|
Items are completely off limits. Doesn't matter what items they are. I'm not breaking WBL for anyone. Good thing too, because while there's plenty of safeguards for say, a spellbook there's not so many for swords that are currently in use.
Why am I not surprised by your stance on this one...
"I am the Great and Powerful Oz! Wizards are invincible! All other classes cower!"
...but don't you have all these exploitable weaknesses?
"NO! YOU CAN'T GO BEHIND THE CURTAIN! OFF LIMITS! OFF LIMITS!"
Great villains exploit great heroes' weaknesses, if possible. It's the name of the game, and the nature of the beast.
And, just as importantly, villains exploit weaknesses according to their ability. Monsters that are kind of dumb probably can't tell the difference between an enemy with a low base Fort save and a good one. Intelligent villains are another matter entirely but they still need to be limited to that which is knowable.
In a Giants campaign I converted from 1e, the party sorcerer made a couple of wands that a couple of cohorts are using to soften up giants as they approach. Fireball and fireball modified with the elemental substitution feat to be acidballs. They used these to excellent effect against the hill giants. But that leaves evidence behind. So their intelligent adversaries started brewing up potions of resist elements - fire and acid - to deliver to the frost giants. They didn't get finished in time for the PC's attack so they're being held back by the fire giants. The party is now going to face fire giants with 10 points of acid resistance and trolls from the warrens in the fire giant mountain armed with potions of fire resistance.
If you want to challenge your players without over powering their opponents, occasional compromising of their 'kit' is a standard trope in fiction. When last this came up, we spewed examples at the player who was whining (Indiana Jones pulling the pistol on the swordsman, then not having the pistol when he needed it in the next flik).
As most of my players have either played superhero games or at least watched a Superman show, all are familiar with the concept of limitations and disadvantages (Champions) and understand what makes a character work. I personally fall behind when the women get into their RP skirts and get the bit between their teeth. 2 of the 3 play Elves and the third plays a half-Elf, so they defacto create an Elven culture that I am only 'CCed' info as it develops. I was surprised to learn that High Elves developed Mage Hand to set bones and use in other kinds of healing. For this reason, when she was out of spells, the heal +12 Elf mage was working at a -5 penalty, emposed upon the die roll by the 3 Elf players. Still made the check, mind you, but the penalty was important to the RP angle of the game.
|
|
And, just as importantly, villains exploit weaknesses according to their ability. Monsters that are kind of dumb probably can't tell the difference between an enemy with a low base Fort save and a good one. Intelligent villains are another matter entirely but they still need to be limited to that which is knowable.Valid points, all, but ... the above, to me, is found near the capital in the Realm of Common Sense.
+1
|
Items are completely off limits. Doesn't matter what items they are. I'm not breaking WBL for anyone. Good thing too, because while there's plenty of safeguards for say, a spellbook there's not so many for swords that are currently in use.
Why am I not surprised by your stance on this one...
"I am the Great and Powerful Oz! Wizards are invincible! All other classes cower!"
...but don't you have all these exploitable weaknesses?
"NO! YOU CAN'T GO BEHIND THE CURTAIN! OFF LIMITS! OFF LIMITS!"
Lol yeah, what a coward.
Rules exits for loosing books and as it stands the books are NOT part of the wbl nor are they calculated in for 3.5 or PFRPG. Not fiat, but part of the rules - deal with it.
If the gm doesnt take advantage of the weaknesss; it is not a weakness. From the old Champions game; A drawback that does not come into play is not a drawback.
The big question here would be consistancy; if you play in a world that spellbooks are stolen and familiars are stalked and killed and everyone knows it; then they take steps. I would say; dont suddenly start making changes of taking advantage of weaknesses that you have never done before without informing your players. The GM is to set the scene and theme and obstacles to challenge the players; not screw them over; so just keep such things above board like "you are entering a kingdom known for its hatred of magic users, there is no law to protect any magic user from reprisals and they are deemed of less value than normal people or even dogs; they cannot hold property or have any rights under the law. In stories, it is common for mages to be pursued and killed by mobs; there books stolen and burned, their familiars slain. Stuff like that; you can of course be a lot less; this is just an example.
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?
On the matter of unbalanced parties, they get to reap the benefits of the imbalance, so the penalties should be felt as well. So, no trapmonkey parties have to creative their way around or tough through traps, no healbot parties have to shell out cash for umd-able resources, just like in a hockey power play you can get your extra player if you leave the goal less guarded.
As far as targeting objects, falls under the same philosophy as killing characters. Some folks prefer it only happen for greatest dramatic and story effect, others require the vulnerability to maintain the realism and danger level of the campaign. I lose interest in a story where not only the character's lives but even their prized possessions are never endangered, but others' mileage obviously varies.
|
|
Which brings us back to 'It is easier to protect a spellbook than a sword that is currently in use.'
Fine, you want to play the break stuff game? Alright. About two fights in the Fighter will have no equipment. It all got Sundered. Turns out you can't really protect swords you're using, but there's plenty of ways to safeguard spellbooks. Jerk move? Absolutely. That's why I said items were off limits. Fighters need all the nice things they can get, and that doesn't work when they can be broken on a whim.
Good thing fighters don't have high CMD to protect their items. And good thing you need greater sunder or you will provoke an attack of opportunity. And good thing fighters only carry one weapons...I could go on, but hopefully his greasemonkey script is blocking me so he can't read this anyway.
Which brings us back to 'It is easier to protect a spellbook than a sword that is currently in use.'
Fine, you want to play the break stuff game? Alright. About two fights in the Fighter will have no equipment. It all got Sundered. Turns out you can't really protect swords you're using, but there's plenty of ways to safeguard spellbooks. Jerk move? Absolutely. That's why I said items were off limits. Fighters need all the nice things they can get, and that doesn't work when they can be broken on a whim.
In my experience a fighter who gets his favourite sword sundered once usually comes back with a mithral or adamant sword to make it much harder to do next time. A fighter without a sword is still a fighter, and they often carry backup weapons anyway. A wizard without a spell-book is a commoner with high intelligence. As a DM I assume spell-books come with waterproof cases and are kept buried deep in any backpacks with everything padded around them when not in use. They are hard to steal and hard to target and destroy.
Now I also assume that NPCs and PCs have the same goal in mind with regard to their opponent's gear: it's PHAT LOOT - so NPCs on the whole will not destroy what they hope to take off your corpse and sell. However, that does not mean that they will not steal things (so you always keep watches) if they get the chance, but doing so is not easy.
All said and done, some foes WILL try and destroy equipment. That evil monk you are trying to defeat doesn't want your sword, so he tries to break it. The religious cult targeting mages won't want your spellbook except on the bonfire. Players should sometimes encounter these threats, but they shouldn't be every foe they face.
Let's approach this from a slightly different perspective:
A good GM's job is to challenge the party in a variety of ways, and make sure each PC has a chance to shine.
A good GM's job is also to make sure their PCs are having fun with the challenges presented them, and that no one ever feels like the PLAYER is not being screwed over or punished for playing a certain type of character.
This requires a careful balancing act.
Using the same kind of fight or challenge over and over again results in PCs developing and exploiting strengths in others and likely means only certain PC abilities are being used. This WILL likely in fact result in several things, including players being bored and some players being frustrated that their character doesn't get to shine. So this is not a good thing to do. It is lazy.
Varying the challenges likely means that some PCs will not excel at every given challenge. Is this "exploiting a weakness"? Perhaps a weakness prevents one character from temporarily shining--while another gets to step forward and do their thing. I don't consider that an "exploitation"--not on its own.
For example, in one of my games, we recently had a fight with a group of Iron Golems (it's a high level party). The sneak-attack-based Shadowdancer was in over his head, suddenly--but the ranged and melee specialists respectively really got a chance to do some great damage (there was also a great trick with a simple grease spell). Of course, the fight before that, the Shadowdancer was doing all kinds of crazy damage while the archer was having trouble hitting things. After that, the cleric got to do some cool high level anti-demon spells that tilted a fight with some outsiders quickly in their favor. The point is that no one of these situations came up over and over again without variance--so everyone as a whole got something to do and a point where they felt excited and sometimes scared and clap each other on the shoulders when their team member did something cool to help the team out.
Now, doing something that permanently weakens a character, I would say is exploiting a weakness and as it results likely in nothing but the player feeling frustrated. For the record, I have never encountered a GM that has done something like this, nor discussed theoretical situations at this forum where anyone proposed doing something like that.
That said, let's address how dealing with the OP's mentioned weaknesses could be an interesting challenge or something frustrating and un-fun.
Character loses a item that is part of a key class ability
Basically, what all this comes down to is the fixability of the item and how long the character is deprived of it. If you create a situation where a character is forced to lose or destroy a necessary item permanently--or at least for an extremely long time--whether it's a Wizard's spellbook getting hit by a disintegrate spell or a Fighter losing his only melee weapon when the party is 5,000 miles from civilization and any other weapons--then that's no fun. Not for anyone. A brief hindrance or temporary loss may be a fun challenge.
Good: "Wow, I was really mad when that Frexeltish used its special ability to steal my spellbook. But then I remembered that even though I'd cast most of my spells that day, I could still use my Force Bolt power from my school and my Wand of Butt Kicking to get past the door guard. Thanks, I totally I forgot I could do both those things! (But thanks also for leaving my spellbook on the treasure pile after the fight with the guard.) Next time the Frexeltish appears, I'll be ready!"
Bad: "The Blogroth uses its tentacles, grabs your Holy Avenger, and throws it into the bottomless pit. Oh, yeah, and your backup mace still has the broken condition from being sundered the other day. No, you're not anywhere near a city. No, this area has forbiddance cast on it so you can't teleport out. Yes, the Blogroth IS immune to that one offensive spell you have prepared."
Min-Maxing and other player inflicted weaknesses
There is no necessity, by good or bad GM, to exploit a hole the player has dug for themselves. A GM can't be faulted for a player's bad character design (although a GM ought to advise a player there might be something potentially something unpleasant about their particular character idea). The only time I can see it not being that is if the GM, say, advertises a combat heavy game, and then the players all dump charisma and intelligence for strength, and then the GM informs them it's an urban intrigue campaign instead.
Generally a good well rounded campaign which has combat, skill challenges, and social opportunities will give the PCs the chance to shine each in their own niche.
Of course if a player is frustrated with their build, a kind GM might allow him or her to rebuild a character to have fewer obvious weaknesses, but not if it's been the 4th or 5th time...
What if a Certain Class Ability Isn't Represented?
A GM as always should not design an insurmountable obstacle because that's neither fun for the GM nor for the party. The GM gets bored waiting for the characters to deal with the situation and the players get frustrated because they don't know how to get out of the situation they're in. It's not even an exploitation, it's poor game design.
A party with an unusual weakness--say little or no healing magic in a high powered campaign--may have more difficulties to overcome than a more "typical" party build--but that's also the kind of thing that can be overcome by adjusting tactics and possible party redesign if necessary. In my experience, if a situation comes up where the party's abilities seem lacking, sometimes this is because less that the GM is "punishing" the party and more that the GM is inexperienced with dealing with an unusual party build, or is trying to adapt a published module or adventure path that makes much different assumptions about party build, a very difficult task to do.
Regarding the specific issues mentioned:
Trapfinding: As noted, Rogues may be best at dealing with traps but anyone can find them and deal with them in a number of ways (and a rogue-less party is likely to have a spellcaster capable of dispelling a magic trap). Traps should go where they make sense, and not where they don't (a trap protecting the national treasure makes sense, a trap on the beer stein in the tavern does not).
Flight: I would try to answer this, but I can't imagine it ever happening. Usually somebody has some means to fly somehow. And alternately, the Sacred Cow of Flying has often made little sense to me, considering a fairly large number of combats in fantasy adventure games take place in narrow corridors underground, where flying is useless anyway. And "I knock an arrow and aim at the flying creature" is also a quite viable response to dealing with a flying enemy. Even with taking a distance penalty, most warrior types will be fine, and many spells have extremely long ranges.
Generally a good well rounded campaign which has combat, skill challenges, and social opportunities will give the PCs the chance to shine each in their own niche.
Similarly players should design good well rounded characters instead of min/max munchkins, to best avoid being caught out.
Generally a good well rounded campaign which has combat, skill challenges, and social opportunities will give the PCs the chance to shine each in their own niche.Similarly players should design good well rounded characters instead of min/max munchkins, to best avoid being caught out.
I don't think people should never make min/maxed characters; sometimes they can be fun to play. They do need to understand that the weaknesses of such a build are just as real as the strengths.
|
I don't think people should never make min/maxed characters; sometimes they can be fun to play. They do need to understand that the weaknesses of such a build are just as real as the strengths.
Right now my PFS character is somewhat min/maxed. It's offset by the fact his race is not exactly optimal for his class. That and the fact that his will save is so absurdly low that even things that can't cast Charm Person can charm him. :P
Grinkle "Basher" Thrushfoot
Gnome Fighter
Strength 16
Dexterity 16
Constitution 16
Intelligence 7
Wisdom 7
Charisma 9
|
|
I don't think people should never make min/maxed characters; sometimes they can be fun to play. They do need to understand that the weaknesses of such a build are just as real as the strengths.Right now my PFS character is somewhat min/maxed. It's offset by the fact his race is not exactly optimal for his class. That and the fact that his will save is so absurdly low that even things that can't cast Charm Person can charm him. :P
Grinkle "Basher" Thrushfoot
Gnome FighterStrength 16
Dexterity 16
Constitution 16
Intelligence 7
Wisdom 7
Charisma 9
Nice :)
I also have no issue with min/maxers as long as they acknowledge they have left them selves with huge weaknesses.
|
|
He also ironically has a facination with machinery, despite the fact that he'll never be able to even remotely comprehend it. And he loves to be hurled through the air bodily...controlled flight is no fun.
Grinke is an odd duck. I've decided that his love of "flying" came early, and he's had one too many crash landings without a helmet.
I don't think people should never make min/maxed characters; sometimes they can be fun to play. They do need to understand that the weaknesses of such a build are just as real as the strengths.Generally a good well rounded campaign which has combat, skill challenges, and social opportunities will give the PCs the chance to shine each in their own niche.Similarly players should design good well rounded characters instead of min/max munchkins, to best avoid being caught out.
Exactly--it's one thing if you make a character and you know that you have built them to do well in favor of one thing but not be so good at another. If you as a player accept your character's limitations--and indeed, have fun with them, like Kthulhu is doing with Grinkle's love of "flying"--that's fine and fun!
It's when you build your Fighter with a 7 Wis and an 18 Str and then complains whenever the party is asked to make Perception checks---and then while he does most of the melee damage as the character was designed to do, complains whenever another party member "gets the kill" in combat, or what have you. Not that I have seen this in a VERY long time, mind, but I have seen it before. (I do have a current player with a low Wis, but he plays it up to the hilt with his high Charisma gusto :) )
You can easily counterbalance the fighter sunder problem; which hasnt ever been a problem in years and years of playing, by following the 2nd ed idea of spellbooks containing only so many spells forcing a mage to carry several; ie traveling books and the book you leave at your home base; having several spellbooks; it is easier to have one stolen and still doesnt take the mage out by loosing all his spells since a traveling book can only hold a few depending on spell level.
If the gm doesnt take advantage of the weaknesss; it is not a weakness. From the old Champions game; A drawback that does not come into play is not a drawback.
The big question here would be consistancy; if you play in a world that spellbooks are stolen and familiars are stalked and killed and everyone knows it; then they take steps. I would say; dont suddenly start making changes of taking advantage of weaknesses that you have never done before without informing your players. The GM is to set the scene and theme and obstacles to challenge the players; not screw them over; so just keep such things above board like "you are entering a kingdom known for its hatred of magic users, there is no law to protect any magic user from reprisals and they are deemed of less value than normal people or even dogs; they cannot hold property or have any rights under the law. In stories, it is common for mages to be pursued and killed by mobs; there books stolen and burned, their familiars slain. Stuff like that; you can of course be a lot less; this is just an example.
Which brings us back to 'It is easier to protect a spellbook than a sword that is currently in use.'
Fine, you want to play the break stuff game? Alright. About two fights in the Fighter will have no equipment. It all got Sundered. Turns out you can't really protect swords you're using, but there's plenty of ways to safeguard spellbooks. Jerk move? Absolutely. That's why I said items were off limits. Fighters need all the nice things they can get, and that doesn't work when they can be broken on a whim.
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.
There is an interesting part to this.
Those blessed books are worth 25,000gp blank. It doesn't matter how you got them -- if they are blank that's what they are worth. Funny thing though, you start adding spells to them, and you start adding value. That added value (and the price of the spell books) comes off your wealth by level. Hence your wealth by level is reduced by the price of your spell books.
The more value added (regardless of the price at which you add it) the more they are worth the more they cost you in wealth by level.
Which brings us back to 'It is easier to protect a spellbook than a sword that is currently in use.'
Fine, you want to play the break stuff game? Alright. About two fights in the Fighter will have no equipment. It all got Sundered. Turns out you can't really protect swords you're using, but there's plenty of ways to safeguard spellbooks. Jerk move? Absolutely. That's why I said items were off limits. Fighters need all the nice things they can get, and that doesn't work when they can be broken on a whim.
Good thing fighters don't have high CMD to protect their items. And good thing you need greater sunder or you will provoke an attack of opportunity. And good thing fighters only carry one weapons...I could go on, but hopefully his greasemonkey script is blocking me so he can't read this anyway.
Don't forget that currently there are next to no monsters in the bestiary that can sunder something as simple as a +1 weapon.
If your weapon doesn't have a bonus >= the bonus of the item you can't sunder it.
Of course those are the sort of rules CoDzilla ignores so what can we say.
Also: Fighters can switch their feats now too -- so if they start with one weapon and decide they don't like it (or can't use it) then they can change out later on for a different one.
If your weapon doesn't have a bonus >= the bonus of the item you can't sunder it.
Two things -
1 - are you sure? Is it the + value or the hardness that counts? Because I can't see a normal steel +1 sword standing up against an adamant axe.
2 - remember if you have DR vs something, you count as that something.
Generally a good well rounded campaign which has combat, skill challenges, and social opportunities will give the PCs the chance to shine each in their own niche.Similarly players should design good well rounded characters instead of min/max munchkins, to best avoid being caught out.
I can see your point about min/maxing however what is your take on how to play low stat charecters?
I will use my current druid as an example. I have played him for two sessions so far.Str-9-had to go somewhere
Dex-10-low AC so I didn't want a negative to this and my reflex saves.
Con-14-self explanitory
Int-14-needed for skill points
Wis-18= 20 due to Spellcasting Prodigy feat in Magic of Faerun.
Cha-14- several druid skills and checks linked to this stat
I chose to not be a combat style druid due to the fact that we had a paladin and I thought a normal fighter, she dropped out, plus even at 1st level with aspect of the wolf and other spells my str,dex and con all change anyway. Wild shape is gonna be even worse as far as my physical stats go. OH, BTW all rules are 3.5 not pathfinder for wildshape.
Would you consider that charecter min/maxed or no?
I went with a 14 int because i needed the skill points, I'm the only one with ANY knowledge skills. not just know. nature but also arcana,religion,geography and I am also the party diplomat and negotiator.
The party paladin has 2 skill points per level.
The party wizard spends his on sneak,hide,open locks and other stuff(don't ask me it's his charecter)
The party theif spends his on open locks,MS,Open locks and the stuff he's supposed to so no know skills their either.
I have been told that it's a min/maxxed charecter but I just think it's the best build possible for the stats I got.
What is your definition of min/max?
|
|
One thing to keep in mind when you're talking about weapons and other things being sundered is the item's harness. Most common weapon's have Hardness 10, so you'd have to hit them fairly hard to actually damage them, and then you have to get through their hit points to keep hurting them. Spellbooks get that, too, although it's only Hardness 2 depending on what the cover is made of.
As a side note ciretose, though, Sunder is not a Combat Maneuver.
Sunder
You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object’s Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Appendix 2). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
Sundering is a bit easier to do since it isn't a Combat Maneuver (although why it isn't I'm not entirely sure). Still, I agree with Dabbler that most NPCs aren't going to destroy what they can use or sell. It just doesn't make sense unless, as mentioned, they have that specific agenda.
Also, Abraham Spalding. Those books are 12,500gp blank to buy, not 25,000, meaning crafting two would only cost 12,500gp. And, as somebody else pointed out, spellbooks do not count against your WBL. WBL is also a guideline, not a law.
Sorry for the rule-lawyering. I was looking up a bunch of this stuff as I went to keep track of the arguments being made, and I thought clarifying a few points that seemed confused might be helpful.
As far as doing this myself, I'd consider exploiting a weakness fair game if they know about it. A while back I ran an Eberron campaign. One of my players was running a Cleric in Full-Plate as a primary tank, and several of the characters were running armors they couldn't sleep in. The first time they ran into a night-time encounter (randomly done), they were annoyed. After they'd hit that, they knew it could happen and had a chance to fix it, but didn't. Finally, a level or two later, they figured out they could just buy chain shirts to sleep in. I'd say it was fair of me to hit them with random night encounters for a while since they hadn't figured it out.
Hitting items like a Wizard's spellbook is a bit of a low blow early on, but once they start having the ability to replace it or otherwise protect it, it's a fair item to attack. They shouldn't be waving it around in combat under any circumstances, though. Still, if it's in the backpack and they get hit with a Fireball, I'd say it would be fair for the pack to catch fire and they have to spend a round or two putting it and themselves out, same as a fighter who would have to put clothing and hair out. If nothing else, this thread has given me a lot to think about.
If your weapon doesn't have a bonus >= the bonus of the item you can't sunder it.
That was true in 3.0, false in 3.5, and I can't find it in Pathfinder.
Build your campaign module as specific as you can... when the group encounters something they weren't prepared for, let them overcome it, run away, or die.
If they are weak, let them try to find an NPC Expert Trap Disabler who will demand the best of the treasure.
Weaknesses don't need to be exploited... eventually they come up.... and if they never come up then you've unbalanced your campaign in some way.
Str-9-had to go somewhere
Dex-10-low AC so I didn't want a negative to this and my reflex saves.
Con-14-self explanitory
Int-14-needed for skill points
Wis-18= 20 due to Spellcasting Prodigy feat in Magic of Faerun.
Cha-14- several druid skills and checks linked to this stat
Seems reasonably OK, would be fairly versatile... where's the problem?
What kills me is the current crop of 8/8/8 mental (or even 7cha thrown on for good measure) and entirely focussed around being a one trick pony.
Whoever said your character was a min/max would need to come back and explain, because it isnt...
And by low stat do you mean low point builds? or people who have selected to dump stats down to pump the 'good stats' through the roof?
And all the other items? Which are incredibly easy to break for the most part? A level 1 Commoner could probably do it.
Either the backup gear won't be anything near level appropriate, he'll quickly run out of WBL, or most likely both.
So if you don't say "gear is off limits" you are condemning your players - particularly the martial types to nothing but pain, suffering, and a quick yet inglorious end.
As opposed to legitimate challenges, where there is pain and suffering but also glory and victory.
Sounds like you want a cast iron guarentee that your gear will always be safe.
Doesn't happen.
If the party can and will steal the unattended spellbook of the BBEG, they can expect spell books that are not looked after to be targeted. What's good for the goose is always good for the gander. Players will exploit the weaknesses of their foes, and those foes can be expected to do likewise to the players.
Unless the players are prepared to guarantee that they will not exploit the weaknesses of foes, they cannot expect different rules to apply to them - particularly if they are blasé about their gear, or flaunt their wealth without taking precautions. That, to me, is a legitimate challenge whether I am a player or a DM. Yet somehow, martial characters in games I DM do not come to quick and inglorious ends at all.
I will say that if, as a DM, you are going to target equipment, you have to be prepared to replace it in the long run in WBL terms of course. The point here is to challenge the PCs, not nerf them to death!
|
|
It's easy enough as the DM, if you cause them to lose something that was counting against their WBL, to replace it. So a martial character loses a +3 Greatsword he was using. Maybe next adventure he'll find a +2 Flaming Greatsword. Same value as far as WBL. A character can't "run out" of WBL, though.
WBL is a guideline for the net value of the gear they are carrying and any other property they own. If they lose something that was contributing to that value, then they have to replace it. They go out, do a bit of adventuring, find some treasure or an acceptable replacement item, and there you have it. WBL has been restored. But, as I stated earlier.
If you want to treat it as a law and never destroy any item, that's your call for your games. Many of us think it's fair to treat the PCs as if they know what they are doing, and as if the NPCs are going to treat them the same as any other person. Theft happens, item destruction happens, intelligent bad guys happen. It's part of the game.
In three of six PbP games I am in the party average wealth is several levels below what it 'should' be. No-one cares, least of all our fighters.
Indeed, and an simply an artifical construct to keep organised play games balanced - with 0% usefulness or relevance outside that narrow utility.
|
|
One thing to keep in mind when you're talking about weapons and other things being sundered is the item's harness. Most common weapon's have Hardness 10, so you'd have to hit them fairly hard to actually damage them, and then you have to get through their hit points to keep hurting them. Spellbooks get that, too, although it's only Hardness 2 depending on what the cover is made of.
As a side note ciretose, though, Sunder is not a Combat Maneuver. ** spoiler omitted **
Also, Abraham Spalding. Those books are 12,500gp blank to buy, not 25,000, meaning crafting two would only cost 12,500gp. And, as somebody else pointed out, spellbooks do not count against your WBL. WBL is also a guideline, not a law.
Sorry for the rule-lawyering. I was looking up a bunch of this stuff as I went to keep track of the arguments being made, and I thought clarifying a few points that seemed confused might be...
I think you may be incorrect. Sunder is under combat maneuvers, and so subject to CMD.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Sunder
I'm still annoyed you cant sunder with a ranged weapon.
WPL is a guideline that I generally go above.
Wizards don't need equipment. They don't have a magic weapon. They don't have magic armor. They don't need a belt that increases strength, dexterity, and constitution, or boots that let them walk on walls or a mask that lets them fly or a ring that turns them invisible.
That's the thing people here are forgetting. Wizards have spells. Fighters have magic items. When you target magic items, you aren't targeting all players equally.
|
|
You're right. I wasn't paying attention to the formatting in the book. Thought it was listed as separate from Combat Maneuvers. That just makes it that much more unlikely that it could happen at early levels, at least partially negating what I said about don't attack items at early levels.
I honestly hadn't fully considered this either. There is a lot of assumption that sundering a fighters weapon is easy, when it actually isn't if you consider the CMD being as high as the AC in most cases.
Now sundering Wizard's stuff considering their CMD...
I'm still annoyed you cant sunder with a ranged weapon.
If thats the case then fix it. We come up with house rules all the time the most notable is once a skill always a skill. That way your limited skill points are better able to be used.
If you want ranged weapons to sunder either rule it as a DM or talk to your DM about it.
I can remember in just about any incarnation of robin hood the trick shot used for cutting through ropes and other things with one shot so there is precedent for sunder useing ranged weapons.
I would however limit it to a certain class of hardness. I don't care if the rules do support it a dart being able to sunder a two handed axehead just dosn't make any kind of sense.
Yes I do know it's a fantasy game and I am willing to suspend some if not most of my dibelief on things but others have to hold fast otherwise it's a game just about numbers not heroes.
I guess in my game since we don't have melee classes alot we never bother with sunder.
Generally a good well rounded campaign which has combat, skill challenges, and social opportunities will give the PCs the chance to shine each in their own niche.Similarly players should design good well rounded characters instead of min/max munchkins, to best avoid being caught out.I can see your point about min/maxing however what is your take on how to play low stat charecters?
I will use my current druid as an example. I have played him for two sessions so far.Str-9-had to go somewhere
Dex-10-low AC so I didn't want a negative to this and my reflex saves.
Con-14-self explanitory
Int-14-needed for skill points
Wis-18= 20 due to Spellcasting Prodigy feat in Magic of Faerun.
Cha-14- several druid skills and checks linked to this statI chose to not be a combat style druid due to the fact that we had a paladin and I thought a normal fighter, she dropped out, plus even at 1st level with aspect of the wolf and other spells my str,dex and con all change anyway. Wild shape is gonna be even worse as far as my physical stats go. OH, BTW all rules are 3.5 not pathfinder for wildshape.
Would you consider that charecter min/maxed or no?
I went with a 14 int because i needed the skill points, I'm the only one with ANY knowledge skills. not just know. nature but also arcana,religion,geography and I am also the party diplomat and negotiator.
The party paladin has 2 skill points per level.
The party wizard spends his on sneak,hide,open locks and other stuff(don't ask me it's his charecter)
The party theif spends his on open locks,MS,Open locks and the stuff he's supposed to so no know skills their either.I have been told that it's a min/maxxed charecter but I just think it's the best build possible for the stats I got.
What is your definition of min/max?
At a glance, it looks to me like the powerful side of well-rounded. Now, I don't know what your ability score generation method or the level of your character is, or what books you're playing with, etc. This can all be a factor.
Your lowest stat is the low side of average, nothing "min" there. The character looks like he is capable of contributing to combat in a few ways--good druid spellcasting with that high wisdom and can help in melee with wild shape. And with good skill points and decent charisma is useful in a variety of situations outside of combat. That's well-roundedness there, and usually IMO min-maxed characters aren't well-rounded, they're usually only one-or-two-trick ponies. Again, this is at first glance, knowing nothing else about stat generation, etc.
And as I noted previously--there are players intentionally making their characters extremely weak in certain areas to be extremely strong in others, who THEN COMPLAIN when those areas come up in game, even if their strengths come up as often, if not more. Those are the kind of players I am talking about. I don't see you or your character being examples of that situation.
My idea of a min-maxed character would be, say, Minsc from Baldur's Gate--his stats are something like Str 18/00 (that would be like Str 22 in Pathfinder) Dex 16 Con 18 Int 7 Wis 6 Cha 9. Minsc hit things hard, and that's all he can do. He's can't do spells, he has no skills (save for being a human ranger, which helps, but even then his skill bonuses to a lot of things will be low). Now, Minsc is hella fun, and a good player taking on a character like that would just play it to the hilt. I don't think a player in the spirit of playing Minsc would complain when he inevitably fails a Will save... that's just gonna happen at some point. And it's silly to expect me to never, ever have any effects in the game that call for Will saves just because there's a player that might be more likely to suffer negatively than others (but likewise I should not have every single encounter, challenge, etc. involve Will saves).
But I also as a GM don't need to go out of my way to make Minsc "suffer" for his low wisdom--there are some things he is not going to be good at, and that's all there is to it. And that's what I was getting at in my original statement--a GM does not need to exploit weaknesses that a player intentionally builds into his character. Those weaknesses are simply there and a character will eventually suffer from them at some point, in a well-rounded, complex campaign. The character's strengths should also be coming into play often, and so I don't see a problem.
I'm sure there was a way I could have said that far more briefly.
|
Thinking about the vulnerability of spellbooks and the importance of having a spare, I can't help but be reminded of all the warnings about backing up your hard drive.
It's cheap, it's easy, and if you don't, it almost a guarantee that sooner or later, you're gonna be hosed.
If a DM is considering these tactics (and he never has before), I'd think that a warning shot would be fair to the players. Have some mooks try (and fail) to Sunder a weapon or wand, or have the PC's catch a thief in the act of stealing the spellbook. After that, they ought to get the hint that "wow, I'd have been sunk if that attempt had succeeded!"
If they still fail to prepare backups after that, shame on them.
(Now I gotta go home and make sure my external hard drive is working right- haven't checked it in a while.....)
WPL is a guideline that I generally go above.
Wizards don't need equipment. They don't have a magic weapon. They don't have magic armor. They don't need a belt that increases strength, dexterity, and constitution, or boots that let them walk on walls or a mask that lets them fly or a ring that turns them invisible.
That's the thing people here are forgetting. Wizards have spells. Fighters have magic items. When you target magic items, you aren't targeting all players equally.
Wizards need equipment:
Headbands, spellbooks, scrolls, pearls of power, cloaks of resistance, belts (for dex and con mostly this is secondary items), spell components, expensive components (for stoneskin, true seeing, and the like), bracers of armor is nice.
Without those items the wizard spends much more energy, time and spells handling small things.
I skimmed upthread. It's an opinion thread so here's my opinion:
It's never okay for the GM to exploit a weakenss of the player characters. That's metagaming.
It is 100% fair and great for an NPC to exploit a known weakness of the player characters, and should be expected for any NPC above average Intelligence.
If a PC and an NPC wizard are fighting a protracted battle, I fully expect the spellbooks to become a target on both sides. That's just part of making the game-world internally consistent, and doesn't require me as a GM to feel guilty in the least.
There's a bit of grey area when it comes to designing NPCs to counter player abilities. As long as you are doing it to make the game more fun for everyone, you are doing it right. That can be complicated, because sometimes the GM-player relationship means doling out hardship to make the long-gamew more fun. Not everyone is good at striking this balance, but it is definitely a part of being a great GM.
WPL is a guideline that I generally go above.
Wizards don't need equipment. They don't have a magic weapon. They don't have magic armor. They don't need a belt that increases strength, dexterity, and constitution, or boots that let them walk on walls or a mask that lets them fly or a ring that turns them invisible.
That's the thing people here are forgetting. Wizards have spells. Fighters have magic items. When you target magic items, you aren't targeting all players equally.
Wizards need equipment:
Headbands, spellbooks, scrolls, pearls of power, cloaks of resistance, belts (for dex and con mostly this is secondary items), spell components, expensive components (for stoneskin, true seeing, and the like), bracers of armor is nice.
Without those items the wizard spends much more energy, time and spells handling small things.
Yes, that's just it.
Without those things, the wizard is inconvenienced.
Expensive spell components don't count as magical items, anyways.
Without the similar items, a fighter or barbarian or rogue is borderline useless. That's the difference. The wizard likes those items. The fighter needs them.
I skimmed upthread. It's an opinion thread so here's my opinion:
It's never okay for the GM to exploit a weakenss of the player characters. That's metagaming.
It is 100% fair and great for an NPC to exploit a known weakness of the player characters, and should be expected for any NPC above average Intelligence.
If a PC and an NPC wizard are fighting a protracted battle, I fully expect the spellbooks to become a target on both sides. That's just part of making the game-world internally consistent, and doesn't require me as a GM to feel guilty in the least.
There's a bit of grey area when it comes to designing NPCs to counter player abilities. As long as you are doing it to make the game more fun for everyone, you are doing it right. That can be complicated, because sometimes the GM-player relationship means doling out hardship to make the long-gamew more fun. Not everyone is good at striking this balance, but it is definitely a part of being a great GM.
Counterpoint - the wizard won't damage the spellbook for the same reason fighters don't use sunder - they're destroying their own loot!
Counterpoint - the wizard won't damage the spellbook for the same reason fighters don't use sunder - they're destroying their own loot!
That is an excellent point. True as it is, I like to think I could make a player that desperate to gain the upper hand. A spellbook is loot, and any class should see that as valuable... but somehow I think the Cleric or the Sorcerer is more likely to make the sacrifice.
Yes, that's just it.
Without those things, the wizard is inconvenienced.
Expensive spell components don't count as magical items, anyways.
Without the similar items, a fighter or barbarian or rogue is borderline useless. That's the difference. The wizard likes those items. The fighter needs them.
Show me a wizard with better saves than a fighter of equal level without a cloak of resistance.
So me a wizard that regularly gives up the spell book.
With a fighter I can still fight without a magical weapon (it gets really easy at higher levels when I can ignore DR and have a huge number of bonuses just sitting there).
The wizard is just as "useless" without his equipment as the fighter is.
His saves suck, his CMD/AC invites death, and without the spellbook a commoner is just marginally behind him.
A rogue doesn't lose Sneak attack, skills, or talents if his magical items go away, the barbarian doesn't lose DR, Rage, Rage powers, or his hit dice when the magic fails. The same can't be said of the wizard.
Magic items fail and he's in deep trouble.
His spellbook goes and he's more useless than the fighter could dream of being.
Yes, that's just it.
Without those things, the wizard is inconvenienced.
Expensive spell components don't count as magical items, anyways.
Without the similar items, a fighter or barbarian or rogue is borderline useless. That's the difference. The wizard likes those items. The fighter needs them.
Show me a wizard with better saves than a fighter of equal level without a cloak of resistance.
So me a wizard that regularly gives up the spell book.
With a fighter I can still fight without a magical weapon (it gets really easy at higher levels when I can ignore DR and have a huge number of bonuses just sitting there).
Actually, the question is not about magic weapons, it is about equipment period. Very few fighters take Improved Unarmed Strike to fight without any weapon at all.
Fighter's regularly upgrade their weapons, wizards regularly upgrade their spellbooks.
The point here is that many classes depend on equipment. Of all of them druids, monks and sorcerers do so the least, wizards and fighters do so the most.
His spellbook goes and he's more useless than the fighter could dream of being.
Except for his School abilities (although I think universalists get somewhat hosed), skills, and anything he can cast through a bonded item.
Obviously, severely limited, yes. And screwed if he doesn't get his spellbook back soon. But not, I would argue, actually useless nor powerless.
Likewise a Fighter who loses his weapon loses out a lot, but even if he provokes an AOO when making an unarmed strike, he probably has good enough AC and/or HP to take the hit, and high enough Str and BAB to hit or effectively perform combat maneuvers (most of which do not require having a weapon in hand to do).
I am not saying it doesn't suck for characters to lose their equipment.
I'm just noting it doesn't mean the character has to go stand in a corner and twiddle their thumbs when they do.
Gosh this conversation has gone rather off course, hasn't it?
Counterpoint - the wizard won't damage the spellbook for the same reason fighters don't use sunder - they're destroying their own loot!That is an excellent point. True as it is, I like to think I could make a player that desperate to gain the upper hand. A spellbook is loot, and any class should see that as valuable... but somehow I think the Cleric or the Sorcerer is more likely to make the sacrifice.
Don't forget that sunder does not have to destroy an object in Pathfinder. It can break the item so that it can be useless in the short term but repaired later on. The magic is only lost if it is destroyed, so merely breaking something is a good valid tactic for both DMs and PCs.