Yeah, as far as "black market" goes, a good amount of the available black market goods are smuggled in - they weren't in the locale to start. Whoever thinks black market simply means illegal goods for sale in the local market, got that wrong.
Part of Way of the Yakuza gang creation rules is a given crime syndicate's capability of smuggling, a key element to black market operations.
Reading through this, I get why people say that the A-team is better in terms of raw power and that there are things that would be very difficult for the D-team to do - but I don't get why there isn't really the same conversation about how hard life with A-team could be as well?
I mean you have three full casters, all three of whom can easily completely lose their spell abilities; granted, it's not really acceptable to a lot of people to do that, but if we're giving the D-team the short end of the stick I think we have to do the same for the A-team too. All of that means that the wizard's spellbook is often at risk of getting destroyed, the familiar gets targeted first (or the bonded item), the cleric constantly faces demands from their deity to do-or-not-do certain things (CG god? spare the recurring villain! LG god? can only arrest if the villain has directly committed a crime the cleric can prove in a court of law! N god? Cleric has to journey alone on a path of meditation through the mountains!). The druid has similar restrictions as the cleric - they might not be always so spelled out, but they can lose their powers just as easily through accidental harm of the environments (that dwarf they saved earlier successfully opened his mine, which dumped toxic slag into the rivers and killed all aquatic life in the area!).
They can all lose entire sections of their ability. At tenth level, their enemies could very, very reasonably know of them and know their limitations - which might mean sending hordes of mooks to draw their aoe spells and then just knifing them when they quit the field. Oh, but the wizard just teleported them all to safety, quitting the field? Well now they have reputations as cowards that flee from battle and no +cha person to help them save face. I feel like the "well teleport" argument goes a long way, but there's a certain reality to the game world too: people who see someone flee are going to remember that and word will get around. When your character's good name is important (at least ostensibly for the purpose of getting new quests/employment), having a negative reputation will be very harmful.
I really liked Rynjin's point earlier that the challenges the D-team faces are just very different, and that doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of power. The D-team has problems finding water and getting to the location; the A-team has problems with enemies who have SR and wands of dispel magic. In a world where magic is so common, so prevalent, it's no stretch of the imagination at all to think that anti-caster items would be pretty common (or at least, just common enough).
I would also argue that the wizard died to a dire rat at level 1 while the cleric was relegated to permanent acolyte status due to temple politics and the druid never had a chance to leave their backwater forest home so A-team never stood a chance of existing in the first place but that's neither here nor there. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Aelrynth - again, I'm not sure you're getting what Black Market Connections actually does.
Raising a settlement's base value and available (pre-generated) magic items by one step is the bare minimum effect.
In a metropolis, it changes magic item availability to "all minor and medium magic items are for sale, as well as 3d8 major magic items." (Emphasis added.)
Its real power is when the rogue passes a DC 35 diplomacy check in a metropolis - that changes magic item availability to "all magic items are for sale." (Emphasis added, because damn.)
It's a specific ability that bypasses the normal magic item availability rules, and does it like a boss.
If you need something right now and can pass that diplomacy check, Black Market Connections will enable you to get it.
Again, you as the GM can always go "I'm not going to allow your ability to work," but in that case you should let the rogue know to not take the ability in the first place.
(Nonstandard items are weirder - an item may be reasonable, but the GM very much can also reasonably say "that isn't available because it doesn't even exist.")
Crafting or commissioning items requires both (a) an NPC or PC be available and able to do it, and (b) that you have time to wait for them.
Medium and major magic items take a long time to make. So whether that's viable depends on the pace of your campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through this, I get why people say that the A-team is better in terms of raw power and that there are things that would be very difficult for the D-team to do - but I don't get why there isn't really the same conversation about how hard life with A-team could be as well?
I mean you have three full casters, all three of whom can easily completely lose their spell abilities; granted, it's not really acceptable to a lot of people to do that, but if we're giving the D-team the short end of the stick I think we have to do the same for the A-team too. All of that means that the wizard's spellbook is often at risk of getting destroyed, the familiar gets targeted first (or the bonded item), the cleric constantly faces demands from their deity to do-or-not-do certain things (CG god? spare the recurring villain! LG god? can only arrest if the villain has directly committed a crime the cleric can prove in a court of law! N god? Cleric has to journey alone on a path of meditation through the mountains!). The druid has similar restrictions as the cleric - they might not be always so spelled out, but they can lose their powers just as easily through accidental harm of the environments (that dwarf they saved earlier successfully opened his mine, which dumped toxic slag into the rivers and killed all aquatic life in the area!).
They can all lose entire sections of their ability. At tenth level, their enemies could very, very reasonably know of them and know their limitations - which might mean sending hordes of mooks to draw their aoe spells and then just knifing them when they quit the field. Oh, but the wizard just teleported them all to safety, quitting the field? Well now they have reputations as cowards that flee from battle and no +cha person to help them save face. I feel like the "well teleport" argument goes a long way, but there's a certain reality to the game world too: people who see someone flee are going to remember that and word will get around. When your character's good name is important (at least ostensibly for the purpose of getting new quests/employment), having a negative reputation will be very harmful.
None of this really fits the reality of the game at all.
Deities do not "make demands" on a regular basis of their Clerics beyond the Code of Conduct, which says that unless they EGREGIOUSLY violate the tenets of their religion, they're fine. They're not like Paladins where one tiny mistake loses them their powers. They CERTAINLY don't make silly demands like "do this dumb thing based on your alignment even though that thing literally has nothing to do with my alignment or portfolio".
Seriously, find me a god that would ask their Cleric to make sure everything they killed was brought to trial before being sentenced.
It doesn't exist.
Wizards can hide their spellbooks and protect their familiars with a great deal of ease.
Druids only "fall" if they fail to revere nature. That scenario you presented is as ludicrous as the "My Paladin saved somebody in his backstory, and now three years later he killed his wife! My Paladin falls for helping someone commit evil!"
You do not suddenly cease to revere nature (which is a mental thing) if you accidentally or indirectly cause harm.
The "cowards" thing doesn't make a ton of sense unless your group are actual mercenaries (which is a rare thing), and nobody has Diplomacy or Intimidate (And all of the above classes can use those skills) to "save face". Clerics need Cha for Channeling, and there are several traits that give Int to Diplomacy.
And it assumes that "sending in a wave of mooks and then shanking them" is even a terrifying threat to begin with. Even if they somehow used every AoE spell they have against a bunch of trash...so? That leaves them with a ton of single target Save of Lose spells to f%@* your guys up with...and a Barbarian and Druid, who can melee it up pretty hard.
I really liked Rynjin's point earlier that the challenges the D-team faces are just very different, and that doesn't necessarily mean anything in terms of power. The D-team has problems finding water and getting to the location; the A-team has problems with enemies who have SR and wands of dispel magic. In a world where magic is so common, so prevalent, it's no stretch of the imagination at all to think that anti-caster items would be pretty common (or at least, just common enough).
Then you missed my point entirely. The D-Team's challenges are different BECAUSE they are less powerful. That was the whole point.
Deserts are dangerous because they don't have access to food/water creating magic or fast traveling magic like Wind Walk or Teleport.
Spell Resistance is generally a non-issue for a dedicated caster. Most will invest two to three Feats and a magic item (Piercing Spell rod if they don't get it as a Feat) at minimum to overcoming SR.
A wand of Dispel Magic is simply laughable. a CL 5 wand vs a 5th level caster is already on shaky ground. A CL 5 wand versus a higher level caster may as well not bother.
The A-Team is the A-Team because there really isn't ANYTHING in the game that truly counters magic. Magic provides a potential solution for any problem you can encounter in the game. You remember those "There's an app for that!" commercials? There really is a spell for every occasion in the same regard.
There are spells with such niche functions it boggles the mind. They come up so seldom you wonder why a spell even exists for it. But it does.
And it generally costs the Wizard some pocket change, and the Cleric nothing to gain access to it.
THAT is the difference between the A and D Teams.
It us much more difficult, expensive, or even impossible for the D Team to overcome many challenges the A Team can literally solve with a wave of their hand.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aelryinth's argument is a little more tricky since his argument, while not written in stone, requires common sense. Yes there is a base limit and yes there are random items for sale, however who makes those items? Obviously merchants with the required skills and feats, in fact you can see the base level of spell casting available on table settlement statistics here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/settlements. If your DM is half decent and/or has any basic knowledge of store management or economics they should be able to put two and two together and say "Hey, people here can craft items with a caster level of ____. Someone could probably get an item commissioned." Don't agree with me? What about getting your sword enchanted? That requires craft magic arms and armor. Yes you can go and enchant your normal sword, but that same person is also qualified to create new enchanted weapons. So what if the settlement doesn't have a +1 keen scimitar on the market right now, the fact that it has a +1 returning dagger AND you can get a +1 scimitar enchanted proves that someone has the capabilities to craft it for you.
I mostly agree - but I'll play Devil's Advocate here -
Just because a magical item is available for purchase in a city doesn't necessarily mean there is anyone who can craft it. After all - magic items have likely been made for thousands of years, and they're rather hard to destroy. (And how many people try? After you kill someone - you want to be able to take their stuff.) They'll accumulate in large cities even if there is no one there who can make even a +1 sword. (Though admittedly, that is rather unlikely.)
For example - Picasso did a lot of art - especially considering all of the etchings he did. In pretty much any major city, it wouldn't be very hard to find a few Picassos for sale, despite him being long dead. The etchings aren't even freakishly expensive. However, that does not mean that you can commission Picasso to draw you something specific. Unlikely even when he was around, and now it's impossible.
Ashiel is right about black market connections. Think of it like this, yes the city you are in may not have the +10 whatsit, but someone somewhere knows of either someone who can craft it for you or someone who has one. The black market extends beyond the city limits and could in fact span countries. Nothing about that talent says it has to be a stolen item, it simply increases the amount of items for sale.
Bolded area was entirely my point.
If you can't commission something/get it crafted, then somehow you have to rule that any particular combination of unique attributes can be found with a 75% chance 'right now'. BMC just makes that number 'bigger'. But if it's a unique, custom demand, the GM is probably simply going to say "That item doesn't exist. If it did, we could get ahold of it for you. You can get it commissioned and we can smuggle it in here if you like, however."
Thank you for your support on the rest of it.
==Aelryinth
Aelryinth's argument is a little more tricky since his argument, while not written in stone, requires common sense. Yes there is a base limit and yes there are random items for sale, however who makes those items? Obviously merchants with the required skills and feats, in fact you can see the base level of spell casting available on table settlement statistics here: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/settlements. If your DM is half decent and/or has any basic knowledge of store management or economics they should be able to put two and two together and say "Hey, people here can craft items with a caster level of ____. Someone could probably get an item commissioned." Don't agree with me? What about getting your sword enchanted? That requires craft magic arms and armor. Yes you can go and enchant your normal sword, but that same person is also qualified to create new enchanted weapons. So what if the settlement doesn't have a +1 keen scimitar on the market right now, the fact that it has a +1 returning dagger AND you can get a +1 scimitar enchanted proves that someone has the capabilities to craft it for you.I mostly agree - but I'll play Devil's Advocate here -
Just because a magical item is available for purchase in a city doesn't necessarily mean there is anyone who can craft it. After all - magic items have likely been made for thousands of years, and they're rather hard to destroy. (And how many people try? After you kill someone - you want to be able to take their stuff.) They'll accumulate in large cities even if there is no one there who can make even a +1 sword. (Though admittedly, that is rather unlikely.)
For example - Picasso did a lot of art - especially considering all of the etchings he did. In pretty much any major city, it wouldn't be very hard to find a few Picassos for sale, despite him being long dead. The etchings aren't even freakishly expensive. However, that does not mean that you can commission Picasso to draw you something...
Picasso is a bad example. If you asked Picasso, "Here's ten grand. Make me a painting of a woman," he'd be HAPPY to. That's because artists generally get rich and famous AFTER they are dead. Making art for money, and on commission, is how most artists SURVIVE.
Picasso churned out tons and tons and tons of utter crap that has his name on it just so he could sell something, anything, to someone with money. Most of the drek was utterly worthless until after he died, and considerable amounts of it were just variations on the same thing, slightly different.
It's how he made money.
So, yeah, there's Craftsmen who will make the stuff, and a level 10 Caster can quite feasibly make pretty much any magic item in the standard book.
BMC notes that all magic items are for sale...I AM NOT DISPUTING THAT. But I am disputing what "ALL MAGIC ITEMS" actually means!
Does it mean a set of +3/+7 nunchaku made of jade and adamant? Does it mean a +1/+9//+10 Klar of mithril and bone?
Custom items are never for sale. They have to be commissioned. So if you want your own unique set and combination of arms and armor...more then likely it simply doesn't exist for you to buy. If it did, you could buy it!
So, my previous example with the +1/+9 Shortspear holds truth. You aren't going to find that weapon ANYWHERE. It's completely custom and you aren't going to find it for sale.
Likewise, the number of possible combination effects you can get on magic items places them rapidly into the level of custom items, and they aren't going to be found, you HAVE to commission them.
Furthermore, ALL MAGIC ITEMS can be rapidly abused. "I want a Fireball wand. Oh, with 1 charge. That's one item. then another with 2 charges. ANd another one with 3 charges." Etc ad nauseam. Let's start differenting scrolls by caster level. Let's have rings of protection +1 with caster levels ranging from 1 to 20...all different items, doesn't change the price!
So 'All Magic Items' definitely does not mean 'all'. I'm going to plainly state that it means 1 of every standard, unaltered magic item you could potentially find to the GP limit.
But if you want custom stuff, or oddball charges, or different caster levels, you're talking custom stuff, and all custom magic items are definitely NOT for immediate sale...
Which means they are available for commission.
===Aelryinth
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Picasso is a bad example. If you asked Picasso, "Here's ten grand. Make me a painting of a woman," he'd be HAPPY to. That's because artists generally get rich and famous AFTER they are dead. Making art for money, and on commission, is how most artists SURVIVE.
I think you missed my whole point. I didn't want to go into artistic merit etc: I have virtually no knowledge of the subject.
My point was just that because something exists doesn't mean that someone is currently around who can/will make a variation of it for you.
I used Picasso specifically because he churned out enough personally for some of his stuff to be everywhere, and he's currently dead. I could just have easily gone a bit more general with 'the old Dutch masters' since between them there's likely to be a couple everywhere.
In either case - just because they exist in most cities doesn't mean that you could commission a new custom version.
But that falls under GM Fiat.
The rules say you can buy anything that falls within the GP limits. As long as the item you are commissioning falls into that limit, someone will be available to make it. That's the default assumption of the game. The same way 75% of the thousands of magic items can be available (a number that would blow ANY cities GP limit out of the water, btw), any item under that limit, you can find someone to make it.
Saying you can't is like saying "X items aren't available in magic marts, because really, that's ridiculous" when the default rules assume just the opposite.
Seriously, if you can't commission items, you realize the ONLY people who could get anything they wanted are BMC rogues? Kings, Emperors, merchant princes, rich nobles, great temples...nope. Gotta have BMC to buy a +10 sword. Cause you can't commission drek and it's over the 'available for immediate sale' limit.
==Aelryinth
|
|
But that falls under GM Fiat.
The rules say you can buy anything that falls within the GP limits. As long as the item you are commissioning falls into that limit, someone will be available to make it. That's the default assumption of the game. The same way 75% of the thousands of magic items can be available (a number that would blow ANY cities GP limit out of the water, btw), any item under that limit, you can find someone to make it.
Saying you can't is like saying "X items aren't available in magic marts, because really, that's ridiculous" when the default rules assume just the opposite.
Seriously, if you can't commission items, you realize the ONLY people who could get anything they wanted are BMC rogues? Kings, Emperors, merchant princes, rich nobles, great temples...nope. Gotta have BMC to buy a +10 sword. Cause you can't commission drek and it's over the 'available for immediate sale' limit.
==Aelryinth
The 75% rule is a rule.
Commissioning is already deeply in houserule territory. You're merely assuming that the houserule defaults one way. I'm not saying your way is wrong - I run it that way myself - I'm just saying that it's not the inherent default, and you could easily have reasons in your world as to why it doesn't work that way.
If you can't commission items - there could still be hundreds of thousands of them which already exist from ages past. The kings aren't going to be able to keep that many all to themselves.
But that falls under GM Fiat.
The rules say you can buy anything that falls within the GP limits. As long as the item you are commissioning falls into that limit, someone will be available to make it. That's the default assumption of the game. The same way 75% of the thousands of magic items can be available (a number that would blow ANY cities GP limit out of the water, btw), any item under that limit, you can find someone to make it.
Ah, that might be our problem.
Aelryinth, the settlement rules only define base value as "the community's base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort."
And the purchase limit is only a limit of how large a magic item can be sold in that city. It has nothing to do with the total number of items - cities don't actually have a GP limit in that sense. (
There's nothing in the settlement rules providing for commissioning magic items. Rather, the rules provide for checking back in a week to see if an item is now available (whether by the 75% check or in the generated items table).
Being able to commission a magic item through an available NPC is a very reasonable GM fiat (one I make myself), but it's still GM fiat.
Due to how time consuming crafting is, I think availability is far more critical than willingness - of course Bob the wizard wants your money, but he's already spending a month on a ring for someone else, so you'll be waiting for him to free up.
hundreds of thousands would blow the gp limit of a city.
If casters can make cheap standard items, they can make expensive standard items.
If they make expensive standard items, they can make custom expensive items (that the DM feels is fine).
Expensive standard items are not usually immediately available for sale. The whole 'immediate' language would not even be necessary if they weren't drawing a line between what's available now and what's available on commission.
And seriously, the whole system doesn't work if only rogues can acquire items over 16k gp, which is the most hilariously restrictive interpretation I've ever seen of those rules. "You can't buy an item unless it's already available" makes no sense at ALL.
==Aelryinth
But that falls under GM Fiat.
The rules say you can buy anything that falls within the GP limits. As long as the item you are commissioning falls into that limit, someone will be available to make it. That's the default assumption of the game. The same way 75% of the thousands of magic items can be available (a number that would blow ANY cities GP limit out of the water, btw), any item under that limit, you can find someone to make it.
Ah, that might be our problem.
Aelryinth, the settlement rules only define base value as "the community's base value for available magic items in gp. There is a 75% chance that any item of this value or lower can be found for sale in the community with little effort."
And the purchase limit is only a limit of how large a magic item can be sold in that city. It has nothing to do with the total number of items - cities don't actually have a GP limit in that sense. (
There's nothing in the settlement rules providing for commissioning magic items. Rather, the rules provide for checking back in a week to see if an item is now available (whether by the 75% check or in the generated items table).
Being able to commission a magic item through an available NPC is a very reasonable GM fiat (one I make myself), but it's still GM fiat.
Due to how time consuming crafting is, I think availability is far more critical than willingness - of course Bob the wizard wants your money, but he's already spending a month on a ring for someone else, so you'll be waiting for him to free up.
All communities have a total GP limit.
75% of the bog standard magic items under 16k will blow a planar metroplis' Total Gp Limit out of the water. And that's before scrolls.
What does 'check back in a week' mean? New stuff coming up for sale. People are MAKING STUFF.
Which means you can ask them to make you stuff. "Hey, I'm willing to plop down 98k for a +7 magical sword, you think you could leave off making the randomly rolled +2 shocking burst pickaxe? Kthx!"
And in a number of weeks that encompasses the time needed to make the item, voila.
There's a line drawn between 'immediately available' and 'available otherwise'. Else, the ONLY way to get a custom item would be...to wait for it to be randomly rolled?!?
That's not what the rules are assuming. Getting magic items is supposed to be simple and easy, not difficult
==Aelryinth
Well, that 16K goes up if the metropolis is better (around 35K if it has the best possible modifiers), and a metropolis usually has a number of major items available in it every week.
Whether those are items the party actually wants is a whole different beast.
(I treat Axis as endless metropolises, so a party with a means to canvas it (well used divinations, a mercane buddy, etc.) can eventually just hunt down a shop with the desired item.)
Black market connections lets you always find the item you want, which is why it's amusing - Schrodinger's shopper.
Edit: And communities do NOT have a gp limit to be blown. You're misunderstanding what the purchase limit actually is, I think?
|
|
If casters can make cheap standard items, they can make expensive standard items.
If they make expensive standard items, they can make custom expensive items (that the DM feels is fine).
Yes - "If". As I've pointed out a couple of times now - just because an item exists doesn't inherently mean that someone is currently around who can make it. Magic items don't 'wear off' - so there's no reason that the +1 sword you just bought might not be a couple of thousand years old, made in an age when such magic users were common. Heck - it's not an uncommon trope - that's basically the fluff behind most magic items in The Lord of the Rings.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dude, if you can't show where commissioning items is supposed to be a standard expectation, you might have to come to terms with the fact that it isn't. A huge reason for the popularity of crafting feats is making stuff you want instead of needing to go through the normal game channels of adventuring for it, getting lucky and having it show up in a shop, or looting it.
This is anecdotal, but I'm honestly kind of baffled by your suggestion that most GMs would house rule commissioned crafting as a common and easy thing. I've never once run or played in a game where that was a thing, it's only ever come up as a reward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So yeah, for the last 3 pages/days this has boiled down to "It doesn't say you can" versus "it doesn't say you can't" with helpings of "DM Fiat!" on both sides of the argument, and the always endearing "You have to count the fighters like they have NO equipment cause its not on their class chart".
Very productive.
All communities have a max purchase limit per item and in toto. It's right there on the stat block for communities of size. If you want to buy 5 million gp of stuff in Absalom...you can't. It can't absorb that much gold that fast.
The rules draw a line between items that are available now and items that are not. But it does not place a price limit, nor a time/place limit, nor a roleplay limit on the latter.
The only difference between the two is available NOW. That's it. There's no price limit on commissions.
If you want to interpret the rules strictly, then characters will NEVER be able to acquire their own high level loot, because they can't buy it. They can only wait for it to be randomly rolled, because shouting to the world that they'll spend 200k for a custom +10 sword is ignored by the guy making a mithral +1 Guardian tonfa so some random monk might be interested in it.
And only Rogues can buy anything they want, as I pointed out. Doesn't matter if you're a king, emperor or merchant prince...if you can't commission an item, you're (*&*(&.
Since that's NOT the way the rules work, the rules are there to facilitate buying items readily, NOT to utterly impede them, I'll stand by my statement.
As for class comparisons: if you're going to compare the class, compare the classes. Comparing class+gear is now an exercise in optimizing gold expenditure, NOT a class comparison. That's the way it's always been, and deviating from that turns it into something else.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for class comparisons: if you're going to compare the class, compare the classes. Comparing class+gear is now an exercise in optimizing gold expenditure, NOT a class comparison. That's the way it's always been, and deviating from that turns it into something else.==Aelryinth
So then make sure that your Wizards have exactly 2 spells per level and no more, since anything past that is a gold expenditure. . .
So then make sure that your Wizards have exactly 2 spells per level and no more, since anything past that is a gold expenditure. . .
As for class comparisons: if you're going to compare the class, compare the classes. Comparing class+gear is now an exercise in optimizing gold expenditure, NOT a class comparison. That's the way it's always been, and deviating from that turns it into something else.==Aelryinth
*Gasp*
"Oh no! I feel so gimped with only TWO of the most powerful thing in the game per level! Whatever will I do? ='("
So then make sure that your Wizards have exactly 2 spells per level and no more, since anything past that is a gold expenditure. . .
As for class comparisons: if you're going to compare the class, compare the classes. Comparing class+gear is now an exercise in optimizing gold expenditure, NOT a class comparison. That's the way it's always been, and deviating from that turns it into something else.==Aelryinth
The ability to acquire unlimited spells for gold IS part of being a wizard.
Likewise, its assumed in game you can just go out and BUY any spell you want.
Now, if you're comparing SPECIFIC BUILDS...yeah, you gotta track each and every spell by WBL.
But for a class comparison? "I Can spend a nominal amount of gold to have access to far more spells, BUT I automatically gain AT LEAST x/level." It's just assumed you're going to be spending some of your WBL expanding your spellbook.
You can make another, similar comparison with Barbs and Superstition. Not all Barbs will have Superstition, and not all of them will be humans and FC to max it out.
But the OPTION is there for them to take, and to build it. That makes it a class option and very strong, even if a specific build decides not to use it.
Likewise, the ability to spend relatively minor amounts of gold to acquire spells is a wizard class feature. Not all wizards will spend the same amount of gold on the same amount of spells, but the option is there...and that option is EXTREMELY powerful.
Sorcerer generally doesn't have that advantage...until you start getting into certain feats and magic items which also give him a lesser version of that ability, for a lot MORE money (Versatile Spontaneity feat, Ring of Spell Knowledge, etc, + Cost of acquiring the spells!)
So, open ended acquisition of spells is a class ability of wizards. You only have to track it when comparing specific builds, which is more about optimization then class comparison, once again, i.e. can I minmax the best spells/gold outlay.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok everyone this tread is starting to go off topic. We are talking about the D-team, not min-maxing gold/level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, a classes' ability to leverage wealth into their advantage is in fact part of the class. For example, it is a massive point in the favor of paladins and rangers that they can casually use wands of staple healing spells that can be purchased in most settlements, and it is likewise a massive point in their favor that they can use pearls of power. What sort of gearing opportunities that you have is without a doubt a matter of class advantage.
A Paladin has the option of taking Item Creation feats to overcome the usual limits of what you can purchase, and also has the benefit of being able to have items like the holy avenger which is useless to other classes.
Similarly, being unable to successfully make use of gear is also a mark against the class. For example, having fewer proficiencies is a weakness because it means that your opportunities for gearing are poorer or require you to build against your weaknesses (someone with Heavy Armor proficiency needs less Dex to achieve a solid AC for example).
On the Subject of Item Availability
Yes - "If". As I've pointed out a couple of times now - just because an item exists doesn't inherently mean that someone is currently around who can make it. Magic items don't 'wear off' - so there's no reason that the +1 sword you just bought might not be a couple of thousand years old, made in an age when such magic users were common. Heck - it's not an uncommon trope - that's basically the fluff behind most magic items in The Lord of the Rings.
What does 'check back in a week' mean? New stuff coming up for sale. People are MAKING STUFF.
Or it means there is trade going on. The old items are gone, new items are here. It doesn't add +XdY items to the pool, it shuffles the items around.
Again, the issue that throwing wads of dosh at crafters doesn't mean anything because there's no great incentive to craft higher level gear instead of lots of lower level gear. There is clearly a market for low level gear and they make the same profits regardless of how valuable the item is so unless you want to negotiate some sort of overpay, there's no incentive for making your +5 sword over 25 days as there is for making a few +2 swords which are easier and have the exact same value to the artisan.
In every case I've ever seen, commissioning items falls under the questing side of getting gear because it means you gotta get someone to want to help you with this. Someone who probably already has a mile long backlog of requests. Someone who probably needs some favors...
If you can find them at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've had approximately twelve thousand (give or take a hyperbole or two) threads about "magic mart" and "when can we commission stuff" or "commissioning stuff is bad" and blah de blah de blah.
Go post in one of those.
So then make sure that your Wizards have exactly 2 spells per level and no more, since anything past that is a gold expenditure. . .
As for class comparisons: if you're going to compare the class, compare the classes. Comparing class+gear is now an exercise in optimizing gold expenditure, NOT a class comparison. That's the way it's always been, and deviating from that turns it into something else.==Aelryinth
*Gasp*
"Oh no! I feel so gimped with only TWO of the most powerful thing in the game per level! Whatever will I do? ='("
Actually, I'm pretty sure only getting 2 spells per level would massively reduce the flexibility of the Wizard/Arcanist. Probably to the point where the Sorcerer becomes the best arcane caster.
Still not gimped enough to drop them to tier 4 levels or anything, but it's definitely more of a hindrance than you're giving it credit for.
So then make sure that your Wizards have exactly 2 spells per level and no more, since anything past that is a gold expenditure. . .
As for class comparisons: if you're going to compare the class, compare the classes. Comparing class+gear is now an exercise in optimizing gold expenditure, NOT a class comparison. That's the way it's always been, and deviating from that turns it into something else.==Aelryinth
*Gasp*
"Oh no! I feel so gimped with only TWO of the most powerful thing in the game per level! Whatever will I do? ='("
Actually, I'm pretty sure only getting 2 spells per level would massively reduce the flexibility of the Wizard/Arcanist. Probably to the point where the Sorcerer becomes the best arcane caster.
Still not gimped enough to drop them to tier 4 levels or anything, but it's definitely more of a hindrance than you're giving it credit for.
Not really. Its still more than the Sorcerer learns across his career by a long shot, and nothing beats the flexibility of being able to leave open slots.
Mind you I still PREFER Spontaneous casters for various reasons, but even a weakened Prepared caster is still just as strong or stronger.
None of this really fits the reality of the game at all.
Deities do not "make demands" on a regular basis of their Clerics beyond the Code of Conduct, which says that unless they EGREGIOUSLY violate the tenets of their religion, they're fine. They're not like Paladins where one tiny mistake loses them their powers. They CERTAINLY don't make silly demands like "do this dumb thing based on your alignment even though that thing literally has nothing to do with my alignment or portfolio".
Seriously, find me a god that would ask their Cleric to make sure everything they killed was brought to trial before being sentenced.
It doesn't exist.
Wizards can hide their spellbooks and protect their familiars with a great deal of ease.
Druids only "fall" if they fail to revere nature. That scenario you presented is as ludicrous as the "My Paladin saved somebody in his backstory, and now three years later he killed his wife! My Paladin falls for helping someone commit evil!"
You do not suddenly cease to revere nature (which is a mental thing) if you accidentally or indirectly cause harm.
The "cowards" thing doesn't make a ton of sense unless your group are actual mercenaries (which is a rare thing), and nobody has Diplomacy or Intimidate (And all of the above classes can use those skills) to "save face". Clerics need Cha for Channeling, and there are several traits that give Int to Diplomacy.
And it assumes that "sending in a wave of mooks and then shanking them" is even a terrifying threat to begin with. Even if they somehow used every AoE spell they have against a bunch of trash...so? That leaves them with a ton of single target Save of Lose spells to f*#~ your guys up with...and a Barbarian and Druid, who can melee it up pretty hard.
Pretty much any story in DnD lore has clerics who are given quests by their gods, who have their faith constantly tested, and are always limited in what they can access or do. "dumb demands" are dumb to a meta-gaming player, not to a person whose faith makes them a living conduit for divine energy. A god that might impose the restriction that transgressors be taken alive might be Korada, the Open Hand of Harmony empyreal lord, or just as easily Sarenrae, both of whom believe in redemption of enemies. Lore as-written is meant to be vague enough to encompass many campaigns, many playstyles, and many characters; you're right, there isn't RAW about that. And, yet here there are two deities that could very easily have that be a part of their religion.
Wizards have to deal with spiteful politicking and masters who are willing to toss them aside and/or murder them the moment they become a dangerous rival. Or deliberately teach them spells with holes in their magic in order to destroy them later. Or there's magical mishaps that set them on fire and turn everyone in the laboratory into a zombie. "Magical mishap" apparently happens to every single person in the world unless it's a PC - even if it's in a PC's backstory.
Druids are rubes who constantly get taken advantage of. Who have no understanding of life outside of the forest and can every guild wants to exploit and/or murder.
In a role-playing game, reputation and honor would matter on some level to just about any character. That is, if they are at all interested in having people respect them, which generally is the case. Kind of hard to rule a country or even just bump into some peers and have someone snicker about how the Balkr the yellow-bellied ran because he didn't have his contingency spell up.
All of the above are challenges a DM might throw at the A-team. My stance is that in a game that's based on overcoming challenges, there can easily be challenges that are tough for either party and don't necessarily involve "I'll throw a spell at it!" (or whatever equates to "high power" in 3 full-caster parties). But yeah sure man I guess if you spec every character on the A-team to handle every situation necessary, and then divorce all flavor and roleplay from the game, cripple the DM's ability to respond, and go purely on mechanics then sure, terribly-specc'd D-team gets to die en route, to a place the A-team already tp'd to and looted, because they didn't buy a decanter of endless water.
Then you missed my point entirely. The D-Team's challenges are different BECAUSE they are less powerful. That was the whole point.
Sorry, I phrased that as not about power because I was thinking it was just as cool to do either one for different reasons and power not being a straight equivalent to cool. My smarmy second post was meant to highlight that that there are a ton of holes for the A-team to fall through on the role-playing front, while imo a great strength of the D-team is that they could very well have much better answers to the same situation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your "balancing factors" rely on either pigeon-holing every character of a certain class into being the same cardboard cut-out ("Druids are stupid, naive f#%$wits with no knowledge outside the forest" and "Clerics are all fanatics enslaved to the whims of an incredibly stupid god") or changing the mechanics to suit your purpose ("Whoops, your spells have some flaw in them I made up just now 'cuz I felt like it").
I can houserule that all Full Plate is made of cheese, and has an armor class of 0, but that doesn't matter a lick in a conversation about how the game actually works.
You also missed that Sarenrae is not all peace, love, and sunshine. Sarenites are to offer redemption WHERE POSSIBLE (which has nothing to do with a law and order, they must truly repent for their sins).
Do you know what Sarenrae says to do to those who WON'T repent? Give them a swift and merciful death.
"Sarenrae's doctrines preach swift justice delivered by the scimitar's edge. To this end, she expects her faithful to be skilled at swordplay, both as a form of martial art promoting centering of mind and body, and so that when they do enter battle, their foes do not suffer any longer than necessary."
Not a damn thing is known about Korada on the other hand, so you can't speak to the tenets of his religion one way or another.
It's not "crippling the DM" to say "Don't make up random shit out of nowhere just to spite me".
Korada has an entire entry in the empyreal lords book that talks about his desire for serenity. One of his deific boons is allowing nonlethal damage without penalty. Quite a bit is known about him and what he desires, imo.
Sarenrae has a lot of options. One of those can be allowing the opportunity to repent. It is up to the players and their DM to decide what that opportunity looks like. If that's "surrender or die!" at the start of the battle, or if it's the demand that an actual attempt at redemption be made first, they're both role-playing challenges.
You're equating "providing a challenge" and "responding to the players" to being "making up random stuff" - this isn't about being a douchebag DM that springs surprises. It's about working with your players to provide them challenges that give their characters a chance to grow and therefore get XP for doing things that don't involve spells, just like your earlier post involved challenges for D-team players that involve things that aren't combat. There is literally no difference in saying "hey fighter one of your challenges is to get through this desert without create water as a cantrip" and "hey druid your challenge is to convince this town through +cha means to not cut down your trees".
Both of them are equally pigeon-holing. Both are equally arbitrary. You as the DM decided that they have to cross that desert, overcome that environmental hazard, whatever. Making a fighter blow gold, feats, or magic items for that stuff is just as ridiculous as pigeon-holing a caster to do something their spells don't directly allow them to do. You, as the DM, could easily sum up every non-combat challenge for the fighter as "you make it across the desert" or "the cold day was tough but you still found game"; imo it is utterly unfair to demand role-play of the D-team noncasters simply because they don't have spells to make the process quicker while at the same time completely exempting full-casters from any RP challenge whatsoever because "it's not RAW".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not nearly the same scenario.
"Here is an obstacle. Overcome it. You have options within the rules." is not the same thing as "Yo, I just changed up a bunch of stuff so your spells don't work right" or "That dude you helped out a year ago just started logging a forest so you lose all your powers XD".
The latter two examples are not CHALLENGES, they're just being a dick, and they're examples very similar to those you have previously used.
You can present the "Cross this desert" challenge to both groups.
Both groups have options to overcome this obstacle. The A-Team has MORE options, and faster and better ones, but both groups have options they can use.
"Do it without Create Water" is not a restriction set on the CHALLENGE, but on the D-Team's ABILITIES. They can't do it because they literally can't do it, not because you have restricted that option.
In the latter scenario you have arbitrarily designed not just a challenge, but a restriction on HOW the challenge must be completed. You MUST use a Cha based skill to overcome this challenge, because reasons.
Why is "shapeshift into a T-Rex and eat these tree cutting bastards" not an option? Or casting a spell that does it?
Because you arbitrarily limited the options available.
I can't really spell it out better than that. It's the difference between saying "Here is this problem. Solve it." and "Here is this problem. Solve it in the exact way I want you to solve it, or it doesn't count."
Sometimes the latter case occurs naturally from a well set up scenario...but the player still has the option to think outside the box here. If there is only one solution to a given problem, then you have done it wrong.
Remember, kids: The Cult of the Dawnflower has clerics who can cast spells. The Cult of the Dawnflower is righteous enough for Sarenrae's blessing.
Yeah. C team at worst. Though at this point talking about what sort of team should get what letter is just re-hashing tier list discussions, as opposed to playing or handling a team made up of poor classes.
Yep, the lettering of a team seems to boil down to how much narrative power the team has.
Just like the tier list does to individual classes.
No wonder they are almost parallel.
The hunter and the warpriest get their spells much slower than a full caster. They also get less spells to play with. That said, 6th level casters aren't nearly as bad off as a bunch of 4th level and non-casters. I think that somewhere between B and C is a fair assessment.
Hold on.
Has anyone seriously suggested that a party of 6th level casters is D-team? Because I think that most if not all of the people here think that you have to go further than just no 9th level casters to be a D-team.
Even Paladin, Bard, Hunter, Barbarian would probably be around a C-team. D-teams basically have very few options other than hitting things and maybe a couple of other things. 6th level casters have plenty of options. Not as many as 9th level casters, but still quite a lot.
Summoners are...eh, they are kind of in between. They aren't as good as a full-caster at higher levels of optimization, but they are stronger than the typical 6th level caster. That said, an A team can work with 1 or even 2 6th level casters. Wizard, Bard, Hunter, Cleric and Wizard, Bard, Druid, Cleric aren't that much different in terms of capabilities.
I think we can safely stop discussing whether they are a B-, C-, or D-Team. Point is that the OP assumes an A-Team needs a full caster. So let's assume he meant "something not A and not A-".
However, a classes' ability to leverage wealth into their advantage is in fact part of the class. For example, it is a massive point in the favor of paladins and rangers that they can casually use wands of staple healing spells that can be purchased in most settlements, and it is likewise a massive point in their favor that they can use pearls of power. What sort of gearing opportunities that you have is without a doubt a matter of class advantage.
A Paladin has the option of taking Item Creation feats to overcome the usual limits of what you can purchase, and also has the benefit of being able to have items like the holy avenger which is useless to other classes.
Similarly, being unable to successfully make use of gear is also a mark against the class. For example, having fewer proficiencies is a weakness because it means that your opportunities for gearing are poorer or require you to build against your weaknesses (someone with Heavy Armor proficiency needs less Dex to achieve a solid AC for example).
On the Subject of Item Availability
Yes - "If". As I've pointed out a couple of times now - just because an item exists doesn't inherently mean that someone is currently around who can make it. Magic items don't 'wear off' - so there's no reason that the +1 sword you just bought might not be a couple of thousand years old, made in an age when such magic users were common. Heck - it's not an uncommon trope - that's basically the fluff behind most magic items in The Lord of the Rings.What does 'check back in a week' mean? New stuff coming up for sale. People are MAKING STUFF.Or it means there is trade going on. The old items are gone, new items are here. It doesn't add +XdY items to the pool, it shuffles the items around.
Again, the issue that throwing wads of dosh at crafters doesn't mean anything because there's no great incentive to craft higher level gear instead of lots of lower level gear....
I will agree that 'the ability to buy Item Creation feats because you can use magic' IS a feature of a class that is often overlooked.
However, that doesn't mean that you immediately start spending gold, because now you've crossed from a class comparison to gold expenditure and optimization.
i.e. the Item Creation feats are just another option to be brought up in a class discussion. Just like the ability to use CLW wands vs relying on UMD is a discussion point.
------------
PF is not lord of the rings.
Having people quest for someone who will make an item is exactly the same as having them quest for someone who can buy/sell standard items...it all falls under item acquisition.
PF's rules are there to streamline buying and selling items. You don't have to 'role-play it' unless the DM says so. It's a handwave. You don't have to go find the caster making magic items who is busy...because he isn't. THe rules say he's averaging 10 gp/day at most selling magic items...which is like a few CLW potions a month. He's not busy because the number of people who can afford his services is SMALL, and the amount of money a day he can process through is LARGE (seriously, how many people can afford to spend 1000 gp/day to keep a magic item crafter busy?!?)
Making magic items is a profession like any other, and the only time they make LOTS of money is when someone comes along and plops down a LOT of money for something. That someone is usually adventurers. They will happily stop making the random scroll or potion to be employed for days at maximum gp! A +2 sword is like 3 months of sales!
So, it's handwaved. The merchants of the magic items contact the maker, collect the money, take their cut, pass the funds on, and the crafter makes money. That's how it would be done in any reasonably society, and that's how the rules handwave it.
Making people traipse all over looking for a caster who would be dying to make more money in a day then he normally sees in a month is not figured in the rules, as is the idea that the only way you can get more powerful magic items is if they randomly pop up rolled...which is also very illogical, and goes against the ease of buying and selling magic which is at the core of the system.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't handwave purchasing items. That's something you've declared and shown no evidence for. There's a whole section on determining what you can buy or sell in different settlements and what kind of items might pop up in the market beyond what's normally available. You're making assumptions and talking about rules that straight up don't exist in the system. At all.
FFS, what do you think the rules on restricting what you can purchase are for if not restricting what you can purchase?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It doesn't say you can't-- show me where it says I can't"
"It doesn't say you can-- show me where it says you can"
Thanks for reiterating those arguments over a few more pages!
|
|
"It doesn't say you can't-- show me where it says I can't"
"It doesn't say you can-- show me where it says you can"
Thanks for reiterating those arguments over a few more pages!
Except - when the rules don't specifically say you can, it's up to the GM. That's all I, and I believe most everyone else, has been saying.
Basically. If you want to change how things work or add new services to your own games that's your own prerogative, but you shouldn't claim those things are part of the base game or use them in discussions about game mechanics.
My longest running (3rd to 16th level) 3.5 D&D was a very large group, 10 players I think, and we had:
1 ranger
2 barbarians (one was a MC fighter)
1 monk/samurai/iaijutsu master
1 wizard fighter bladesinger
1 sorcerer fighter eldritch knight
1 "knight" (samurai without daisho but with paladin's mount)
1 cleric
1 sorcerer
1 psychic warrior
1 npc bard
They were called the "swords of Gaea". Challenges were tons of mooks, wizards with goons, dragons with goons, giants, hydras, demons etc. and then an interplanar war in homeground.
It was very difficult to run but at the end it was worthwhile. The amount of asskicking, criticals, strength checks etc. made it look like something akin The Expendables, but way younger LOL! The lack of magic gave us more storytelling potential, specially since the group spells couldn't affect everyone.
Suggested letter scheme, trying to be roughly consistent with what has been discussed above:
A4 team: Has 1 arcane 9/9 caster + 1 divine 9/9 caster + 1 primary damage dealer + 1 skill monkey; A4+ if the skill monkey is a Bard or Investigator and/or the party otherwise has a Bard substitute (such as the 9/9 divine caster being an Evangelist Cleric); A4- if the 9/9 casters have small but noticeable defects in synergy/division of labor and/or if one of them has delayed progression (multiclass/prestige class, such as a pre-(SLA FAQ nerf) Mystic Theurge); A5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for A4, except that Bard or substitute thereof adds more to A5 than to A4).
B4 team: Like A4 but 1 of the 9/9 casters is replaced by a 6/9 caster; B+ if the replacement 6/9 caster is a Summoner or the remaining 9/9 caster has highly optimized to cover the bases left open by the replacement (for instance, Witch carefully built to cover the most glaring loss of divine spellcasting and/or rapidly weaken enemies so that they can't do anything that would require the highest level divine spellcasting services); B4- if the 6/9 and 9/9 casters have small but noticeable defects in synergy/division of labor as noted above for A4-, or if the 6/9 caster uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting (Warpriest, and at higher levels also Hunter) or is an extract user (personally strong, and a great addition to a party that has other members to cover actual spellcasting, but not so great for the party if you have to be a substitute spellcaster); B5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for B4, except that Bard or substitute thereof adds more to B5 than to B4).
C4 team: Like B4 but the other 9/9 caster is replaced by a 6/9 caster, or alternatively the 6/9 caster that replaced a 9/9 caster is replaced by a 4/9 caster (only works if class choices and builds are adjusted to compensate -- for instance, Witch + Paladin); C+ if one of the 6/9 casters is a Summoner or the skill monkey is an Investigator; C4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects or if one of the 6/9 casters uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting or is an extract user (as noted for B4-); C5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for C4, except that Bard or substitute thereof adds more to B5 than to C4).
D4 team: Like C4 but now we're replacing 1 of 2 of the 6/9 casters with a 4/9 casters (alternatively, the 6/9 caster was previously replaced with a 4/9 caster, and now we're replacing the remaining 9/9 caster with a 6/9 caster); D4+ if the remaining 6/9 caster is a Summoner or Bard; D4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects (which will now require extra teamwork effort to work around) or if one of the 6/9 casters uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting or is an extract user (as noted for C4-); D5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for C4, except that Bard or substitute thereof and/or especially good teamwork add more to B5 than to C4).
E4 team: Like D4, but no casters higher than 4/9, or a single 6/9 caster but no other spellcasters; E4+ if the party has some kind of spellcasting substitute (party member with significant spell-like and/or supernatural abilities that synergize with the rest of the party) or if using the single 6/9 caster option with a Summoner; E4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects (which will now require even more extra teamwork effort to work around) or if using the single 6/9 caster option with a spellcaster that uses truncated 9/9 spellcasting or is an extract user (as noted for D4-); E5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for D4, except that Bard or substitute thereof and/or especially good teamwork add more to B5 than to D4).
F4 team: Like E4, but no more than a single 4/9 spellcaster (not even a 6/6 extract user); F4+ if if the party has some kind of spellcasting substitute (as noted above for E4+); F4- in case of synergy/division of labor defects (which will now require even more extra teamwork effort to work around) or if the party has no spellcasting (better have some kind of spellcasting substitute); E5 adds another character (optional + and - as noted for E4, except that a Bard substitute and/or especially good teamwork add more to F5 than to F4).
To the OP:
If I were running your D-Team, I would probably change a few things.
First I would use a vitality system or some variant, to avoid over relying on wands and potions.
The same way, I would change some of the conditions associated with spells mostly, to allow the use of the heal skill to remove those after some duration. Permanent effects like blindness I would probably replace with something that allows a save every hour or day.
An important question is whether the full-casting classes are common or not. as that will change not only access to magic, but villains.
I would also most likely replace the Big 6 with a integrated bonus system like the one in Unchained.
All in all, I agree with the posters who believe that it will lead to a more interesting campaign. Ultimately, it's about the story you want to tell along with your players.