|
Wizards have spellbooks. Fragile, flammable little spellbooks.
There are many ways of protecting them, but what if a player doesn't do it? What if they won't pay the cost of a spare, or of getting magic versions that are waterproof, etc...
Min/Max players have at least one ridiculously high stat...along with others in the negative column. Is it wrong for the DM to exploit these self imposed vulnerabilities, particularly when running intelligent monsters/opponents who would likely try to exploit such things?
If your party has decided not to have a rogue, is the DM expected to not include traps? If they don't buy fly potions, should the DM make sure the campaign is all land based.
I think we can all agree that a DM should build a campaign suited to the players, and build one where they can succeed. But where is the line if a player leaves themselves intentionally (or at least neglectfully) exposed because they don't want to pay the costs of whatever trade off would be required.
Some seem to continually argue that DM's should never take advantage of player weaknesses.
What about the question of if players should make characters with such clear flaws?
When is the DM allowed to expose the flaws of the PC?
First a to clear up a misconception:
Anyone can find a trap, magical or otherwise with a perception check. Anyone can disable a trap, or use magic to disable a trap.
The only thing that trapfinding does is allow you to disable magical traps with the disable device skill and give you a bonus to finding/disabling them.
Now beyond that -- Hitting them where it hurts is ok -- but it should be the only thing you ever do, and if they survive then there should be something relatively close that can help them continue to contribute until such a time as they can replace what they lost.
If a spellbook is stolen for example then the wizard has a limited time until he's useless -- that's no fun for anyone. So as a GM you'll need to find a way for him to continue to contribute without giving away what you are doing completely (this would ruin the point). This could be a secret cache of wands and scrolls he can use, or some pearls of power (possibly broken ones that only work once).
Players should always make the character they want within the boundaries set by the Gm at character creation. They should do so realizing what the character's flaws are and how those might be used against them.
Using flaws against a character isn't against the rules -- and should never be. However doing it all the time is a jerk move. I would suggest hitting a weak spot that has been ignored about once every 3~5 sessions. If they shore up that weak spot then move on to a different one. I would also suggest you shouldn't hit a weak spot on the same player (regardless of character) two or more times in a row -- spread the love around to the other characters too.
Don't take it as a failure if you don't kill/maim/ruin a character by hitting it in the weak spot -- if the player/character realizes the weak spot and sees how bad it could have been you've done your job of making him worry and he'll probably work on it from there.
|
|
First a to clear up a misconception:
Anyone can find a trap, magical or otherwise with a perception check. Anyone can disable a trap, or use magic to disable a trap.
The only thing that trapfinding does is allow you to disable magical traps with the disable device skill and give you a bonus to finding/disabling them.
Now beyond that -- Hitting them where it hurts is ok -- but it should be the only thing you ever do, and if they survive then there should be something relatively close that can help them continue to contribute until such a time as they can replace what they lost.
If a spellbook is stolen for example then the wizard has a limited time until he's useless -- that's no fun for anyone. So as a GM you'll need to find a way for him to continue to contribute without giving away what you are doing completely (this would ruin the point). This could be a secret cache of wands and scrolls he can use, or some pearls of power (possibly broken ones that only work once).
Players should always make the character they want within the boundaries set by the Gm at character creation. They should do so realizing what the character's flaws are and how those might be used against them.
Using flaws against a character isn't against the rules -- and should never be. However doing it all the time is a jerk move. I would suggest hitting a weak spot that has been ignored about once every 3~5 sessions. If they shore up that weak spot then move on to a different one. I would also suggest you shouldn't hit a weak spot on the same player (regardless of character) two or more times in a row -- spread the love around to the other characters too.
Don't take it as a failure if you don't kill/maim/ruin a character by hitting it in the weak spot -- if the player/character realizes the weak spot and sees how bad it could have been you've done your job of making him worry and he'll probably work on it from there.
This seems very reasonable to me.
It is NEVER ok for the dm to exploit a weakness.
The DM is god. The DM Is all powerful. What the DM says, goes. Nothing can stand before the onslaught of an omnipotent being. Since the point is to have fun, no one should be in conflict with a being that goes "i win" and that's the end result of it.
PC's are, lets remember, player CHARACTERS. They are supposed to be challenged in universe by other characters and terrain features. While orcs, goblins, fluffy bunnies, hob goblins dragons wizards and bizzar cults ARE out to get the PC's, kill them, and ruin them, the DM should not be.
There are many ways of protecting them, but what if a player doesn't do it? What if they won't pay the cost of a spare, or of getting magic versions that are waterproof, etc...
A spellbook should be reasonably safe in a handy haversack or bag of holding: these containers are air tight, since creatures suffocate when left in them. That makes them water tight.
A spare is more often a matter of time, SInce dm's often have characters go from 1st level hicks to 15th level gods in less time than it takes to take a correspondence course on medieval literature.
There is also little or no mention of waterproofing or fire proofing your spellbook in the main book, its all in supplimentary materials.
Min/Max players have at least one ridiculously high stat...along with others in the negative column. Is it wrong for the DM to exploit these self imposed vulnerabilities, particularly when running intelligent monsters/opponents who would likely try to exploit such things?
Depends on the circumstances. Normally PC's can "get buy with a little help from their friends"
If your party has decided not to have a rogue, is the DM expected to not include traps?
The druid finds them better anyway.
If they don't buy fly potions, should the DM make sure the campaign is all land based.
Bows. Buy them or else.
Druids don't find traps better than rogues -- maybe you are forgetting the 1/2 rogue level bonus on finding traps (and on disarming them)?
You listed several weaknesses.. and to me, the fall into distinct categories.
1. A wizard's spellbook.
(an example to me would be.. knowing you are going to an underwater city and not protecting your spellbook before hand. He knew, he ignored it, he deserves to get screwed)
2. The Mix/Maxed Player
3. (a)If they don't have a rogue/ (b)if they don't buy flying potions.
a
b.
I think overall, flaws make a character interesting. No one wants to play Superman. its like playing Doom on Godmode. Sure, you can run through the game once to see the end but it gets boring quick. Why? If you have No weakness then you steamroll everything. Just be sure when you Do take advantage of it that it isn't too often. The problem with Superman is that everyone Knows his weakness and since he just has the one.. it always comes up. There is no suspense if they are beat to death with some weakness every time they look around. Sometimes they get to play to their strengths too.
Spoiler'd to avoid "wall of text" crits :)
-S
It is NEVER ok for the dm to exploit a weakness.
PC's are, lets remember, player CHARACTERS.
Because... Lex Luthor never, ever, got his hands on some Kryptonite- right?
(EDIT: I just noticed those italics. The rest of my point still stands- I don't consider there to be a significant difference between the DM exploiting a weakness, or the NPCs doing it. It's the DM that determines when Lex manages to get some Kryptonite anyways...)
Of course it's ok to exploit a weakness. The trick is to not be a jerk about it. If, one time, you exploit a weakness to force the PCs to adapt some new tactics for the situation, then I think that just makes for a more interesting game. It's doing it every single adventure that isn't cool.
|
When the players have an OPTION to midigate said weakness.
So going by core rules of the actually PF books, there is no option to midigate water damage or fire damage to a spellbook. That's what makes it off limits. Because by the rules, you can't do anything and that pretty much ends up making a DM fiat, wizards lose scenerio. Okay, at least until higher levels when you can afford multiple blessed books...and you can teleport to your stash location.
As for one trick ponies (because min/maxed characters shouldn't have such obviously exploitable weakness), they made their choice...they had an option to otherwise so fair game.
No rogues, players had the choice...choose not to...they can disarm traps with their face. As for no fly...once again assuming they had the option to buy said potions, perfectly fair game.
When I design a module, I try to do it without any prejudice OR favor toward the group and I try to make the tests multidimensional.
What I mean by that is there will be traps, there will be diplomatic situations, there will be grappling monsters, flying monsters, monsters with gaze attacks, invisible monsters, mages, ranged creatures, etc. I do not try to exploit but neither do I babysit. If the party wants to make four mages, cool. I'm not going to make everybody a spell resistant golem, but at the same time I'm not going to say "hmm.. well, can't play one of those against them" either.
I try to make it so that EVERYTHING gets used some during the course of a campaign. Every skill. Every monster type. Every type of terrain and weather.
Now, in a combat, the monsters will play to their abilities. I don't necessarily look for a cheesy way for the monsters to play, nor do I always do 100% optimal tactics. But a Necromancer casting a blindness spell is probably going to target a mage. If you give a front line fighter an option to 5ft step to hit the mage or continue in battle with the warrior he's going to hit the mage. If a warrior gets a shot to sunder the archer's bow he isn't going to hold back simply because the archer didn't buy a backup one.
For the last part, targetting the mage's spellbook is not something I would seek to do. But if they have to cross the ocean and it gets wet in the battle with the Krakan, well, that's his bad not mine.
|
When is the DM allowed to expose the flaws of the PC?
All the time.
While I feel that the DM is not the enemy of the player sometimes the universe/life/fate can be.
I don't think the DM should go after items and critical tools per se but I also feel that critical gear does not get "play" protection. If a wizard looses his book and doesn't have a backup or the ability to purchase another one, then yeah - might be time to make up a new character.
I don't see it as any different then the 3rd level party with a ranger who lost two levels from a wight and can't afford the Restoration spell to get his levels back. It's one of those "too bad" work related hazards that come from a life of adventuring.
The books are not off limits. PG 219 of the core has a section titled "Replacing and Copying Spellbooks" and details how a wizard can recopy any retained spells into a new book. So this isn't DM Fiat territory.
Just like a fighters gear is not off limits to breakage. And before people pile on "well the fighter can just use a different weapon", it doesn't help if that fighter is stuck in some hell-hole dungeon when that breakage or loss occurs. Under the current rules he might as well be unarmed - he isn't going to be any more effective than a warrior of the same level if he loses his key, feat-focused weapon.
If the wizard is told that his components and spellbook (or familiar for that matter) are vulnerable to harm ahead of time then it is up to the PC to make sure no harm comes to these things. Sometimes when adventuring things happen - a PC may be in a place with little or no water and suddenly find himself in a torrent of water via trap, etc. If the PC has made provisions to protect his goods then initially he will be given the benefit of doubt - but if he stays in a situation that keeps his items at risk - they get damaged or destroyed.
I don't design encounters with specific PCs in mind - I just design encounters. If some situation turns out to be a physical strength test and all the PC are weak and can't find work around, well TFB. PCs don't get to hand wave challenges because they are PCs, as a matter of fact PCs have more powers and tools available to them that an average commoner to deal with challenges.
Dealing with water as a potential hazard to some of their tools with protections, forethought or even reacting quickly is part of being an adventurer.
|
Melee types aren't expected to keep duplicates of their most expensive item in order to remain functional.
How many fighters only carry one weapon? Hell, there's a fairly popular monster that's dedicated to destroying armor and weapons...making the figher a guy who can punch kinda hard.
I submit that occassionally having a bad guy / bad situation target the wizard's spellbook is no worse than occassionally throwing a rust monster at the fighter.
There is a difference between exploit and abuse.
That being said, is this really a Rules Question? Seems like it would be more appropriate for the Advice or General forum not here o.O
My solution - which is arguably a cheap, cop-out one - is to use prewritten adventures and try to stay true to them. Then I can say "Don't blame me for the presence of that monster that happens to exploit your weakness; the author of the module didn't know what your PC would be like. It was sheer chance that this encounter played upon your weakness."
(And the reverse is true also. If an encounter happens to play upon a character's strength, such as some skill or spell that's seldom useful, it's an incredibly triumphal moment.)
Because... Lex Luthor never, ever, got his hands on some Kryptonite- right?
The problem with that argument is that a comic book, like any written story, is carefully orchestrated. The Kryptonite could ALMOST kill Superman, only to have him escape or get rescued at the last moment. In a game, however, there is a real chance of the PC dying, due to some combination of players' choices and die rolls. Plus, if a PC is disabled all the time, so that the player has to sit there twiddling his thumbs all the time, that's no fun for the player. Playing an RPG is not the same as reading, or watching, a story.
If the DM never explite the players weakness it's not a weakness!
I remember Shadowrun settings, where player have incompetence (sailing) and they play far aways from every open water, sorry that's no weakness, this is munchkin.
If a player take a weakness he should know that sometime this weakness will be played against him.
But always be reasonable by doing it and give the players a other way.
e.g. If you have a low Charisma Party and you want to create some social encounters, allow a male character, if he comes up with it themself, to use strength/Con instead of charisma to seduce the countess.
So the player see his weakness but if he's clever he can avoid it.
As for the Spellbook, i wouldn't take a spellbook from a wizard, only in situation where i would took the armor and weapon from the figther next to him, too (e.g. if they were captured). Ok, you can do it, but gave the player the feeling he's still worth something and that he will get it back. (e.g. a non-magic aura trap, where the players have to use their skills (linguistic, knowledge etc.), so the wizard can still do something).
There is a difference between exploit and abuse.
This +1
And
This is a special case to me. Taking away, especially through permanent destruction, of a wizard's Spellbook is tantamount to suddenly removing the BAB from a fighter or Rage from a barbarian. The only rule that comes close to it is a paladin or cleric losing their abilities- and that is only done when the PC specifically and intentionally go against the will of their deity.
(...)
Because of that, the permanent removal of a spellbook to me, is on the same order as the cleric or paladin totally screwing up. It shouldn't ever be "its raining, you lose your spellbook". It should be at least as hard for them to lose it as it is for a Paladin or Cleric to lose their abilities.. and even C's and P's can just get an atonement.
(...)
Totally agree with this (I cut some parts for easy of posting)
Actually I think it would be good to have a spell of same level of Atonement, for example, that could reconstruct a wizard spellbook or allow him to rewrite his spells in a new one,(paying the cost to do so but not having to find every spell again!)
But abuse aside I think it's ok to explore a weakness, in a way that enhance the history/gameplay.
|
|
Spoiler:Actually I think it would be good to have a spell of same level of Atonement, for example, that could reconstruct a wizard spellbook or allow him to rewrite his spells in a new one,(paying the cost to do so but not having to find every spell again!)
But how would the wizard prepare it? *evil smirk*
But seriously, that reminds me of a feat in Open Design's recent witch supplement, where if the witch's familiar is killed, when she calls a new one, her new familiar will have all her old spells.
** spoiler omitted **But how would the wizard prepare it? *evil smirk*
hahaha, good one!
But serious, at least he could have a scroll of this or ask another mage to cast it om him, with a cost of course.
But seriously, that reminds me of a feat in Open Design's recent witch supplement, where if the witch's familiar is killed, when she calls a new one, her new familiar will have all her old spells.
Hummm this look a fantastic!! (ok it's a fantasy game so I should expect that... :))
|
** spoiler omitted **But how would the wizard prepare it? *evil smirk*
Out of Spell Mastery, or cast out of his bonded item. Unless you didn't choose either of those options for your wizard. Then there's an exploitable weakness, one that you had the option to choose to help you overcome this weakness. And didn't you make a scroll for each of your spells that you left back home with your bonus Scribe Scroll feat?
Weaknesses, whether they be minor or potentially crippling, need to be used just as often as the circumstances that target them come up. If the DM is deliberately creating such circumstances on a regular basis, they should probably warn the group ahead of time so they can plan accordingly, and so a player not comfortable with this style of play can choose to make a character with relatively few, and have them be minor ones, or decide that they need to find a different campaign. If the players are routinely creating the situations, let them deal with the consequences of their actions.
Personally, I think the best compromise is that most of the time the DM sets up situations where the weaknesses could come into play, but the party's actions are ultimately what shapes the final encounter. This way, the DM still sets a tone that adventuring is a dangerous occupation, and should be treated as such, but lets the players, or their characters, shape just how dangerous the average day will be for that particular group. This also means that when the DM feels that a higher level of danger, either to the players, their gear, or both, is necessary, it is more likely to stand out as one of the memorable moments of the campaign, rather than a source of contention in the group.
|
|
As the GM, you are in charge of providing a fun game for the players. Simply exploiting all of their PCs will quickly turn into a non-fun scenario. At the same time, I like to provide a challenge for the players so I mix it up on them. They will become better players for it.
I don't mess with a wizards spellbook. I don't care if he's holding it when I fireball him.
I mix up the monsters/bad guys so they have to learn new tactics. Some times it is flying creatures that makes the barbarian sad, and other times it allows a certain character to really shine.
I modify my tactics based on the bad guys Int and Wis. A few random thugs or monsters will not exploit anything besides a flank or so. A truly experienced Sorcerer or Fighter or Vampire (etc.) will exploit weaknesses. He will cast will save spells on the heavily armored foes, he will harass the spellcasters, etc.
Keep it fair and it will be fun. Remember that the players are there to exploit you and you must get good at enjoying getting beaten. I love it!
(EDIT: I just noticed those italics. The rest of my point still stands- I don't consider there to be a significant difference between the DM exploiting a weakness, or the NPCs doing it. It's the DM that determines when Lex manages to get some Kryptonite anyways..
Its subtle, but important. Lex Luther should constantly be on the lookout for Kryptonite, it makes sense. If the characters have a re occurring villain he might try to separate the wizard from his spell book, but the DM shouldn't try to do it through contrived circumstances: that just becomes a battle between the DM and the player, judging from some of the posts its often fueled by anti wizard hate.
There's a difference between lex luthor with a chunk of kryptonite and a kryptonite meteor shower.
part of the problem comes from the fact that the players aren't their characters. If you are standing at a creek crossing with a 20 pound backpack, the backpack is a constant reminder of its presence. A player doesn't have that. Nor are they their characters. Ravenstar the 98 year old elven wizard should remember to do something with the spellbook even if bob doesn't when he's looking for the mountain dew.
Melee types aren't expected to keep duplicates of their most expensive item in order to remain functional.How many fighters only carry one weapon? Hell, there's a fairly popular monster that's dedicated to destroying armor and weapons...making the figher a guy who can punch kinda hard.
I submit that occassionally having a bad guy / bad situation target the wizard's spellbook is no worse than occassionally throwing a rust monster at the fighter.
The "spare" weapon isn't as good as the original (unless he has tons of cash to throw around) but its usually almost as good. He may go from a +3 to a +2 or +1 but he's still rockin around but just doing a little less damage.
Taking away the spellbook is akin to disarming the Fighter and refusing to let him use a replacement weapon. "no, sorry, that weapon is destroyed.. You are crippled in combat until you can go get it fixed." is a far closer analogy. that is why I used the cleric/paladin losing their powers analogy.. Its a far better one than "darn, lost my +3 sword.. guess i'll have to fall back on the ole +2".
My current character was disarmed 5 times in one fight. He has -that- many longswords. (got mind controlled, group paladin kept disarming him rather than kill him until the moment passed and he was back to normal).
Destroy a spell book though and the wizard is out.
It is important to not that complete destruction is not the only way to target a spellbook or most things for that matter. It is just like sunder can now render a weapon broken or destroyed, the same can be applied to a spellbook or really most things that are sunderable. A wizard may have to reenter a few spells once a "broken" spellbook has been repaired, but having to reenter every single spell is someting that should never occur if the wizard is being played smartly, and most damage is easy enough to protect against that a simple mending spell will resolve most issues with no reentry of spells required. Simple and effective precautions are not hard to take, and anyone who thinks they shouldn't have to do so because they think a particular item should be completely immune to the dangers everyone and everything else potentially faces have no right to complain when they are proven wrong and find themselves crippled.
If someone feels that the DM is unfairly targeting them and has the experience and evidence to back it up, that is another matter entirely, regardless of what class the character is and how the DM is targetting them or their equipment.
I agree with the notion that a DM should never target weaknesses, per se, but the characters' enemies certainly will -- because every PC has at least one weakness, the DM can always win that arms race, and it's rarely fun for anyone.
With respect to targetting weaknesses, I think you also need to think ahead a little bit about the future consequences of what you're doing.
For example, throwing shadows or other strength draining monsters at a party that includes one or more low-STR characters. I don't think that has much in the way of future consequences -- players who are afraid of this kind of encounter might build marginally higher STR characters with those concepts in the future, but overall if it makes sense mechanically for a wizard to put points in INT over STR, that probably will still be the case if shadows sometimes show up.
Contrast that with destroying a spellbook the first time a wizard PC falls into water. The player may be running with the assumption that his super-genius INT PC is taking reasonable precautions and the two of you don't have to go over each one of them. Once you disabuse the players of this assumption, the consequence is that you'll probably never catch any PC in the group with that problem ever again, but you will have to endure being told over and over again for all future campaigns that they keep their spellbooks in waterproof bags, etc. Basically you score a "victory" once at the cost of making the game more tedious for all of you forever. I don't think this is a good idea.
When you get hit with a fireball and dont save, for instance, you are supposed to make a saving throw for your stuff.
Not alot of ppl do this, as it adds alot of time to combat. If you only did this for one fight when the wizard got hit with a fireball, it would look like you were singling him out.
So first rule is: Be consistent. Either do it all the time for every character or not at all.
Second, when I do require this, I give the mage a saving throw bonus to his spellbook, treating it like a magic weapon for save purposes, with the equivalent enchantment bonus equal to the highest level spell the book contains, ie. a spell book with up to 4th level spells gets a +4 to its save. This way it scales as the character advances to keep up with DC increases. Any other protections for the wizard's book is up to the player. It's protection is as important as his character makes it.
Just my 2cp.
Personally, if I ever DM, a simple explanation at the beginning of the campaign of the types of protection schemes being employed by the various characters, followed by behavior that demonstrated the characters were maintaining them and updating them as new resources came along would be sufficient except for very extreme circumstances, like visiting one of the elemental planes or the desert or something that could have a similar extreme effect on the character/item in question. Just something to show that the player is aware of and addressing issues that is character would have to deal with on a daily basis. How often those concerns come up should dictate how often the DM gets updated or reminded. If the either the player or the DM insist on bringing up the issue more the other is willing, than that is a communication, and indicative of larger problems than simply having to protect one's gear.
When you get hit with a fireball and dont save, for instance, you are supposed to make a saving throw for your stuff. Not alot of ppl do this, as it adds alot of time to combat.
A lot of people don't do that because thats not the rule. You only check for breakage on the roll of a natural 1
Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them—even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item's saving throw bonus equals 2 + 1/2 its caster level (rounded down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
I'm not aware of any rule that says your items are in danger when you miss another save. A spellbook should, at the least, be inside a backpack and surrounded by a bunch of other stuff. You'd have to burn completely through the pack for instance, to get to it.
When you get hit with a fireball and dont save, for instance, you are supposed to make a saving throw for your stuff. Not alot of ppl do this, as it adds alot of time to combat.A lot of people don't do that because thats not the rule. You only check for breakage on the roll of a natural 1
Damaging Magic Items
A magic item doesn't need to make a saving throw unless it is unattended, it is specifically targeted by the effect, or its wielder rolls a natural 1 on his save. Magic items should always get a saving throw against spells that might deal damage to them—even against attacks from which a nonmagical item would normally get no chance to save. Magic items use the same saving throw bonus for all saves, no matter what the type (Fortitude, Reflex, or Will). A magic item's saving throw bonus equals 2 + 1/2 its caster level (rounded down). The only exceptions to this are intelligent magic items, which make Will saves based on their own Wisdom scores.
I'm not aware of any rule that says your items are in danger when you miss another save. A spellbook should, at the least, be inside a backpack and surrounded by a bunch of other stuff. You'd have to burn completely through the pack for instance, to get to it.
Ahh...wasn't aware of the nat 1 thing.
Rest of my post stands though.
From reading the original post I would say that just about anything is fair except the wizards spellbook.
Have you explained to the wizard charecter that there are alternate ways of keeping his spells such as on crystals, or something other than paper. Eberron is great for this, spellshard crystals cost the same to imprint as spellbooks and are waterproof,hard and fireproof. Plus one 6th level spell to increase the hardness of the crystal and the "book" is pretty safe.
If you want to basically totally hose your mage and your party then take away his book, just don't be surprised if you have a sorcerer take his place.
I have gamed with planty of weak type parties. The most common is no fighter because all of my fellow players want to be spellcasters just l;ike I do so we have no melle tanks. That means we cast and run away, cast and run some more. Hold monster is great because even a mage can coup-de-grace while someones held.
no theif, not that big a deal. no cleric, hello healing belts X 3 per charecter. undead no problem orb of force and death ward armor ability.
If your party is smart they will see thir own weaknesses and fix them before you do. The wizards spell book is a design flaw that can't really be worked around so why punish the player?
Except a spellbook isn't a magical item.
Do you see any rules for damaging the equipment that a character is normally carrying around with them? Swords breaking from use, shields, armor etc?
Except a spellbook isn't a magical item.
As far as saving throws are concerned, I would actually treat it as a magical item, just because the ink should be considered magical (at that price, it better be), and it would be hard to not at some point impact the ink. This does not negate the ability to attack the book itself, it just provides a way for the book itself to help mitigate any actual damage, thus making it less likely that the entire book would be destroyed in one shot, providing a reasonable compromise with those who think that the spellbook is some kind of untouchable sacred object.
I know this thread seems very focused on wizard spellbooks but I have an additional query:
Do people feel it is ok for a DM to throw Feeblemind at a player arcane caster?
I know the general point people make is that if a player can use it then so can a DM, but surely in the case of this spell a failed save could end a player's character and thus their fun too?
In my find to stick feeblemind on a player should only be if there is no adventure hook and a player is interested in trying a new class/is going away for a while. Then the party could quest for a method to break enchantment or wish away the effect.
(Note: This is assuming a party with no cleric who can break the enchantment)
I know this thread seems very focused on wizard spellbooks but I have an additional query:
Do people feel it is ok for a DM to throw Feeblemind at a player arcane caster?
I know the general point people make is that if a player can use it then so can a DM, but surely in the case of this spell a failed save could end a player's character and thus their fun too?
In my find to stick feeblemind on a player should only be if there is no adventure hook and a player is interested in trying a new class/is going away for a while. Then the party could quest for a method to break enchantment or wish away the effect.
(Note: This is assuming a party with no cleric who can break the enchantment)
This just happened in our game a couple weeks ago. I play the Life Oracle and I could not remove it (only 7th level). We ended up having the dragon disciple follow us to town and paid to have an NPC cleric cast heal on him. Cost us 1200 gp.
There's also a difference between temporary and permanent.
The spellbook being stolen and later recovered is different from the spellbook being outright destroyed.
Same with magical gear for non-casters.
|
|
I know this thread seems very focused on wizard spellbooks but I have an additional query:
Do people feel it is ok for a DM to throw Feeblemind at a player arcane caster?
I know the general point people make is that if a player can use it then so can a DM, but surely in the case of this spell a failed save could end a player's character and thus their fun too?
In my find to stick feeblemind on a player should only be if there is no adventure hook and a player is interested in trying a new class/is going away for a while. Then the party could quest for a method to break enchantment or wish away the effect.
(Note: This is assuming a party with no cleric who can break the enchantment)
Well by the time your facing feeblemind, you SHOULD have access to methods to CURE it as well. If the party decides to not have a cleric...well too bad for the party.
All the time.While I feel that the DM is not the enemy of the player sometimes the universe/life/fate can be.
I don't think the DM should go after items and critical tools per se but I also feel that critical gear does not get "play" protection. If a wizard looses his book and doesn't have a backup or the ability to purchase another one, then yeah - might be time to make up a new character.
I don't see it as any different then the 3rd level party with a ranger who lost two levels from a wight and can't afford the Restoration spell to get his levels back. It's one of those "too bad" work related hazards that come from a life of adventuring.The books are not off limits. PG 219 of the core has a section titled "Replacing and Copying Spellbooks" and details how a wizard can recopy any retained spells into a new book. So this isn't DM Fiat territory.
Just like a fighters gear is not off limits to breakage. And before people pile on "well the fighter can just use a different weapon", it doesn't help if that fighter is stuck in some hell-hole dungeon when that breakage or loss occurs. Under the current rules he might as well be unarmed - he isn't going to be any more effective than a warrior of the same level if he loses his key, feat-focused weapon.
If the wizard is told that his components and spellbook (or familiar for that matter) are vulnerable to harm ahead of time then it is up to the PC to make sure no harm comes to these things. Sometimes when adventuring things happen - a PC may be in a place with little or no water and suddenly find himself in a torrent of water via trap, etc. If the PC has made provisions to protect his goods then initially he will be given the benefit of doubt - but if he stays in a situation that keeps his items at risk - they get damaged or destroyed.
I don't design encounters with specific PCs in mind - I just design encounters. If some situation turns out to be a...
Best post here. The players built their characters the way they did on purpose with plenty of planning. It's not the DMs job to be a babysitter and make sure they stay good and safe all the time.
Just like a fighters gear is not off limits to breakage. And before people pile on "well the fighter can just use a different weapon", it doesn't help if that fighter is stuck in some hell-hole dungeon when that breakage or loss occurs.
In what hellhole dungeon won't the monsters have a weapon the fighter can pick up and use? Or snag the rapier from the rogue and have the rogue take the wizards dagger, or pick up a stick and call it a club?
|
|
Well by the time your facing feeblemind, you SHOULD have access to methods to CURE it as well. If the party decides to not have a cleric...well too bad for the party.I know this thread seems very focused on wizard spellbooks but I have an additional query:
Do people feel it is ok for a DM to throw Feeblemind at a player arcane caster?
I know the general point people make is that if a player can use it then so can a DM, but surely in the case of this spell a failed save could end a player's character and thus their fun too?
In my find to stick feeblemind on a player should only be if there is no adventure hook and a player is interested in trying a new class/is going away for a while. Then the party could quest for a method to break enchantment or wish away the effect.
(Note: This is assuming a party with no cleric who can break the enchantment)
A party without a cleric is a self-correcting problem.
==AKA 8one6
I target the spell book when/if it makes sense. This usually means that if my group is helping out in a turf war, and they upset some guild with some high level individuals, and the guild is preparing for an attack, then the guild could very well send in a high level rogue to try and take the book before hand. This is just a smart move.
If a high level fighter gets a weapon broken, he is potentially out 200,000 gold. How much does it cost for a wizard to have EVERY SPELL in a spell book? Less than 200,000 gold.
I target the spell book when/if it makes sense. This usually means that if my group is helping out in a turf war, and they upset some guild with some high level individuals, and the guild is preparing for an attack, then the guild could very well send in a high level rogue to try and take the book before hand. This is just a smart move.
If a high level fighter gets a weapon broken, he is potentially out 200,000 gold. How much does it cost for a wizard to have EVERY SPELL in a spell book? Less than 200,000 gold.
Incorrect. The math has been done many times in similiar threads. It actually costs more to replace a spell book (depending on level and number of spells in the book) than it does a weapon.
Honestly as a fighter player I rarely go for a +10 equivelent weapon -- I can instead get a +6, and 2 +5 weapons and have change left over for special materials, or whatever.
|
|
In what hellhole dungeon won't the monsters have a weapon the fighter can pick up and use? Or snag the rapier from the rogue and have the rogue take the wizards dagger, or pick up a stick and call it a club?
You omitted a part of my original post
And before people pile on "well the fighter can just use a different weapon", it doesn't help if that fighter is stuck in some hell-hole dungeon when that breakage or loss occurs. Under the current rules he might as well be unarmed - he isn't going to be any more effective than a warrior of the same level if he loses his key, feat-focused weapon.
And a fighter using a sub par weapon (not his weapon, alt weapon, etc) is going to be less effective until he replaces it with something comparable.
That is for the long haul; every attack, every miss, every reduced damage attack, the more damage he now takes (longer fights) - all these things add up on the mean to what a wizard can and cannot do with spells.
Is the fighter less hampered by the loss than the wizard - yeah, but that's the difference with the two classes and the power they wield. A fighter is more economical but without the options and manipulations of a of a wizard. Both are going to be impacted differently.
It doesn't mean that any gear gets "play" protection, as in you hand-wave any risk associated for loss since it would be unfun. Players need to take care of their gear, this has been a maxim since the inception of the game.
Ravingdork once said...
If a player is spending half their 20th-level funds on just spells, than they're an idiot.
A person with Craft Wondrous Items could craft himself a pair of Blessed Spellbooks for 12,500gp and, paying only the viewing fees of wizard spells thereafter, could learn every core wizard spell in the game for a measly 52,405gp. That's not even counting the spells you get for free at level up, which would substantially reduce this value.
So, if your spellbook got burnt to ash and you had no backups, you could still learn every wizard spell in the core rulebook for 64,405gp.
Last I checked, that is less than 10% of a 20h-level characters total wealth. A small, small fraction of your level's starting funds in exchange for unlimited power.
What's more, once you've accomplished this simple task, you could make backup copies for a measly 12,500gp! In fact, you could make no less than two sets of backup copies and STILL be under 10% of your starting funds!
Spell Mastery I spit upon you.
;P
EDIT: What makes this even better, is that the cost is only a fraction of your starting funds throughout most of your career if you only focus on learning the spells you are capable of casting.
It all depends on how it is done. I play in some games where the resources are very limited, the party is around 2 levels below the WBL chart. If the wizard got his spellbook destroyed, it would take him ages to rebuild it, because it costs a lot of cash to do so. In that time he'd get no benefit from any loot, because he'd be blowing it all on replacing his spells.
In these games, that is harsh.
In another game, we are ahead of the WBL chart and the wizard is also a crafter. In this case, it's not so big a problem because we can replace the spell-book.
Of course, the same is true of a warrior class's weapons', although less so - a warrior can switch to another, less effective weapon, a wizard has no recourse without a spell-book. A wizard needs to take care of their spell-book of course, and if they have the resources they make a spare. One resource a wizard should always have is a scroll of make whole ...
Well by the time your facing feeblemind, you SHOULD have access to methods to CURE it as well. If the party decides to not have a cleric...well too bad for the party.I know this thread seems very focused on wizard spellbooks but I have an additional query:
Do people feel it is ok for a DM to throw Feeblemind at a player arcane caster?
I know the general point people make is that if a player can use it then so can a DM, but surely in the case of this spell a failed save could end a player's character and thus their fun too?
In my find to stick feeblemind on a player should only be if there is no adventure hook and a player is interested in trying a new class/is going away for a while. Then the party could quest for a method to break enchantment or wish away the effect.
(Note: This is assuming a party with no cleric who can break the enchantment)
I strongly disagree with this response. Why should a part be forced (especially by DM decisions) to contain a particular class of character? The DM could give potential warning (like hints of an undead themed adventure for example).
But I don't feel any class should be compulsory in any game. Players should be allowed to play what they feel is enjoyable and not be punished for not choosing a certain class. I have been involved in too many games where either my brother or myself have felt guilted into playing a class capable of healing the party because no one else wants to. It should not be this way.
Another thing to consider is this approach was hinted at by the DM in a game where magic items cannot be purchased AT ALL. So there are no means of reversing it apart from someone dying and changing class. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
I strongly disagree with this response. Why should a part be forced (especially by DM decisions) to contain a particular class of character? The DM could give potential warning (like hints of an undead themed adventure for example).But I don't feel any class should be compulsory in any game. Players should be allowed to play what they feel is enjoyable and not be punished for not choosing a certain class. I have been involved in too many games where either my brother or myself have felt guilted into playing a class capable of healing the party because no one else wants to. It should not be this way.
Another thing to consider is this approach was hinted at by the DM in a game where magic items cannot be purchased AT ALL. So there are no means of reversing it apart from someone dying and changing class. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.
I agree that no party should feel like they are required to have someone of a particular class; that does not mean that the DM can't throw stuff at them that is much, much harder without that class. If the party chooses to not have a rogue or cleric or whatever else, it should primarily be the party's responsibility to work around the hole, not the DM's.
The second paragraph quoted sounds like an issue of the DM and a player may just have different views on the "funness" of a highly lethal, dangerous campaign vs one where the PCs are heroes and can figure on winning every time. It could also be an issue of a player thinking its a really cool tactic to use on the big boss, but gets upset when the DM turns the table on him, by using the tactic on his character. In other words, whatever the actual problem may be, it is highly unlikely the use of a particularly nasty tactic on a PC.