Here's the thing: I don't view adventurers as uncommon people. Not to say that everyone is an adventurer, but they're not the only fighters ever.
I think there is where there is a bit of a disconnect going on. A guy with a few levels of warrior is like someone that was good at sports in high school. Most fighters are like those guys that were good at sports in college. Adventurers are like professional athletes.
I'm not saying "rare" as in "Chosen One" or "Heroes of Prophesy" or "Children of the Gods" kind of rare, per se, but definitely above average, in an understandable, attainable kind of way.
Good point. I suppose I meant that I see players, in general, taking only the most objectly useful spells when building their character and not taking ones that could be useful. With a sorcerer I get this, but a wizard? I've seen wizards played that didn't have any utility to the party. Basically a glorified buff bot. Encouraging players to explore other options by making wizards for hire a bit more expensive will make their characters more useful in the long.
I don't think forcing players to take certain feats, skills, etc is ever a good idea, and that is basically what I feel like you are trying to do. If they want to make suboptimal characters just let them deal with the consequences. If they are decent players they will wise up eventually. If they don't it normally means the DM is holding back for them, or they don't mind dying, and I have no solution for the latter issue.
I can see your point as well. I guess I want that kind of sale to be more like a privilege extended from knowing such a great guy. That's something I think should be encouraged. If you don't know the guy, you have to pay out the nose for spellcasting. It's like knowing the king. He's probably liberal with the money, considering all the taxes he collects. If you do stuff he asks you specifically to do, you'll get more dough in the long run than if you answered his beck and call to perform a quest.
This could work depending on how your world is setup, but I would not have world like Forgotten Realms where Epic level NPC's are common, and expecting that to fly with the players. As an example my players did a mini-quest for a powerful NPC once. Later on they made an enemy of another NPC who wanted them thrown in jail. The paperwork(to send them to jail) mysteriously never materialized.
Plus, this is drawn from the fact that the rules do regulate roleplaying. Why shouldn't they?
Everyone RP's differently. There is no way for the rules to account for that. They only have the mechanical aspect. How much actual RP is involved and the effectiveness of it is a group to group issue.
The way I see it, a roleplaying game should employ direction to the players, basically rules, to direct their roleplaying in directions the game has expected to be played.
The game is basically a combat simulation with RP'ing tacked on, not the other way around. As proof a bad RP'er can survive by the rules, while a bad combatant can't without DM intervention.
Magic items are fine, but the list for buying spells equates them to merchants who sell magic spells to get buy. Who would NOT buy all their healing or permanency spells if they could? Why would anyone die from injuries ever when a cleric healing you is only 10 gp?
I notice this buying spells thing keeps coming up. I will have to say my group hardly ever buys spells. It is only done if the spell is too high for us to cast or if we need it done right then, and we don't have time to rest. We normally avoid such situations though. Paying a caster is cheaper than buying a scroll, but you have to go to the caster. The scroll is portable. That convenience should make it cost more.
In my opinion, this chart raises questions I don't think the game or its players should have to answer, and is a fantasy heartbreaker element that could be giving people the wrong direction in a typical fantasy setting. The spellcasters aren't really that special and amazing when you can get some guy to run up and cast spells for you. It's a disparity from every fantasy book I can think of, including most of the D&D ones. Remember when Raistalin didn't have a spell, so the party all chipped in and bought one? Remember when someone was dying of an illness, and a member of the group found someone who could heal them, and after he did he held out his hand and said "That'll be 280 gold"? Me neither.
What happens in book won't work in a game. I don't think most books have as many PC class characters as the game does. The game assumes they are more common so things are not too hard on the players, IMHO. In the books people commonly die of things, that they would not die from in a game. They also don't just cast raise dead. It is a spell that a deity may not grant even if its prayed for. I have wanted to do this in a game, but I think it would lessen the fun for most players so I never brought it up. You have to deal with the issues of why did player X get a rez and player y did not. I understand what you are trying to do, but you should be careful about how you do it. I would probably talk it over with the group first. What is fun for one person may not be fun for someone else.
Here's the thing: I don't view adventurers as uncommon people. Not to say that everyone is an adventurer, but they're not the only fighters ever. There are schools full of them. Wizards and sorcerers are probably the most "rare" out of the classes IMO since you can't just choose to be one (And arguably the same for a cleric or druid, you have to be "called") and those of them who do apprenticing probably only do...
Well....just having a PC class doesn't make you an adventurer. There will be plenty of Clerics that never really set foot outside their temple, never gain more than a few levels and probably don't have magic items. Similarly, a person might be a Fighter, but works in the town guard - he just got a better fighting education than the average town guardsmen.
Since magic users are valuable assets, the really good ones, like medieval writers, are going to be scooped up and sponsored by nobility, who may have their own ideas about letting him hire out his spells.
Mid-high magic users are VERY hard to restrict. When you have anti-scrying magics, lead lined rooms and extreme mobility, keeping track of spellcasters to prove they're doing something illegal is practically impossible - you'd have to have a full time, high level wizard keeping tabs on one or two other high level wizards.
It is my opinion that magic is almost non-magical in D&D when high level spells are available to literally anyone. According to the chart, I can just go out and find a wizard powerful enough to cast wish if I have that kind of money (Honestly, 6300 gp? So much for the stuff of myth and legend, if a third level party pools together they can afford it). It doesn't even register to this chart that he may not exist. Maybe my setting has never had a 20th level wizard. Maybe it's never even had a 10th level character of any class. With that chart, disallowing this to players is supposed to be compared with saying that the taverns have no wine.
You're overstating it quite a bit. I don't think any (reasonable) player is going to suggest that 17th level casters are available on-tap for their needs 24/7. In fact, if you look at the rules (PF pg 163), it says quite clearly:
"In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell."
and:
"Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th level spells."
Even then, you have to go to a metropolis to get 7th and 8th level spells cast for you. There are always exceptions, of course, but this is the norm. If a 13th - 15th level spellcaster is setting up shop, he'll probably do it in a metropolis - how many of those are there in any given world?
The spellcasters aren't really that special and amazing when you can get some guy to run up and cast spells for you.
Also note that the cost for spellcasting assumes that you go to him and that it takes place at least 24 hours later (the default response for varying from these conditions is "no").
Do you open and close your D&D games with "You are all pig farmers. Roll a farming check. See you next week."
No. I say "Make me a murderous racist thug check. Oh, you failed? Some orc didn't like your attempt at breaking into his home, threatening his wife and kids. He ran you through with a sharpened scythe. Have a new character next week."
"Hey, Bill, that Orc you buy hay from? He says he's had a problem with people trying to kill him and his family. They're moving out - we'll need to work out where you're getting your winter feed from - that'll be the focus of next week's session."
One of the oddities of the D&D paradigm is that in the real world - and in adventure fiction - a lot of heroes started out as pig farmers...and they went on an adventure or two largely so that they could farm in peace, raise a family and not have their crops run over by drovers, or their homestead burnt to the ground by Comanches.
Look at 3:10 to Yuma as one example. Or A Fistful of Dollars for another. You can convert nearly any of the classic Westerns into a low magic setting with next to no trouble.
Plus, this is drawn from the fact that the rules do regulate roleplaying. Why shouldn't they?Everyone RP's differently. There is no way for the rules to account for that. They only have the mechanical aspect. How much actual RP is involved and the effectiveness of it is a group to group issue.
You are very very wrong. Any game system can have mechanical rewards for roleplaying. I have found that putting them in there causes more roleplaying to happen. It also causes more interesting roleplaying to happen, rather than "I attempt to fish for the clue from the NPC whose name I can't remember."
The people who won't roleplay when there are mechanical benefits to doing so are better off playing WarHammer or Warmachine.
The game is basically a combat simulation with RP'ing tacked on, not the other way around. As proof a bad RP'er can survive by the rules, while a bad combatant can't without DM intervention.
The way I see it, a roleplaying game should employ direction to the players, basically rules, to direct their roleplaying in directions the game has expected to be played.
And for a roleplaying game, that's not what I'm looking for.
To me, that's evidence of a poorly designed game.
Here's the thing: I don't view adventurers as uncommon people. Not to say that everyone is an adventurer, but they're not the only fighters ever. There are schools full of them. Wizards and sorcerers are probably the most "rare" out of the classes IMO since you can't just choose to be one (And arguably the same for a cleric or druid, you have to be "called") and those of them who do apprenticing probably only do one or two at a time.Do you open and close your D&D games with "You are all pig farmers. Roll a farming check. See you next week."
It depends. Will fire and acid stop your regeneration or is it only overcome by moderator damage?
Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I've almost never seen PCs hire a spellcaster to cast something for them.
Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I've almost never seen PCs hire a spellcaster to cast something for them.
To be honest it depends on the group. A lot of groups I've run with didn't know it existed. Two in particular were VERY adamant about using the list to the point of arguing that they would have played divine spellcasters if they'd known no one could cast Raise Dead in the village where the city took place.
Plus, the fact that it can be used means it should be paid attention to. Your players may often have a cleric in the party, and that's the class aside from wizard I see most exploited by this list.
As for buying scrolls I keep them because I don't like depending on other people. I don't play my casters(when I DM) as always having the right spell prepped. Sometimes I tell the players to come back tomorrow or whenever its convenient depending on who the NPC is. I know everyone does not do that, but it adds a certain amount of realism to the game.
The thing is, since it's on the list it's expected to be roleplayed in a similar fashion. So, give the same attention to buying rope as you would to casting raise dead is what it feels like to me. The direction it's giving is really bad. I do kind of the same thing that you do, with casters providing interaction depending on their type. Some will even ask why the players want a spell cast (If it makes things interesting).
The thing is, scroll pricing relative to casting the spells do not make sense. A scroll can be done on a slow day and be sold later, even years later. A scheduled casting takes up your time right now. Since it's a service it should be more expensive. The other thing is that scrolls are restricted to certain people. They should be cheaper than the hired casting, which can be done by anyone. That's more of a game design aspect, but it still makes sense from an in-game standpoint.
(blink blink blink)
Ok wow..... maybe you should look into a Swords and Sorcery (genre not company) styled game and not High Fantasy, which Pathfinder is geared to be.
I have been a DM of well over 20 yrs experience and I for one have never had issues when it comes to magic items. I always make it known that no real "Magic Item" shops exists and they have to find and or hunt down such rare gifts. From time to time they have a contact who alerts them to nice finds, or they seek out a group or individual who can make such things. For the most part, they have always gotten their magic items in loot.
If you don't want your players getting items/gear ect ect ect then tell them when they go looking for it, it's not available atm or at all where they are at. Plain and simple. It's your game, and if you want items to be rarer that's fine.
Just don't make it look like all you ever see are magic item grubbing players, and that's what the system makes. Far from it in any game I have run or been in.
My experience and two cents.
(blink blink blink)
Ok wow..... maybe you should look into a Swords and Sorcery (genre not company) styled game and not High Fantasy, which Pathfinder is geared to be.
I have been a DM of well over 20 yrs experience and I for one have never had issues when it comes to magic items. I always make it known that no real "Magic Item" shops exists and they have to find and or hunt down such rare gifts. From time to time they have a contact who alerts them to nice finds, or they seek out a group or individual who can make such things. For the most part, they have always gotten their magic items in loot.
If you don't want your players getting items/gear ect ect ect then tell them when they go looking for it, it's not available atm or at all where they are at. Plain and simple. It's your game, and if you want items to be rarer that's fine.
Just don't make it look like all you ever see are magic item grubbing players, and that's what the system makes. Far from it in any game I have run or been in.My experience and two cents.
My argument was against buying large amounts of minor magic items (Like potions) and spells to replace casters. Sorry if that came across the wrong way.
I even said that these players are a minority, and that they're the ones that break the rules in the first place. Regardless, they should be paid attention to to prevent circumstances of abuse like this (Since the players who aren't abusing the game won't see them anyway). Most of the info I've quoted was from the book, save the economical argument that was disproven by having the iron for the wall just not be usable.
There's a big difference IMO between high fantasy and no one blinks when someone casts a spell fantasy. Or, in this case, I can just pay a guy to cast a spell for me fantasy.
A lot of players, quite a few on these forums, seem to think that magic items HAVE to be for sale. That they are obligated to have them or the DM isn't playing fair. The book itself states the rules for selling magic items, but it scales so poorly with low level magic items and hired spellcasters it's a wonder anyone ever dies from something besides disease or old age in Golarion. My suggestions are intended to fix this oversight in favor of making spellcasters in the group actually necessary unless the PCs want to shovel gold into a higher level caster than them. The only thing I even touch that isn't in the rules is costs for hiring spellcasters and the suggestion to put a cap on how many potions/scrolls are for sale. I can't claim ownership to most of it anyway since it's out of the book, hence the page numbers.
Honestly, I would like to run sword and sorcery just so combat doesn't take as long, but I have yet to find a good system for it. Rather one that isn't so complex I try running HERO instead because it boggles my mind less. To drag my own thread off topic a bit, any suggestions?
I've not encountered players outside of boards, who have thought magic items MUST be for sale (which makes me think, though of course I may be wrong, players on the boards assuming a magic item is available is doing so for some other arguments' sake). Maybe because they're all oldskool and remember the days where random item generation was even more commonplace.
Normally in a large settlement, I assume most common level 0 and 1 scrolls and potions will be available, as are many cheap limited use wondrous items. I assume between adepts and NPC spellcasters, there's a LOT of low-level magic in the world. High level magic is comparatively rare, usually in the hands of other adventurers, government sponsored mages who are living the high life just so their government is secure in the thought that if the enemy attacks, they have Meteor Swarm on their side. VERY valuable magic items will likely have to be found or made. They can be commissioned if you find someone who can make it. Will I have a wizard of the right level with the appropriate craft feats in town? Usually I randomly generate stuff like that too. Maybe there will, maybe there won't. Just bumping into a high level wizard down the street isn't really going to happen, unless it's the wizard in your party, or you're in the town where the Wizard's Academy is (or you're where the party I'm running is, an enclave of powerful magocratic houses, but they're not very friendly. And the party just hit level 18; the magocracy gives me a reasonable reason for why indeed why there might be powerful treasure lying around in that particular area).
The old DMG guidelines for cities, while not perfect, had GP limits for what was available in a town. A town with a 12,000 GP limit was not going to have a Ring of Elemental Command for sale, ever. Party really wants one? I'm happy to come up with a rumor about one might be found. Find the buried temple and defeat its guardians and it's yours. Most high level magic items are supposed to be Treasure after all.
Regarding magically generated items like the iron wall, I think it's feasible to say, "This is a magically generated substance that acts like iron, but the Hermetic algorithms that hold it together and allow it to exist are very strict; attempting to melt it down and use it as something else will just make it useless slag." Even if the "this can't be sold" clause wasn't included.
Generally speaking, I think if you have time to come up with some guidelines for how magic works in the world and how it affects the economy--great! I think it's important however to do that because it makes the world cool and believable, not just because you are inclined to say "no" to your players. Sure, players sometimes need to be told "no," but sometimes GMs get a little overzealous in that (myself included sometimes).
If you don't have that time, and you're just trying to get the party stuff they need to survive the adventure, a little suspension of disbelief will just have to be called for. Sometimes it's best just to accept "a wizard did it." :)
DeathQuaker's very articulate account pretty much sums up my approach too.
The only other thing I would mention is stock levels. If there is such a thing as "abusing" the purchase of cheap magic, it probably involves doing it in bulk. Someone said earlier, "why buy a potion of cure moderate wounds when you could buy six cure light for the same price?" - if you've access to unlimited cure light wounds purchases, I agree.
So, for most 'common' potions - like cure light wounds - I'll say there's maybe 3 or 4 in stock, and shops restock no more often than once a week. For buff-type potions, like Bull's Strength or the like, there will probably only be 1 of each type. And for quirkier things like invisibility, again, maybe 1, or maybe none at all.
So it pays to have a caster in the party who can use them reliably.
I do a similar thing with scrolls.
In both cases, players might commission more specific potions or scrolls, but it takes time and probably costs more. Usually my campaigns are quite instensive, so players can't afford to sacrifice too much time camping outside the magic shop.
|
You know, this topic goes around this board once a month or so, the low-magic world seems something a lot of people are really into.
The biggest thread on the subject I've seen was last year around september or so.
The final consensus we came to? Just use the wealth by level tables to grant innate (SU) effects to the party. They're still vulnerable to anti-magic fields/null magic zones or whatever, but they can't be dispelled/stolen/sunderred, which is kind of nice because people spend time putting all their bonuses into place on their sheet and it's annoying to have to refigure the math everytime a dispel magic flies.
(Note: If you want to nitpick about the fact that this is a little more advantageous than actual items feel free to reduce the total wealth-by-level values available to the party to 80-90% of normal, wherever you feel is best)
Or do what I do and ignore all people who talk about how it unbalances the game, and that players need the bonuses blah blah blah and actually play the game low magic like you like and see how even with magic restricted the players do just fine and the game works just fine. In my game 2nd level spells are considered powerful by NPCs and you better use what you find in adventuring because I only give towns the random rolled magic items and ignore the 75% chance of items being in the town, oh and 5th level is the cap on NPCs and they're built with adept levels, so don't expect to buy much in the way of spellcasting services. We're halfway through rise of the runelords, and we haven't had problems from the lack of magic items/inability to buy spellcasting yet. I've run several games that used the exact same rules and what I've learned is that for all the blah blah blah about needing certain items and expecting a certain amount of wealth. The game works just fine without it.
What I always found ironic, is that back when we were playing Forgotten Realms 2ed AD&D, our PCs had a lot of magic items and casters were a common sight. Many players scorned us for playing Forgotten Realms because of this reason; it was "too much for D&D".
Yet when I compare our 2ed game to late 3.5/Pathfinder, our "over-the-top" equipped PCs were nowhere even close to what is now considered the bare minimum to keep your character effective.
The irony in all of that is when i look at the players that advocate for the "minimal amount of magical equipment" necessary to stay within the framework of challenge rating design, they are often the same people that scorned us for playing Forgotten Realms back in 2ed, except they now scorn me for not giving enough magical stuff...
A lot of players, quite a few on these forums, seem to think that magic items HAVE to be for sale. That they are obligated to have them or the DM isn't playing fair. The book itself states the rules for selling magic items, but it scales so poorly with low level magic items and hired spellcasters it's a wonder anyone ever dies from something besides disease or old age in Golarion. My suggestions are intended to fix this oversight in favor of making spellcasters in the group actually necessary unless the PCs want to shovel gold into a higher level caster than them. The only thing I even touch that isn't in the rules is costs for hiring spellcasters and the suggestion to put a cap on how many potions/scrolls are for sale. I can't claim ownership to most of it anyway since it's out of the book, hence the page numbers.
My view is that you dont have to have magic items for sale, what you need to do is make items useful to the characters in your party available some how. If that means giving them downtime to craft them themselves, providing them in loot and as story awards, creating a legacy item type system, or setting down a magic mart, it doesnt matter. I personally dont put in a magic shop in my games. I instead get a 'wish list' from my players and slowly but surely drop items they want here and there. And I provide time to either craft or have crafted other items the players want within reasonable limits.
I agree that spell casters should be neccessary and completely replacing them with items is a poor idea. But I also dont think a 12th level wizard should have to be spending his actions and spells on bulls strength. Eventually character need to be self sufficient to some degree. That includes the ones that dont have access to spells.
But I freely admit I happen to like the 'no one blinks' setting. I like magic as technology, and I like it being an every day thing. That kind of setting appeals to me, and in the end it is all about the setting. Something like Ebberon vs Darksun. So I am definately biased here, but I imagine we all are.
Or do what I do and ignore all people who talk about how it unbalances the game, and that players need the bonuses blah blah blah and actually play the game low magic like you like and see how even with magic restricted the players do just fine and the game works just fine. In my game 2nd level spells are considered powerful by NPCs and you better use what you find in adventuring because I only give towns the random rolled magic items and ignore the 75% chance of items being in the town, oh and 5th level is the cap on NPCs and they're built with adept levels, so don't expect to buy much in the way of spellcasting services. We're halfway through rise of the runelords, and we haven't had problems from the lack of magic items/inability to buy spellcasting yet. I've run several games that used the exact same rules and what I've learned is that for all the blah blah blah about needing certain items and expecting a certain amount of wealth. The game works just fine without it.
What exactly does 'works fine' mean? I have played in games with dm's that have been stingy on treasure and rewards, and not made magic items the party wants/needs available. And I tend to see a very disproportionate amount of deaths in those games. I have also been crazy frustrated when the greatsword wielding fighter only has a +1 weapon at level 12 but the Mace wielding cleric has a +3holy mace because of random item rolls, and no way to turn random loot into loot your party can actually use. To me neither of those is the game 'working just fine'.
I have also seen the more self sufficient character (monk in 3.5, wizard, druid, probably summoner in pathfinder etc) dominate those games, because they are personally less reliant on magic items. No one wanted to play a martial character that relied on weapons and armor because they were going to be inherantly weaker then the other characters in the party. That to me is again not the game 'working just fine'.
It is entirely possible that the disparity between the classes is less important to you and your group and that you count your successes and failures completely as a group. Or maybe your dm(s) are very good at managing the difficulty of encounters appropriate to the capability of the party, and the lack of magic items (and thus lower AC, To hit, saving throws, save dc's and skill checks) is less of a problem because you can account for it easily. These and other things are possible for it to 'work just fine' for you. But dont put up a blanket statement saying 'everyone is wrong because it works for me'. Explain why, or accept that your experience is anicdotal at best.
|
|
Um I didn't say everyone was wrong, I just said the system works fine. I don't know what you've encountered in your games either. Maybe you've had asshat DMs, or maybe your group is more concerned with how one character compares to another, I can't say, what I can say is that when you just play the game you want to play, you'll find that all the, "the caster's saves won't be able to take effect" and "if you want your fighter to miss all the time because he doesn't have a high enough weapon bonus." don't mean jack.
What I said was ignore all the prattling on about necessity and game is designed with these assumptions and actually play the way you want.
I've played in games where wealth has exceeded guidlines, been exactly by the book, and been if you don't craft it you don't get it, and what I've seen is that survivability is the exact same, some people are gonna get lucky and survive, some people aren't.
I never once said people are wrong for playing one way or the other, I said just ignore what other people say and play how you want and you'll find that it usually works out fine.
In the end we're a bunch of people getting together and playing make believe, all of the arguments of it doesn't work that way boil down to "I don't like playing that way." because they want to make believe a little differently.
and maybe I am a little biased because I don't give a crap if my level 12 fighter has a +1 sword when the cleric has a +3 holy weapon, if the only reason my character is effective is because of what gear he has, then I'm not enjoying the game to begin with. In the end my fighter having a +5 holy avenger or having a laddle don't mean jack its all scribbles on a piece of paper. But the system doesn't break down because every player has less than wealth by level.
Um I didn't say everyone was wrong, I just said the system works fine. I don't know what you've encountered in your games either. Maybe you've had asshat DMs, or maybe your group is more concerned with how one character compares to another, I can't say, what I can say is that when you just play the game you want to play, you'll find that all the, "the caster's saves won't be able to take effect" and "if you want your fighter to miss all the time because he doesn't have a high enough weapon bonus." don't mean jack.
I have played with great dms and asshat dms, and yes my group is mroe concerned with how character compare to eachother, because among a group of optimizers (us) unless you are careful, one character can quickly steal the show, intentional or not.
Calling it prattling is calling it wrong. Saying you can just ignore it, is calling it wrong. Saying it may or may not apply to you and your game is not. That isnt what you did the first timeWhat I said was ignore all the prattling on about necessity and game is designed with these assumptions and actually play the way you want.
I've played in games where wealth has exceeded guidlines, been exactly by the book, and been if you don't craft it you don't get it, and what I've seen is that survivability is the exact same, some people are gonna get lucky and survive, some people aren't.
This is a mathematical impossibilty. Given similar encounters with similar characters and the only difference is a lack of magic items (mainly the 'big six') in one and not in the other, the former HAS to be more likely to die. If you have 2 identical level 10 characters, and one has a +3 weapon, +3 armor, a cloack of resistance +2 and a +2 stat item, and the other only has a +1 weapon and some fire arrows, the second character is more likely to die in similar encounters. This is a mathematical certainty. There HAS to be another factor here that makes survivability similar. I am not saying it doesnt exist, I am saying if you are seeing similar survival rates your sample size is too small or there is another factor at play (like the dm making adjustments or different level of optimization among characters)
I never once said people are wrong for playing one way or the other, I said just ignore what other people say and play how you want and you'll find that it usually works out fine.
In the end we're a bunch of people getting together and playing make believe, all of the arguments of it doesn't work that way boil down to "I don't like playing that way." because they want to make believe a little differently.
Again it all depends on what 'works' means. If you dont mind character deaths, or are looking for that 'gritty' hard fought feel, sure it works great. If however you preffer a lower character mortality rate, and slightly greater ease peparing encounters then it doesnt 'work'. Different people have different definitions of a game 'working'. That has to be accounted for.
and maybe I am a little biased because I don't give a crap if my level 12 fighter has a +1 sword when the cleric has a +3 holy weapon, if the only reason my character is effective is because of what gear he has, then I'm not enjoying the game to begin with. In the end my fighter having a +5 holy avenger or having a laddle don't mean jack its all scribbles on a piece of paper. But the system doesn't break down because every player has less than wealth by level.
It may not be the ONLY reason your character is effective, but it sure as heck makes a difference. You cant honestly say that +3 to hit, and +6.5 damage on every hit doesnt change a character's ability do you? Or that a 10% increase on save dc or saving throw modifiers doesnt make a difference?
But you are right in that we are both biased. I would probably have a conversation (away from the table) if there was such a disparity in gear between characters about fairness at the table. This is after all leisure time for me and my friends, something that is blatently unfair in such a situation doesnt sit well for me. And I see large treasure disparities as unfair, since it does impact character effectiveness, and is completely out of the player's control.
This is ofcourse my opinion, but I dont believe it warrents just being ignored, nor does it qualify as 'prattling'. You may not care about the mathematical side of things, but it exists, and it does impact the game. And depending on your definition of 'works' a disruption in the math can very easily make it stop 'working'. If math wasnt important paizo would not have standardized monster AC vs CR for instance. That tells me there is a balance to be maintained, disrupt that balance and you have a flaw in the system (or a greater flaw depending on your opinion of the original system).
Here's the thing: I don't view adventurers as uncommon people. Not to say that everyone is an adventurer, but they're not the only fighters ever. There are schools full of them. Wizards and sorcerers are probably the most "rare" out of the classes IMO since you can't just choose to be one (And arguably the same for a cleric or druid, you have to be "called") and those of them who do apprenticing probably only do...
You need to look at Eberron. It is a High Magic setting, but a majority of the people & MAIN NPCs are built with mainly NPC classes. The reasoning is that adventurers are truly rare, as a per capita issue. That is why a lot of people with PC classes make the 'newspapers' of that world. It is like the Old West figures of our day having Dime Novels written about them. Even a majority of you Gun Fighters of the day would be mid to high level warriors, not fighters or rangers. All of the warrior schools could produce mainly warriors. When a warrior fights a fighter, the fighter better not under estimate him. The warrior will have a narrow focus of style, but the fighter is more versatile.
Magic shops in Pathfinder aren't full of everything a PC might want. They mainly cater to spellcasters getting components. They may make items on commission, and have items they purchased from adventurers. The commission thing could be an adventure anyway. "You want a Uber Blade of BBEG Ouching? Well I don't have everything you need for that particular item. You will need to get me at least 3 pounds of red dragon dung, a 1,000 gp fire agate, and 3 sprigs of juju berries from the lair of the Grunk Smugly."
This is a mathematical impossibilty. Given similar encounters with similar characters and the only difference is a lack of magic items (mainly the 'big six') in one and not in the other, the former HAS to be more likely to die. If you have 2 identical level 10 characters, and one has a +3 weapon, +3 armor, a cloack of resistance +2 and a +2 stat item, and the other only has a +1 weapon and some fire arrows, the second character is more likely to die in similar encounters. This is a mathematical certainty. There HAS to be another factor here that makes survivability similar.
I've played in games where wealth has exceeded guidlines, been exactly by the book, and been if you don't craft it you don't get it, and what I've seen is that survivability is the exact same, some people are gonna get lucky and survive, some people aren't.
If I may jump in the discussion, two differently equipped groups of adventurers will perform differently against similar encounters.
The degree of difficulty against what the PCs are pitched IS the balancing factor to the DM's generosity (or lack thereof) of magical gear and spellcaster support.
If one assumes that the challenges that await each PC group is the same, you'd be right: survivability cannot be the same if groups not not have access to the same resources. But fair DM will give challenges suited for their heroes, and if the survivability of the PC is least because of the DM skimpiness, his challenges should be adjusted in consequence. Some coherency is also required and the baddies should reflect the PC's equipment (or again, the lack thereof).
I'm not convinced that reducing the level of availability of magical items makes the game deadlier of grittier once all the elements of the bigger picture are factored in, or at least, not in what I've seen. One could even argue that the odds are easier to predict, since magic (on the bad-guy's side) is often what makes the heroes fall.
If I may jump in the discussion, two differently equipped groups of adventurers will perform differently against similar encounters.
The degree of difficulty against what the PCs are pitched IS the balancing factor to the DM's generosity (or lack thereof) of magical gear and spellcaster support.
If one assumes that the challenges that await each PC group is the same, you'd be right: survivability cannot be the same if groups not not have access to the same resources. But fair DM will give challenges suited for their heroes, and if the survivability of the PC is least because of the DM skimpiness, his challenges should be adjusted in consequence. Some coherency is also required and the baddies should reflect the PC's equipment (or again, the lack thereof).
I'm not convinced that reducing the level of availability of magical items makes the game deadlier of grittier once all the elements of the bigger picture are factored in, or at least, not in what I've seen. One could even argue that the odds are easier to predict, since magic (on the bad-guy's side) is often what makes the heroes fall.
Ofcourse you may jump in. If the degree of difficulty is adjusted I absolutely agree the difference in ability of the characters can be moderated. If you notice, the post i was replying to
lastknight originally said:"Or do what I do and ignore all people who talk about how it unbalances the game, and that players need the bonuses blah blah blah and actually play the game low magic like you like and see how even with magic restricted the players do just fine and the game works just fine...I've run several games that used the exact same rules and what I've learned is that for all the blah blah blah about needing certain items and expecting a certain amount of wealth. The game works just fine without it."
And
"I've played in games where wealth has exceeded guidlines, been exactly by the book, and been if you don't craft it you don't get it, and what I've seen is that survivability is the exact same, some people are gonna get lucky and survive, some people aren't.
"
Neither of these statements lend the idea that his point includes DM moderation of the difficulty. If the DM is both willing and able to account of the lack of magic items in a campaign I absolutely believe it can be fair, balanced and 'work' just fine. Its a little bit harder on the dm but it can work. I am in fact working on such a game myself where I plan on replacing the 'big six' items with internalized abilities.
I posted in response to the idea that one can simply cut all or most magic items and magical 'services' from the game, and not impact survivability and the capability of the characters.
|
|
This is a mathematical impossibilty. Given similar encounters with similar characters and the only difference is a lack of magic items (mainly the 'big six') in one and not in the other, the former HAS to be more likely to die. If you have 2 identical level 10 characters, and one has a +3 weapon, +3 armor, a cloack of resistance +2 and a +2 stat item, and the other only has a +1 weapon and some fire arrows, the second character is more likely to die in similar encounters. This is a mathematical certainty. There HAS to be another factor here that makes survivability similar. I am...
Your absolutely right, if I run rise of the runelords my way, and you run yours your way, it's not going to be the same. However you can't mathematically prove your version is going to have less lethality or an easier time of it because there are way to many random factors involved. Your characters would average better, however this isn't a sum of averages, we actually play the game, and while your style may be supposed to be better, your style can still lead to a TPK while mine gets lucky and survives. And you said it yourself, your group prefers optimization.
I'll also add that I looked up prattle and I was using a definition that merely means to chatter continuously, which is what messageboards do, you see the same arguments repeated over and over, which is prattle, however there is also a definition that means to talk in a foolish manner, so I must apologize because you're right, using the word prattle was wrong because there wasn't enough context to show that I wasn't using the definition I didn't know about.
So I'm sorry, however I only said prattle in my response, In my first posit I merely said you can ignore all the talk, and saying you can ignore something does not equate to it being wrong.
You can tell someone that they shouldn't go out in a lightning storm because lightning can kill a person, If i then tell them that they can ignore that and go outside anyways because they'll be fine (because of the odds of actually being hit by lightning even if I don't mention that), that doesn't make you wrong.
(...) I posted in response to the idea that one can simply cut all or most magic items and magical 'services' from the game, and not impact survivability and the capability of the characters.
True
I wish there was a semi-official guide to the "lower magic" setting for games that do not want to go low-fantasy, still want to work with the rules unchanged but would like to dial magic down 1 notch.
For some reasons. it seems that going to 11 is easier than turning down to 7...
|
|
If I may jump in the discussion, two differently equipped groups of adventurers will perform differently against similar encounters.
The degree of difficulty against what the PCs are pitched IS the balancing factor to the DM's generosity (or lack thereof) of magical gear and spellcaster support.
If one assumes that the challenges that await each PC group is the same, you'd be right: survivability cannot be the same if groups not not have access to the same resources. But fair DM will give challenges suited for their heroes, and if the survivability of the PC is least because of the DM skimpiness, his challenges should be adjusted in consequence. Some coherency is also required and the baddies should reflect the PC's equipment (or again, the lack thereof).
I'm not convinced that reducing the level of availability of magical items makes the game deadlier of grittier once all the elements of the bigger picture are factored in, or at least, not in what I've seen. One could even argue that the odds are easier to predict, since magic (on the bad-guy's side) is often what makes the heroes fall.
Ofcourse you may jump in. If the degree of difficulty is adjusted I absolutely agree the difference in ability of the characters can be moderated. If you notice, the post i was replying to
lastknight originally said:
"Or do what I do and ignore all people who talk about how it unbalances the game, and that players need the bonuses blah blah blah and actually play the game low magic like you like and see how even with magic restricted the players do just fine and the game works just fine...I've run several games that used the exact same rules and what I've learned is that for all the blah blah blah about needing certain items and expecting a certain amount of wealth. The game works just fine without it."And
"I've played in games where wealth has exceeded guidlines, been exactly by the book, and been if you don't craft it you don't get it, and what I've seen is that...
Because I don't moderate the difficulty, I've been running RotR and I've been running it low magic, updating the enemies to pathfinder, and not changing it to make it less lethal or adjusting my tactics or giving internal boosts to the players. The system hasn't fallen apart and I'm noticing no difference in lethality than in other games where services were run by the book, or in games where if you had money you could get whatever you wanted. So maybe it is anecdotal, but I never came on here and said that statistically speaking my way is superior. I said they'd be fine, that's not something you can mathematically disprove. Unless you're going to tell me that RotR is an easy campaign under the normal circumstances I'm not going to back down from my original statement of "play the game the way you want to play it without worrying about what people say about design assumptions and the mathematics of the game and the system will hold up just fine."
|
|
(...) I posted in response to the idea that one can simply cut all or most magic items and magical 'services' from the game, and not impact survivability and the capability of the characters.
Show me once, where my original statement said there'd be no inpact on capability. Show it to me one time, of course they're capabilities are different if you change the rules of the setting, that's so broad a statement it's a captain obvious moment, as taking away the bravery feature of fighters impacts their capability, even if they never encounter a single fear saving throw, their capability is less because of it. But altering capabilities =/= system flaw.
As for survivability changing, increased lethality =/= the system falling apart or the game breaking down. So a statement of "the game works just fine without it" isn't disproven. Because once again increased lethality =/= equal system flaw unless it's to the point that every fight someone is dying.
Plus, this is drawn from the fact that the rules do regulate roleplaying. Why shouldn't they?Everyone RP's differently. There is no way for the rules to account for that. They only have the mechanical aspect. How much actual RP is involved and the effectiveness of it is a group to group issue.You are very very wrong. Any game system can have mechanical rewards for roleplaying. I have found that putting them in there causes more roleplaying to happen. It also causes more interesting roleplaying to happen, rather than "I attempt to fish for the clue from the NPC whose name I can't remember."
The people who won't roleplay when there are mechanical benefits to doing so are better off playing WarHammer or Warmachine.
I was talking about Pathfinder specifically, not roleplaying games in general.
The game is basically a combat simulation with RP'ing tacked on, not the other way around. As proof a bad RP'er can survive by the rules, while a bad combatant can't without DM intervention.
And for a roleplaying game, that's not what I'm looking for.
To me, that's evidence of a poorly designed game.
But you are probably an RP'er first, not every group like RP'ing 70% of the time. Some are 50/50, other might be 80 combat/20 RP. I don't think anyone is wrong. The important thing is to find a group you can game with.
The thing is, scroll pricing relative to casting the spells do not make sense. A scroll can be done on a slow day and be sold later, even years later. A scheduled casting takes up your time right now. Since it's a service it should be more expensive. The other thing is that scrolls are restricted to certain people. They should be cheaper than the hired casting, which can be done by anyone. That's more of a game design aspect, but it still makes sense from an in-game standpoint.
RP wise you have a point, but from a mechanical view the scrolls are better because they are more convenient for the players. Arcane scrolls can be copied into a spellbook, and even if the caster can't copy the scroll he can use it at his convenience instead of trekking back to town.
I've not encountered players outside of boards, who have thought magic items MUST be for sale (which makes me think, though of course I may be wrong, players on the boards assuming a magic item is available is doing so for some other arguments' sake). Maybe because they're all oldskool and remember the days where random item generation was even more commonplace......
I always assume they are available for sale somewhere in the world, but that does not necessarily mean the player has time to get to the item, and complete the quest at hand. Sometimes you just have to do without.
|
|
You asked me to define works fine, and a lot of our back and forth may be because I never did that.
To me "works fine" means that you aren't ending sessions with TPKs regularly and that character mortality does not exceed (barring bad decisions/intentionally overwhelming odds) 1 death per lets say 3-4 levels on average.
I've been running RotR, very low magic, and the lethality hasn't increased to the point that I'd say the game is falling apart, we're at the halfway mark of HMM and we've only lost one character (at level 2). Without the party feeling hopelessly outmatched or having huge disparities in party effectiveness.
That's with a group of non-optimizing casual players granted but if they were optimizers I would think their survivability would increase so I'm not changing my statements.
Now we aparently do have different definitions of "fine" because to you item disparity and increased lethality do not =/= fine and I'll admit that there is increased lethality in my games even without having actually had character many character deaths (we've had 2 over eight levels, which in my experience is pretty common). But the enemies do still fail their saves, the party still beats challenges, and I haven't seen one character shinning and leaving the others in the dust.
Or do what I do and ignore all people who talk about how it unbalances the game, and that players need the bonuses blah blah blah and actually play the game low magic like you like and see how even with magic restricted the players do just fine and the game works just fine. In my game 2nd level spells are considered powerful by NPCs and you better use what you find in adventuring because I only give towns the random rolled magic items and ignore the 75% chance of items being in the town, oh and 5th level is the cap on NPCs and they're built with adept levels, so don't expect to buy much in the way of spellcasting services. We're halfway through rise of the runelords, and we haven't had problems from the lack of magic items/inability to buy spellcasting yet. I've run several games that used the exact same rules and what I've learned is that for all the blah blah blah about needing certain items and expecting a certain amount of wealth. The game works just fine without it.You know, this topic goes around this board once a month or so, the low-magic world seems something a lot of people are really into.
The biggest thread on the subject I've seen was last year around september or so.
The final consensus we came to? Just use the wealth by level tables to grant innate (SU) effects to the party. They're still vulnerable to anti-magic fields/null magic zones or whatever, but they can't be dispelled/stolen/sunderred, which is kind of nice because people spend time putting all their bonuses into place on their sheet and it's annoying to have to refigure the math everytime a dispel magic flies.
(Note: If you want to nitpick about the fact that this is a little more advantageous than actual items feel free to reduce the total wealth-by-level values available to the party to 80-90% of normal, wherever you feel is best)
You probably have a very good group also. A good group can get by without certain things. I have stated before I have had one or two groups in my playing/Dm'ing career that could play like that and survive without DM intervention. The others I don't have much faith in.
RP wise you have a point, but from a mechanical view the scrolls are better because they are more convenient for the players. Arcane scrolls can be copied into a spellbook, and even if the caster can't copy the scroll he can use it at his convenience instead of trekking back to town.
The thing is, scroll pricing relative to casting the spells do not make sense. A scroll can be done on a slow day and be sold later, even years later. A scheduled casting takes up your time right now. Since it's a service it should be more expensive. The other thing is that scrolls are restricted to certain people. They should be cheaper than the hired casting, which can be done by anyone. That's more of a game design aspect, but it still makes sense from an in-game standpoint.
In my opinion, the scrolls should cost less than hiring because no every character can use them, only ones with good enough UMD and casting stat, and spellcasters who are in effect buying a one-shot spell slot anyway. Anyone can hire a spellcaster. Therefore it should cost more than a scroll but less than a potion as opposed to less than both.
I've been running RotR, very low magic, and the lethality hasn't increased to the point that I'd say the game is falling apart, we're at the halfway mark of HMM and we've only lost one character (at level 2). Without the party feeling hopelessly outmatched or having huge disparities in party effectiveness.
Wait, you're saying your system works just fine based on your playtesting of two levels where there isn't high magic to begin with?
In my opinion, the scrolls should cost less than hiring because no every character can use them, only ones with good enough UMD and casting stat, and spellcasters who are in effect buying a one-shot spell slot anyway. Anyone can hire a spellcaster. Therefore it should cost more than a scroll but less than a potion as opposed to less than both.RP wise you have a point, but from a mechanical view the scrolls are better because they are more convenient for the players. Arcane scrolls can be copied into a spellbook, and even if the caster can't copy the scroll he can use it at his convenience instead of trekking back to town.
The thing is, scroll pricing relative to casting the spells do not make sense. A scroll can be done on a slow day and be sold later, even years later. A scheduled casting takes up your time right now. Since it's a service it should be more expensive. The other thing is that scrolls are restricted to certain people. They should be cheaper than the hired casting, which can be done by anyone. That's more of a game design aspect, but it still makes sense from an in-game standpoint.
Hiring a caster to cast in the safety of his home/business, and hiring him to adventure with you are two different things. The advantage of scrolls is that they can be used anywhere, and if you had nobody that could use the scroll you would probably not be buying it. Extra adventurers with class levels are expensive.
PS: If you are worried about the UMD check failing, hopefully it does not get that far unless you have no primary caster availible, then buy 2 or more scrolls. They are relatively cheap most of the time.
What is HHM?
|
|
I've been running RotR, very low magic, and the lethality hasn't increased to the point that I'd say the game is falling apart, we're at the halfway mark of HMM and we've only lost one character (at level 2). Without the party feeling hopelessly outmatched or having huge disparities in party effectiveness.Wait, you're saying your system works just fine based on your playtesting of two levels where there isn't high magic to begin with?
Um no, I'm saying the system is fine after playing to level 8 in my current campaign (you seriously thought I'd have a level 2 character in hook mountain massacre?), level 12 in another, as a character in a low magic campaign that started in the teens, having played in lots of games in the forgotten realms, and having played in a "if you've got the cash you can buy it" game. I said that we had a character death at level two, that's all that statement said. considering that at level two even a high HP Barbarian could get taken down with a good crit and a follow up hit, that doesn't make the fact that I had a character death invalidate my statement.
In all fairness to Lastknightleft, "working fine" doesn't necessarily mean "working with the same ease (for PC)".
I'm sure the game can "work fine" even without any magical gear whatsoever. It would be erroneous to say that it would be working as intended (by the designers of the adventures at any case), or working in equally effective ways when compared to an "normally" equipped groups.
Although the game assumes that AC, saves, attack bonuses, damage etc would be higher due to magical gear, characters still have an armor class, save and attack bonuses scores, basic damage etc. They have everything they need for the game to be played.
I didn't interpret Lastknightleft quote of the game "working fine" as being "equally competitive". Computer games have different difficulty settings and "work fine" regardless of the selected level, but it would be wrong to assume that one's experience of the game would be the same.
I've not encountered players outside of boards, who have thought magic items MUST be for sale (which makes me think, though of course I may be wrong, players on the boards assuming a magic item is available is doing so for some other arguments' sake). Maybe because they're all oldskool and remember the days where random item generation was even more commonplace.
Normally in a large settlement, I assume most common level 0 and 1 scrolls and potions will be available, as are many cheap limited use wondrous items. I assume between adepts and NPC spellcasters, there's a LOT of low-level magic in the world. High level magic is comparatively rare, usually in the hands of other adventurers, government sponsored mages who are living the high life just so their government is secure in the thought that if the enemy attacks, they have Meteor Swarm on their side. VERY valuable magic items will likely have to be found or made. They can be commissioned if you find someone who can make it. Will I have a wizard of the right level with the appropriate craft feats in town? Usually I randomly generate stuff like that too. Maybe there will, maybe there won't. Just bumping into a high level wizard down the street isn't really going to happen, unless it's the wizard in your party, or you're in the town where the Wizard's Academy is (or you're where the party I'm running is, an enclave of powerful magocratic houses, but they're not very friendly. And the party just hit level 18; the magocracy gives me a reasonable reason for why indeed why there might be powerful treasure lying around in that particular area).
The old DMG guidelines for cities, while not perfect, had GP limits for what was available in a town. A town with a 12,000 GP limit was not going to have a Ring of Elemental Command for sale, ever. Party really wants one? I'm happy to come up with a rumor about one might be found. Find the buried temple and defeat its guardians and it's yours. Most high level magic items are supposed to be Treasure after all.
Regarding...
Look for Iron Heroes. It's D20 based, no major math involved.
If you are running your homebrew campaing, it´s okay magic being rare, banning spellcasters or wathever, but encouraging people to play like that when the sistem have some presuntions about wealth levels, and death is common, particularly in aventure paths, is misguiding.
I agree, if you're going to limit things, make sure the players know right off the bat. I hate it when someone springs things half way through a game that can affect the game as a whole.
That being said, like I have said before, I have gamed for well over 20 years, and have never, I mean EVER had a party pay someone to cast magic spells for them aside from raising a character from the dead, even then it was always a hike to find someone of the appropriate level, and then convince them to do it.Just because the book says this is generally what it would cost, doesn't mean the person will do it for them. Or at least without asking for help with someone or rather.