Actually, it is not just lead. The effects of other heavy metals(gold, uranium, etc) on divination spells are not specified in the rules. This means that it is up to the GM to decide exactly what the effect of something like gold is on scry. Being that gold is very similar to lead in many ways, I have no problem deciding that gold works just as well as lead.
And perhaps it is a problem of perspective.
To paraphrase from the "Einstein was a level 5 commoner" essay.
In our world.
A level 1 character with an elite stat panel is rare(less than 1 in 20).
An 18 Intelligence would be roughly equal to an IQ of 180(maybe about 1 in a 100 million)
A level 5 character would be the best of the best.
Anything beyond level 5 would be superhuman.
People think of high level campaign with strong foes, and they automatically think level 20. Perhaps you should think...
Yes because the best answer is to throw out the top half of every class.
well if its becoming a real problem just pull a trick from wrath of dragon god movie. Have them scry but have enemy have set a spell that gives a false image around him, so when party teleports in 1 of them ends up with arm in a wall, or a leg in the floor. Will quickly make them think twice about using these tactics, or my favorite " oh hey look he's alone!" so they teleport in what DIDN'T see was small army just outside the scy radius in the background.
but as i've said on these forums before sometimes just better to say " no you cant do that" then to mess with it.
The false image spell was among those that I mentioned in my post, but please note that teleport just des 1d6 damage ans shoves you into the next viable spot... not quite the thing annoying to the players with access to these spells. Greater glyph of warding on the other hand with mass hold person could be a different matter IMO.
Please note that Scry allows SR and a will save, so possible defense could also involve these factors...
An 18 Intelligence would be roughly equal to an IQ of 180(maybe about 1 in a 100 million)
It's not even remotely that rare. Ignoring PC tricks like 4d6+drop one, point-buy schemes, etc. and going with a roll of 3d6 and its 216 rolling possibilities, you have a roll of 18 having around a 0.463 chance of happening, so 99.537% of values will be lower.
Using the typical normalized IQ distribution of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, that puts an 18 Int around IQ = 139. Only about one out of 216. Similarly, an Int of 3 would be around IQ = 61. Einstein, da Vinci, and Archimedes were likely in the low to mid 20's.
(Truthfully, with the +2 human stat bonus and bonuses from leveling, an 18 would actually have a higher probability of existing, and so would be less than IQ = 139. Going with 4d6+drop one and so forth reduces the value even further. I'm sticking with 3d6 as the baseline.)
For anything outside the 3d6 range, we fudge a bunch. For a 20, I'd say we have take of those 1 in 216's, with a 1/6 chance of them picking Int for their +2 stat. (Told you it would involve fudging.) Now, we're around 0.0772%, or about a 1 in 1250 or so. This is around a 147.
Anything in the 21+ range would take a whole mess of fudging based on the percentage of characters that reach level 4, what proportion of them would take a +1 to Int, etc. (I choose to ignore age-based Int gains, as personal experiences have shown me quite the opposite.)
Lead again... all a fighter needs is lead. Commonly used in paints. Commonly used in children's toys too up until the 21st century. Heck even used in lots of plumbing.
I think the question that's been asked though is worth considering: Is there enough lead in paint to constitute the "thin sheet" necessary to block detection magics? Also, if the lead sheeting doesn't cover the person 100%, does that mean you can still scry them? Lead paint on armor may not be enough.
An 18 Intelligence would be roughly equal to an IQ of 180(maybe about 1 in a 100 million)It's not even remotely that rare. Ignoring PC tricks like 4d6+drop one, point-buy schemes, etc. and going with a roll of 3d6 and its 216 rolling possibilities, you have a roll of 18 having around a 0.463 chance of happening, so 99.537% of values will be lower.
Using the typical normalized IQ distribution of 100 with a standard deviation of 15, that puts an 18 Int around IQ = 139. Only about one out of 216. Similarly, an Int of 3 would be around IQ = 61. Einstein, da Vinci, and Archimedes were likely in the low to mid 20's.
(Truthfully, with the +2 human stat bonus and bonuses from leveling, an 18 would actually have a higher probability of existing, and so would be less than IQ = 139. Going with 4d6+drop one and so forth reduces the value even further. I'm sticking with 3d6 as the baseline.)
For anything outside the 3d6 range, we fudge a bunch. For a 20, I'd say we have take of those 1 in 216's, with a 1/6 chance of them picking Int for their +2 stat. (Told you it would involve fudging.) Now, we're around 0.0772%, or about a 1 in 1250 or so. This is around a 147.
Anything in the 21+ range would take a whole mess of fudging based on the percentage of characters that reach level 4, what proportion of them would take a +1 to Int, etc. (I choose to ignore age-based Int gains, as personal experiences have shown me quite the opposite.)
The problem is that you are assuming that the entire population is created using a standard 3d6 die roll. An 18(for 3.5 with is what the essay was about)/20(if you are talking about PF where humans get +2 to any stat) is meant to represent the absolute best of the best in natural ability. If you look and the bell curve for IQ, you will quickly see that the falloff is much steeper than a 3d6 die roll. The 3d6 method is meant to approximate the bell curve, but it does not match it because the maximum sample size is much smaller(216 possibilities on 3d6 vs 6 billion possibilities for the human race). The 3d6 method of generating stats also fails to accomodate the long side lobes of the actual IQ bell curve.
The stat rolling methods are meant to generate exceptional characters. PC are by definition extraordinary. You should not be applying the rules that characters are generated under to the general population.
This explains it better than I can.
Yes because the best answer is to throw out the top half of every class.
And perhaps it is a problem of perspective.
To paraphrase from the "Einstein was a level 5 commoner" essay.
In our world.
A level 1 character with an elite stat panel is rare(less than 1 in 20).
An 18 Intelligence would be roughly equal to an IQ of 180(maybe about 1 in a 100 million)
A level 5 character would be the best of the best.
Anything beyond level 5 would be superhuman.
People think of high level campaign with strong foes, and they automatically think level 20. Perhaps you should think...
Is it an option for a DM who doesn't like dealing with redesigning their world to handle high power players who can do all sorts of crazy things?
Yes, yes it is.
Lead again... all a fighter needs is lead. Commonly used in paints. Commonly used in children's toys too up until the 21st century. Heck even used in lots of plumbing.I think the question that's been asked though is worth considering: Is there enough lead in paint to constitute the "thin sheet" necessary to block detection magics? Also, if the lead sheeting doesn't cover the person 100%, does that mean you can still scry them? Lead paint on armor may not be enough.
I think that can be ruled either way by a GM, so long as he is consistent. In a PFS game, I would say probably no, but just use wall thickness if you don't want scrying. Like I said in a previous post, its common to have foot thick stone/plaster walls.
I think that can be ruled either way by a GM, so long as he is consistent. In a PFS game, I would say probably no, but just use wall thickness if you don't want scrying. Like I said in a previous post, its common to have foot thick stone/plaster walls.Lead again... all a fighter needs is lead. Commonly used in paints. Commonly used in children's toys too up until the 21st century. Heck even used in lots of plumbing.I think the question that's been asked though is worth considering: Is there enough lead in paint to constitute the "thin sheet" necessary to block detection magics? Also, if the lead sheeting doesn't cover the person 100%, does that mean you can still scry them? Lead paint on armor may not be enough.
If it's not enough in and of itself you can always build with a coating of lead in the walls themselves. I would say that full plate that has lead built into it/painted on it/ etc. should work... I could see an argument that lead chain shirts shouldn't be good enough, as well as breast plates, however most armors are rather complete in their coverage, and from what the book says a thin sheet is enough... but as mentioned above it's a question of how much and how pure.
Personally I'm good with around 1/8 of an inch... it's what worked back in the older editions and I've simply carried it forward, however in several cases I would be willing to go thinner.
Lead is a toxin. Not the same as a poison, but would follow similar rules.
Lead exposure simply requires you to breath it in, get it under your skin, or eat something tainted with it. Granted, this only produces health problems over a long period of time unless someone suffers acute lead poisoning, which requires a pretty high exposure.
Lead poisoning can lead to memory loss, weakness, autoimmune deficiency, and irratabilty. I've made rules for lead poisoning in my game (lead bullets from firearms), but as a deterant from teleporting there is a price to pay from the workers. IRL it was centuries before anyone could connect lead with madness or sickness. In a magical world your an augery away from knowing that lead is a slow cooking poison.
If you want a believable simulation (I do), then this is something that needs to be addressed. If you always assume that there's someone better, smarter or richer than the players then you automatically have the formula for high adventure. If the players can do it then the bad guys can too. Simple.
The false image spell was among those that I mentioned in my post, but please note that teleport just des 1d6 damage ans shoves you into the next viable spot... not quite the thing annoying to the players with access to these spells. Greater glyph of warding on the other hand with mass hold person could be a different matter IMO.
Please note that Scry allows SR and a will save, so possible defense could also involve these factors...
wonderful thing about D&D is that rules are not set in stone, if i suddenly feel that PC's are abusing a mechanic and feel need to be taught a lesson. Well then by god some one is losing a limb inside a wall. Think most people forget that rule books are just guide lines. Rules can be changed at DM's discretion maybe its old 2e DM in my talking but, if i dont like something or way something works, it gets changed with out a second thought. If players are using scy and die tactic knowingly abusing it then... making wizard lose his arm in a wall is a pretty good way to get point accross to " stop doing that". Then again i guess i'm a bastard of a DM =P
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
As a DM, I might let players get away with this tactic once or twice. But if they started abusing it, they'd find themselves on the receiving end of it post-haste. Players only control their characters; the badguys get to act on their own, too. If I felt I needed to decisively stop scry-and-fry tactics, the very next time the PCs started discussing it in game, enemy minions would start teleporting in and blasting away.
"Hey, wizard, why don't you just scry the evil boss's lair and teleport us in to whack him, just like we did la-"
*BAMF* *BOOM*
Of course, I wouldn't throw TPK-level forces at them, but every time somebody brought up the topic they'd have another fight on their hands. Eventually they'd either get the hint or have to start devoting resources to protecting themselves against that tactic.
|
Lead poisoning can lead to memory loss, weakness, autoimmune deficiency, and irratabilty.
All of those symptoms should be curable with a cure light wounds as none of them (except the autoimmune problem) would be permanent. Well, no more permanent than a sword embedded in your belly when you live in a world full of magic. :)
Lead poisoning can lead to memory loss, weakness, autoimmune deficiency, and irratabilty.All of those symptoms should be curable with a cure light wounds as none of them (except the autoimmune problem) would be permanent. Well, no more permanent than a sword embedded in your belly when you live in a world full of magic. :)
There is a paranoid society of Humans in my campaign world who do just such a thing and suffer these maladies regularly. Arcane AND Divine magic is outlawed, lead is used extensively in most permanent structures, and cold iron is used in all metal weapons.
The problem is that you are assuming that the entire population is created using a standard 3d6 die roll.
That's been my experience pretty much everywhere. It's the PCs that get to use less random and/or skewed methods to keep scores in the higher ranges. It'll just trend them towards the peak, rather than having any real effect on the overall distributions.
An 18(for 3.5 with is what the essay was about)/20(if you are talking about PF where humans get +2 to any stat) is meant to represent the absolute best of the best in natural ability.
No, because even NPCs are subject to aging bonuses. The absolute best of the best would be a 23, for someone with a base Intelligence of 20 who developed that over many decades into a 23. Now, that's only the best of the best for someone that never gained any levels at all. An NPC can gain levels just like a PC, so a 5th level elderly Expert could very well have a 24 Intelligence.
Furthermore, for an IQ of 180 to even exist (theoretically speaking, since the whole concept of IQ scores is based on the fudging of distributions to approximate the Bell curve), you'd need a base population of 50 million, given an average set at 100 (arbitrary) and a standard deviation of 15 (also arbitrary, but this is the general value used for the Weschler series of IQ tests). 190 would require a population of one billion.
If you look and the bell curve for IQ, you will quickly see that the falloff is much steeper than a 3d6 die roll. The 3d6 method is meant to approximate the bell curve, but it does not match it because the maximum sample size is much smaller(216 possibilities on 3d6 vs 6 billion possibilities for the human race).
The sample size is mostly irrelevant, and the "Bell curve" is not at all unique to IQ distributions. In fact, IQ scores and exams are themselves normalized (sometimes very poorly) to fit that curve (i.e. "They are meant to approximate the bell curve, but they do not exactly match it").
The 3d6 rolling method does in fact approximate a normalized distribution. Not perfectly, of course, but then neither would an IQ distribution fit one perfectly, since it only has around six billion values instead of uncountably infinitely many. (See: integral calculus.)
The 3d6 method of generating stats also fails to accomodate the long side lobes of the actual IQ bell curve.
So does only having a population of six billion. The infinitely long curves generated by a pure Gaussian distribution can't be filled. (Interesting note: if a score of more than 200 is possible with a standard deviation of 15, then a score less than 0 would also be possible.)
The stat rolling methods are meant to generate exceptional characters.
3d6 is not a special stat rolling method.
PC are by definition extraordinary. You should not be applying the rules that characters are generated under to the general population.
I'm not applying the rules of generation; I'm applying the rules of distribution. All that the special rules of generation do is pick from the right side of the graph rather than picking fairly randomly.
The problem is that you are assuming that the entire population is created using a standard 3d6 die roll.That's been my experience pretty much everywhere. It's the PCs that get to use less random and/or skewed methods to keep scores in the higher ranges. It'll just trend them towards the peak, rather than having any real effect on the overall distributions.
An 18(for 3.5 with is what the essay was about)/20(if you are talking about PF where humans get +2 to any stat) is meant to represent the absolute best of the best in natural ability.No, because even NPCs are subject to aging bonuses. The absolute best of the best would be a 23, for someone with a base Intelligence of 20 who developed that over many decades into a 23. Now, that's only the best of the best for someone that never gained any levels at all. An NPC can gain levels just like a PC, so a 5th level elderly Expert could very well have a 24 Intelligence.
Furthermore, for an IQ of 180 to even exist (theoretically speaking, since the whole concept of IQ scores is based on the fudging of distributions to approximate the Bell curve), you'd need a base population of 50 million, given an average set at 100 (arbitrary) and a standard deviation of 15 (also arbitrary, but this is the general value used for the Weschler series of IQ tests). 190 would require a population of one billion.
If you look and the bell curve for IQ, you will quickly see that the falloff is much steeper than a 3d6 die roll. The 3d6 method is meant to approximate the bell curve, but it does not match it because the maximum sample size is much smaller(216 possibilities on 3d6 vs 6 billion possibilities for the human race).The sample size is mostly irrelevant, and the "Bell curve" is not at all unique to IQ distributions. In fact, IQ scores and exams are themselves normalized (sometimes very poorly) to fit that curve (i.e. "They are meant to approximate the bell curve, but they do not exactly match it").
The 3d6 rolling...
Personally, I have always assumed that 10 was the average human and each +2 was a standard deviation away from human average, and then built off that assumption. The heroic characters and NPCs were special for a reason. I have no problem with your method, but I feel it reults in far more exceptional people than I want running arround in my world.
|
What about magic items? It is possible to have a magic item that emulates any spell. If big bads are not casters themselves they are generally at least wealthy (after all where is all that player loot going to come from right?). Magic items that produce the concerned spells may be something important people in your world can obtain/have made for them? There might even be a market for it among nobles/important people in your world.Magic items are a viable solution but the amulet of proof against detection location is 35k which is a massive investment in NPC resources if you use average NPC resources. That 35k taken to possibly negate one tactic will result in a large decrease in combat utility in other situations (probably no amulet of natural armor, worse armor and weapons, worse stat boosters) resulting in an easier encounter.
I've always taken the NPC wealth limits as what they have on them for combat. A BBEG is looking to rule the world! Surely they have more than just the awesome loot on them for finances. Ever see a Bond villain? They have pimped out lairs, cool gadgets, and minions galore (who pull a weekly paycheck). NPC's have vast resources outside of their combat gear, otherwise who builds the ludicrously expensive mechanical TRAPS???
--Pop Vrocks
What about magic items? It is possible to have a magic item that emulates any spell. If big bads are not casters themselves they are generally at least wealthy (after all where is all that player loot going to come from right?). Magic items that produce the concerned spells may be something important people in your world can obtain/have made for them? There might even be a market for it among nobles/important people in your world.Magic items are a viable solution but the amulet of proof against detection location is 35k which is a massive investment in NPC resources if you use average NPC resources. That 35k taken to possibly negate one tactic will result in a large decrease in combat utility in other situations (probably no amulet of natural armor, worse armor and weapons, worse stat boosters) resulting in an easier encounter.I've always taken the NPC wealth limits as what they have on them for combat. A BBEG is looking to rule the world! Surely they have more than just the awesome loot on them for finances. Ever see a Bond villain? They have pimped out lairs, cool gadgets, and minions galore (who pull a weekly paycheck). NPC's have vast resources outside of their combat gear, otherwise who builds the ludicrously expensive mechanical TRAPS???
--Pop Vrocks
Beautiful and excellent point. Thank you.
Personally, I have always assumed that 10 was the average human and each +2 was a standard deviation away from human average, and then built off that assumption.
That's actually a pretty elegant method.
16 at 145 puts it around beginning "genius" level, 18 would be 160, which is still pretty darn rare. 22 would be pretty close to a one in a billion person here... someone that started with 20 and leveled a bit or just worked out their intellect through their lifetime.
and cold iron is used in all metal weapons.Technically that is true without even saying it. :)
You should see what I have in mind for my Spellhunter prestige class. Mua ha ha.
STABBITY STABBITY SHOOTY SHOOTY
F!@$, why can't I cast spells????
Needless to say, we're not going there until level 10-13 or so. At least, I hope not. For their sakes.
...wonderful thing about D&D is that rules are not set in stone, if i suddenly feel that PC's are abusing a mechanic and feel need to be taught a lesson. Well then by god some one is losing a limb inside a wall. Think most people forget that rule books are just guide lines. Rules can be changed at DM's discretion maybe its old 2e DM in my talking but, if i dont like something or way something works, it gets changed with out a second thought. If players are using scy and die tactic knowingly abusing it then... making wizard lose his arm in a wall is a pretty good way to get point accross to " stop doing that". Then again i guess i'm a bastard of a DM =P
Of course, but the players have read them and teleport suddenly malfunctioning when they are about to kill the bad guy smells like DM wants to screw the players just because he wants. I'd rather use something that they can do themselves and thwart them by the book, which would motivate them to overcome the challenge, than just say that there was an error in the Matrix and they can't do that.
Of course, but the players have read them and teleport suddenly malfunctioning when they are about to kill the bad guy smells like DM wants to screw the players just because he wants. I'd rather use something that they can do themselves and thwart them by the book, which would motivate them to overcome the challenge, than just say that there was an error in the Matrix and they can't do that....wonderful thing about D&D is that rules are not set in stone, if i suddenly feel that PC's are abusing a mechanic and feel need to be taught a lesson. Well then by god some one is losing a limb inside a wall. Think most people forget that rule books are just guide lines. Rules can be changed at DM's discretion maybe its old 2e DM in my talking but, if i dont like something or way something works, it gets changed with out a second thought. If players are using scy and die tactic knowingly abusing it then... making wizard lose his arm in a wall is a pretty good way to get point accross to " stop doing that". Then again i guess i'm a bastard of a DM =P
I don't really have a problem with that. My players know that I rarely if ever bend the rules. Usually if something doesn't work the way they think it should, it is because there is something else in play that they do not know about. The DM is the only person at the table who knows exactly what is happening. The players should are only able to see half of what is going on.
Ravenloft has a nice fluffy way to work around scry tactics in general. Now, this won't(and shouldn't) work for all settings, but in the Dread Realms, the land itself is alive with evil. The "Dark Powers" control everything, and sort of break the fourth wall as openly giving the DM control of all perceptions and forsight.
So what the hell does that mean? Basically, one example given was that scrying spells are all but abandoned; the results are mostly wrong, in all manner of ways. It could be something as simple as the target is not where the vision says they are, down to divinations providing the wrong outcomes to future events. Much of the setting encourages the player to get up, and go do it themselves, and not rely on divinations. In that setting, you can't trust the person sitting next to you, let alone some mystical vision from a source you're not entirely sure of.
It would take a bit of reworking your campaign, but just come up with an in-game way to manipulate divinations; the outcomes could be false, blurry, etc. Perhaps a villain is aware of their scrying tactics, and is purposely twisting the outcomes.
Although I'm impressed with the amount of creativity floating around in this thread there're a lot of simple things being missed. The game already has "in game" ways of dealing with scry/die and all of them have already been mentioned. High level characters should be an ever present threat and just like with real world politics the nukes (wizards) don't get launched unless absolutely necessary. Once one nation/cabal/guild/ect starts doing this they draw dangerous attention to themselves. Actions have consequence. Give the players fair warning and deal with things accordingly.
"Oh no, I've invested so much time into this villain that the PC's beating him swiftly would mean that I have nothing lined up!" Stop getting tunnel vision. If this encounter isn't a challenge the next one will be. Also PC's love being ambushed by assassins, indulge them.
Holy necro, Batman!