|
I'm in the process of arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a Staff of Wish that contains 60+ wishes a day. It's using the Fabricate abuse and I still think there is a flaw somewhere but if Wish still had it's XP costs then we wouldn't even be having the argument.
Wait a second... let's back the bus up before we get to hot under the collar. Staff of Wish with 60+ wishes/day?
To start, looking at the rules, any item that is made by a player that doesn't exist in a book already is subject to the GMs approval.
So if you're the GM (which I assume you are, apologies if you are not), then you've approved that the 20th level player with 880,000gp can buy such a staff. The Core details that for a balanced approach you should only allow a player to spend up to 25% on other magic items, or 220,000 gp.
I'm going to assume you've waived that rule or decided to not employ it.
A luck blade with 3 wishes costs 142,960. For simplicity sake let's say the 3 wishes are about 100,000 gp. That's 3 one time uses of wish for 100,000 gp.
Staves normally are limited to having only 10 charges. I'd have to assume that any 9th level spell wish a component cost of 25,000 in a staff would take all 10 charges (please correct me if I'm wrong, I couldn't find something comparable to wish in a staff).
So we have the ability to cast 60+ wishes a day with a staff, which since it's a staff is rechargeable. It has about 600+ charges, and thus is more powerful than the staff of the magi and the shadowstaff, both of which are artifacts.
At the very least that item is the greatest artifact ever (and thus is impossible to create).
If I was in your position, the problem isn't XP costs in Pathfinder. It's that they are attempting to make a 100 quadrillion GP artifact. If the players argues, explain that this would break the game and give them the artifacts listed as examples as to why this is broken.
Apologies if you meant wand of wish.
|
I'm in the process of arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a Staff of Wish that contains 60+ wishes a day.Well that argument has an easy RAW solution - just don't allow the staff. GMs have to approve any custom-designed magic item. Just tell the player "heck no!" and move on.
If they are using the forumlas in the CRB, throw this at them:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.Even going by that chart, what is basically described here is a unlimited charges wish spell trigger item, which would run 17*9*1500+50*25000=about 1.5 million gp. It would also rapidly become the most sought after item on the planet.
How in the world can fabricate help with magic item crafting? You explicitly can't use it for magic items.
Someone in another thread is trying to say they can use Fabricate to create diamonds in order to make a Staff of Wishes. I said you couldn't but he says you can etc....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have a very different way of playing than us. I guess if you don't think the DM has the power to limit PC wealth then you may be correct about needing xp limits. I don't really understand that kind of game to comment.I think it's a good thing that they removed the XP Cost. in 3.5 if you wanted to do a wish you just could, playing you XP(an immaterial source that you can always pay). In pf a good Master can regulate the afflux of money so if you don't have money you just cannot cast a wish.Not really because there are ways that PC's can effectively gain wealth in their own without the DM having to give it to them.I'm not sure how often you frequent these boards and read through the various threads and posts but I would recommend that you do so.
Who is this us by the way? I never said I play that way but you should have to break mechanics in order to keep PC's in their place.
Us is my group. The way you play ("..there are ways that PC's can effectively gain wealth in their own without the DM having to give it to them") is not the way we play. That's not a criticism, it just means I can't say very much about the problems you're having with it.
In pathfinder, these concepts you're worried about are limited by wealth (and time) rather than xp. Hence, there isn't a problem the way we play (since we never have quite enough money to do what we would ideally like to). If you don't think the DM can limit player wealth then, as I said, you might be right that there's a problem. I just don't really understand that kind of game.
|
|
I'm in the process of arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a Staff of Wish that contains 60+ wishes a day. It's using the Fabricate abuse and I still think there is a flaw somewhere but if Wish still had it's XP costs then we wouldn't even be having the argument.
Wait a second... let's back the bus up before we get to hot under the collar. Staff of Wish with 60+ wishes/day?
To start, looking at the rules, any item that is made by a player that doesn't exist in a book already is subject to the GMs approval.
So if you're the GM (which I assume you are, apologies if you are not), then you've approved that the 20th level player with 880,000gp can buy such a staff. The Core details that for a balanced approach you should only allow a player to spend up to 25% on other magic items, or 220,000 gp.
I'm going to assume you've waived that rule or decided to not employ it.
A luck blade with 3 wishes costs 142,960. For simplicity sake let's say the 3 wishes are about 100,000 gp. That's 3 one time uses of wish for 100,000 gp.
Staves normally are limited to having only 10 charges. I'd have to assume that any 9th level spell wish a component cost of 25,000 in a staff would take all 10 charges (please correct me if I'm wrong, I couldn't find something comparable to wish in a staff).
So we have the ability to cast 60+ wishes a day with a staff, which since it's a staff is rechargeable. It has about 600+ charges, and thus is more powerful than the staff of the magi and the shadowstaff, both of which are artifacts.
At the very least that item is the greatest artifact ever (and thus is impossible to create).
If I was in your position, the problem isn't XP costs in Pathfinder. It's that they are attempting to make a 100 quadrillion GP artifact. If the players argues, explain that this would break the game and give them the artifacts listed as examples as to why this is broken.
Apologies if you meant wand of wish.
I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.
|
|
You have a very different way of playing than us. I guess if you don't think the DM has the power to limit PC wealth then you may be correct about needing xp limits. I don't really understand that kind of game to comment.I think it's a good thing that they removed the XP Cost. in 3.5 if you wanted to do a wish you just could, playing you XP(an immaterial source that you can always pay). In pf a good Master can regulate the afflux of money so if you don't have money you just cannot cast a wish.Not really because there are ways that PC's can effectively gain wealth in their own without the DM having to give it to them.I'm not sure how often you frequent these boards and read through the various threads and posts but I would recommend that you do so.
Who is this us by the way? I never said I play that way but you should have to break mechanics in order to keep PC's in their place.
Us is my group. The way you play ("..there are ways that PC's can effectively gain wealth in their own without the DM having to give it to them") is not the way we play. That's not a criticism, it just means I can't say very much about the problems you're having with it.
In pathfinder, these concepts you're worried about are limited by wealth (and time) rather than xp. Hence, there isn't a problem the way we play (since we never have quite enough money to do what we would ideally like to). If you don't think the DM can limit player wealth then, as I said, you might be right that there's a problem. I just don't really understand that kind of game.
Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.
|
|
That's called playstyle. Most items are actually either bought or found in dungeons, remember the part of the game that involves exploration, fighting monsters and finding treasure?
Because the items in your game appear magically ? Someone crafted them, didn't they ? Did these guys were more stupid and inexperimented than the same wizard spending the same amount of time drooling in an empty room ?
There are people playing the game differently than ourselves, and if everyone was to complain that the game isn't exactly how they play it, we would have a thousand versions of Pathfinder.
In game boundaries and rules are in place: Rule 0.
|
|
I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.
So... wait. I think I'm confused. Are you currently arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a staff of wish that contains 60+ wishes/day? And if so, how do they use fabricate to abuse to make this?
What I'm saying is you don't have to use rule 0: There's actual building rules in place to ensure that players can't make such items.
|
|
That's called playstyle. Most items are actually either bought or found in dungeons, remember the part of the game that involves exploration, fighting monsters and finding treasure?Because the items in your game appear magically ? Someone crafted them, didn't they ? Did these guys were more stupid and inexperimented than the same wizard spending the same amount of time drooling in an empty room ?
There are people playing the game differently than ourselves, and if everyone was to complain that the game isn't exactly how they play it, we would have a thousand versions of Pathfinder.
*facepalm* The other people in the world that created those weapons don't really care what their XP is because they aren't currently active in the campaign so I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to throw that in.
|
Question asked.
Answer provided (by James AND Sean, no less!).
Thread devolving into snark.
Allow me to help:
Oberoni Fallacy.
This doesn't have any appreciable meaning here.
however, you are new here (at least from a posting history POV), so I suggest everyone relax and remember that different groups play different ways and sending XP costs the way of the Dodo is how the Paizo staff saw fit to play (and I agree with them).
-Skeld
I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the comprehensiveness the rules for an RPG can realistically have. Since they are simulations of stories/fantasy characters' realities, there's literally no possible way an RPG rule set to cover everything nor every combination of things a player might try to do. Referee adjudication is virtually always necessary and that means exerting Rule 0 whenever appropriate to fill in areas not specified by the rules or where the rules are in conflict.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also the thing that Sean needs to understand is the fact that you could never spend XP to drop you below your current level.
Right, in my 13 years of playing 3E D&D, pricing magic items for publication, and pointing out editorial and development errors in the core rulebooks, I never actually read the item crafting rules. :/
|
|
By the way, the Fabricate spell requires the following component : "(the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)"
I'm guessing some shenanigan trick like morphing carbon into diamond.
Fine, the player just has to find enough carbon value to pay for the diamond price. I expect he got some kind of warehouse to stock it ?
Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.
Sure. I understand you're not running around making staves of wishes. By "that way" I mean a way in which DMs don't limit PC wealth.
If the DM limits PC wealth, there isn't a problem.
|
|
I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.So... wait. I think I'm confused. Are you currently arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a staff of wish that contains 60+ wishes/day? And if so, how do they use fabricate to abuse to make this?
What I'm saying is you don't have to use rule 0: There's actual building rules in place to ensure that players can't make such items.
If you go and look in the Top 5 powerful classes board you will see someone posting about a Sorcerer who can create a Staff of Wishes with 60+ charges on it. Now I told him he couldn't do that but he is arguing that he can. Now if there is a mechanical way to do this then there is a problem. Needing to invoke rule 0 in order to fix something is not a good thing. Now if the poster is wrong then that's okay but when I start looking at other things then I can see where XP is needed to hold back certain other abuses.
|
|
I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the comprehensiveness the rules for an RPG can realistically have. Since they are simulations of stories/fantasy characters' realities, there's literally no possible way an RPG rule set to cover everything nor every combination of things a player might try to do. Referee adjudication is virtually always necessary and that means exerting Rule 0 whenever appropriate to fill in areas not specified by the rules or where the rules are in conflict.
I never said there was but there was a rule that actually worked and did keep things in check but it was removed because a few people felt it didn't "make sense". That's just a poor excuse I'm afraid.
|
|
We removed the XP costs because we thought they were unfair. Wizards, in particular, were tripple taxed for doing their thing—in 3.5 they had to pay gold, time, AND XP in order to take advantage of their class features (scribing scrolls and crafting magic items).
Furthermore... it always felt nonsensical to me that you would "spend XP" (and thus grow LESS experienced) for successfully building a magic item, which to me feels like something that you should actually become MORE experienced at. It's non-intuitive and wonky to say "I spent all my life building magic items, and as a result I am less experienced than all those spellcasters who never built a single thing in their entire lives!"
The GM, in any case, gets to say when and where and how often players get to craft magic items; he also gets to decide whether Item Creation feats are in the game at all. So if the concept of PCs building their own magic worries you... I would do one of the following:
1) Remove Item Crafting from the game entirely.
2) Regulate Item Crafting—let crafters build items on a case by case basis.
3) Require items to utilize rare and difficult to find components. Maybe that helm of teleportation needs to be soaked in a marilith's blood before it becomes magic. Perhaps that +3 flaming burst falchion needs to have its blade tempered by an ancient red dragon's breath? And so on.
But that is actually an example of the Oberoni Fallacy. I shouldn't have to change the rules in order to keep the game balanced. Limits on wealth is something I am free to do without invoking the Fallacy but the other things you mentioned does invoke it.
I don't care if it's a class ability or not, it's a very powerful class ability but it still should have something that keeps it in check.
I'm in the process of arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a Staff of Wish that contains 60+ wishes a day. It's using the Fabricate abuse and I still think there is a flaw somewhere but if Wish still had...
Nothing wrong with a Staff of Wish if you use the crafting guidlines as written. In addition to that they are in point of fact guidlines, a GM does have to allow the character to craft a nonstandard item. It's exacly in the same area of having a rule to demand that you can build it as a use activated sword of true strike, or an item that gives all those fancy bonus types you don't see so often.
I never cared much for the 3.x magic item creation rules. I gained experience and it wasn't easy and I wasn't about to willingly give it up.
As the item creation rules stand now, the PC Wizard still has to find time to craft items because they don't just magically (haha) appear. As long as he's compensated by the party, I don't have a problem with it.
/ side note: I think it's unfeasible for a still-adventuring Wizard to set down roots and make magic items for sale. At that point, I'd say the PC needs to retire.
|
|
Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.Sure. I understand you're not running around making staves of wishes. By "that way" I mean a way in which DMs don't limit PC wealth.
If the DM limits PC wealth, there isn't a problem.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling.
Of course there is a limit(er) - lots of people call him the DM.
If you go and look in the Top 5 powerful classes board you will see someone posting about a Sorcerer who can create a Staff of Wishes with 60+ charges on it. Now I told him he couldn't do that but he is arguing that he can. Now if there is a mechanical way to do this then there is a problem. Needing to invoke rule 0 in order to fix something is not a good thing. Now if the poster is wrong then that's okay but when I start looking at other things then I can see where XP is needed to hold back certain other abuses.I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.So... wait. I think I'm confused. Are you currently arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a staff of wish that contains 60+ wishes/day? And if so, how do they use fabricate to abuse to make this?
What I'm saying is you don't have to use rule 0: There's actual building rules in place to ensure that players can't make such items.
What's this then? saying that invoking rule 0 is not a good thing is the most ....(trying to think of a non offensive word)..."not in accordance with my own opinions" thing I've heard in the last few hours at least. Rule zero is the one rule to rule them all, and it never wears out imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 0 is the DM changing an existing rule to make the game flow easier at his campaign.
This is different though that *the rules* specifically saying that things are open go the DM discretion.
For example:
"Fighters don't get proficieny with the Greatsword."
This is a houserule. it is plain ole rule 0 at work.
This is a clear alteration of RAW.
The creation of Magical Items however *specifically* calls for Dm discretion. It does this because there is no mechanism by which any designer can prohibit some Abusive item without also removing all items.
Therefore, they call on the DM to be rational with what they allow.
i.e. what spells are allowed on staves. (and for that matter- any magical item not specifically laid out in the books).
This isn't Rule 0. This is -DM, if the player wants to create an item not listed here, check the item for abuse and if otherwise appropriate compare it to existing items for pricing.
There is no rule being changed. They are just asking the DM to use his brain.
If the DM has the brain engaged and is willing to use it (along with a great big spoon full of the word NO) then there is no iseue with not having XP costs for creating magical items.
The Staff of Wish isn't in the core books. Its created by a player and therefore has to pass muster by the DM to be approved. If the DM approves it, he gets what he deserved. The DM can just say no. (and should, for that particular item).
The same is true for *any* custom magical item. Its as it should be.
-S
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling.Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.Sure. I understand you're not running around making staves of wishes. By "that way" I mean a way in which DMs don't limit PC wealth.
If the DM limits PC wealth, there isn't a problem.
At our table? You're wrong.
(but that's my point, really).
|
|
Invoking bad gamedesign over a cheesy level 20 trick isn't helping.
A level 20 TH fighter wielding a scythe can just move in each round and auto-crit with a x5 weapon for a base 10d4+90 +1d6 +4d10 damage (up to an additional +165 with 32 Str, WS and +5 weapon), and the ninja can become invisible without any way to uncover it.
Invoking bad gamedesign over a cheesy level 20 trick isn't helping.
A level 20 TH fighter wielding a scythe can just move in each round and auto-crit with a x5 weapon for a base 10d4+90 +1d6 +4d10 damage (up to an additional +165 with 32 Str, WS and +5 weapon), and the ninja can become invisible without any way to uncover it.
that isn't bad game design, that's awesomeness at work.
XP costs were one of the worst things about 3.5. Seriously, if I was only going to torpedo ONE rule of the dozens of terrible 3.5 rules, I might pick XP costs. Many of the reasons why XP costs are a terribad idea have already been listed in this thread, but important ones to me are -
- It gets people off-synch in terms of experience.
- It discourages making things for your friends.
- It makes XP feel like a commodity, rather than an abstraction that should be as invisible as humanly possible, and requires characters to track their own XP in order to make decisions.
- It doesn't work with a story-based leveling system where characters level up at appropriate points rather than tracking XP, only with the default "monsters are bags of XP that magically flows into you when you are vaguely responsible for their defeat" setup.
- It creates the really dubious scenario where a character can level up and as a result temporarily be unable to craft things until they go find more XP somewhere. It's possible to fluff this, but it requires a de-abstraction of levelling to some degree.
I never said there was but there was a rule that actually worked and did keep things in check but it was removed because a few people felt it didn't "make sense". That's just a poor excuse I'm afraid.
Except that, in practice, it never really did serve to keep it in check. Nor is it necessary to have XP costs for magic item crafting to disallow a clear abuse of the spirit of the rules even if the letter of the rules doesn't disallow such a combination right out.
generally speaking I found in 3.5 our group rarely crafted anything. the problem is xp costs didn't really serve as a cost so much as a deterent to do it at all.
That mechanic always annoyed the crap out of me and I say good riddance.
|
|
That's called playstyle. Most items are actually either bought or found in dungeons, remember the part of the game that involves exploration, fighting monsters and finding treasure?Also the thing that Sean needs to understand is the fact that you could never spend XP to drop you below your current level. You and the bar drinking wizard are still able to do the same things it's just that the bar wizard will go up in level before you do. You cap at level 20 so the crafting Wizard would eventually catch up with everyone.
I could see this if the game was dependent on the Wizard creating the items for the other players and himself but it's not. Creating items is something extra and not required of the game.
Did the bar wizard buy XP beers to deserve it ?
Also, every adventurer out there is dependent on a spellcaster crafting items somewhere at some time in the game, otherwise lots of level 14 fighters would be happy to wield a masterwork sword as their awesome shiny best weapon ever.XP costs were horrible. Removing them was genius, and the game isn't suddenly more unbalanced that it was before, quite the contrary.
That's pretty much not totally correct, you can receive loot as payment for quests, you can kill things and level up without ever leaving a metropolitan city. Of course nothing prevents you from going into those dark places and finding old stuff.
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling.Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.Sure. I understand you're not running around making staves of wishes. By "that way" I mean a way in which DMs don't limit PC wealth.
If the DM limits PC wealth, there isn't a problem.
Not totally correct I am afraid, I can't quote the source right now but it was either one of the designers in blog or on the bords that said the following (more or lesse).
"Whenn you create a new party at a higher level you have to take into account every crafting feat in the party and adjust the prices everyone pays accordingly. Otherwise the players will feel like they wasted a feat."
Sounds fair to me, since you can sell everything you find for 50 % and craft for 50 % you can transform all your loot into your desired items.
Never said I played that way. Try giving these boards a good read through and you will be surprised. You shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 in order to keep the balance of the game.If he gained it according to RAW and you have to step in as a DM to change that mechanically then you are invoking the Oberoni Fallacy. Now if you can find a way to use your DM powers without having to change anything mechanically then you are okay.Not really because there are ways that PC's can effectively gain wealth in their own without the DM having to give it to them.GMs are the god of their universe. I challenge any player to say he gained something I didn't intend for him to have. If he does, he suddenly doesn't have it anymore.This is the point I bow out of this thread.
Shallowsoul, you play a different game then I do.
As such I cant really help you here.
I play a game ammong friends where if something is disruptive we chat about it and fix it.
We do not play pathfinder like it's a computer game, where if we deviate from RAW even an ounce we are killed.
I wish you all the best in your future roleplaying.
Arguing on the boards about numbercrunching optimal builds, perfect DPS and things like I AM BARBARIAN, or the various how to kill things in one round.... I would be shocked to learn that any serious number of groups actually plays like that.
In fact I would callenge you to find a group were they follow every rule to the letter, and using the rules correctly. Maybe the desingers and other GMs would agree with me, but sometimes the game is way better if you don`t enforce a rule or make up a rule to cover a complicated situation.
Someone in another thread is trying to say they can use Fabricate to create diamonds in order to make a Staff of Wishes. I said you couldn't but he says you can etc....I'm in the process of arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a Staff of Wish that contains 60+ wishes a day.Well that argument has an easy RAW solution - just don't allow the staff. GMs have to approve any custom-designed magic item. Just tell the player "heck no!" and move on.
If they are using the forumlas in the CRB, throw this at them:
Not all items adhere to these formulas. First and foremost, these few formulas aren't enough to truly gauge the exact differences between items. The price of a magic item may be modified based on its actual worth. The formulas only provide a starting point.Even going by that chart, what is basically described here is a unlimited charges wish spell trigger item, which would run 17*9*1500+50*25000=about 1.5 million gp. It would also rapidly become the most sought after item on the planet.
How in the world can fabricate help with magic item crafting? You explicitly can't use it for magic items.
Getting infinite wealth is about as bad as giving infinite XP for crafting. And the fabricate exploit doesn`t work.
But please, please tell me whats so damn bad about Wish at level 20?
Assuming a standard staff of wish with 10 charges, I think ravingdork did the math for one some time ago.
My point is, that wish isn't all that bad compaire the current version of wish to the 3.5 version:
Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.
Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.
Are no longer included. If could be wrong, but I guess the sorcerer has some way to use his spell slots for staff charges, thats pretty good.
And as I would like to point out, anything other than the things listed under the spell alraedy fall under Rule 0.
|
*facepalm* The other people in the world that created those weapons don't really care what their XP is because they aren't currently active in the campaign so I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to throw that in.Most items are actually either bought or found in dungeons, remember the part of the game that involves exploration, fighting monsters and finding treasure?Because the items in your game appear magically? Someone crafted them, didn't they? Did these guys were more stupid and inexperimented than the same wizard spending the same amount of time drooling in an empty room ?
Please provide RAW for NPC's in the game world who don't care about their xp total. You totally Oberonied that one.
|
|
Now correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling.Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.Sure. I understand you're not running around making staves of wishes. By "that way" I mean a way in which DMs don't limit PC wealth.
If the DM limits PC wealth, there isn't a problem.
At our table? You're wrong.
(but that's my point, really).
I'm arguing RAW here. What you homebrew at your table is beside the point. You can't argue homebrew because there is no right answer, there is only a right answer when it comes to RAW.
|
|
The way you just handled Wish was a goofy metagamey result. Wish is a very powerful spell and you look at it as just another game mechanic.There's another good reason to ditch XP costs - goofy metagamey results that XP costs imposed.
For example, a 17 level wizard can cast wish one day but then win enough XPs to level up to 18 and be unable to cast it anymore because he no longer has 5000 extra XP to spend. That's a silly result but that's what XP costs on things can get you.
I didn't like XP costs much from the beginning, but I thought it was one of the few things PCs might be relatively unwilling to part with. Turns out, at least when it comes to magic item crafting, money and time are far more limiting factors.
Not really, as written it is powerfull, but frankly most spells of that level are very powerful.
If you go and look in the Top 5 powerful classes board you will see someone posting about a Sorcerer who can create a Staff of Wishes with 60+ charges on it. Now I told him he couldn't do that but he is arguing that he can. Now if there is a mechanical way to do this then there is a problem. Needing to invoke rule 0 in order to fix something is not a good thing. Now if the poster is wrong then that's okay but when I start looking at other things then I can see where XP is needed to hold back certain other abuses.I wouldn't allow this kind of crap at all. I'm just stating that if there is a way then the DM shouldn't have to invoke rule 0 to combat this kind of behavior. In game boundaries and rules should be in place.So... wait. I think I'm confused. Are you currently arguing right now about a 20th level build that can make a staff of wish that contains 60+ wishes/day? And if so, how do they use fabricate to abuse to make this?
What I'm saying is you don't have to use rule 0: There's actual building rules in place to ensure that players can't make such items.
Nothing in the game rules about magic item availability prevents him from going to a sufficiently large city (huuuuuuuuge in this case) and just buy a staff or order it from a caster. That is RAW and if you don't follow that rule - which is fair game IMO - than thats rule 0 too.
|
|
Please provide RAW for NPC's in the game world who don't care about their xp total. You totally Oberonied that one.*facepalm* The other people in the world that created those weapons don't really care what their XP is because they aren't currently active in the campaign so I'm not sure why you felt it was necessary to throw that in.Most items are actually either bought or found in dungeons, remember the part of the game that involves exploration, fighting monsters and finding treasure?Because the items in your game appear magically? Someone crafted them, didn't they? Did these guys were more stupid and inexperimented than the same wizard spending the same amount of time drooling in an empty room ?
Show me RAW, where it states the approximate XP an NPC actually has not what it's worth if you kill it.
I'm arguing RAW here. What you homebrew at your table is beside the point. You can't argue homebrew because there is no right answer, there is only a right answer when it comes to RAW.Now correct me if I'm wrong but I believe WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling.Listen very carefully! I said I don't play that way......Okay take a moment to absorb it. Now, what I am saying is there are ways by RAW that a PC can accumulate wealth without having to find it. We all know the DM can always step in but the game shouldn't have to depend on that, there should be rules in place to stop that kind of thing in the first place.Sure. I understand you're not running around making staves of wishes. By "that way" I mean a way in which DMs don't limit PC wealth.
If the DM limits PC wealth, there isn't a problem.
At our table? You're wrong.
(but that's my point, really).
I'm pretty sure they wrote down rule zero. Paradox, huh?
But it's traditional, when citing RAW, to provide some kind of reference. Any quote suggesting that "...WBL has no limit when it comes to crafting and selling"?
|
|
If you go and look in the Top 5 powerful classes board you will see someone posting about a Sorcerer who can create a Staff of Wishes with 60+ charges on it. Now I told him he couldn't do that but he is arguing that he can. Now if there is a mechanical way to do this then there is a problem. Needing to invoke rule 0 in order to fix something is not a good thing. Now if the poster is wrong then that's okay but when I start looking at other things then I can see where XP is needed to hold back certain other abuses.
Ah, there it is. Thank you for pointing that out.
It's a cute little trick he's found. Ridiculous, time wasting, and utterly never allowed in any game. Nonetheless it's quite smart and would raise some concern.
You are correct: There's nothing in RAW stopping someone from doing the Staff of Wish save for GM limitations that are inherent to each step in the process. And XP costs would stop this one example from coming true.
Is there another such example of this issue that hasn't become apparent?
Perhaps it would be best to convince us with other examples that could happen at lower levels (where most players play) to see how damaging the lack of XP in costs could be.
I'm not saying that this example isn't shocking: Rather I'm pointing out that this is a 20th level hack that requires a player to amass 410k in diamonds and spend 1300+ days crafting one magic item. A novice DM may fall victim to it (The big evil waits 4 years to enact his plan against the strongest adventurers ever...), however it is quite the extreme circumstances.
|
|
"Because of Money, the Alchemist is the only character that keeps improving when others reach their max. 50,000 gold per month is nothing to shake a stick at. Other casters may be able to cast Wish, but the Alchemist Doppleganger Simulacrum make him about as unkillable as any other caster. Greater Alchemical Simulacrum means you can put that Gold to immediate crafting use and make your own alchemical army."
This was written by another poster in another thread so I don't really know if this can be done but 50,000 gp a month is crazy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Emmmm not logical, opinionated yes, but not logical.
You can't justify something with the "not making sense" excuse because it's a poor one. Magic item creation and essence of the creator has been in fantasy for a long long time.
I think both James and Sean have provided logical responses to your question.
Saying that you disagree doesn't change that you now have your answer.
Firstly, it is as logical as anything you've claimed. You are choosing to ignore that fact by casting aside people's reasoning in favor of entrenching your close-minded value system. Effectively, you asked a question, got multiple answers, and are completely unsatisfied unless the answers are those which reinforce your stance on the matter. So why did you create this thread if you're just going to lash out at the entire community which disagrees with you? Were you hoping for a pep rally in favor of your cause, with all the pro-XP-cost people jumping out of the woodwork saying "gosh I'm glad I'm not alone"? I suggest you examine your expectations more carefully.
In the interest of honest and rational discourse, perhaps consider contrary responses, instead of stonewalling them. Disagreement is not a bad thing, even if you find yourself on the deflationary side. In fact, learning through disagreement is a wonderful thing.
|
|
Please provide RAW for NPC's in the game world who don't care about their xp total. You totally Oberonied that one.Show me RAW, where it states the approximate XP an NPC actually has not what it's worth if you kill it.
Well you're basing this entire thread on RAW only, so I'm asking you to supply RAW for XP batteries who don't care about their own personal goals that craft magic items for adventurers and monsters.
|
|
You are correct: [b]There's nothing in RAW stopping someone from doing the Staff of Wish save for GM limitations that are inherent to each step in the process.[b\] And XP costs would stop this one example from coming true.
This is what I am trying to hammer home. A rule was in place that would not allow this type of thing but now that the rule is gone abuse like this can come into play. Rule 0 shouldn't be needed to fix RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, if you liked the 3.5 XP rules, you can still use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is what I am trying to hammer home. A rule was in place that would not allow this type of thing but now that the rule is gone abuse like this can come into play. Rule 0 shouldn't be needed to fix RAW.
You are correct: [b]There's nothing in RAW stopping someone from doing the Staff of Wish save for GM limitations that are inherent to each step in the process.[b\] And XP costs would stop this one example from coming true.
Them requiring DM's to use their brain when letting PC's make custom magical items isn't requiring the DM to use rule 0. its requiring the DM to follow the rule as written *which allows the DM* to NOT allow custom magical items that are too powerful for their campaign.
The Rule requires the DM to vett custom magical items. This isn't rule 0. This isn't DM Fiat or DM Altering the rules. This actually is why people prefer D&D to computer games- because there is a living breathing person behind it to make sure things don't get out of hand.
Rule 0 would be "wizards are broken so I have to fix this spell and that spell to change RAW so they arent' broken".
This *isn't* that case. The rules themselves require the DM to use their judgment to keep things in balance while also allowing the PC's to create custom items.
Creation of custom items has at its core the requirement that there be someone with judgement on the other end.
The same thing that keeps Swift Ring of Truestrike out of the game is the same thing that keeps a Staff of Wishes out of the game. The ability and *requirement* of the DM to review magical items before they are allowed into the game.
Xp costs aren't required. And quite frankly, a staff of wishes isn't even abusive for 90% of campaigns since they never get that high. Items of true strike working as written without DM oversight are a far worse offender. (level 1 spells are down right cheap when put into items on permmanent basis).
Rule 0 isn't needed. But DM over sight is.
-S
|
|
"Because of Money, the Alchemist is the only character that keeps improving when others reach their max. 50,000 gold per month is nothing to shake a stick at. Other casters may be able to cast Wish, but the Alchemist Doppleganger Simulacrum make him about as unkillable as any other caster. Greater Alchemical Simulacrum means you can put that Gold to immediate crafting use and make your own alchemical army."
This was written by another poster in another thread so I don't really know if this can be done but 50,000 gp a month is crazy.
God, you know this is a roleplaying game that isn't restricted blindly to the rulebook, right ?
You are able to see this is a LEVEL 20 ability ? Something not even 5% of campaigns reach and that never lasts for more than 1 - 2 game sessions because level 20 is boring as hell and all drama is supposed to be resolved at this time ?I hoe you allow dead characters to move around and cast spells, the dead condition doesn't say they can't.
You know, if you liked the 3.5 XP rules, you can still use them.It's not really a matter of liking the rule. The old rule is necessary is certain situations and I shouldn't have to go looking in older material to get it.
Wait, what? No man, play the game you want to play. Life is too short.
It's gone because people didn't like it. In the hundreds of thousands of posts I've read here since the beta playtest, you are the only one I've seen who thought it was a big deal. If it was really so necessary, I might have seen at least one other, right?
But I take you at your word, it must have been important in your game. So I encourage you to house rule it.
The designers are certainly not going to shove it right back in there after four years without it, especially not when you're being so rude to them upthread.
|
|
This is what I am trying to hammer home. A rule was in place that would not allow this type of thing but now that the rule is gone abuse like this can come into play. Rule 0 shouldn't be needed to fix RAW.
You are correct: [b]There's nothing in RAW stopping someone from doing the Staff of Wish save for GM limitations that are inherent to each step in the process.[b\] And XP costs would stop this one example from coming true.
I understand that: However the rest of my post is illustrating that one hiccup by one character that can (and is) covered by rule 0 doesn't mean the whole system is broken.
Allow me to give an example:
Imagine for a second that a certain make of car exploded if it went 500 mph. The thing that blows up otherwise makes the car more fuel efficient.
In one place on Earth, on a mountain racetrack, which can only be accessed by a group of people carrying the car up in pieces and then putting the car back together, that car can reach 500 mph. This area is ruled by a greedy, powerful dictator who doesn't allow anyone near the racetrack. Everywhere else on the planet the car cannot reach this speed.
It is theoretically possible for that car to get to that racetrack and blow up. Should the improvement be taken out of the car?
Well to answer that we'd need some better reasons to take that improvement out other than some racetrack that no one will ever get to.
Same with your example: It exists, it's just never going to happen. So changing everything to make sure one staff of wishes never happens to a first time DM running a 20th level campaign may seem like we're over exaggerating.
If we had more mid-level examples stating "and here's another reason this screws up the game" then perhaps we'd see where you're coming from.
|
|
"Because of Money, the Alchemist is the only character that keeps improving when others reach their max. 50,000 gold per month is nothing to shake a stick at. Other casters may be able to cast Wish, but the Alchemist Doppleganger Simulacrum make him about as unkillable as any other caster. Greater Alchemical Simulacrum means you can put that Gold to immediate crafting use and make your own alchemical army."
This was written by another poster in another thread so I don't really know if this can be done but 50,000 gp a month is crazy.
God, you know this is a roleplaying game that isn't restricted blindly to the rulebook, right ?
You are able to see this is a LEVEL 20 ability ? Something not even 5% of campaigns reach and that never lasts for more than 1 - 2 game sessions because level 20 is boring as hell and all drama is supposed to be resolved at this time ?I hoe you allow dead characters to move around and cast spells, the dead condition doesn't say they can't.
So your excuse is because most games don't go that high? Good god, where are you getting your information from. Our games always go to 20 and I know lots of other people who's games go to 20.
So if the Tarrasque was broken all to hell then it's okay because PC's rarely ever run into one?