This I need to know. How does a wizard get a +24 initiative that the fighter can't acquire?My big things with the C/MD thing is really at the end of the day, what matters is luck. Sure, casters have the better tool box, but in the end it all comes down to luck. Thats what this game is, the luck of the dice. Who got the drop on whom from skill checks? The dice really decide that. If it was an even fight, full prep time, intiative can really make the difference. What if the caster keeps rolling low for SR? What if the caster gets grappled before he can act? What if the caster gets invisibility and fly off from quicken in one turn from going first? In the end, luck trumps all. I've seen powerful caster players wreck in one encounter, and then in the next they find themselves in 3-land (the d20 rolls only 3's for like, 5 rolls) and suddenly the useless fighter from the last fight is being begged to rescue him. One pen and paper, and even in practice, the gap in power is there, but the d20 is the ultimate equalizer, no matter how much prep time is given.Casters don't rely on dice nearly as much as martials though. A lot of the best spells don't allow a save or still have a pretty debilitating effect even if you do save, and a wizard is going to win initiative even if he rolls a 1 and the fighter rolls a 20.
And then you have stuff like the dual-cursed oracle where if they decide they don't like a roll they can change it.
Divination school+familiar. Throw in Improved Initiative and Reactionary because A) Wizards aren't as feat intensive to build as Fighters and B) Always going first is way more important to a Wizard's success than a Fighter's so of course they're going to pick up II and Reactionary.
|
1)"The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with." how is a lv4 Druid familiar with likely long extinct dinosaurs?
Well, it's in the Bestiary, so probably not extinct. Certainly not on Golarion, where they're explicitly found several places.
Mechanically, the DC to know about an animal is 15+CR on a Knowledge (Nature) check at most. A Druid who maxes Knowledge (Nature) and has Int 10 can have a +9, and casually Take 10 to be familiar with the Deinonychus (a CR 3 creature).
2)What actually stops fighters having animal "cohorts"? They are listed price and details of what they are trained in.
Animal Companions use their own rules, and are far superior to basically all purchaseable animals really quick.
3)They don't even get a Longspear so how is it the same weapons?
Reach weapons? No. They do get the Scythe, Scimitar, and several others, though.
4)Druid won't begin to have barkskin till level 3, then for only 30 minutes per cast, then only for +2 bonus, fighter can wear medium armour without penalty by then all day. And how to cast it in Wildshape. Later on that.
Uh...Druids can wear Medium Armor, too. A Bone Breastplate is only -1 AC below a normal one, for example, and comes with no other disadvantages if magical.
5)a)Who needs to heal themselves? party Wizard casts out Infernal Healing scrolls between fights and Fighter pitches in gold for scribing cost of stockpile
b)There's so many magic and alchemical items for healing, both for in combat and out to either recover HP or otherwise tank damage such as Troll Syptic, Vial of Efficacious Healing, Shawl of Life Keeping, Fervour Juice, Troll Oil not to mention potions for emergencies. These aren't ruinously expensive.
So...you can spend a fair bit of gold and have a caster to do what a Druid does for free? This isn't sounding like a good point. Especially since the Druid can do the same if they like.
6)Tanglefoot bag is a thing fighters can throw, something you need hands to throw.
Its DC becomes useless real quick. Also it effects one creature, many druid spells can effect large numbers.
7) a)CORRECTION EDIT I saw the Mythic Version, there is a regular general feat but again, another catch-up feat.
b)again, this is another "catch up" feat or item, when they don't have many feats in the first place.
Druids don't need many Feats. Spells and Wild Shape give them almost all they need.
8) Armour Quality "Wild" is a +3 armour bonus... how is that not ruinously expensive just to catch-up with true martial classes.
Because your Wild Shape gives you at least +3 AC as of 6th level (way before you get Wild Armor), so you're breaking even or winding up higher AC.
I'll give it to you on Pounce (at Level 6!), but it's still a far cry from just all that is a Dire Tiger. Did you ever address the lack of reach and vulnerability to brace weapons?
How many Brace weapons do enemies have in your games? I've seldom seen it come up. As for reach, once you go Huge (at 8th level) you have it too and it ceases being a factor. A few AoO are almost inevitable on a melee character...you learn to live with it. Or Acrobatics past it.
"You are critiqued because you come of as attacking everyone for being stupid and not getting it."
Your words not mine, and that doesn't even address the inconsistency.
How are you so sure you get it? Because I think there's something you need to get and I'm not saying you are stupid, there is no need to put words in my mouth. I don't mean to be condescending but you really do need to get that most games, and certainly the campaigns that I run, start from level 1. Maybe I'm crazy but that's just me,
I'm not getting involved in this bit.
And at Level 1 Druid is not fun to be on the front lines, they aren't fun in general. What's the party front line till there?
Uh...they work fine on the font line. A 1st level Druid can be wearing Hide and using a Heavy Wooden Shield with a scimitar and have AC 18 while they hit at +4 for 1d6+4. That's a perfectly respectable 1st level offense. Or he can have AC 16 and be doing 2d4+6 with a scythe. Again, perfectly reasonable.
A Fighter at the same level is theoretically doing a little more damage and has maybe a point of AC on them, but that's it.
All these things are just to catch up.
Being able to cast spells plus having an animal companion is an immense advantage. Needing to work a little to also do everything a Fighter does is entirely reasonable.
Please do not try to put yourself in a position of making untenable arguments then hold yourself hostage as if I were to disagree with that therefore I am "attacking" you personally or that I'm personally calling anyone stupid.
I hope you realise my problem with so many declaring it great then acknowledging so many problems with the solution being fears for a class short on feats, I'm too many expensive solutions to serious problems for a class that is supposedly so much better than a conventional martial class.
You're too invested in Feats. Spell-casters don't ned them to nearly the extent martials do. A Druid needs Natural Spell, Power Attack, maybe Combat Reflexes and, uh, what exactly?
That's another thing, in every martial build I make I really emphasise good switch-hitting ability. The ability to move, draw a weapon and throw it or shoot it and drop it is so important. There are so many excellent weapons you can pull out and use once for such situational effects, yeah you often have to be a bit closer but you're a tough fighter you can get a bit closer and be bold in attacks.
By 7th, you have Air Walk and can effectively fly. That makes a lot of the ranged stuff unnecessary.
And probably the most important reason I'd rate fighter better is isn't a much more fun class to play. The thing about pounce and rake setup is you end up with pretty much one way to play, pounce and full attack. Fighters having hands is such an under-appreciated ability in utilising items. They keep running into problems like "oh crap, no hands, can't take a potion from their belt and drink it". Enemy got disarmed in front of them, yes, I'll just pick up and use their... oh no, no hands. I open the door again, no hands. Without a mythic feat you're struggling to even coordinate.
There's an item to talk. Or you can nod and/or shake your head.
As for 'more fun'...that's a purely subjective measure. You may well enjoy Fighters more. Heck, so might I (or at least, playing a Slayer instead since I like skills). I enjoy martial characters and usually dislike playing full casters. That in no way means that the Druid Class is not objectively better than martial characters on a mechanical level.
It's way WAY too damage focused and still struggled to surpass fighter.
It doesn't struggle. And given how Pathfinder works mechanically 'too damage focused' is not a criticism in almost any case.
My big things with the C/MD thing is really at the end of the day, what matters is luck. Sure, casters have the better tool box, but in the end it all comes down to luck. Thats what this game is, the luck of the dice. Who got the drop on whom from skill checks? The dice really decide that. If it was an even fight, full prep time, intiative can really make the difference. What if the caster keeps rolling low for SR? What if the caster gets grappled before he can act? What if the caster gets invisibility and fly off from quicken in one turn from going first? In the end, luck trumps all. I've seen powerful caster players wreck in one encounter, and then in the next they find themselves in 3-land (the d20 rolls only 3's for like, 5 rolls) and suddenly the useless fighter from the last fight is being begged to rescue him. One pen and paper, and even in practice, the gap in power is there, but the d20 is the ultimate equalizer, no matter how much prep time is given.I'd make the argument that the d20 hurts the martial more.
Everything they do requires hitting a target number. Skill checks, attack rolls, combat maneuvers, etc.
Spellcasters have the means to alter or even bypass that luck.
Does it though? Sure the wizard can do great damage with fireball...if the target fails its save. Lets not even count evasion. And the wizard needs to get passed SR before the save even counts. And even after all that, fire resist may or may not play a factor.
The wizard has to make concentration checks. Sure casting defensively is pretty match laughable as you climb higher in level, but a fighter or brawler that grapples the wizard and suddenly the d20 is a major hurdle.
Sadly, you know what my problem with this post is: The orignal post only talked about mages being better and everyone here seems to really have the hard on to make it clear that they are. If this being a player on player contest of measuring "you know what" is just a myth, these current...
I said they had the means to bypass the luck. And they do. You cited fireball.
'I would have cited stone call. Which has no sr, no save, no attack roll, no means to counter balance through the aforementioned luck.
You cited grappling, which, is amusing because you basically said I'd need luck to counter luck. When all I require is not to be there when the grappling happens.
If, let's say, levitating, while the said grappler is still trying to get to me, that's not luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying they are even in terms of luck and STILL rather than agree, you'd rather say: "no, wizards still get it better"
Of course we'd say that because casters do get it better. Plenty of spells don't require rolls and can completely alter the battlefield like Wall of Stone. One casting of that spell can completely bottleneck or split an enemy encounter.
I still don't even get why one HAS to be better than the other. How does it have to be a "myth" to say this is a team game? It is. Its about the story. This whole thread in and of itself is kind of a way to stir the pot. Wizards can do great and powerful s@#+ when their stuff works. Fighters can do some amazing s%~* when their combo's go off. Does it really have to matter which one can do it better?
To some people, yes it does. A lot of people don't want to play second fiddle to the casters and would like either a similar degree of narrative control that the wizard has, or meeting somewhere in the middle where a martial gets more narrative control and a caster's gets reduced to a reasonable level.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need luck to cast fly.
Or wild shape.
Or teleport.
Or... etc.
The druid doesn't need to be better than the fighter: he needs to be a solid combatant, and more versatile. He is both of those things, and so the group does not need a fighter.
If the fighter needs a wizard to be good, then he isn't good. The wizard is good. You can get spell-storing on a druid. You can get good AC on a druid. You can get good reach on a druid. All while having access to great, game-altering spells, so the fact that the druid isn't AS good as the fighter doesn't matter.
I'll say it again. The druid can fly. Can the fighter? No, not by wasting someone else's spell slot. Can he fly? That's the C/MD. If your answer is "Well, you should play as a team!" then yes, I will agree. I should play as a team. That's why when the fight gets rough my cleric Plane-Shifts the party to heaven to take a break. That's why climbing any solid surface is made easy by my druid casting Climbing Beanstalk. That's why the gorge is crossed effortlessly by my Oracle casting Rainbow Bridge (or whatever that revelation is called. It's awesome XD).
THAT IS THE C/MD.
Now, do I discourage my tables from playing fighters? Of course not. I played a Combat-Maneuver specialized Lore Warden Fighter with a wide breadth of Knowledge skills and group combat support. He pulled his weight quite well in combat.
But he couldn't fly.
Fighters do focus initiative though as far as I know, I really don't see why they wouldn't. Especially if its clear by all these posts that a fighter should only ever build to fight casters. And from what I've seen Dex based fighter is the way to go based on other posts so I fail to see how that much of a difference in the rolls is truth, but I'll make the assumption you weren't being literal with a difference in rolls of 1 and 20.
I'm pretty sure I've never taken Improved Initiative on a Fighter (and trust me, I've built a lot of Fighters and other martials; as disappointed as I am with their overall narrative power aesthetic wise I massively prefer big buff martial characters over any other archetype). There just isn't enough room for it, unless you're not taking anything that will give you utility beyond simply doing damage.
Alex, could I suggest you go to this PBP discussion thread and participate in a duel?
I think that PBP is pretty revealing, from a combat perspective.
Welp. This is where I dip out and just concede the point. I could counter that a fighter has magic items to help deal with leviate or stone wall like bat cloak or boots of teleport, but eventually we'll get back to square one of a spell countering all over again. I will touch on one thing though: I think its less the fighter not wanting to play second fiddle, and more the casters wanting to leave little doubt they are superior. I fail to see how citing luck being fickle once again had to be another place the caster stands above but hey, maybe I'm just old fashioned. At the end of the day, its just a game to have fun and I'll still play fighters, wizards or whatever I feel like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This debate will spiral on for eternity between those that look comparatively between classes and those that look contextually at the way the DM runs the game.
These two viewpoints are completely cross purposes. Mechanics and storytelling. Those interested in the mechanics aren't looking for a storytelling solution. Those that don't care about the mechanics aren't interested in further mechanics.
Presumably there is a happy medium somewhere but I highly doubt we'll find it on a CMD thread. This thread should be re-named, dispelling the myths over a mechanical caster martial disparity. Then Alex Trebek wouldn't be talk across the rest of the discussion.
Alex, there is really no point getting wound up. Start a new thread to talk about how you balance casters through group dynamics and storytelling.
|
|
This debate will spiral on for eternity between those that look comparatively between classes and those that look contextually at the way the DM runs the game.
These two viewpoints are completely cross purposes. Mechanics and storytelling. Those interested in the mechanics aren't looking for a storytelling solution. Those that don't care about the mechanics aren't interested in further mechanics.
Presumably there is a happy medium somewhere but I highly doubt we'll find it on a CMD thread. This thread should be re-named, dispelling the myths over a mechanical caster martial disparity. Then Alex Trebek wouldn't be talk across the rest of the discussion.
Alex, there is really no point getting wound up. Start a new thread to talk about how you balance casters through group dynamics and storytelling.
It's like Stormwind, but with a twist!
How is my druid turning into a bird/mouse/w/e less story-oriented than waiting days for the fighter to get a job as a guard/climb a wall unarmored?
My cleric waits to cast Animate Object until pivotal fights or cool story elements because I like storytelling with my spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't even get why one HAS to be better than the other. How does it have to be a "myth" to say this is a team game? It is. Its about the story. This whole thread in and of itself is kind of a way to stir the pot. Wizards can do great and powerful s~@$ when their stuff works. Fighters can do some amazing s*!! when their combo's go off. Does it really have to matter which one can do it better?
I know you've just bowed out, but I'm a little late and figured I'd answer anyway.
The existence of the C/MD is not necessarily important - I'm someone who prefers games where casters are better than martials and that's rarely an issue in discussing it with people who do care about it (even though most in these discussions don't share the preference).
The point of jiggy's post was that a lot of the "rebuttals" to the existence of the disparity don't really address its existence (though they claim to). They rather make a claim that the disparity doesn't have material impact - generally boiling down to houerule, playstyle or whatever.
I think the value in the OP is to help move the discussion on to what matters - namely our response to it. That response can include "do nothing" - it would just be helpful to argue that position based on why a disparity is desired or tolerable, rather than assertions that it doesn't exist.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This I need to know. How does a wizard get a +24 initiative that the fighter can't acquire?My big things with the C/MD thing is really at the end of the day, what matters is luck. Sure, casters have the better tool box, but in the end it all comes down to luck. Thats what this game is, the luck of the dice. Who got the drop on whom from skill checks? The dice really decide that. If it was an even fight, full prep time, intiative can really make the difference. What if the caster keeps rolling low for SR? What if the caster gets grappled before he can act? What if the caster gets invisibility and fly off from quicken in one turn from going first? In the end, luck trumps all. I've seen powerful caster players wreck in one encounter, and then in the next they find themselves in 3-land (the d20 rolls only 3's for like, 5 rolls) and suddenly the useless fighter from the last fight is being begged to rescue him. One pen and paper, and even in practice, the gap in power is there, but the d20 is the ultimate equalizer, no matter how much prep time is given.Casters don't rely on dice nearly as much as martials though. A lot of the best spells don't allow a save or still have a pretty debilitating effect even if you do save, and a wizard is going to win initiative even if he rolls a 1 and the fighter rolls a 20.
And then you have stuff like the dual-cursed oracle where if they decide they don't like a roll they can change it.
I seem to remember 300 or so posts ago it was something to do with persistent metamagic rod contingent spell X. Could be wrong though...I took a couple hundred post break from the debate.
The contentious debate seems to stem from some players and GMs who play the exact same game having lots of fun and not seeing the differences in class abilities as game breaking or fun breaking vs those who do or who would like Paizo (or any company) to publish rules that have game mechanics to ensure no...
Actually, experience with the C/MD has changed my mind a great deal. I am, for the first time, playing a dedicated caster (cleric), and I don't think I can ever go back to playing anything with less than 6th level casting. The utility I bring to the group is just TOO good, and too fun. I remember my fighter, my paladin, my rogue, and now that I've gone full caster I understand the disparity.
That's not to say those characters weren't fun. I enjoyed them and had fun playing them. But man, being able to overcome obstacles in such cool, dramatic, cinematic ways is just too much for me to ever go back.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welp. This is where I dip out and just concede the point. I could counter that a fighter has magic items to help deal with leviate or stone wall like bat cloak or boots of teleport, but eventually we'll get back to square one of a spell countering all over again. I will touch on one thing though: I think its less the fighter not wanting to play second fiddle, and more the casters wanting to leave little doubt they are superior. I fail to see how citing luck being fickle once again had to be another place the caster stands above but hey, maybe I'm just old fashioned. At the end of the day, its just a game to have fun and I'll still play fighters, wizards or whatever I feel like.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear: I care about the disparity not because I want to prove the superiority of casters, it's because I absolutely love martials and the fact that casters are better frustrates the hell out of me. I actually hate the fact that my mean pirate b$+#$ that's as vicious with her words as she is with her longsword is built more accurately and more successfully as a bard than she would be as a swashbuckler. The swashbuckler is specifically designed to fill this sort of fantasy, and it STILL loses out to a spellcaster! That's completely ridiculous to me, but it's never going to change unless we acknowledge that the problem exists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say you could make a god argument that having a knowledge of a creature is not the same as being familiar with them. You can read all the books in the world on dogs and 'know' them inside and out but still not be 'familiar' with them in the same way a dog breeder, for example, is.
I would tend to go with the less generous standard that is somewhat like the teleport location standards: Has personally interacted with them on a reasonably frequent basis.
thank god I'm a veterinarian at Jurassic Park.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a matter of proving one is better than the other. Rather, it is acknowledging that one has more choices than the other.
As far as some of the answers I got, I wonder what happens when the caster says "Here are some directions to a short pier and how to take a long walk" and doesn't want to spend all the down time making toys for the fighter, but rather to shore up his own abilities or follow interesting threads the GM has left for them? Team work doesn't mean that the caster spends all his downtime playing Q to your James Bond.
It really isn't about who can do the most damage in combat. There are other parts to the game (and are laid out many posts back and on other threads) and would add to the versatility and replayability of the martials.
Are the martials able to be played still? Of course. But at some point you pull back the curtain and wonder why on various bits and pieces, like Arachnofiend above. After that you wonder if things could be better.
One thing I want to throw out there, that is kinda many posts ago, is about spell storing.
Spell Storing works ONCE and then the spell is gone. If you say it's charged with yesterday's spell then that means you have to have a day in between every fight you do to make it work once a fight, otherwise it's used once and then gone. And since you've done a fight you're using today's spells, you don't have extra spells to give up. If you say to recharge it so it's available tomorrow then you're not using yesterday's spell you're using today's spell.
Now if the user themselves is a caster, say Cleric, oracle, druid, magus, etc. then they can recharge it as much as they want because they are using their own abilities and not requiring another player to donate their abilities.
This shows the disparity.
Caster has X spells per day, lets say 10. If you use a martial then they spell store once and wait until this adventure is done, or they are using 1 spell per day for the weapon. Now the wizard only has 9 spells to do other useful stuff with. But what if you have an average of 4 fights in a day and want spell storing for each fight? Well now the caster only has 6 spells per day to do the other stuff he's going to do. You're using up almost half of his spells to help you do your job. Also it's never more than once per fight, otherwise you're asking to caster to give up their turn to recharge it for you.
2 casters have 2X spells per day, so 20. If you use half of them to charge the spell storing you still have 10 spells per day to do other stuff. Also the fighting caster can recharge it mid fight if it was ever a good idea to do so.
****
Are we saying that casters should be played selfishly? I'm not and I believe most aren't. What we are saying though is that fighters are a drain on utility because they don't bring any to add. Can this work? yes, most people prefer to do it this way and like that there's a disparity. We're saying that for a specific challenge a martial can't overcome it on his own and needs to ask the caster to help shows that the fighter doesn't have the options a caster does. A caster can deal with all the situations a martial can, plus more. Do they do it in the same way? of course not. But they don't need the martial the way a martial needs casters. And if you tally up all the times the class would need help you see that magic classes need a lot less help in a lot less cases than the martial classes. Some people love this, since it "lets the team work together" to overcome challenges. Some of those people that love it also acknowledge that there's a stark difference in the "narrative power" of the classes, just that they have a way to play that is fun for them. We're not saying you're wrong to play a martial, you're not wrong for enjoying the game and have the C/MD not effect your play or not come up in your games, all we're arguing is that martials currently have less to contribute than casters.
Does it really have to matter which one can do it better?
It doesn't. But that's not the situation we have. Rather, one of them can't do it at all unless the other one holds his hand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are the martials able to be played still? Of course. But at some point you pull back the curtain and wonder why on various bits and pieces, like Arachnofiend above. After that you wonder if things could be better.
BTW, I LOVE this post. Bravo.
|
|
I'd say you could make a god argument that having a knowledge of a creature is not the same as being familiar with them. You can read all the books in the world on dogs and 'know' them inside and out but still not be 'familiar' with them in the same way a dog breeder, for example, is.
I would tend to go with the less generous standard that is somewhat like the teleport location standards: Has personally interacted with them on a reasonably frequent basis.
Okay...so the Druid can be from the dinosaur-infested jungles to the South (or wherever those are).
This will result in a disproportionate number of Druids being from dinosaur and tiger infested jungles, but it doesn't meaningfully change anything.
I'd say you could make a god argument that having a knowledge of a creature is not the same as being familiar with them. You can read all the books in the world on dogs and 'know' them inside and out but still not be 'familiar' with them in the same way a dog breeder, for example, is.
I would tend to go with the less generous standard that is somewhat like the teleport location standards: Has personally interacted with them on a reasonably frequent basis.
Okay...so the Druid can be from the dinosaur-infested jungles to the South (or wherever those are).
This will result in a disproportionate number of Druids being from dinosaur and tiger infested jungles, but it doesn't meaningfully change anything.
Or a reasonably large city/region where there are druids who have said creatures that the PC could get to know. Or a line in your background along the lines of "My master had a BLAH and I used to feed and tend to him. Ah, those were the days."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will write a background for my character that reads like the damn Pokemon intro song, see if I won't.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or a reasonably large city/region where there are druids who have said creatures that the PC could get to know. Or a line in your background along the lines of "My master had a BLAH and I used to feed and tend to him. Ah, those were the days."I'd say you could make a god argument that having a knowledge of a creature is not the same as being familiar with them. You can read all the books in the world on dogs and 'know' them inside and out but still not be 'familiar' with them in the same way a dog breeder, for example, is.
I would tend to go with the less generous standard that is somewhat like the teleport location standards: Has personally interacted with them on a reasonably frequent basis.
Okay...so the Druid can be from the dinosaur-infested jungles to the South (or wherever those are).
This will result in a disproportionate number of Druids being from dinosaur and tiger infested jungles, but it doesn't meaningfully change anything.
I just found a new side business for Magic Mart, owner and proprietor of Magic Mart: zookeeper of exotic beasts and monsters. He rents out good polymorph choices to Druids and other polymorph school specialists so that they may get the required "familiarity" with the creature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just found a new side business for Magic Mart, owner and proprietor of Magic Mart: zookeeper of exotic beasts and monsters. He rents out good polymorph choices to Druids and other polymorph school specialists so that they may get the required "familiarity" with the creature.
While I love the idea. I'm pretty sure Druids would come from all over the globe to see this business for a completely different reason. They'd probably bust up the owners business for keeping the animals in captivity and then spend some time with the animals for freeeee!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest issue with the teamgame thing is that "You generally don't want to be the person on the team that is just deadweight and using resources" and NPC's exist but the game tells you a level 20 fighter is equivelent to a level 20 wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just found a new side business for Magic Mart, owner and proprietor of Magic Mart: zookeeper of exotic beasts and monsters. He rents out good polymorph choices to Druids and other polymorph school specialists so that they may get the required "familiarity" with the creature.While I love the idea. I'm pretty sure Druids would come from all over the globe to see this business for a completely different reason. They'd probably bust up the owners business for keeping the animals in captivity and then spend some time with the animals for freeeee!
Magic Mart is an NPC in a campaign setting I'm probably never going to get around to making a campaign for; he's a Lawful Evil level 20 Gnome wizard that is concerned only with amassing huge amounts of gold, and uses simulacrum copies of himself to run a chain of magical item stores.
Mart's power is basically uncontested, and considering the fact that he is the only one who knows how to create artifact level magic items even the other level 20 NPC's are entirely dependent on him. A Druid who protests his methods would likely be a very dead Druid (unless, of course, this is a high level PC Druid aided by a team of like-minded individuals taking Mart down as the cap stone to a campaign).
Magic Mart is an NPC in a campaign setting I'm probably never going to get around to making a campaign for; he's a Lawful Evil level 20 Gnome wizard that is concerned only with amassing huge amounts of gold, and uses simulacrum copies of himself to run a chain of magical item stores.
Mart's power is basically uncontested, and considering the fact that he is the only one who knows how to create artifact level magic items even the other level 20 NPC's are entirely dependent on him. A Druid who protests his methods would likely be a very dead Druid (unless, of course, this is a high level PC Druid aided by a team of like-minded individuals taking Mart down as the cap stone to a campaign).
If the copies don't infinitely teleport in around the area with Haste put on them when someone tries to shoplift something I'm going to be very disappointed in you.
...Yes, if a low CR shoplifter shows up, hundreds of Marts immediately teleport in and begin beating the poor sap with their staffs. No need to waste spell slots on a Rogue, put that +10 BAB to use!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Yes, if a low CR shoplifter shows up, hundreds of Marts immediately teleport in and begin beating the poor sap with their staffs. No need to waste spell slots on a Rogue, put that +10 BAB to use!
Tell that to the Kecleons in Pokemon Mystery Dungeon. Pardon me while I shudder from bad memories.