|
You are aware that fighters can swap out his feats. If you have a DM that is going to roll randomly for treasure and not allow anyone to purchase gear then the fighter can look at his next best weapon and go from there.
I'm not really sure where you are trying to go with this argument. Even if the fighter is relying on his third best weapon category choice, he is still kicking ass and taking names.
While a large portion of his class features that make him at all comparable to any other martial simply cease to exist. This is undeniable.
Are you tryimg to say that a fighter is hurting becauae of his specialization because that wouldn't be true?Damn strait I am. It's a weakness. Ever hear the one about having all your eggs in one basket? That's basically the icon for a Fighter. If you're not using the right weapon, you're not any better at attacks than common NPCs.
Look at the ranger, he has to rely on specific types of creatures to fight. What happens if the DM doesn't present his number 1 favored enemy? I know about the spell Instant Enemy but you don't get that until later and it only works on one creature.Here's the big difference. Rangers can spec vs entire creature types. Broad, broad creature types. And later they get quarries. And as early as 1st level (via scrolls) they can have access to things like lead blades which ups their damage considerably for the duration if needed (though at levels before they can cast such spells themselves, they deal just as much damage as Fighters). And Rangers have more. Lots more. Fighters? They have static damage. But static damage limited to 1 type of weapon.
Want to really compare Favored Enemy vs Weapon Specialization? Okay, here we go.
Favored Enemy: Pick 9 over 20 Levels
Aberration: aboleth, choker, chuul, cloaker, dark naga, drider, ettercap, froghemoth, gibbering mouther, guardian naga, intellect devourer, mimic, neothelid, otyugh, roper, rust monster, spirit naga,...
Let me explain it to you one more time.
Weapon Training encompasses a wide range of weapons. If you choose heavy blades then you get a bonus on all heavy blades or if you choose light blades etc.. Now over twenty levels a ranger chooses 5 groups of monsters as his favored enemy, now this is done every five levels. Now weapon focus and weapon specialization is not a must for a fighter to kick ass, it makes your job easier and better but it is not a must.
You have a habit of trying to put classes in certain situations and then say "see I told you there was a problem".
I'm going to give you some real instances of scenarios that happen in games. If you know youare in a random equipment kind of game then your caster is more than likely going to take crafting feats which in turn he can create gear for himself as well as the others in the party so the fighter will more or less get the equipment he wants.
GM fiat has nothing to do with campaign building because that runs outside the rules but there is a bit of a silent contract to where a DM knows the direction your characters are going so he can adjust a bit of the campaign to fit them. If you know a fighter prefers longswords then you are going to make sure you throw in a longsword or two, same with rangers and favored enemy.
How would you feel if every enemy that came at your ranger was not a favored enemy? Not sending a favored enemy ever is the same as sending one every encounter.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
|
I've considered running an OSRIC game for my friends a couple of times, but the manual (being little more than charts and tables) is a little dry, and I wish some things were pointed out as nicely. I was reading through it earlier today, and I cannot for the life of me figure out where it explains the saving throws for NPCs like ogres and giants...
Are you looking at OSRIC v1.0 or something? With 2.0, OSRIC stopped being written solely as a reference (ie, little more than charts and tables) and became a more complete system that players could use to play or even learn the game.
As for monster saving throws, reference page 123 of OSRIC v2.2:
The above table is also used to determine the monster’s saving throws. Most monsters will save as fighters, but the GM should use discretion in following this guideline; in cases where the monster clearly possesses the abilities of another class, consideration should be given to using that matrix instead. (A good example might be a goblin shaman, which could save as a cleric instead of a fighter.)In the case of powerful monsters that duplicate the abilities of several classes, the most favourable table should be used. (For example, a spell-casting dragon might save as a magic user or a fighter, whichever is better.) The level at which monsters cast spells is also normally determined by their hit dice unless the creature text indicates otherwise. For example, a magic-using dragon with 11 HD would cast spells as a 12th level spell-caster.
Huge but unintelligent creatures may have their equivalent level reduced for the purposes of saving throws, subject to the GM’s discretion; creatures such as dinosaurs would be ap- propriate for this. On rarer occasions, it may also make sense to reduce the creature’s effective level for the purposes of attack tables also; this might apply to a herbivorous dinosaur, for example.
Please note that certain creatures have a special bonus to their effective attack level. Stirges, for example, are creatures with 1+1 hit die that attack as equivalent level 5.
Generally, the GM should take account of situations such as positional bonuses. For example, where a group of monsters is attacking the party from a height advantage using spears, the GM may well wish to increase their effective equivalent level by 1.
Weapon Training encompasses a wide range of weapons. If you choose heavy blades then you get a bonus on all heavy blades or if you choose light blades etc.. Now over twenty levels a ranger chooses 5 groups of monsters as his favored enemy, now this is done every five levels. Now weapon focus and weapon specialization is not a must for a fighter to kick ass, it makes your job easier and better but it is not a must.
It is a must for the Fighter to kick ass better than anyone else. Weapon training is weaksauce by itself. Seriously. You don't get it until 5th level, and it's only +1 to hit and damage. Barring certain slot-consuming gloves, it caps at +4/+4, +3/+3, +2/+2, and +1/+1 at 17th level. Meanwhile, other classes are leaps and bounds ahead with their methods of buttkicking. Barbarians begin at +2/+2 (or +2/+3) and up to +4/+4 (or +4/+6) later on. Paladins are not far behind and with a single 1st level buff get +3 to hit and damage with all weapons for 10 rounds, which isn't counting smites. Rangers have favored enemy (and by the time Fighter has +4 weapon training, the Ranger has ranger smite and it's easier to list the enemies that aren't favored rather than the ones their are) and lead blades increases the damage with melee weapons by about 2-3 points (or more if he's enlarged), same with gravity bow. Both are personal-range spells so other classes can't access them via potions and such.
Except all of those other classes all crush Fighters in every other field. Skills. Saves. Options. Out of Combat Utility. Problem Solving. You name it, they have it. The only way whatsoever for the Fighter to have To-Hit and Damage numbers that shout out "Hey, I'm a Fighter!" is via Weapon Specialization, which requires heavy feat investment.
That's not a matter of opinion. That's a fact. It's just simple arithmetic.
You have a habit of trying to put classes in certain situations and then say "see I told you there was a problem".
And by that you mean "generic adventuring scenarios". IE - tropes, memes, and/or examples backed up by the game (during the longsword-fighter example, you're not likely to loot usable longswords from goblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, orcs, ogres, giants, merfolk, troglodytes, ettins, rakshasa, mind flayers, etc). You're bound entirely to random drop loot.
GM fiat has nothing to do with campaign building because that runs outside the rules but there is a bit of a silent contract to where a DM knows the direction your characters are going so he can adjust a bit of the campaign to fit them. If you know a fighter prefers longswords then you are going to make sure you throw in a longsword or two, same with rangers and favored enemy.
You can sit on the "silent contract" argument. I won't hear of it. There is no silent contract. If you want to metagame to hand the world to your players (Oh my god I can't believe I just said that to Shallowsoul {=.=}) that's fine, but don't try or suggest that the need to do so for one and not for another is not a weakness for that one.
I do not throw in enemies to suit rangers. I do not throw in weapons to suit fighters. I do not make enemies evil to suit Paladins. They are what they are for reasons why they are. If you're a Fighter, god help you if you pick some exotic weapon no one else in the campaign is going to be using, like a Falcata, or the tri-bladed-pixie-butterknife or something. Your chances of randomly finding such things are gonna be pretty much nil. And if the party is dealing with orcs, I'm not going to throw undead into the mix to appease the Ranger with favored enemy {undead}. Once again, if you need me to mod the campaign to make you feel better, you're broken.
How would you feel if every enemy that came at your ranger was not a favored enemy? Not sending a favored enemy ever is the same as sending one every encounter.
Relieved. No, really. See, when I make a Ranger (and they're arguably my favorite martial class in PF right now), I know that I'm going to rock faces even if I never see my favored enemy. But since favored enemies are actually very broad, I can take things like Favored Enemy {Undead}, {Dragons}, {Magical Beasts}, {Evil Outsiders}. If you never use anything on my favored enemy list (perhaps just to spite me even) then that means I'm free of...
All manner of terrible undead.
All manner of terrible dragons.
All manner of magical beasts.
All manner of fiends (demons, devils, daemons, kytons, etc).
Life is good.
And then later on? Well I have Quarry (woot). And Instant Enemy. Favored Defense. And so forth.
Fighter? You're still relying on the GM - or a party member - to give you a sword.
For Those That Don't Remember: This reliance on weapons as a weakness is spawned from the commentation about spellcasters having more options vs golems, which provoked the comment that so do martials (who couldn't damage golems at all in pre-3E either unless they happened to have sweet gear which they couldn't be assured of unless the GM gave it to them, which is still a weakness of the Fighter, but not the other classes).
Golarion or not, there are cities with more than 16.000gp.
The game mastery guide give some modifiers to settlements, including things like "crossroad" or "Prosperous" that give modifiers to Base Value.
A prosperous, tourist attractive, Notorius, Magically attuned settlement in a strategic situation gets its Base Value raised by 110%.
similarly, a plagued, hunted impovireshed city might find it reduced by 90%.
So Metropolis have a Base value that goes from 1600gp, to 33600gp
Ignoring the fact that the GMG rules are splat material, and ignoring the fact that a backwoods Metropolis is probably an oxymoron (seriously, are you going to get a metropolis that's not already a beacon of trade and probably a major travel hub? I mean really? Really?), 33,600 gp is not that much either. That would only get you up to +4 weapons, and not even capable of supporting +6 stat items (36,000 gp) or higher than +4 multi-stat items (like belts that give +4 Str/Dex/Con).
So even with said splat material pushing the GP limits higher in the extremes, it's still got a pretty low ceiling as far as magic items go.
eh...I wouldn't go so far as to say that it could never happen that a metropolis would become a backwoods styled slum. Generally, this would happen most readily as a result of loosing a major war to another rival power (i.e. Carthage after the wars with Rome), especially in the instance of netting the plagued, hunted, and impoverished. As examples, Plague comes from the fact that during the siege of the city the enemy army poisoned various wells that supplied the city with water, tossed rotting and disease ridden corpses into the city. Impoverished comes from them being looted and sacked after the city inevitably fell and the their enemies sowing salt into the earth on their way out to prevent any sort of real come-back. Finally, hunted stems from the fact that due to the decreased military strength of the city from losing so many men in the war that various monsters have moved in and taken large sections of the city. In short, I wouldn't consider such a backwoods metropolis to be an oxymoron but it would indeed be considered very, VERY rare.
|
|
Weapon Training encompasses a wide range of weapons. If you choose heavy blades then you get a bonus on all heavy blades or if you choose light blades etc.. Now over twenty levels a ranger chooses 5 groups of monsters as his favored enemy, now this is done every five levels. Now weapon focus and weapon specialization is not a must for a fighter to kick ass, it makes your job easier and better but it is not a must.It is a must for the Fighter to kick ass better than anyone else. Weapon training is weaksauce by itself. Seriously. You don't get it until 5th level, and it's only +1 to hit and damage. Barring certain slot-consuming gloves, it caps at +4/+4, +3/+3, +2/+2, and +1/+1 at 17th level. Meanwhile, other classes are leaps and bounds ahead with their methods of buttkicking. Barbarians begin at +2/+2 (or +2/+3) and up to +4/+4 (or +4/+6) later on. Paladins are not far behind and with a single 1st level buff get +3 to hit and damage with all weapons for 10 rounds, which isn't counting smites. Rangers have favored enemy (and by the time Fighter has +4 weapon training, the Ranger has ranger smite and it's easier to list the enemies that aren't favored rather than the ones their are) and lead blades increases the damage with melee weapons by about 2-3 points (or more if he's enlarged), same with gravity bow. Both are personal-range spells so other classes can't access them via potions and such.
Except all of those other classes all crush Fighters in every other field. Skills. Saves. Options. Out of Combat Utility. Problem Solving. You name it, they have it. The only way whatsoever for the Fighter to have To-Hit and Damage numbers that shout out "Hey, I'm a Fighter!" is via Weapon Specialization, which requires heavy feat investment.
That's not a matter of opinion. That's a fact. It's just simple arithmetic.
You have a habit of trying to put classes in certain situations and then say "see I told you there was a problem".And by that you...
On the golem issue.
There were certain types of golems that were made for certain levels of groups. All you needed to hit an Iron Golem was a +3 sword but you didn't throw an Iron Golem at a party unless they had a +3 weapon but one trait all golems shared was immunity to magic except for certain spells.
Didn't matter how high a level the wizard was, his spells were still no better at damaging the golem than they were at a lower level.
Edit: It was basically the job of the spellcaster to buff the hell out of the fighter while he goes toe to toe with the golem.
I already own all old school D&D and OSRIC but we aren't here to discuss those games. We are discussing Pathfinder.Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
[/b]YOU[/b] started this thread comparing Pathfinder to the way you played in the '80s. This discussion is about the differences between "old school (A)D&D and Pathfinder. That is what this thread is about.
|
|
[/b]YOU[/b] started this thread comparing Pathfinder to the way you played in the '80s. This discussion is about the differences between "old school (A)D&D and Pathfinder. That is what this thread is about.I already own all old school D&D and OSRIC but we aren't here to discuss those games. We are discussing Pathfinder.Actually, here. Download OSRIC (Old School Reference & Index Compilation) and try playing that. It may be the answer to all your woes. It is basically 1E D&D, cleaned up a bit. Try playing that game for a while, and see if you have no complaints. You're clearly unhappy with modern D&D/PF (and I'd bet you'd be unhappy with OSRIC too after some time, if I was a gambler).
Best case scenario, I solved every problem you'll ever have with your gaming hobby.
Worst case scenario, you'll be back to complain about how mages in old D&D have too many options, fighters don't get enough skills, and theives are failures at everything but you have to have them in your party whether anyone wants to play them or not, and that demihumans are superior to everyone.
Which means we literally have nothing to lose by trying.
This is about spellcasters in Pathfinder losing their weaknesses and using old D&D as a starting point.
On the golem issue.
There were certain types of golems that were made for certain levels of groups. All you needed to hit an Iron Golem was a +3 sword but you didn't throw an Iron Golem at a party unless they had a +3 weapon but one trait all golems shared was immunity to magic except for certain spells.
Didn't matter how high a level the wizard was, his spells were still no better at damaging the golem than they were at a lower level.
Edit: It was basically the job of the spellcaster to buff the hell out of the fighter while he goes toe to toe with the golem.
So you only threw Clay Golems at parties of 17th level and above Clerics, because they were the only ones carrying blunt magical weapons and could cast the necessary Heal spell to cure any of the damage done by the Clay Golem? That is a mighty specialized party out adventuring.
Excuse the aside, just wanted to throw in that weapon specialisation originated in 1E Unearthed Arcana, and was available to Fighters and Rangers only (since Paladins were moved to a sub-class of Cavaliers who got plenty of nice things to make up the difference). It granted +1 to hit and +2 damage and an extra attack every other round every 7 levels (rounded up). Double specialisation (which used another of his precious weapon proficiencies) upped the to hit and damage bonuses to +3/+3 and no other effect.
Back then, the fighter lived and died by his (small handful) of proficiencies.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just as an example, if you play through Baldur's Gate I, sleep trivializes most of the encounters for many, many levels. It affected all creatures in the area under the HD limit, and many, many things were 4HD or less (including ogres).
Please, stop using Baldur's Gate as a reference for the AD&D rules. Baldur's Gate is computer game and don't really follow the AD&D rules.
Sleep was capable to affect 2d4 HD of creatures,and a cap at 4+3 HD creatures (4 hit dices +3 np). That is 2 ogres if you roll maximum effect. As 1st and 2nd edition sleep start affection creatures with lower HD first, a typical encounter of 4-5 1 hd orcs and a ogre would see the 5 orcs drop thank to sleep and the ogre totally unaffected.
As combat was faster in AD&D the typical encounters had a lot more enemies than today.
1ed Unearthed Arcana added specialization to the game. A fighter could double specialize for a +3/+3 and a extra half attack/round, a ranger could get single specialization in the bow for a bonus to hit at point blank and a increase in fire rate at level 7 and 13.
The cavalier had a bonus to hit and increased number of attacks with lance, sword and mace.
2nd edition removed specialization from all classes beside the fighter.
A wizard had to learn his spells, with a 85% chance of success with intelligence 18 (the maximum value you could have without wishes or characteristic increasing tomes) He failed? He couldn't retry until his intelligence increased.
Haste was dangerous, aging a year had the added effect of requiring a system shock check to survive. It was great for martial types as they would double movement and number of attacks, but did almost nothing for spellcaster, as it didn't allow them to cast multiple spells in a round.
And so on and on. A very different game.
Better? No. Worse? No. Different.
Fights were faster and you could have a large number of NPC without slowing down the game.
A lot of things were left to interpretation instead of rolling dices.
At the same time your character was less well defined and up to a point all the melee fighters were very similar, the thieves all had the same class abilities and so on.
The computer game derivate from AD&D don't follow all of his rules, so it isn't a good basis to evaluate the tabletop game.
The maximum peak of caster power was 3.0 (specially with 3.0 haste, and the ability to cast two spells per round). Then they declined a bit in 3.5, and some spells got nerfed in 3.P. But spellcasters in AD&D weren't as powerful as they were in D&D 3rd edition. Not by a long shot.Wait...what?
As someone who played every edition of AD&D (while they were current), gonna have to disagree with you there. Nothing -- nothing -- could stand up to a high level wizard in 1st edition. A lowly fireball could do 29d6, and saving for half didn't matter -- in a world where the fist of Orcus did 1d4, 29d6 meant that the target was dead either way. Protection from arrows made one completely immune to missiles weapons. That and fly meant a wizard could lay waste to armies.
Not that it really matters to the current conversation, but still...
Protection from normal missiles was exactly that, protection from normal missiles. Magic arrow? no protection. Giant boulders, reduction of 1 point of damage for each damage dice. Catapult or balista fire? Same as the giant boulders.
You where it before casting your spell? It was lost.
Memorizing your spells? 10 minutes per spell level. Preparing a fireball required 30 minutes. Full roster of spells for a 9th level wizard? 7 hours. 11°? 10 hours and 10 minutes.
You weren't casting your spell left and right as today.
Again a different game with different rules and a different feeling.
|
|
I haven't played enough mers/rolemaster to judge but I don't know a single rpg system where mages are clearly weaker than mundanes.Legends of the 5 rings, for example
Rolemaster for the levels you get to play, if you start at first level.
The fist passable combat spells are at level 4 (unless you are using some very peculiar optional rule) and getting there require a good number of adventures.After level 10 the non spellcaster have little space for improvement, but in those few campaign I have played level 7 was the maximum level which we have reached.
Add that you have a chance to fumble your spell and lose forever all your spellcasting abilities and you will see that isn't exactly the game for extra powerful PC spellcasters.
Haste was dangerous, aging a year had the added effect of requiring a system shock check to survive. It was great for martial types as they would double movement and number of attacks, but did almost nothing for spellcaster, as it didn't allow them to cast multiple spells in a round.
Actually, this discussion was gone over in RPG.net. Haste has been said by the designers to not cause System shock before.
But I'm too lazy to dig up the thread.|
|
...Yes, but melee classes got pounce for free, and no to-hit penalty in their itterative attacks (plus 1 attack extra every 2 rounds if they were specialists).That's a bit misleading. I mean it's true, but you got a lot less iterative attacks than in 3.0. Rangers and paladins topped out at 2 at 13th level and didn't get 3 every 2 rounds until 7th. As you said, Specialist Fighters got an extra half an attack.
In 1E, no specialization, so at most 2 attacks. Not quite the same as 3.x iterative attacks, even if you can use them every round.There were also less ways to add damage to those attacks. Extra strength, specialization and magic weapons were about it. No whole stacks of feats that let you boost damage these days.
Oh yeah, and when they did introduce specialization, Rangers and Paladins could do it too. I forgot about that for a moment. The only way Fighters have anything to write home about was if you used some splat material from 2E to allow specializing beyond normal, which was fighter-only. Of course, doing so generally shot yourself in the foot, because every point you put into weapon X, was a point you never could put into weapon Y or Z.
Which led, IMHO even moreso, to the problem Fighters still have today. If a fighter is all manner of specced for fighting with longswords, you are drastically limiting your ability to adapt or switch weapons.
For Example
You're a fighter. You decide to use a longsword as your primary weapon, because you're actually looking to be pretty versatile (longswords can be used with a shield, or two-handed with the benefits of a greatsword, and you figure Longswords are probably the most common sort of weapon you'll find. Which may be entirely true, but most common out of tons can be a bit misleading).So at 1st level, you take Weapon Focus {Longsword} and arm yourself with a longsword. During your first adventure, you end up
Never said it did. Weapon training would if you chose "Heavy Blades".
Golarion or not, there are cities with more than 16.000gp.
The game mastery guide give some modifiers to settlements, including things like "crossroad" or "Prosperous" that give modifiers to Base Value.
A prosperous, tourist attractive, Notorius, Magically attuned settlement in a strategic situation gets its Base Value raised by 110%.
similarly, a plagued, hunted impovireshed city might find it reduced by 90%.
So Metropolis have a Base value that goes from 1600gp, to 33600gp
Ignoring the fact that the GMG rules are splat material, and ignoring the fact that a backwoods Metropolis is probably an oxymoron (seriously, are you going to get a metropolis that's not already a beacon of trade and probably a major travel hub? I mean really? Really?), 33,600 gp is not that much either. That would only get you up to +4 weapons, and not even capable of supporting +6 stat items (36,000 gp) or higher than +4 multi-stat items (like belts that give +4 Str/Dex/Con).
So even with said splat material pushing the GP limits higher in the extremes, it's still got a pretty low ceiling as far as magic items go.
Sure there are a lot of metropoli which aren't beacons of trades and major travel hubs. Mexico DF for example. It has a bigger population than Los Angeles or New York, but a lower "base value" because it's not a major trade hub as LA is.
that said, I wasn't trying to say that those limits are too much. Just that you said it was fixed as 16000 in standard, and the GMG gives you modifiers for those.
The words "...aren't beacons of trade and major travel hubs" and "Mexico DF for example" are not compatible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_City
So you only threw Clay Golems at parties of 17th level and above Clerics, because they were the only ones carrying blunt magical weapons and could cast the necessary Heal spell to cure any of the damage done by the Clay Golem? That is a mighty specialized party out adventuring.On the golem issue.
There were certain types of golems that were made for certain levels of groups. All you needed to hit an Iron Golem was a +3 sword but you didn't throw an Iron Golem at a party unless they had a +3 weapon but one trait all golems shared was immunity to magic except for certain spells.
Didn't matter how high a level the wizard was, his spells were still no better at damaging the golem than they were at a lower level.
Edit: It was basically the job of the spellcaster to buff the hell out of the fighter while he goes toe to toe with the golem.
Not to mention it sounds insanely contrived and meta-gamist.
Sleep was capable to affect 2d4 HD of creatures,and a cap at 4+3 HD creatures (4 hit dices +3 np). That is 2 ogres if you roll maximum effect. As 1st and 2nd edition sleep start affection creatures with lower HD first, a typical encounter of 4-5 1 hd orcs and a ogre would see the 5 orcs drop thank to sleep and the ogre totally unaffected.
Yeah, and if you recalled, I also mentioned sleep from OSRIC (the only way I know of to get a reference to AD&D rules today without having them printed or pirated), and in that it has one of the fastest casting speeds and there is no saving throw. None. Zilch. Nada.
I've noted several times I'm not an expert at 2E. I've only played it a few times tabletop, and with a god-awful GM, and I was disgusted at the metagame/disassociated mechanics of it, but I managed to not hate it for all its failings mostly due to BG (and a small insistence to not judge things to quickly I try to live by).
I've tried to make an attempt to educate myself on the subject as well as possible given the fact I've little more than a collection of discarded 2E books no one wanted anymore (and I think a few 1E books mixed in). If you find something incorrect, feel free to point it out. But I have been referencing page numbers and sources other than Baldur's Gate.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention it sounds insanely contrived and meta-gamist.So you only threw Clay Golems at parties of 17th level and above Clerics, because they were the only ones carrying blunt magical weapons and could cast the necessary Heal spell to cure any of the damage done by the Clay Golem? That is a mighty specialized party out adventuring.On the golem issue.
There were certain types of golems that were made for certain levels of groups. All you needed to hit an Iron Golem was a +3 sword but you didn't throw an Iron Golem at a party unless they had a +3 weapon but one trait all golems shared was immunity to magic except for certain spells.
Didn't matter how high a level the wizard was, his spells were still no better at damaging the golem than they were at a lower level.
Edit: It was basically the job of the spellcaster to buff the hell out of the fighter while he goes toe to toe with the golem.
I would actually advise you to go and read up on 2nd edition.
The thing about 1st and 2nd edition was the fact that you didn't have DR. When a creature could only be hit by a certain plus or better they meant it. Any weapon below that would simply pass through the creature or bounce off. The game back then "was" based on being "gamist" because of the way it was designed.
You don't have to like it but that's the way it was. You didn't throw creatures at the party unless you knew they had a way to defeat it. The DMG even gave you this advice.
BAB higher than your character level? How do you manage that?
... (and or take it sooner for certain PCs with BAB greater than their character level)....
Monstrous PCs. Their character level is basically CR + Class Levels (with some variation later on). So if you have a Minotaur (such as in a Dragonlance themed game), then your BAB can be higher than your character level.
Call me crazy but as a rabid fan of arcane spell casters I like a system where one has more options that make you feel less absolutely useless to the group in certain types of encounters.Okay crazy...I as a rabid arcane caster fan prefer a system where conjuration isn't the automatic school of choice for specialization and evocation the obvious dump school. Yeah I like some remote semblance of balance...I'm silly like that.
Then why aren't you both playing Ars Magica? Seriously. Come on over, the vis is fine. ;)
-Ben.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention it sounds insanely contrived and meta-gamist.So you only threw Clay Golems at parties of 17th level and above Clerics, because they were the only ones carrying blunt magical weapons and could cast the necessary Heal spell to cure any of the damage done by the Clay Golem? That is a mighty specialized party out adventuring.On the golem issue.
There were certain types of golems that were made for certain levels of groups. All you needed to hit an Iron Golem was a +3 sword but you didn't throw an Iron Golem at a party unless they had a +3 weapon but one trait all golems shared was immunity to magic except for certain spells.
Didn't matter how high a level the wizard was, his spells were still no better at damaging the golem than they were at a lower level.
Edit: It was basically the job of the spellcaster to buff the hell out of the fighter while he goes toe to toe with the golem.
I would actually advise you to go and read up on 2nd edition.
The thing about 1st and 2nd edition was the fact that you didn't have DR. When a creature could only be hit by a certain plus or better they meant it. Any weapon below that would simply pass through the creature or bounce off. The game back then "was" based on being "gamist" because of the way it was designed.
You don't have to like it but that's the way it was. You didn't throw creatures at the party unless you knew they had a way to defeat it. The DMG even gave you this advice.
If this is the attitude you wish to take, never, ever say anything about mechanics vs roleplaying ever again. Lest you be a hypocrit of the purist order. And you pretty much proved my point. The golems are impossible for parties who aren't packing the correct resources. If you don't have amazingly powerful and valuable weaponry, your fighters aren't doing anything. And if you don't have the correct spells, neither are your casters. Arm the fighters with better weapons, or the mages with the correct spells, and then you can fight them.
Which was my point. Fighters and such have it easy against those enemies these days. If I'm playing a Ranger, and my party encounters an Iron Golem, I can just whip out an adamantine weapon (rather than a +3 weapon that fortune must favor me with). OR if I don't have an adamantine weapon, the enemy is more difficult but not impossible for our party. I mean, at 12th level (Iron Golems are CR 13 so this would be a fairly difficult encounter) my Ranger (with a +2 sword) will be swinging for about 25 average damage per hit with 3 attacks per round without haste and no buffs (1d8+7+12+2 with a longsword wielded in 2 hands). That means on an average hit I still deal 10 damage to the Golem despite the 15/adamantine. In about 13 hits from me alone (no assistance from the party at all) the Golem is going down. In an actual encounter, the party is going to be pushing damage along, I'm likely gonna get buffed, I might drink a potion.
In Pre-3.x/PF, you can't do that. Either you have a +3 weapon, or you go home. Period. No ifs, ands, or buts. Your martial just wasn't tall enough to ride on this ride. Your martial, even if he's a 40th level Fighter with full specialization in your favorite weapon, with a 25 strength, hasted, with heroism cast on him, blessed, and enlarged, is never - ever - going to hurt that Golem unless you have the right weapon.
Which is...to say...like the spellcaster who's not hurting him without the right spell. Hm?
I also mentioned sleep from OSRIC (the only way I know of to get a reference to AD&D rules today without having them printed or pirated)
Uhhh, you could have the 2E Core rules CD, and then you'd have them all. I got them back in the day, but you can find them here.
I'm always happy to answer a question about a 1E reference. I have all the old books in the Fortress of Solitude.
-Ben.
Furthermore, why the hell would we want to push back to a system that specifically said "don't use X" based on your party? I mean, that is incredibly meta-gamey and full of fail. I mean, that's pretty stupid.
That's like saying "Don't have adventures with fire elementals unless the party has resist energy and [Cold] spells". Or "only use this enemy if the party's bard is having too much fun, because it prevents bardic music and spellcasting in its presence".
Your arguments vs spellcasters have applied to martials across the board. There are less "gotcha" monsters and things are more streamlined. If I want to use golems in my adventure then I can use golems in my adventure. If I don't, I won't. I don't have to check and see "oh lawdy, this monster is CR 4, but only if you have a +3 weapon, in which case it's more like CR 20, except it gives CR 8 XP..." or somesuch nonsense.
At least be honest and apply your logic across the board, instead of focusing it at just the classes you desire. As someone who plays martials/hybrids more often than full casters, I for one think it would be pretty darn lame if I simply couldn't attempt to engage in my theme without the GM magically dropping a +3 weapon into the game just for me.
I also mentioned sleep from OSRIC (the only way I know of to get a reference to AD&D rules today without having them printed or pirated)Uhhh, you could have the 2E Core rules CD, and then you'd have them all. I got them back in the day, but you can find them here.
I'm always happy to answer a question about a 1E reference. I have all the old books in the Fortress of Solitude.
-Ben.
Holy crap, $65.00 used? That's a lot of money for a humble gamer to spend on a ruleset that's never going to be used as anything more than a reference piece.
I do appreciate the offer though. If you see anything mentioned here that seems out of place, feel free to chime in and be like "Well actually it was like..."! I'd love to hear it. ^.^
Furthermore, why the hell would we want to push back to a system that specifically said "don't use X" based on your party? I mean, that is incredibly meta-gamey and full of fail. I mean, that's pretty stupid.
That's like saying "Don't have adventures with fire elementals unless the party has resist energy and [Cold] spells".
Iunno it looks more like "Don't have adventures with Fire Elementals if each PC starts off with Martian Manhunter levels of fire aversion that they only lose as they level up" to me.
So you only threw Clay Golems at parties of 17th level and above Clerics, because they were the only ones carrying blunt magical weapons and could cast the necessary Heal spell to cure any of the damage done by the Clay Golem? That is a mighty specialized party out adventuring.
You are hysterically quaint.
There's a clay golem in _Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth_, with the B&W line art of the thing coming out of the darkness for the party. We ran the party through it and I killed three of the six characters before they finished it. One survivor was 9th level with 17hp, and the only thing that saved them, if I recall correctly was a rod of smiting they had with them that allowed them to actually hurt the thing effectively. We played with criticals (Out of Dragon #81), and while that was part of what made one PC salsa-in-platemail, it was also what destroyed the golem.
No, quite the opposite of what you say here. You ran adventures and when characters died, they died-- unless you managed to get them back to where you could raise them. (There's still someone trapped behind that wall, buried in sand within the depths of the _Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan_.)
We didn't allow raising from the dead. It put some fear into people and man, those were some fantastically epic brawls.
That one survivor? He spent three months of real time, playing once a week for 6+ hours, getting the spells necessary to be healed completely. That was 15 years ago, and if I asked him about it right now, he could tell you the whole story.
-Ben.
For the sake of conversation, here's the Melf's Minute Meteors text:
Melf's Minute Meteors
(Evocation, Alteration)Range: 70 yds. + 10 yds./level Components: V, S, M
Duration: Special Casting Time: 3
Area of Effect: 1 target/meteor Saving Throw: NoneThis spell enables the wizard to cast small globes of fire (one for each experience level he has attained), each of which bursts into a 1-foot-diameter sphere upon impact, inflicting 1d4 points of damage to the creature struck. It can also ignite combustible materials (even solid planks). The meteors are treated as missiles hurled by the wizard with a +2 bonus to the attack rolls and with no penalty for range. Misses are treated as grenadelike missiles that inflict 1 point of damage to creatures within 3 feet.
The spell can be cast in either of two ways:
A) The wizard discharges five meteors every round (see the "Multiple Attacks and Initiative" section in Chapter 9: Combat). Note that this carries over into at least the following round.
B) The wizard discharges only one meteor per round. In addition to releasing the missile, the caster can perform other actions in the round, including spellcasting, melee, or device use. Spells requiring concentration force the wizard to forgo the rest of the missiles to maintain concentration. Also, if the wizard fails to maintain an exact mental count of the number of missiles he has remaining, he has involuntarily lost the remaining portion of the spell.
The spell ends when the caster has fired off as many meteors as he has experience levels, when he forgoes casting any still remaining, or when a successful dispel magic spell is thrown upon the caster.
The components necessary for the casting of this spell are nitre and sulphur formed into a bead by the addition of pine tar. The caster must also have a small hollow tube of minute proportion, fashioned from gold. The tube costs no less than 1,000 gp to construct, so fine is its workmanship and magical engraving, and it can be reused.
And a "+2 bonus to attack" is not a +2 Weapon. The pertinent Clay Golem bit says:
Damage inflicted upon living matter by a clay golem is only repairable by means of a healing spell from a cleric of 17th or greater level.Attacks by a clay golem are based on 11 hit dice. Once per day the golem can be hasted for three melee rounds after engaging in at least one round of combat. During this period it strikes twice per round. (If out of control, the golem will immediately haste itself if it has not previously done so.)
Clay golems can be struck only by blunt magical weapons such as hammers or maces. Other weapons do not affect it. Spells do not affect it, except as follows: move earth will drive the golem back 12” and inflicts 3-36 hit points of damage, disintegrate will slow the golem 50% and inflicts 1-12 hit points of damage, and an earthquake cast directly at a clay golem will stop it from moving that turn and inflict 5-50 hit points of damage.
So, no +3 rule here-- that's the iron golem. Flesh golems just needed magic weapons, stone golems needed +2. Elementals needed +2 weapons. Best part about illusionary elementals? If you didn't have the +2 weapon to harm it, then it was acting normally when it didn't respond to your attacks, and so you had no reason to disbelieve it was beating the stuffing out of you. Ahhh, I fondly remember obliterating a Birthright party with 6 5th level thieves, 3 goblins, and a 7th level wizard. That was truly delicious.
-Ben.
The SR/Conjuration loophole goes back to 2E (Out of Tome of Magic or the Complete Book of Wizards, maybe? We also used the Encyclopedia Magica, which had *all* of the spells), too, with the Chromatic Orb spell, which was 1st level but scaled as you went up, so it double dipped the love, and did the same thing of bypassing MR.
The SR/Conjuration loophole continues to live so that conjured monsters can harm creatures with SR. Boom. End of story. It's exploited by spells like Chain Lightning, Snowball, all of those. Fixing it's not tough. You just limit the loophole to conjured creatures and apply SR to the rest.
-Ben.
The SR/Conjuration loophole goes back to 2E (Out of Tome of Magic or the Complete Book of Wizards, maybe? We also used the Encyclopedia Magica, which had *all* of the spells), too, with the Chromatic Orb spell, which was 1st level but scaled as you went up, so it double dipped the love, and did the same thing of bypassing MR.
The SR/Conjuration loophole continues to live so that conjured monsters can harm creatures with SR. Boom. End of story. It's exploited by spells like Chain Lightning, Snowball, all of those. Fixing it's not tough. You just limit the loophole to conjured creatures and apply SR to the rest.
-Ben.
Funny thing is summoned (but not called) monsters (post-2E) are affected by spell resistance. It specifically calls it out in the magic chapter and their spells. If a summoned monster lands a hit with a melee attack vs spell resistance and fails its test, the monster winks out (only needs to test once though). Summons that have spells / ranged attacks are better in such cases.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think no direct magic attack should be able to bypass SR. I can see grease bypassing SR but glitterdust? no, and definitely no snowball.
So what about "Oh s!~#, god, I've got GLASS IN MY EYEBALLS PLEASE HELP OH WHY!?!?!?!" screams "Should be affected by spell resistance" to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why it was heart breaking when a Glabrezu casts dispel magic on your weapon. Oops, you're neutered for about 2.5 rounds. Oops, he broke your weapon. Oh damn, there went 50,000gp.
I call failure on your GM. Presuming you survive the encounter, and if I've neutered your heavy hitter, then you likely will, (because I have better things to do as a demon than take chances one of you will get lucky with something, because I'm invited to this plane and would like to remain here and cause more havoc thankyouverymuch.) and now you have at nice adventure arc to repair the weapon while seeking out other means to destroy the demon you know is a) loose on the world, b) not thrilled about you knowing about it, and c) going to live forever until you kill it or trap it.
If you invested that much into a weapon, it's positively criminal to simply break it over a monster's knee without some chance of fixing it through story-- unless this is a climactic concluding brawl.
-Ben.
I call failure on your GM. Presuming you survive the encounter, and if I've neutered your heavy hitter, then you likely will, (because I have better things to do as a demon than take chances one of you will get lucky with something, because I'm invited to this plane and would like to remain here and cause more havoc thankyouverymuch.) and now you have at nice adventure arc to repair the weapon while seeking out other means to destroy the demon you know is a) loose on the world, b) not thrilled about you knowing about it, and c) going to live forever until you kill it or trap it.
Which is why it was heart breaking when a Glabrezu casts dispel magic on your weapon. Oops, you're neutered for about 2.5 rounds. Oops, he broke your weapon. Oh damn, there went 50,000gp.
Fiends are usually smart. Incredibly smart in fact. Easily Genius level for most. It seems odd to think that you'd leave someone who had the means to threaten you with your imminent demise a moment ago to regroup and try again. Better to kill them all now while they are weak, or force them into your servitude, or see which is more important to them at this moment: their life, or their afterlife.
If you invested that much into a weapon, it's positively criminal to simply break it over a monster's knee without some chance of fixing it through story-- unless this is a climactic concluding brawl.
If you're too dumb to put all your eggs into a single basket, you get what you deserve when the villain tosses it down the stairs. :P
EDIT: Also, every brawl could be the climactic conclusion to the campaign. (-_^)
I think no direct magic attack should be able to bypass SR. I can see grease bypassing SR but glitterdust? no, and definitely no snowball.So what about "Oh s%~#, god, I've got GLASS IN MY EYEBALLS PLEASE HELP OH WHY!?!?!?!" screams "Should be affected by spell resistance" to you?
Quite frankly, if it targets a creature with SR, it should require a check. A creature in an area-of-effect spell should get a check individually, and then, if it fails, it should need to save as normal.
The only thing that shouldn't be affected by SR are effects that don't affect a creature. Illusions? Once your illusion interacts with something with SR, it should check. Conjured walls? As soon as they fall on a creature with SR, it should check. Whether or not they can simply pass through a Wall of Solid-Material-of-your-Choice is questionable, but otherwise. They should be allowed to decide if an effect is permitted to pass their resistance, such as instances like light or darkness, healing, etc, but for the most part, if it interacts with a creature with SR, it should check SR. (I find the light example humorous, but then I can see the creature cracking a lantern or sunrod. "No, I can't see. For me, that light spell isn't there.")
-Ben.
A tangent while there are so many people well-versed in 2e Magic Resistance:
Years ago, our party met a rakshasa in a cave. My PC cast earthquake. The DM ruled that NOTHING HAPPENED because the rakshasa was magic resistant and thus couldn't take any damage caused by a spell, even if the spell only caused rocks to fall and the actual damage taken would have been from mundane rocks. He then proceeded to kill half the party with a fireball. All these years, I've remained firmly convinced that the mere presence of a magic-resistant creature in an area of effect shouldn't have prevented the spell from going off. How would you have ruled it?
Fiends are usually smart. Incredibly smart in fact. Easily Genius level for most. It seems odd to think that you'd leave someone who had the means to threaten you with your imminent demise a moment ago to regroup and try again. Better to kill them all now while they are weak, or force them into your servitude, or see which is more important to them at this moment: their life, or their afterlife....EDIT: Also, every brawl could be the climactic conclusion to the campaign. (-_^)
I guess if the demon's got nothing better to do, sure. Most of my demons have $#!+ to do, and if they've neutered the party, then they'll remember this bit of impertinence for later, to come back and revisit them while they're sleeping, and deal with them then. In the meantime, those long, long hours of torturous anticipation are like sweet candy. Yes, please sleep in a magic circle for the rest of your life, and pray it doesn't convince a barmaid it'll make her a queen if she poisons your mead, or puts an asp in your bedroom, or hides this box full of princess heads in your chest. Spending 10 years making "heroes" miserable when you have eternity is like going out for a quick ice cream cone.
RE: Your weapons...well, I guess that's a reason I feel martial characters shouldn't get screwed on that account. It's a weapon of vast, potent magics, forged over weeks, invested with power and experience-- why should it act like a crystal unicorn from the corner drugstore? Hell, no. It was hard to make, let it be hard to break, and let it be put back together with a sufficient investment.
I don't know that every brawl should be a climactic conclusion, but battles should serve their purpose. I'm vehemently opposed to random thuggings in adventures, they really just irk the hell out of me.
-Ben.
Because it is a magic attack and SR is magic defense against magic attacks.
TBy the same logic nothing should be affected by SR cause why fire or electricity should be affected By SR but no a ball of snow or pieces of galsses?
Because fire and electricity are pure energy, while glass and snow are mundane materials conjured by magic.
I do not see how pieces of glass bypass SR but pieces of
Diamond do not.
Because SR is badly thought out when it comes to the specifics of things.
How would you have ruled it?
Straight out of the text:
Magic resistance is not effective against an earthquake caused by a spell. While the creature may suffer injury or death falling into a chasm the spell opens under its feet, the magical energy of the spell was directed at the ground, not the creature. Magic resistant creatures are not immune to events that occur as the consequence of spells, only to the direct energy created or released by a spell.
And I'd concur. That's an instance where I wouldn't have SR count, either. Pit spells, where the pit is a real and actual hole-in-the-ground, shouldn't check SR. In that case, gravity's doing the work. However, that would make a pit spell an instantaneous transmutation, like disintegrate.
-Ben.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does say "and ice".
Then again it also says you can "throw it at a single target" which means it's not launched telekinetically at great speed, which means it either should do less damage or SHOULD be affected by SR.
But IMO SR was meant more for "You can't use enchantments on me, puny mortal" rather than "Oh you conjured a hunk of X and used it to do Y? Well my completely unexplained resistance to certain undefined kinds of magic says no."
They should probably do it so most Evocation/Conjuration and other direct damage spells (ESPECIALLY ones with tangible effects like Glitterdust and Diamond Spray) bypass it and SR is mostly for Illusions/Enchantments/Divination/Curses (Necromancy).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But IMO SR was meant more for "You can't use enchantments on me, puny mortal" rather than "Oh you conjured a hunk of X and used it to do Y? Well my completely unexplained resistance to certain undefined kinds of magic says no."
Nono, that's exactly what it's for. It belongs to mystical and potent creatures generally not of this world or created by immense magics of their own, or granted by powerful spells. Spell Resistance is precisely for saying, "Oh, I'm sorry, were you trying to bother me with something rather mundane for a being of my stature? Come back when you've learned to wield magic as the art it is and not the cudgel you slap against the ground like a stick while screeching at your fellow animals."
This is why spell penetration is a feat. Why greater spell penetration is a feat. Because Spell Resistance should be properly scary and not some speed bump on my way through conjuration specialization.
-Ben.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess if the demon's got nothing better to do, sure. Most of my demons have $#!+ to do, and if they've neutered the party, then they'll remember this bit of impertinence for later, to come back and revisit them while they're sleeping, and deal with them then.
Fiends are usually smart. Incredibly smart in fact. Easily Genius level for most. It seems odd to think that you'd leave someone who had the means to threaten you with your imminent demise a moment ago to regroup and try again. Better to kill them all now while they are weak, or force them into your servitude, or see which is more important to them at this moment: their life, or their afterlife....EDIT: Also, every brawl could be the climactic conclusion to the campaign. (-_^)
It might depend on the demon, but honestly it does sound a little odd to me to hear about chaotic evil harbringers of suffering and destruction who are immortal (literally having all the time in the world) are commonly suffering from such severe Attention Deficit Disorder as to act in such a way as to break off from fights because they aren't fair... (~.<)"
In the meantime, those long, long hours of torturous anticipation are like sweet candy. Yes, please sleep in a magic circle for the rest of your life, and pray it doesn't convince a barmaid it'll make her a queen if she poisons your mead, or puts an asp in your bedroom, or hides this box full of princess heads in your chest. Spending 10 years making "heroes" miserable when you have eternity is like going out for a quick ice cream cone.
Oh, trust me, I understand, but this sounds a bit odd as behavior for fiends to engage in mid-battle rather than as spiteful vengeance.
RE: Your weapons...well, I guess that's a reason I feel martial characters shouldn't get screwed on that account. It's a weapon of vast, potent magics, forged over weeks, invested with power and experience-- why should it act like a crystal unicorn from the corner drugstore? Hell, no. It was hard to make, let it be hard to break, and let it be put back together with a sufficient investment.
Don't get me wrong. It's not just martials. Staffs, wands, spell components, and more can get disarmed, sundered, or strait up taken away from you (which is easy to do if you're disarmed by something with a free hand and strong CMB). If you have no spare weapons you deserve to eat it. And I never said weapons can't be repaired (they totally can). Just was noting that in the middle of combat, such things are impractical, which means you should have spares. It's more Intelligent to have several +2 weapons than a single +4 weapon almost always (and actually reduces the tactical attractiveness of trying to destroy/disarm you, since you'll just draw another and murder them some more). :P
I don't know that every brawl should be a climactic conclusion, but battles should serve their purpose. I'm vehemently opposed to random thuggings in adventures, they really just irk the hell out of me.
-Ben.
Heheh, well, I was just joking to a degree their. My grandma used to say "Don't worry about the end of the world. The world ends for someone every day, so don't worry so much about the end that you waste the time you have."
Holy crap, $65.00 used? That's a lot of money for a humble gamer to spend on a ruleset that's never going to be used as anything more than a reference piece.
I do appreciate the offer though. If you see anything mentioned here that seems out of place, feel free to chime in and be like "Well actually it was like..."! I'd love to hear it. ^.^
Certainly.
I got my copy and a copy of the Dragon Magazine compendium as gifts just before going to a desert island for 2 years. It was a lot easier than lugging all the treeware there.
-Ben.
It might depend on the demon, but honestly it does sound a little odd to me to hear about chaotic evil harbringers of suffering and destruction who are immortal (literally having all the time in the world) are commonly suffering from such severe Attention Deficit Disorder as to act in such a way as to break off from fights because they aren't fair... (~.<)"
Nono, they're not suffering from ADD. They've literally got other, more important things to do than spend the time cracking skulls-- which would just be more merciful than anything else. People who are dead can't suffer any longer, and if they were stupid enough to get in the way of a terrible demon and think they could win, but fail, well then those are people who deserve to find their animal companion's head in their saddlebags every morning for a month, their entire extended family dying of a wasting disease, and their former mentor framed/tricked into committing a terrible crime the hero is now forced to avenge. It's not about distraction, its about taking a nice long draw on that flask of revenge, rolling it around on your tongue for a while, getting a taste for it before you have the mortal begging for death because the demon has taken everything from them.
Just was noting that in the middle of combat, such things are impractical, which means you should have spares. It's more Intelligent to have several +2 weapons than a single +4 weapon almost always (and actually reduces the tactical attractiveness of trying to destroy/disarm you, since you'll just draw another and murder them some more). :P
Are you playing a hero with a fantastic magical weapon or are you spoiling a good walk on a 9-hole par 3 with a decent headwind and some nice scenery? Beowulf never said, "hey, I don't just wield Hrunting. I've got two more, just in case." Gandalf didn't rummage through the troll hoard for something more than Glamdring. Roland only tried to sunder Durendal before being overrun. The sack-o-magical-weapons has never been a popular thing with me, I was more than happy to allow a modification on the rules allowing a character's weapon to be invested with powers over time. Besides, if you've got a bag full of weapons, how do you know they're still *in there?*
"Don't worry about the end of the world. The world ends for someone every day, so don't worry so much about the end that you waste the time you have."
I like your grandmother already. I like to tell PFS tables, "Don't worry, every adventure had to get that treasure put there somehow. Today, you might just be the delivery service for +1 sword and a Cloak of Resistance."
-Ben.
EDIT: Ahhh, you see. But in your charm question, why didn't the hero hunthunthunt for that succubus until she was destroyed or trapped? That's what I'm saying here, too. That refocusing of the hero's total being? That forcing of the hero to seek out the demon to try destroying it again? That's *as much torture* as the rest of it, and therefore, just as bad, because the demon doesn't just kill them, that's too easy, making them spend the rest of their life chasing it to try making sure it won't chase them is an even worse theft.