance.
4/10
Nice try though. The post discusses RAW. It provides a cost even when those scrolls/BBEG spellbook is found. Then the DM determines contents.
1) The 150k is with no friends or BBEG spellbooks.
2) Yes, the friends and BBEG spellbooks provide spells chosen by the DM. However, unless the DM is actively giving the Wizard the finger, some of those spells will be legitimately useful, and subsequently, spells the Wizard won't have to buy out of her own allowance.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
if the DM is specifically setting out to get the Wizard, then of course anyone else will look at least a little better in comparison, but that comparison is just plain not fair.
4/10
Nice try though. The post discusses RAW. It provides a cost even when those scrolls/BBEG spellbook is found. Then the DM determines contents.
You're right. But that cost is only (10 gp x Level x Level), which is a winning price. (In 3rd Edition, it was double that. Going back to that price might be one of the ways to rein in a wizard with an enormous repertoire of spells.
By the way, what does "4/10" mean?
Wow, guess you've never seen the 4 volume tome for 1st/2nd edition. There are a lot more spells than 3rd edition has ever seen. You're showing your ignorance.
The four-volume set was an archival product, intending to provide (a) collectors with more product to buy, and (b) fans with a collection of all the spells which had been published under any circumstances for either edition of the game, including material from RPGA fan-generated products and outre settings. It was not intended to be a coherent presentation --and indeed it wasn't-- or necessarily a recommendation for DMs to allow those spells in their campaigns.
And, even so, there are still far, far, more spells available for a 3rd Edition sorcerer than contained in those books, if you consider issues of Dragon magazine, world-specific books like Magic of Eberron, and the host of third-party products.
Lastly, perhaps you don't understand that comments like "you're showing your ignorance" are considered impolite. (I'm sure that you would not want to be intentionally rude to a woman who has shown you nothing but respect.) Have you considered rephrasing that into something like "Are you aware of those books?"
That's the bone of contention right there. Standard assumption is that even large cities don't have Wal-MagicMart on every other corner, that wizards and sorcerers are rare, special, and covetous types who guard against each other as well as any up and coming compeitition. In a usual campaign items aren't hung on a shelf the few that are bought are bought through third parties, sometimes they're fenced from a theive's guild.
If there are magic shops they are frequently herbal and supply shops which sell components and basic trade items. Actual magic items are high cost production numbers with questionable returns and very risky to store. (why buy it if I can sneak in at night and steal it?) While security is an answer it also becomes an overhead cost of doing buisness.
If there are things to purchase it will frequently be minor potions and scrolls of spells that won't threathen the security of either the caster or the city in general.
Another option is that the only venue for magic items to be purchased might be a wizard's guild or a temple which will have thier own rules on whom they choose to deal with.
Except the rules define the exact opposite as the assumed default. Anything below value X is probably available in a town of size Y, and X is high enough that it includes items much more valuable than minor potions. The scroll of 'splodey? Probably available. What form is irrelevant. Whether the party needs a royal sanction or membership in the Circle of Excessive Magery doesn't matter, the spell is still probably available.
And Wal-MagicMart is a rather bunk point. "Available for purchase," is distinct from, "Sitting on a shelf gathering dust." If you go to The Master Smith and commission a +1 sword, that means a +1 sword was available for purchase. Just not with instant gratification, and it's done in a manner consistent with the setting and the game.
In your setting, perhaps the only ones who sell items of real power are the temples and magic guilds, and they're very picky about their clientele, but that still means magic items are available for purchase, you just have to hop through some hoops first or get royal authorization to buy the dangerous stuff.
If magic items are hardly available for purchase at all, even when you appease the guilds and temples and the throne, you're deviating wildly from the defined default markets without basis in the rules, which is fine if you understand the deviation and your players are okay with it, but that's not the system, and claiming it is the defined norm is inappropriate.
By the way, what does "4/10" mean?
Four points on a ten-point scale. He was judging my contention as below average in quality.
Some spellcasters jealously guard their lore. Fortunately for PC's they're usually not running shops in cities. They're alone with their minions trying to become lich's. If they run a shop it's to make a profit so THEY can get bigger and better magic items. They're buying at half price and selling at full. It's a business. It's not their personal spellbook and their suddenly crippled once the PC's purchase it.
That's the bone of contention right there. Standard assumption is that even large cities don't have Wal-MagicMart on every other corner, that wizards and sorcerers are rare, special, and covetous types who guard against each other as well as any up and coming compeitition. In a usual campaign items aren't hung on a shelf the few that are bought are bought through third parties, sometimes they're fenced from a theive's guild.
If there are magic shops they are frequently herbal and supply shops which sell components and basic trade items. Actual magic items are high cost production numbers with questionable returns and very risky to store. (why buy it if I can sneak in at night and steal it?) While security is an answer it also becomes an overhead cost of doing buisness.
If there are things to purchase it will frequently be minor potions and scrolls of spells that won't threathen the security of either the caster or the city in general.
Another option is that the only venue for magic items to be purchased might be a wizard's guild or a temple which will have thier own rules on whom they choose to deal with.
Well, that's a bit of a double-standard don't you think? Sure, these magic items from allpowerful wizards aren't for sale in their PLACE OF BUSINESS WHERE THEY SELL MAGIC ITEMS. But if they were, we would just sneak in and steal them. Have fun being a frog. By the way that was his apprentice who did that to you. You're not worth the wizard's time.
|
There is no issue with it. Divine Spellcasters have thier own flaws to that system like the whole complete loss of spellcasting if they displease thier diety. Obligations to spread the faith etc...
Most intelligent players get a Ring of Sustenance and a Blessed Book or make those two items. It increases the amount of hours they can spend scribing and working on magic items and removes the cost of ink entirely from the equation.
How ever stopping in a local town and buying lvl 5,6,7,8,9 spells is a bit hard to swallow. Certain spells which require high cost material components will be much more readily available for consumers. I can see people selling Permanency and having a large stock pile of diamond dust for that purpose. How ever how many people would reasonably sell Meteor Swarm or Wish to some guy off the street?
Mass charm or Suggestion aren't exactly going to sold to some guy considering the kind of damage they can inflict on a city. Its going to take a little bit more then:
So I teleport into town is anyone willing to sell me a scroll of wish?
Sorry there is no one in town willing to sell you a wish scroll.
But according to pathfinder's rules it has a 75% chance of being available.
Honestly I'd suggest you go down to your local walmart and ask them how much a B-2 Stealth Bomber costs fully loaded and you will probably get the same reaction that you would get from teleporting into a town and trying to buy some spells.
Honestly I'd suggest you go down to your local walmart and ask them how much a B-2 Stealth Bomber costs fully loaded and you will probably get the same reaction that you would get from teleporting into a town and trying to buy some spells.
Go into Boeing and present yourself as a member of the Israeli armed forces, and getting a military plane becomes a lot more reasonable of a prospect... just saying.
This might be a stupid question, but why is there an issue with the wizard having the possibility to learn every spell(at a price), when divine casters get all spells as standard?
Cleric and Druid (distinct from divine casters in general) are every bit as bad, and I cut them, as well. In fact, I remove the Big Five entirely. That's Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Erudite, and Wizard (yes, that's six, Erudite doesn't exist). In the expanded game for 3.5, there's plenty of material to replace them (though replacing Artificer is legitimately extremely difficult).
There is no issue with it. Divine Spellcasters have thier own flaws to that system like the whole complete loss of spellcasting if they displease thier diety. Obligations to spread the faith etc...
Most intelligent players get a Ring of Sustenance and a Blessed Book or make those two items. It increases the amount of hours they can spend scribing and working on magic items and removes the cost of ink entirely from the equation.
How ever stopping in a local town and buying lvl 5,6,7,8,9 spells is a bit hard to swallow. Certain spells which require high cost material components will be much more readily available for consumers. I can see people selling Permanency and having a large stock pile of diamond dust for that purpose. How ever how many people would reasonably sell Meteor Swarm or Wish to some guy off the street?
Mass charm or Suggestion aren't exactly going to sold to some guy considering the kind of damage they can inflict on a city. Its going to take a little bit more then:
So I teleport into town is anyone willing to sell me a scroll of wish?
Sorry there is no one in town willing to sell you a wish scroll.
But according to pathfinder's rules it has a 75% chance of being available.
Honestly I'd suggest you go down to your local walmart and ask them how much a B-2 Stealth Bomber costs fully loaded and you will probably get the same reaction that you would get from teleporting into a town and trying to buy some spells.
Sure, so Bob "the conscience" Enchanter who gave up evocation and necromancy because he wants to use his magic to save the world, not hurt people, won't sell you the meteor swarm scroll. However the noble's son, generalist wizard, in it to make a buck, sets up down the road and specializes in all those things(spells) "'they' don't want you to know" He'll cut you a deal, and on friday he'll see Bob out on the town, flash some cash, steal his lady, and tell him about all the wail of the banshee's he set loose on the world this week.
p.s. I like my right to bare arms, however I don't think the everything store has a monopoly on nice weapons. heck, wal-mart has an anti-me shell constantly in effect.
This might be a stupid question, but why is there an issue with the wizard having the possibility to learn every spell(at a price), when divine casters get all spells as standard?Cleric and Druid (distinct from divine casters in general) are every bit as bad, and I cut them, as well. In fact, I remove the Big Five entirely. That's Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Erudite, and Wizard (yes, that's six, Erudite doesn't exist). In the expanded game for 3.5, there's plenty of material to replace them (though replacing Artificer is legitimately extremely difficult).
that sounds.. really boring to play in.. I guess we'll all make barbarians and power attack
You're right. But that cost is only (10 gp x Level x Level), which is a winning price. (In 3rd Edition, it was double that. Going back to that price might be one of the ways to rein in a wizard with an enormous repertoire of spells.By the way, what does "4/10" mean?
Well, it's a winning price if you can A) capture a spellbook, B) find the scroll or C) convince a wizard to let you copy spells out of her spellbook.
By RAW if you want a specific spell and none of these things happens you have to use the worse price. We can't assume the above.
4/10 is a reference to VV's troll. It was only a 4 because it didn't provoke the reaction she wanted, but it did provoke a response.
a counter example would be:
How valid could VV's arugments be when clearly she plays in a campaign that contains none of the core classes as she's repeatedly stated in her inflammatory points on this board.
Not something said to address the argument, but something said to provoke a response and derail the discussion.
Lastly, perhaps you don't understand that comments like "you're showing your ignorance" are considered impolite. (I'm sure that you would not want to be intentionally rude to a woman who has shown you nothing but respect.) Have you considered rephrasing that into something like "Are you aware of those books?"
If by respect you mean trolling. :-) Yes it was intentional.
This might be a stupid question, but why is there an issue with the wizard having the possibility to learn every spell(at a price), when divine casters get all spells as standard?
Actually some people do have an issue with it, but their spells generally are not as good as arcane spells.
Off-topic: It does not bother me that wizards can learn all the spells, theoretically of course. What does bother me is that they can, but sorcerers cant.
They should be closer in power. If a sorcerer is going to be restricted to less spells then he should be a lot better at those spells.
You're right. But that cost is only (10 gp x Level x Level), which is a winning price. (In 3rd Edition, it was double that. Going back to that price might be one of the ways to rein in a wizard with an enormous repertoire of spells.By the way, what does "4/10" mean?
Well, it's a winning price if you can A) capture a spellbook, B) find the scroll or C) convince a wizard to let you copy spells out of her spellbook.
By RAW if you want a specific spell and none of these things happens you have to use the worse price. We can't assume the above.
4/10 is a reference to VV's troll. It was only a 4 because it didn't provoke the reaction she wanted, but it did provoke a response.
a counter example would be:
How valid could VV's arugments be when clearly she plays in a campaign that contains none of the core classes as she's repeatedly stated in her inflammatory points on this board.Not something said to address the argument, but something said to provoke a response and derail the discussion.
If by respect you mean trolling. :-) Yes it was intentional.
Lastly, perhaps you don't understand that comments like "you're showing your ignorance" are considered impolite. (I'm sure that you would not want to be intentionally rude to a woman who has shown you nothing but respect.) Have you considered rephrasing that into something like "Are you aware of those books?"
Just because she does not care for the class it does not mean she does not understand the class. What posts of hers were inflammatory?
that sounds.. really boring to play in.. I guess we'll all make barbarians and power attack
Strongly disagree: I could play a sorcerer or binder or beguiler in that campaign if I wanted to be an arcanist, and everything would be jake -- in fact, that sounds like a better campaign than the standard 3.5 one, because it will stand up a lot better under high-level play.
Personally, I've gone the opposite route, having rewritten the combat rules and all of the non-full-casting classes to elevate everyone else to the wizard's/cleric's tier... and then slowed level advancement to a glacial crawl.
In both cases, we've taken a liability (the total inequity of high-level classes) and fixed it (or tried to, in my case -- the jury is still out). Overall, Viletta's method is a lot easier than mine, and requires a lot less creativity, a lot less work, and a lot less playtesting.
that sounds.. really boring to play in.. I guess we'll all make barbarians and power attack
Mind, I'm talking 3.5's expanded game for this policy. The original game had 11 base PC classes, and you really couldn't ban any of them without taking a serious hit, but the expanded game has 50 or more base classes. The core classes have no special status in the realm of the expanded game; if they're hideously overpowered (which three are), they ought to be banned or fixed just as swiftly as something overpowered from outside of core, and the remaining classes are still far more numerous than just Barbarian.
And again, this is a 3.5 policy. Expanded 3.5 has the material out there for banning the Big Five to actually work. Currently, Pathfinder without extensive 3.5 materials (which kinda defeats the purpose of using Pathfinder in the first place) does not; axe three classes and you've axed nearly a quarter of the classes in the game, with nothing to replace them. Thus, the bans aren't something I would do if I were running Pathfinder.
In the expanded game, there are upwards of a dozen classes that can take the place of Cleric, Wizard, or (with slightly more difficulty) Druid. You have Psions and Favored Souls and Warmages and Beguilers and Spirit Shamans. 3.5 games I run are just going to be Warblade/Psion/Favored Soul/Rogue rather than Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue, in the interest of balance, but all the characters'd be the same, just with different builds. Meaningful options and meaningful choices for everyone, with folks on a more similar levels of power.
How valid could VV's arugments be when clearly she plays in a campaign that contains none of the core classes as she's repeatedly stated in her inflammatory points on this board.
I play in many campaigns with many different classes. I'm currently core-only games as well as expanded games. I play as and alongside all the core classes. But I have my preferences, garnered after extensive dissection and analysis, as well as research into the 3.5 system (much of which, after analysis, still applies to the Pathfinder system) and when I run a game, I have my own laundry list of houserules I use, like I suspect everyone here does. However, I don't present my own personal houserules as The Rules. I present The Rules as The Rules, and assess those rules.
And I'm not being inflammatory. I am not trolling. I am not baiting. The accusation is flat insulting.
I am saying that specifically targeting the Wizard by deliberately curtailing the supply of scrolls in the world or gouging the Wizard on her scrolls, but not the Fighter or the Rogue on their toys, that is unfair. By definition. You're free to do so, and it may not be wrong (and may, in fact, be necessary to maintain balance due to the sheer power of the Wizard class), but it is still, by definition, unfair, as well as not being a part of the rules in any capacity (and thus should never be presented as The Rules, and anyone presenting such targeted restrictions as the default is objectively and provably wrong and should be refuted as such).
Also, a DM who is going to commit a rules override that so affects a single class that specifically and tremendously is obligated to warn any player who may want to play a Wizard of the changes beforehand.
That ain't trolling. That's a valid and logical and relevant assertion that you may or may not have a beef with. If you don't like it, refute it. But please do not throw false accusations around.
This might be a stupid question, but why is there an issue with the wizard having the possibility to learn every spell(at a price), when divine casters get all spells as standard?Cleric and Druid (distinct from divine casters in general) are every bit as bad, and I cut them, as well. In fact, I remove the Big Five entirely. That's Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Erudite, and Wizard (yes, that's six, Erudite doesn't exist). In the expanded game for 3.5, there's plenty of material to replace them (though replacing Artificer is legitimately extremely difficult).
That sounds like a reasonable solution.
It's not one I would implement - I would prefer to try to control the wizard through careful consideration of what spells are available to buy/steal/find, and the cleric through the understanding that the deity does not always provide the spells that are prayed for (this approach seems to be a holdover from earlier editions - I was surprised that it doesn't seem to be mentioned in pathfinder). But this may require more work and ongoing vigilance to maintain a semblance of balance.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
4/10 is a reference to VV's troll. It was only a 4 because it didn't provoke the reaction she wanted, but it did provoke a response.If by respect you mean trolling. :-) Yes [my comment] was intentional[ly rude].
Nexusphere,
Your questions began this thread, so I'm inclined to treat you with a good amount of slack. You could just say "I'm not finding your analysis helpful to my question."
But your comments here seem to confuse "trolling" and "inflammatory posts" intended "to provoke a response" with simple, clear disagreement with your position.
In regards to your last question to me, about down-time, most of the campaigns I've played in have adequate time between adventures. They're also built in to most of the Paizo Adventure Paths (Second Darkness being something of an exception.) My experience has been that parties take about a week to a month between adventures. As a DM, I encourage this, as it keeps people from, say, rising 8 levels in two weeks.
Just yesterday I sat down and re-read Gary Gygax's introduction to the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
There were recommended in-game penalties for players who displayed any hint of knowledge of the contents of that book. It was made absolutely clear that the workings behind the curtain were to remain mysterious. The rules in the Player's Handbook were rules, there to let the players know what to expect and how to proceed and to create reasonable consistency between tables. But anything in the DMG was prefaced strongly with Rule 0; these were convenient and carefully-crafted but expressly incomplete and not universally applicable guidelines for constructing a world which your players could explore, and which wouldn't be fundamentally different from the worlds they may have explored at other DMs' tables.
That distinction is no longer called out. The part of the PFRPG book that comes after spells is, y'know, in the same book; and nothing says it isn't also rules. So you get statements like "the rules say 75% chance."
And all I will ever say to that is, "Sit down and shut up, or find another table."
Gary Gygax also added monsters explicitly to screw his players over (gelatinous cubes for players who didn't walk through dungeons in the prescribed manner, ear mite things for players that listened at doors, mimics for players who didn't check treasure chests carefully, log-dwelling insects for players who didn't set up their camp sites in the prescribed manner...). He may be the mechanical father of the game, but just because he said so doesn't make it a good idea.
Just yesterday I sat down and re-read Gary Gygax's introduction to the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
There were recommended in-game penalties for players who displayed any hint of knowledge of the contents of that book. It was made absolutely clear that the workings behind the curtain were to remain mysterious. The rules in the Player's Handbook were rules, there to let the players know what to expect and how to proceed and to create reasonable consistency between tables. But anything in the DMG was prefaced strongly with Rule 0; these were convenient and carefully-crafted but expressly incomplete and not universally applicable guidelines for constructing a world which your players could explore, and which wouldn't be fundamentally different from the worlds they may have explored at other DMs' tables.
That distinction is no longer called out. The part of the PFRPG book that comes after spells is, y'know, in the same book; and nothing says it isn't also rules. So you get statements like "the rules say 75% chance."
And all I will ever say to that is, "Sit down and shut up, or find another table."
What is the point of this post?
Just yesterday I sat down and re-read Gary Gygax's introduction to the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide.
There were recommended in-game penalties for players who displayed any hint of knowledge of the contents of that book. It was made absolutely clear that the workings behind the curtain were to remain mysterious. The rules in the Player's Handbook were rules, there to let the players know what to expect and how to proceed and to create reasonable consistency between tables. But anything in the DMG was prefaced strongly with Rule 0; these were convenient and carefully-crafted but expressly incomplete and not universally applicable guidelines for constructing a world which your players could explore, and which wouldn't be fundamentally different from the worlds they may have explored at other DMs' tables.
That distinction is no longer called out. The part of the PFRPG book that comes after spells is, y'know, in the same book; and nothing says it isn't also rules. So you get statements like "the rules say 75% chance."
And all I will ever say to that is, "Sit down and shut up, or find another table."
3.5 isn't 1e. And honestly? 1e's not very good game, in the same way that the original Final Fantasy is a very bad game, simply because games have come so far since then. It's an important historical relic, but putting it on a pedestal is only going to lead to stagnation, and invoking it as an authority in a completely separate system is completely baseless.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What is the point of this post?
Presumably, that a discussion of the rules-as-written is pointless, because we, as players, aren't supposed to know them.
Tejon (and I apologize for not knowing how to get a diacritical mark on this), I think that particular ship sailed at the beginning of 3rd Edition. Up till then, the game --particularly combat-- was intended to be something akin to "player characters at the mercy of a GM who should be trusted to play fair."
One of the most fundamental paradigm shifts in 3rd Edition was a change from that attitude to one of parity between DMs and players, once the game session began, and once combat started. For the last nine years, we have been growing accustomed to combats on battlemats, monsters which needed to balance according to the same rules as the PCs, and proscriptions on DM fiats. Articles on Wizards' website urged players to speak up when they didn't like what their DMs were doing, and show their disapproval by quitting a campaign if the DM wouldn't justify his rulings after combat.
What is the point of this post?Presumably, that a discussion of the rules-as-written is pointless, because we, as players, aren't supposed to know them.
Tejon (and I apologize for not knowing how to get a diacritical mark on this), I think that particular ship sailed at the beginning of 3rd Edition. Up till then, the game --particularly combat-- was intended to be something akin to "player characters at the mercy of a GM who should be trusted to play fair."
One of the most fundamental paradigm shifts in 3rd Edition was a change from that attitude to one of parity between DMs and players, once the game session began, and once combat started. For the last nine years, we have been growing accustomed to combats on battlemats, monsters which needed to balance according to the same rules as the PCs, and proscriptions on DM fiats. Articles on Wizards' website urged players to speak up when they didn't like what their DMs were doing, and show their disapproval by quitting a campaign if the DM wouldn't justify his rulings after combat.
I think everyone should know the rules. I have never played first edition, but from what I have gathered over the years, the rules were ambiguous.
DM's makes mistakes, and there are bad DM's, who without the rules and people to correct/help them would be worse DM's. A DM should be held accountable. If I "break a rule" and its brought to my attention I will either make a correction if it was a mistake, or I will say "I know". If I say "I know" the players accept it as part of the story. Now if the players demand to know in detail why a rule was broken there may be a trust issue, but that is another subject altogether. I think the paradigm shift was due to a few DM's that abused their power, kind of like how some optimizers make the rest look bad.
Viletta there is no specific curtailing on the wizards scrolls, it was only mentioned as an example since we are talking about wizards and sorcerers. All magic items should not come really easily or cheaply. If you want to Gm a campaign that saids you have the gold you get the item thats fine the rules allow you. However if you want more complexity and development in your game then you are going to have to take into account details such as taxation on the legal purchasing of any magic item. Or if the sale is under the counter then maybe some additional fee or service would be required of the PC to gain said scroll or wand or any magic item. The choice is up to you how complex you want to make your game world.
I have said before the Wizard can learn every spell out there on the wizard list however practically time and money can make this diffcult. Further just because a spell scroll could be found does not necessarily make it available to the PC.
Magic items should not come cheaply. That's why they have prices according to their value, oftentimes very large. Magic items should not come easily. That's why you go adventuring for treasure. If you had to kill a dragon to get the diamond you're now trading for a scroll, that is not an easy acquisition. Taxation and surcharges do not affect the mage alone, as unless the rule is being made for the express purpose of oppressing the mage, it also applies to potions and wands and +1 swords and mystic boots of shiny. Requiring a quest to go shopping is a nonconsideration, as this is a party of adventurers, and questing is what they do; it's about as much of an obstacle as saying the mage has to breathe to go shopping.
The time and expenses have been addressed, and you don't need every single spell to have every single spell you actually care about. An extra ten spells per spell level is less than half wealth-by-level at level 18.
Yes, you and I can run our games and their markets however we please. However, our individual social constructs have absolutely no bearing on the system we all share, and for examination of how things stand within the system, we must look at the system and its design assumptions. In this case, the assumed market system is, "Magic items have a market price, there is a market, and if you're in a big enough city and have enough money, pretty much any given item you want to buy below Value X is probably available."
The reason you have to look at design assumptions is that individual social constructs can create unfair comparisons. Yes, if you place a tax on scrolls and only scrolls, explicitly make large numbers of scrolls illegal without placing similar restrictions on other classes' toys, make the Wizards jump through all kinds of hoops to get a two thousand gold magic item while dropping a ten thousand gold sword in the Fighter's lap, and flat refuse to let the mage have a large number of scrolls at all and systematically deny them the time to ever study what scrolls they do get their hands on, then they will look a lot worse, and the Sorcerer will look considerably stronger in comparison. But that's not a fair comparison, largely because so many rules were passed that specifically target the Wizard, and because it's such a massive departure from the game's default assumptions. I can say that if the entire campaign takes place in a giant antimagic field, then Fighters are dramatically more powerful than mages, but that statement holds no bearing on the system and it's a completely unfair comparison.
Presumably, that a discussion of the rules-as-written is pointless, because we, as players, aren't supposed to know them.
What is the point of this post?
Not quite; my point was that taking anything after Chapter 11 as rules in the first place is a shaky proposition, and even then, only the GM (or module designer) has any authority to enforce them. Certain things are emphatically not in the player's hands, and legalistically quoting bits of the book presented as guidelines and shortcuts for a GM who doesn't have the time to work it all out is a recipe for table strife. In describing Gygax's draconian measures I was trying to be illustrative of how important the concept once was to the game, not advocating that sort of GMing; sorry.
A good GM provides things that the players can have fun with, paying attention to reactions, requests and stated goals. It's not always what the player asks for, and rarely everything they want, because then why keep playing? The only motivating goal is one not yet achieved. (This is of course discounting Monty Haul Door Kick Battle Royale campaigns.) Likewise, it is in every way the job of the GM to maintain balance within the party, making sure each character has a chance to feel like a contributor, and controlling the availability of spells to a wizard (for better or for worse) is important to this. Popping up with "rules" which aren't rules about things which aren't the player's purview is honestly disrespectful. Thinking that it's proper to do so is a downside to rolling the DMG into the main book with no introduction saying, "Hey, paradigm shift." That's the function E.G.G.'s two-page preface/rant in AD&D DMG 1.0 served very well, even if the particular tone doesn't fly here in the information age.
Tejon (and I apologize for not knowing how to get a diacritical mark on this)
Alt-162. ;)
Not quite; my point was that taking anything after Chapter 11 as rules in the first place is a shaky proposition, and even then, only the GM (or module designer) has any authority to enforce them. Certain things are emphatically not in the player's hands, and legalistically quoting bits of the book presented as guidelines and shortcuts for a GM who doesn't have the time to work it all out is a recipe for table strife. In describing Gygax's draconian measures I was trying to be illustrative of how important the concept once was to the game, not advocating that sort of GMing; sorry.
I'm afraid you've somewhat missed the point a number of others were attempting to make. They were not advancing these arguments as a player in a campaign, attempting to strongarm a DM, nor were they saying, at any point, that the market default rules should be used with no alteration at every game table.
What they were saying is that when we are considering the relative balance of classes, feats, etc. we should do so in the context of the default assumptions, as they are the only common set of shared rules we have. Any changes an individual DM makes to those common assumptions come with a responsibility to consider how those changes will effect balance at their own table, as it is simply impossible for anyone outside of that group to know in advance what the individual DM might change.
Popping up with "rules" which aren't rules about things which aren't the player's purview is honestly disrespectful.
If the people having this discussion were a group of players at a particular table, you might be right, but they're not. They're a mixed group of players, DMs, and game designers taking a look at a question of rule balance, outside of any particular game.
In this context, popping up with "guidelines" which only apply to players at the table and attempting to force them on the group as if you were their DM is honestly disrespectful.
Brodiggan, I didn't miss that point. I only have difficulty seeing how it can apply to placement of treasure, which is inherently and exclusively the GM's responsibility.
But I must apologize on one point: I finally found the source of the "75% chance" availability quote, and it really is that stupidly open-ended. The way it was presented (emphatically, repeatedly and in a context of "how to trick out your wizard") had sparked the assumption that it was a best-case fluffing of a more complex rule. Nope, cut and dry and the 9th-level scrolls are usually available any Small City. So yeah, that one's a bummer.
However, I must point out one saving grace: unless someone can point me to where such terms as "thorpe" and "metropolis" are defined, it's back to GM perogative being rule 1 (not 0).
(I already checked the 3.5 DMG. Every other number in the community/economy rules has changed. I'm not willing to assume this one stayed fixed.)
What they were saying is that when we are considering the relative balance of classes, feats, etc. we should do so in the context of the default assumptions, as they are the only common set of shared rules we have. Any changes an individual DM makes to those common assumptions come with a responsibility to consider how those changes will effect balance at their own table, as it is simply impossible for anyone outside of that group to know in advance what the individual DM might change.
Excellent. Well said. (it did also take me awhile to realize that this is what was being argued here). That said, I'm not sure the counterpoint is as well understood - the point I have been arguing (and maybe others would agree, though I don't want to put words in their mouth).
An analysis of the default assumptions is great, and some good points have been made that it is necessary, and also necessary to understand these assumptions before they can be changed.
The counterpoint is that such an analysis does not seem to have included the more nebulous aspects of the game - that are nevertheless written into the rules (however inexplicitly or even more weakly in 3.0 and recent incarnations). These more nebulous rules do form part of the common set of shared rules that every player and DM has experienced. I don't want to call them "houserules" or "rule 0" - those may be more loaded terms than I realized in prior posts - maybe call them "the need for DM adjudication" or "the need for DM/player interaction/consensus".
The point is that an analysis that ignores these nebulous concepts may overstate an imbalance with a particular aspect of the game (e.g., the wizard appears far too powerful) In an analysis that includes these nebulous concepts, the imbalance may not be as bad (e.g., the wizard may only be moderately too powerful). I fully agree that they are more difficult to include in an analysis, but without them, it may not be reasonable to draw the same conclusions. This may have an impact on the solutions that are chosen to deal with them.
For example, VV said that she decided to exclude wizard, cleric, etc. completely. This does avoid imbalance problems caused by these classes, and it's a perfectly reasonable solution to the balance problem, but pretty drastic.
But, the apparent need for such drastic solutions may be overstated by looking only at what you've called the default assumptions without including the more nebulous concepts that are inherent to the game, and that provide a common, shared feature that can be used to maintain balance within the game system as provided (however nebulously defined, and however much they may vary in actual game practice).
You're absolutely right however, that it is impossible to know what the individual DM might change. To that effect, I think the game designers have done about as well as they could have. Yes, there is a balance problem with the wizard. How bad is it? That is very difficult to say, though the designers have included some corrective mechanisms, and individual DMs may include even more (which are impossible to predict).
If the purpose of consideration of the relative balance of classes etc. only in light of the default assumptions is to come to a conclusion, then such consideration may skew the conclusion (I don't think the skew is necessarily large, so this may be a minor point after all, but I do think it is there).
(I know I said I was done arguing these points, but these are interesting questions to think about - I mean to contend without being contentious)
3.5 isn't 1e. And honestly? 1e's not very good game, in the same way that the original Final Fantasy is a very bad game, simply because games have come so far since then. It's an important historical relic, but putting it on a pedestal is only going to lead to stagnation, and invoking it as an authority in a completely separate system is completely baseless.
10/10
1e not only is a *brillant* game - it's a game in which wizards have much more powerful spells and yet are still outshone by the fighters.
In short it's a game that doesn't have any of the issues 80% of these posts on the Rules Forum are addressing. It works, and has worked for 30 years and many people still play it to this day. In fact, as a game, it has spawned whole genres of different games in different genres, a cartoon series, the formation of an entirely new hobby while still remaining actively played.
What exactly was the intent of your post? 1st edition is a game where wizard spells are not nerfed, yet due to the way the rules worked fighters remain more than relevant in high level play. What is written in the 1st Edition DMG is very relevant. You slamming another edition is not.
1e not only is a *brillant* game - it's a game in which wizards have much more powerful spells and yet are still outshone by the fighters.
In short it's a game that doesn't have any of the issues 80% of these posts on the Rules Forum are addressing. It works, and has worked for 30 years and many people still play it to this day. In fact, as a game, it has spawned whole genres of different games in different genres, a cartoon series, the formation of an entirely new hobby while still remaining actively played.
Original AD&D never got the scrutiny that 3.5 did. I am certain that had it been put under the microscope it would have fared just as poorly. That's pretty sad considering they have had 20+ years to improve the game though. Instead of making a better game system they chose to add layer after layer of new stuff over the top.
Even so, I think most of the folks who pan AD&D the hardest never played it. With much simpler character classes and vastly simpler monster stat blocks the game was much easier to learn and GM and was every bit as fun as 3rd edition. Which was the better game? Beats me.
Original AD&D never got the scrutiny that 3.5 did. I am certain that had it been put under the microscope it would have fared just as poorly. That's pretty sad considering they have had 20+ years to improve the game though. Instead of making a better game system they chose to add layer after layer of new stuff over the top.
Even so, I think most of the folks who pan AD&D the hardest never played it. With much simpler character classes and vastly simpler monster stat blocks the game was much easier to learn and GM and was every bit as fun as 3rd edition. Which was the better game? Beats me.
Agreed, I'm fairly comfortable with both, and appreciate each for their own strengths.
One rarely mentioned upside of 1st edition is it's blazing speed compared to 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder. I recently ran a one shot session for some friends that had never played 1st edition, and, over the course of a single 8-10 hour session, they had enough time to learn the basic rules, roleplay their way through six or seven social encounters, track down the entrance to a classic dungeon, and then entirely clear the dungeon. Admittedly, the dungeon was a single floor, but in the course of that single session there were a total of 24 fights (some with more than 16 combatants on a side), 8 traps of one sort or another, 3 puzzles, and all of the roleplay before and after the exploration phase of the adventure.
Compared to d20 (in which I've seen entire sessions consumed by 3-4 fights) that sort of speed is stunning.
I'm highly considering houseruling the idea posted of lowering the level sorcerers gain their bonus bloodline spells by 2. It seems a great way to remove the difference in raw power between the classes while still keeping them unique and giving players a reason to play both depending on style and preference.
I'm wondering if anyone can think of any strong objections or potential problems/imbalances created by doing this.
|
I'm highly considering houseruling the idea posted of lowering the level sorcerers gain their bonus bloodline spells by 2. It seems a great way to remove the difference in raw power between the classes while still keeping them unique and giving players a reason to play both depending on style and preference.
That's a pretty cool idea. Getting their bonus 1st level spell at 1st level, instead of 3rd, would make a big difference at the lower levels, and getting their bonus 9th level spell at 17th instead of 19th would be nice as well, since they wouldn't otherwise have any 9th level spells yet.
I was just thinking of making a similar rule for Specialist Wizards, allowing them to cast spells from their Specialty School as if one level lower, but spells from their opposition schools as if one slot higher. 1st level spells from their Specialty School would be cast as cantrips, but instead of the Pathfinder system with unlimited cantrips, a Wizard would get twice the PHB number of daily cantrips (allowing a 1st level Evoker to throw up six magic missiles per day) and be able to cast cantrips of his own School at will (unlimited ray of frost or light).
Mixing and matching, perhaps the Sorcerer could treat specialty spells as one slot lower, instead, which would make enlarge person a *cantrip* for an Aberrant Sorcerer, for example.
But I must apologize on one point: I finally found the source of the "75% chance" availability quote, and it really is that stupidly open-ended. The way it was presented (emphatically, repeatedly and in a context of "how to trick out your wizard") had sparked the assumption that it was a best-case fluffing of a more complex rule. Nope, cut and dry and the 9th-level scrolls are usually available any Small City. So yeah, that one's a bummer.
The 75% chance is not what matters. It's the underlying assumptions that matter. Yes, it's very open-ended, but it's the assumptions that go along with it that matter, not the details. Here are the design assumptions that go along with the 75% chance:
1) Magic items are available for purchase. There is a market of some sort for a broad array of magic items.
2) If you have enough money and you're in a big enough town, you can probably buy what you want if it costs less than a few thousand gold.
3) Rarity is based on price. The more expensive something is, the harder it is to find. The less expensive, the easier.
Those are what the design assumptions boil down to. These are the assumptions I'm talking about. When you deviate from these assumptions, you have to take into account the effect they have on the game.
You are free to make scrolls dramatically rarer, certainly, but a scroll for even a ninth-level spell still costs less than a quarter the price of even a lowly +3 sword, and it's a very specific jab against the Wizard that affects game balance and goes against the design assumptions.
10/10
1e not only is a *brillant* game - it's a game in which wizards have much more powerful spells and yet are still outshone by the fighters.
In short it's a game that doesn't have any of the issues 80% of these posts on the Rules Forum are addressing. It works, and has worked for 30 years and many people still play it to this day. In fact, as a game, it has spawned whole genres of different games in different genres, a cartoon series, the formation of an entirely new hobby while still remaining actively played.
Games have come a long way, chief. Take off the nostalgia-tinted glasses.
I still enjoy the original Final Fantasy, and I still love the original Zelda. That doesn't mean they're very good games. Yes, I enjoy them, but they're what I grew up on. I know that if you put the original Zelda next to Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time, it is not the superior game. And if you are initiating someone without the prejudice and bias into video gaming, I know they will acknowledge Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time as the superior games.
Yes, you can have fun with 1e. However, mind that you're coming from the background of one who has a vast amount of experience with 1e, who is used to its quirks, who knows how to work around its shortcomings, who is aware of and familiar with the gaps in its rules, who has fashioned his entire dynamic of play around that system. It's a game you like. It's a game you're accustomed to. It's a game that is very dead to you. It's a game that is to your tastes. That doesn't mean it's a game of exceptional quality on its own merits in comparison to modern games, even though it isn't a fair comparison, just as it isn't fair to compare the original Final Fantasy or Castlevania or Zelda to their SNES counterparts.
And do note that of course 1e doesn't have 80% of the issues 3.5 has, because it's a different system entirely. TriStat also doesn't have 80% of the issues 3.5 has either, because they're drawing on completely different sets of issues, and there's not a whole lot of overlap.
Most of my serious gaming has been done with 3.5. It is perhaps my favorite system. However, I have no doubt that 4e is the superior system. 4e achieves its design objectives gracefully and efficiently. It does precisely what it's designed to do, and it does it very well. However, what 4e is designed to do is not what I want out of a system, and I'm very familiar with 3.5 and its myriad design flaws. I know how to get 3.5 to do what I want, I can get what I want out of it, and I enjoy it. I know that 4e is the superior system, but 3.5 suits my tastes better.
However, if I were going to introduce a new player to the hobby, I'd much sooner run 4e for them than 3.5, and Blue Rose/True20 sooner still, if I didn't use it as an excuse to go out and finally grab Burning Wheel, simply because those are more elegant and better-designed systems.
What exactly was the intent of your post? 1st edition is a game where wizard spells are not nerfed, yet due to the way the rules worked fighters remain more than relevant in high level play. What is written in the 1st Edition DMG is very relevant. You slamming another edition is not.
The point is that 1e is not 3.5/PF. Invoking 1e in a conversation of 3.5/PF is no more relevant than invoking Burning Wheel or TriStat or Mutants & Masterminds. What's written in 1e has absolutely no relevance to 3.5/PF, as it isn't 3.5/PF. Much has changed. Much has intentionally changed. Much in how the game is intended to be run is not what it was thirty years ago. Much of what worked in 1e does not work and is explicitly designed to not work in 3.5/PF.
When looking at a system, you have to actually look at the system, not systems that just happen to use similar naming conventions.
And by the way the Magic Wal-Mart trope is relevant as many of the major items require HUGE amounts of time and commitment, a blanket handwave on item purchases was a real disservice on Paizo's part.
But again, just because magic items are available for purchase doesn't mean they're sitting on a shelf gathering dust. If you go commission your magic sword from The Master Smith, pay him to do the job, and then wait the requisite length of time for him to finish, you're still ultimately buying a +1 sword. There's just no Magic WalMart involved, because a Magic WalMart is not appropriate to the setting. There's still a market, but it's more commission-centric rather than revolving around instant gratification.
For example, VV said that she decided to exclude wizard, cleric, etc. completely. This does avoid imbalance problems caused by these classes, and it's a perfectly reasonable solution to the balance problem, but pretty drastic.
But, the apparent need for such drastic solutions may be overstated by looking only at what you've called the default assumptions without including the more nebulous concepts that are inherent to the game, and that provide a common, shared feature that can be used to maintain balance within the game system as provided (however nebulously defined, and however much they may vary in actual game practice).
Actually, my methods aren't all that drastic in their original context. That of the expanded game, in which there are over fifty base classes that can cover for each other, meaning no character concept that was once served is left uncovered (save Artificer, but I've never been fond of Eberron anyways).
One of my fundamental beliefs about running games is that, once the sheets are set, everyone should be balanced, and the DM should be able to treat everyone evenly and fairly without it being inevitable that said balance will shatter. A DM shouldn't have to systematically make rules and rulings that specifically hammer a single character class every single game just to keep things in line. I also believe that a game should be more or less balanced out of the box, when run in accordance with the rules, assuming tactically sound play, rather than forcing the DM to manually rebalance everything at all times with every shopping trip. A game that comes balanced is part of the service I'm paying for.
I should be able to throw normal encounters at the players, give them equal amounts of gold, let them by whatever they want with equal freedom or restriction, run the adventure in the middle of the forest or within two days' travel of five major cities, all without it becoming a game balance issue. And that's my problem with the Wizard. If a canny Wizard gets fair access to markets, you have to actively shut them down or they can gain so much power that they pretty much overshadow everyone but the Cleric and the Druid. Hence, the problem. And since there are existing rules that are fair and balanced and can represent wizard characters even if the Wizard class gets the boot, the most efficient route is to nix the mechanics that just don't work under the criterion of fairness in favor of the ones that do.
I'm wondering if anyone can think of any strong objections or potential problems/imbalances created by doing this.
Only that the Sorcerer is already an extremely powerful class, and only dims in comparison to the Wizard, which is already overwhelming in default rules in the hands of a canny player. The ruling is nice, but it would probably be a better move for game balance if you were to tone the Wizard down, rather than raise the Sorcerer up.
I'm highly considering houseruling the idea posted of lowering the level sorcerers gain their bonus bloodline spells by 2. It seems a great way to remove the difference in raw power between the classes while still keeping them unique and giving players a reason to play both depending on style and preference.
I'm wondering if anyone can think of any strong objections or potential problems/imbalances created by doing this.
This is something I suggested during the beta, along with 1 spell/ day to cast the bonus spell (So sorcerers have 1 second level spell/ day at 3rd level). When I'm GMing I will likely use it as a house rule.
I was just thinking of making a similar rule for Specialist Wizards, allowing them to cast spells from their Specialty School as if one level lower, but spells from their opposition schools as if one slot higher. 1st level spells from their Specialty School would be cast as cantrips, but instead of the Pathfinder system with unlimited cantrips, a Wizard would get twice the PHB number of daily cantrips (allowing a 1st level Evoker to throw up six magic missiles per day) and be able to cast cantrips of his own School at will (unlimited ray of frost or light).
Um... wow. I don't think wizards need this kind of a crazy power boost. They are already plenty powerful.
Mixing and matching, perhaps the Sorcerer could treat specialty spells as one slot lower, instead, which would make enlarge person a *cantrip* for an Aberrant Sorcerer, for example.
Sorcerers are not wimps, they don't need this kind of boost either. Moving their bonus spell up so they get a 2nd level spell at the same time wizards do is one thing but moving spells associated with their bloodline down a level is way too much.
I have seen some suggestions that specialists caster level is considered 1-2 levels higher with their specialty class and 1-2 levels lower with their prohibited schools and this has a lot of merit and does something similar to what you suggest.
|
|
So lets get this straight.
A player should be able to complain that he can't buy Meteor Swarm easily a spell which can devestate a significant portion of a city. Because the Fighter can go out and buy a +3 longsword if he shops in the right place.
Thats like complaining hey dude how come you got to buy a colt .45, while I'm in a holding cell being questioned by the FBI cause I walked into a store and tried to buy a cruise missle. Thats so unfair.
Just because a 9th level scroll is cheaper then a +3 longsword does not mean it has the availability of the same item.
How do you think the local populace would react if Joe Hippy mage sold a necromancer a scroll of symbol of death, cloudkill and Animate dead. Then the next morning used those same spells to wipe out most of the town he lived in and reanimate them as his mindless servents?
Joe Hippy Wizard probably is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
So Joe Hippy Wizard probably won't just sell them to a guy for a few thousand gold. Unless he's chaotic evil and then he's more likely to sell fake scrolls....
There are quite a few ways to acquire spells, but it should be somewhat difficult to gain access to spells that will devestate kingdoms in the hands of the wrong people.
A player should be able to complain that he can't buy Meteor Swarm easily a spell which can devastate a significant portion of a city. Because the Fighter can go out and buy a +3 longsword if he shops in the right place.
Again, since you're ignoring the posts explaining this point...
You've somewhat missed the point a number of others were attempting to make. They were not advancing these arguments as a player in a campaign, attempting to strongarm a DM, nor were they saying, at any point, that the market default rules should be used with no alteration at every game table.
What they were saying is that when we are considering the relative balance of classes, feats, etc. we should do so in the context of the default assumptions, as they are the only common set of shared rules we have. Any changes an individual DM makes to those common assumptions come with a responsibility to consider how those changes will effect balance at their own table, as it is simply impossible for anyone outside of that group to know in advance what the individual DM might change.
I feel I should also point out, since there are apparently a whole lot of grognards that can't unwrap their minds from the 1st edition spell descriptions, that in 3.x spells like Meteor Swarm are not going to "devastate a significant portion of a city." Meteor Swarm is, at absolutely maximum, doing 24d6 to an area, and another 8d6 to a single target at the center of that are. The average damage output for the spell, assuming no successful saves are made, is 84 damage in a spread, and another 28 to the primary target.
By contrast, a fighter specializing in Archery at that level, and purchasing a +3 bow, will have 7 attacks, each dealing a MINIMUM of 28 to 30 damage (1d8 base damage, +3 Enhancement, +4 Weapon Training, +4 G. Weapon Specialization, +10 Deadly Aim, +6-8 Strength), and a total average damage output of approximately 228 damage on a full attack, over TWICE the total of Meteor Swarm. And that's completely ignoring the possibility of critical hits and special abilities like flaming.
By contrast, a fighter specializing in Archery at that level, and purchasing a +3 bow, will have 7 attacks, each dealing a MINIMUM of 28 to 30 damage (1d8 base damage, +3 Enhancement, +4 Weapon Training, +4 G. Weapon Specialization, +10 Deadly Aim, +6-8 Strength), and a total average damage output of approximately 228 damage on a full attack, over TWICE the total of Meteor Swarm. And that's...
Not a great example, fighter is damaging a single target versus a rather large number of targets with meteor swarm. Kind of a completely different target. Maybe compare to maximized disintegrate if you want to compare single target ranged damage. I know not really your example but...
Not a great example, fighter is damaging a single target versus a rather large number of targets with meteor swarm. Kind of a completely different target. Maybe compare to maximized disintegrate if you want to compare single target ranged damage. I know not really your example but...
For a more meaningful comparison, then, if you shot your meteor at a stone wall, most of the damage would be cut in half because you're using fire damage against stone, and hardness would be applied four times, once for each meteor, meaning you're not doing a lot of damage to that stone wall. Assuming 112 damage split between four meteors, That comes out to 112/2-8*4=24 damage to the wall, total, and stone has 15 HP per inch. Which means the meteor swarm enough damage to blast away an inch and a half of stone at the point of impact, less over its area of effect, which is only 40' per burst.
You're not running light on the grognement in this thread yourself, Brod. ;) And because it's gotten a bit silly at this point (and I think all the relevant points have been made anyway)...
I feel I should also point out, since there are apparently a whole lot of grognards that can't unwrap their minds from the 1st edition spell descriptions, that in 3.x spells like Meteor Swarm are not going to "devastate a significant portion of a city." Meteor Swarm is, at absolutely maximum, doing 24d6 to an area, and another 8d6 to a single target at the center of that are. The average damage output for the spell, assuming no successful saves are made, is 84 damage in a spread, and another 28 to the primary target.
I will point out that this could instead be another 7 to 4 primary targets, which would be 91 to each. Now, from Environment with one little bit of emphasis:
Most city buildings are made of a combination of stone or clay brick (on the lower one or two stories) and timbers (for the upper stories, interior walls, and floors). Roofs are a mixture of boards, thatch, and slates, sealed with pitch. A typical lower-story wall is 1 foot thick, with AC 3, hardness 8, 90 hp, and a Climb DC of 25. Upper-story walls are 6 inches thick, with AC 3, hardness 5, 60 hp, and a Climb DC of 21. Exterior doors on most buildings are good wooden doors that are usually kept locked, except on public buildings such as shops and taverns.
On average you can handily demolish four buildings with a meteor swarm, not to mention kill almost everyone inside and around them; that's a significant portion of most cities. (Arguably of any city, if one of those buildings is a town hall or similar.)
On average you can handily demolish four buildings with a meteor swarm, not to mention kill almost everyone inside and around them; that's a significant portion of most cities. (Arguably of any city, if one of those buildings is a town hall or similar.)
Incorrect. Energy damage is halved against objects, and is subject to hardness which is calculated after the halving. So, rather than doing 84/90 of a wall's health, a meteor swarm will do 34/90, barely over a third.