Aside from the fact that a summoned mount cant set off many types of traps, whether or not something like this works is entirely dependent on your GM. In my groups we'd consider this extremely cheesy and it just wouldn't work most of the time. (the people that designed the traps were just as aware of this cheese as you, and so design them so that they aren't quite so simple to defeat).
And how would they do that, pray tell?
"Our trap is pressure/tripwire activated. But not if horses step on it, only humans."
"How? How the f#++ should I know? We just did it."
|
Aside from the fact that a summoned mount cant set off many types of traps, whether or not something like this works is entirely dependent on your GM. In my groups we'd consider this extremely cheesy and it just wouldn't work most of the time. (the people that designed the traps were just as aware of this cheese as you, and so design them so that they aren't quite so simple to defeat).you don't even need trapfinding to find traps. not even magical ones. you just need it if you want to disable them with a skill check.
want to know how easy it is to disable a trap that doesn't automatically reset?
use a wand of 'mount' to set it off. triggers every pressure plate, pitfall trap, and ranged attack trap.
what untellegent wizard wouldn't have multiple wands of 'mount' for setting off and revealing traps
Another poorly designed spell around crappy summon mechanics.
Should be 1 horse per spell (more if the caster level is higher) available per caster or wand - shouldn't matter how many charges or times you have it memorized. This is per item or caster - 1 horse at any given time - so no multiples unless they come from having a higher caster level.If it dies it doesn't come back for 30 days (or ever). So you can cast the spell out of the wand all you want - it should make 1 horse at a time. I.e. - the horse (or horses, if higher caster level) are called and are the same horses every time (gear, etc), if they die they stay dead or don't come back for a very long time/ever. That way you don't get 50 horses for a small army out of a level 1 wand, unlimited horseflesh, saddles, etc - again, all out of a crap wand.
These kinds of balance considerations would require a little too much thinking on the part of the devs though.
Oh wait, this was a "how to make casters more powerful" thread.
Ah well
Aside from the fact that a summoned mount cant set off many types of traps, whether or not something like this works is entirely dependent on your GM. In my groups we'd consider this extremely cheesy and it just wouldn't work most of the time. (the people that designed the traps were just as aware of this cheese as you, and so design them so that they aren't quite so simple to defeat).you don't even need trapfinding to find traps. not even magical ones. you just need it if you want to disable them with a skill check.
want to know how easy it is to disable a trap that doesn't automatically reset?
use a wand of 'mount' to set it off. triggers every pressure plate, pitfall trap, and ranged attack trap.
what untellegent wizard wouldn't have multiple wands of 'mount' for setting off and revealing traps
Another poorly designed spell around crappy summon mechanics.
Should be 1 horse per spell (more if the caster level is higher) available per caster or wand - shouldn't matter how many charges or times you have it memorized. This is per item or caster - 1 horse at any given time - so no multiples unless they come from having a higher caster level.If it dies it doesn't come back for 30 days (or ever). So you can cast the spell out of the wand all you want - it should make 1 horse at a time. I.e. - the horse (or horses, if higher caster level) are called and are the same horses every time (gear, etc), if they die they stay dead or don't come back for a very long time/ever. That way you don't get 50 horses for a small army out of a level 1 wand, unlimited horseflesh, saddles, etc - again, all out of a crap wand.
These kinds of balance considerations would require a little too much thinking on the part of the devs though.
Oh wait, this was a "how to make casters more powerful" thread.
Ah well
Wand of 'Mount' doesn't have those restrictions because the spell doesn't. and any tripwire, pressure plate, or pit a human can reveal by stumbling, a horse can too.
and without homebrew, there isn't really a way to make a trap that responds differently to summoned creatures than humanoids.
and the horse summoned by the wand isn't a terrestrial horse. but a conjuration, i'm sure it understands it's casters intent.
guiding a summoned creature is no different from guiding a fireball.
to hijack a summoned creature, you would need
to be a similar themed species or sorcerer with a compatible bloodline
to speak and understand the summoned creature's language
and a minute of diplomacy.
like the fire elemental or ifriti bloodlines or the ifrit race would allow hijacking fire elementals for example.
you don't need to put the 30 day restriction on it. just restricting the wand to only 1 active mount effect per wand at a time is sufficient.
it's not much different from buying a wand of infernal healing to heal between encounters.
it's more of a party treasure resource.
what i recommend is allowing the following houserules
drop item creation feats and magic item class restrictions and prerequisites for following
tie magic item creation to crafting skills, not to feats, give everyone master craftsman for free, remove prerequisites on items except caster level, which only applies to DC. drop the item crafting feats
allow anyone to use any consumable item automatically, regardless of class, and regardless of whether it is a potion, wand, or scroll.
remove the spell level ceiling on wands and potions.
limit the number of total permanent magic items one can benefit from, not by slot, but by base attack bonus instead. each individual stat booster counts as it's own item. but magic ammunition, as well as consumables do not count.
remove the spell restriction on consumables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards are fine the way the way they are. They can do alot but they have some glaring weaknesses. Eliminating those weaknesses or increasing strengths to cover those weaknesses would break balance.
i was proposing a set of rules in my previous post that benefitted fighters and other noncasters enough to bring them a little closer.
by giving noncasters
the ability to invest skill ranks to craft items
the ability to use scrolls and wands without being a caster nor investing skill points, OSRIC style.
less restricted spell access which allows stuff like potions of shield
a use for the craft skills
possibly faster crafting times
more flexibility in consumable use
more flexibility in crafted goods due to missing prerequsites
more wealth due to being able to craft gear
allow more flexibility in slot choices by basing max slots off of base attack bonus instead of body parts
and to limit casters
limit item creation not by the feats possessed, but the number of broad purpose crafting skills taken instead. removing spellcraft from the crafting equation
limit magic items by base attack bonus, meaning casters rely more on spells and consumables until later, reducing their wealth
making casters more fragile.
commanding merely requires words, and talking is a free action. in fact, you could tell an entire epic monologue and it would still be a free action.
and there is nothing restricting what tricks the horse knows.
and even then, there is precedence for many groups i have seen ignoring the commanding restrictions on summoned creatures, on animal companions, and on other class based pets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Summoning aside, in terms of the bigger topic, at some point I think it's important to focus on some of the differences between a "game" and a "story."
In a story, the person making it up always gets the outcome he/she wants. The "suspense" on the part of the observers is that they don't necessarily know in advance how the story will get there. The more skilfill the storyteller, the more obscuring of the path. The interaction on the part of the audience is passive; they don't get a say.
In a game, the "suspense" on the part of the participants is that skilfull play or just plain dumb luck can make large reverses occur, meaning that the outcome is often in doubt. The more balanced the game, the more doubt in the outcome. The interaction on the part of the participants is active; their decisions should, at least in large part, determine the outcome.
Personally, if I agree to play a game, I'm agreeing to just that. I expect the second paragraph to apply, not the first one. A "game system" in which "wizard can do anything, just declare it, but everyone else is supposed to not be able to" is a bait-and-switch tactic -- you're inviting people to a game, but giving them a story instead. It's fundamentally dishonest. If you want to make up a story, there's no need to have "rules" and "players." Just make up the story. There's nothing wrong with that approach, if you're honest about it up-front and the participants/audience are OK with it.
|
This makes commanding your AC easy, it is a free action (on your turn).
Link (Ex)
A druid can handle her animal companion as a free action, or push it as a move action, even if she doesn’t have any ranks in the Handle Animal skill. The druid gains a +4 circumstance bonus on all wild empathy checks and Handle Animal checks made regarding an animal companion.
commanding merely requires words, and talking is a free action. in fact, you could tell an entire epic monologue and it would still be a free action.
and there is nothing restricting what tricks the horse knows.
and even then, there is precedence for many groups i have seen ignoring the commanding restrictions on summoned creatures, on animal companions, and on other class based pets.
Do you even read the rules, or do you just guess what 'free action' means?
Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.Besides which, a 2 int creature does not understand language.
And you're right, I'm sure you have. But that's my point-- GMs failing to use the rules, thus making a cheesy option viable, do not indicate the mechanics themselves are flawed. By the rules, commanding the mount to 'walk around the corner to the end of the hall, then push the big red button,' does not work.
we don't do that with the big red button, but telling the mount to "run across the hall and spring every trap you can along the path." usually does.
and what kind of Misinformed Dungeon Master includes a Big Red Button as the trap device anyway? a pitfall, tripwire, or pressure plate is far more likely.
i will admit that levers exist too, but those are usually for resetting the trap. not triggering it.
my group usually isn't asking the horse to pull a lever or push a button. they usually ask the horse to 'run forward in a straight line'. which usually triggers every pitfall, tripwire and pressure plate on the way.
|
I honestly agree with the OP, whether he's being facetious or not. The why is easy-- I think it's more interesting, and more true to the literary roots of gaming. Find some examples of literary wizards that are 'balanced' with melee, I dare you.Conan the Barbarian. Competent fighters in the Lord of the Rings could likely have taken down Gandalf at any time, Saruman too if they ever got into the tower.
Pretty much any story of the "Evil Wizard takes over a country, now our brave farmboy hero must free the land from his evil clutches" variety you could care to name.
There are plenty.
And none of this answers the most important question.
Why should I care about literary wizards when talking about game balance?
Most literary wizards are either supporting characters to the martial protagonist, or antagonists who eventually meet the pointy end of a sword.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You think it takes intensive training to get a horse to run in a straight line?
Have you ever even been near a horse?
All the training is to get them to NOT run off when you don't want them to.
You think it takes intensive training to get a horse to run in a straight line?
Have you ever even been near a horse?
All the training is to get them to NOT run off when you don't want them to.
anybody whom has seen a classic western knows this.
the issue isn't getting the horse to dash or bolt in a straight line, it is getting it to stay.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where's Sebastian when you need him? The wizard power thread has officially become a ponies thread!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact I grew up with horses. My sister was a competitive rider, though I wanted nothing to do with them. Running off in an open field is vastly different than getting it to run down an unfamiliar, narrow, and likely dark corridor it's never been down. Horses do not like tight spaces. They do not like unknown areas. Herd animals are cautious by nature, scouting the creepy dungeon is not natural behavior. If you just let it go in a dungeon it would most likely try to head straight back the way it came. And even in open fields horses rarely 'run off,' unless they are really unfriendly. Generally, they stay just out of reach, lol...
I grew up around horses too, and I know enough that it doesn't take much to spook an untrained animal. Those horses you have on the farm are all semi-domesticated to start with, that's why they don't bolt when you get near.
But even then, the point is moot because:
In any case, it doesn't matter what a real world horses behavior in a dungeon would be. We're talking rules. The rules are pretty clear how to train creatures to do tricks. You absolutely could train a horse to scout the dungeon, as I already said. But a summoned light horse comes 'trained' to carry a rider, nothing else.
It isn't a "trick" to get the animal to walk forward. If it is not trained to walk forward when commanded, it is not "serving willingly and well" and is not trained to carry a rider, either. There's a clear number of Tricks on the Handle Animal page, and they are things like "Seek" (move into an area and actively search for living creatures), "Defend" (the animal automatically protects you when danger draws near), and "Down" (stop attacking and break off from the fight).
None of these are at all as simple as "walk forward in a straight line".
If an action isn't in the tricks list, you cannot command a nonsentient to do that.
Rules-wise, there's no difference between ordering the mount to "move to position X" and "solve this algebra for me".
If you grew up around horses, you know you do not verbally command them to walk forward when riding (you can train them to respond to to verbal commands, though). You give them queues with your legs, the reins, etc. To serve 'willingly and well' as a mount means it will allow someone to get on it's back and steer it around, not that it will follow any verbal commands you care to give it that have nothing to do with serving as a mount. Saying you can just tell a horse to walk down a long corridor and it will keep going as far as you want it to is absurd.
Yes, I'm aware of this. But generally, when given free rein, a horse will go in the nearest forward direction. Which, in this case, is the corridor.
Startle it a little bit and it'll at least break into a walk.
And in any case, we go back to the rules yet again-- there is absolutely nothing that indicates you can do this. It's a contrived way to get around traps, nothing more. If your GM lets you do it, and nobody at your table minds that level of cheese, enjoy. It's not everybody's thing.
If an action isn't in the tricks list, you cannot command a nonsentient to do that.
Rules-wise, there's no difference between ordering the mount to "move to position X" and "solve this algebra for me".
Guess horses can't be ridden in this game then, eh? There's no trick for "Bear a rider" or "Advance in a forward direction".
If we go by RAWy-RAW, you might be right - haven't looked into that.
That's why we don't go by RAWy-RAW, which means the DM gets to adjust things ad hoc - including saying "no" to trap-springing horses.
The point is that allowing or disallowing is completely up to the DM and not part of RAW. Disallowing it isn't a house rule, it's following the RAW closely.
Guess horses can't be ridden in this game then, eh? There's no trick for "Bear a rider" or "Advance in a forward direction".
Amazes me how many people like to argue about rules without actually reading them...
Train an Animal for a Purpose
Riding (DC 15) An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks.
So yeah, ride training a horse is right there in the basic rules.
Read the fine print.
"knows the tricks come, heel, and stay"
"Come (DC 15) The animal comes to you, even if it normally would not do so."
"Heel (DC 15) The animal follows you closely, even to places where it normally wouldn’t go."
"Stay (DC 15) The animal stays in place, waiting for you to return. It does not challenge other creatures that come by, though it still defends itself if it needs to."
None of that is "Bears a rider" or "Is able to walk in a forward direction".
In fact, by your logic, it is impossible to teach the Riding bundle at all. It says "an animal trained to bear a rider knows..." but this animal is not yet trained to bear a rider, and there is no trick for that.
If we go by RAWy-RAW, you might be right - haven't looked into that.
That's why we don't go by RAWy-RAW, which means the DM gets to adjust things ad hoc - including saying "no" to trap-springing horses.
The point is that allowing or disallowing is completely up to the DM and not part of RAW. Disallowing it isn't a house rule, it's following the RAW closely.
1. Summon horse in creepy corridor
2. Summoned Horse Freaks out3. Frightened Horse tries to escape by running forward in a straight line
4. horse sets off every trap in the path
5. Rogue is no longer needed
not only is this method a whole lot faster, but it doesn't harm the party anywhere near as badly because summoned horses are expendable. PC rogues aren't anywhere near as expendable.
the reason summons are so highly valued for this purpose is not because they are tougher, it is because they are expendable.
for PCs to suddenly reach that level of Expendability requires the following factors:
- simpler rules
- faster and easier character creation rules
- less overall dependancy on gear
- increased lethality rate
- less character options
- an acceptable excuse for new PCs to easily pop out of nowhere
- players with no sense of self preservation
2 and 3 there are not indicated at all by the rules, but are rather rulings/house rules that might be reasonable if you don't care about reducing the value of rogues :)
Rule like that if you want to, but don't then say "well rogues are useless because Mount" - since it's you who made mount useful for that to begin with.
2 and 3 there are not indicated at all by the rules, but are rather rulings/house rules that might be reasonable if you don't care about reducing the value of rogues :)
Rule like that if you want to, but don't then say "well rogues are useless because Mount" - since it's you who made mount useful for that to begin with.
since nobody in my saturday group plays a single classed rogue as nothing more than a cheap reference of some kind. we really don't care how useless they are.
our single classed rogues are usually butt monkeys who live the entirety of their lives outshined by everyone else.
when we do have a PC with rogue levels, it is usually never more than a 2-3 level dip before taking a superior class for sneak attack, the skill points, evasion, and the rogue talent.
and since rogues are the group's least appreciated class, we have to find alternative means to deal with those traps. which was where our buddy Seth devised the use of a wand of mount to spring traps with his bard.
instead of telling 1 out of our 8-12 players that they have to play a rogue, we search for alternative means, that often work a lot better than having the darned rogue.
now, we are always begging for healers. so it is popular to pick classes that can fill a main niche while being able to provide some kind of situational self heal.
most of our group's rogues that can consider themselves such, are either, members of another skill monkey oriented class that contributes better in combat, out of combat, or both, or are rogues who multiclass themselves and become far superior to a single classed rogue.
Dipping Rogue for 2-3 levels isn't Uncommon for martial builds who can easily compensate the BAB loss and care little about spells, but sticking with Rogue all the way is extremely unlikely.
want infiltration skills? take the skills with another class, a rogue class isn't needed to do this?
want a criminal background? this is what backstory is for
want to be a con artist? you don't need a class for this, a skill set should be fine
want to deal with traps? a class isn't needed for this, a skill set is plenty
want an ambusher? you don't need a class for this, come up with universal rules that reward flanking and ambushing
want a dirty fighter? don't need a class, rules for dirty fighting could easily be produced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Infiltration and Con Artist actually both fit Bard better than Rogue anyway.
i agree.
a "Rogue" class is just as pointless a concept as a "Fighter" class or a "Monk" class.
a "Monk" class is just a lazy way to introduce restricted Unarmed combat rules that could simply have been done as variant packages for other existing classes or a feat/talent chain.
a "Fighter" or "Warrior" class is an excuse to build a class who does nothing but "Fight." instead of a warrior class, include martially inclined archetypes of other classes, that trade some of their primary schtick away for extra combat ability. Warrior may be a role, but man who thrusts a pointy stick really hard is not much of a class on it's own.
and a "Rogue" class is just an excuse to monopolize a series of talents that could suit other classes equally well. if not suit them better. most of the rogue's abilities could be broken into skill sets chosen using a "Background" system and sneak attack could be broken up into a series of better Ambush rules.
"Wizard." isn't much of a role because a wizard's role is "Anything." i recommend breaking up the wizard into a series of specialized classes that focus more on specific options more than others, such as a "Puppeteer." Class for illusion and enchantment, a "Cannoneer" for conjuration and evocation, a "shaper" for abjuration and transmutation, a "seer" for divination with a handful of rogue abilities, and a "Necromancer" for necromancy based effects, debuffs, etc.
|
Hey, at least it's not AD&D. Back then, a thief had no easy way to backstab, he didn't get the hit points, AC, or weapon proficiencies of a fighter, and he was *bad* at all of his thief skills until fairly high levels. Back then, of course, "game balance" meant that magic users were kind of terrible at 1st level (though still sometimes capable of shutting down at least one entire encounter each day), and completely dominant at mid to high levels.
Anyway, I for one *like* that most of the classes have gotten stronger in recent editions, because having very few options (and sucking at executing them) gets old pretty fast. Maybe, some day, it'll make sense for the wizard class to get a power boost. At present, however, there are other classes that are still falling pretty far short of where they should be, and deserve more immediate attention.
|
|
The core rules don't spell out absolutely everything a character can and cannot do because they are neither a computer program nor a legally binding contract. You have to assume, at some point, that characters are functional sentient beings and can do, at minimum, everything that an average human being can do, barring any unusual disabilities the character might have. It would be impossible to write a rule for every possible role playing situation, and it would be a waste of the designer's time and the player's money to try.
In short, when the rules don't specifically state something, the correct response is not to assume that something is impossible, but rather to apply common sense.
In short, when the rules don't specifically state something, the correct response is not to assume that something is impossible, but rather to apply common sense.
Agreed. However, when players try to rules-lawyer themselves to a benefit, the DM is free to rules-lawyer them away from it.
If the players summon a horse into a dungeon, the DM is free to adjudicate that the horse won't move unless they drag it (or somehow train it) because it's terrified. If the players say "well nothing in the rules say it won't move!" then the DM is free to say "nothing in the rules say you can get it to move at all".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man this thread has wizard in the title and still wound up being about taking away my rogue.
Riding is not a trick. "Riding" is general purpose ability which can be trained by Handle Animal. By training it, the mount also gets these tricks which are not intrinsically related to riding. It's really not complicated, stop attempting to make it so.
I'm not the one making it complicated, you are. I said a horse has the capability to walk forward, which is the simplest explanation, but you seem to be disagreeing with me.
A horse has the capability to walk forward, no-ones questioning that. The rules are clear on that. However, the rules do not say you can _command_ a horse to move forward.
A horse has the capability to walk forward, no-ones questioning that. The rules are clear on that. However, the rules do not say you can _command_ a horse to move forward.
Which brings us back to the original "So how does Riding work?" question.
By DM fiat. The same DM fiat that can say "no" to trap-springing mounts.
By DM fiat. The same DM fiat that can say "no" to trap-springing mounts.
Ah, of course.
I had forgotten many DMs were in the habit of immediately dismissing anything even slightly creative to get around not having a certain party member with a certain skill. No, Disable Device must be the only possible way to disable a trap, otherwise the party will just get hit with all of them.
Must be those same DMs who ban healing items when nobody wants to play a Divine caster. Those lowly players will just have to suck it up and heal the good old fashioned way, slowly over many days. That'll teach 'em.
I think it's good practice to dismiss "slightly creative" stuff that has very logical reasons not to work when it's meant to override in-game functions.
Just like how I won't give a guard flat-footed condition just because someone shouts "hey, check your shoelaces!". Slightly creative, can theoretically work, will be shut down immediately.
Especially since both of those are old tropes that have been for years, and not creative at all.
Who'd build a dungeon trap that can get set off by a 1st level spell anyway? Either the spell won't work for that (due to the mount not being commandable in that way) or it would be standard practice in that setting and thus have traps that will ignore that method by various means (automatic resetting, effect that covers the whole vicinity, effect that doesn't care about who triggers it like an alarm etc).
Now, if players where truly creative for solving an issue I'd of course reward that. But neither check your shoelaces nor Mount will work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what I'm hearing is that wizard is a perfectly balanced class as long as
(A) The referee errs on the ultraconservative side in allowing spell effects, and also
(B) The referee errs on the liberal side in allowing mundane efforts.
In other words, it requires a consistent and conscious bias to make the game work. That, to me, says that the game on its own isn't really all that balanced, if it takes that much effort to "right" it.