Who has actually had their character's spellbook stolen/sundered/otherwise destroyed in a game of Pathfinder or any edition of D&D?
Wizard meets engulfing ooze that dissolves equipment. Wizard might survive while the gear does not.Wizard submerged in water without a waterproofed spell book for more than a round or two is self-explanatory.
Wizard dies by incineration / acid bath / what have you generally does his gear in too. Such as by green slime immersion (Age of Worms as a prime example, others pre-3e).
Turin, your wording ("might survive" and "such as") suggests you have not seen these things happen, just what is possible. Am I misunderstanding?
That said, it's interesting the situations you are describing are not situations where the spellbook is specifically targeted. Same with Chris's experience.
All the above situations--failed fireball save, oozes, acid, water, antimagic field--are situations any character could find themselves in and would be equally in danger of losing their stuff.
DQ, that isn't what you asked. You asked about circumstances under which spellbooks have been damaged/destroyed. Mine are ones that did and will likely continue to happen (probably to me).
Specifically targeting a wizard's spell book is exceedingly rare in my experience, since game play generally doesn't see a wizard holding one during a fight. Sorry my reply wasn't more informative! :)
Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! cast a spell for me!
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to prepare the spell.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! Construct a magical item for me.
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to craft an item; look, a spell is in the requirements.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! Go on a quest for me.
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to accomplish the quest, because without it, I'm just a commoner.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.
Please.
Either you are playing this scenario with an "evil guy" deliberately dumb, or you are not considering different possibilities:1- Scrolls. Evil one wants a spell, he handles the scroll to the wizard and says "cast". He obviously does not gives away offensive or potentially harmful spells.
2- Wands. As above.
3- Staves. as above, with the added bonus of a possible higher caster level.
4- Generic magic object. "I want to use this crystal ball to spy on my enemies, but cannot do so myself. Wizard, do it!"
4- A different spellbook (things are getting interesting): the evil guy handles the wizard another spellbook with, say, a few selected spells necessary for the work to be done (no flesh to stone). I don't know if this is possible in Pathfinder, but under 3.5 I remember there were rules for a wizard "attuning" and being able to prepare spells from spellbok he did not wrote.
4b- (alternatively) Evil guy handles wizard scrolls and a blank book. "Scribe them, prepare them and cast them when I say so"
Bonus- Wizard is surrounded by enemies while casting, one funny move and he's dead.
(And, if I remember correctly, in PF rules you are no longer required to know or having prepared a spell listed as "prerequisite" to create a magic item, it just raises the Craft DC.)
Mind you, all of these are pretty specific scenarios and unlikely to ever happen in a standard campaign.
But, when they happen, please try to think from the NPC's point of view and be more efficient as possible, instead of trying to prove something does not work by making it not working.
Closely related to the "blackmail" scenario is the situation in which one character (or the whole party) falls on his knees and begs for mercy instead of being killed. Sure, maybe goblins are so dumb and cruel to either accept with glee their new 6th level wizard slave or slay him outright, but perhaps a balor or a red great wyrm can be far more cunning than that, and ask for a "token of submission".In this kind of situation, I can as well be killed; therefore I will use my resources to prevent this kind of situation from happening instead of protecting my spellbook, because I'd rather prevent situation that get me killed.
Anyway, this kind of situation is a practical TPK. As in "you weren't strong enough to escape from the opponents with your stuff, do you think you'll be able to escape without it?"
Yes, absolutely. As before, this are not things likely to happen in 7 out of 10 campaigns -but TPK do happen, and I've had my share of players willing to switch sides and surrender instead of seing their characters killed and ending the campaign. I even remember it was in a book, somewhere, as an advice for GMs to have enemies offer surrenders in case of a TPK. Not only it can be an interesting RP opportunity, but it rewards player who plan for certain situations (defeat) with cunning.
What I'm saying is: if the GM goes out of his way to enforce ANY of these scenarios on the PC, then yes, he is being a dick.
But, if and when such situations arise by their own, let them be.
I've given an actual game example where our rogue DID go for the spellbook, and I still haven't seen any response to why it would be more prectical for him to go after the actual mage.1. you can't damage an attended object with an alchemist fire. eg an alchemist fire can't destroy a cloak of protection or a headband of intelligence. Your example of the alchemist fire is impractical. You know, that's the part "in pathfinder, it's easier to kill the wizard".
2. You can prepare spells in the rope trick's space.
1. A book on a table is not attended.
Also, I don't see where you got a rule that attended objects are immune to alchemist's fire. From a simulationist point of view, it makes no sense at all, and I don't see any clear-cut rule in the CRB. Not that it matters that much as this wasn't an attended object.2. The wizard in question did not know rope trick.
Anyway, this kind of situation is a practical TPK. As in "you weren't strong enough to escape from the opponents with your stuff, do you think you'll be able to escape without it?"
Yeah, because no-one has ever escaped a prison. Oh, wait...
1- Scrolls. Evil one wants a spell, he handles the scroll to the wizard and says "cast". He obviously does not gives away offensive or potentially harmful spells.
2- Wands. As above.
3- Staves. as above, with the added bonus of a possible higher caster level.
4- Generic magic object. "I want to use this crystal ball to spy on my enemies, but cannot do so myself. Wizard, do it!"
4- A different spellbook (things are getting interesting): the evil guy handles the wizard another spellbook with, say, a few selected spells necessary for the work to be done (no flesh to stone). I don't know if this is possible in Pathfinder, but under 3.5 I remember there were rules for a wizard "attuning" and being able to prepare spells from spellbok he did not wrote.
4b- (alternatively) Evil guy handles wizard scrolls and a blank book. "Scribe them, prepare them and cast them when I say so"
Bonus- Wizard is surrounded by enemies while casting, one funny move and he's dead.Oh, yes.
The enemy has some scrolls, wands or staffs of the spells he needs, and the only possibility to use them is to ask to his enemy. Because the character is the only wizard in the world. But the Rogue knows how magic works nonetheless. That makes sense.
Or the rogue has a spellbook with exactly the spells he need and nothing more, but he doesn't know any wizard - it's just a spellbook he found by chance, and which happens to contains exactly the spells he needs. That makes sense.
Memorizing a spell from a different spellbook require a roll. "Sorry Mr Rogue, I failed to memorize the spells from this book; can i have my spellbook?". The same can be said if the rogue gives a scroll and a blank book: "Sorry Mr Rogue, I failed to comprehend this spell. but i'm sure if I kill each of your minions, I'll gain a level and will be able to try again". And the same can be said for crafting item: "oh, it's a cursed item? Maybe it's because I didn't meet the prerequisites..."
Again you are taking my general examples and making them specific, inverting cause/effect and filling the blanks with lots of arbitrary assumptions such as "the rogue", "ask his enemy", "the spell he needs" in a "spellbook found by chance" and the like.
It's cool, it's cool. You clearly can't see what I was trying to say (especially the part about playing NPCs efficiently), it's probably due to some differences between our gaming style. No point in arguing any further.
|
Rogue: I have stolen your spellbook! cast a spell for me!
Wizard: OK, but I need my spellbook to prepare the spell.
Rogue: OK, I give your spellbook back.
Wizard: flesh to stone.
In an hour, after I memorize that spell, you are so going to get it. Because there is no chance I am dealing with anyone who will fight back in milk and cookie land.
How dare you have the possibility that I won't "win" enter this scenario!
|
|
I've given an actual game example where our rogue DID go for the spellbook, and I still haven't seen any response to why it would be more prectical for him to go after the actual mage.1. you can't damage an attended object with an alchemist fire. eg an alchemist fire can't destroy a cloak of protection or a headband of intelligence. Your example of the alchemist fire is impractical. You know, that's the part "in pathfinder, it's easier to kill the wizard".
2. You can prepare spells in the rope trick's space.
1. A book on a table is not attended.
Also, I don't see where you got a rule that attended objects are immune to alchemist's fire. From a simulationist point of view, it makes no sense at all, and I don't see any clear-cut rule in the CRB. Not that it matters that much as this wasn't an attended object.2. The wizard in question did not know rope trick.
Also rope trick has all those fun rules about extra-dimensional spaces that mean anything you want to use in the space you have to take out of your haversack/bag of holding before you go into the rope trick, including your spellbook.
"A number of spells and magic items utilize extradimensional spaces, such as rope trick, a bag of holding, a handy haversack, and a portable hole. These spells and magic items create a tiny pocket space that does not exist in any dimension. Such items do not function, however, inside another extradimensional space. If placed inside such a space, they cease to function until removed from the extradimensional space. For example, if a bag of holding is brought into a rope trick, the contents of the bag of holding become inaccessible until the bag of holding is taken outside the rope trick. The only exception to this is when a bag of holding and a portable hole interact, forming a rift to the Astral Plane, as noted in their descriptions."
Also remember. "The rope cannot be removed or hidden." and "The rope can be climbed by only one person at a time."
Normally what you described works great. You sleep and you stay in the rope trick for an extra hour to study spells as your quiet space. It costs you a spell slot to have it memorized every day, but it is usually worth it.
However if you are on the run from something that is tracking you, that rope can't be hidden and you all have to come out one at a time. You can't pull anything out of the haversacks or bags of holding to get ready before hand...
It is very uncommon for a simple rope trick to not completely protect the party. It is a reasonable precaution under most circumstances.
But, much like a condom, it isn't 100%. When we have been on the run and tried this trick, we've been tracked by things that were chasing us that set up ambushes outside the rope trick. We generally also do watches while in the rope trick, but the first time this happened where we looked out the window and saw a group ready to ambush us because they had made their track checks, there was a lot of discussion about what was in the haversack/bag of holding that we could access and what wasn't, as well as who is going out the 3 by 5 window first and how.
It made that encounter very interesting since most of the potions, weapons, the wizards spellbook, etc...were in the haversack. Once character put his armor in their so he could make the climb check for the rope more easily (he should have taken 10, but...bad choices and bad outcomes...)
All of this gyration you are going through is simply so you don't have to have a back up spell book. It is as silly as a fighter not having a back up weapon.
Just keep a back up spell book somewhere.
|
|
Protip: a prison isn't a place conceived to allow escape, but to prevent it.
If you have the resources to prevent X from escaping with his stuff, then either you're stupid, either you have the resources to prevent X from escaping without his stuff.GâtFromKI: Actually, I'm sure that in "Hogan's hero RPG", the prison are conceived to allow escape. But we're talking about Pathfinder.
GâtFromKI: Aw man, the BBEG didn't give us cookies and we are in an inescapable prison. Game over man...
Rogue: Actually, I can pick locks.
Wizard: I still have a knock spell memorized (or something even better)
Martial class: I think I can fashion this into a weapon, maybe break through (x)
GâtFromKI: I SAID GAME OVER!
|
|
In 15 minutes you can memorize a spell.You should read the rules.
You should read where I pointed out he isn't giving him the spell he can turn him to stone with.
And I'm not even dealing with your pit fiend/princess strawman. When you have to go that far to not admit characters could get robbed or captured, you aren't really trying to have a discussion anymore.
Enjoy the cookies, and don't be sad if you don't also get tucked in with a warm glass of milk.
I think nobody ever said that spellbooks should always be targeted but, yes, this pretty much sums it up for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread went on way to long. None of the things listed are realy "dick" moves. The bad guys are "dicks" by thier very nature! Why would a villain sunder your sword? Becuase he is a dick! Why would they steal a spell book? Becuase the villain is a dick! If you don't like night time encounters then you can cross off half the bestiary becuase half the monsters are nocturnal! And at this point if you can't figure your alignment out then it isn't worth explaining again...
If all of the above sounds "dickish" to you then turn in you hero card. "Mom! the DM/Villain broke my sword, make him stop! Mom!"
All of this gyration you are going through is simply so you don't have to have a back up spell book. It is as silly as a fighter not having a back up weapon.
These "gyrations" being precautions to prevent the book from being able to be targeted in the first place? So you are saying preventing the spellbook from being able to be targeted are pointless and you should just have a backup. WE get it, if you want to take the Wizard's spellbook, you will and no precautions will stop you. You don't need to keep repeating it.
|
|
All of this gyration you are going through is simply so you don't have to have a back up spell book. It is as silly as a fighter not having a back up weapon.These "gyrations" being precautions to prevent the book from being able to be targeted in the first place? So you are saying preventing the spellbook from being able to be targeted are pointless and you should just have a backup. WE get it, if you want to take the Wizard's spellbook, you will and no precautions will stop you. You don't need to keep repeating it.
Clearly you don't get it, actually.
You need to take precautions to protect your spellbook IN ADDITION to having a back up spellbook.
Because the whole point of it being a back up is that it is somewhere else where it is not at risk. And so it is much easier to just protect your spellbook.
Much like you aren't going to carry all of the parties loot in a single bag of holding once you have some sort of central area/stronghold.
Much like the cleric memorizes raise dead rather than some other spell "just in case". Most days the party doesn't have someone die. Some days it does. You prepare for the worst and plan to avoid it.
In your world, it seem that would mean "Just in case the DM is mean and kills players" where in my world it mean "In case something unforseen happens."
If nothing unforseen ever happens in your world, either your GM is lame or you are one of those jerks who reads the module ahead of time.
|
|
Because the whole point of it being a back up is that it is somewhere else where it is not at risk. And so it is much easier to just protect your spellbook.Much like you aren't going to carry all of the parties loot in a single bag of holding once you have some sort of central area/stronghold.
As sort of a tangent, at what point (level?) would you expect the party to "have some sort of central area/stronghold"?
We've rarely had time to establish such things in games I've been in. Usually we're chasing all over the place after some villain or other.
From what I've seen of them, many of the APs don't have much provision for that, either.Would that change the picture at all?
Depends on the campaign. Usually they make enough friends along the way to have someone watch their home/stuff while they are out fairly early on.
For example when we ran, ROTRL spoilers
The players were staying at the inn, so when they rescued Ameiko she gave them free board while they were in town and watched their stuff.
Later they decided to keep thistletop and make it into a home base/fort for awhile, and they were able to purge Foxglove and got the deed, so yet another "base" was acquired.
When they moved on, they were famous and wealthy enough that they were able to have some hirelings keep an eye on the place while they traveled.
Then of course they get a townhouse in Magnimar, followed by Fort Rannick...
I don't tend to tell players how to play, and they tend to want to have places that they own and take care of. Eventually leadership fills in for paying hirelings, and as I said if you make good contacts in town they will often help you.
Generally players don't want to carry gold due to the sheer weight of it. And if they have a central collection they generally work to protect it in some way.
Most money is in equipment they are wearing, so it usually isn't a big issue. But sometimes it is when they guy holding the bag of holding also is they guy falling off a cliff :)
All of this gyration you are going through is simply so you don't have to have a back up spell book. It is as silly as a fighter not having a back up weapon.These "gyrations" being precautions to prevent the book from being able to be targeted in the first place? So you are saying preventing the spellbook from being able to be targeted are pointless and you should just have a backup. WE get it, if you want to take the Wizard's spellbook, you will and no precautions will stop you. You don't need to keep repeating it.Clearly you don't get it, actually.
You need to take precautions to protect your spellbook IN ADDITION to having a back up spellbook.
Because the whole point of it being a back up is that it is somewhere else where it is not at risk. And so it is much easier to just protect your spellbook.
Much like you aren't going to carry all of the parties loot in a single bag of holding once you have some sort of central area/stronghold.
Much like the cleric memorizes raise dead rather than some other spell "just in case". Most days the party doesn't have someone die. Some days it does. You prepare for the worst and plan to avoid it.
In your world, it seem that would mean "Just in case the DM is mean and kills players" where in my world it mean "In case something unforseen happens."
If nothing unforseen ever happens in your world, either your GM is lame or you are one of those jerks who reads the module ahead of time.
If the DM declares you are dead, it doesn't matter what your HP is or if you have any spells preventing you from dieing or if you have the ability to resurrect. This isn't about something happening to your spellbook organically; this is about the GM deciding something happens to your spellbook, which you have supported multiple times as are what most of the people saying you need a backup spellbook are supporting. And at that point, you don't need a backup spellbook, you need to be a Sorcerer.
|
|
If the DM declares you are dead, it doesn't matter what your HP is or if you have any spells preventing you from dieing or if you have the ability to resurrect. This isn't about something happening to your spellbook organically; this is about the GM deciding something happens to your spellbook, which you have supported multiple times as are what most of the people saying you need a backup spellbook are supporting. And at that point, you don't need a backup spellbook, you need to be a Sorcerer.
If the GM declares anything they have failed as GM.
A GM creates the setting and fills it with challenges for the players to overcome. If they players do something foolish, bad things happen. If the players do something wise, good things happen.
My players surprise me all the time, thwart my plans all the time, find unexpected solutions to problems all the time.
I never go in going "how am I going to screw such and such" but I always ask "what would be the likely outcome of this action".
If you are too arrogant or ignorant to not have a back up spellbook and/or to not take reasonable precautions, things will happens. But you then may make the perception check to prevent the theft, or you may be able to come up to with a plan that thwarts the method I use to try to do what I want to do.
Because I have to play by the rules too. I have to play the NPCs based on the rules. The NPCs I run don't have unlimited time or resources. I built them based on the same rules as the PC.
And anything the PC can do, I can do.
So if the PC can steal a wizards spellbook, I can too. If a PC can sunder or shatter a weapon, I can too.
You have an adversarial mentality, seemingly in general.
I am playing a game with my friends. We are both trying to challenge each other within the framework of a rule set.
I don't know what the hell happens at your table, but it sounds like there is a lot of this.
ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
Going on.
So a BBEG has the means and power to disable and capture your entire, well-equipped, prepared party but can't hold them? Very impressive.
So you have never had one of your prisoners escape.
Is your game literally "Here is the combat, roll initiative!"
And again, cantrip.
You haven't explained how a character powerful enough to capture and imprison and party couldn't stop them from breaking out of any prison he puts them in.
|
|
You haven't explained how a character powerful enough to capture and imprison and party couldn't stop them from breaking out of any prison he puts them in.
So a BBEG has the means and power to disable and capture your entire, well-equipped, prepared party but can't hold them? Very impressive.
So you have never had one of your prisoners escape.
Is your game literally "Here is the combat, roll initiative!"
And again, cantrip.
I don't need to.
My argument is that they could break out.
Your argument is that they could not break out.
Did you forget what side you were on?
You haven't explained how a character powerful enough to capture and imprison and party couldn't stop them from breaking out of any prison he puts them in.
So a BBEG has the means and power to disable and capture your entire, well-equipped, prepared party but can't hold them? Very impressive.
So you have never had one of your prisoners escape.
Is your game literally "Here is the combat, roll initiative!"
And again, cantrip.
I don't need to.
My argument is that they could break out.
Your argument is that they could not break out.
Did you forget what side you were on?
What.
|
|
Put another way, if the villain isn't absolutely sure he can keep his prisoners WTF is he doing taking adventurers who are causing him trouble alive? "Shooting is not too good for my enemies," and "I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues in the form of riddles or leaving my weaker enemies alive to show they pose no threat," are near the top of the overlord list because they're obvious. Maybe the LE villain will let some enemies live pending a (show) trial, but even he's not going to do so if he doubts he can keep them.You haven't explained how a character powerful enough to capture and imprison and party couldn't stop them from breaking out of any prison he puts them in.
So a BBEG has the means and power to disable and capture your entire, well-equipped, prepared party but can't hold them? Very impressive.
So you have never had one of your prisoners escape.
Is your game literally "Here is the combat, roll initiative!"
And again, cantrip.
I don't need to.
My argument is that they could break out.
Your argument is that they could not break out.
Did you forget what side you were on?
Maybe you were framed for a crime and actual legal authorities are arresting you.
Maybe they are holding you hostage to lure others into a trap.
Maybe they need you for a ritual sacrifice.
Maybe there are about a million reasons to take people prisoner.
|
|
So a BBEG has the means and power to disable and capture your entire, well-equipped, prepared party but can't hold them? Very impressive.
So you have never had one of your prisoners escape.
Is your game literally "Here is the combat, roll initiative!"
And again, cantrip.
Ciretose,
Having a simulationist approach to GM'ing, I've only seen a PC escape from a prison once (in my gamist or narrativist days, such escapes happened far more frequently). What usually happens is either:
You negotiate and have paid a ransom or
An effort from the outside is made to rescue youAt upper levels, capturing and imprisoning your foe is actually more desireable than killing them. You can't be raised after all, if you're not actually dead.
When a PC does escape from a simulationist prison/dungeon without major help, it is almost always because their foes didn't know something of crucial importance about them.
Escaping in a narrativist or gamist setting is way easier, partially because it is usually a railroad anyway.
There is also rescue...
|
|
What.You haven't explained how a character powerful enough to capture and imprison and party couldn't stop them from breaking out of any prison he puts them in.
So a BBEG has the means and power to disable and capture your entire, well-equipped, prepared party but can't hold them? Very impressive.
So you have never had one of your prisoners escape.
Is your game literally "Here is the combat, roll initiative!"
And again, cantrip.
I don't need to.
My argument is that they could break out.
Your argument is that they could not break out.
Did you forget what side you were on?
Here is the problem.
You have stated several absolutist positions.
You have said that a GM can never steal/target/damage a spellbook, therefore a player should not need a back up spellbook.
In order to disprove you I only need to show situations where a GM could/should/would do the above. If I do, I win.
Similarly you are again taking a position that a BBEG could never allow a prisoner to escape.
All I have to do to win is have a scenario where they could.
You keep taking stances that put the burden of proof on you, not me.
If there is any chance a wizard could lose his spellbook, he should make a back up in the same way if there is any chance a fighter could lose his weapon he should have a back up.
If there is any way a player could escape and/or be rescued from a prison without being able to recover the items taken when he is placed into custody (a spellbook for example) then...
Well, like I said. You taking absolutists stances just makes this really easy.
Here is the problem.You have stated several absolutist positions.
You have said that a GM can never steal/target/damage a spellbook, therefore a player should not need a back up spellbook.
In order to disprove you I only need to show situations where a GM could/should/would do the above. If I do, I win.
Similarly you are again taking a position that a BBEG could never allow a prisoner to escape.
All I have to do to win is have a scenario where they could.
You keep taking stances that put the burden of proof on you, not me.
If there is any chance a wizard could lose his spellbook, he should make a back up in the same way if there is any chance a fighter could lose his weapon he should have a back up.
If there is any way a player could escape and/or be rescued from a prison without being able to recover the items taken when he is placed into custody (a spellbook for example) then...
Well, like I said. You taking absolutists stances just makes this really easy.
You just said a lot of things you clearly don't understand while misrepresenting multiple things I have said. In a very irritating posting method.
Put another way, if the villain isn't absolutely sure he can keep his prisoners WTF is he doing taking adventurers who are causing him trouble alive? "Shooting is not too good for my enemies," and "I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues in the form of riddles or leaving my weaker enemies alive to show they pose no threat," are near the top of the overlord list because they're obvious. Maybe the LE villain will let some enemies live pending a (show) trial, but even he's not going to do so if he doubts he can keep them.Maybe you were framed for a crime and actual legal authorities are arresting you.
Maybe they are holding you hostage to lure others into a trap.
Maybe they need you for a ritual sacrifice.
Maybe there are about a million reasons to take people prisoner.
How does any of that address the issue?
None of that answers the question of how can a BBEG that can subdue and capture you be incapable of holding you.|
|
Put another way, if the villain isn't absolutely sure he can keep his prisoners WTF is he doing taking adventurers who are causing him trouble alive? "Shooting is not too good for my enemies," and "I will be secure in my superiority. Therefore, I will feel no need to prove it by leaving clues in the form of riddles or leaving my weaker enemies alive to show they pose no threat," are near the top of the overlord list because they're obvious. Maybe the LE villain will let some enemies live pending a (show) trial, but even he's not going to do so if he doubts he can keep them.Maybe you were framed for a crime and actual legal authorities are arresting you.
Maybe they are holding you hostage to lure others into a trap.
Maybe they need you for a ritual sacrifice.
Maybe there are about a million reasons to take people prisoner.
How does any of that address the issue?
None of that answers the question of how can a BBEG that can subdue and capture you be incapable of holding you.
Either you can't get it or you won't get it.
Either way, it is way past time to move on.
BARBARIAN SUNDER THREAD NOW. OKAY?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
BARBARIAN SUNDER THREAD NOW. OKAY?You sir, are a master of timing.
Well played.
BARBARIAN DO WHAT CAN.
AM IGNORING HARDNESS. THREAD AM UNATTENDED. THREAD OVER, ALL AM GOING HOME NOW.
I removed a bunch of posts and the replies to them. Do not use the word 'retarded' in that way.
I also removed some needless antagonism.
As a DM I (Personally) think that playing enemy NPCs as smart as they are should be encouraged, I play fighters as bloodthirsty towards their enemies and Rogues as think first/ stab later kind of people, as long as the players don't feel you're Metagaming the NPC's actions specifically against them (Unless the storyline calls for just that)
From my experience, players get more satisfaction from near victories or even near defeats (where they still survive) then they do from easy kills.
And if players whinge about tactics used against them often, then they should probably start countering in some way, that's just common sense, kinda like trying not to run into the same glass door for the third time...
But as with most things, moderation and appropriateness/context are important. And I don't believe in dick moves, its up to the DM to make the final adjudication on what seems unfair or unbalanced.
And with regards to sundering objects of great value, if players don't want to risk losing loot and feel they can still win, then don't bother, but which is better? losing the item as loot after winning the fight? or dying at the hands of said item from you enemy
But perhaps I just run a pretty mean game.