The problem being that it assumes wands of specific charges are more readily available than fully charged wands.
Which seems unlikely, since only fully charged wands can be made.
Still no response to my "broken" weapon inquiry?
Yea I was with you right up until this. In my head a hamlet might very well have a partially charged wand for sale. Some adventurerer that couldn't use in might have pawned it off when he found it in a dungeon.
But unless the among the hamlets citicens there is a person capable of crafting wands then I'm not seeing them importing fully charged expensive as hell wands. Not unless this hamlet we're talking about happens to be adventurer central.
- Torger
Yeah personally I'd be a little bugged about the broken magic items thing myself. It'd make a fine house rule to disallow such. I fully recommend house ruling some things. I have a few house rules myself. For example, I find the monk lacking so I fixed it.
|
Could a hamlet have partially charged wands. Maybe. Nothing in the book says they are, but if you want to infer economics into the equation as a house rule, sure. That could be a reasonable inference for a house rule.
But would it be more likely they would have a specific wand with a specific number of charges than a full wand.
That doesn't seem likely.
A wand has 50 charges. You can not make partially charged wands, so at best there is a 1 in 50 chance that a given wand has a number of charges equal to what you are looking for. Why would the presumption be that wands with less charges would be more prevalent.
So we are starting from inference. There is no specific pricing in the book for purchase other than a fully charged wand, only a price for sale which can be inferred to be half purchase price.
Taking that inference, there is no reason to think there are more low charge wands than high charge wands. To the contrary it is much more likely there are more fully charged wands, given those are the only ones that can be made.
|
|
Yeah personally I'd be a little bugged about the broken magic items thing myself.
So to be clear, you are "bugged" about exploits that help martial classes, which you believe are horribly underpowered, but not bothered at all by exploits that help caster classes, which you believe outshine everyone else.
Do you not see how this could be related?
And for those who seem to think citing raw = meaniebadwrongface, it's not rocket science.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community.Is X < Y where X is the value of the item and Y is the community GP limit? If yes = 75% chance of availability.
Let's try this out. We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp). We test the % and have a 75% chance of finding this item. If we get unlucky and there isn't one, we test to see if there are any with fewer charges and test % again. So we might not get the 33 charge one, but likely we'll be able to find one within a few charges of it.
The reason I disagree with you, Ashiel, is that under your interpretation, each wand of a discreet charge level counts as a seperate item.
By your rule, CLW wands would always be available in any hamlet. Why? I'd first check for one with 33 charges. 75% chance. Then 32 charges. Then 31 charges...bing! got my wand. Hey, now I want one with 30 charges...yeah, got that, too.
And on and on and on.
The rule should be interpreted as: you can roll for any one type of magic item. If it has a value of 500 gp or less, it might be present (75% chance). If you are allowing the sale of items with partial charges, roll once to see how many charges the item has that you are looking for. If it has few enough charges, there is one available. If it does not, it is not.
Furthermore, wands with full charges should be more common then those with partial charges in shops. Wands tend to be held until they are used. So the odds of a wand being full charged should be at least 50%...otherwise, roll. (how I'd rule it).
In NO circumstances should the character be able to say "I want a wand with 16 charges", because that will just mean he will always be able to find any wand, simply by naming a different charge level and rolling again until he gets what he wants...even in a hamlet.
==Aelryinth
So do you want to defend the premise of buying the broken weapon to get around WBL? We now have broken weapons and partial wands, both to get around WBL.
Actually that's false. Wands with partial charges do not get around WBL. You only get what you pay for. The charges are used and then consumed. You do not buy a wand with 3 charges, cast mending and get a wand with 50 charges out of it. So no matter how anyone tries to slice it you do not create value where value does not exist with wands.
Buying magic items at 75% value because they are broken then repairing them for negligible cost returns them to 100% value. Thus it could be constituted as an abuse (I think it's pretty abusive). I'd probably house rule a penalty to the resale value rather than the actual value. IE - the price of a broken magic item is the same as the non-broken one, but when you try to sell it then you only make 75% of the amount from it.
Example: If I have a broken cloak of resistance +1 (normally 1000 gp / 500 resale) I'd only make 375 gp selling it. This would make it reasonable to assume broken equipment was not often sold (or not often sold at a discount less than the cost to fix it) because it would be expected that you'd buy it, refurbish it, resale it.
And for those who seem to think citing raw = meaniebadwrongface, it's not rocket science.
The number and types of magic items available in a community depend upon its size. Each community has a base value associated with it (see Table: Available Magic Items). There is a 75% chance that any item of that value or lower can be found for sale with little effort in that community.Is X < Y where X is the value of the item and Y is the community GP limit? If yes = 75% chance of availability.
Let's try this out. We are at a village (500 gp limit) and want to find a wand of magic missile with 33 charges (33 * 15 gp = 495 gp). We test the % and have a 75% chance of finding this item. If we get unlucky and there isn't one, we test to see if there are any with fewer charges and test % again. So we might not get the 33 charge one, but likely we'll be able to find one within a few charges of it.
The reason I disagree with you, Ashiel, is that under your interpretation, each wand of a discreet charge level counts as a seperate item.
By your rule, CLW wands would always be available in any hamlet. Why? I'd first check for one with 33 charges. 75% chance. Then 32 charges. Then 31 charges...bing! got my wand. Hey, now I want one with 30 charges...yeah, got that, too.
And on and on and on.
Which is no different than scrolls. By RAW you can find all sorts of scrolls and stuff in a town. In every thorpe you come across you can be expected to find about 75% of 1st level scrolls.
You have a problem with it. I don't. I'm discussing the rules. Rules that I use. Magic items are not difficult to create. Any NPC adept can make them. Then they get traded around in all those caravan and merchant carts adventurers always seem to be protecting.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Each scroll of a spell is not 50 variations of each wand of a spell, Ashiel.
You're effectively making the scroll problem 50x worse, and making all wands always available. Despite scrolls being cheaper.
==Aelryinth
Each scroll of a spell is not 50 variations of each wand of a spell, Ashiel.
You're effectively making the scroll problem 50x worse, and making all wands always available. Despite scrolls being cheaper.
==Aelryinth
1) You are deeming it a problem. I don't see it as such. I have no problem with scrolls being available.
2) Wands are more useful than scrolls. There would be a higher demand for them.3) The moment a wand is used it is no longer fully charged. Spellcasters can make them, use them, recoup the costs from them by selling them. It is not unlikely to assume that there are thousands of wands floating around a given region at a given times, and only a very, very tiny margin of those would be fully charged (upon creation).
You're basically arguing to be arguing.
We could sit here and argue semantics and/or whether or not you like this or that or this or that even when the rules say this and that. I must go break down a truck however and get it ready for the scrapyard so I'll have to leave you to it. But I will demonstrate something it'd be cool if you did.
Ciretose is right. RAW you can purchase broken stuff at its broken price and then fix it. I see that as exploitative. I don't like it. I would ask my players not to do that or house rule it. I won't challenge it in an argument (but then I don't actually care about it as an argument 'cause it just means the GM slows down on the WBL and returns everyone to normal or it means everyone has +25% WBL and thus it still comes down to which class works).
Behold. Someone acknowledging they don't like something in the RAW and then...getting over it.
Could a hamlet have partially charged wands. Maybe.
There are examples in adventure paths, so I would say a definite YES. What they have, that's another matter.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care about partially-charged wands, but I'm very concerned about the de-valuation of the word "literally." That word, used correctly, is an absolutely essential tool for someone who exagerrates and/or uses analogies, parables, and metaphors a lot (e.g., me) -- it enables you to succinctly inform the reader/listener that what's being quoted is being quoted EXACTLY, with no interpretation, no exaggeration, no misremembering, and no analogies. In other words, you're saying "I may speak loosely sometimes, but this time I'm being dead-on careful to be exact, all the way down to the last letter."
When you say "the rules literally say that," you are claiming point-blank that you're quoting those rules word-for-word.
Unfortunately, I'm mostly seeing the word thrown about with gleeful abandon as an all-purpose emphasis word, devoid of actual meaning. People will say "the rules literally say that" not to mean that that's what the rules say, but to mean that the reader is supposed to accept their interpretation in the absence of any specific quotation. It's not only lying, it's worse, because on top of the lie, the more you do this, the more you erode the word's actual meaning. At that rate, very soon, there will be no way remaining in the English language to express to others that you're not just quoting off the top of your head or being somewhat sloppy. Everyone will assume at all times that everyone is misquoting, exaggerating, or otherwise not to be trusted, because we're rapidly depriving ourselves of the only way to succinctly tell people that we're actually speaking, well, literally.
I would let small hamlets and the like possibly have partial charge wands... but I would be willing to roll once for a full charge wand, once for a partial charge wand (that would then have its charges remaining rolled for.)
Example: Player: Does this hamlet have a CLW wand?
GM:*rolls* Nope, sorry, they don't have any full CLW wands available.
Player: Ok, how about partially charged ones?
GM:*rolls* Yes, it looks like there is a partially charged one with *rolls* 48 charges left, lucky you.
Player: Oh, I was hoping for 5 charges, do they have that?
GM: No, they have 48, that is all.
|
|
I would let small hamlets and the like possibly have partial charge wands... but I would be willing to roll once for a full charge wand, once for a partial charge wand (that would then have its charges remaining rolled for.)
Example: Player: Does this hamlet have a CLW wand?
GM:*rolls* Nope, sorry, they don't have any full CLW wands available.
Player: Ok, how about partially charged ones?
GM:*rolls* Yes, it looks like there is a partially charged one with *rolls* 48 charges left, lucky you.
Player: Oh, I was hoping for 5 charges, do they have that?
GM: No, they have 48, that is all.
This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I would let small hamlets and the like possibly have partial charge wands... but I would be willing to roll once for a full charge wand, once for a partial charge wand (that would then have its charges remaining rolled for.)
Example: Player: Does this hamlet have a CLW wand?
GM:*rolls* Nope, sorry, they don't have any full CLW wands available.
Player: Ok, how about partially charged ones?
GM:*rolls* Yes, it looks like there is a partially charged one with *rolls* 48 charges left, lucky you.
Player: Oh, I was hoping for 5 charges, do they have that?
GM: No, they have 48, that is all.
In my opinion, you see it right. I would make a check to see how many wands ther could have been (for example : 1d2 or 1d3, or even 1d6 for items I believe to be very common), and check the fact that they are full or partially full for each.
For example :
Player: Does this hamlet have a CLW wand ?
GM:*rolls* (3 available, 2 fulls and 1 used). Yes, 2 new wands, recieved this morning from the local church.
Player: Ok, how about partially charged ones?
GM:*rolls for the used wand : 34* Yes, it looks like there is an old wand, sold by an adventurer a few days ago. There is still 34 charges in there.
Player: Oh, I was hoping for 5 charges, do they have that?
GM: No, they have 2 new and one second-hand with 34 charges, that is all. But you can buy potions if you want less charges.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Half-orc walk into magic shop, say, "Me want wand of flame strike with 5 charges."
Magic shop counterboy say, "No, only 50, 50, or 34."
Half orc take wand with 34, shoot counterboy with it 29 times. "This one have 5 left. Me take."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I more or less agree with your ranking, but I still do not like what is happening with barbarian. The strongest version of barbarian (human+supesrtition+invulnerable rager+ beast totem) is so much better than the other barbarians, and I despise that fact.
I see your point, Nicos, but the same could be said about pretty much any class.
Look at the difference between an optimized Wizard or Druid and one that is not. Look at the difference between blaster Sorcerers builds and Sorcerers who focus on summoning/general utility.Zen Archer Monk and... Well... Other Monks... Scout/Thug Rogue and vanilla Rogue.
Every class has optimal choices. A Barbarians don't need those options to be effective, but they do make any Barbarian more effective.
I do agree with you, though:
I despise those options that are not really an option but a must.
I hate false choices. I hate options that are so good you can't ignore them or so bad you don't even consider them. False choices are boring and pointless, they also increase known problems such as feat bloat without giving us any benefit.
(because if you have 300 options, but only 50 of them are useful, you really only have 50 options, but they're more difficult to find/organize and take 6x more space than they should)That's why I think some things such as Power Attack, Deadly Aim, Bullseye shot and Combat Expertise might as well be "combat options" instead of feats. They're nothing but feat tax at this point... (Well, Bullseye shot is not a feat tax, it's a terrible feat actually, but it's something that should be possible to do without the need of a feat!)
There are a few other things too... Like Natural Spell. It's perhaps the most obvious choice in the whole freaking game. Might as well make it a Druid class feature or erase the feat completely.
I have seen (very few) Wizards without Improved Initiative and (even less) Barbarians without Power Attack...
But ever since I 1st started playing 3.0, I have never seen a single druid in 3.X/PF who didn't take this feat. There is not a single reason not to take it. At all.
But if they were combined, they would no longer be different classes. It would also have a different mindset (assuming I agree with you that an inanimate bundle of mechanics has a "mindset").
More along the lines of "If it moves, analyze the options and choose the most efficient one. If It doesn't move, do the same. It's a tactician. A front lines general or a special ops squad leader. Both intelligent and masterful in combat.
Multiclassing the two is terrible. You either end up as a Fighter with extra skills who sucks at fighting or a Rogue that's a little better at fighting (but still sucks) and has fewer skills.
No, No and...No. Just No. I play a fighter because i want a character that can charge the enemy and kick ass. I play a rogue because I want a character who is sneaky, skilled and tricksy; who thinks about how to defeat his opponents with the resources available. The game is geared around Fighter types charging in and taking the heat so that others can cast spells, etc. Removing this would mean that I don't have a Fighter, I have something else.
I have no objection to Having a kickass fighter that charges the enemy and then does something else as well as kicking their ass (some kind of tactical feats? something with intimidation?) because its still basically a fighter. I have no objection to a Rogue having some kind of tactical capabilities as an option - but as with sneak attack it should require thought to use properly.
I take your point about the multiclass Rogue/Fighter, though I can see Rogues finding good use for access to martial weapons and higher BAB, and I can see advantages for Fighters in utilising SA, but mostly I would do it for flavour. Alternatively there exists a sneaky martial class - the Ranger.
What we really need is something to shore up the weaknesses in each class. The fighters lack of skills is not a problem. Sorcerors, Paladins, etc. all have the same amount of base skill points and we don't hear complaints about them. The problem is lack of capabilities at higher level. While rangers get favoured enemy and paladins get smite and barbarians get rage, fighters get...more feats. There are not even feats that give them a significant advantage at higher level. If Weapon specialization scaled with level, this would go some way to solve the problem. Alternatively making a class of fighter only feats that give tactical advantages - whatever works.
The rogue needs a bit more of an overhaul. I see a lot of threads advocating full BAB. At first I thought, "Yeah..." but the more I think about it, the more I think No. The strength of the Rogue is that because they are not an inherently strong class, they have to think carefully about what they do. Strengthening their BAB would be a step away from this. Giving them more options would be a step in the right direction. Looking through some of the archetypes, I can't help thinking that many of them have the kind of abilities I would like to see, but not at the expense of existing abilities. Also I would like to see a few more abilities. Give them options, don't make them better at fighting. They have already lost their monoploy on skills, they need something more than a few minor abilities to compensate.
I would like to see better options for maneuvre based Rogues (think swashbuckling - feints, disarm, ripostes, lunges, etc.). While some of those options do exist, they need to be expanded for the Rogue. Some of them are better with other weapons than the rapier, but a swashbuckling style almost demands a rapier - it needs to be addressed.
Alternatively perhaps your rogue is an anarchist. Bombs going off everywhere, smoke blowing across the battlefield - and suddenly the rogue steps out of the smoke and stabs someone in the back before disappearing back into the smoke.
Or perhaps your Rogue is a magic dabbler - Grease makes them prone, summon monster I gives you a flank buddy or a trap setter-offer, shift gets you in position (or out of trouble), invisibility, illusions etc.
Or perhaps you can build traps ultra fast. You Ghost around the battlefield setting up traps then luring the enemy into them.
Whatever your schtick, there should be a rogue build for it. As long as it requires thought and preparation, it should be available to rogues. You can even have a tactician rogue if you like (though that would be better in a fighter). The point is, they have a niche (even if it has been eroded a lot in PF), just expand on that.
I have no problem with some option being a little better than others, I like variety.
I agree. I don't care if some options are better than others, I just hate it when they are so much better or so much worse that the "option" is not really an option.
But the case of barbarian is different in my opinion. The difference is just to big IMHO.
Is it? Perhaps, but it's definitely not the only case.
Look at a Druid with Natural Spell and one without it.
A melee Fighter (or any martial class, really) with Power Attack and without it.
Zen Archer Monk is much, much better than vanilla Monk.
I can't remember Fighter-specific false choices, although some people would say Weapon Focus/Specialization qualify as such. But honestly, I think this more because Fighters a) have nothing unique to them, and b) are underpowered, and so are most of their exclusive choices.