| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, Armchair Theorists. How's that chair rockin' tonight?
Not too bad, trollbag with teeth. I just got my oil changed and a weapons UPGRAYEDD. Plus my favorite mechanic lubed my chassis if you know what I mean. ^_+
How are you doing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also by playing low magic and no crazy 24 int/wis/cha at level 8 (so you will want to eliminate spell save boosting items), spellcasters can come closer to being balanced to the martials.
Low magic hurts martials way more than spellcasters and always has.
|
Prior to 3e, the game didn't throw free spells at a wizurd just for leveling. You got a single free spell each time you gained the ability to cast a new spell level. THat means that without actively working towards gaining new spells, a 20th level wizurd might only have one spell each for spell levels 2-9. Which he had to roll to learn. And it was chosen by the GM, not the player.
A low-magic world would have a lack of resources for that wizard to go out and get more spells beyond those few. So no, it's not always the case that low magic hurts martials more than spellcasters.
That would have to be applied to spontaneous casters as well otherwise it causes other problems.
I know an increasing number of people want to do away with prepared casters completely, but IMO that's a separate and distinct subject.
In any case, that only deals with some caster classes (wizards, witches, and the like). It has no effect on clerics or any spontaneous caster-class, and thus does not address the root of what Roberta Yang mentioned.
Prior to 3e, the game didn't throw free spells at a wizurd just for leveling. You got a single free spell each time you gained the ability to cast a new spell level. THat means that without actively working towards gaining new spells, a 20th level wizurd might only have one spell each for spell levels 2-9. Which he had to roll to learn. And it was chosen by the GM, not the player.
A low-magic world would have a lack of resources for that wizard to go out and get more spells beyond those few. So no, it's not always the case that low magic hurts martials more than spellcasters.
The first paragraph is a nice bit of nostalgia, but not really relevant to how Pathfinder is balanced.
As for low-magic games, evenif a wizard only gets the base 2 spells/level, with the right choices he can do just fine. Not to mention that Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Oracles don't need to buy spells in the first place.
And if magic is so rare that you can't even find a 50 gp scroll, the martial is never going to get a 2000 gold +1 weapon, or any form of magical healing that doesn't come from a casting class. Not to mention that without magic items, a martial becomes completely dependent on caster buffs to keep his stats up.
Also by playing low magic and no crazy 24 int/wis/cha at level 8 (so you will want to eliminate spell save boosting items), spellcasters can come closer to being balanced to the martials.Low magic hurts martials way more than spellcasters and always has.Depends how you apply the low magic setting.
When I DM, I insist the players use a slight variant of the grid system to generate characters (so less 20 stats flying around!)
http://invisiblecastle.com/stats/help/grid/
I also don't allow Metamagic Rods, Pearls of Power, Pages of Spell Knowledge and a few other items, as well as limiting wands to 10 charges used/day and magic item purchase, but weapons and armour less so than caster focussed items.
It is specifically targeted at reducing the impact of spell casters, arcane in particular. They are still immensely powerful just they have to attend to multiple functions with their spells and cannot rely on buying cheap wands etc. They are more likely to have a weakness that means they have to rely on the other characters.
And it seems to work for the group I play with (although I will add when others DM they have their own house rules too).
If your house rules include a whole bunch of caster nerfs, it's not really surprising that casters in your games are less overpowered.
|
|
Prior to 3e, the game didn't throw free spells at a wizurd just for leveling. You got a single free spell each time you gained the ability to cast a new spell level. THat means that without actively working towards gaining new spells, a 20th level wizurd might only have one spell each for spell levels 2-9. Which he had to roll to learn. And it was chosen by the GM, not the player.The first paragraph is a nice bit of nostalgia, but not really relevant to how Pathfinder is balanced.
Low magic hurts martials way more than spellcasters and always has.
There's your relevance right there.
wizards have more spells than barbarians have rage rounds.Being absent from the boards for a few weeks and the first thread I see on my return is one that (falsely) states that Fighters suck...
Feeling at home at an instant :)
To the topic:
Time and again it has been said that there is a need for an easy to play character without much "on use" powers that covers the basic fantasy thrope or armored hero. I have very fond memories of my dwarvish axe Fighter Glod Glodson (thumbs up for anyone knowing where this name comes from).Fighters are fine, its just that GMs tend to favor spell casters with things like the 15 minute workday.
When the martials and scouting classes refuse to do the 15 minute workday for the benefit of a spellcaster, it can be hilarious.
I can't recover all my gnarly spells? Awwww. Why do you guys have to go and do heroic things?
Push on, and on the ninth hour of dungeon bashing, you may see some amusing events.
No, they do not after a few levels, especially if you use your feats to take more rage points. PF gives an insane amount of rage potential.
Also by playing low magic and no crazy 24 int/wis/cha at level 8 (so you will want to eliminate spell save boosting items), spellcasters can come closer to being balanced to the martials.Low magic hurts martials way more than spellcasters and always has.
Casters like sorcerers and wizards find it harder to hide their weaknesses, so they are nifty sure, but they explode when touched.
Avoid the crazy high stats, the magic marts and slot filling crafting and you are on the road to balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hello, Armchair Theorists. How's that chair rockin' tonight?
I love this comparison:
Ever seen the guys claiming that wizards render rogues obsolete because knock replaces the Open Locks skill? That’s a spherical cow. (In a real game it would be completely foolish to waste limited resources in order to accomplish something that the rogue can do without expending any resources at all. It’s as if you decided to open your wallet and start burning $10 bills as kindling when there’s a box of twigs sitting right next to the fireplace.)
<3
Those people claiming that spells are not a limited resource, how about increasing the price of scrolls and pearls of power x4 to make casters spend more of their wealth on it, thus limiting them through WBL. All of this without hindering martials (fair sharing of loot is something every party should work out somehow).
OK< here are some thoughts about "have 20 encounters a day and your game will be belanced!"
1. If you put the adventure on a timer, you're basically telling the PC wizard to scry ahead and teleport the party to the final encounter right away, since they clearly can't afford to waste a lot of time slogging through unnecessary encounter after encounter after encounter. There are ways around that, but sooner or later you realize that, instead of making divination- and teleport-proof magic ubiquitous and free, it's easier to fix those tactics by rule, if you don't want them used. Something as simple as "one foot of stone blocks [teleportation] and [scrying] spells will do it," but that's a RULES change. (P.S. You might put stronger limits on wind walk, too).
2. If they're not on a timer but you're counting on ambushes and wandering monsters, after 9th level you need to account for magnificent mansions or even simply plane shifting somewhere to rest and then back. Nerfing these spells by rule is a lot more honest than arbitrarily claiming they don't work as written, mid-game.
3. Even with those items taken care of, at median levels and above, fighter-types run out of hit points a LOT faster than casters run out of spells -- even with no pearls of power in sight. What that means is that forcing a lot of encounters kills fighters, which is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.
Unless your fiat extends to account for all three of these problems, there are some glaring gaps in your campaign continuity. For verisimilitude, it's more internally-consistent to fix these things by houserule up front, rather than in an ad hoc fashion as the campaign progresses.
See, I don't agree, because if there are a lot of challenges or very large fights, that is a lot of foes that can get past the blockers, over time, and eat the spellcasters. How chewed up the melee get really depends on builds and a lot of varying factors, will the high ac melee be less vulnerable this combat, but the spellcasters face a lot of grapples, or will the oozes demolish and swallow that line of infantry allowing the rear guard to escape?
See, I don't agree, because if there are a lot of challenges or very large fights, that is a lot of foes that can get past the blockers, over time, and eat the spellcasters.
PF rules don't really support blocking, so intelligent foes will always focus on the casters while the mindless ones mindlessly provide the martial guys with something to do -- which is indicative of an underlying imbalance right there. But this has nothing to do with the number of encounters.
PF rules do support blocking in various ways. What it doesn't support very well is aggro (unless you use antagonize, which is horrible).
However, depending on scenario, the scenario itself might not support blocking very well - if you're on a large field with an opponent who is faster than you then blocking is going to be difficult. If you're in a 15 ft corridor, blocking is going to be easy (if you put at least a _little_ into it).
Of course, there is a huge gray area in between where different amount of specialization are required to be effective at blocking, but stating that blocking isn't supported seems a bit harsh. Even a 1st level fighter can quite effectively block a 25 ft wide corridor, if it just has a reach weapon and armor spikes/blade boot.
EDIT: But I agree that making blocking easier and casters more fragile would make martials more required. It can be difficult to do though, especially due to the extreme variety of defensive options for casters.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite 3.5 character is a wizard / crusader / Jade Phoenix Mage.
She focuses on combat reflexes, improved unarmed strike, superior unarmed strike, an fighting at range with her glaive. The most important abilities she gets is the 3.5 feat Stand Still, from the psionics book, and Thicket of Blades.
She doesn't deal a lot of damage. All she does is put up miss chance buffs and other protections, then cast enlarge person, and physically keep enemies away from allies within her 20' zone of control. I *love* this type of character.
I have not been able to figure out a way to make a similar character in Pathfinder. Giving martials the ability to do something similar would allow me to begin building the type of chracters I most love playing.
1. If you put the adventure on a timer, you're basically telling the PC wizard to scry ahead and teleport the party to the final encounter right away, since they clearly can't afford to waste a lot of time slogging through unnecessary encounter after encounter after encounter.
I think by the time you can scry and fry, most end bosses, or even their henchmen, will protect themselves against scrying with the various methods that exist. Lead is cheap, and if they have a stronghold you can count on every single wall having a thin cover of it ("Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.").
Of course scry and fry can still be used to some extent, but in a world where magic is so common, anyone worth scrying and frying will probably have the means to protect themselves.
2. If they're not on a timer but you're counting on ambushes and wandering monsters, after 9th level you need to account for magnificent mansions or even simply plane shifting somewhere to rest and then back. Nerfing these spells by rule is a lot more honest than arbitrarily claiming they don't work as written, mid-game.
That is true, but is only relevant to wandering monsters; nothing prevents an ambush if they leave. Note also in the case of magnificent mansion that the door is just invisible and closed; thus, any monster than can see invisible (which isn't common but neither rare at that level) will realize where they are and can plan a TPK-ish ambush (if the DM doesn't go nicely on you).
3. Even with those items taken care of, at median levels and above, fighter-types run out of hit points a LOT faster than casters run out of spells -- even with no pearls of power in sight. What that means is that forcing a lot of encounters kills fighters, which is exactly the opposite of what you're trying to accomplish.
This I cannot agree with, due to happy sticks. While a fighter may lose a higher percentage of hit points per fight, hit points are a very easily replenished resource - far more so than spells.
Lead is cheap, and if they have a stronghold you can count on every single wall having a thin cover of it ("Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.").
This is OK if internal consistency is totally unimportant to you. But if lead does this, and if everyone therefore needs lead to cover everything in, then the demand for lead would be extreme. Lead would not be "cheap" -- it would cost far more than platinum, mithral, or adamantine. And at that price, everything couldn't be covered in it. Which is why I recommended simply ruling that common stone blocks scrying and long-range teleportation; you get the same game effect, and you maintain internal consistency and actually enhance it, because now there's a rationale for castles and dungeons in your game world.
And that's a rules fix, not a fiat one.
That is true, but is only relevant to wandering monsters; nothing prevents an ambush if they leave. Note also in the case of magnificent mansion that the door is just invisible and closed; thus, any monster than can see invisible (which isn't common but neither rare at that level) will realize where they are and can plan a TPK-ish ambush (if the DM doesn't go nicely on you).
This response ignores plane shift, which I see more often used since it's only a 5th level cleric spell and is far more versatile and useful than MMM.
This I cannot agree with, due to happy sticks.
This I can't agree with in turn, due to finite wealth. After I finish paying for my obligatory magic sword, backup missile weapon, and magic armor, I don't have enough left over to furnish infinite wands for myself. And if I tell the cleric to use his share of the party GP for my exclusive benefit, I'm a net party resource sink, rather than a source.
Honestly I feel like the people screaming that casters are not incredibly more powerful than their melee counterparts are delusional.
At just about all levels the arcane caster can trivialize just about anything. Even at low levels (when arcane casters are supposed to be "at their weakest") they can stop your horde of goblins with a simple color spray. "Ok so throw undead at them!" Well with a level 0 spell they can still effectively hack away at them with a "shortsword" (I.E. disrupt undead) or just let the cleric blow them all away with channel/cure X wounds (which they can spam without ever having to prepare). Oh and if you have that annoying Fetchling Shadow Sorcerer with the Shadow Evocation/Conjuration/Shades spells, good luck catching them off guard for much of anything.
Honestly, I think Tome of Battle was the best thing for melee people. I know alot of people didn't like it because "fighter did unrealistic things" but honestly fighters/melee people need it. Just saying "hey fighter, swing your sword 4 times in 6 seconds" at high levels is boring and weak when your wizard is literally playing god (making his WHOLE WORLD as he feels like).
Lead is cheap, and if they have a stronghold you can count on every single wall having a thin cover of it ("Lead sheeting or magical protection blocks a scrying spell, and you sense that the spell is blocked.").This is OK if internal consistency is totally unimportant to you. But if lead does this, and if everyone therefore needs lead to cover everything in, then the demand for lead would be extreme. Lead would not be "cheap" -- it would cost far more than platinum, mithral, or adamantine.
Didn't you just suggest a foot of stone should protect against scrying? If stone would be so powerful, no doubt price would skyrocket! ;D
But isn't this an ad-hoc way to discredit protections against magic? I mean, when it comes to magic we just buy the whole RAW package, but when it comes to the easy mundane anti-methods against a very very powerful spell, we should make sure to prevent that being used by arbitrarily increasing the price of lead? (the price of lead, like stone and most other cheap materials, is never stated explicitly, but we could assume it has about the same relative worth as in real life; in addition, we could look at the sling bullets and guess what kind of metal they could and could not be made of)
I mean, either Scrying is an extremely powerful spell, far more game-changing than any other spell of it's level, because the counter-measures mentioned in the book doesn't work... Or the countermeasures are easily accessed which means Scrying is a circumstantial spell that is useful when someone doesn't know they're in danger, or to overlook teammates, or against enemies who are too dumb or different to have protections against it but is easily prevented by those who suspect they might fall victim to it. Which is the most balanced approach, and which increases the C/M Disp?
Still, lead in our world is one of the easiest metals to extract and refine, which is why it is so cheap - and it's still used quite a lot in the real world. And it doesn't even say how thick sheeting so really, for all we know lead paint could be enough.
I'm not saying scry and fry can't be effective, I am saying that if a DM wants to stop that, there are very viable and believable in-game ways of doing that that are supported by the rules.
That is true, but is only relevant to wandering monsters; nothing prevents an ambush if they leave. Note also in the case of magnificent mansion that the door is just invisible and closed; thus, any monster than can see invisible (which isn't common but neither rare at that level) will realize where they are and can plan a TPK-ish ambush (if the DM doesn't go nicely on you).This response ignores plane shift, which I see more often used since it's only a 5th level cleric spell and is far more versatile and useful than MMM.
Yes, it ignores plane shift, which is because I started the sentence with "That is true". I agree that plane shift does alter the resting opportunities a lot, especially if the party has access to slower time planes.
This I can't agree with in turn, due to finite wealth. After I finish paying for my obligatory magic sword, backup missile weapon, and magic armor, I don't have enough left over to furnish infinite wands for myself. And if I tell the cleric to use his share of the party GP for my exclusive benefit, I'm a net party resource sink, rather than a source.
A wand of infernal healing means 1 hp costs 1 gp 3 sp. At the levels we're talking at here, that is irrelevant money. Meanwhile, casters are said to have scroll access to spells they don't have memorized - and a single scroll can cost more than an entire of those 550 hp wands. This kind of logic could easily lead to double standards, where we say casters are good because when they prepare the wrong spell they can use the 500 gp scroll but fighters are bad because when they get hit it costs them 50 gp to heal up afterwards.
I too think there's a caster/martial disparity that needs to be addressed, but we should try not to apply double standards or be overly critical against anything in the martial's favors while cutting the casters a lot of slack.
I mean, either Scrying is an extremely powerful spell, far more game-changing than any other spell of it's level, because the counter-measures mentioned in the book doesn't work... Or the countermeasures are easily accessed which means Scrying is a circumstantial spell that is useful when someone doesn't know they're in danger, or to overlook teammates, or against enemies who are too dumb or different to have protections against it but is easily prevented by those who suspect they might fall victim to it...
Or the rulebook itself is inconsistent, which is something we can easily fix.
There is no parallel between rock (which the continents and seabeds -- in short, the entire crust of the planet -- is made of) and lead (which must be assayed as an ore, mined, refined, shaped, and transported, and which is found only in limited quantities). One of these things allows intelligent enemies to easily take precautions. The other logically invites an inflationary spiral and availability control conflict that would dominate world affairs, because whoever controlled the lead supply would control the world. Also, one of these logically explains why castles and dungeons exist at all. The other implies that we need to change all the module descriptions, and probably also add inhalation hazards wholesale to all adventures.
At just about all levels the arcane caster can trivialize just about anything. Even at low levels (when arcane casters are supposed to be "at their weakest") they can stop your horde of goblins with a simple color spray. "Ok so throw undead at them!" Well with a level 0 spell they can still effectively hack away at them with a "shortsword" (I.E. disrupt undead)
I don't think there's any such issue at level 1. Color spray only works if your enemies are bunched up not too close to your friends and none of the victims make their saves; at level one a wizard is very fragile. Enemies that are not standing close to each other has little to worry from that spell. Meanwhile any fighter or similar will either one-hit-kill with high chance of success (and possibly several per round if TWF'ing) while having enough HP and AC to not get killed in return if they miss.
And if your plan is to hack away with a shortsword with no bonus damage then... yeah... that's not trivializing, that's being not completely useless. And comparing another class to it then doesn't really make it better, because then we get to compare all casters combined to the martials, like, "pick the best for the circumstance" which isn't just how the game doesn't work, it also leads to skewed results because the strengths and weaknesses of low-level casters are much more varied than that of low-level martials.
At levels 1 to 2 I often feel casters are a bit lacking offensively actually. Most of their decent offensive spells either require getting near the enemy (which is very risky) or take a full round to cast (which is very risky). They're still good at defensive battlefield control; obscuring mist, grease and entangle are good defensive spells. It's not until level 3-4 when they can start regularly pre-combat buffing without giving up their offense, and when they also can start casting the offensive spells that don't have huge drawbacks (glitterdust, pyrotechnics, create pit etc). That's when I feel they can begin to contribute well offensively. Not "trivializing", any more than a barbarian with a greatsword will, but being effective. Some encoutners when they're lucky might be trivialized and some they may have nothing good to do at all.
Or the rulebook itself is inconsistent, which is something we can easily fix.
I'm not against house rules, we have a lot in our group, most by my initiative. But I still think it's unconstructive to criticize an in-game tactic being overpowered when there are so obvious countermeasures. When scrying states it is stopped by lead sheeting I think it's obvious that lead sheeting is an intended countermeasure, and just like armor is an intended countermeasure against weapons. I do not think it is inconsistent for armor to still be decently cheap (some kinds of at least) or that we can safely assume that anyone who might fear they become the target of a weapon and who has the ability and means will use armor, just like anyone who fear they might be targets of Scrying and who can use lead sheeting will do so. No-one would claim daggers overpowered because no-one uses armor anyway, so why should we assume people don't use lead sheeting?
A wand of infernal healing means 1 hp costs 1 gp 3 sp.
Sticking with core rules (and spells that won't make you evil with repeated use), a wand of CLW costs 750 gp, or 15 gp and 1 round inactivity per 1d8+1 hp. To heal up to full from 160 hp down costs the better part of a full wand and over five minutes -- with the clock ticking that whole time (making the CLW wand a lot more attractive than the fast healing one). Yeah, I agree 750 gp x however many wands isn't a lot, but it adds up over the career of a typical fighter. And the time is more of an issue since cramming extra encounters into a day requires a tight time frame for completion and no way to avoid encounters (and the latter remains an issue).
But the bigger question is this: if we're assuming that healing should be nearly endlessly available, then why not make that a straightforward rules mechanic instead of hiding it in the magic items section? Let chartacters "take a breather" for 1 minute to heal level x Con bonus in hp, once per encounter. You accomplish much the same thing, without the need to track charges and spend disproportionate amounts of money and/or time.
But I still think it's unconstructive to criticize an in-game tactic being overpowered when there are so obvious countermeasures. When scrying states it is stopped by lead sheeting I think it's obvious that lead sheeting is an intended countermeasure
I'm criticizing the rules, not the tactic. There are far better ways to match the mechanics to the intent -- my suggestion does just that, far more smoothly than the existing one. Yet many people (thankfully not you) insist that the rules are perfect in all respects as written and that any attempt to improve them inexorably leads to 4e and Goetterdaemmerung. It's those people I'm mostly arguing against!
A wand of infernal healing means 1 hp costs 1 gp 3 sp.Sticking with core rules (and spells that won't make you evil with repeated use), a wand of CLW costs 750 gp, or 15 gp and 1 round inactivity per 1d8+1 hp. To heal up to full from 160 hp down costs the better part of a full wand and over five minutes
1. I don't see at all why we should stick to core, and "makes you evil" is really up to the DM; the quantity of "evil" involved is undefined. In some campaigns this may be relevant, in others it might not. I tend to stick with "1st level spells with the alignment descriptor have a very, very minor effect on alignment", basically about the same as going against the red lights make you chaotic. Otherwise evil wizards could spam SM1 to look good on detection.
2. When we're talking being 160 hp down we're talking quite high levels, like what, level 16 or so? And average reward per player against a CR16 encounter is 6250 gold. Half a wand now and then is fairly trivial, and if you _regularly_ get 160 hp down then the rest of the party is seriously not doing their job.
3. Claiming "the clock is ticking" for five minutes of healing but claiming that limited slots aren't a problem because you can just take 8 hours of in another dimension is a bad argument. Please, don't do that. I mean, you do have valid points, but try to be at least somewhat objective and/or fair.
But the bigger question is this: if we're assuming that healing should be nearly endlessly available, then why not make that a straightforward rules mechanic instead of hiding it in the magic items section?
This I fully agree with. In fact, in one of our games we use the strain/injury rules.
It's just bad game design on D&D's part, but I think it's one of those holy cows that won't go away.
But I still think it's unconstructive to criticize an in-game tactic being overpowered when there are so obvious countermeasures. When scrying states it is stopped by lead sheeting I think it's obvious that lead sheeting is an intended countermeasureI'm criticizing the rules, not the tactic.
Oh, what I meant was that you criticize the rules for allowing the tactic, while at the same time ignore the rules stating an easy-accessed countertactic.
I like the countertactic actually, I like specific countertactics to magic because they feel more... Supernatural or something. Some years back I and a friend sketched on some rules for protection against magic that included stuff like a long solid piece of pine bark laid on the floor stopping summoned nature's allies and similar. I think "can't be used through stone" feels more boring, and since lead is readily accessible and this would be common knowledge I don't really see a lack in that rule at all.
Hmmm... I'm thinking maybe those rules of protection might actually have something useful in them. Or, the concept of characters without spellcasting (and those with, though that isn't as important) can still learn protections against specific spells through mundane or ritualistic (though not supernatural) means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, what I meant was that you criticize the rules for allowing the tactic, while at the same time ignore the rules stating an easy-accessed countertactic.
Not ignore -- alter! Because, honestly, it always bugged me (since at least 1980, anyway) that there were all these vast underground mazes carved out of rock with people living in them. It made no sense! And why would there still be castles if there were dragons and magic and stuff that render walls and moats useless? I always want the rules to support the setting, not exist in spite of it. As to lead, while common it's still a finite resource (multiply the thickness x the total square footage of every castle, dungeon, and trap in the world that you need to shield, and you run out pretty quickly); it's highly toxic; none of the existing APs mention nearly anything being covered in it, much less all walls of all buildings.
Kill two birds with one stone, I say!
Prior to 3e, the game didn't throw free spells at a wizurd just for leveling. You got a single free spell each time you gained the ability to cast a new spell level. THat means that without actively working towards gaining new spells, a 20th level wizurd might only have one spell each for spell levels 2-9. Which he had to roll to learn. And it was chosen by the GM, not the player.
A low-magic world would have a lack of resources for that wizard to go out and get more spells beyond those few. So no, it's not always the case that low magic hurts martials more than spellcasters.
You, as many other, continue confusing "caster" with "wizard"
A sorcerer couldn't care less about the number of scrolls and free spells. And a sorcerer is pretty much the equivalent of a wizard, only slightly below, depending the kind of campaign. A Cleric, or druid, has *every single spell in existance at their disposal*. And that was true "prior to 3e" too.A fighter without easy access to magic items is screwed faster than you say "this invisible monster can fly".
Well, I've never seen any issue with having part of dungeons have lead reinforcements (why you mention thickness I do not know - there is no "1 inch lead" stops or anything, just "lead sheeting", so really, some lead based paint can do it) preventing scrying, and when it comes to castles it depends a lot on level distribution. If only one percent of the people are spellcasters, and only one percent of those can cast fly, then walls can keep out 99.99% of your potential enemies...
A Cleric, or druid, has *every single spell in existance at their disposal*.
That should be "every single spell on their spell list that doesn't have an alignment subtype in conflict with the cleric or their deity".
It may be nitpicking, but it's a fairly big nit compared to "every spell" (which I believe only sorcerers and oracles can have, and that is only with a very very specific tactic).
why you mention thickness I do not know - there is no "1 inch lead" stops or anything, just "lead sheeting", so really, some lead based paint can do itTo calculate a total volume, and hence a total mass, and then compare that to the total amount of lead in the world. Even paint isn't infinitely thin, so the supply is not infinite; and what happens when a monster sharpens his claws on the wall and scratches the paint? Your whole shielding system goes down? And lead is still toxic by inhalation, and you've got whole societies living in poorly-ventilated complexes where every surface is covered in lead paint? Too many stretches there. And dungeons still remain unexplained.
Well, I don't think that anything can be considered "low magic" if it doesn't limit spellcasters.When I make low magic games, Spell casters always bleed out 1d6 hp every time they cast a spell and all the monsters target them.
So no, Low magic doesn't always hurt martial more.
That has nothing to do with high or low magic, but with alternate magic systems.
Dragon Age Origins for example, is not a low magic system. And you can use easily it to be a world were all magic is blood magic, and thus hurt the user. That doesn't mean the world is high/low magic.In low magic world, there are low to none magic and magic items. That's the definition of low magic. With low to none magic items, fighters have trouble hitting the higher CR ACs, they are desperate against higher CR save DC (like a succubu's Charm Monster for example), and they can't easily fight flying monsters (and no, not every character can switch to bow effectively, and bows aren't the solution. Specially when the flying monsters can cast Wind Wall, or Protection from Arrows, or Fickle Winds, or just have a DR that a non-bow focused character can't pierce at all, for example). But in a world with low magic, a wizard with 2 spells per level, a sorcerer, or a cleric/druid/inquisitor/summoner/ can perfectly dominate with just their base spells and abilities.
This isn't directed at anyone in particular but is something I've noticed in a lot of M/C Disp threads and in the rules forum:
I think there's a tendency when the rules are silent or not clear, that the rules are intepreted as best benefits casters. It's like, when it's magic and the rules are silent, a lot of people go "well the rules don't explicitly say no so you can do it!". When it's not magic, a lot of people go "well that wouldn't make sense so no I wouldn't allow it if I DM'd". I think I may tend to do the same.
To a certain point it makes sense; magic often break what is considered "normal" while non-magic rarely does. This means if the RAW makes for an imbalanced game or seems weird (for example the recent Shield Master loophole discovery) generally people agree it shouldn't be used RAW and it should be houseruled. Yet with Simulacrum, which states the creature has "appropriate abilities for something of it's HD" most people seem to say that that doesn't explicitly say simulacrum efreet don't get wish, so they should, and anything else is a horrible DM.
We tend to jump on every strength a caster can have and allow it to the full extent with motivations of RAW, but when RAW favors a martial in an "unfair" or weird way, we all agree there needs to be errata/clarification.
Of course I don't think the solution should be to allow the Shield Master as the RAW - I think throwing random buggy powers at martials are a bad way to balance things - but I think we need to be more careful in how we interpret silent or unclear rules when it comes to casters. A lot of the most powerful caster spells that are brought up time and again depend a lot on DM interpretations, and if we don't allow a cavalier's horse to climb a rope, why should we allow a simulacrum to have wish? Simulacrum even has a clause on appropriate abilities, climb doesn't have...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why you mention thickness I do not know - there is no "1 inch lead" stops or anything, just "lead sheeting", so really, some lead based paint can do itTo calculate a total volume, and hence a total mass, and then compare that to the total amount of lead in the world. Even paint isn't infinitely thin, so the supply is not infinite; and what happens when a monster sharpens his claws on the wall and scratches the paint? Your whole shielding system goes down? And lead is still toxic by inhalation, and you've got whole societies living in poorly-ventilated complexes where every surface is covered in lead paint? Too many stretches there. And dungeons still remain unexplained.
I've got a fun idea: instead of talking about the martial/caster disparity, let's all argue with Kirth about geology, basing our arguments on "lead is cheap, so theres an infinite supply" and watch as his head explodes.
Lead is cheap, so there's an infinite supply; therefore all rocks are lead; therefore all scrying spells are always useless, and shouldn't be included in the game; therefore lead provides spell immunity; therefore anyone wearing heavy armor is immune to spells; martial/caster disparity solved!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. If you put the adventure on a timer, you're basically telling the PC wizard to scry ahead and teleport the party to the final encounter right away, since they clearly can't afford to waste a lot of time slogging through unnecessary encounter after encounter after encounter. There are ways around that, but sooner or later you realize that, instead of making divination- and teleport-proof magic ubiquitous and free, it's easier to fix those tactics by rule, if you don't want them used. Something as simple as "one foot of stone blocks [teleportation] and [scrying] spells will do it," but that's a RULES change. (P.S. You might put stronger limits on wind walk, too).
Actually I recommend using more story-oriented fixes than that to limit teleporting straight to the BBEG. Remember, it's a lot to say that the players already know who's bad and where to set their goal, even with scrying. Unless they've spent the last 2 days/weeks/months/years dutifully scrying on the foe (assuming the foe hasn't taken anti-scry measures), then the players could easily be mislead by circumstantial evidence, lies by other parties, or no evidence (my gaming group calls these "wild assumptions", which gives them an air of legitimacy).
If the party teleports into someone's castle because they're supposedly nefarious people doing nefarious things (or so says that one elf they talked to), then killing everyone there and looting the room could have certain consequences. For example, they just killed someone innocent and unimportant, or at the very least they're now confident that they succeeded when really they've missed the true threat, and they've possibly helped the BBEG knock out a competitor or the party's only true ally.
There's more to intermediate encounters than just waves of annoying, devoted minions the party has to slog through to reach their boss. That's a very linear approach: The boss is at the top of that tower, now get walking. If instead you just drop the party "naked in the woods" with little to go on, then that opens up many more possibilities for why they're having these intermediate encounters in the first place. On the long way there, the creatures they meet, parley, or attack could have information, necessary items, etc that may be necessary for success.
And once the players do have a clear target or destination, that may not make it wise to just blink in and start blasting. For example: The foe may have obscenely powerful summoned demons on his side, who will wipe the party clean if they just teleport in blindly... but they learn how to cut the 300-meter-wide summoning circles surrounding the towers first, to unsummon the demons.
Another example: teleportation may trigger a trap which deals 10d6 damage to each teleporting creature, then redirects the teleport to a random plane (per person) if they fail a Will and Reflex save. Blindly leaping in isn't often a winning strategy.
And all this is after they discover the BBEG has taken some basic measures against scrying so that he can't just be listened to or targeted (but thankfully, some of his minions outside the lead-lined castle have not... loose lips sink ships). Scrying can tell you a lot, but not everything. Sometimes you have to show up in person and talk to, mind control, kill, threaten, steal from, or otherwise interact with something that isn't the BBEG.
Lead and Scrying:
I have a problem with declaring stone as the universal anti-scrying tool. It's too plentiful and common, literally everywhere. Every mundane creature that can cobble together a hut made of rocks -- ranging from kobolds to dwarves to displacer beasts hiding in a cave -- now has automatic and unintentional anti-scrying as a simple feature of their dwelling. That's a big problem, bigger than the economics of lead. Also, assuming that powerful forces couldn't procure enough lead to thinly line every room in their castle is assuming an awful lot about their financial resources , connections, and conviction.
*Lead is not rare, even in a medieval society. Not as common as iron or copper, but not rare. It's easy to refine, mold, etc and has been used since ancient times. It's too soft for making tools and weapons (except slingshot bullets, where it's valued for its density), so you're not competing with weapons dealers for ingots. It's used instead in art and in every day durable items, like pewter mugs. And in sling bullets.
It was a big problem when we all realized it was dangerous to the human body, because it was just so darn plentiful and useful.
But in terms of safety, remember people drink from pewter mugs and some bathe in lead tubs. Lead sheeting could be under the wall surface, embedded and unseen but still protecting. Lead paint doesn't need to be the exposed surface (and below I'll calculate for .1" thick lead lining).
*Leaders even at medium levels have great enough financial resources and connections that lead lining fits comfortably within their interior decorating budget... right along with those skull candles and that snake tail whip trap they installed to impress visiting dignitaries (read: sacrifices). At mid-level people are making statues of solid gold and fitting them with expensive magic gems that vaporize the living, so a few wagonloads of lead ingots won't be outside of their power to acquire. And they're the bad guys: theft, slave labor, etc are free. Plus magic can fabricate the stuff en-mass!
But for an example, let's assume sling bullets are made of lead. That should give us a baseline for magic-fabrication prices. And bullets are plentiful -- after all, they're ammo. For 1 sp I get 5 lbs of lead. If lead weighs about 708 lbs per cubic foot (source), then 1 cubic foot will cost me 141.6 sp. Let's say I must cut or pound this to the right thickness of 0.1 inches (I arbitrarily picked this thickness, so correct me if this is too generous or stingy). I can slice that cubic foot 12/.1 times to produce 120 .1" sheets. (please correct me if I'm flubbing my math) Or I can just ask my wizard friend fabricate it that way.
TL;DR: This means scry-proofing my house costs 1.18 silver per square foot. A 10' cubed room is 600 sq feet of surface to cover on all sides, costing about 71 gp. A paranoid level 1 fighter could scry-proof his bedroom in his parent's basement and probably still have money for a sword and light armor.
How much area do I need to cover to keep my evil schemes secret, and how much money do I have available for such tasks? Even if I want to go the extra mile and scry-proof my entire castle instead of select rooms, I'm not sure cost is gonna stop me at mid to high levels. Nor will availability -- after I've finished repeatedly molesting the economy (muahahaha) I'll just start magically fabricating the stuff.
*If a thin sheet of lead provides personal privacy (dude, I'm peeing here!), protection from being caught doing things that have legal consequences ("gee Bob, if the king's spies saw us experimenting with creating negative energy-exuding undead fleas with the bubonic plague and laser eyes, we'd be in a lot of trouble; it's a good thing they're not here"), protection from enemies that want to plot an attack vector or single out targets, and the ability to speak and act freely in one's own domain... AND lead is commonly known for these properties... then YES, that king, duke, lich, illithid, dragon, sorcerer, commander, wizard, etc is going to procure all he/she needs. That might mean buying, that might mean magically fabricating. But they're going to do it; they'd be fools not to.
There are times when even a rich enemy (or player) might have trouble procuring enough lead (bad economy and materials for fabricate spell just ran out), and there are enemies and players that don't have enough money for those kinds of measures. There are many enemies that don't realize or care about the risk of scrying. But lots of enemies WILL make the effort, and most of those will succeed. Don't trivialize lead. :D
And all of this is ignoring the spells that protect specifically against scrying. Lead is the "poor man's scry protection" and it's stationary; those with mid- or high-level magic can have the equivalent of a moving sphere of lead keeping the party safe all day, so long as they stay together (and the foe doesn't beat their DCs -- that too is important).
I'm not too worried about lead toxicity: people are worried about much greater threats in this world on a daily basis, and a healer can fix a long list of diseases that probably includes lead poisoning.
BTW, has anyone speculated on the type of radiation that would be blocked by "1 foot of stone, 1 inch of common metal, a thin sheet of lead, or 3 feet of wood or dirt"? (see Detect Magic) I'm wondering if arcane and divine magic auras are the equivalent of alpha, beta, gamma, infrared, radio, etc radiation. ;) Is that wand of cure light wounds I'm carrying close to my crotch giving me cancer?
Kthulhu:
I liked the first version of your post better: "Too long! AM BARBARIAN!"
Or TL;AB for short.
;)
Hitdice's post does lead to a glaring question, though: if lead paint is all it takes to block scrying, and if lead remains as cheap as the rulebooks state (which I still think is absurd, given its supposed usefulness), then why isn't all armor painted with lead paint? Then all armored people in the entire campaign world are immune to scrying. That's a LOT worse than some kobolds in a cave being immune, because it becomes mobile as well. But no one can wear a two-foot thickness of stone around, unless they're maybe The Thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hitdice's post does lead to a glaring question, though: if lead paint is all it takes to block scrying, and if lead remains as cheap as the rulebooks state (which I still think is absurd, given its supposed usefulness), then why isn't all armor painted with lead paint?
Because of cancer.
Because of cancer.
No rules for lead toxicity are provided (and people pooh-poohed my concerns about it to begin with).