You do realize that the worth of a spellbook is far more than the 15 gp to buy a blank one, right? Assuming you have the kind of lenient GM that let's you just go into MunchkinsRus and say "Gimme all the 1st-3rd level wizard spells available in this campaign setting" and then pay Core Rules value for them, that's an ENORMOUS investment. Not that even after buying this crapload of scrolls and your blank spellbook, you then have to pay the price to enscribe them into your spellbook, investing even MORE money and lots of time.Spellbooks? Expensive? potentially -very- expensive?
No, no under the current rules, even if it had a ritual accompaning it no.
Of course if the spellbook is a blessed book then yes it would be quite expensive but most of it's cost would come from being a wondrous item than from being a spellbook.
At low levels they are really expensive and part of teh reason that using npc wizards at level 1 will give your players a lot of treasure.
Where's the nerdrage ooze when you need it?
I'm fairly certain this thread has gotten way off its original topic. Please post civilly, stop with the sniping back and forth, and please remember that not everybody's play styles, GMs, etc. are the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
there are three seperate topics in the forum right now which show that it's possible to optimize beyond min-maxing
Those topics are1.) Allowing characters to take Charisma as a dump stat, but not penalizing them for it - after they use it as a dump stat, they ought to be able to say that their character is attractive and, thereby, gain positive modifiers to social encounters
False. Being pretty does not grant modifiers, positive or negative, to social encounters. Anything else is a house rule. If you are speaking of standard Pathfinder, then you are lying.
2.) Allowing a Wizard to collect a god-like spell book without having to worry about keeping it safe
Keep it safe how? Most wizards generally do not carry their spellbooks in hand, and generally would keep them inside their bags and packs if they are adventuring. Because of how damage to equipment works, actively attacking or damaging their spellbook is difficult and in many ways very metagamist, since most foes will not know where their spellbook is. Likewise, anyone capable of stealing a wizard's spellbook is already capable of killing the wizard to begin with.
3.) Allowing a character to optimize towards big weapons and never have to worry about the down side of when those weapons shouldn't be usable (due to space requirements)
In core Pathfinder, 3.5, or 3E, this was not an issue. This is not about allowing a character to optimize, it is merely not making up new rules to hamper characters who use two-handed weapons. The rules already assume that each medium creature occupies a 5ft. x 5ft. space, which is more than enough room to maneuver in most any situation. Being in tight spaces provides a -4 penalty to hit and -4 penalty to AC, which is enough to penalize fighting in close quarters, and lowers the average damage drastically.
Likewise, it's poor GMing to invent new problems for players who are only trying to play the game. If someone is really so worried about it, make a feat or trait or something similar allowing you to ignore the penalty to hit when wielding a one-handed or light weapon, but it doesn't add much if anything to the game.
In all three cases, rather than min-maxing, the character maxes and then demands that the GM sweep the min under the rug where it will never be seen.
Am I simply old school? Does all the passion with which these things are argued influence the game designers? Does it indicate the future direction of the game?
I'm not sure old school is the word for it. I track encumbrance, containers, and run mean and vicious games with kobolds murdering characters who are stuck in tight spaces all the time. I don't pull punches, and I see people get their spell pouches sundered, their components disarmed, their sight blocked, multiple instances of being set on fire, having to deal with traps, hazards, and all the stuff that I've always known as being D&D.
What you call "old school", I call a gross misunderstanding and representation of the game, game logic, and old school play in general.
there are three seperate topics in the forum right now which show that it's possible to optimize beyond min-maxing
Those topics are1.) Allowing characters to take Charisma as a dump stat, but not penalizing them for it - after they use it as a dump stat, they ought to be able to say that their character is attractive and, thereby, gain positive modifiers to social encounters
False. Being pretty does not grant modifiers, positive or negative, to social encounters. Anything else is a house rule. If you are speaking of standard Pathfinder, then you are lying.
2.) Allowing a Wizard to collect a god-like spell book without having to worry about keeping it safeKeep it safe how? Most wizards generally do not carry their spellbooks in hand, and generally would keep them inside their bags and packs if they are adventuring. Because of how damage to equipment works, actively attacking or damaging their spellbook is difficult and in many ways very metagamist, since most foes will not know where their spellbook is. Likewise, anyone capable of stealing a wizard's spellbook is already capable of killing the wizard to begin with.
3.) Allowing a character to optimize towards big weapons and never have to worry about the down side of when those weapons shouldn't be usable (due to space requirements)In core Pathfinder, 3.5, or 3E, this was not an issue. This is not about allowing a character to optimize, it is merely not making up new rules to hamper characters who use two-handed weapons. The rules already assume that each medium creature occupies a 5ft. x 5ft. space, which is more than enough room to maneuver in most any situation. Being in tight spaces provides a -4 penalty to hit and -4 penalty to AC, which is enough to penalize fighting in close quarters, and lowers the average damage drastically.
Likewise, it's poor GMing to invent new problems for players who are only trying to play the game. If someone is really so worried about it, make a...
Put something like mink oil on the backpack to stop something like a light rain from leaking into the backpack and ruining the spellbook. Wasn't there an eversoaking sponge in a 3.5 adventure an eversoaking towel or something similar could protect the spellbook from water. One thing that could be true is if the inn the wizard is sleeping in catches fire. and the wizard walks away from his spellbook stupidly.
If my DM told me that trying to use my Greatsword would be difficult to use in cramped quarters and I might take a penalty to damage PRIOR to me going down the hall, I'd do my best to get through that hallway quickly to minimize the situational penalty.
Sitting down and essentially throwing a temper tantrum disrupts *everyone's* gameplay and game time.
That said, I'm glad Brox uses short swords and daggers. No penalties there haha!
i typically give PCs access to a higher power level in the form of enhanced attributes and other freebies.
occasionally a traveling NPC consultant to take care of utilitarian needs. i don't bother rolling for this consultant or employing them in combat. they may notice important clues the party missed and give the occasional hint. the mentor or patron is common, but so is the tagalong child.
i beef up the unique opponents accordingly.
not all of my NPCs have stat blocks.
if i had to complete a unique statblock for every NPC, even if it were only the relevant ones. it would be way too much effort spent preparing.
which is why pokemon has an inbred family of nurses all named Joy.
i am not statting out that shopkeep across the street. he might have a name, but it's probably something along the names of a generic recycled stock name. and will have probably recycled features.
and sometimes, real world steriotypes will be applied to make things easier. i may borrow fictional tropes of which i am familiar. doesn't mean they will be staples.
oh under normal circumstance i would inquire as to what a black belt has to do with anything, but i will let that slide.
Oh wow I thought you were trolling along earlier.
Simply put, saying you are a martial arts expert on the forums is a bit 'meh', no one cares; you are a dime a dozen.
More to the point, I highly doubt the claims you have made, they are beyond ridiculous. You've never swung a staff in anger once in your life, have never pressure tested your technique in the real world, but are 100% certain you have the correct answers. Laughable.
IRL, i'm not a martial arts expert, i don't claim to be, and those claims are a dime a dozen, just like history experts
in middle school, i was a blue belt in Tae Kwan Do, yellow belt in Kenpo and a yellow belt in Hapkido.
but i am not an expert.
even though i excersized vigorously for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. 5 of which from each day, were inside a Dojo.
even though, to earn my blue belt, i had to punch through a 1 foot thick cement block without hesitation and shatter it in the process.
i am not an expert. i was an amatuer.
when i was practicing, i was around 12, walking to class, completely unarmed, but because i was wearing my training uniform, 10 punks twice my size, armed with billy clubs jumped me, leader gave me a bloody nose with a good whack, i got no further injury and singlehanded battered all 10, unarmed, whilst in a berserk 'trance' caused by the bloody nose. which was my only injury, they were running away with a lot of internal bruises and minor nonlethal rib fractures.
i could have dealt lethal damage if i wanted too, even fatal. but i didn't want to risk arrest for simply defending myself after being ambushed.
Also it depends how big the cramped area is and how long it stays cramped. IF it is a small area you may be able to stand back and try to intimidate them out of a small tunnel. This seems fun and good if it is only a small area. An entire cramped adventure could get old fast.
I'm fairly certain this thread has gotten way off its original topic. Please post civilly, stop with the sniping back and forth, and please remember that not everybody's play styles, GMs, etc. are the same.
Nice new avatar, Liz. I guess you really were Mike McArtor's faithful ninja minion.
Not to derail whatever crazy monkey*@#t topic this thread has devolved into, but I miss Mike McArtor.
|
When you sell a spellbook you don't take into account the way the spell was accuired, so it doesn't matter if the spels in a spellbook comes from the two free spells per level or buying scrolls or paying someone else to look in their spellbook, the value of a spellbook is the cost of scribing the spells in the spellbook (the table shown in p.219) and the price of the book and any other extras it might have (lock's, magical traps etc.).
I was looking more at the costs for a character to replace a spellbook that they had lost, not how much cash you get at MunchkinsRus for it.
When you sell a spellbook you don't take into account the way the spell was accuired, so it doesn't matter if the spels in a spellbook comes from the two free spells per level or buying scrolls or paying someone else to look in their spellbook, the value of a spellbook is the cost of scribing the spells in the spellbook (the table shown in p.219) and the price of the book and any other extras it might have (lock's, magical traps etc.).I was looking more at the costs for a character to replace a spellbook that they had lost, not how much cash you get at MunchkinsRus for it.
Imagine! A wizard might loan out a spellbook for copying for the purposes of making a notable amount of money! Munchkinry!
Give me a break.
I vote that we ban scrolls and spellbooks from the game. To remove munchkinry.
When you sell a spellbook you don't take into account the way the spell was accuired, so it doesn't matter if the spels in a spellbook comes from the two free spells per level or buying scrolls or paying someone else to look in their spellbook, the value of a spellbook is the cost of scribing the spells in the spellbook (the table shown in p.219) and the price of the book and any other extras it might have (lock's, magical traps etc.).I was looking more at the costs for a character to replace a spellbook that they had lost, not how much cash you get at MunchkinsRus for it.
The cost of replacing a lost spellbook in YOUR world (you know where "Munchkins'R'Us" are banned) is much less than you would expect because you can only fill out spells you still have memorized and haven't cast.
Actually a magus with spell recall if it still has some arcane pool points in the tank can get a few more back through spell recall and then scribe them. There is also the knowledge pool loophole that still hasn't been closed by some.
|
You do realize that the worth of a spellbook is far more than the 15 gp to buy a blank one, right?After the first few levels, the cost of making a backup of your spellbook is about 1-2% of your estimated wealth-by-level. That's for one that only contains the free spells you get by leveling, but even doubling that you're still only up to 3-4%.
Note that spellbooks are a lot cheaper in Pathfinder. The cost of scribing a spell is equal to level^2*10 gp, half that for backups.
Actually
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Writing-a-New-Spell-into-a-Spellboo
It can be quite time consuming and expensive depending on how many spells you know and what level.
Something else often hand waved I suspect...
You do realize that the worth of a spellbook is far more than the 15 gp to buy a blank one, right?After the first few levels, the cost of making a backup of your spellbook is about 1-2% of your estimated wealth-by-level. That's for one that only contains the free spells you get by leveling, but even doubling that you're still only up to 3-4%.
Note that spellbooks are a lot cheaper in Pathfinder. The cost of scribing a spell is equal to level^2*10 gp, half that for backups.
Actually
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Writing-a-New-Spell-into-a-Spellboo
It can be quite time consuming and expensive depending on how many spells you know and what level.
Something else often hand waved I suspect...
I did not hand waive it the last time I Gmed for a wizard.
|
|
The cost of replacing a lost spellbook in YOUR world (you know where "Munchkins'R'Us" are banned) is much less than you would expect because you can only fill out spells you still have memorized and haven't cast.When you sell a spellbook you don't take into account the way the spell was accuired, so it doesn't matter if the spels in a spellbook comes from the two free spells per level or buying scrolls or paying someone else to look in their spellbook, the value of a spellbook is the cost of scribing the spells in the spellbook (the table shown in p.219) and the price of the book and any other extras it might have (lock's, magical traps etc.).I was looking more at the costs for a character to replace a spellbook that they had lost, not how much cash you get at MunchkinsRus for it.
Ahem
"Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips (0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has 100 pages.
Materials and Costs: The cost for writing a new spell into a spellbook depends on the level of the spell, as noted on Table: Spell Level and Writing Costs. Note that a wizard does not have to pay these costs in time or gold for spells he gains for free at each new level.
Replacing and Copying Spellbooks
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would. If he does not have the spell prepared, he can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.
Duplicating an existing spellbook uses the same procedure as replacing it, but the task is much easier. The time requirement and cost per page are halved.
Selling a Spellbook
Captured spellbooks can be sold for an amount equal to half the cost of purchasing and inscribing the spells within."
Cost per spell
0 5 gp
1 10 gp
2 40 gp
3 90 gp
4 160 gp
5 250 gp
6 360 gp
7 490 gp
8 640 gp
9 810 gp
|
|
I did not hand waive it the last time I Gmed for a wizard.You do realize that the worth of a spellbook is far more than the 15 gp to buy a blank one, right?After the first few levels, the cost of making a backup of your spellbook is about 1-2% of your estimated wealth-by-level. That's for one that only contains the free spells you get by leveling, but even doubling that you're still only up to 3-4%.
Note that spellbooks are a lot cheaper in Pathfinder. The cost of scribing a spell is equal to level^2*10 gp, half that for backups.
Actually
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic#TOC-Writing-a-New-Spell-into-a-Spellboo
It can be quite time consuming and expensive depending on how many spells you know and what level.
Something else often hand waved I suspect...
I find if you don't, a lot of the "Wizard knows everything!" gets fixed...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me most attempts at removing/destroying a spellbook would be metagaming on part of the DM.
I just felt the need to point something out:
The DM's job is to metagame. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM metagaming. If the DM doesn't metagame, then there is no game.
That's the scribing cost, I'm assuming. The purchasing the spell could get considerably more expensive...if you can find the spell at all.
==Aelryinth
It seems to me most attempts at removing/destroying a spellbook would be metagaming on part of the DM.I just felt the need to point something out:
The DM's job is to metagame. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM metagaming. If the DM doesn't metagame, then there is no game.
I agree how does a gm not metagame?
The cost of replacing a lost spellbook in YOUR world (you know where "Munchkins'R'Us" are banned) is much less than you would expect because you can only fill out spells you still have memorized and haven't cast.When you sell a spellbook you don't take into account the way the spell was accuired, so it doesn't matter if the spels in a spellbook comes from the two free spells per level or buying scrolls or paying someone else to look in their spellbook, the value of a spellbook is the cost of scribing the spells in the spellbook (the table shown in p.219) and the price of the book and any other extras it might have (lock's, magical traps etc.).I was looking more at the costs for a character to replace a spellbook that they had lost, not how much cash you get at MunchkinsRus for it.Ahem
"Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook
Once a wizard understands a new spell, he can record it into his spellbook.
Time: The process takes 1 hour per spell level. Cantrips (0 levels spells) take 30 minutes to record.
Space in the Spellbook: A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level. Even a 0-level spell (cantrip) takes one page. A spellbook has 100 pages.
Materials and Costs: The cost for writing a new spell into a spellbook depends on the level of the spell, as noted on Table: Spell Level and Writing Costs. Note that a wizard does not have to pay these costs in time or gold for spells he gains for free at each new level.
Replacing and Copying Spellbooks
A wizard can use the procedure for learning a spell to reconstruct a lost spellbook. If he already has a particular spell prepared, he can write it directly into a new book at the same cost required to write a spell into a spellbook. The process wipes the prepared spell from his mind, just as casting it would. If he does not have the spell prepared, he can prepare it from a borrowed spellbook and then write it into a new book.
Duplicating an existing...
At what point did you say anything relevant to my reply?
It seems to me most attempts at removing/destroying a spellbook would be metagaming on part of the DM.I just felt the need to point something out:
The DM's job is to metagame. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the DM metagaming. If the DM doesn't metagame, then there is no game.
I think the "GM not metagaming" statement means that NPC's should not be using information they should not have access too.
I think the "GM not metagaming" statement means that NPC's should not be using information they should not have access too.
From a PC perspective, the knowledge (and sources of that knowledge) of NPCs is ineffable. They player doesn't/can't know what an NPC would, could or should know until the DM provides that information, and even then, did the DM provide accurate information to the players?
I think the "GM not metagaming" statement means that NPC's should not be using information they should not have access too.
From a PC perspective, the knowledge (and sources of that knowledge) of NPCs is ineffable. They player doesn't/can't know what an NPC would, could or should know until the DM provides that information, and even then, did the DM provide accurate information to the players?
That is not true, not does it changed the fact that metagaming took place. I know the bestiary pretty well, and I can probably calculate whether or not I should power attack or cast a spell that targets will without rolling a knowledge check. The GM may not know the difference, but that does not mean my PC should know what I know.
I understand the GM may not want to/have time to figure out how NPC X got ______ information about the party, so I understand a hand wave or two. I dont think that changes the fact that giving NPC's info they should not have is not the same as the GM metagaming for purpose of the game. I understood there is a fine line though, but my main point is using real life knowledge to guide the story, and an NPC somehow knowing what the perfect counter to the party's tactics is despite them never meeting(gather info, scrying, etc) before are two completely different things.
PS: I can mostly tell when a GM is metagaming.
Are you playing with friends (answer, 'yes', else why are you playing with them)?
Do you care about their having fun as much as you care about your own (yes, that's part of being a friend)?
Do you need to have challenges in order to have the fun of achievement (yes)?
Do you trust your friends that they are as concerned about your fun as you are concerned about theirs (yes)?
So, when your friend, the GM, creates a challenge for your character so that you can feel the fun of achievement over that challenge, do you have trust in the GM doing it for the sake of you having fun (duh, we did establish that he's a friend)?
So, what the hell is the problem?
Sometimes GM's will advertise for a game at an FLGS so you may not be playing with friends.
Even if the answer was yes to the first one it would not matter. Some friends make terrible GM's and party members.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the "GM not metagaming" statement means that NPC's should not be using information they should not have access too.
From a PC perspective, the knowledge (and sources of that knowledge) of NPCs is ineffable. They player doesn't/can't know what an NPC would, could or should know until the DM provides that information, and even then, did the DM provide accurate information to the players?
That is not true, not does it changed the fact that metagaming took place. I know the bestiary pretty well, and I can probably calculate whether or not I should power attack or cast a spell that targets will without rolling a knowledge check. The GM may not know the difference, but that does not mean my PC should know what I know.
I understand the GM may not want to/have time to figure out how NPC X got ______ information about the party, so I understand a hand wave or two. I dont think that changes the fact that giving NPC's info they should not have is not the same as the GM metagaming for purpose of the game. I understood there is a fine line though, but my main point is using real life knowledge to guide the story, and an NPC somehow knowing what the perfect counter to the party's tactics is despite them never meeting(gather info, scrying, etc) before are two completely different things.
PS: I can mostly tell when a GM is metagaming.
I think a good GM will ask the question "What would this monster/NPC know." followed by "What would this monster/NPC do"
However, depending on the NPC/Monster that may involve gathering info about the party, particularly as they become locally famous.
And some of that info will be used against them.
My group almost got hosed by a dragon who would have gotten away and set up months and months of problems for them...if not for a critical as he was fleeing...
The DM doesn't need to play dumb if he is playing someone who is not dumb.
That is not true, not does it changed the fact that metagaming took place. I know the bestiary pretty well, and I can probably calculate whether or not I should power attack or cast a spell that targets will without rolling a knowledge check. The GM may not know the difference, but that does not mean my PC should know what I know.I understand the GM may not want to/have time to figure out how NPC X got ______ information about the party, so I understand a hand wave or two. I dont think that changes the fact that giving NPC's info they should not have is not the same as the GM metagaming for purpose of the game. I understood there is a fine line though, but my main point is using real life knowledge to guide the story, and an NPC somehow knowing what the perfect counter to the party's tactics is despite them never meeting(gather info, scrying, etc) before are two completely different things.
PS: I can mostly tell when a GM is metagaming.
Agree.
Really, there are various LEVELS of DM metagaming. Little obvious things that average people could figure out, just comes naturally. I have no problem with that. If it helps the story go along, I ENCOURAGE it.
If the players spend 2 hours in-game coming up with the all time PERFECT ambush/plan.... and it's torn apart in the first round, because the bad guy took a completly out of character step... That gets frustrating...
If random thugs jump you and automatically know what's magical and what's not on you without casting spells... that's frustrating...
If a rogue sneaks into a room and moves to the third bookcase on the left and pries up the 2nd floorboard and escapes for the treasure you hid, and is out in one round... that's a bit much.
I'm not saying they can't FIND it... but they have to do the same thing WE do... Perception checks... ransacking the rooms... LOOKING for stuff...
Players are supposed to be the HEROES of the game. If the DM goes out of his way to make sure all your carefully placed plans fail... it's not fun.
FORTUNATELY I haven't had many experiences like that in my games, But I've heard of horror stories of people with favorite villains who were completly omnipotent.
Pertinent to this line of conversation is the fact wizards' reliance on spellbooks in most fantasy worlds would be fairly common knowledge. Even if you imagined some campaign world in which wizards were some kind of rare, monolithic figures ruling in a LE magocracy and knowledge of magic among the common people was harshly suppressed, the highest you're talking is a DC 11 Knowledge (arcana) check. Where there's a wizard, there's a spellbook nearby. That's pretty much the end of the story.
NO NO NO THAT'S METAGAMING!!
Seriously, though, you're absolutely right. In the default high-magic world that the game proposes, hammering a spellbook isn't some contrived "OMG HE SHOULDN'T KNOW THAT!" perfect-counter situation.
If random thugs or kobolds are displaying tactics to take down the party (covering all variables) that would otherwise require patient observation and preparation for weeks/months, there's a valid complaint to be made.
A DM crafting a situation such as the above, and weaving the appropriate backstory to explain it? That's not metagaming, that's good DM'ing.
I don't see why the wizard doesn't just keep his spellbook in the fighter's bag. No one ever steals rifles through the fighter's stuff. Also spellbooks are heavy, so it's a load off the wizard's back. The wizard should keep a journal written in another language as a decoy though.
I don't see why the wizard doesn't just keep his spellbook in the fighter's bag. No one ever steals rifles through the fighter's stuff. Also spellbooks are heavy, so it's a load off the wizard's back. The wizard should keep a journal written in another language as a decoy though.Because an enemy who has observed the party for months would know where it was and steal it from inside the fighter's pack. Granted, why said enemy shouldn't also steal the fighter's stuff is beyond me, but obviously some DMs play that way.
Why the hell am I not getting perception checks versus these spies for the party if I was a ranger or something. Fiat spies that you cannot see are not really that much fun. OR is it scrying spells that are used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm curious as to how the "you have been under observation for months" was played out. There should be sense motive rolls, perception rolls, will saves against scrying etc. It is not good dming, it is in fact, horrible dming, to say "muahahaha! the clever machinations of my npc's have bypassed your skills and defenses for months without roling!"
|
|
I'm curious as to how the "you have been under observation for months" was played out. There should be sense motive rolls, perception rolls, will saves against scrying etc. It is not good dming, it is in fact, horrible dming, to say "muahahaha! the clever machinations of my npc's have bypassed your skills and defenses for months without roling!"
Or an NPC making a perception check to see a spellbook in the fighters bag...
I'm curious as to how the "you have been under observation for months" was played out.
Happens in the real world every day.
Observing a party on the move is significantly easier than the same party trying to find a tail. The Ranger and Rogue (the best party counterspies) are usually up the front and way ahead of the party, leaving the less perceptive (the ones being followed) at the rear.
You can now roll on about your mad perception Druid/Cleric, but he's probably just behind the scouts.
I'm curious as to how the "you have been under observation for months" was played out. There should be sense motive rolls, perception rolls, will saves against scrying etc. It is not good dming, it is in fact, horrible dming, to say "muahahaha! the clever machinations of my npc's have bypassed your skills and defenses for months without roling!"
I agree. It is the spies pulling a dues ex machina.
|
|
I agree. It is the spies pulling a dues ex machina.I'm curious as to how the "you have been under observation for months" was played out. There should be sense motive rolls, perception rolls, will saves against scrying etc. It is not good dming, it is in fact, horrible dming, to say "muahahaha! the clever machinations of my npc's have bypassed your skills and defenses for months without roling!"
To see a book in a bag?
Despite stats to teh contrary, all NPCs must simply attack in a linear fashion like a zombie horde.
They should be packed in solid clumps, and should attack in waves like troops charging trenches in WW1.
Despite area of effect spells being commonplace and more effective than any of our current real world tech weaponry, all NPC's must still maintain two thousand year old outdated tactics that leave them completely at the mercy of these WMD's and certainly NOT adapt TTP's to deal with them.
That would be like, Meta.