The PC's are some of those few. The world is not full of PC's, it merely has other high level characters. Everyone in creation is not playing in the same Golarion, so there aren't thousands of PC's sucking up millions of gold from everywhere.
There's just the PC's and the party. He doesn't seem to understand that, either.
Except you're not entirely correct either. In PFS Organized Play there ARE thousands upon thousands of adventurers, and most of them work for the pathfinder society. Even in a homebrew game you're not entirely correct.
If high level adventurers were the pervue only of player characters, you'd never be able to go to a temple and get a raise dead cast. You wouldn't be able to find magic items either. Not the good ones at least. If there's only ever 4 to 8 adventurers in the world, then please explain why the world isn't drowning in Evil yet.
You can't have it both ways. Either the players aren't the only adventurers, or it's a very dark campaign where Evil has already won and the players are struggling to stop it.
Mind you, not all of those adventurers are going to be high level. Maybe 10% of adventurers survive to level 20. But there would be a good number of them who reach level 10. And not all adventurers are acting as a force of good. Some are merely opportunists and any good they do is accidental. Some are actively evil, and are furthering their own agendas.
Also you need to keep in mind that those high level clerics and mages, fighters, and monks didn't get to high level by reading books and contemplating their navel. The head of your monk's order was probably an adventurer in his youth. The High Arch Bishop too probably spent his youth smiting evil before retiring to run a temple. As did Captain Dalton, the level 8 fighter in charge of the royal guard. And Cedric the Wise, the reclusive wizard who's always puttering around in his tower? He likely spent years adventuring as well.
Also remember that adventurers don't fight Evil Every...
your premise iz untrue. Each pfs adventure takes place in its own campaign universe. That is why thousands of pfs people can go through the same modules over and over, and it has no effect on anyone else.
By your logic, me completing an ap would mean no one else could do so! That is obviosly not the case. There are not thousands of adventurers in the pfs...there are the ones at that table, and that's pretty much it.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dropping back in here for a moment, I bethought myself a simple rule that Aelryinth seems to have ignored.
Aside from the players, every other person encountered in the game world is a nonplayer character (NPC). These characters are designed and controlled by the GM to fill every role from noble king to simple baker. While some of these characters use player classes, most rely upon basic NPC classes, allowing them to be easily generated. The following rules govern all of the NPC classes and include information on generating quick NPCs for an evening’s game.
So there you have it; most NPCs rely upon basic NPC classes. Only some use PC classes.
Can NPCs retrain to PC classes? Sure, and they should retrain to those classes that are most akin to that NPC class they had - wizard from adept, for example, or fighter from warrior. However, it remains that 'while some of these characters use player classes, most rely upon basic NPC classes'.
This is part of worldbuilding.
The game technicals are in service to worldbuilding, not the other way around. Aelryinth's insistence upon using the PF rules to the exclusion of worldbuilding reminds me strongly of some theoretical economists, who protest that their models are accurate, and it's the world that is obviously wrong. Simply put, the mathematics and the rules come third, not first, in whether or not 'something is possible' on a significant scale - lighting the cities via a beneficent lantern archon, retraining your entire ten million strong peasant population to first level wizards (who ever said they had levels at all?), or whatever ludicrosity is desired. First is GM permission; second is worldbuilding. Usually the two are linked.
Is there a rule that says these fantastical things can't be done? No, of course not - because the writers presume that there is a mind between 'this is what a PC can do, or the GM can decide is permitted to NPC X' and 'All NPCs Shall Do This Thing', a mind that's going to say 'dude, get your head out of your keister and stop RPing how accurately you can plow a 10' of furrow, and let's get on to the adventure' just as readily as it's going to say 'you want to train ten million peasants to wield even just a little the arcane forces of the universe? Are you high???'
It's the GM's job to say 'why,' 'why not,' as well as 'why not?' If your GM says the third, get ready for a very wild ride, because disaster of some sort will be in the air, if it's only just revolution (magocracy, anyone?) or something more serious (such as cross-planar war that will make the Worldwound look like a peaceful, puppy-visited Sunday-school picnic). But first and foremost, it's the GM's job to look at his world and consider whether or not he wants to allow it, what the consequences would be, then look at his players and consider the very same thing.
So Aelryinth, sorry - the PF world doesn't operate on 'everyone can do every crazy damn thing that the rules lay out'; it operates on a default of 'most everyone CANNOT do these things, be or retrain into a PC class'. This is worldbuilding; this is the GM's responsibility, and saying 'the rules don't prevent it' is the height of disengenuousness, both about RPGs and about rules in general.
The NPC retraining rules are there to allow the GM to take Gate Guard Bob (Warrior 1), whom the PCs befriended, and saved during the climactic battle at the West Gate, to retrain into Gate Corporal Bob (Fighter 1), who is willing to let the PCs in after-hours, and eventually become Guard Captain Bob (Fighter 6), who is ready and willing to believe the PCs when they come into town claiming something that 'must be patently impossible!!' Or to allow the GM to say that a PC can take an NPC with a bit of talent under their wing, and take the time and effort to retrain that NPC, bringing that talent for magic out and turn Hassenfaffl (Adept 3) into Hassenfaffl (Wizard 3) - or, because of the nature of Adept, perhaps Cleric 3. Or Druid 3. Or Sorcerer 3.
I personally wouldn't allow a Commoner to retrain to Wizard; obviously the guy doesn't have the ability in the first place, otherwise he'd be an Adept. Perhaps rogue, perhaps barbarian - but generally the Adept is going to move into being a spellcaster, Warrior into the fighter sorts, Expert into a unique slot (monk, ranger, gunslinger, that sort of thing), and Aristocrat into a social sort (rogue, bard, etc.).
If your GM allows it, sure, rules are there, go for it. Ain't no rule that says you can't. Doesn't mean the GM's gonna allow it, though, and the PF default sure says otherwise.
Economics. The standard medieval population required as many as 9 to 10 people in agriculture to support a single person not involved in agriculture. Even allowing for magic and divine blessings to increase productivity, we have a major issue with sustaining a population. Every guard, every soldier, every noble, wizard, tax collector, accountant, etc needs 10 people working fields.
Only when you reach a point where agricultural dependence isn't so high, either through having a high enough per person yield, or too many farmers, can your economy start supporting something like inventors. And you need inventors to turn the magic into an accessible good. Wall of Iron may give you rough iron, but it doesn't give you people who know how to smelt it properly. It doesn't give you the luxury of people to experiment with mixing different metals and different smelting techniques to generate new materials. You may have walls of iron everywhere but it doesn't give you goods or manpower.
Further slowing things down is that when there is an excess in people and food, few leaders are going to resist the urge to go to war. Why would they? Because in 30 years after you are dead you might get a new forging technique or a nifty new plow? No, go for a land grab. Get new territory and more farm land.
War decreases a population down to a point of subsistence farming, be that because your nation had too much food and went to war, or because you had too much and someone went to war with you.
Even when new technologies are discovered, it can take decades or centuries for it to become prevalent. It took a thousand years for gunpowder to turn to firearms. The creation of practical applications of a new technology is harder than ever.
So, what happens to this system when you introduce a wizard? Nothing. Crop yields may be higher but they are needed to support a group of people who make it their jobs to hunt monsters and defend settlements from the orcs, goblins, etc. That excess food goes to allowing wizards to go to fancy schools. Investors still don't want to risk their fortunes on high in sky ideas of mass produced full plate when they are making good money already, and even less when they aren't making good money.
If you have too many non agricultural societal roles, then people start starving. The market price of food rises, people starve, luxury roles go out of business and turn to agriculture.
The agricultural revolution only came about due to a high enough crop yield. The wool trade became more prominent and sheep required enclosed land so fewer peasants were ranting land from Nobles and lords. Advancements in plow technology meant fewer oxen and horses were needed to pull a plow. This allowed individuals to own the oxen to pull their own plows,or groups to share instead of renting from landowners. The switch to turnips allowed for winter farming and better crop rotations, and transportation networks allowed for individuals to have more choice in selling what excess they had. None of these things are wizard dependant. So you end up with wizards promising leaps to efficiency that nobody is backing and making walls of Iron nobody needs or makes use of.
|
And then you factor in another aspect of life in the middle ages, as well as the industrial revolution. Disease. Yeah there's clerics and paladins who can remove disease via magic. But they can only do this to one person at a time, and a limited times per day each. A single potion of remove disease takes how long to brew? And is good for only one use.
Meanwhile you are piling more and more people into cities. Assuming you improved farming methods to the point where each farmer can supply food to 10 people (minimum) that's a heck of a lot of people crowding into cities. Can you say epidemic? I knew you could. And all the clerics, oracles, and paladins in the world aren't going to be able to keep up. Especially if the temples are insisting on a donation to cure the ailing.
If the players are dead set on causing a tech explosion and revolutionizing the world that way there's plenty of complications you the game master can introduce. It could be an interesting campaign, if done right.
Easier though not to introduce such a fubar.
D&D 3.x/PF actually lost a rule that was present in AD&D 1st Edition (and presumably 2nd Edition) that prevents a magitech explosion: Most people in the AD&D 1.x world do not have level 1+ NPC classes, but instead are level 0 characters, of which only a subset are even 0 level "men at arms", and are incapable of advancement. In addition, the Leadership rules (Leadership not being a feat, but instead something that PC classes got at high level, varying by class but usually around 10) specified that even followers with PC classes do not advance (this did survive into the D&D 3.x/PF Leadership rules for Followers). So the great majority of the population is incapable of PC class advancement (even to become 1st level Wizards as discussed in here), with a small subset being capable of advancement up to some low level. Now, it is real easy to miss this, given the Limbo-worthy organization that was the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, and I wonder if Wizards of the Coast actually missed this themselves when designing 3rd Edition. But the AD&D 1st Edition Rules As Written would serve quite well to prevent a magitech explosion.
lots of stuff
Dude, you could have avoided the whole wall of text above by simply saying 'GM FIAT SAYS NO.'
Because that's basically all your post is saying. Chuck logic and allowed and defined game mechanics, the GM says 'per worldbuilding, I have decided it won't work.'
Which is, of corse, completely outside the bounds of the discussion. If Rule 0 was the answer to all problems, there'd be no problems.
==Aelryinth
Fortuitous, you're ignoring many of the implications from the system.
1. Levels mean ranks mean learning. What people in magical worlds with levels know about farming and disease is staggering. Fighting disease is a good reason to spread basic medical knowledge, and high level people can devise antidotes and cures faster then modern supercomputers. Likewise, those high producing farms? They are already there in any reasonbly advanced magical society, and that is without weather control, farming construsts, and plant growth ceremonies.
2 stress on any system inspires change and invention. Saying that 'because magic' people are going to stop innovating is ignoring the very primal urge of people to better themselves, and find alternate solutions to problems.
3 sure, lifeforms in close quarters invite disease -that goes for farm animals and wild herds as well as people. However, refer back to 1), disease and epidemics can be fought and controlled, by guidance from people with ranks in Heal. Heck, we don't have docters over 5th level, have 7 billion people, and the world is not awash in plagues. Basic hygiene, clean water and common sense can do a lot.
D&D 3.x/PF actually lost a rule that was present in AD&D 1st Edition (and presumably 2nd Edition) that prevents a magitech explosion: Most people in the AD&D 1.x world do not have level 1+ NPC classes, but instead are level 0 characters, of which only a subset are even 0 level "men at arms", and are incapable of advancement. In addition, the Leadership rules (Leadership not being a feat, but instead something that PC classes got at high level, varying by class but usually around 10) specified that even followers with PC classes do not advance (this did survive into the D&D 3.x/PF Leadership rules for Followers). So the great majority of the population is incapable of PC class advancement (even to become 1st level Wizards as discussed in here), with a small subset being capable of advancement up to some low level. Now, it is real easy to miss this, given the Limbo-worthy organization that was the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, and I wonder if Wizards of the Coast actually missed this themselves when designing 3rd Edition. But the AD&D 1st Edition Rules As Written would serve quite well to prevent a magitech explosion.
2e pretty much did away with level 0, except for maybe some commoners. Only module I ever saw it come up in 2as a Dungeon magazine where you got to slaughter a 100+ level 0 cultists ofw the Oinadaemon...and just fireballing them was faster.
So, 0 level was a thing neve4 used. For cities, they used the 10:1 rule up through about level 4, and lower ratios for higher levels based on city size.(I.e.10k level 1, 1000 level 2, 100 level3, 10 level 4, plus others of higher level).
they also began to quickly inflate those numbers. The rote greyhawk city soldier was a fighter3, a whaterdhavian watch was level2, cormyr cavalry was level4, and the flaming fist was fighters levels 4 to 6, over 2000 of them! In Bloodstone, you could train a bunch of level 1 commoners to fighter4's over a few months, so precedence for pc's being able to trin Npc's up actually goes in the other direction too!
So yeah, the npc's you never met and never interacted with might be level 0 forever...but as soon as PC's come around, things start changing.
^Okay, so that means that D&D started losing the defense against magitech explosion some time back in 1st Edition -- at least it USED to have a reasonably solid defense against this back in a time that I can remember (and played in -- not sure when the modules you mentioned came out, since I never saw them, but it's possible that much of the total playing that I have done was before them).
I believe you are correct. I don't think npc classes existed until 3e, but I can't be sure. Does someone have a 1e dmg around who can check?
Right, but that's sort of my point. If Bob (a player) decides the world would be better off with a wizard in every village and fronts the gold to train Alice in his weekend seminar, why would Alice refuse? Wizard is strictly better than commoner.
This is where worldbuilding goes beyond the skeleton of rules. Alice may be amenable, but the Wizard may find himself spending years of effort to no avail, because despite her desire to wield the power of magic, Alice the NPC commoner doesn't have the talent to become a wizard... or anything else for that matter.
Did the rules mandate that? As shown before no they don't and there is no serious debate on that point. But GM Frank did because he has decided that adventuring classes are the mark of the special folks... the ones who've made that one way journey out of the ordinary world, who cross the line where others simply can not. Who have that particurlar quality to shake the world about them, for good or ill.
The rules are not the be all and end all of world-building. They're simply the mechanical skeleton on which roleplaying and story flesh out.
|
|
D&D 3.x/PF actually lost a rule that was present in AD&D 1st Edition (and presumably 2nd Edition) that prevents a magitech explosion: Most people in the AD&D 1.x world do not have level 1+ NPC classes, but instead are level 0 characters, of which only a subset are even 0 level "men at arms", and are incapable of advancement. In addition, the Leadership rules (Leadership not being a feat, but instead something that PC classes got at high level, varying by class but usually around 10) specified that even followers with PC classes do not advance (this did survive into the D&D 3.x/PF Leadership rules for Followers). So the great majority of the population is incapable of PC class advancement (even to become 1st level Wizards as discussed in here), with a small subset being capable of advancement up to some low level. Now, it is real easy to miss this, given the Limbo-worthy organization that was the 1st Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, and I wonder if Wizards of the Coast actually missed this themselves when designing 3rd Edition. But the AD&D 1st Edition Rules As Written would serve quite well to prevent a magitech explosion.
2e pretty much did away with level 0, except for maybe some commoners. Only module I ever saw it come up in 2as a Dungeon magazine where you got to slaughter a 100+ level 0 cultists ofw the Oinadaemon...and just fireballing them was faster.
So, 0 level was a thing neve4 used. For cities, they used the 10:1 rule up through about level 4, and lower ratios for higher levels based on city size.(I.e.10k level 1, 1000 level 2, 100 level3, 10 level 4, plus others of higher level).
they also began to quickly inflate those numbers. The rote greyhawk city soldier was a fighter3, a whaterdhavian watch was level2, cormyr cavalry was level4, and the flaming fist was fighters levels 4 to 6, over 2000 of them! In Bloodstone, you could train a bunch of level 1 commoners to fighter4's over a few months, so precedence for pc's being able to trin Npc's up actually...
Except level 0 IS a thing in 2nd edition. Just because it didn't actually come up often for adventurers, doesn't mean it didn't exist. The DMG specifically called it out. Many GMs may have forgotten about it. And overall it wasn't that important. But the rule existed.
What is the benefit of level 0 over level 1 with an NPC class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is the benefit of level 0 over level 1 with an NPC class?
Unlike D+D, there is no level zero.
|
|
Right, but that's sort of my point. If Bob (a player) decides the world would be better off with a wizard in every village and fronts the gold to train Alice in his weekend seminar, why would Alice refuse? Wizard is strictly better than commoner.
This is where worldbuilding goes beyond the skeleton of rules. Alice may be amenable, but the Wizard may find himself spending years of effort to no avail, because despite her desire to wield the power of magic, Alice the NPC commoner doesn't have the talent to become a wizard... or anything else for that matter.
Did the rules mandate that? As shown before no they don't and there is no serious debate on that point. But GM Frank did because he has decided that adventuring classes are the mark of the special folks... the ones who've made that one way journey out of the ordinary world, who cross the line where others simply can not. Who have that particurlar quality to shake the world about them, for good or ill.
The rules are not the be all and end all of world-building. They're simply the mechanical skeleton on which roleplaying and story flesh out.
In addition, it generally takes years to teach someone how to be a wizard. Or for them to pick up level 1 levels of skill as a rogue. How many years of pious devotion did that cleric serve before their god(dess) called them as a cleric? Adventurers are generally speaking, an exception to the rule. They grow in skill and power fairly quickly, far faster then most people. And they can teach them self esoteric things without any help. From learning complex martial arts to how to cast a wide variety of spells, let alone magical theory they can learn it all with just a little bit of self study. Even with no resources to study from.
Yet it still takes them a long time to reach level 10. Sure, it might only have been a few dozen sessions of roleplaying. But how long did they spend traveling from point A to point B? How much time passed between their adventurers? This is generally hand waved, but when thinking about social engineering this needs to be considered too.
Congratulations, you've trained your first crop of young wizards in a few weeks. They now have a basic, rudimentary knowledge of how magic works. And maybe a level 0 spell. What's that? You're doing an accelerated course, and they all have every 0 level spell plus two+int modifier level 1 spells after only five weeks? So you force fed magic theory (maybe) and practical application to dozens, or maybe hundreds of people at once in five weeks? Then have them start teaching others? And you're not expecting problems? Oh, this can't possibly go wrong.
Feel the sarcasm. Feel it.
Or maybe you create large numbers of golems to work the fields and other tedious jobs needed to support your industrial complex. How good of intelligence did you give them? How independent are they? if they're smart and independent enough to run the farms and know what to plant when and where to send each crop, is there a danger of them revolting?
What about the neighboring countries? Do they grow alarmed at your nation's growing power? Or maybe jealous and want to reap the rewards you've sown? Do all those poorly trained wizards you've been churning out left right and center make a power grab? How many of them get them self killed because they didn't have time to learn proper precautions and the underlying theory behind their spells?
Sure, as the game master you can say "Okay, the rules state you can do this, go ahead." But as the game master it's also your job to look at the big picture. The players don't know the political situation, you do. They don't know what is going on two kingdoms over, you do. They don't know about the hidden threats that haven't become big enough to attract their attention yet. You do. And the players don't have control over how the populous reacts to the drastic changes the players want to implement. You do.
Maybe for all their good intentions, the players end up setting themselves up as the next "evil dictators". Or maybe the ruler they approach flat out isn't interested in revolutionizing how to make the wheel.
@Aelryinth, you say "GM says" isn't a valid reasoning for why something does or doesn't happen. But what do you think the GM's job is? Especially when the GM is creating the adventures, or maybe building their own world from the ground up?
What is the benefit of level 0 over level 1 with an NPC class?Unlike D+D, there is no level zero.
Level 0 was what AD&D 1.0 had instead of a Commoner NPC class level 1 character, except that this was also used for "men-at-arms". Non-martial level 0 characters had a to-hit penalty relative to "men-at-arms". On the occasion that AD&D 1.x needed something like a somewhat above 0 level NPC class, they gave the NPCs monster hit dice (the 2 Hit Dice Thug example comes to mind).
Unlike D+D, there is no level zero.
I know... I'm asking what the benefit to having level zeroes instead of level 1 with NPC classes would be.
Fortuitous, you're ignoring many of the implications from the system.
And well one should. Because unless it's integral to the story that the players and GMs are writing, who cares two coppers for many of these so-called implications.
This is a game of heroic fantasy, not Papers and Paychecks world simulation. You want simulation, boot up Sim City, or Civilisation, Pathfinder has never been in that venue, and by all accounts no has ever claimed it should be.
Does anyone care that Star Trek's warp drive doesn't work, can not work, and isn't based on any more science than Intelligent Deisgn is?
Or the sheer absurdity of a time machine that takes the form of a London Police Box?
What you seem to be forgetting is the crucial skill of enjoying many stories.... the suspension of disbelief.
Does anyone care that Star Trek's warp drive doesn't work, can not work, and isn't based on any more science than Intelligent Deisgn is?
Interestingly, while Star Trek's warp drive isn't based on science... a real theoretical method of FTL is based on Star Trek's warp drive do it could theoretically work.
What you seem to be forgetting is the crucial skill of enjoying many stories.... the suspension of disbelief.
The point of this thread is to explain how the fantasy setting doesn't have growing technology within the rules. Fiating it away Can work, but not for the purposes of this thread.
No, at this point the aim of the thread is to find The Rule that Aelryinth is looking for - the one that definitively prevents a magitech explosion from happening.
Like everyone has said, 'there ain't one in the rulebooks.' The writers of 3.5e and Pathfinder have clearly believed that such things as 'Rule #0', 'worldbuilding', 'story conceptualization', 'reality checks', 'logical social evolution', 'genre tropes', and 'basic sense of theme' were enough to keep such a thing from occurring. For the most part, they're right - for the most part, they haven't ever needed to say 'yo, dude, this is an approximation, you can't apply every rule to every sophont in the PF universe; you can't take only three days to train a 45-year-old peasant pig-farmer father of six-who-survived into a wizard', because they never thought someone would be trying to prove that 'by the rules', you can do just that - and not only once, but on a massive scale.
After all, of COURSE everyone, even a pig farmer, is going to have the 60gp available to take the 'Become A Wizard In Just 6 Short Days' retraining course by mail, right? Even basic level NPC Commoner peasant pig farmers have 260gp worth of stuff - 50gp in weapons, 130 gp in protection, 40gp in limited-use items, and 40gp in miscellaneous gear. Sell a bit of that, and poof, 60gp for the nothing-else-required-but-the-book-and-a-week-off method. Because that's what the rules say, right there on page 454 of the main book, on Table 14-9, NPC Gear.
And as Aelryinth has shown, since there is no rule to prevent it, all you have to do is print out a book that allows someone to retrain, give every peasant a week off and heck, 60gp to do it themselves, and you have a nation of L1 wizards as fast as you can get your distribution-and-donation methods into place - because in a game, you HAVE to go by the rules, all the rules, and nothing but the rules, and only a book, page, paragraph, and line reference can prevent such a course of action from 'being logical' and automatically following, because, y'know, it's in the rules. And there's no rule you can point to that prevents it. Hell, if you did it wisely, you could do it to an entire nation of three million L1 NPCs in less than a year, with only 3,461,580 gp - because you loan the GP to your first 57,693 peons, and they pay you back at the end of the week, or better yet, pay you back and, after that, paying it forward - loaning 60 gp to two other guys down the road, because by the rules I'm sure Aelryinth can find how easily you can make 60gp in a week doing wizardly stuff, right? I mean, supply-and-demand economics isn't covered anywhere in Pathfinder; you can just automatically make that money, it's in the rules.
So really, your commoner-to-wizards transformation is going to take place ... well, wow, really damn fast. Hmmm. Back of the envelope estimations, and presuming you yourself are going to do only two loan cycles yourself ...
For a loan outlay of only 30,000gp, loaned the first and second weeks at 60 gp a pop to a measely 500 people, with the requirement for them to 'loan it forward' twice themselves, you'll take only 22 weeks to retrain the entire planet's worth of 524,288,000 L1 NPC commoners into L1 Wizards. Welcome to Wizard-World, available in every flavor of by the rules!!
Because hell, if you're gonna break the system, do it right.
I think a lot of people are still missing the point. A player should be able to do whatever they want within the rules.And this is where I fundamentally disagree.
A player should be able to do whatever they want within the rules, as long as the group is having fun with the game....
Seconded... with the clarification that "The Group" includes the GM.
Additionally, I'd call to mind the fact that the players control Player Characters, not Non-Player Characters who are exclusively in the control of the GM only. The exception arguably being the Leadership feat, but even then they're still NPCs who assist you and the feat description never states they're under the Player's control - thus by default the GM controls them too.
So by the written rules a farmer (essentially a GM character) can retrain to a wizard. But the players cannot make it happen anymore than the GM (while roleplaying the BBEG) can make all the PCs retrain to Commoner levels.
The primary assumption of those advocating the mass-retraining is that "The NPCs will agree because we want them to". The secondary assumptions are: We have unlimited time to work this plan; We will have unlimited resources to achieve this; Travel and communication are sufficient to allow mass transit of people; The number we can train/fund the training of will actually make some kind of profound impact on the world. None of which can be taken as granted.
|
|
And again, so your players decide to try something crazy and bring the fantasy world up to 21st century tech as fast as they can. First of all, why are you, the GM, ignoring the environmental conditions that would prevent this from happening? "There's no rule that says they can't" is a bunch of bull. There doesn't NEED to be a specific rule stopping this from happening. You as the game master have to decide if it'll be allowed to work or not. You the game master decide how and why it fails, if you deemed it not to work.
If you're not using your judgment and actually portraying the world's reactions to what the players are doing, then you aren't really the game master are you? You're just some passive observer watching as the players control the world for you.
No, at this point the aim of the thread is to find The Rule that Aelryinth is looking for - the one that definitively prevents a magitech explosion from happening.
Like everyone has said, 'there ain't one in the rulebooks.' The writers of 3.5e and Pathfinder have clearly believed that such things as 'Rule #0', 'worldbuilding', 'story conceptualization', 'reality checks', 'logical social evolution', 'genre tropes', and 'basic sense of theme' were enough to keep such a thing from occurring. For the most part, they're right - for the most part, they haven't ever needed to say 'yo, dude, this is an approximation, you can't apply every rule to every sophont in the PF universe; you can't take only three days to train a 45-year-old peasant pig-farmer father of six-who-survived into a wizard', because they never thought someone would be trying to prove that 'by the rules', you can do just that - and not only once, but on a massive scale.
After all, of COURSE everyone, even a pig farmer, is going to have the 60gp available to take the 'Become A Wizard In Just 6 Short Days' retraining course by mail, right? Even basic level NPC Commoner peasant pig farmers have 260gp worth of stuff - 50gp in weapons, 130 gp in protection, 40gp in limited-use items, and 40gp in miscellaneous gear. Sell a bit of that, and poof, 60gp for the nothing-else-required-but-the-book-and-a-week-off method. Because that's what the rules say, right there on page 454 of the main book, on Table 14-9, NPC Gear.
And as Aelryinth has shown, since there is no rule to prevent it, all you have to do is print out a book that allows someone to retrain, give every peasant a week off and heck, 60gp to do it themselves, and you have a nation of L1 wizards as fast as you can get your distribution-and-donation methods into place - because in a game, you HAVE to go by the rules, all the rules, and nothing but the rules, and only a book, page, paragraph, and line reference can prevent such a course of action from 'being logical' and automatically...
wyrm's snarkiness and finger-pointing aside, he's pretty much summed up the thread.
There is no rule preventing a magitech explosion - there are basically only rules that encourage aspects of it. Basically you either have tacit player willingness not to push the rules, or GM fiat specifically countermanding the rules so it does not happen.
Oh, and you can't train all the peasants to wizards, as you still need 10 int to learn cantrips, and 11 int to learn level 1 spells. However, that 45 year old pig farmer actually has a better chance then his kids do, because, like our dear iconic Ezren, he's got a +1 to Int from age.
Paizo has also said that wizrdry is completely non reliant on magical heritage, unlike sorcery. It is wizrdry because you figure out how the universe works, not because of innate power inside you.
I like the loan example, because that is how money works in real life: earn and spend, borrow and loan, keeping money circulating. Hoarding money is what kills economies, I.e. dragons and misers.
Lastly, it does n't take years to train someone for a profession. Our own society proves that. It takes years to be a master, yes, but you can teach a willing kid basic proficency in a semester in a music instrument, and an adult who focused on nothying else can pick up essentials of a profession very quickly.
What takes time is instilling basic knowledge, focus and discipline. Compared to how long it can take a kid to master grammar and vocabulary in a new language to an adult, or just take it down to essentials.
And that's in a world wiithout magic, where 'experience', the magivc of learning, accelerates the process unbelievably, to the point you can learn things without actually having to study them.
Having a teacher, this would naturally work even faster.
In the battle between realistic tropes and fun, PF usually comes down on the side of fun. People being able to learn at incredible speed is the same kind of sacrifice to fun as women being as strong as men, being able to fall 100 feet onto concrete and walk away, and being able to live through a flamethrower that could melt steel...which any character with levels and hit points and saves and stats can do, not even using 'magic'.
So,gm fiat, change the rules, or politely do not push them, because the rules are not againsr magitech in the slightest.
==Aelryinth
Innate power is sorceror. Anyone with int can technically be a wizard. No magical heritage needed.
Well, james jacobs and sutters have mentioned it in response to other questioners, but its not explcitly and precisely laid out in the rules, no. Its more a case of the rules not saying you need magical talent, and paizo's intentions, more then anything.
saying you need natural magical ability to be a wizard is filling in a classic trope where there is none in the rules.
==Aelryinth
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player characters are kind of an exception that proves the rule. When you make a level 1 wizard it's assumed you took years learning to that point either in a magic academy or as an apprentice to another wizard. You didn't just pick up a book called "So you want to be a wizard" and read it for a week.
The level 1 alchemist spent a lot of time learning their craft up until that point.
The level 1 sorcerer spent time mastering their innate magic. Possibly a lot of time.
The level 1 rogue (unchained or otherwise) didn't just pick up a set of thieves tools and figure out how to be stealthy, pick locks, and disarm traps in a week. He or she worked at it for a while, maybe even was an apprentice. Might even have started out as a pickpocket as a child.
How long do you really think it took that fighter or paladin to master all those weapons and how to use all those armors? Picking up and swinging a sword is not the same as being proficient in using it. There's a reason the crossbow became a more common weapon on the battle field then the longbow. It was easier to teach conscripts to use a crossbow then a longbow. There's a reason the rank and file soldier was given spears instead of a sword. The spear took far less time to master.
And even then, the player character isn't learning new skills out of the blue. It's assumed you've been practicing your skills or any new trick (feat, class ability) during down time. You know, the periods of travel or hanging around someplace the game it's self isn't actually covering? You might take a couple months on ship to get to a destination. What did you do during those 2 months? Why, you practiced skills you haven't perfected yet.
Pf also has rules that you can train an npc from commoner to any other class to a week...or do the same for yourself.
Fun is magic=bends reality = trains veryfast once you have the basics.
Yes, this means your 14 year old barbarian can retrain to level1 wizard and be younger then any of those studying to be lvl1 wizards. Literacy is overrated.
==Aelryinth
Certainly you mean 'if you use the core rules as printed', not 'abusing corner cases'. There's no need to discover odd rules combos. It is all just right there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Lastly, it does n't take years to train someone for a profession. Our own society proves that. It takes years to be a master, yes, but you can teach a willing kid basic proficency in a semester in a music instrumen {. . .}
If you had to listen to an average kid (not the rare potential next Mozart) playing on a violin after just 1 semester of training, you might want to reconsider this statement . . . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
lots of stuffDude, you could have avoided the whole wall of text above by simply saying 'GM FIAT SAYS NO.'
Because that's basically all your post is saying. Chuck logic and allowed and defined game mechanics, the GM says 'per worldbuilding, I have decided it won't work.'
Which is, of corse, completely outside the bounds of the discussion. If Rule 0 was the answer to all problems, there'd be no problems.
==Aelryinth
Except Rule 0 is the answer to a lot of the problems, especially the ones on this thread. "Hey Mr. GM, I want to train the world's population to be wizards."
Long Silence.
"Why? No, wait, I don't want to know. No."
This entire bit of "well, the rules say blah" is, at best, a joke. The rules are not designed for this little experiment. The rules are designed for people to play adventurers and do adventuring things. There isn't much of an economy, there isn't much on world building and the ramifications of a magitech society, and there isn't much on "Hey, let's train everyone to be wizards for lols."
Bludgeoning people with your interpretation of the rules -- and that is what it is -- is no better than saying "No via GM Fiat."
It's really, really simple. Does your table want this? Then go forth and have fun. Does your table not want this? Better luck next time.
lots of stuffDude, you could have avoided the whole wall of text above by simply saying 'GM FIAT SAYS NO.'
Because that's basically all your post is saying. Chuck logic and allowed and defined game mechanics, the GM says 'per worldbuilding, I have decided it won't work.'
Which is, of corse, completely outside the bounds of the discussion. If Rule 0 was the answer to all problems, there'd be no problems.
==Aelryinth
Except Rule 0 is the answer to a lot of the problems, especially the ones on this thread. "Hey Mr. GM, I want to train the world's population to be wizards."
Long Silence.
"Why? No, wait, I don't want to know. No."
This entire bit of "well, the rules say blah" is, at best, a joke. The rules are not designed for this little experiment. The rules are designed for people to play adventurers and do adventuring things. There isn't much of an economy, there isn't much on world building and the ramifications of a magitech society, and there isn't much on "Hey, let's train everyone to be wizards for lols."
Bludgeoning people with your interpretation of the rules -- and that is what it is -- is no better than saying "No via GM Fiat."
It's really, really simple. Does your table want this? Then go forth and have fun. Does your table not want this? Better luck next time.
Nicely said. I expect there is a 0% chance that Aelryinth will listen to this, given that it's been stated over and over in this thread. But I appreciate your patience.
Ugh, rule zero isn't an answer. It's a cheat code.
Ugh, rule zero isn't an answer. It's a cheat code.
It is as much, or as little, a "cheat code" as using "but the rules say X!" as an excuse or argument to get your way.
Both methods tend to avoid a troublesome aspect of gaming: dealing with other people. GMs tend to dislike having the boat rocked when someone gets "creative" with the rules, and players tend to dislike the word No.
Communication long before it gets to that point is really the only solution. If your GM and/or the rest of the table isn't down with your plan, whatever it may be, no one is going to have fun. No matter what the book says or you believe it says, no matter what James Jacobs said on his thread, no matter if the Great Holy Cow comes down and tells you that yes, moo, you are totally right and everyone else is a meanie.
One person's fun isn't always everyone's fun.
It is as much, or as little, a "cheat code" as using "but the rules say X!" as an excuse or argument to get your way.
Both methods tend to avoid a troublesome aspect of gaming: dealing with other people. GMs tend to dislike having the boat rocked when someone gets "creative" with the rules, and players tend to dislike the word No.
Communication long before it gets to that point is really the only solution. If your GM and/or the rest of the table isn't down with your plan, whatever it may be, no one is going to have fun. No matter what the book says or you believe it says, no matter what James Jacobs said on his thread, no matter if the Great Holy Cow comes down and tells you that yes, moo, you are totally right and everyone else is a meanie.
One person's fun isn't always everyone's fun.
I never suggested that anyone should ignore other peoples fun when it comes to Any aspect of Pathfinder or any other roleplaying game. That doesn't change the fact it is not an answer to the question, you're just ignoring the question. Please do not "strawman" me, it is very rude and unnecessary in this discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never suggested that anyone should ignore other peoples fun when it comes to Any aspect of Pathfinder or any other roleplaying game. That doesn't change the fact it is not an answer to the question, you're just ignoring the question. Please do not "strawman" me, it is very rude and unnecessary in this discussion.It is as much, or as little, a "cheat code" as using "but the rules say X!" as an excuse or argument to get your way.
Both methods tend to avoid a troublesome aspect of gaming: dealing with other people. GMs tend to dislike having the boat rocked when someone gets "creative" with the rules, and players tend to dislike the word No.
Communication long before it gets to that point is really the only solution. If your GM and/or the rest of the table isn't down with your plan, whatever it may be, no one is going to have fun. No matter what the book says or you believe it says, no matter what James Jacobs said on his thread, no matter if the Great Holy Cow comes down and tells you that yes, moo, you are totally right and everyone else is a meanie.
One person's fun isn't always everyone's fun.
For you rule zero doesn't answer the question. For other people it settles the matter quite well. Your mileage may vary, expect table variation.
As far as rudeness goes, as an aside, implying that something is a cheat is also rude. If you felt strawmanned I apologize.
For you rule zero doesn't answer the question. For other people it settles the matter quite well. Your mileage may vary, expect table variation.
As far as rudeness goes, as an aside, implying that something is a cheat is also rude. If you felt strawmanned I apologize.
It was not my intention to be rude with the cheat code thing... allow me to restate my position.
Rule zero can settle the matter without question, as that is basically the point of rule zero so things undefined or contrary the rules can be maintained to help the games flow, themes and the enjoyment of the players (including gamesmaster).
But settling the matter doesn't necessary answer the question. If a student asks a science teacher a geography question, a teacher is well within their rights to say "Unfortunately, that is off topic and not the subject of this lesson." But the question remains unanswered.
Does that make sense?
Nicely said. I expect there is a 0% chance that Aelryinth will listen to this, given that it's been stated over and over in this thread. But I appreciate your patience.lots of stuffDude, you could have avoided the whole wall of text above by simply saying 'GM FIAT SAYS NO.'
Because that's basically all your post is saying. Chuck logic and allowed and defined game mechanics, the GM says 'per worldbuilding, I have decided it won't work.'
Which is, of corse, completely outside the bounds of the discussion. If Rule 0 was the answer to all problems, there'd be no problems.
==Aelryinth
Except Rule 0 is the answer to a lot of the problems, especially the ones on this thread. "Hey Mr. GM, I want to train the world's population to be wizards."
Long Silence.
"Why? No, wait, I don't want to know. No."
This entire bit of "well, the rules say blah" is, at best, a joke. The rules are not designed for this little experiment. The rules are designed for people to play adventurers and do adventuring things. There isn't much of an economy, there isn't much on world building and the ramifications of a magitech society, and there isn't much on "Hey, let's train everyone to be wizards for lols."
Bludgeoning people with your interpretation of the rules -- and that is what it is -- is no better than saying "No via GM Fiat."
It's really, really simple. Does your table want this? Then go forth and have fun. Does your table not want this? Better luck next time.
since he's ignoring the question the entire thread is based on with his flip answer that everyone already knew, I suspect you are correct.
I was merely pointing out the rules and how they work. Note I did not get into eternally revolving loans to fund all this, which is again pure gm fiat and not in the rules...although it was amusing to read.
Blaming me for what the rules read as 'my interpretation' is pretty funny too.
The rules are both an abstraction and an approximation; they are there so that your one or three or five or twenty-five players (the last of which game I have participated in) can expect to interact with a world - a world which is otherwise not created by the rules. In order for there to be a pig farmer for you to loan 60gp for a couple weeks - because, Bob Bob Bob, 3 days is for being retrained by someone, but if you are retraining alone (which is the idea I put out) the time required doubles, and so the cost required doubles as well - anyhow, in order for there to be a pig farmer to whom you can loan that 60gp, Rule #0 comes into effect. Only the GM's guidance, which is Rule #0 based, says that the Pig Farmer is there; since Rule #0 comes into play, that means you have to play by it. If you're going to do away with Rule #0 entirely, as Aelryinth wishes to do, then the only NPCs that exist in the world are those that are written up in the rules.
Good effin' luck then.