someday someone have to run a fighter Vs wizards championship, not ones against the others but against BBEGs, to see ho can handle the most diverse situation.
I woul propose it to my players but I play by forum it would take an eternity.
We did it with 3.5 on the WotC boards. The fighters did just fine. There were some difficult spots, but for the most part the fighters excelled or it was close. The person who proposed the idea and monsters thought he chose monsters the fighters couldn't beat. There were probably about 10 or 12 fighters that went through his gauntlet. There was a second gauntlet that used multiple opponents for each EL and we had to use the same fighters for that one. Again, the fighters did just fine, and actually managed to do better in some cases.
I think it showed two things:
1) Fighters can handle tough challenges by themselves but will do better with a group.
2) Those of us who know how to optimize fighters are going to make great fighters. I had two fighters I used, one was Core-Only and the other was not. Both did very well. I don't know how an inexperienced player would have done.
A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.I'm fairly certain that mundane flies out the window when you're scribing magic scrolls of an appropriately high level. It just means that the caster, who is obviously quite powerful, makes money by selling scrolls.
Also mage guilds, schools, libraries, and anything of that sort may also have various members of their organizations scribing scrolls to fund their activities. For example, if you have a group of wizards at a college, they may be expected to scribe at least one scroll once per week to donate to the college, or to give in exchange for tuition, unless they have some legitimate reason as to why they cannot (such as being busy creating another magic item, in which case they may need to scribe scrolls in advance depending on how strict the college was). Excess scrolls would in turn be sold to pay for college expenses.
I don't really care how at the moment, because it varies from campaign to campaign. I was just commenting that the core rules expect you to be able to be able to pay to scribe spells and buy scrolls; and like Meatrace said, if the core assumption is not going to be present, the GM should inform players of the house rule. It is only courteous.
Actually the rules expect each DM to run their games how they see fit.
Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least
one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion
merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic
swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available
in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs
determine what items are available in a given community.
These...
Which is fine. Like Meatrace and I have both pointed out, that is entirely reasonable, but the players should all be made aware of it before the campaign begins.
The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played.
You are trying to use a specific type of DM style campaign to justify your argument. DM's have the ability to cater more to one class and not another but the rulebooks don't say this is how it's done by default.
You misunderstand me. I was providing an example for the standard rules might be manifested. One of many possible examples. That's why I said I didn't care how it went about in any individual game, only that it is expected to go about.
Some GMs likewise "want magic to be special" and so they make it exceedingly difficult for Fighters to get magic items they need, or won't let them have equipment mimics spells because they see it as making magic less special somehow. Some GMs might not even let you buy spellcasting services or magic items at all.
But when I'm discussing the core expectancies, and the cost of equipment between a Fighter and a Wizard, I will discuss the core game and its core assumptions unless noted otherwise. I would appreciate it if you, and others, would have the same courtesy.
|
...A for-sale scroll-maker is just about as mundane as a dirt farmer in DnD. Your entire approach to this suggestion and assumptions, that any wizard PC will just automatically (through the course of playing the game) have access to as much scribing as they wish isn't supported in DnD fiction or DnD rules, much less 'in every game'.I'm fairly certain that mundane flies out the window when you're scribing magic scrolls of an appropriately high level. It just means that the caster, who is obviously quite powerful, makes money by selling scrolls.
Also mage guilds, schools, libraries, and anything of that sort may also have various members of their organizations scribing scrolls to fund their activities. For example, if you have a group of wizards at a college, they may be expected to scribe at least one scroll once per week to donate to the college, or to give in exchange for tuition, unless they have some legitimate reason as to why they cannot (such as being busy creating another magic item, in which case they may need to scribe scrolls in advance depending on how strict the college was). Excess scrolls would in turn be sold to pay for college expenses.
I don't really care how at the moment, because it varies from campaign to campaign. I was just commenting that the core rules expect you to be able to be able to pay to scribe spells and buy scrolls; and like Meatrace said, if the core assumption is not going to be present, the GM should inform players of the house rule. It is only courteous.
Actually the rules expect each DM to run their games how they see fit.
Magic items are valuable, and most major cities have at least
one or two purveyors of magic items, from a simple potion
merchant to a weapon smith that specializes in magic
swords. Of course, not every item in this book is available
in every town.
The following guidelines are presented to help GMs
determine what items are available in a given
Problem. It'd not a rule that is being changed. You are essentially trying to meta-game.
You as a player are not going to know the wealth of each city that is around unless you somehow know this knowledge in game.
As a DM I don't have to let any player know if I decided to have large cities have less magic items. As a player the only thing you can do is maybe gain this knowledge but that's it. If I were running a game and you tried to tell me that my cities were supposed to be done a certain way because you assumed that a certain item or items were supposed to be there do to meta-gaming then I would ask you to leave me table.
Not allowing certain spells and feats is an example of what you are looking for.
That's precisely what I'm saying, because that's what the rules say. I'm sure you know where to find the chart. I'll quote the relevant text:
Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community. In addition, the community has a number of other items for sale.
A small city has a "base value" of 4000g. Since a 9th level spell scroll is <4k, it should have ~75% availability rate in a small city. The random minor, med, major items, in my interpretation, would be any items that are above and beyond that base value.
The other interpretation that I've seen is that when you go looking for a specific magic item, if successful on the % check, a 1 would be subtracted from the random roll. So if I want a scroll of Implosion (<4k) and you rolled 3 Major magic items for the city, you can buy the scroll and now there are 2 items. I don't fly by this but I've seen it done.
I see where you are coming from, but I think the caster level limits plus creation costs of a scroll make them an exception that weren't accounted for within the basic assumptions of 'gp limit'. Not only that, but a glance through pre-statted cities and their items seems to confirm this. There is a reason that scrolls reach 'major' magical item status at a far earlier gp limit than weapons, wondrous items or such. Pretending they don't is silly.
I see where you are coming from, but I think the caster level limits plus creation costs of a scroll make them an exception that weren't accounted for within the basic assumptions of 'gp limit'. Not only that, but a glance through pre-statted cities and their items seems to confirm this. There is a reason that scrolls reach 'major' magical item status at a far earlier gp limit than weapons, wondrous items or such. Pretending they don't is silly.
Edit:
Wait, I think I see where you're coming from. You're saying that, since a (completely hypothetical) town has a caster limit of 8th, which limits the purchasing of spells as a service as outlined in the Equipment section of the CRB to 8th level spells, but a Base Value of 4000gp, you shouldn't be able to purchase 9th level scrolls because there is no caster in that town.
Is that a fair summary of your position?
My assumption isn't that said scrolls are infinitely available in smaller cities, or even that small cities must then have a resident caster pumping out scrolls. My assertion is that despite the fact that you can only pay for a 7th level spell to be cast in some towns, that doesn't FURTHER limit what scrolls should be available because a spellcaster doesn't have to be present for scrolls to be. They are a portable good.
I don't think that's silly. That's economics. That's like saying you're unable to procure rope in a town that doesn't manufacture its own rope. Now THAT would be silly.
Problem. It'd not a rule that is being changed. You are essentially trying to meta-game.
No more than expecting to be able to buy any other sort of item, such as armor.
You as a player are not going to know the wealth of each city that is around unless you somehow know this knowledge in game.
I'm sure it's fairly common knowledge that larger cities have more wealth and support the trade of such fare.
As a DM I don't have to let any player know if I decided to have large cities have less magic items. As a player the only thing you can do is maybe gain this knowledge but that's it. If I were running a game and you tried to tell me that my cities were supposed to be done a certain way because you assumed that a certain item or items were supposed to be there do to meta-gaming then I would ask you to leave me table.
Not allowing certain spells and feats is an example of what you are looking for.
No, it's the same. You're changing a core expectancy of the game. It would be like not telling Fighters that full-plate is rarer than expected in your world, so they shouldn't expect to be able to purchase it. Same with any other item. If you decided bags of holding are rarer than their price and the city rules would indicate, then it should be something that you let your players know beforehand.
There are enough tools in the GM's toolbox that springing "gotcha" house rules on people without telling them is not a required way to challenge people. Fortunately for me, I don't play in your games, but neither my nor your games change what is assumed within the rules.
And as long as we're discussing the game in its general terms, I will continue to go by the assumptions made in the book. You, however, are free to do what you want.
Problem. It'd not a rule that is being changed. You are essentially trying to meta-game.
You as a player are not going to know the wealth of each city that is around unless you somehow know this knowledge in game.
As a DM I don't have to let any player know if I decided to have large cities have less magic items. As a player the only thing you can do is maybe gain this knowledge but that's it. If I were running a game and you tried to tell me that my cities were supposed to be done a certain way because you assumed that a certain item or items were supposed to be there do to meta-gaming then I would ask you to leave me table.
Not allowing certain spells and feats is an example of what you are looking for.
You're going way too far with this self-righteous god-DM stuff.
We're not talking about specific cities, we're talking about the general availability of magic items. No one is trying to metagame any farther than knowing the general layout and style of the campaign, which absolutely should be shared with the players before play begins.The guidelines are, yes, just guidelines. However, they are in place to ensure that players are able to level smoothly and able to purchase the magic items that they will NEED by virtue of the challenge curve and the nature of PC vs. NPC/Monster power curves. In short, PCs need magic items to be able to survive and that need is hard-wired into the way the game presents challenges according to CR.
Furthermore these guidelines imply a fairness across classes. If a Fighter needs to upgrade his sword, or to buy a cold iron sword to fight some demons you're hunting or what have you and that weapon costs 3,000, it is assumed that the wizard be able to get(or at least have an equal chance of finding)a Rod of Silent Spell, Lesser.
So, again, the guidelines aren't there to be transparent necessarily. You shouldn't have a player, or a PC for that matter, sizing up a village and calculating whether he should be able to find a Ring of Protection there. It's a tool for the DM to be able to fairly answer the question "is X item available here". The player asks, you consult the table, roll dice, and give him an answer. Or make him roleplay the search, coming across some interesting characters etc. That's all DM discretion. But saying "nope, sorry, scrolls don't exist in my game, suck it" once the Wizard reaches level 7 is a dick move.
Guidelines or not, I think it behooves you as a DM to be fair across the classes and not pick on the fighter or the wizard. If a fighter buys a +5 sword, but the wizard can't find a simple scroll of Teleport, that's kinda biased.
Not quite my point, Meatrace, but close.
The item creation rules allow a 5th level spellcaster to craft a +5 vorpal longsword. It has a Spellcraft DC of 32, assuming the crafter does not provide a scroll for circle of death.
A 5th level crafting wizard could have a +17 Spellcraft modifier with little effort.
5 ranks, +3 class skill, +4 Int, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Magical Aptitude
He currently needs to roll a 15 on his check. If he bothers to get item based access to circle of death, the DC is 27. He now needs a 10.
This is only to illustrate the potential creators of powerful magical items. Obviously +5 vorpal longswords probably come from more powerful crafters, but it is possible that they do not. When I place powerful magical weapons in a town, I do not even need to consider where they came from if I don't want. They could easily come from very humble base line item crafters.
The same item creation rules state that a 9th level scroll comes from, at minimum, a 17th level caster. No way around it. No one else can make a 9th level scroll. So if there are a lot of 9th level scrolls out there, there ought to be a lot 17th level wizards out there, scribing them for sale.
I don't think the item availability rules take that into consideration. I don't mind using high level scrolls for treasure, but I don't think that there ought to be a 75% success rate of locating a 9th level scroll in a small city.
I don't think the item availability rules take that into consideration. I don't mind using high level scrolls for treasure, but I don't think that there ought to be a 75% success rate of locating a 9th level scroll in a small city.
Ok I see what you're saying. I think you're looking far too deep into it though. You also have to admit that "I don't think there ought to be" is not a good argument against the RAW. The fact that you don't think there are a bunch of wizards out there feverishly scribbling down spells doesn't mean there aren't. Personally I find it rather unbelievable that magic weapons are so widely available when a wizard would never have call to use one. Doesn't mean I pick on fighters and make them use mundane weapons.
If you want to look at it even further, realistically that +5 weapon is far LESS likely to be available. Wizards are smart. Either they are making that weapon on commission, in which it would only be fair for the wizard to tell the commissioner "hey, you have to give me half the cost up front for me to procure materials, and there's only a 25% chance you'll get the item you wanted. If I fail, you get nothing. If I succeed, you pay me the other half." Or they are making it for sale, in which case they are putting in that investment themselves, 1/4 chance of success for a 2:1 payoff is a baaaad investment.
There are a TON of things that the rules don't account for; they aren't a perfect simulation of a fantasy world. However, changing those rules in order to repair your verisimilitude is called enacting house rules. Which, again, is totally fine...but you should tell your players that, for example, high level scrolls are going to be very scarce because you don't think high level wizards are that abundant or that they have nothing better to do than scribe scrolls.
Ok I see what you're saying. I think you're looking far too deep into it though. You also have to admit that "I don't think there ought to be" is not a good argument against the RAW. The fact that you don't think there are a bunch of wizards out there feverishly scribbling down spells doesn't mean there aren't. Personally I find it rather unbelievable that magic weapons are so widely available when a wizard would never have call to use one. Doesn't mean I pick on fighters and make them use mundane weapons.
If you want to look at it even further, realistically that +5 weapon is far LESS likely to be available. Wizards are smart. Either they are making that weapon on commission, in which it would only be fair for the wizard to tell the commissioner "hey, you have to give me half the cost up front for me to procure materials, and there's only a 25% chance you'll get the item you wanted. If I fail, you get nothing. If I succeed, you pay me the other half." Or they are making it for sale, in which case they are putting in that investment themselves, 1/4 chance of success for a 2:1 payoff is a baaaad investment.
There are a TON of things that the rules don't account for; they aren't a perfect simulation of a fantasy world. However, changing those rules in order to repair your verisimilitude is called enacting house rules. Which, again, is totally fine...but you should tell your players that, for example, high level scrolls are going to be very scarce because you don't think high level wizards are that abundant or that they have nothing better to do than scribe scrolls.
I think we're moving away from the real point in me bringing this up though. Despite not finding 9th level scrolls in every magic shop bargain bin in the larger cities, I don't particularly hamper PCs in their quests for scrolls when they are in said cities.
Ashiel however, made the argument that because there is high level scrolls available, that suggests that there are equally high level spellcasters there, that would be willing to share their spellbooks with Kat, Peter's character. This would be far cheaper (was the phrase 'doing it wrong' used, I don't recall.) than Kat trying to buy up all the scrolls she needs to scribe into her spellbook.
And that is A) false, and B) a crap assumption anyways.
As for house rules, they play on the Flaness. You know, Greyhawk. The expectations of magical shops in every city is already lowered, and the expectation of a wizard spell peer to peer sharing program is nonexistent. It isn't 'house rules'.
Kat has no problems contributing to the team. She simply doesn't dominate its every encounter. Her player in no way is being screwed over on his treasure.
Ashiel however, made the argument that because there is high level scrolls available, that suggests that there are equally high level spellcasters there, that would be willing to share their spellbooks with Kat, Peter's character. This would be far cheaper (was the phrase 'doing it wrong' used, I don't recall.) than Kat trying to buy up all the scrolls she needs to scribe into her spellbook.
So you make a claim that someone refuse to accept and then you make a secon claim and that someone try to refute your second claim and you use the second refutation to prove your first claim??
Socrates would like that :)
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. I just don't want to wander too far off topic.
1. I believe that scrolls ought to be treated differently than via flat item price when it comes to determining availability.
2. Despite that, I don't particularly restrict my 14th level PCs from obtaining scrolls they desire.
I don't want to spend too much time defending point 1, when point 2 is the case and we're really talking about something else entirely.
All classes can handle challenges solo. The variety of challenges they can handle depends somewhat on whether they bring their own buffs, and the variety is necessarily and obviously enhanced by having magic items.
All classes can handle challenges better with a party. At no point does the theoretical, always-prepared-the-right-spells, Overcomes-enemy-saves and-resistances-unfailingly God-Wizard cease to benefit from the additional skill-base, action economy, tactical grid-control, base of specialization, and die rolls that come from other party members, and, indeed, other classes. Nor does the took-the-right-feats, has-lots-of-skills, Uses-magical-items-to-enhance-versatility Super-Fighter rise above and beyond the point where he could benefit from other classes.
Theoretically, any character can rise beyond needing others, but the other classes will always have something to contribute. I say this not in theory, but in practice for higher-level games I've run that sometimes split parties in weird combinations.
Ashiel however, made the argument that because there is high level scrolls available, that suggests that there are equally high level spellcasters there, that would be willing to share their spellbooks with Kat, Peter's character. This would be far cheaper (was the phrase 'doing it wrong' used, I don't recall.) than Kat trying to buy up all the scrolls she needs to scribe into her spellbook.
And that is A) false, and B) a crap assumption anyways.
A)It's not false. It would be cheaper, and the game further assumes that there are wizards available to purchase spells from. I'd compromise between your two positions and say that, if in a given city the Spellcasting limit is 6th, you ought to be able to get that same wizard that is willing to cast a 6th level spell for you to scribe it into your spellbook for a modest fee. That seams very reasonable to me.
B)It's not a crap assumption, it's hard-wired into the CRB. Granted, playing in a specific setting comes with it a certain set of house rules. Every world has these, in Dark Sun for example it's ludicrously hard to get new wizard spells. But that's a specific world with a specific set of house rules, which again we're not speaking to in Ashiel's and my argument. So it's not a crap assumption, it's a fair one, barring the DM saying otherwise, as with everything else in the CRB the player can only assume the rules are as written there.
It seems your problem is with the CRB, not with us. We're only presenting to you what is written in the CRB itself. It goes without saying that every DM, every game, every group, every campaign setting will tweak these rules to some degree. That doesn't mean that it's not helpful to have a baseline to compare to, which is what the CRB gives us.
And that is A) false, and B) a crap assumption anyways.A)It's not false. It would be cheaper, and the game further assumes that there are wizards available to purchase spells from. I'd compromise between your two positions and say that, if in a given city the Spellcasting limit is 6th, you ought to be able to get that same wizard that is willing to cast a 6th level spell for you to scribe it into your spellbook for a modest fee. That seams very reasonable to me.
1. It is false because of the very defense you offered for scrolls showing up when their creators aren't there. You cannot assume simply because there is a scroll for sale that its creator is A) present in town and B) has a ton of spells in his spellbook for you to copy down.
2. Unless you show me in the rules that the game assumes there are (vs there could be) wizards available to purchase spells from, I'm not going to address that point further. I do not believe it does that at all.
B)It's not a crap assumption, it's hard-wired into the CRB. Granted, playing in a specific setting comes with it a certain set of house rules. Every world has these, in Dark Sun for example it's ludicrously hard to get new wizard spells. But that's a specific world with a specific set of house rules, which again we're not speaking to in Ashiel's and my argument. So it's not a crap assumption, it's a fair one, barring the DM saying otherwise, as with everything else in the CRB the player can only assume the rules are as written there.
I feel your use of 'house rules' is off. House rules are different from setting rules. Moreover, you yourself are the one who pointed out why Ashiel's assumption that scrolls = scroll creators = spellbook offerers is crap. I simply agreed with you.
It seems your problem is with the CRB, not with us. We're only presenting to you what is written in the CRB itself. It goes without saying that every DM, every game, every group, every campaign setting will tweak these rules to some degree. That doesn't mean that it's not helpful to have a baseline to compare to, which is what the CRB gives us.
What is under discussion has nothing to do with the core rulebook's assumptions. If you want to go that route, assuming that an adventurer will have large towns near them at all is an assumption that differs from game to game, and the CRB makes no promise that they will be around. If you want to see what a PC wizard is 'assumed' to have, go ahead and check out Ezren's stats.
B)It's not a crap assumption, it's hard-wired into the CRB. Granted, playing in a specific setting comes with it a certain set of house rules. Every world has these, in Dark Sun for example it's ludicrously hard to get new wizard spells. But that's a specific world with a specific set of house rules, which again we're not speaking to in Ashiel's and my argument. So it's not a crap assumption, it's a fair one, barring the DM saying otherwise, as with everything else in the CRB the player can only assume the rules are as written there.I feel your use of 'house rules' is off. House rules are different from setting rules. Moreover, you yourself are the one who pointed out why Ashiel's assumption that scrolls = scroll creators = spellbook offerers is crap. I simply agreed with you.
You see, that is what i meant before, a clasic use of the dialectic method
Socrates and kin darkwind seems to wins this time :)
I noted that there are lots of different ways that you can spin it. Rules assume one thing, and how you present those rules is another matter entirely. Like I said, the rules say a wizard can typically pay to learn spells. So how you want to go about doing that, in game, is entirely up to your group. However, it is assumed.
Be it an arcane college, the local professional wizard whom the Fighter goes to, to get enlarge person and permanency cast on him, or a wizard who is busily crafting magic items such as scrolls to be sold to fund his next big spell research. Doesn't really matter. What does matter is the core rules expect something, and deviating from those rules is in fact a house rule.
Is it really so bad to have a house rule? I have several! I just don't argue that my house rules are core rules on the forum, because that's just silly.
And that is A) false, and B) a crap assumption anyways.A)It's not false. It would be cheaper, and the game further assumes that there are wizards available to purchase spells from. I'd compromise between your two positions and say that, if in a given city the Spellcasting limit is 6th, you ought to be able to get that same wizard that is willing to cast a 6th level spell for you to scribe it into your spellbook for a modest fee. That seams very reasonable to me.1. It is false because of the very defense you offered for scrolls showing up when their creators aren't there. You cannot assume simply because there is a scroll for sale that its creator is A) present in town and B) has a ton of spells in his spellbook for you to copy down.
2. Unless you show me in the rules that the game assumes there are (vs there could be) wizards available to purchase spells from, I'm not going to address that point further. I do not believe it does that at all.
You either misunderstood or are misrepresenting my point. Please re-read it and see if you can understand what I'm saying.
I didn't say that just because a scroll is present in a town that the scriber is there. I said THE EXACT FREAKING OPPOSITE. What I did say is that that Spellcasting number you're talking about in settlement write ups? That refers to the highest level of spell you can pay for the service of being castin the core rulebook in the Equipment section. Not scrolls. For a spellcaster to cast the spell HIMSELF he MUST be present. If he is present, and is available to cast that spell, he is ALSO available to scribe that spell into your spellbook.
So, in Elven Town in the Settlements section, the Spellcasting is 7th level. Which means that you can reliably find a sage or priest to cast any spell of up to 7th level at the costs listed in the Equipment section. THAT means that he is present in that town, not the presence or absence of scrolls.
(In addition to what Meatrace said)
If a player as ever had a scroll of a level he can't cast in your group then it also stands to reason that other people in the same world could have scrolls of levels they can't cast too. Those people could be willing to part with the scroll for the right amount of gold (after all it is a level they can't cast and perhaps they would instead like to have the gold to make a magical item of the sort they can make).
Like I said, the rules say a wizard can typically pay to learn spells.
Is it really so bad to have a house rule?
Where does it say this, Ashiel? Can you give me a quote? Page number? How much do wizards charge (according to the core rules) to sell off their spell permanently to another wizard?
And no, it isn't bad to have house rules, but what we're discussing is 'campaign flavor' which is different. I have plenty of house rules. Presenting Greyhawk in the way that it is presented is not one of them.
You either misunderstood or are misrepresenting my point. Please re-read it and see if you can understand what I'm saying.
I didn't say that just because a scroll is present in a town that the scriber is there. I said THE EXACT FREAKING OPPOSITE.
See, here's where I want to be snarky and be all like, "NO YOU GO READ STUPID HEAD!" But I won't. Please reread what I wrote previously however, after reading the following:
I agreed with you that having a scroll in stock doesn't mean you have a caster in stock. Ashiel, in a previous response to Peter Stewart, said that if you have a scroll, you have a caster to sell you spells. I disagreed with that, as seemingly do you by your own words.
As for your point about having spellcasting services, I agree with everything you said about it, and I understand completely what the spellcasting level means. I think there are a few issues though.
1. The highest level spellcasting might be non-wizard.
2. The highest level spellcasting wizard might not be willing to sell.
3. Nothing in the Core Rules supports an opposing point to either points 1 or 2.
As for your point about having spellcasting services, I agree with everything you said about it, and I understand completely what the spellcasting level means. I think there are a few issues though.1. The highest level spellcasting might be non-wizard.
2. The highest level spellcasting wizard might not be willing to sell.
3. Nothing in the Core Rules supports an opposing point to either points 1 or 2.
1-makes sense, if it is a spell that can be both divine and arcane. Many can't, and the assumption by RAW is that ANY spell of that level is available for purchase.
2-It is possible. However, if they have it memorized already they are CAPABLE of then scribing it into your spellbook for you, whether they want to or not. If they're willing to sell or not then becomes a matter of convincing them it's in their best interest to, by financial means or...other more creative ones ;). If nothing else I ought to be able to use Diplomacy to convince them I'm someone after their own interests and make them friendly and MUCH more likely to share. Right?Also, page 219 is where it has the prices of buying a spell from a spellcaster directly. Top right of the page, second full paragraph.
It's my favorite section of the rule book that no one ever reads: The magic section.
Person: "It's so dry and technical, I don't want to read that."
Me: "Do you want your character's soul sucked out and fed to a demon the first time you cast a spell?"
Person: "NO!"
Me: "Then you best read that section so you know if I'm bsing when I say it is possible or not, and what spells you shouldn't cast if you don't want it to happen."
Spells Copied from Another's Spellbook or a Scroll
A wizard can also add a spell to his book whenever he encounters one on a magic scroll or in another wizard's spellbook. No matter what the spell's source, the wizard must first decipher the magical writing (see Arcane Magical Writings). Next, he must spend 1 hour studying the spell. At the end of the hour, he must make a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell's level). A wizard who has specialized in a school of spells gains a +2 bonus on the Spellcraft check if the new spell is from his specialty school. If the check succeeds, the wizard understands the spell and can copy it into his spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). The process leaves a spellbook that was copied from unharmed, but a spell successfully copied from a magic scroll disappears from the parchment.
If the check fails, the wizard cannot understand or copy the spell. He cannot attempt to learn or copy that spell again until one week has passed. If the spell was from a scroll, a failed Spellcraft check does not cause the spell to vanish.
In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to half the cost to write the spell into a spellbook (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook). Rare and unique spells might cost significantly more.
Spell Level Writing Cost
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
Selling a SpellbookCaptured spellbooks can be sold for an amount equal to half the cost of purchasing and inscribing the spells within.
As for your point about having spellcasting services, I agree with everything you said about it, and I understand completely what the spellcasting level means. I think there are a few issues though.1. The highest level spellcasting might be non-wizard.
2. The highest level spellcasting wizard might not be willing to sell.
3. Nothing in the Core Rules supports an opposing point to either points 1 or 2.
1-makes sense, if it is a spell that can be both divine and arcane. Many can't, and the assumption by RAW is that ANY spell of that level is available for purchase.
2-It is possible. However, if they have it memorized already they are CAPABLE of then scribing it into your spellbook for you, whether they want to or not. If they're willing to sell or not then becomes a matter of convincing them it's in their best interest to, by financial means or...other more creative ones ;). If nothing else I ought to be able to use Diplomacy to convince them I'm someone after their own interests and make them friendly and MUCH more likely to share. Right?Also, page 219 is where it has the prices of buying a spell from a spellcaster directly. Top right of the page, second full paragraph.
I disagree with you that 'the assumption by RAW is that ANY spell of that level is available for purchase' I'd like to see anything backing that up, but I can't imagine any 'assumed' stance that says if I go into a town with 2nd level spells, that EVERY 2nd level spell is available.
I agree with you that convincing wizards who aren't automatically willing to share to share is part and parcel of the game. Whether that boils down to a simple skill check or a quest doesn't matter, and should probably vary from situation to situation.
And I know the pricing of buying the casting of a spell. Buying the scribing of a spell is very different. A rough comparison would be the cost to hire a plumber and the cost to hire a plumber to teach you how to do your own plumbing. (Or the cost of water vs the cost of buying exclusive rights to the river.) One of those is simple services. The other is the ability to remove the service granter forever more from the equation. And the costs involved typically reflect that.
And I know the pricing of buying the casting of a spell. Buying the scribing of a spell is very different. A rough comparison would be the cost to hire a plumber and the cost to hire a plumber to teach you how to do your own...
You have the right to hold that opinion, of course. I think it's a matter of where logic and rules clash and they clearly do. The rules assume that EVERY spell of up to that level is available for purchase, given 24 hours of prep time like it is stipulated. The question is whether those spells are available to be copied into a spellbook, because they ARE available to have their CASTING purchased. And the guidelines in the CRB disagree with you. It's pretty cheap to buy a spell from a wizard.
I was just pointing out the reasoning, using the rules we were both referencing involving Spellcaster level and Base Value of settlements, where it's rather reasonable to expect that MOST spells be available. The reasoning is simple, and I just want to outline it once more for posterity and don't mean to insinuate you don't understand:
In city X the Spellcasting level is 3. That means that the rules absolutely assume that spells up to and including that level are available for purchase to be cast by a caster, though it may take a 24 hour waiting period for them to memorize or prepare the correct spell. If that caster is a Wizard that means necessarily that the Wizard has the spell in his spellbook. If it's in his spellbook, and you want to copy it into yours, there are guidelines as to how much he might charge IF willing to let you do so. The issue is, then, convincing him to let you do so.
|
|
I want to back up for a moment and discuss how campaign styles have become house rules.
Now I don't see anywhere in the books that it states that city X must have ABC. I see guidelines that are used by DM's who don't want to have to create their own city structure can use the one from the book.
Now if you are a player and you go and read the GM section and begin assuming that all cities are going to have AB&C then that's meta-gaming which is wrong.
Because I don't use an example city structure from the book doesn't mean I am using house rules and it doesn't mean I need to share that information with all player's at the table. You as a player shouldn't have assumed that my cities were going to mimic those from the book.
My point is that the rules assume those spell castings are available for purchase in the exact same way they assume rope or flour or a short sword are available for purchase. If this is not so, on contradiction to the Settlement rules/guidelines, then there had better be a good reason why both as a story point and as a DM why you want to keep these things from a player.
Because I don't use an example city structure from the book doesn't mean I am using house rules and it doesn't mean I need to share that information with all player's at the table. You as a player shouldn't have assumed that my cities were going to mimic those from the book.
Yes it does. Anything that deviates from the core rules is house rules BY DEFINITION. That's like saying "Just because in my game we roll 2d10 instead of a d20 for saving throws, doesn't mean it's a house rule." Yes it does. "Just because when a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack rule he automatically decapitates himself..." that's a house rule.
If assuming that the rules presented in the CRB is your definition of metagaming, then EVERYONE METAGAMES because we assume that Fighters have full BAB as in the CRB. How dare the players assume that magic exists, therefore playing a spellcasting class is metagaming, etc. If you can't assume that the game as presented in the CRB is the way it will be played, then you can literally NOT ASSUME ANYTHING.
Therefore, YES the onus is on YOU, the DM to tell them how things differ. If you don't it's either a)a mistake, in which case it's good form to give players the benefit of the doubt when the mistake is discovered or b)the DM trying to spring a trap on players "Ha, you shouldn't have assumed that casting a spell devour your very soul and cost you 1 negative level!" which is pure dickery.
|
|
Because I don't use an example city structure from the book doesn't mean I am using house rules and it doesn't mean I need to share that information with all player's at the table. You as a player shouldn't have assumed that my cities were going to mimic those from the book.Yes it does. Anything that deviates from the core rules is house rules BY DEFINITION. That's like saying "Just because in my game we roll 2d10 instead of a d20 for saving throws, doesn't mean it's a house rule." Yes it does. "Just because when a player rolls a natural 1 on an attack rule he automatically decapitates himself..." that's a house rule.
If assuming that the rules presented in the CRB is your definition of metagaming, then EVERYONE METAGAMES because we assume that Fighters have full BAB as in the CRB. How dare the players assume that magic exists, therefore playing a spellcasting class is metagaming, etc. If you can't assume that the game as presented in the CRB is the way it will be played, then you can literally NOT ASSUME ANYTHING.
Therefore, YES the onus is on YOU, the DM to tell them how things differ. If you don't it's either a)a mistake, in which case it's good form to give players the benefit of the doubt when the mistake is discovered or b)the DM trying to spring a trap on players "Ha, you shouldn't have assumed that casting a spell devour your very soul and cost you 1 negative level!" which is pure dickery.
You can say yes it does until you are blue in the face but I'm afraid it isn't. My city structure is not player knowledge unless your character takes the time to find that out in game.
Do you fully understand that? You as a player are not required to know the structure of any city out of character.
You can say yes it does until you are blue in the face but I'm afraid it isn't. My city structure is not player knowledge unless your character takes the time to find that out in game.
Do you fully understand that? You as a player are not required to know the structure of any city out of character.
Yep. That's irrelevant.
The context of this debate is the availability of magic items. If you make magic items unavailable you NEED TO TELL YOUR PLAYERS.Do you fully understand that? You as a DM are required to tell your players every way in which the game will deviate from core rules, which includes assumptions about availability of magic items.
You have the right to hold that opinion, of course. I think it's a matter of where logic and rules clash and they clearly do. The rules assume that EVERY spell of up to that level is available for purchase, given 24 hours of prep time like it is stipulated. The question is whether those spells are available to be copied into a spellbook, because they ARE available to have their CASTING purchased. And the guidelines in the CRB disagree with you. It's pretty cheap to buy a spell from a wizard.
I have yet to see you provide me with the text that states that EVERY spell, be it druid, witch, summoner or wizard, is available for purchase. I think that not only is it not supported, it isn't an assumption either.
You have the right to hold that opinion, of course. I think it's a matter of where logic and rules clash and they clearly do. The rules assume that EVERY spell of up to that level is available for purchase, given 24 hours of prep time like it is stipulated. The question is whether those spells are available to be copied into a spellbook, because they ARE available to have their CASTING purchased. And the guidelines in the CRB disagree with you. It's pretty cheap to buy a spell from a wizard.I have yet to see you provide me with the text that states that EVERY spell, be it druid, witch, summoner or wizard, is available for purchase. I think that not only is it not supported, it isn't an assumption either.
It's in the equipment section of the core rulebook. The last section. Go ahead and read it yourself. While it doesn't say you're guaranteed, it does use the term "reasonably assured". Here you will find what you're looking for. Very bottom of the page.
What does reasonably assured mean? To me it would mean, in the context of an adventure, barring some catastrophic event like a dragon attack or the druid's circle meeting that particular day you should be able to find someone to cast whatever spell you want, provided it is <= the Spellcasting level provided.
So I reiterate that these spells being available for casting is under the same stipulations that any other mundane good is under, be it flour or rope or metal weapons, i.e. it is merely a function of city size and "Base Value" for item procurement.
You have the right to hold that opinion, of course. I think it's a matter of where logic and rules clash and they clearly do. The rules assume that EVERY spell of up to that level is available for purchase, given 24 hours of prep time like it is stipulated. The question is whether those spells are available to be copied into a spellbook, because they ARE available to have their CASTING purchased. And the guidelines in the CRB disagree with you. It's pretty cheap to buy a spell from a wizard.I have yet to see you provide me with the text that states that EVERY spell, be it druid, witch, summoner or wizard, is available for purchase. I think that not only is it not supported, it isn't an assumption either.
It is unlikely that you will ever find a passage that says EVERY spell is available. Here is the exact text from the PRD (I assume it's the same in the CRB):
Spellcasting: The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This cost assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at his convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell you need to negotiate with him, and the default answer is no.
The cost given is for any spell that does not require a costly material component. If the spell includes a material component, add the cost of that component to the cost of the spell. If the spell has a focus component (other than a divine focus), add 1/10 the cost of that focus to the cost of the spell.
Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster.
In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.
To be fair though, using these "guidelines" or "rules" or whatever you want to call them, cleric and druid spells are most likely available after 24 hours unlike the other spells since clerics and druids can just prepare different spells the next day.
Just because something is available doesn't mean that you can have it though. That being said, barring some role playing reasons (you pissed off the local sage or you are an evil cleric looking for a good cleric to cast spells for you), the GM should probably just let the spells be available. That's my own opinion though and you are more than free to do things differently.
I just find it surprising that one would read 'reasonably assured' to equate to 'you will find all spells available of all kinds' as a baseline assumption for these services.
Plenty of sources that offer new magic spells suggest that you limit their availability to differentiate between different regions and what not. Even just assuming that all core wizard spells (of a level equal to or below the limit for the settlement) are possessed by the local wizard seems a stretch to me.
Furthermore, I don't find differing assumptions along this line (say, no druid magic found in towns, almost ever, up to allowing every spell from every allowed source to be available) to be 'house rules', because it would seem that this is open to DM interpretation and does not explicitly default one way or another.
I play fighters almost exclusively.I actually really like Fighters. In games where GMs let them have nice things, they're really incredibly wonderful members of a team. In many ways, this hasn't changed from older editions.
I recall a very impressive example from another Fighter thread. It's not from my games, but it makes good sense non-the-less. Back in 1st Edition, Lolth the Demon Queen of Spiders had about 63 hit points. For those only experienced with 3E, read that again: 63.
She had lots of spell resistance, good saves, etc. The best way to kill her avatar (or maybe it was actually her) was in fact with your party's Fighter. You would buff him to the high heavens, crowd control the minions, and let him jump on her with his multiple attacks per round and 1d8+5 damage or so. Now when you've got 2+ attacks at 1d8+5, all attacks using your full attack bonus, the Fighter is probably going to carve his name into that demi-god-thingy.
Fighters are much like that today. A decently built Fighter can deal such excessive raw-HP damage that they make exceptionally good strikers. I mean, I noted earlier that a 20th level 2-handed Fighter can auto-crit for about 285 damage every round as a standard action. There is quite literally nothing that is going to stand up to that kind of abuse for very long, barring outright evasion.
Core Fighters are just as good at dealing damage (and are harder to evade due to spells like displacement or mirror image due to splitting their damage over multiple attacks) as well, and can support both Melee and Ranged combat almost regardless of their primary specialization (for example, if you specialize in Polearms to +5, you still can specialize in Bows to +4, etc).
Honestly, the only thing that holds Fighters back is the fact they have to rely on magic items or spells from their party members to avoid being removed from combat easily with CC effects, or to help keep them mobile. Truly, a Fighter really shines when they have a handful of...
lolth had 66 hp and the ability to heal herself 3 t/day, with either a -10 or -8 AC...which at that time was the highest for a monster in the whole game.
If you really wanted to make her hard to hurt, you had her adopt Drow form, slap on drow plate and shield +5, and with her 21 Dex and a ring of prot+3 she hit AC -17. Whiff, whiff, whiff...
I still remember her Abyssal Giant Spider minions. 1E animal/monsters on Chaotic Planes all had double HD, i.e. 8+8 for Giant Spiders. Then she Animal Growth'd 16 of them...16+16 HD Giant spiders, coming at you!
===Aelryinth
Yes, I usually play them as enemies, npcs, as DM, because when I play if I want to be a fighter I usually go Ranger, my favorite class period.
But hey, fighter is nice and straight forward. A lot of damage, a lot of talents, mobility with heavy armor. What can you ask more?
Who said CC spells, animal companion, high reflex saves and evasion??
lolth had 66 hp and the ability to heal herself 3 t/day, with either a -10 or -8 AC...which at that time was the highest for a monster in the whole game.
If you really wanted to make her hard to hurt, you had her adopt Drow form, slap on drow plate and shield +5, and with her 21 Dex and a ring of prot+3 she hit AC -17. Whiff, whiff, whiff...
I still remember her Abyssal Giant Spider minions. 1E animal/monsters on Chaotic Planes all had double HD, i.e. 8+8 for Giant Spiders. Then she Animal Growth'd 16 of them...16+16 HD Giant spiders, coming at you!
===Aelryinth
Yeah. Which is mostly why your best bet was to CC her minions and throw a buffed out Fighter at her. The Fighter was the only one who had a chance of hitting her, or at least having enough attacks to keep trying, since getting through other defenses was theoretically really hard.
But I won't pretend to know a whole lot about 1E. Most of it is secondhand knowledge and what I've managed to dig up myself. Not being OGL, it's rather difficult to procure a copy of the rules.
Ashiel, here is a link to the Old School Revival Index Compilation.
It isn't perfect 1e. Some of it was cleaned up and some of the off the wall crap like psyonics were omitted, but it isn't bad.
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/download.html
Thank you Cranewings. I appreciate it. *bow* ^.^
Candy for Ashiel:
http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Fighter
Candy for Ashiel:
http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Fighter
Thank you Kelsey/Montana. I shall look over it in depth as soon as possible.
I played a 5th level ranged dagger fighter in a one shot yesterday. It was awesome fun, killed a number of constructs with well placed dagger-tosses. I think you have to apply appropriate sound effects for the damage you are dealing for a fighter to have his full impact though. If a commoner could be killed by a well placed short sword blow by another commoner, and a well placed short sword blow is 6 points of damage, what must a crit with deadly aim look like with a thrown dagger that deals 30 points of damage against a clockwork soldier? Pretty awesome explosion of gears and machinery, I would imagine.