| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was reading THIS thread and started thinking laterally and ended up turning one conversation into another idea entirely.
I mixed my expectations of how one of my players would rant, combined it with this, and it went like:
Player: "Any DM who steals or destroys a wizard's spellbook is being a total Richard."
DM: "Think of the guy who chooses Spell Mastery, or spends real resources on protecting against spellbook loss or damage. If one wizard does these, shouldn't you (as DM) validate them?
What about a party where one does protect, and one doesn't? Wouldn't a DM be unjust to the Wizard who protects his spellbook, by never having such attempts?"
So I came to a conclusion - Tough Love is the answer.
I say that a DM's job includes many things, and one of those things is to exploit character weaknesses in the campaign. Not by meta, and not with the intention of screwing over PCs, but as a way to acknowledge the features of the character - weaknesses and strengths, and to reward those who guard against their weaknesses.
Thoughts? Disagreements? Issues with the details of such thinking?
I was reading THIS thread and started thinking laterally and ended up turning one conversation into another idea entirely.
I mixed my expectations of how one of my players would rant, combined it with this, and it went like:Player: "Any DM who steals or destroys a wizard's spellbook is being a total Richard."
DM: "Think of the guy who chooses Spell Mastery, or spends real resources on protecting against spellbook loss or damage. If one wizard does these, shouldn't you (as DM) validate them?
What about a party where one does protect, and one doesn't? Wouldn't a DM be unjust to the Wizard who protects his spellbook, by never having such attempts?"So I came to a conclusion - Tough Love is the answer.
I say that a DM's job includes many things, and one of those things is to exploit character weaknesses in the campaign. Not by meta, and not with the intention of screwing over PCs, but as a way to acknowledge the features of the character - weaknesses and strengths, and to reward those who guard against their weaknesses.
Thoughts? Disagreements? Issues with the details of such thinking?
It really depends on the specifics on the situation, but generally speaking I agree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've said many times that the key to balancing the RAW is to make certain that everything happens some of the time.
Sometimes, there are marathon encounters and the wizard actually runs out of spells.
Sometimes, the wizard should have the edge, scry and die should work, and they get out scot-free.
Sometimes, the wizard should lose his spellbook.
Sometimes, the door/chest is trapped.
If any one of these things happens every time, that's not fun. But the nature of spotlight-management in the party means that sometimes, somebody has to take a hit so the others can shine.
As long as you change things up frequently, this is the best way to go.
I agree for the most part but remember this is a roleplaying game. Not a party vs overlord game like dark descent.
I've said many times that the key to balancing the RAW is to make certain that everything happens some of the time.
Sometimes, there are marathon encounters and the wizard actually runs out of spells.
Sometimes, the wizard should have the edge, scry and die should work, and they get out scot-free.
Sometimes, the wizard should lose his spellbook.
Sometimes, the door/chest is trapped.
If any one of these things happens every time, that's not fun. But the nature of spotlight-management in the party means that sometimes, somebody has to take a hit so the others can shine.
As long as you change things up frequently, this is the best way to go.
I you should not do it all the time. I also have one weakness that will probably piss summoners off the assume control spell on their eidolon or Egorian academy infernal binder to take control of their eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to agree that this is a complicated situation.
The way I see it, if a player hasn't made any overt in-game effort to protect his character's spellbook, there's no reason to attack it. Unless you're the sort of DM who has bad guys constantly watching the PCs, and unless you're willing to have periodic theft of clerics' holy symbols and fighters' weapons, this is a class-specific screwjob in the works. Unless your rogue gets his thieves' tools pick-pocketed from time to time, or your sorcerer's staff of access to twice the number of good spells (ie. any) keeps getting stolen while he sleeps, or your bard's musical instruments turn up smashed every morning, your talking about a class-specific screwjob.
That said, if your players do make efforts, your job is to make those efforts worthwhile. Not necessarily by defeating them, but by challenging them.
If I have a party without Trapfinding, I have a game without traps (mostly). If I have a party without a divine caster, I won't throw a bunch of situations that need divine casting. If nobody picks up fly, I won't make many situations that demand it. On the other hand, if a player maxes out Acrobatics, I'll try to give him plenty of opportunities to tumble or balance.
Our job as DM is to enable our players' characters to do what the players want them to do. The magic is to make it not look like success is a given.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think a better way of thinking of it (as opposed to "exploiting" weaknesses) is to make sure there's variety.
For instance, if the PCs can blunder from combat to combat with no real noncombat challenges/tasks, and those combats are in turn just melee slugfests over and over and over again, then PCs with high AC and/or DPR are going to constantly shine while everyone else gets overshadowed. Similarly, everyone who invested resources into defending against other things has those resources wasted.
Conversely, if the campaign contains a wide array of challenges and opportunities, then different PCs will have different moments of glory/shame/drama/etc.
I don't think that a GM should (as the word "exploit" would suggest) research what each PC's weaknesses are and find ways to involve them - that would feel just as artificial as if every challenge played to your strengths, only worse. Having a varied set of challenges will cover enough of the variation between PCs to give them each their turns in good and bad situations, but it's okay if some minor stuff gets missed.
If I invest in disarming and never fight a humanoid (or every single humanoid has a locked gauntlet), I'm going to be upset. But if I put some ranks into Linguistics to pick up a bunch of languages just in case, and only some of them ever come up, I shouldn't be upset.
If I totally neglect my will saves and have a +4 at 10th level, I should be getting dominated every now and then. But if I forget to include cold iron in my golf bag of weapons, going out of your way to throw in something with DR 999/cold iron just to exploit that fact would be unnecessary.
TLDR: Variety will take care of most of it, but it's okay if some minor stuff gets skipped.
I agree for the most part but remember this is a roleplaying game. Not a party vs overlord game like dark descent.
Sure, whatever assaults on the various character weaknesses are implemented need to be made by foes whose knowledge of those weaknesses is justifiable in-character knowledge.
That said, by the very nature of some foes, they will have resources the players are 100% unaware of, or will be in a position to realize something about PC(s) that doesn't seem like it should be immediately apparent.
Essentially what I'm trying to say is that, yes, the GM should exploit character weaknesses, provided that such exploitation is in-character for the in-game vehicle the GM uses to execute the exploiting.
For example, an INT 2 panther shouldn't go for the Wizard's spell component pouch (unless specifically trained to do so on command), but an INT 10 Rogue with some background exposure to wizards and how they cast spells (i.e. common knowledge for that character, therefore a DC 10 Knowledge (Arcana) check, which can be made untrained) should be able to decide to take the Spell Component pouch (or Handle Animal to get his pet panther to do so).
Regarding Spellbooks specifically, I think that it depends on the nature of the foes that the Wizard faces - if there's a recurring villain who will take off-camera time to research the PCs, I'd be upset if an attempt to steal/destroy the spellbook was *not* made at some point. If the PCs are traipsing from one site-based dungeon crawl to the next with no interconnectivity, then it's less reasonable, unless they're faced with an opponent who is skilled with Knowledge (Arcana) and perhaps has a penchant for collecting spellbooks (random encounter with something having Wizard class levels anyone?)...
What the GM actually does to exploit specific, individual weaknesses is very situational, but I do think that consideration of the weaknesses possessed by the PCs, and how any particular opponent would know of, or find out about, those weaknesses (for exploitation purposes) is part of the GM's job at all times.
I'm going to agree that this is a complicated situation.
The way I see it, if a player hasn't made any overt in-game effort to protect his character's spellbook, there's no reason to attack it. Unless you're the sort of DM who has bad guys constantly watching the PCs, and unless you're willing to have periodic theft of clerics' holy symbols and fighters' weapons, this is a class-specific screwjob in the works. Unless your rogue gets his thieves' tools pick-pocketed from time to time, or your sorcerer's staff of access to twice the number of good spells (ie. any) keeps getting stolen while he sleeps, or your bard's musical instruments turn up smashed every morning, your talking about a class-specific screwjob.
That said, if your players do make efforts, your job is to make those efforts worthwhile. Not necessarily by defeating them, but by challenging them.
If I have a party without Trapfinding, I have a game without traps (mostly). If I have a party without a divine caster, I won't throw a bunch of situations that need divine casting. If nobody picks up fly, I won't make many situations that demand it. On the other hand, if a player maxes out Acrobatics, I'll try to give him plenty of opportunities to tumble or balance.
Our job as DM is to enable our players' characters to do what the players want them to do. The magic is to make it not look like success is a given.
Yes, but isn't it also the job of a GM to provide challenging obstacles in the way of the accomplishment of the players' goals?
Also, I would hope that a carelessly attended weapon, holy symbol, musical instrument, spellbook, lockpicks, etc. would each see roughly equal treatment in terms of being taken/destroyed/boobytrapped/etc.
Certainly if a fighter is wielding a Silver Longsword, the Werewolf (after getting struck once or twice perhaps) might try to sunder it rather than just attacking the fighter. I'm not saying that providing adventure that avoids gaping holes in party capability is bad or wrong, but it also seems to lack verisimilitude - the Heroes conveniently possess exactly the right skills and abilities to tackle obstacles they encounter, and never have to turn back to get something to deal with an impediment they can't circumvent? Individually, each encounter seems reasonable. As a group, it starts to seem less so to me...
I find that it the best thing isn't sundering their stuff, or killing them in their sleep, but rather threatening to do these things.
In other words, if you just destroy the spell book or whatever, the players are going to feel slighted and like victims of a vengeful and cruel GM. If you make it clear that their spell book is in danger, then it is up to them to influence the outcome.
Funny, I was just talking about this with a friend the other day...
I think it's a valid gesture, but if poorly executed really can come off like the GM is specifically trying to screw the wizard character. All characters can have scenarios where they are or perceive themselves to be ineffective- they're good roleplay opportunities and when the obstacle is finally overcome it can be very satisfying for all involved.
The wizard should still have some capability. Whether that's use of magical items or just recycling whatever spells memorized when it went missing (without the ability to switch out spells), the character should have more to do than twiddle their thumbs and curse until the spellbook is found or replaced. I also feel it's critical that there be the possibility of recovering the spellbook, subject to player actions. I would not, for example, destroy a spellbook immediately. In a similar vein, the wizard should have lost the book through their own carelessness in protecting it rather than have it taken just because the GM for whatever reason wants the spellbook to be missing.
A spellbook isn't exactly like stealing a fighter's axe. The fighter can use another axe in the interim or more easily replace it in the longterm, even if there are similar roleplay implications for a character losing their favorite weapon, particularly if it is sentimental to them. The spellbook on the other hand represents potentially a huge investment of time, gold, and other resources obtaining and copying spells, in a way a weapon customarily does not. Not to mention it disables the character in a way the loss of a weapon does not, due to it being more easily replaceable.
I like doing this in a passive sort of way and agree that to a certain extent it is necessary.
Example: I happen to have a fight with three monsters and one of their special abilities happens to target fort. Coincidentally there is a Gunslinger 1/Rogue 5 in the party who just happened to roll a 7 for his con and then used his ability point increase to make it an 8. After all modifiers, base saves, and traits he ends up with a +1. Should the rogue or other party member make the appropriate knowledge planes check (which was missed by 1)they will know that the rogue should not draw attention from that monster. Well since they failed he wins initiative, shoots it (for about 25) and a few rounds later is unconscious due to numerous fort saves.
To me it is about putting your players in a situation where it is possible for their weaknesses to be exploited and not just blatantly forcing checks. Force them to think before they act or just suffer because of an unlucky die roll.
Another thought occurs to me...
While the Wizard played by a person who specifically addresses how the Wizard's spellbook is protected is explicitly taking precautions (and spending the appropriate gp), there's something to be said for the notion that not everything the character does needs to be identified and can be implied by virtue of familiarity and common sense of the character.
In exactly none of my games have my players specified when or how they go to the bathroom, for example, or how they go about eating a meal, or make any special note about sheathing or securing their weapons. In my games, it's assumed that they do these things - relieve themselves, display proper table manners (for the situation - table manners in the common room of a dwarven inn are not the same as table manners at the elven court), take care of their weapons, etc - as a matter of course unless something is explicitly called out as different (the oafish fighter specifically mentions his rough table manners while dining at the elven court, the sorcerer makes a special note that he has no sheath for his dagger, etc.). Actions appropriate for the characters can be implied by their skill set and the fact that they have had training and/or experience.
If one is running a game with these kinds of conventions, it seems entirely reasonable to assume that all wizards, by and large, are just as careful with their spellbooks as rogues are with lockpicks and fighters are with weaponry. If a wizard hasn't mentioned anything exceptional, I usually do assume that he's keeping his spellbook in his backpack, protected, hard to get at, etc. just not with any special measures above what's included in the standard cost of a spellbook.
I was reading THIS thread and started thinking laterally and ended up turning one conversation into another idea entirely.
I mixed my expectations of how one of my players would rant, combined it with this, and it went like:Player: "Any DM who steals or destroys a wizard's spellbook is being a total Richard."
DM: "Think of the guy who chooses Spell Mastery, or spends real resources on protecting against spellbook loss or damage. If one wizard does these, shouldn't you (as DM) validate them?
What about a party where one does protect, and one doesn't? Wouldn't a DM be unjust to the Wizard who protects his spellbook, by never having such attempts?"So I came to a conclusion - Tough Love is the answer.
I say that a DM's job includes many things, and one of those things is to exploit character weaknesses in the campaign. Not by meta, and not with the intention of screwing over PCs, but as a way to acknowledge the features of the character - weaknesses and strengths, and to reward those who guard against their weaknesses.
Thoughts? Disagreements? Issues with the details of such thinking?
I'm the one who said that and I stand by my opinion. Going after a wizard's spellbook is a unique kind of screwing over a character. A wizard without it is useless, and has to expend large amounts of gold and time to replace it. I would not stay in a game if I felt my DM was trying to screw me. (Well, I did once. And it lead to me getting 2 levels ahead of everyone because he kept trying to kill me. Then him sleeping with my GF and me never talking to either of them again. As much as the second part isn't likely to be reeated, the first part wasn't fun.)
I avoid this problem by telling anyone who's playing a wizard ahead of time that his spellbook isn't a valid target. That way he doesn't waste precious feats on abilities I won't make him use.
It seems to me like a lot of DMs that post on these boards run their games in a very adversarial fashion: It's Players VS the DM. From that point of view then, yeah, teach that wizard who doesn't protect his spell book a lesson!
When I run I'm much more interested in creating a good narrative. I see RPing as a joint effort between players and DM to create a fun, engaging story. So with that in mind, I would let the story determine if and when it's appropriate to deny a caster his spellbook. (I once desiccated a fighter's shield arm for several sessions. He suffered a bit, but in the end it turned out his arm was the only thing that could reach into the vat of untouchable acid to retrieve the dingus of power, so it made for good story)
With that in mind, in the two-caster situation, I say don't mess with the player's book who doesn't protect it. Go after the one who does. But make it look random. And fail. That way, the player who protects his book will feel good about his precautions, you'll put the fear of god in the one who doesn't. (and then if the story calls for you to take one of their books later, you've already foreshadowed that possibility)
+1. i like you. Can I play in your game? :P
things
I agree and disagree.
Where I disagree is in that I see biased selection of "tough love", only applied to the people who are prepared for it. I find that to be distasteful and a little too convenient for the players. There's a happy medium between Fisher Price and an adversarial approach, and the trick is in finding it.By Fisher Price, I mean that caution becomes optional, which means that the people who did show caution also wasted their time and energy on unnecessary things. The cautious fellow could have instead had whatever extra benefits the reckless comrade got instead. With that, why bother with any caution at all? May as well rest in the assassin's den or take other silly risks.
I know, I know... it's a matter of degree. But it's a policy which cries out to be pushed, and is also prone to favoritism. To me, it's better to create scenarios in which some weaknesses and strengths all get the limelight, for everyone. It's part of the "heroic learning experience" to suffer from oversights, and then learn and improve upon it. The key part of the narrative here is to then highlight the growth and improvement shown by the characters by trying to "get em again" and being thwarted.
I already posted my thoughts as a GM.
As a player, though, I recall that one of the best games I've ever been a part of involved losing my spellbooks for an entire session.
If a GM was obviously taking it away to be petty or to attempt balance, that would be quite unwelcome. But in a simple prisoner scenario, it's completely legitimate. Every bit as much as taking away the martial PC's weapons and armor.
I'm the one who said that and I stand by my opinion. Going after a wizard's spellbook is a unique kind of screwing over a character. A wizard without it is useless, and has to expend large amounts of gold and time to replace it. I would not stay in a game if I felt my DM was trying to screw me.
I already posted my thoughts as a GM.
As a player, though, I recall that one of the best games I've ever been a part of involved losing my spellbooks for an entire session.
If a GM was obviously taking it away to be petty or to attempt balance, that would be quite unwelcome. But in a simple prisoner scenario, it's completely legitimate. Every bit as much as taking away the martial PC's weapons and armor.
On the whole, I tend to agree with my favorite villainous president on this subject. Not that I'm saying that all GMs are fair and that none of them ever try to screw with their players - GMs are people too, with flaws and failings and whatnot. I think that the key here is to differentiate between "the GM screwing with me" and "the GM taking away my spellbook(s)" - as Evil Lincoln points out, they're not always the same.
To be sure, if I was planning a campaign twist that involved the actual destruction of a PC Wizard's spellbook, I'd be very careful to ensure that the impending destruction was foreshadowed more blatantly than Smaug in The Hobbit (giving the Wizard ample time to take appropriate precautions), or that there was another resource the Wizard could use to replace his book that he would be certain to encounter shortly after his spellbook was destroyed (and also probably that other significant equipment from the party's arsenal was similarly destroyed). (Naturally, I'd want to try to foreshadow or outright warn the players ahead of time of the possibility of such an event.)
"Tough love" is a term that denotes meting out harsh punishment to instill a lesson. I'm not running a game to teach my players to play the way I want them to, or the way I think they should. That's the adversarial method. And if it works for you, and your players enjoy it, more power to you. It's just not my style.
If I'm not mistaken, "Tough Love" can also refer to the choice to not prevent an event that the object of one's affections has prepared themselves for poorly. In that sense, since the GM is the person responsible for making the choices for how the NPCs (including those that oppose the PCs) behave, the GM can choose to prevent an action that makes sense for a particular NPC to do (steal/destroy a spellbook) or can choose not to prevent that NPC action. Provided that the action makes sense for the NPC, the GM is not punishing the player or the character for a "bad" decision, the GM is only faithfully adhering to the persona of the NPC and the mechanical description of that NPC's abilities.
In general, as a GM, I don't view myself as an adversary to the players and the PCs. On the other hand I am called upon, in my role as the "player" for all NPCs, to embody and direct the actions of NPCs who are adversaries to the PCs. If I am to undertake this direction and embodiment properly, I must consider strategies and options of a nature that is adversarial to the PCs.
stuff. Like, just now. Up there.
Sure, it's all about context. I'm talking about taking it because you can, or just because they didn't spend resources to protect it, or just because you want to teach them a lesson, or for any other petty reason like that. If there's a story coming from it, go for it, but that's a different thing.
stuff. Like, just now. Up there.Sure, it's all about context. I'm talking about taking it because you can, or just because they didn't spend resources to protect it, or just because you want to teach them a lesson, or for any other petty reason like that. If there's a story coming from it, go for it, but that's a different thing.
^_^ I figured, but I wasn't sure, since on my first reading, you appeared to be making a unilateral remark condemning GMs who messed with spellbooks. ;D
I agree, "just because it's there (and I can)" is an equally insufficient reason to climb mountains, steal diamonds, eat ice cream, and mess with spellbooks, as well as a mess of other stuff.
|
Player: "Any DM who steals or destroys a wizard's spellbook is being a total Richard."
DM: "Think of the guy who chooses Spell Mastery, or spends real resources on protecting against spellbook loss or damage. If one wizard does these, shouldn't you (as DM) validate them?
What about a party where one does protect, and one doesn't? Wouldn't a DM be unjust to the Wizard who protects his spellbook, by never having such attempts?"
Sometimes players make stupid decisions. Our mage kept his books on him in a haversack when he went everywhere. No back up book, no travel book. He eventually got captured, his haversack partially digested by a beholder. Eventually he had to pay to have the haversack recovered after alot of time doing without, being lent an apprentice one, being allowed sometimes to memorize from an ally of the party.
It all comes down to how bone head the player is. SOmetimes they dont make the best choices and you cant coddle them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to agree that this is a complicated situation.
The way I see it, if a player hasn't made any overt in-game effort to protect his character's spellbook, there's no reason to attack it.
Our job as DM is to enable our players' characters to do what the players want them to do. The magic is to make it not look like success is a given.
For somebody named "Anguish" you're really nice to your players. ;)
Sort of reminds of the "Twilight Zone" episode with the gangster in heaven, but it was not... :OIt also reminds of a football scrimmage where the backup coach had us 2nd string defense use 'pass defense' vs. runs and 'run defense' vs. pass plays. !?!? We're already 2nd string, how does this help the 1st string players improve?
In the same vein, the PCs are first string (they're supposed to win), and catering to their strengths to make the win easier doesn't aid the players.
Players/PCs should be faced with tough story-driven opponents. You shouldn't make a lycanthrope villain (LV) because you're party has/doesn't have silver, you should make it because you have a cool concept that can be suited for their level, and they haven't had that type of villain yet. And then give it a rich adventure with:
Dynamic places (not just flat ones because the PCs don't have Jump/Fly)
Protected treasure (not unlocked/untrapped because they don't have a Rogue, but locked because the LV takes precautions, untrapped because he tracks really well)
Neat baddies (CR chosen by party level, but type chosen by the LV's $/theme/intelligence/contacts or to face PCs with new type of threat they haven't had (which may or may not target strengths/weaknesses.))
Casters who might target any save. (Because they earned their levels.
A mix of monsters for their CR (Because they'll be moving on from this CR soon, and it'd be a shame if they didn't get to face a Troll/Otyough/Frost Giant/Black Pudding etc., whether or not they had appropriate readiness for it.)
And all the other 'normal' things that a D&D player should be able to face. I think a person playing a 13th level PC should have a commensurate amount of play under his/her belt, 'be a 13th level player' whatever that means.
(Ooh, want to map out 'classes' right now.)
Targeting PC's weaknesses doesn't help players practice PC strengths either, but it does help the player develop other talents.
Stolen/paraphrased from another post:
"Why are you still fighting that animated chair?" "I can barely hurt it." "Then throw it in the closet and let's get going." "Oh, yeah, no hands, no Int..."
Piss off the horde of Orcs, they'll try to return with a bigger horde.
Thugs? Get more thugs, maybe ambush or intimidate. Beasts? Need rest. Food! Where food?
But, piss off the sophisticated international thieves guild, they'll face you like thieves who have LOTS of allies. Guard your gear, protect your family, and take the battle to them before they take the battle to you or frame you for a crime or...steal your spellbook. Because, you know, they steal, and you, an experienced player by the time you face such a multi-faceted opponent, should know that.
And by the time you steal the artifact from the ancient spellcasting dragon? Get ready for scry-and-die revenge. Because they can do that. It's not DM fiat or cruelty, the dragon just can.
I feel there's a normal progression for play. This is why I prefer starting players at 1st level because they need to learn the PC/team tactics/the powers that be/the world and how to interact in and out of combat before they get to the tougher stuff.
1st level PCs don't normally provoke battles with foes who would target a spellbook in ways that don't have to go through the PC first. 10th level enemies might. 20th level enemies should know to, and if the wizard is their personal nemesis, it may be their main goal.
The creatures don't just hit harder as you level, they get smarter and they have more impact on the world, just like PCs do.
Throw such tactics at a new player, and you're a jerk. Don't throw this at a veteran player, and you're a bit unchallenging.
Players, protect your spellbook, much like the Lich protects his phylactery, because when you face the Lich, it could very well be a battle of who gets the other's item first.
Oh, and it's not that hard to get a lead-lined box which nullifies a great deal of divinations.
Part II: Paranoia
That all said, paranoia can heighten or sap a game. Read your players, see if they want lighthearted romps (no spellbook stealing, weatherproofing at most) or cat-and-mouse maneuvering (scry& steal spellboooks=fair game) or rich stories in-between (spellbooks just another facet, easily protected, but still protected).
In part, this helps you decide which levels to run at. Yes, playing the same characters into the highest levels is grand, but different levels have different play experiences. You can only delay the paranoia so long before you should either press 'reset' or you're not playing the game as written (i.e. not giving the villains their due or full story-driven set of options). (Which is okay, of course, just like pulp fiction is okay, and so is literature.)
It'd be sad (IMO) if somebody played to 15th level in one game and couldn't flourish in any CR-appropriate campaign run elsewhere, much like it'd be sad if somebody played Risk for a year and didn't know Australia's pretty important. Just saying.
Note: In most published settings, the main wizards take LOTS of precautions to protect their spellbooks. That's because of the nature of their enemies (and to prepare for PC Rogues).
Also, superheroes, in their even lighter genre, often get faced by opponents who exploit the heroes' weaknesses, or who share the heroes' strengths, but are better/lack weaknesses. Of course those are prescripted with an 'out', but that type of storyline is a norm, not to be avoided, not to be overdone. "Kryptonite? Again? Lame."
Apologies on length, but had to... just had to...
JMK
The destruction of a wizard's spellbook had its own thread, and people got heated so I will say this. If you are the type of GM to destroy or steal such an object then the players should know up front. Not every GM is the same. I will steak the book if the opportunity presents itself, but I wont plan an encounter around it.
As a player I also try to have as many spells in my backup book as possible, and if I had the money I might have a 3rd book hidden back in town and protected by anti divination magic if possible. I have never had my item targeted, but I feel it is better to have and not need, than need and not have.
edit:changed GM to wizard
"Tough love" is a term that denotes meting out harsh punishment to instill a lesson.Not in how I'm using it. By "tough love" I mean showing appreciation and respect for the characters by highlighting not just the strengths, but also the weaknesses through reasonable and unbiased gameplay (unbiased among the party members; of course there's bias for the party as compared to NPCs).
Which is narrative hook is more interesting:
There's more to it than binary options. I think both/either wizard should (but only if the sequence of in-game events suggests it) be able to have their spellbooks under threat. The thing is, if the enemy knows, or has reason to know, about the precautions or lack thereof, they should use that knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of agree with the OP, but I think it just depends on the direction the game is going. On one hand, the player taking extra precaution to protect his spellbook would ideally like to know his investment is worthwhile, if the other mage who didn't protect his spellbook gets his damaged in some way.
On the other hand, it's perfectly feasible and entirely realistic if nothing happens to either book at all. People get by every day with no health insurance, no dental planet, etc. I never broke a bone until I was 29.
People take step to protect their homes, but they may never encounter a burglar in the entire life.
It could be entirely possible that being overly protective of one's spellbook is simply a character trait being role-played out. I'd just weigh where the tone of the game is, what's happening at the time, etc.
(Snip for length)
So I came to a conclusion - Tough Love is the answer.
I say that a DM's job includes many things, and one of those things is to exploit character weaknesses in the campaign. Not by meta, and not with the intention of screwing over PCs, but as a way to acknowledge the features of the character - weaknesses and strengths, and to reward those who guard against their weaknesses.
Thoughts? Disagreements? Issues with the details of such thinking?
I wouldn't word it that it is the GM's job to exploit anything per se, as it has a connotation that a GM is trying to screw someone over.
I absolutely agree that it IS the GM's job to challenge the party.
A LOT of the difference between players feeling screwed over by the GM and feeling challenged in a fun way by the GM has a lot to do with the tone of the game and the GM's intent.
I HAVE been in games where I have seen a GM behave along the lines of, "HA! You have been deprived of your spellcasting! Eat it, sucker!" (And moreover to a player who was playing fairly and amicably and certainly not asking for any kind of mockery). This is not good--not specifically because a character lost a tool keyed into one of their class abilities, but generally because the GM was being a combative jerkass on a power trip.
But I've also been in games where resources are lost temporarily (up to a few sessions), and the party/PC who lost the thing in question learned to work with the other resources they had--sometimes even the the GM pointing out, "It sucks that you lost your Thingy when you failed that save versus the acid monster, but remember you have XYZ class ability." Same GM may provide resources to give the character something to do. And recovering the lost Thingy can turn into a fun sidequest when done right. Now, if all people are doing is recovering lost spellbooks/holy symbols/safety blankets, then either the GM's not being creative or the party is REALLY irresponsible... but I haven't seen that happen, personally.
I've just started in a campaign where the twist is everyone has to be sorcerers or wizards (we can multiclass but are expected to primarily focus on the spellcasting class). We're 2nd level, and have two Sorcerer 2s, a Sorcerer 1 Rogue 1, and a Wizard 1 Fighter 1. In our first session, the GM set up the scenario that we spent most of our first level spells, and then were thrown into two dangerous combat situations right after the other. We had to find a way to succeed without being able to spam our highest level spells. So we found CRAZY ways of spamming cantrips, stealing the enemies' magic doohickies and using them against them, and taking the "risk" of fighting with a weapon. By far the best part was probably when two enemies were trying to herd a bulette to attack a village--the party members made one of the enemies smell like a sheep with prestidigitation and have the enemy emit a baaaing noise using ghost sound, which amongst other circumstances, caused the bulette to charge him instead. It was hilarious. We didn't go, "Dammit, the GM made us cast all our best spells and then threw us into combat!" We had a freaking BLAST coming up with insane uses of prestidigitation instead. And I wouldn't call that tough love, I'd just call that a lot of fun.
I don't think a GM should be EXPECTED to play on a certain PC's weakness--but simply that if it comes up in the story, or would make FOR a good story, then by all means the GM should use all tools at his or her disposal that the players can hit unexpected challenges. As long as everybody is having fun, then the GM is doing it right.