Using sunder to broken condition an item is a waste of actions. At best you are going to give the target a -2... If the item was so overpowered it triggered that rare sunder attempt by the GM then clearly a -2 isn't going to change the battle much. In fact the NPC would likely have made a better impact by simply striking the PC. The only way to remove the item from the encounter is to destroy it. No the real reason to apply broken condition during a fight is to tax the melee characters by requiring them to buy high level make whole scrolls.
Someone may have covered this but using sunder to break the item instead of destroy it is a lot less debilitating, and for an enemy that wants your gear it makes sense. That way a mending spell can fix it.
I believe you need make whole for magical items. But if it is just broken then you don't need the double level scroll just the regular level one. Still it makes NO tactical sense for a sunder attempt if all he wants to do is apply "broken". That condition is just a -2... the fighter is not likely to need a backup weapon if that is how you use sunder. As I said it is a waste of NPC actions to use it this way.
|
It is also a truism that challenging people can make life "less fun" at least temporarily.This might just be my own psychological outlook on this, but how could a game that's not challenging be fun at all? Where would the enjoyment come from in a game that you knew you'd win?
Knowing you'll win doesn't mean you know HOW you will win.
Using sunder to broken condition an item is a waste of actions. At best you are going to give the target a -2... If the item was so overpowered it triggered that rare sunder attempt by the GM then clearly a -2 isn't going to change the battle much. In fact the NPC would likely have made a better impact by simply striking the PC.
Anybody who has even min-maxed, optimized, or just simply played the game can tell you that those two points can be the difference between a hit and a miss, or living and dying.
Besides, it also means the tactic can be used for more than just removing magic items. Any tactic can be used well when done right. A +2 or -2 is often the net effect of spells like Bull's Strength or Cat's Grace, and is a good way to swing a little extra advantage over the course of a combat. Have that Orc chieftain kick off a combat by Breaking the Tank's shield or armor to add an extra touch of danger to the entire fight. If he's a recurring character, you can have him totally destroy it to make the next battle more personal for the player (or encourage him to kill the bastard right then and there).
The only way to remove the item from the encounter is to destroy it. No the real reason to apply broken condition during a fight is to tax the melee characters by requiring them to buy high level make whole scrolls.
Dude, Any Broken item can be fixed to half HP by a Level 0 cantrip that every single caster in the Core Rulebook can learn (and most if not all can cast repeatedly). Which can also be used to fix it the rest of the way. It just means your spell-slingers have a little extra chores for the night.
Dude, Any Broken item can be fixed to half HP by a Level 0 cantrip that every single caster in the Core Rulebook can learn (and most if not all can cast repeatedly). Which can also be used to fix it the rest of the way. It just means your spell-slingers have a little extra chores for the night.
Sort of...
Magic items can be repaired by this spell, but you must have a caster level equal to or higher than that of the object. Magic items that are destroyed (at 0 hit points or less) can be repaired with this spell, but this spell does not restore their magic abilities.
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way.
Ok SAMAS, which combat maneuver do you think would be more effective, disarm or sundering to a broken condition? Both are maneuvers that can be enhanced via feats, one sends your opponents weapon flying while the other just imposes a -2 penalty. The disarm I think would be the best don't you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the situation. Any warrior can get a chained gauntlet or a strap to make Disarming a trivial matter. Sunder is a little harder to deal with. Likewise, there are things you can make a weapon out of that make it harder to Sunder, and feats or spells that reduce it's effectiveness.
Both are tools that can be used by players and GMs to make a battle more interesting/easier/difficult/etc.... There's no need (or point) to using one exclusively over the other. One encounter can be against an Ogre who breaks your shield, while another could against a Drow who knocks your battleaxe out of your hands.
It's all about using the appropriate tools for the situation. And as this is gaming, the appropriate tool is not always the most "effective", even discounting the fact that as I mentioned above, effectiveness can vary from one situation/target to the next.
Well as silly as it seems to me I guess I would have no objection to the nerfed version of sunder that stops short of actually destroying the item. My main concerns are not relevent when you don't actually destroy it.
Imo, the best way to handle PCs is to kill them in the night with an invisible assassin in a zone of silence using a potion of fly to swoop in.
That's probably at least a little unfair though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note to self...
Next world i create, make sure human life is more valuable then a +3 sword...
Note to self...
Next world i create, make sure human life is more valuable then a +3 sword...
So... Should I start looting human lives? How to bottle...
We have a 9th level spell for that.
It's called "trap the soul"
Or, just summon some caocodaemons (I'm never sure if i spell that right)
We have a 9th level spell for that.
It's called "trap the soul"Or, just summon some caocodaemons (I'm never sure if i spell that right)
Cacodaemon. New get rich quick scheme...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Next world you create expect to see your players treat their characters like Paranoia clones. Unless you also implement death spiral rules, in which case expect your players to walk out and find a GM that doesn't make them run useless low level characters alongside a high level party against high level threats. The Pathfinder XP table doesn't allow XP gaps to close.
Because you assume that i can't find a way to make it work, or find players who enjoy a nearly perma-death setting.
Seriously, bringing things back from the dead should not be cheaper then buying a fansy sword, and breaking their toys should not be more detrimental then breaking their character.
(In addition to that, I've only ever killed two players in my dm career. One was a mistake, and one was because the player wanted a new charecter, and we decided this one dieing was the best way to make them.)
Next world you create expect to see your players treat their characters like Paranoia clones. Unless you also implement death spiral rules, in which case expect your players to walk out and find a GM that doesn't make them run useless low level characters alongside a high level party against high level threats. The Pathfinder XP table doesn't allow XP gaps to close.Note to self...
Next world i create, make sure human life is more valuable then a +3 sword...
it doesn't allow XP Gaps to close at all
missing even one session, 1 experience point or 1 copper piece behind the most powerful character in the party, can leave a drastic skewing of any sense of balance.
it also punishes you for unwise investment of your resources.that gold piece you spend on ale and courtesans is a permanent effect that can hinder you for life.
The second a player is more worried about thier gear then thier life, i honestly thing you have failed as a GM.
Seriously.
Gear should be worthless compared to your life.
The second a player is more worried about thier gear then thier life, i honestly thing you have failed as a GM.
Seriously.
Gear should be worthless compared to your life.
that is because getting brought back from the dead is cheaper than commissioning the crafting a +2 or better weapon.
7,000 gold and 1 week for a Raise Dead and 2 Restorations?
or 8,000 gold and possibly up to 8 days for a +2 weapon? (30 percent of a month)
in the case of a +3 weapon, it's 18,000 and up to 18 days (60 percent of a month)
+4 = 32,000 and 32 days (over a month)
+5 = 50,000 and 50 days (nearly 2 months)
+6 = 72,000 and 72 days (almost a whole season)
+7 98,000 and 98 days (more than a season)
+8 128,000 and 128 days (4 months)
+9 162,000 and 162 days (5 and a half months)
or +10 200,000 and 200 days (nearly 7 months)
Just use the mythic version of make whole as a drop in replacement so that the tax on broken equipment is less onerous for martials.
I mean it's not like breaking crap like adamantite plate armor is remotely easy though unless you are doing stuff like huge+ vital striking sunder specialists.
I liked Iron Heroes so low magic is not a problem as long as I have sufficient means to overcome the encounter. I would also like to know in advance that I am in such a game. <-----I think both of those apply to most players.Please note as well - Wealth by Level is a GUIDELINE not a right, I NEVER use it on my games. Good encounter design can make low CR monsters much more challenging and the pcs should have other areas to spend on than just their 'kit'. Good character and campaign world design can make a low level of magic acceptable to most players.
Let me assure you, my players know...
And yes, leaving an item on 1 hp makes no sense at all... A cop out to avoid upsetting pcs?
It makes sense in game for non armor and non weapons because they will be easier to repair that way. For weapons it is better to just break them, if you are really in trouble. The same goes for PC's.
Repairing Magic Items Repairing a magic item requires material components equal to half the cost to create the item, and requires half the time. The make whole spell can also repair a damaged (or even a destroyed) magic items—if the caster is high enough level.
After reading this it apears a player can just pay a wizard 1/2 the price of creation (which around 1/4 purchase price minus the items material value) wait the required time and voila the item is fixed if you can't find a 20+ cl make whole spell. I'm not sure how it is achieved but since it refers to item creation cost and creation time I would assume items creation feats are used. The rules don't say but it seems to be implied. I could see 2 possiblilities.
1) a npc or pc can simply pay the gold and recraft the item back to normal at double pace. Since there is no mention of a DC ANYWHERE only time and money is needed and no check is made.
2) a normal craft check is made but failure just results in wasted gold and time.
I think I will use 1 and 2 in my games. 2 for if players want to repair really fast. I'm gona allow taking +5 on the DC to reduce the time to 1/4. Half the time for normal repair rules and another half for the +5.
that is because getting brought back from the dead is cheaper than commissioning the crafting a +2 or better weapon.
7,000 gold and 1 week for a Raise Dead and 2 Restorations?
or 8,000 gold and possibly up to 8 days for a +2 weapon? (30 percent of a month)
in the case of a +3 weapon, it's 18,000 and up to 18 days (60 percent of a month)
+4 = 32,000 and 32 days (over a month)
+5 = 50,000 and 50 days (nearly 2 months)
+6 = 72,000 and 72 days (almost a whole season)
+7 98,000 and 98 days (more than a season)
+8 128,000 and 128 days (4 months)
+9 162,000 and 162 days (5 and a half months)
or +10 200,000 and 200 days (nearly 7 months)
Yeah, i know why.
Irritates me so much.
Unfortunately game rules tend to have areas where they generate non-sensical and undesirable results.
Expanding make whole so that it can repair magic items is a good thing, making it so that repairing an item is 2xCL just results in bad campaign design because in theory level 21 casters shouldn't exist.
It's better to just eliminate the 2xCL and just replace it with CL for the sake of game balance and sanity. It's really not that broken.
Vuron,
You could also do what I've sometimes done, allow a higher level version of make whole that requires only CL, or even something less than CL. But I've found that when you drop the metagame sunders, the residue is small enough that my players don't sweat too much about it---it happens every now and then but not just because the GM wants to destroy something.
Have to agree on that point. The biggest issue a lot of players have with sundering is that their gear (and WBL) is lost forever when it happens. Like it or not, Pathfinder is a game where your equipment is very important to how effective your character is, especially as you go up in levels. Sundering probably wouldn't upset as many players if it was easily fixed by Make Whole
Of course, some GMs might not like the idea of being able to repair any destroyed gear with a single relatively low-level spell. Especially since a lot of the sunder-prone GMs seem to like sundering so much because it proves they're such hardcore merciless GMs who never pull any punches.
Vuron,
You could also do what I've sometimes done, allow a higher level version of make whole that requires only CL, or even something less than CL. But I've found that when you drop the metagame sunders, the residue is small enough that my players don't sweat too much about it---it happens every now and then but not just because the GM wants to destroy something.Have to agree on that point. The biggest issue a lot of players have with sundering is that their gear (and WBL) is lost forever when it happens. Like it or not, Pathfinder is a game where your equipment is very important to how effective your character is, especially as you go up in levels. Sundering probably wouldn't upset as many players if it was easily fixed by Make Whole
Of course, some GMs might not like the idea of being able to repair any destroyed gear with a single relatively low-level spell. Especially since a lot of the sunder-prone GMs seem to like sundering so much because it proves they're such hardcore merciless GMs who never pull any punches.
Sundering doesn't make you a hardcore DM, it gives people the illusion you are hardcore. the truth is, that excessive use of sunder shows how immature and adversarial the DM is, doesn't mean it isn't a valid or legitimate tactic. just a tactic that shows your own immature and adversarial colors.
constant PC killing may also be a valid tactic if done right, but shows those same Adversarial and Immature colors, as does being extremely stingy with treasure and banning such things as crafting or 'magic mart.' the mature way to view 'Magic Mart' is not to see it as 'Wal Mart' but to think of a Market or Bazaar. a Market or Bazaar has a variety of dealers, and if you look hard enough, one of them might have the item you require. failure to find the item merely means you checked the wrong dealer.
the usage of special custom enchantments or items to ward structures against common spells, whether you allow those PCs to also use those enhancements with equal reliably or not, merely shows you are not prepared to deal with the effects a full caster has on a given campaign. it also shows that you haven't payed much attention to the magic chapter. doesn't mean that wizards aren't overpowered, means you fear them to the point you have to take away vital tools from their toolkit. every noncombat solution they solve, is one less in combat solution they can accomplish and a step closer to being a crossbowman
the constant ignoring of constant PC advantages shows that even though PCs have those advantages, you don't want to deal with them. scent is an issue not many DMs want to deal with, as are blindsense and blindsight. both of which are highly powerful oracle abilities granted by their curses, ignoring them is a nerf to oracles whom use those curses. i consider dealing with a blind or deaf oracle an excuse to learn about their advantages and explore them, just as i consider a an archery fighter an excuse to explore new forms of encounter design.
Well Umbriere, it's clear that you have a favoured style of play but this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who games differently is immature.
the mature way to view 'Magic Mart' is not to see it as 'Wal Mart' but to think of a Market or Bazaar. a Market or Bazaar has a variety of dealers, and if you look hard enough, one of them might have the item you require. failure to find the item merely means you checked the wrong dealer.
The only fantasy series I've ever read with a setup similar to what you describe is Robert Aspirin's Myth series with the Bazaar at Deva. I'm a big fan of the series, but it's not exactly the benchmark of fantasy tropes and genre.
Not every world that a GM homebrews will include Magic Marts because they may not be setting appropriate.
the usage of special custom enchantments or items to ward structures against common spells, whether you allow those PCs to also use those enhancements with equal reliably or not, merely shows you are not prepared to deal with the effects a full caster has on a given campaign.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here. There are plenty of wards against common spells throughout the magic system and rulebooks. Even non-magical ones. People hardly have to invent "custom" ones, although if they did and match them in power level to those which already exist then that's hardly a problem. Wizards are awesome, but not unlimited. So long as the countermeasures are appropriate to the system and the adversaries knowledge, resources and motivations then it seems quite legitimate for them to be used.
the constant ignoring of constant PC advantages shows that even though PCs have those advantages, you don't want to deal with them. scent is an issue not many DMs want to deal with, as are blindsense and blindsight.
Actually those are things that I don't want to deal with. I would find a player's ability to travel through time or raise the dead less disruptive in a game than alternate primary senses. Since my main job as a GM is describing the world perceived by the players, I'm doubling my workload for each player who uses a different set of senses to the norm.
In a different (non-D&D) game I've had to ban some abilities with house-rules purely because they're too work intensive to run. I agree that just ignoring them is bad-form, since you should be communicating your concerns with the players. However players frequently underestimate how certain selections they make in character creation can create a lot of work for the GM.
Well Umbriere, it's clear that you have a favoured style of play but this doesn't necessarily mean that everyone who games differently is immature.
i don't necessarily intend that, but it takes a level of refinement and research to deal with a lot of things involving the imbalance.
the mature way to view 'Magic Mart' is not to see it as 'Wal Mart' but to think of a Market or Bazaar. a Market or Bazaar has a variety of dealers, and if you look hard enough, one of them might have the item you require. failure to find the item merely means you checked the wrong dealer.The only fantasy series I've ever read with a setup similar to what you describe is Robert Aspirin's Myth series with the Bazaar at Deva. I'm a big fan of the series, but it's not exactly the benchmark of fantasy tropes and genre.
Not every world that a GM homebrews will include Magic Marts because they may not be setting appropriate.
the issue with magic mart is the visualization, many historical and fantasy oriented works include a market or bazaar in most metropoli, in fact, it's unlikely that a bazaar won't have at least a unique trinket or few for sale. so Bazaar is a great way to make magic mart fit. makes it less versimilitude breaking
the usage of special custom enchantments or items to ward structures against common spells, whether you allow those PCs to also use those enhancements with equal reliably or not, merely shows you are not prepared to deal with the effects a full caster has on a given campaign.I'm not sure what you're referring to here. There are plenty of wards against common spells throughout the magic system and rulebooks. Even non-magical ones. People hardly have to invent "custom" ones, although if they did and match them in power level to those which already exist then that's hardly a problem. Wizards are awesome, but not unlimited. So long as the countermeasures are appropriate to the system and the adversaries knowledge, resources and motivations then it seems quite legitimate for them to be used.
yeah, but some wards are exclusively in the realm of Fiat or are so overused compared to the cost, that they break versamilitude. if every castle was lined up with a thin sheet of lead on every wall, wouldn't the price of lead suddenly take a drastic climb? stone doesn't have as pronounced a variation of the problem due to stone being everywhere. in fact, i'd rather a foot of stone block scrying than an inch of lead. only because stone is a more common and less versamilitude breaking resource. however, i have seen many DMs coat entire castles in Anti Teleportation/Anti Stone Shape/Anti Mountain Hammer/Anti Disintigrate fields without considering how expensive such counters would be to coat the entire castle.
the constant ignoring of constant PC advantages shows that even though PCs have those advantages, you don't want to deal with them. scent is an issue not many DMs want to deal with, as are blindsense and blindsight.Actually those are things that I don't want to deal with. I would find a player's ability to travel through time or raise the dead less disruptive in a game than alternate primary senses. Since my main job as a GM is describing the world perceived by the players, I'm doubling my workload for each player who uses a different set of senses to the norm.
In a different (non-D&D) game I've had to ban some abilities with house-rules purely because they're too work intensive to run. I agree that just ignoring them is bad-form, since you should be communicating your concerns with the players. However players frequently underestimate how certain selections they make in character creation can create a lot of work for the GM
if you don't want to deal with the issue of alternate primary senses, you are cutting your players off from 3 oracle curses, and cutting yourself off of half the bestiary material to use as DM. or everything except humans or halflings if you count darkvision and low light vision as alternate primary senses.
yeah, but some wards are exclusively in the realm of Fiat or are so overused compared to the cost, that they break versamilitude. if every castle was lined up with a thin sheet of lead on every wall, wouldn't the price of lead suddenly take a drastic climb? stone doesn't have as pronounced a variation of the problem due to stone being everywhere. in fact, i'd rather a foot of stone block scrying than an inch of lead. only because stone is a more common and less versamilitude breaking resource. however, i have seen many DMs coat entire castles in Anti Teleportation/Anti Stone Shape/Anti Mountain Hammer/Anti Disintigrate fields without considering how expensive such counters would be to coat the entire castle.
Yes, well that's some very unrealistic adventure design and yes it is a sign that the GM just doesn't want to handle advanced powers. The solution for the GM is pretty simple, if the power is so disruptive to them that they have to make it always ineffective they should just remove it from the game itself. There's no harm to saying "The disintegrate spell doesn't exist in this world" if that's what you have to do. Just let people know before they build their characters.
Usually in any world I run where magic is a well-known and understood phenomenon, most castles will protect the vaults and the VIP chambers against ethereal/teleporting creatures and have the private council chambers warded against scrying. Most kingdoms can afford that. The cost of doing that for the whole palace would be as you say astronomical.
if you don't want to deal with the issue of alternate primary senses, you are cutting your players off from 3 oracle curses, and cutting yourself off of half the bestiary material to use as DM. or everything except humans or halflings if you count darkvision and low light vision as alternate primary senses.
Yeah, I know. I've never barred it in Pathfinder (the game I was mentioning before was a GURPS game) because it's such a core element of the game. I'm just saying that I'm not surprised many GMs have trouble with it, it's a genuinely difficult challenge to GM.
I'm mostly just scarred from running an earlier 2nd edition game, using the optional rules that elvish infravision literally saw infrared light and heat patterns. That was a nightmare to try to simulate.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will have to disagree with you guys about how scarce and unavailable anti-scrying/anti-teleport/summoning wards should be. Requiring a GM to neglect this area of the game or brand them as unable or unwilling to handle advanced magic is a bit simplified. On the contrary, if you as a GM sit down and thing about the world view, one of the first things you as a ruler/tyrant/warlord would want to do in a high fantasy world is come up with some protections against common magical assaults on an otherwise strong fortress.
Seriously, why bother to slave for hours and haul stone, stack it up and cement it in place 10ft or more thing in a huge fortress formation, and leave it able to be bypassed by a medium level caster? This makes no logical sense and is not the same as trying to make the magical things be "realistic". Not only are military minded NPCs going to think of these things, and lords going to spend money acquiring out of necessity, but enterprising wizards/alchemists/whoever are going to spend time focusing on an inexpensive solution so they can make a fortune undercutting everyone else in the market. Granted we are talking about things on a kingdom level here, and not "every corner store" or a whole town for instance, but surely important buildings within that town or city might have these magics worked on them.
I do agree that these magical protections should be expensive and time consuming to cast and not just slapped down so the GM can restrain players and make them "color in the lines".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah, but some wards are exclusively in the realm of Fiat or are so overused compared to the cost, that they break versamilitude. if every castle was lined up with a thin sheet of lead on every wall, wouldn't the price of lead suddenly take a drastic climb? stone doesn't have as pronounced a variation of the problem due to stone being everywhere. in fact, i'd rather a foot of stone block scrying than an inch of lead. only because stone is a more common and less versamilitude breaking resource. however, i have seen many DMs coat entire castles in Anti Teleportation/Anti Stone Shape/Anti Mountain Hammer/Anti Disintigrate fields without considering how expensive such counters would be to coat the entire castle.
This has been discussed before, but basically, lead lining is very much possible to the point of being easy. There is no listed price for lead in the rulebooks, but if we assume sling bullets are made of lead (which is reasonable, don't know what other metal would be more likely) the price of lead is 2cp per pound.
With a 1 mm thickness sheeting (which is kinda thick... where did you get one _inch_ of lead from? :S) in the walls, each 5 sq feet segment of wall/floor/roof would contain 58.1 pounds of lead, which means it would cost roughly 1 gp and 16 sp.
It won't be in most farmer's huts, but in a castle you can be goddamn sure every outer wall will be lead lined. And probably most decent stores and warehouses too. It's just too cheap not to.
And the price of lead of course assumes about how much it's used - just like the price of stone does, so that's not a factor.
And while it's pretty unfeasible to cover an entire castle in Teleportation Trap, for about 9000 gold you can get something like an 160x160x40 ft area protected with a quite dangerous trap that prohibits any teleportation into or out of it. Also, for the really high-level enemies with lots of power, getting a personal Demiplane is not only feasible but even likely for anyone with mild paranoia (and if they weren't paranoid, they wouldn't live past all the scry's and fry's to get to that level, you know?).
I will have to disagree with you guys about how scarce and unavailable anti-scrying/anti-teleport/summoning wards should be. Requiring a GM to neglect this area of the game or brand them as unable or unwilling to handle advanced magic is a bit simplified. On the contrary, if you as a GM sit down and thing about the world view, one of the first things you as a ruler/tyrant/warlord would want to do in a high fantasy world is come up with some protections against common magical assaults on an otherwise strong fortress.
Seriously, why bother to slave for hours and haul stone, stack it up and cement it in place 10ft or more thing in a huge fortress formation, and leave it able to be bypassed by a medium level caster? This makes no logical sense and is not the same as trying to make the magical things be "realistic". Not only are military minded NPCs going to think of these things, and lords going to spend money acquiring out of necessity, but enterprising wizards/alchemists/whoever are going to spend time focusing on an inexpensive solution so they can make a fortune undercutting everyone else in the market. Granted we are talking about things on a kingdom level here, and not "every corner store" or a whole town for instance, but surely important buildings within that town or city might have these magics worked on them.
I do agree that these magical protections should be expensive and time consuming to cast and not just slapped down so the GM can restrain players and make them "color in the lines".
Medievalisms like castles simply don't make sense in the context of flight and teleport and scrying unfortunately.
You end up having to incorporate all sorts of custom wards and rituals that aren't factored into the base game design to deal with relatively commonplace scenarios.
Granted I think it's good for GMs to incorporate houserule material like Gorgon's blood and high volume custom wards, etc if you are using the spell list and bestiaries as written if you want a medieval feel it's just that the rules are not really written to simulate a medieval world well and if you take the impact of magic to it's logical extreme it tends to simulate a world that few people want to play.
And while it's pretty unfeasible to cover an entire castle in Teleportation Trap,
You guys keep saying this like it's not something every character I've ever made that has one has always done with their castles.
for about 9000 gold you can get something like an 160x160x40 ft area protected with a quite dangerous trap that prohibits any teleportation into or out of it.
Useful. :)
Also, for the really high-level enemies with lots of power, getting a personal Demiplane is not only feasible but even likely for anyone with mild paranoia (and if they weren't paranoid, they wouldn't live past all the scry's and fry's to get to that level, you know?).
You know, I've only ever made one demiplane in all my gaming experience? It's... really sad. I love demiplanes. Love 'em. But I never get to build them in-game for various reasons.
In any event, my Kingmaker Castle is super-warded against most teleportation effects, but has some very specific, extremely controlled effects that ensure that people who attempt teleportation things end up in very specific spots. And the best thing is, that when they use antimagic field to get around all these micro-portation-forbidden zones, they aren't going to get more than a couple, and wouldn't be able to 'port in anyway. (Also the castle is immune to divination due to being built with green rocks and a coat of adamantine, rather than lead coating.)
But yeah, Ilja's got the right of it. Castles can easily be warded out the wazoo, logically, and relatively inexpensively, for comparatively very little.
Now, if you're in a low level world, on the other hand, well... that's a different story altogether.
I have not read every post of this long thread, but I wanted to add something, so please excuse if I repeat something someone else has said already.
How I see sunder (and stealing) from a player perspective:
Unless this tactic is spammed at an unusual rate I have no problem with it.
If I wanted my gear and gold to be absolutely save always and wherever I go, then I would play World of Warcraft, Diablo or some other RPG on the computer.
How I see sunder (and stealing) from a GM perspective:
Used rarely it makes the players careful in their decisions and adds some realism. Also repairs cost less than usual.
And I make up for lost gear with larger loot later on. Sometimes a player who lost his favorite object may find something that's even better.
I would say no, as you would be gimping the NPCs and making them less effective against the party.
The game is an exercise in communal story telling within a rules framework. If the characters overcome adversity they are rewarded, the adversity they face includes challenges, challenges which define and re-define the character. Occasionally a PC's equipment is a part of that expression of character and their abilities. The proves of presenting challenges and gaining rewards means that the pc changes every time this happens. Sunder should be viewed as part of this. Sod wealth by level comparisons, it is about the narrative which should see the player CHARACTER grow over adventures.
I actually think that's all how it should be, however I don't think the game supports it very well and that the reward is highly dependent on the DM. I know quiet a few that'll never help you when you lose your weapon, and others who'll just blame you for it like they never made the sunder roll.
I think what this thread is trying to express is that sundering - like many aspects of the game - is valuable with "combat as war," but disruptive with "combat as sport."
That was an interesting read. Thank you for the link :)
|
This thread has inspired me to write a series of scenarios that include the party winning some fantastic weapon...sundering it...and presenting a special ritual that will not only make it whole, but activate new powers....but the ritual should be a major quest unto itself.
I just hope that my players aren't such petulant children that they ragequit when life for their characters isn't perfect... that's how epics are begun.
This thread has inspired me to write a series of scenarios that include the party winning some fantastic weapon...sundering it...and presenting a special ritual that will not only make it whole, but activate new powers....but the ritual should be a major quest unto itself.
That'd be awesome really! I always wanted to make a homebrew about locations of power using that sort of gig actually. Could be pretty righteous.
I just hope that my players aren't such petulant children that they ragequit when life for their characters isn't perfect... that's how epics are begun.
Hey now, lets not resort to name calling so quickly. Of course it isn't perfect, but there are mechanical impacts to your actions. I like a good challenge! I just don't like being worthless or of little value for any period of time. All depends on who your with and what they want. Not everyone likes that kind of challenge/story and what game your playing might also weigh in.
|
|
This thread has inspired me to write a series of scenarios that include the party winning some fantastic weapon...sundering it...and presenting a special ritual that will not only make it whole, but activate new powers....but the ritual should be a major quest unto itself.That'd be awesome really! I always wanted to make a homebrew about locations of power using that sort of gig actually. Could be pretty righteous.
I just hope that my players aren't such petulant children that they ragequit when life for their characters isn't perfect... that's how epics are begun.Hey now, lets not resort to name calling so quickly. Of course it isn't perfect, but there are mechanical impacts to your actions. I like a good challenge! I just don't like being worthless or of little value for any period of time. All depends on who your with and what they want. Not everyone likes that kind of challenge/story and what game your playing might also weigh in.
I actually have a history with precisely that sort of player. Some years ago, I had a RQ campaign that had run for 1 1/2 years...it was getting epic...one player, due to excellent tactics and strong personality, had dominated the game...due to his hard work, he'd outpaced the others... but also made them successful... they got upset that he was outperforming them...so I created an encounter that stripped him down, leveling the field, and gave them all personal quests, so they'd have their time in the spotlight...
They quit on me, crying that I hadn't done enough for their characters.
Careful Eldon, you might not like what people have to say about your story.
Anyways, communication is always important. It can make the difference between feeling excited or just depressed or NERDRAGEQUIT! Hard to guess what people can do sometimes, but communication can give you a better idea.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anything that makes the game less fun for the players is bad form.
Having a monster or NPC succeed in attacking you isn't fun. As such, I suggest to the developers that all future products remove the ability for any non-PCs to attack. Furthermore, I hope they issue a recall of all prior products and subsequently remove the attacks from them as well. This is the only way to avoid the subsequent loss of fun that results from a successful enemy attack.