|
My point is that the ball can be swung too far in the are the are of Player entitlement. A key thing to remember is that Paizo's OWN PFS campaign and modules tend to follow a model a lot closer to what I've outlined than the MagicMart model.I'm basing my assertion that Pathfinder built on the traditions of D20 and D+D, and one of those is that PC's don't generally shop for their magic, but get the bulk of it through dungeon running and reward.
So your position is that things work in a way that you think they worked in an earlier edition of the game, despite JB going out of his way to write an awful lot of words in the core book to change the rules relating to those things?
I'm not sure in what world that would make any sense. I suppose you think he means that you're really supposed to use the 1E weapon vs. armor type hit charts and 2E kits systems, too? Except that'd be marginally more defensible than your position, because it doesn't specifically say in the rules that kits aren't how things work anymore.
I get it; you don't like the idea of players having a choice of what magic items they have. I'm not sure why you played 3E or 3.5E either, given that, honestly. But the way you would like the game to be has no bearing on what the rules as written actually are.
The rules here say that in a "large town" 2.001-5.000 habitants you can find:
- any magic item worth 2.000 gp or less 75% of the time;- 3d4 minor items, 2d4 medium, 1d4 major
- spellcasters willing to cast level 5 spells for you.
I could seriously disagree about that being my definition of a "large town" but those are the rules, and the rules support the magic shoppe in every city.
No actually the bracers get negated entirely, a move made specifically to stop such layering. relevant quote below:
If a creature receives a larger armor bonus from another source, the bracers of armor cease functioning and do not grant their armor bonus or their armor special abilities. If the bracers of armor grant a larger armor bonus, the other source of armor ceases functioning.
Nice catch, and definitely a change from 3.5. Bracers of Armor in 3.5 were actually useful to a warrior who could stack abilities on them he couldn't afford to put on his normal armor.
==Aelryinth
All to be undone that one day you don't get a chance to memorize your spells.Another point of fact on the cost benefit side:
Mage Armor is going to be the basic defense of a mage probably until level 15 or so.
Why? Because it's so damn pricey to increase the Armor bonus by +1!
Consider...Mage Armor, FREE, +4 Armor bonus.
Bracers of Armor +5, +1 More Armor...Cost is 25,000 gold for ONE POINT OF AC!
There is NO means of increasing your AC that costs more then going from Mage Armor to bracers. you are FAR FAR better off using that 25,000 gp to max out Dex, Nat Armor, Deflection, or buying an Ioun stone and upgrading it, or pretty much ANYTHING.
Only when you have a stupid amount of money and don't know what to do with it should you upgrade to Bracers. If you get Greater Mage Armor, you probably won't do anything to this until you're 17+.
==Aelryinth
The day that happens you probably aren't in possession of your bracers, either. And one feat or being a sorceror solves the problem, anyway.
==Aelryinth
Actually it makes a ton of sense. Otherwise you'd effectively could wear two pieces of +8 equivalent armor, one proviiding armor bonuses, another +7 worth of armor abilities while still remaining non-epic.
With the rest of your post, I agree %100. It makes no sense that the bracers shut down completely when in every other case of having two of the same bonus, they both function, but don't stack.
It's not considered a problem in 3.5 for one reason...you need to have the money to afford it. Having all the slots in the world open to function means squat without the money to afford it.
It does allow you to spend half the money you'd normally spend on armor, however. Bracers +1, heavy fortif = 36k. Armor +5, 25k. Armor +5 of Heavy Fort, 100k.
It's a cost saver if you have the spell slot free. A good thing for melees.
==Aelryinth
The day that happens you probably aren't in possession of your bracers, either. And one feat or being a sorceror solves the problem, anyway.
==Aelryinth
Actually, if its to the point where they aren't going to be in your possession, its very likely you won't be casting any spells.
In fact everyone is going to be looking at the monk at that moment, because he would be the only one really capable of doing anything as everyone is missing gear or incapable of casting spells.
One of the biggest things the argument that they are over powered is based off of, is the counter argument of mage armor being dispellable. The counter argument of course is "that doesn't happen a whole lot"
The reason it doesn't happen much is because the DM typically doesn't make it happen much. If the DM starts finding it a problem, you could be sure that at least with me as a DM, I'd be running more counter magic. You also won't be running 15 minute work days either.
Also
Bracers of Armor: These items appear to be wrist or arm
guards. They surround the wearer with an invisible but tangible
field of force, granting him an armor bonus of +1 to +8, just as
though he were wearing armor. Both bracers must be worn for the
magic to be effective.
This is the 3.5 bracers are of armor. Bracers of armor and fortification are actually a "homebrew" item due to the way enchanting wounderous items works.
The reason it doesn't happen much is because the DM typically doesn't make it happen much. If the DM starts finding it a problem, you could be sure that at least with me as a DM, I'd be running more counter magic. You also won't be running 15 minute work days either.The day that happens you probably aren't in possession of your bracers, either. And one feat or being a sorceror solves the problem, anyway.
==Aelryinth
The reason it doesn't happen much is because Dispel Magic has been nerfed majorly; it now only dispels a single effect, and the highest level one that is. At the time you encounter dispel magic on a frequent basis, you have three or for buffs up and those will be targeted first. Even greater dispel magic only has a minor chance to take it down.
EDIT: Oh, and also, while all parties that includes a caster includes a caster, only a minority of the encounters they have is going to include enemy casters capable of dispelling at all.
The reason it doesn't happen much is because the DM typically doesn't make it happen much. If the DM starts finding it a problem, you could be sure that at least with me as a DM, I'd be running more counter magic. You also won't be running 15 minute work days either.The day that happens you probably aren't in possession of your bracers, either. And one feat or being a sorceror solves the problem, anyway.
==Aelryinth
The reason it doesn't happen much is because Dispel Magic has been nerfed majorly; it now only dispels a single effect, and the highest level one that is. At the time you encounter dispel magic on a frequent basis, you have three or for buffs up and those will be targeted first. Even greater dispel magic only has a minor chance to take it down.
EDIT: Oh, and also, while all parties that includes a caster includes a caster, only a minority of the encounters they have is going to include enemy casters capable of dispelling at all.
You basically repeated what Aelryinth said.
Even if dispel has been nerfed, I think you forget you are the GM. Now in the organized play or if you just keep using modules to the letter, yes you are right.
But in most normal gameplay, The GM can do pretty much what he wants so long as it doesn't fully provoke the players. He can develop dispel magic into something more.. Specifically targeting magical effects.
Even if dispel has been nerfed, I think you forget you are the GM. Now in the organized play or if you just keep using modules to the letter, yes you are right.But in most normal gameplay, The GM can do pretty much what he wants so long as it doesn't fully provoke the players. He can develop dispel magic into something more.. Specifically targeting magical effects.
Well yeah, but saying something is a drawback because the DM can houserule it is kind of irrelevant... The DM can also say that Mage Armor only works on new years eve, doesn't matter at all when discussing the spell as is.
He can build and customize the encounters anyway he wishes.
What you are saying is basically that dr 10/silver is too good because you don't run into people who use silver weapons.
I'm saying that's because you aren't running around with dr 10/silver. It would be nearly pointless as a DM to have characters run around with exotic materials for grins and giggles.
Take for example my parties war wagon one time. Before this we never ran into anything trying to take our vehicles (because we weren't using any) but now that we had a vehicle the DM was now able to target it. Several encounters were there specifically in an attempt to part us with the wagons.
My point is that the ball can be swung too far in the are the are of Player entitlement. A key thing to remember is that Paizo's OWN PFS campaign and modules tend to follow a model a lot closer to what I've outlined than the MagicMart model.I'm basing my assertion that Pathfinder built on the traditions of D20 and D+D, and one of those is that PC's don't generally shop for their magic, but get the bulk of it through dungeon running and reward.
So your position is that things work in a way that you think they worked in an earlier edition of the game, despite JB going out of his way to write an awful lot of words in the core book to change the rules relating to those things?
I'm not sure in what world that would make any sense. I suppose you think he means that you're really supposed to use the 1E weapon vs. armor type hit charts and 2E kits systems, too? Except that'd be marginally more defensible than your position, because it doesn't specifically say in the rules that kits aren't how things work anymore.
I get it; you don't like the idea of players having a choice of what magic items they have. I'm not sure why you played 3E or 3.5E either, given that, honestly. But the way you would like the game to be has no bearing on what the rules as written actually are.
The rules here say that in a "large town" 2.001-5.000 habitants you can find:
- any magic item worth 2.000 gp or less 75% of the time;
- 3d4 minor items, 2d4 medium, 1d4 major
- spellcasters willing to cast level 5 spells for you.I could seriously disagree about that being my definition of a "large town" but those are the rules, and the rules support the magic shoppe in every city.
Minor Items/Medium Items/Major Items: This line lists the number of magic items above a settlement's base value that are available for purchase. In some city stat blocks, the actual items are listed in parentheses after the die range of items available—in this case, you can use these pre-rolled resources when the PCs first visit the city as the magic items available for sale on that visit. If the PCs return to that city at a later date, you can roll up new items as you see fit.
Yes, there will be a magic shop, but not a Magic Mart. The magic shop shop might not have that item of casting stat +2, but the Magic Mart will.
He can build and customize the encounters anyway he wishes.
What you are saying is basically that dr 10/silver is too good because you don't run into people who use silver weapons.
I'm saying that's because you aren't running around with dr 10/silver. It would be nearly pointless as a DM to have characters run around with exotic materials for grins and giggles.
Take for example my parties war wagon one time. Before this we never ran into anything trying to take our vehicles (because we weren't using any) but now that we had a vehicle the DM was now able to target it. Several encounters were there specifically in an attempt to part us with the wagons.
And exactly how would you create such a challenge for say a level 10 party, without house rules? Say that the user of the spell is a 10th level sorcerer that has two more buffs up (stoneskin and blur, for example; the exact spell is irrelevant). Say a hard fight, CR12. An example would do a lot to strengthen your argument. Ideally, it should be general enough that it can be used more than once, since a drawback that shows up only once a campaign isn't a big deal (unless it's a "this character dies" drawback).
EDIT: And this isn't comparing it to DR 10/silver, it's more like I think DR 5/magic and adamantine is basically DR 5/- on a CR 1 creature, because when you encounter CR 1 creatures and find them individually challenging, you don't have magic adamantine weapons. I'm not saying anything is "too good", I'm saying "can be dispelled" is a very minor drawback and that with the current rules, it's hard to dispel them unless using DM fiat or encounters that are vastly above average CR.
And exactly how would you create such a challenge for say a level 10 party, without house rules? Say that the user of the spell is a 10th level sorcerer that has two more buffs up (stoneskin and blur, for example; the exact spell is irrelevant). Say a hard fight, CR12. An example would do a lot to strengthen your argument. Ideally, it should be general enough that it can be used more than once, since a drawback that shows up only once a campaign isn't a big deal (unless it's a "this character dies" drawback).
Lets go through the very specifics here..
Dispel magic
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell
affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of
fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this
way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that
spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if
your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
Never had to houserule anything to specifically target mage armor to begin with.
This can also be easily followed up with counter spells, and disruptive fighters, thunderstone etc.
Mind you of course, I'm only right now capable of building the encounter with the spellcaster in mind, because thats the only thing that has been lightly developed and the thing I'm suppose to focus on.
I can also have a number of kobold alchemists running around blasting your party to hell and back again. At level 8 They would each be able to throw out 2 bombs.
Granted, this doesn't target specifically mage armor, but that wouldn't matter that much when you are hit with several bombs over the course of several turns.
But even then, I'm still able to "target" the spell. Pretty simply, I make sure that I can fairly easily get the check needed fail against the first 2 spells and hit mage armor specifically.
EDIT
It actually wouldn't be unreasonable for an 8th level alchemist to have dispelling bomb, smoke bomb, stink bomb, and fast bombs. He can even apply dispelling, fast and stink all on the same bomb(s).
Double Edit:
Even worse, is a band of kobolds. 2 alchemists, 1 bard, 1 gunslinger, an oracle, and a witch. Not that unreasonable for a group of kobolds, at least in my eye.
But in most normal gameplay, The GM can do pretty much what he wants so long as it doesn't fully provoke the players. He can develop dispel magic into something more.. Specifically targeting magical effects.
Look, I think it's pretty clear that we're discussing the rules as written here.
"But the DM can just ignore what the rules say and do something totally different", while technically true, is the ultimate useless argument in that context. You might as well say "It doesn't matter if your football team is better than my football team, I'll just get guys with AK-47s to shoot your guys."
But in most normal gameplay, The GM can do pretty much what he wants so long as it doesn't fully provoke the players. He can develop dispel magic into something more.. Specifically targeting magical effects.
Look, I think it's pretty clear that we're discussing the rules as written here.
"But the DM can just ignore what the rules say and do something totally different", while technically true, is the ultimate useless argument in that context. You might as well say "It doesn't matter if your football team is better than my football team, I'll just get guys with AK-47s to shoot your guys."
Rules as written..
Targeted Dispel: One object, creature, or spell is the target of
the dispel magic spell. You make one dispel check (1d20 + your
caster level) and compare that to the spell with highest caster level
(DC = 11 + the spell’s caster level). If successful, that spell ends.
If not, compare the same result to the spell with the next highest
caster level. Repeat this process until you have dispelled one spell
affecting the target, or you have failed to dispel every spell.
You can also use a targeted dispel to specifically end one spell
affecting the target or one spell affecting an area (such as a wall of
fire). You must name the specific spell effect to be targeted in this
way. If your caster level check is equal to or higher than the DC of that spell, it ends. No other spells or effects on the target are dispelled if your check is not high enough to end the targeted effect.
In otherwords, with the first part of dispel magic - Its about figuring out the sweet spot. This is how a DM can target a spell effect without actually targeting it, all within the RAW.
Basically instead of trying to make the character be the "ultimate dispelling character" you make sure to hit lower effective spells. Hence the sweet spot.
However the second part is also part of dispel magic, but not dispelling bomb. (use the first trick with dispelling bomb) This allows you to specifically target mage armor.
EDIT
On further review, why do you think that stone skin is above mage armor if they are both cast by the same person? wouldn't the caster level be the same either way?
However the second part is also part of dispel magic, but not dispelling bomb. (use the first trick with dispelling bomb) This allows you to specifically target mage armor.
Now you've traded a combat round and a 3rd level spell for a precast 1st level spell -- one that may not even be relevant in the current fight. If you're using anything remotely close to correctly CR'd encounters, that's about the world's worst trade.
Now you've traded a combat round and a 3rd level spell for a precast 1st level spell -- one that may not even be relevant in the current fight. If you're using anything remotely close to correctly CR'd encounters, that's about the world's worst trade.
However the second part is also part of dispel magic, but not dispelling bomb. (use the first trick with dispelling bomb) This allows you to specifically target mage armor.
If the "precast" 1st level spell isn't relevant in the current fight, then the issue of it being OP is moot.
Furthermore you assume the spell is pre-cast.
That would be me assuming that I've ambushed the party before they had the ability to cast.
Edit:
And even more, you are also looking at the combat as a vacum. If I have dispelled it, I just took that spell slot from them for the rest of the day. By also preventing the players from taking 15 second workdays, you make it even worse for them.
So they do multiple slots for mage armor. That means they lose multiple first level slots to keep mage armor up.
There is quite a bit you can work at while still keeping within RAW and appropriate CR.
Actually it makes a ton of sense. Otherwise you'd effectively could wear two pieces of +8 equivalent armor, one proviiding armor bonuses, another +7 worth of armor abilities while still remaining non-epic.
With the rest of your post, I agree %100. It makes no sense that the bracers shut down completely when in every other case of having two of the same bonus, they both function, but don't stack.
Yeah, I realized that several days ago. There's another post a little further down the page. It's a big thread though, I'm not surprised you missed it.
Aevux: DM already answered you. I've never claim MA was overpowered, I said Dispel isn't really a noticeable drawback because by the time you encounter stuff that can dispel reliably, it's a waste of time. I've stated time and again that I don't think MA is overpowered in this thread.
See... my thing is, mage armor gives a +4 AC, gma gives a +6, that's only a bonus of .5/level from when you get mage armor to when you get gma. That seems horribly underpowered for a third level spell, and it might save you What, 6 damage, in your example above?Now lets take a look at damage spells.
First level you can take burning hands. The closest spell to that at third level is fireball. Burning hands is 1d4/level, fireball is 1d6/level, so you're gaining 1d2/level with fireball. It also is 360 degrees and has a long range, compared to a 15' arc in front of you with burning hands. Fireball will also be harder to save against by two points.
If I had a choice between the two spells, something that only gives me +2 AC over what I could get with a level 1 spell would lose out on a spell That gave me range, aoe, harder DC, and 1d2/level more damage over what I could have done with a level 1 spell.
Bonuses to AC and the like are percentual, and while attack bonuses increase exponentially, it's not until really high levels that they don't matter anymore (as I showed here). Meanwhile, HP inflations really IS exponential as higher CR enemies both have higher HD and higher Con, usually. +2 AC, until high levels, always mean the opponents has two more failures on 20 attacks (though the difference between 3 hits and one surely is larger than the difference between 18 hits and 16).
Meanwhile, hit points increase so rapidly that 1d6 damage/level becomes only a minor scratch really fast - see the example above where that kind of damage only had a one in EIGHT THOUSAND chance to actually drop the enemy. Meanwhile, a good hit from the fighter could drop it, and a critical surely would - those happen about 10% of the time. While the wizard does 5d6 17.5 average, the fighter does, if he's gotten a bull's strength as a prebuff, 2d6+9 (str) + 6 (PA) + 1 (magic) + 1 (Weap Train) +2 (weap spec) = 2d6+19 = 26 average damage per hit, and most attacks will be hits, with a decent chance of critting for 4d6+38 damage which is basically a decapitation.
Yes, the difference between a fireball and burning hands would be greater than between mage armor and GMA - that's because burning hands normally is a really crappy spell (as in really, really crappy against anything but swarms) and mage armor is a really good spell for it's level. Meanwhile, GMA would be a good spell and fireball is a good spell under the right circumstances.
And sorry to be nitpicky, but you don't get 1d2 higher damage. 1d2 = 1.5, d4 to d6 = 1 on an average. You get 1d1, or rather 1d3-1 with no minimum extra.
Also, it's the matter that the fireball won't really matter. Yes, during one combat it will soften up the bad guys to make it easier for the fighters, but if you wanted offense you'd be far better of taking Haste, Heroism, or any other number of buffs (or debuffs like slow).
Fireball is good when you've got about 15 CR 1 monsters in a cramped space. It happens, but not often. +2 AC is useful, since even if attacks against you are rarer than attacks against the fighters, they're more common than an army of orcs in most games, and also, when it matters it's usually the difference between life and death.
EDIT: Oh, and in the example above, note that MA would mean a damage of 30.24 and GMA of 24.4 - so that +2 would reduce the damage by about 20%. 20% is a lot of damage in the long run. Another +2, if GMA would provide +8 to AC, would reduce the damage to 20.16, basically removing a third of the damage a wizard with regular MA would take.
I'm just about to start playing a witch, and since there seems to be no armor penalty to hexing, I may well have the witch wearing armor too. I haven't decided yet.
Thats exactly what I have just done.
10-15% fail isnt really that much of an issue, and the armour doesn't affect much. Masterwork studded means no ACP's. A suit of standard leather is 10gp for the same amount of armour as your several thousand gold bracers... pfft its a no brainer.
As you say, doesn't bother the hexes, so why WOULDN'T you do it? :p
If the "precast" 1st level spell isn't relevant in the current fight, then the issue of it being OP is moot.
You're assuming anyone was taking the guy who said it was OP seriously. I think that's a faulty assumption.
Furthermore you assume the spell is pre-cast.That would be me assuming that I've ambushed the party before they had the ability to cast.
Uh, no.
It lasts an hour per level.
If it was a minute per level spell you would have a point.
There is quite a bit you can work at while still keeping within RAW and appropriate CR.
Pick a level and break it down for me, and I'll point out where you're wrong. You are, but the devil is in the details.
I'll agree, my initial assumption that people were actually thinking it was overpowered is infact wrong.
However.. even if it does last an hour a level, You know what doesn't? Other spells. It also doesn't matter, unless your guy wakes up in the morning still covered in mage armor, and casts it again just before it drops.
So a group of level 10 adventures meet my group of level 8 kobolds.
2 kobolds are alchemists, 1 is an oracle, 1 is a bard, 1 is a rogue and the last one is a calvalier.
Now I may be wrong here, but does that not set the CR right there? So even if the kobolds start flying from chandeliers and the whole building they meet in suddenly ignites, and the Fonz shows up just to say heeey, and my players roll ones.. the CR is determined by the kobolds.
The CR system isn't broken, per-se, it just seems to be aimed at the lowest common denominator player. Good players tear through CR appropriate content like it was tissue paper.
I don't bother with it in home games as my players would be bored fast.
This is the 3.5 bracers are of armor. Bracers of armor and fortification are actually a "homebrew" item due to the way enchanting wounderous items works.
You are incorrect.
Arms and Equipment Guide specifically allowed 'other' armor abilities to be put into bracers.
And Pathfinder Bracer description SPECIFICALLY allows for 'other' armor abilities into Bracers as well. There's nothing Homebrew about it.
==Aelryinth
This is the 3.5 bracers are of armor. Bracers of armor and fortification are actually a "homebrew" item due to the way enchanting wounderous items works.
You are incorrect.
Arms and Equipment Guide specifically allowed 'other' armor abilities to be put into bracers.
And Pathfinder Bracer description SPECIFICALLY allows for 'other' armor abilities into Bracers as well. There's nothing Homebrew about it.
==Aelryinth
Arms and equipment was 3.0.
And this was 3.5 comment, when WoTC worked to stop stacking of things. Pathfinder however set it back.
|
|
Yes, there will be a magic shop, but not a Magic Mart. The magic shop shop might not have that item of casting stat +2, but the Magic Mart will.
In a 5.000 habitants city magic mart is limited to 2.000 gp -75% chance of having now any item of that value or lower plus several specific items rolled by the DM, if not available, retry next week.
To get the "item of casting stat +2" reliably (75% chance each week) you need to go to a slightly larger Magic Mart in a sligthly larger city:
a 5.001-10.000 small city has a base value of 4.000.
To get the "item of casting stat +4" reliably you need the Magic Mart of a metropolis (25.001+ habitants). 16.000 gp purchase limit.
If that is not Magic Mart, the store where you get the cheap magic items, I don't know what you mean by magic mart.
You have never gone to a Wall mart or equivalent to find that the item you wanted was currently missing but "Will be restocked next week"?
This is the 3.5 bracers are of armor. Bracers of armor and fortification are actually a "homebrew" item due to the way enchanting wounderous items works.
You are incorrect.
Arms and Equipment Guide specifically allowed 'other' armor abilities to be put into bracers.
And Pathfinder Bracer description SPECIFICALLY allows for 'other' armor abilities into Bracers as well. There's nothing Homebrew about it.
==Aelryinth
Arms and equipment was 3.0.
And this was 3.5 comment, when WoTC worked to stop stacking of things. Pathfinder however set it back.
A&E was the last 3.0 book made before 3.5, and was actually published mostly to accord with the revisions. Also, the bracer rules were never ruled OUT...and all 3.0 material is usable unless specifically revised.
I personally thought it great. It made the Bracer slot useful for melees, because otherwise the only thing there was Bracers of Archery.
==Aelryinth
Mage Armor =
Is a spell, that you or your caster has to re-cast on you each day.
It lasts 1 hour per level.
At low levels, your caster will lack the spell slots to cast on everyone, and will not last the whole duration.
Until, 9th level or above, you will not have the spell on you when you sleep at night.
Bracer of Armor =
As a magic item, is on all the time. Does not need to be re-cast.
24 hour duration.
At low levels, you will not likely have the item.
Is treated as armor, but no penalized for dex, arcane casting, etc.
Anyone is able to use (depending on dm).
..........................
Responding to earlier post.
Depending on your DM.
Page 57 phb "Monk" = "...He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load."
I was just pointing out that i have had different DM, rule on this in different ways.
Some look as Bracer of Armor as magic jewelery, and monk can use. (As DM, i fall into this Category).
I have had some DM, rule that Bracer of Armor is magic armor, and have ruled that monks can not use.
Best to ask your DM first, before starting to play a monk.
.........................
Depending on your DM.
Page 49, phb "Druid" = "...Druids are proficient with light and medium armor, but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor."
Again i have had different DM, rule that Bracer of Armor, is magic jewelery while other rule that it is magic armor.
Some have ruled, that if the bracer of armor, if made of metal, violates the druid armor restriction. Although they have also said that you could make your own or buy your own, made out of leather, with the same effect. (mainly Hardness, and hp difference between the two).
Again, best to ask your DM first, before putting on metal bracer of armor if your a druid.
(again as DM, i fall in the, druids can use category), but can understand the argument either way.
So a group of level 10 adventures meet my group of level 8 kobolds.
2 kobolds are alchemists, 1 is an oracle, 1 is a bard, 1 is a rogue and the last one is a calvalier.
Now I may be wrong here, but does that not set the CR right there? So even if the kobolds start flying from chandeliers and the whole building they meet in suddenly ignites, and the Fonz shows up just to say heeey, and my players roll ones.. the CR is determined by the kobolds.
Well, if the environment is advantageous to the kobolds, that does bump the CR up.
Your 6 level 8 kobolds is something like a CR 12 encounter, considered 'Hard' for level 10 PCs. You wouldn't be expected to throw more than a few of those in a day without a TPK -- so it's not exactly a "let's throw a weak encounter at the PCs to bleed some resources" encounter as far as the CR system is concerned.
So a group of level 10 adventures meet my group of level 8 kobolds.
2 kobolds are alchemists, 1 is an oracle, 1 is a bard, 1 is a rogue and the last one is a calvalier.
Now I may be wrong here, but does that not set the CR right there? So even if the kobolds start flying from chandeliers and the whole building they meet in suddenly ignites, and the Fonz shows up just to say heeey, and my players roll ones.. the CR is determined by the kobolds.
Well, if the environment is advantageous to the kobolds, that does bump the CR up.
Your 6 level 8 kobolds is something like a CR 12 encounter, considered 'Hard' for level 10 PCs. You wouldn't be expected to throw more than a few of those in a day without a TPK -- so it's not exactly a "let's throw a weak encounter at the PCs to bleed some resources" encounter as far as the CR system is concerned.
So what you are saying is that in order to be completely raw, I've got to put in like 3 level 5 commoners for the party to fight to be so totally not hard.
I also have to calculate in the fact the party has a pyromaniac in the group who set the building on fire in the first place. Or otherwise the more stupid stuff my players do, the greater the CR of the "challange".. sounds like a great trick to get more exp.