How to annoy an Arcane Archer

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

WDS

2009-03-12 14:24:20 UTC

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Yeah. Most combo caster/non-caster classes look good on paper but
don;t work out very well in the long run.

Matthew Miller

2009-03-14 00:33:58 UTC

Post by WDS

Post by David Lamb
On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Yeah. Most combo caster/non-caster classes look good on paper but
don;t work out very well in the long run.

This one is particularly bad since it comes with _no_ spell progression.
This means that forget about keeping up with the spellcasters, and you're
behind the straight fighter classes too because you've given up at least 1
BAB in exchange for some very limited abilities.

It would be much more valuable in a magic-item-scarce campaign, because
the doesn't-stack-with-magic-weapons arrow enhancement you get.

--
Matthew Miller

Mad Hamish

2009-03-14 02:28:47 UTC

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:33:58 -0500, Matthew Miller

Post by Matthew Miller

Post by WDS

Post by David Lamb
On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Yeah. Most combo caster/non-caster classes look good on paper but
don;t work out very well in the long run.

This one is particularly bad since it comes with _no_ spell progression.
This means that forget about keeping up with the spellcasters, and you're
behind the straight fighter classes too because you've given up at least 1
BAB in exchange for some very limited abilities.
It would be much more valuable in a magic-item-scarce campaign, because
the doesn't-stack-with-magic-weapons arrow enhancement you get.

Worked better in 3.0 where magic arrows did stack with bows...

--
"Hope is replaced by fear and dreams by survival, most of us get by."
Stuart Adamson 1958-2001

Mad Hamish
Hamish Laws
***@iinet.unspamme.net.au

Ubiquitous

2009-03-17 09:08:37 UTC

Post by Matthew Miller

Post by WDS
Yeah. Most combo caster/non-caster classes look good on paper but
don;t work out very well in the long run.

I thought the AA had his own spell list and progression.

--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

Matthew Miller

2009-03-19 21:53:36 UTC

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by Matthew Miller
This one is particularly bad since it comes with _no_ spell progression.
This means that forget about keeping up with the spellcasters, and you're
behind the straight fighter classes too because you've given up at least 1
BAB in exchange for some very limited abilities.

I thought the AA had his own spell list and progression.

Not that I've ever seen. Making one up might be a decent house rule.

--
Matthew Miller

2009-03-13 18:19:04 UTC

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening,

After reading the rules again I think it won't.
The AA special arrows are created by spell-like abilities.
Deflect and Snatch Arrows doesn't work on ranged attacks created by
spell effects...

Post by David Lamb
I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Never played an AA, but he looks weak. If he could use his
arrows more often than once per day each, it would be ok perhaps.

LL

K***@gmail.com

2009-03-16 04:54:32 UTC

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

I disagree. We have an AA in our party. He does have a bow of
speed...but with his to-hits and damage, pretty much its not worthin
moving melee fighters in anymore. He takes out most monsters in a
round or two.

Granted, I think the DM doesn't...plan...around him. If I were a bad
guy, I'd close with the AA and sunder his bow.

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-01 14:51:36 UTC

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Correct. Arcane Archers are a terrible class. The term 'Cleric Archer'
was originally coined by a 3.0 demonstration of a random Cleric with
Divine Power and Greater Magic Weapon being a better archer than the
archer (while also doing many other things). It has since expanded to
include all instances of where the class features of 'x' are so
horribly weak that they are casually duplicated by a caster, if not
exceeded. A plain Wizard would also be better at it.

David Lamb

2009-04-03 14:08:19 UTC

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Correct. Arcane Archers are a terrible class. ... It has since expanded to
include all instances of where the class features of 'x' are so
horribly weak that they are casually duplicated by a caster

I've played in non-DnD games where this happened -- the magic rules
pretty much guaranteed that casters could invade any niche they wanted
and everybody else was irrelevant -- and if there were some niche they
couldn't invade today, somebody would create the right spell for it
tomorrow.

I don't see why people think this is fun, except when the game was
intended from the beginning to be "mages rule" like in Ars Magica. I
mean, I know people do, but I just don't understand it.

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-03 14:19:45 UTC

Post by David Lamb
I've played in non-DnD games where this happened -- the magic rules
pretty much guaranteed that casters could invade any niche they wanted
and everybody else was irrelevant -- and if there were some niche they
couldn't invade today, somebody would create the right spell for it
tomorrow.
I don't see why people think this is fun, except when the game was
intended from the beginning to be "mages rule" like in Ars Magica. I
mean, I know people do, but I just don't understand it.

While this statement is true, the issue is more 'Fighters Do Not Get
Nice Things' as most of the Arcane Archer features could seriously be
replaced by a 1/day Greater Magic Weapon with a CL equal to your
current HD. There are certainly worse examples. For example, the
entire list of Soulknife class features is 'has a short sword'. Except
that anyone can have a short sword, most people will have better
weapons, and said people are not expected to give up basically
everything else just to have a thing to hit the other thing with.
Nearly every non caster option is similar. It would be significantly
more difficult to casually duplicate features if said features were
actually worth a damn.

David Lamb

2009-04-03 15:10:42 UTC

Post by David Lamb
I don't see why people think this is fun, except when the game was
intended from the beginning to be "mages rule" like in Ars Magica. I
mean, I know people do, but I just don't understand it.

A useful clarification, but I see FDNGNT as a special case of the same
general problem, one I'm not sure how to name. I happened to say "mages
rule" because that's what was on my mind but that is just another
special case. Perhaps I should call it "magic trumps all?" I want a
game where magic is significant but not overpowering, and keep naively
hoping I can fiddle with D&D to get it.

Kyle Wilson

2009-04-03 14:43:05 UTC

Post by LL
First level human Ftr with Dex 15 robs capstone ability of 10th
level AA! Every time!!

On the other hand even without this happening, I've heard lots of
players say AA is a seriously weak PrC.

Correct. Arcane Archers are a terrible class. ... It has since expanded to
include all instances of where the class features of 'x' are so
horribly weak that they are casually duplicated by a caster

I've played in non-DnD games where this happened -- the magic rules
pretty much guaranteed that casters could invade any niche they wanted
and everybody else was irrelevant -- and if there were some niche they
couldn't invade today, somebody would create the right spell for it
tomorrow.
I don't see why people think this is fun, except when the game was
intended from the beginning to be "mages rule" like in Ars Magica. I
mean, I know people do, but I just don't understand it.

I've been wondering lately whether you could build an interesting D&D
3.5 variant on the idea that all classes at higher levels are doing
some sort of magic. Really high powered (certainly above 10th
level...probably before that) PCs wind up doing things that are
clearly not possible without some sort of superhuman boost. Adding in
explicit magic there (fighter can cleave through blocks of steel,
rogue can open locks that are totally encased in adamantium...) would
make some sense I think.

This would imply that some of these high-end abilities would be
suppressed in anti-magic fields (and other similar effects). I would
not expect that most would be affected by magic resistance as the
sorts of things that I'd think would make sense are largely
'internal'. This would likely morph the baseline fighter in the
direction of the Bo9S classes and thus might not be worth the effort.

I've seen plenty of people who hate the Vancian magic system (I used
to, long ago) but I've personally found it to be a very serviceable
mechanism for doling out a mix of power levels in limited quantities
to players. I'd be inclined to look as something similar for classes
that aren't dedicated casters. Provide a number of 'slots' per day
for abilities of varying power levels that are handled in a similar
way to spells, but are largely based on 'internal' mojo.

A mix of sorcerer and wizard style (pre chosen and on the fly) would
make sense to me. Have monks and rogues prep their tricks in the
morning from a broad list of options while fighters get to choose a
more limited palette but can pull from it as convenient. This should
permit 3.5e to support a broader range of power options for these
classes, keep the 'resource management' aspect of the game intact and
allow adding extra 'crunch' on a limited basis to these classes.

Using the 'rational slotted approach to managing the extras might also
help to differentiate them from the new classes in Bo9S and similar
books.

This could also be used to bolster types like the Arcane Archer by
providing a range of 'spell-like', slotted abilities that other
classes don't get (I'd think something like Green Arrow from the
comics, but with the ability to imbue a limited number of otherwise
normal arrows with special mojo each day).

I, unfortunately, don't have the time of the play test resources to
mess around with something like this, but I thought that I toss it out
as an idea here...and then hunker down and wrap myself in flame-proof
cloth...

--

Kyle Wilson
email: ***@wilson.mv.com

Ubiquitous

2009-03-17 09:11:00 UTC

Post by LL
Take the feats Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows.

What's that 2nd level Sorcerer/Wizard spell that immunizes one against missile
weapons?

Arandor

2009-03-17 16:12:49 UTC

Post by Ubiquitous

Post by LL
Take the feats Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows.

What's that 2nd level Sorcerer/Wizard spell that immunizes one against missile
weapons?
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.

That's a completely, utterly, totally sucky and useless spell. IMNSHO,
of course.

/Protection from Arrows/ gives you DR 10/magic against arrows, sling
stones, crossbow bolts, etc.

I am *not* worried about anybody who is not wielding a magic weapon.
If he *is*... then this spell just became utterly useless. D'oh!

Big ball drop, there.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Jim Davies

2009-03-17 23:23:06 UTC

Post by Arandor
That's a completely, utterly, totally sucky and useless spell. IMNSHO,
of course.
/Protection from Arrows/ gives you DR 10/magic against arrows, sling
stones, crossbow bolts, etc.
I am *not* worried about anybody who is not wielding a magic weapon.
If he *is*... then this spell just became utterly useless. D'oh!
Big ball drop, there.

Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.

Arandor

2009-03-18 08:30:26 UTC

Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff onhttp://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and sohttp://www.aaargh.orgdoesn't work.

Not even that. With 200 goblins, you're looking at 10 critical threats
*per* *round*. And wizkiddos don't tend to have very high ACs (they
usually try to get away by range, invisibility, and other spells).

In case you didn't notice, to add insult to injury, it's also
*ablative*. After so many points, it's *gone*.

So even the ones that don't get through your DR will steadily *plink*
away your 'handy' *cough* spell.

Nope, still utterly useless. Nothing to see here, carry on.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Jim Davies

2009-03-18 23:57:10 UTC

Post by Arandor
/Protection from Arrows/ gives you DR 10/magic against arrows, sling
stones, crossbow bolts, etc.

Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Not even that. With 200 goblins, you're looking at 10 critical threats
*per* *round*. And wizkiddos don't tend to have very high ACs (they
usually try to get away by range, invisibility, and other spells).
In case you didn't notice, to add insult to injury, it's also
*ablative*. After so many points, it's *gone*.
So even the ones that don't get through your DR will steadily *plink*
away your 'handy' *cough* spell.
Nope, still utterly useless. Nothing to see here, carry on.

200 gobins is an EL-breaking number, but it's somewhere in the area of
EL 8-10, suggesting that a) your wizard is around that level and b) he
has at least some AC boosters. Even if those goblins do all shoot the
wizard rather than the other 3 party members so that they're getting
all those hits, he's going to be quite glad of the 80 damage it's
saved him.

Simply put, it triples the wizard's hp against nonmagic missiles. It
lasts for hours so you can cast it well in advance. Seems OK to me. If
the 3rd level gestalt Clr/Sorc had used this against the manticore in
the thread down there, he'd still be alive.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.

Arandor

2009-03-19 08:30:29 UTC

Post by Arandor
/Protection from Arrows/ gives you DR 10/magic against arrows, sling
stones, crossbow bolts, etc.

Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Not even that. With 200 goblins, you're looking at 10 critical threats
*per* *round*. And wizkiddos don't tend to have very high ACs (they
usually try to get away by range, invisibility, and other spells).
In case you didn't notice, to add insult to injury, it's also
*ablative*. After so many points, it's *gone*.
So even the ones that don't get through your DR will steadily *plink*
away your 'handy' *cough* spell.
Nope, still utterly useless. Nothing to see here, carry on.

200 gobins is an EL-breaking number, but it's somewhere in the area of
EL 8-10, suggesting that a) your wizard is around that level and b) he
has at least some AC boosters. Even if those goblins do all shoot the
wizard rather than the other 3 party members so that they're getting
all those hits, he's going to be quite glad of the 80 damage it's
saved him.
Simply put, it triples the wizard's hp against nonmagic missiles. It
lasts for hours so you can cast it well in advance. Seems OK to me. If
the 3rd level gestalt Clr/Sorc had used this against the manticore in
the thread down there, he'd still be alive.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff onhttp://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and sohttp://www.aaargh.orgdoesn't work.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

So, you need EL-breaking numbers, and non-magic missiles (and unless
your GM is especially fond of using incredible amounts of non-magic
flunkies, that ain't gonna happen).

So, the circumstances have to be skewed in the favor of a spell for it
to work.

Nah. Thanks. A spell that requires your GM to work with you does not
seem OK to me. There are better ways to defend yourself, and spells
that are more all-round.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Harold Groot

2009-03-21 07:27:16 UTC

Post by Arandor
/Protection from Arrows/ gives you DR 10/magic against arrows, sling
stones, crossbow bolts, etc.

Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Not even that. With 200 goblins, you're looking at 10 critical threats
*per* *round*. And wizkiddos don't tend to have very high ACs (they
usually try to get away by range, invisibility, and other spells).
In case you didn't notice, to add insult to injury, it's also
*ablative*. After so many points, it's *gone*.
So even the ones that don't get through your DR will steadily *plink*
away your 'handy' *cough* spell.
Nope, still utterly useless. Nothing to see here, carry on.

200 gobins is an EL-breaking number, but it's somewhere in the area of
EL 8-10, suggesting that a) your wizard is around that level and b) he
has at least some AC boosters. Even if those goblins do all shoot the
wizard rather than the other 3 party members so that they're getting
all those hits, he's going to be quite glad of the 80 damage it's
saved him.
Simply put, it triples the wizard's hp against nonmagic missiles. It
lasts for hours so you can cast it well in advance. Seems OK to me. If
the 3rd level gestalt Clr/Sorc had used this against the manticore in
the thread down there, he'd still be alive.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

So, you need EL-breaking numbers, and non-magic missiles (and unless
your GM is especially fond of using incredible amounts of non-magic
flunkies, that ain't gonna happen).
So, the circumstances have to be skewed in the favor of a spell for it
to work.
Nah. Thanks. A spell that requires your GM to work with you does not
seem OK to me. There are better ways to defend yourself, and spells
that are more all-round.
--
Cheers,
Arandor

So much depends on whether you know what the likely threat will be
from. In our current game, our group of 9th level PCs recently had to
get across a large open space. This space was being watched over by
manticores - at least a half-dozen, maybe more. We didn't know this
the first time through and took a lot of damage. (This was
underground, they were a long ways away, we were in a lit area and
they weren't. We couldn't see them, but they could see us.) When we
later went through the same area with PROTECTION FROM ARROWS on
everyone we took very little damage.

Granted, INVISIBILITY on everyone would have worked, as well as other
tactics. With PROTECTION FROM ARROWS, however, the protection that
remained after our transit of the area lasted another 9 hours - and we
had the option of firing back if we wished. INVISIBILITY wouldn't let
us fire back, and even if we didn't it would gone in 9 minutes. So in
those circumstances PROTECTION FROM ARROWS was the better choice. For
general "Who knows what we'll find in the dungeon" circumstances
INVISIBILTY is generally better.

I'll grant you, if you got started on the 1E spell PROTECTION FROM
NORMAL MISSILES it's a big comedown. Still, that was a 3rd level
spell instead of a 2nd and at 9th level it only lasted an hour and a
half instead of 9 hours. But during that time you got complete
protection. (Of course, back then a single DARKNESS spell would have
meant the manticores would have been unable to see us. Now it just
means a 20% chance to miss.)

Every edition makes changes. Each time it seems many seem reasonable,
some seem arbitrary, and a few seem counter to sanity. If you'd like
to return the old PROTECTION FROM NORMAL MISSILES to the
Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in your campaign as a House Rule, that's up
to your group. (Or if it seems overpowered at 3rd level, maybe make
it 4th level.)

JOanna Rowland-Stuart

2009-03-21 18:17:00 UTC

Post by Harold Groot
If you'd like
to return the old PROTECTION FROM NORMAL MISSILES

I've always allowed magic-using PC's to research new spells - even if it's just to
counter the weakening of spells in new editions. This is a good way for them to use
up accumulated treasure (and possibly even some XP for a rare and unusual spell).

On the other hand, just let a player find a Protection from Normal Missiles scroll
that they can memorise or copy into their spell book. Make it 3rd level.

One can even allow an Invulnerability to Missiles spell with Greater, and Lesser
variants to protect the target against ALL missiles (including magical ones), with
the Greater Invulnerability affording protection against massive boulders or
falling houses. All it needs a suitable level assigned to it.

Likewise Protection from Weapons, etc.

I always allow a magic-using PC to learn any scroll they find (assuming they make
the appropriate roll to learn the spell and do any required research) - I never
understood why one could pick up and use a Protection vs Undead scroll but never
learn to cast it as a spell in 2e.

Cheers
JOanna

Arandor

2009-03-23 10:08:28 UTC

Post by Harold Groot

Post by Arandor
/Protection from Arrows/ gives you DR 10/magic against arrows, sling
stones, crossbow bolts, etc.

Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Not even that. With 200 goblins, you're looking at 10 critical threats
*per* *round*. And wizkiddos don't tend to have very high ACs (they
usually try to get away by range, invisibility, and other spells).
In case you didn't notice, to add insult to injury, it's also
*ablative*. After so many points, it's *gone*.
So even the ones that don't get through your DR will steadily *plink*
away your 'handy' *cough* spell.
Nope, still utterly useless. Nothing to see here, carry on.

200 gobins is an EL-breaking number, but it's somewhere in the area of
EL 8-10, suggesting that a) your wizard is around that level and b) he
has at least some AC boosters. Even if those goblins do all shoot the
wizard rather than the other 3 party members so that they're getting
all those hits, he's going to be quite glad of the 80 damage it's
saved him.
Simply put, it triples the wizard's hp against nonmagic missiles. It
lasts for hours so you can cast it well in advance. Seems OK to me. If
the 3rd level gestalt Clr/Sorc had used this against the manticore in
the thread down there, he'd still be alive.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

So, you need EL-breaking numbers, and non-magic missiles (and unless
your GM is especially fond of using incredible amounts of non-magic
flunkies, that ain't gonna happen).
So, the circumstances have to be skewed in the favor of a spell for it
to work.
Nah. Thanks. A spell that requires your GM to work with you does not
seem OK to me. There are better ways to defend yourself, and spells
that are more all-round.
--
Cheers,
Arandor

So much depends on whether you know what the likely threat will be
from. In our current game, our group of 9th level PCs recently had to
get across a large open space. This space was being watched over by
manticores - at least a half-dozen, maybe more. We didn't know this
the first time through and took a lot of damage. (This was
underground, they were a long ways away, we were in a lit area and
they weren't. We couldn't see them, but they could see us.) When we
later went through the same area with PROTECTION FROM ARROWS on
everyone we took very little damage.
Granted, INVISIBILITY on everyone would have worked, as well as other
tactics. With PROTECTION FROM ARROWS, however, the protection that
remained after our transit of the area lasted another 9 hours - and we
had the option of firing back if we wished. INVISIBILITY wouldn't let
us fire back, and even if we didn't it would gone in 9 minutes. So in
those circumstances PROTECTION FROM ARROWS was the better choice. For
general "Who knows what we'll find in the dungeon" circumstances
INVISIBILTY is generally better.
I'll grant you, if you got started on the 1E spell PROTECTION FROM
NORMAL MISSILES it's a big comedown. Still, that was a 3rd level
spell instead of a 2nd and at 9th level it only lasted an hour and a
half instead of 9 hours. But during that time you got complete
protection. (Of course, back then a single DARKNESS spell would have
meant the manticores would have been unable to see us. Now it just
means a 20% chance to miss.)
Every edition makes changes. Each time it seems many seem reasonable,
some seem arbitrary, and a few seem counter to sanity. If you'd like
to return the old PROTECTION FROM NORMAL MISSILES to the
Wizard/Sorcerer spell list in your campaign as a House Rule, that's up
to your group. (Or if it seems overpowered at 3rd level, maybe make
it 4th level.)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It's the DR 10/magic that bothers me most. If it were DR 10/- (but
against missile fire only), it'd be OK-ish even at higher levels; at
that point I expect to run into magical arrows/bolts/whatever only.

Of course, 200+ Goblins would *still* make a pincushion out of you
(because they'll just plink away at your ablative armor), but I don't
expect a level 2 spell to save my a** when I'm lvl. 10. It's a nice
bonus if it does, though. :)

If it were *also* non-ablative, then it'd be too good for 2nd level,
but IMNSHO it would be fine for 3rd.

But as it stands... "protection from arrows", my a**. It doesn't do
diddly squat unless circumstances and/or special rules heavily weigh
in the spell's favor.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Rick Pikul

2009-03-19 04:33:40 UTC

Post by Jim Davies
Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Assuming that the Goblins hit on an 11, those crits do an average of 0.556
damage a round. Assuming they are using longbows, shortbows will never
penetrate.

Post by Arandor
In case you didn't notice, to add insult to injury, it's also
*ablative*. After so many points, it's *gone*.

And along the way it keeps one from becoming a pincushion.

Don't you think a de facto addition of 10 hp/level would be rather useful
to a Wizard or Sorcerer?

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-03-19 09:08:27 UTC

Post by Jim Davies
Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Assuming that the Goblins hit on an 11, those crits do an average of 0.556
damage a round. Assuming they are using longbows, shortbows will never
penetrate.

Their shortbows would do 3d4 damage, that can be 11 or 12, so yes,
they can penetrate. Based on that alone, a *single* Goblin with a
shortbow who happens to score a threat already does 0.04 damage (he
has 3/64 chance of doing 11 - 10 = 1 damage, and 1/64 chance of doing
12 - 10 = 2 damage, everything else is negated; meaning his expected
damage output is 0.08 *if* he confirms, which he does 50% of the time,
so 0.04). So 10 of those would do 0.4. with longbows, even more. And
damage that does not penetrate, is not *gone*! It still uses up your
ablative armor. With longbows, yes, even more damage.

Plus, how often do you see 200 goblins running around without some
kind of backup? Say, a Bard for +1 or +2 damage? (Oh so easily done.)

Post by Rick Pikul
And along the way it keeps one from becoming a pincushion.

Except that it doesn't. See below.

Post by Rick Pikul
Don't you think a de facto addition of 10 hp/level would be rather useful
to a Wizard or Sorcerer?

It it were, maybe. But it isn't. It would prevent 100 hp, max, for a
10th level Sor/Wiz. Those ~200 goblins would indeed be an EL-breaking
number, but about EL 10 is right. This lvl. 2 spell that is supposedly
the end-all, be-all, does diddly squat to save him. He is better off
picking another lvl. 2 spell... or not being there in the first place.

To use the (rather ridiculous) example of 200 goblins without a
leader, you resolve each attack separately.

You say they confirm their critical hit on 11+? Allright, that also
means they hit on 11+. Let's say, to speed up things, I roll for 20 of
them at a time. (You should do them separately, but hey, for the sake
of gameplay, let's not.)

The first 20 rolls, 10 hits. Plus one threat. That's 10d4 damage
(sure, I'll give them their small shortbows). That would do 25 damage,
but, oohh, that's your ablative armor. you have 100 - 25 = 75 left.

Another 20 rolls. Another threat, and another 25 ablative armor gone,
so 50 left.

Another 20 rolls. Another threat, and another 25 ablative armor gone.
Oops. Only 25 left. Yikes. But we're still OK.

Another 20 rolls. Aren't the goblins done yet?? No, we still have 160
Goblins left *after we resolve this batch*. Oh, and your ablative
armor just went up in smoke.

The next 20. Ouch time! And the next. And the next. And the next. And
all of this four times more.

You don't even make it through the first *round* with this sucky
spell.

Maybe try /Invisibility/ instead?
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Rick Pikul

2009-03-20 05:05:17 UTC

Post by Jim Davies
Against an Arcane Archer it is indeed useless. Against a regiment of
200 goblins it's quite handy, as befits a 2nd level spell.

Assuming that the Goblins hit on an 11, those crits do an average of 0.556
damage a round. Assuming they are using longbows, shortbows will never
penetrate.

Their shortbows would do 3d4 damage, that can be 11 or 12, so yes,
they can penetrate.

Right, my error.

Post by Rick Pikul
And along the way it keeps one from becoming a pincushion.

Except that it doesn't. See below.

Post by Rick Pikul
Don't you think a de facto addition of 10 hp/level would be rather useful
to a Wizard or Sorcerer?

Your argument falls apart right here with this false dichotomy.

No one claimed it to be a be-all and end-all. Just at about the right
usefulness for a 2nd level spell.

Do I think that it is a generally good choice for a member of an
adventuring party doing the typical party things? No.

OTOH, it would be a good choice for a mage that is going to be on a
battlefield. Especially in a game that is using the mass firing rules
from Heroes of Battle.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-03-23 10:02:17 UTC

No one claimed it to be a be-all and end-all. Just at about the right
usefulness for a 2nd level spell.

Except that it isn't. If it were DR 10/- (so not DR 10/magic) versus
missiles, allright. Then it remains *maybe* valid in higher levels. As
it stands... no, thanks. There are plenty of lvl. 2 spells that are
actually useful.

Do I think that it is a generally good choice for a member of an
adventuring party doing the typical party things? No.

So, I'm not going to waste one of my 'known' slots on it (for a
Sorcerer) or spend the gp to write it in my spellbook.

OTOH, it would be a good choice for a mage that is going to be on a
battlefield. Especially in a game that is using the mass firing rules
from Heroes of Battle.

So, again, you need special circumstances or rules to make it useful.
No thanks.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Rick Pikul

2009-03-25 02:06:12 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
Do I think that it is a generally good choice for a member of an
adventuring party doing the typical party things? No.

So, I'm not going to waste one of my 'known' slots on it (for a
Sorcerer) or spend the gp to write it in my spellbook.

I agree for the Sorc, as for the Wizard it would depend on what he tends
to encounter, (and his personality, spell collectors are not uncommon IME).

Post by Rick Pikul
OTOH, it would be a good choice for a mage that is going to be on a
battlefield. Especially in a game that is using the mass firing rules
from Heroes of Battle.

So, again, you need special circumstances or rules to make it useful.
No thanks.

A lot of spells are going to be special purpose. Remember that this is
one of those spells that owes its roots to D&D's origin in wargaming.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-03-25 09:57:54 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
I agree for the Sorc, as for the Wizard it would depend on what he tends
to encounter, (and his personality, spell collectors are not uncommon IME).

If you don't make them pay for it... sure! In that case I'll play a
Wizard with every spell known to mankind. And elfkind, and every other
kind I can think of... :)

But in most games (IME), spells cost money, time, pages in your spell
book, all valuable resources. The GM doesn't let you have *every*
spell. Just the level-up spells, and whatever else you're willing and
able to devote resources too (you need/want items, too!) I see three
kinds of spells:

- "offensive" (very broad, a spell like /Web/ is 'offensive' too
although it doesn't do damage)
- "defensive" (and hey, a spell like /Web/ can certainly be used
defensively, too)
- "utility" (riddle solvers, get-past-trap-spells, make-Rogues-look-
even-more-useless spells, etc. :)

I only pick the best in every category. /Protection from Arrows/
doesn't rank up. Buh-bye.

It's OK if a spell is fine *now*, but will become obsolete (much)
later on. Such as /Bull's Strength/: that +4 on the Fighter will be
very good, and until he can afford 16,000 gp for his Belt of Strength
+4, it's perfect. After that, the spell is obsolete but by that time,
I'm much higher level so I don't particularly care about my 2nd level
spell being obsolete.

/Protection from Arrows/ becomes too obsolete, too soon. It's too much
a corner case. There are better spells out there. So... sorry.

Post by Rick Pikul
A lot of spells are going to be special purpose. Remember that this is
one of those spells that owes its roots to D&D's origin in wargaming.

A "lot"? How many 2nd level spells does a 10th level Wizard have? 5?
10? 15? He will also want/need offensive and utility spells.

So because "it was useful back then", I now need to waste money
getting it? What... for nostalgic value?

No, thanks. Make the spell useful, or don't waste page space printing
it. Of course, IMNSHO. Obviously, YMMV, if you (the character) want to
take a spell because you (the player) knows "it has roots in D&D as
wargaming"... well, more power to you! :)

IME, most players take spells based on how good they are... unless
they can write down however many spells they want.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Rick Pikul

2009-03-26 05:09:42 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
I agree for the Sorc, as for the Wizard it would depend on what he tends
to encounter, (and his personality, spell collectors are not uncommon IME).

If you don't make them pay for it... sure! In that case I'll play a
Wizard with every spell known to mankind. And elfkind, and every other
kind I can think of... :)

What? Your characters never spend resources on things determined by their
personality? Things the characters want, rather than what makes for the
best set of numbers on a piece of paper they will never see?

You don't play guys who "party now, for tomorrow we may die"?

You don't play philanthropic types who give away more than they perhaps
should?

You don't play the truly faithful, who believe that there should be a
shrine to their goddess in every town?

I hate to be cliche, but this is a _role_-playing game that we are talking
about.

Post by Arandor
/Protection from Arrows/ becomes too obsolete, too soon. It's too much
a corner case. There are better spells out there. So... sorry.

Unless your character happens to be in that corner.

Post by Rick Pikul
A lot of spells are going to be special purpose. Remember that this is
one of those spells that owes its roots to D&D's origin in wargaming.

A "lot"? How many 2nd level spells does a 10th level Wizard have? 5? 10?
15? He will also want/need offensive and utility spells.

How many?

It depends, in a large part on the nature of the campaign world.

Post by Arandor
So because "it was useful back then", I now need to waste money getting
it? What... for nostalgic value?

No, that's why a spell designed to protect one from mundane missile
weapons is there in the first place.

If you want a good, and low risk, use for a wizard: A 1/day Protection
from Arrows item costs 3600 GP and 288 XP to make and sells for 7200 GP.
Think about how many generals and such who would like one, just so they
wouldn't have to worry about stray arrows all day.[1] Using Stoneskin for
such lasting protection would cost 62,900 GP.

[1] Not important you say? Perhaps you should ask King Harold about that
arrow he caught in his eye back in 1066, or perhaps Major General John
Sedgwick, who's supposed last words were "They couldn't hit an elephant at
this dist...."

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-03-26 09:42:01 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
What? Your characters never spend resources on things determined by their
personality? Things the characters want, rather than what makes for the
best set of numbers on a piece of paper they will never see?
You don't play guys who "party now, for tomorrow we may die"?
You don't play philanthropic types who give away more than they perhaps
should?
You don't play the truly faithful, who believe that there should be a
shrine to their goddess in every town?
I hate to be cliche, but this is a _role_-playing game that we are talking
about.

Sure. But that doesn't mean I waste resources on useless spells. I may
spend money on *interesting* spells. But not on spells that say they
do something, and don't.

Post by Rick Pikul
Unless your character happens to be in that corner.

In which case, there are better spells out there.

Post by Rick Pikul
How many?
It depends, in a large part on the nature of the campaign world.

But it isn't going to be a lot. By the time he is 10th level, he also
has 3rd, 4th and 5th level spells to worry about. Lots of interesting
spells there. Again, no need to waste resources on a spell that claims
to do something, but doesn't... unless you're in a corner case and
even then, other ways exist.

Post by Rick Pikul
No, that's why a spell designed to protect one from mundane missile
weapons is there in the first place.

And perhaps it's time for it to be removed. Sacred cows are there to
be slaughtered; traditions are there so we have something to cast
aside. :-)

Post by Rick Pikul
If you want a good, and low risk, use for a wizard: A 1/day Protection
from Arrows item costs 3600 GP and 288 XP to make and sells for 7200 GP.
Think about how many generals and such who would like one, just so they
wouldn't have to worry about stray arrows all day.

And your point is ...? You know full well item creation rules are iffy
at best and should be used with caution. Remember the /True Strike/ at
will item, which is by the rules only a couple of thousand gp? I knew
you did.

And, again, there are better spells out there. Or said general just
hides behind cover.

After all, that "lucky shot" is probably from a +1 bow. Making his
prized item utterly useless.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

JOanna Rowland-Stuart

2009-03-27 01:51:00 UTC

Post by Arandor
After all, that "lucky shot" is probably from a +1 bow. Making his
prized item utterly useless.

The *arrow* needs to be +1 or better
Any enchantment on the bow just improves accuracy, not penetration or damage.

Cheers
JOanna

Arandor

2009-03-27 09:35:41 UTC

Post by JOanna Rowland-Stuart

Post by Arandor
After all, that "lucky shot" is probably from a +1 bow. Making his
prized item utterly useless.

The *arrow* needs to be +1 or better
Any enchantment on the bow just improves accuracy, not penetration or damage.
Cheers
JOanna

In 3.0, yes. In 3.5, no.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

JOanna Rowland-Stuart

2009-03-27 20:43:00 UTC

Post by JOanna Rowland-Stuart
The *arrow* needs to be +1 or better
Any enchantment on the bow just improves accuracy, not
penetration or damage.
Cheers
JOanna

In 3.0, yes. In 3.5, no.
--
Cheers,
Arandor

Hmmm that's counter-intuitive in my view, unless the bow can somehow impart magical
properties to the arrow.

Cheers
JOanna

Matthew Miller

2009-03-28 00:28:29 UTC

Post by JOanna Rowland-Stuart

Post by JOanna Rowland-Stuart
The *arrow* needs to be +1 or better
Any enchantment on the bow just improves accuracy, not
penetration or damage.

In 3.0, yes. In 3.5, no.

Hmmm that's counter-intuitive in my view, unless the bow can somehow
impart magical properties to the arrow.

Which is _clearly_ preposterous. In the real world, a magical bow can do
lots of things, but *not that*.

--
Matthew Miller

Rick Pikul

2009-03-27 05:09:58 UTC

Sure. But that doesn't mean I waste resources on useless spells. I may
spend money on *interesting* spells. But not on spells that say they
do something, and don't.

Make up your mind: You are either willing to play characters who spend
for _absolutely no system side gain_, or you are unwilling to play
characters who spend for a suboptimal gain.

Post by Rick Pikul
Unless your character happens to be in that corner.

In which case, there are better spells out there.

Such as....

Post by Rick Pikul
How many?
It depends, in a large part on the nature of the campaign world.

Stop demanding that everyone run the same kind of world as you.

Post by Rick Pikul
No, that's why a spell designed to protect one from mundane missile
weapons is there in the first place.

And perhaps it's time for it to be removed. Sacred cows are there to
be slaughtered; traditions are there so we have something to cast
aside. :-)

Some campaigns, even today, do end up with 'on the mundane battlefield' as
a common encounter type.

Post by Rick Pikul
If you want a good, and low risk, use for a wizard: A 1/day Protection
from Arrows item costs 3600 GP and 288 XP to make and sells for 7200
GP. Think about how many generals and such who would like one, just so
they wouldn't have to worry about stray arrows all day.

And your point is ...?

To begin with: It's not only the Wizard who can be protected by the spell.

Post by Arandor
You know full well item creation rules are iffy
at best and should be used with caution. Remember the /True Strike/ at
will item, which is by the rules only a couple of thousand gp? I knew
you did.

Note how most of those abuses involve short duration spells, not ones that
last all day.

Post by Arandor
And, again, there are better spells out there. Or said general just
hides behind cover.

Hiding behind cover, real good way to improve morale and command/control
on a pre-modern style battlefield.

Post by Arandor
After all, that "lucky shot" is probably from a +1 bow. Making his
prized item utterly useless.

I chose examples that involved absolutely no magic for a reason.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-03-27 09:52:51 UTC

Make up your mind: You are either willing to play characters who spend
for _absolutely no system side gain_, or you are unwilling to play
characters who spend for a suboptimal gain.

I'll spend it on 'funny' / interesting spells. Not on spells that
claim to be good for combat, but aren't.

If I pick combat spells, I pick good ones.

Such as....

/Invisibility/, /Web/, etc.

Stop demanding that everyone run the same kind of world as you.

Stop pretending that spell has any value. :) Other than "aaw, but it's
so cute".

Some campaigns, even today, do end up with 'on the mundane battlefield' as
a common encounter type.

Again... "some". Corner case. Of course, if your campaign is heavily
into such corner cases, people will react and prepare for the corner
case. Suddenly, the spell got value. Not because the spell is so good,
but because the campaign is geared for it.

Most campaigns out there do not have large scale battles and if they
do, even *if* the PCs are involved, most GMs handwaive the rest of the
battle away, and focus on what the PCs do - it becomes a skirmish
again. There, the spell is not so good.

To begin with: It's not only the Wizard who can be protected by the spell.

Get an item that's 2,500 gp. It's called 'Crystal of Arrow
Deflection'. It gives you a +5 to AC against ranged attacks. *Any*
ranged attacks. From arrow or not, mundane or not, even spells.

And it's 3 times cheaper than your item, and lasts all day. It's also
'legal' (as in, not 'made up', requiring GM permission... using item
creation rules always requires judgement).

Note how most of those abuses involve short duration spells, not ones that
last all day.

Note that, still, your item is

* 3 times as expensive as an item that will save you much more (+5 AC
is *a* *lot*, and it works against *any* ranged attack... this beats
the spell hands down)
*

Hiding behind cover, real good way to improve morale and command/control
on a pre-modern style battlefield.

That 'cover' consists of the troops - who gladly give it to him. If he
is so worried about arrows, /Protection from Arrows/ is not the way to
go.

Unlike you claim, it does *not* protect you all day.

It lasts an hour per level which is long, yes, but that starts at 3
hours. Which may, or may not, be enough to last one battle. It also
gives you only 30 hp to play with. Providing the arrows aren't magical
(or fired from a magic bow).

That item would indeed cost him: (spell level) x (caster level) x
1,800 gp for a command-activated item, if it's once per day then
that's 2,160 gp.

If he wants it at CL 10th (then it lasts 10 hours and he has the full
100 hp 'ablative'), that comes down to 7,200 gp, yes. And it's *still*
not all day long.

The crystal will cost him 2,500 gp. Comparable with the 3 hour/30 hp
version, and 3 times cheaper than the 10 hour/100 hp version. It lasts
all day, works against *all* ranged attacks, including nasty rays from
enemey spellcasters.

Which one is better? Which one will eventually save him more? I'd go
with the crystal, if I were that commander and I am worried about
ranged attacks.

I chose examples that involved absolutely no magic for a reason.

Yes, because you need a corner case. Otherwise, the spell just isn't
so good.

In a corner case, sure, I'll pick that spell. If I see my GM running
large scale battles all the time, and our party actually eating "stray
arrows", uh-huh, you can bet your a** I am going to get that spell.

But that's usually *not* *so*.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

David Lamb

2009-03-27 21:16:59 UTC

Post by Arandor
Get an item that's 2,500 gp. It's called 'Crystal of Arrow
Deflection'. It gives you a +5 to AC against ranged attacks. *Any*
ranged attacks. From arrow or not, mundane or not, even spells.

Is that from Magic Item Compendium? I've heard some people say plenty
of what's in there is too cheap for the effects you get from them.

Harold Groot

2009-03-28 10:35:41 UTC

Is that from Magic Item Compendium? I've heard some people say plenty
of what's in there is too cheap for the effects you get from them.

It's from MIC, yes. Lesser Crystal of Arrow Deflection, 2500 gp.
However, it does not appear to me to apply to spells. While it just
says "ranged attacks" under the description for a Least Crystal (which
is then referenced in the Lesser Crystal description), the wording
above all three (Least, Lesser, Greater) says that "A Crystal of Arrow
Deflection protects you from ranged weapon attacks." That's not in
italics (except for the name) so it's regular text, not flavor-text.

Being a Lesser Crystal it requires the armor be +1 or better. Looks
pretty cheap to me if you're facing missile weapons in any quantity.
Since the party my PC is in is facing missile weapons only 10% of the
time or so, it's not as attractive to me to be my default Armor
Crystal as my current Lesser Iron Ward Diamond Crystal (2000 gp) - but
having it available to swap in as needed makes for versatility (at the
cost of two full rounds of actions to complete a swap - a move action
to retrieve the new crystal, a move action to remove the old one, a
move action to put on the new one, a move action to stow away the old
one.)

Arandor

2009-03-30 09:05:55 UTC

And right underneath that is what it does:

"Least: This augment crystal grants you a +2 bonus to AC against
ranged attacks."

Doesn't have to be a weapon attack.

Being a Lesser Crystal it requires the armor be +1 or better.

No, it requires the armor (or shield; this is a /shield/ crystal) to
be masterwork or better. It does not have to be +1.

pretty cheap to me if you're facing missile weapons in any quantity.
Since the party my PC is in is facing missile weapons only 10% of the
time or so, it's not as attractive to me to be my default Armor
Crystal as my current Lesser Iron Ward Diamond Crystal (2000 gp) - but
having it available to swap in as needed makes for versatility (at the
cost of two full rounds of actions to complete a swap - a move action
to retrieve the new crystal, a move action to remove the old one, a
move action to put on the new one, a move action to stow away the old
one.)

So there's your cost. The most prohibitive cost of all: actions. :)

By the way, you can have both. The Lesser Iron Ward Diamond is an
armor crystal (so it can not go in your shield); the Crystal of Arrow
Deflection is a shield crystal (so it can not go in your armor).

So it's not helping your wizard all that much, unless he's toting
around a mithral buckler. (And why not?)
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-01 15:02:01 UTC

Is that from Magic Item Compendium? I've heard some people say plenty
of what's in there is too cheap for the effects you get from them.

Said people are incorrect. Basically, if you only want +x to y stat
items to be remotely worth a damn, you stick to the DMG, which Epic
Fails hard about... well just about everything else. If you want
actually cool and non essential magic items that are still worth
using, you use the MIC.

Also, it's just AC, so who cares?

David Lamb

2009-04-01 15:20:55 UTC

Post by David Lamb
Is that from Magic Item Compendium? I've heard some people say plenty
of what's in there is too cheap for the effects you get from them.

Hmm. Well, your statements are certainly consistent with "MIC items are
much cheaper for their value than DMG items." So people who want to
take the DMG as standard, 'cause their interests/values are different
from yours, should probably ban the MIC.

I do find MIC items kinda cool, so I imagine if I wanted to use them I'd
have to warn my players DMG items might not be worth using.

Kyle Wilson

2009-04-01 15:56:29 UTC

Post by David Lamb
Is that from Magic Item Compendium? I've heard some people say plenty
of what's in there is too cheap for the effects you get from them.

Hmm. Well, your statements are certainly consistent with "MIC items are
much cheaper for their value than DMG items." So people who want to
take the DMG as standard, 'cause their interests/values are different
from yours, should probably ban the MIC.
I do find MIC items kinda cool, so I imagine if I wanted to use them I'd
have to warn my players DMG items might not be worth using.

So far I haven't introduced the MIC into my campaign. From reading
it, I suspect that if I did, I'd want to adjust some of the prices and
only add selected items to the list.

In particular, the weapon/armor/shield crystals seem both too cheap
for the flexibility that they offer and a bit cheesy. You can get all
of the effects (no books here, so I may have missed something) by
enchanting your armor for real if you want them. These feel to me
alot like something from a MMO or PC game...

--

Kyle Wilson
email: ***@wilson.mv.com

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-01 16:19:42 UTC

Post by David Lamb
Hmm. Well, your statements are certainly consistent with "MIC items are
much cheaper for their value than DMG items." So people who want to
take the DMG as standard, 'cause their interests/values are different
from yours, should probably ban the MIC.
I do find MIC items kinda cool, so I imagine if I wanted to use them I'd
have to warn my players DMG items might not be worth using.

However the implication with the other guy's statements is that DMG
non +x to y stat items are the right price, and MIC items are too
cheap. This is false. Now if you want magic as basic tools for the
trade and nothing more, DMG alone will cover you, because the DMG at
least got the RNG (random number generator) gear right. This can be
easily confirmed with even a cursory look at the DMG items.
Particularly anything with a save DC, as by the time you can afford
it, everything you care about, that isn't immune is 95% resistant as
they can only fail on a 1.

Post by Rick Pikul
NB: You seem to be making an assumption that the only limit on what
spells a wizard gets beyond the basic 2/level is how much it would cost to
ass them to his spellbook. This is not a correct assumption in many, if
not most, campaigns.

Hmm. I'm naive on this topic; what other costs are involved? The
number of spellbooks to carry around? The need to stay friendly with
other mages so you can trade?

Post by Arandor
Actually, you said "along the way it prevents him from becoming a
pincushion". Which was demonstrably false.

Oh, and quote mining is for creationists and conspiracy nutters.

I think it's actually a common human tendency.

Either 50 or 100 gold per page. As each spell level = 1 page, 50 or
100 gold per spell level. I haven't memorized this rule, as I always
jump for a Blessed Book which lets you write for free. But it has
1,000 pages, so there are still limited resources involved. Also, you
have to get the spell. If this means getting a scroll, that is an
additional cost.

Post by David Lamb
So far I haven't introduced the MIC into my campaign. From reading
it, I suspect that if I did, I'd want to adjust some of the prices and
only add selected items to the list.
In particular, the weapon/armor/shield crystals seem both too cheap
for the flexibility that they offer and a bit cheesy. You can get all
of the effects (no books here, so I may have missed something) by
enchanting your armor for real if you want them. These feel to me
alot like something from a MMO or PC game...

If you raised the price, you would simply render the items more
useless trash/wastes of ink. There are about... 3 items, in the entire
book a serious argument could be raised against. At least one is a
beatstick item, and they need the help.

The crystals intentionally are cheaper, because the properties they
duplicate are stupidly overpriced, and would never be used by any
intelligent player otherwise. Namely things like Flaming, which are
minimum 6k on a weapon, and 3k via crystal. Also, adaptable.

Now if you want more detailed analysis, ask questions.

decalod85

2009-04-01 17:23:10 UTC

Is that from Magic Item Compendium? I've heard some people say plenty
of what's in there is too cheap for the effects you get from them.

Hmm. Well, your statements are certainly consistent with "MIC items are
much cheaper for their value than DMG items." So people who want to
take the DMG as standard, 'cause their interests/values are different
from yours, should probably ban the MIC.
I do find MIC items kinda cool, so I imagine if I wanted to use them I'd
have to warn my players DMG items might not be worth using.

So far I haven't introduced the MIC into my campaign. From reading
it, I suspect that if I did, I'd want to adjust some of the prices and
only add selected items to the list.
In particular, the weapon/armor/shield crystals seem both too cheap
for the flexibility that they offer and a bit cheesy. You can get all
of the effects (no books here, so I may have missed something) by
enchanting your armor for real if you want them. These feel to me
alot like something from a MMO or PC game...

I thought the exact same thing. The weapon crystals felt way too much
like GW, Diablo, or WOW to me. Therefore, if they appear at all, they
appear as part of a unique magic item with a unique history.

I am introducing elements from the MIC, but only the ones I want. And
you would never be able to buy any of it from a magic shop. Hell, I
am very reluctant to offer some items from the DMG at a magic shop. A
pair of +2 bracers? Sure... A holy avenger? NEVER!

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-01 17:39:09 UTC

Post by decalod85
I thought the exact same thing. The weapon crystals felt way too much
like GW, Diablo, or WOW to me. Therefore, if they appear at all, they
appear as part of a unique magic item with a unique history.
I am introducing elements from the MIC, but only the ones I want. And
you would never be able to buy any of it from a magic shop. Hell, I
am very reluctant to offer some items from the DMG at a magic shop. A
pair of +2 bracers? Sure... A holy avenger? NEVER!

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

2009-04-01 20:38:47 UTC

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Where do you get that?

When I run games without Big Magic Shop, the fighters still get nice
things.

They just don't *BUY* nice things. They find them, or their friends and
allies MAKE them. Mages like to power up their meatshields, er, good
friends the warriors.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Tetsubo

2009-04-01 20:53:49 UTC

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Where do you get that?
When I run games without Big Magic Shop, the fighters still get nice
things.
They just don't *BUY* nice things. They find them, or their friends
and allies MAKE them. Mages like to power up their meatshields, er, good
friends the warriors.

"The proper care and feeding of your meatshield..."

--
Tetsubo
----------------------------------------------
Daily Booth: http://dailybooth.com/Tetsubo
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57

Kyle Wilson

2009-04-01 21:05:18 UTC

Post by Tetsubo

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Where do you get that?
When I run games without Big Magic Shop, the fighters still get nice
things.
They just don't *BUY* nice things. They find them, or their friends
and allies MAKE them. Mages like to power up their meatshields, er, good
friends the warriors.

"The proper care and feeding of your meatshield..."

Hmmm...sounds like Ars Magica...

--

Kyle Wilson
email: ***@wilson.mv.com

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-01 22:15:04 UTC

On Apr 1, 3:38 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

Post by Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Where do you get that?
When I run games without Big Magic Shop, the fighters still get nice
things.
They just don't *BUY* nice things. They find them, or their friends and
allies MAKE them. Mages like to power up their meatshields, er, good
friends the warriors.

So now you're dependent on pity, basically. Because without
houserules, crafting is 'reduce own XP and thus power, to boost
someone else's power... who is far weaker than you, and thus results
in a collective loss in party power'. Which means any mage who can
craft literally has no incentive, ever to make anything for anyone
other than himself. Then Experience Is a River it up.

Alternately, the pity is DM based instead of other players based where
you hope the NPCs, who have less wealth than you happen to have an
item you can use, better than what you currently have. Not very
likely.

If you employ a houserule to the effect of 'beatstick can use his own
XP, to fuel the creation of items made for him' then yeah, sure, we
can do that. Do you have time for all that crafting? Because it's
going to take several YEARS to get him fully geared up. And several
more years for the caster to gear themselves. And several more years
for each other person. Do you know of any campaigns with decades of
downtime? I don't. Years sure. But not that many years.

Alternately, you can somehow convert gold into power via the medium of
magic items directly. Which saves a whole lot of headaches. And
doesn't rape verisimilitude regarding the in world economy.

Also, ignoring straw man spamming troll. You know who you are.

Harold Groot

2009-04-02 01:02:03 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
On Apr 1, 3:38 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

My cleric is the crafter in our party. While it may reduce her
personal power a bit to make magic items for others (and this is quite
debateable - see below), on the whole I feel it produces a collective
power boost to the party.

Suppose everyone in our party gets 7k in cash treasure to spend on
magic items. If they buy them at 100% book value they get 7k in
items. When my cleric joined the group she agreed to make items for
them at 70% of book price. They saw that that was equivalent to 50%
for the base materials plus the standard (per the DMG) 5 GP per XP she
spends. So each of them can get a 10k book value item. They each get
an increase of 3/7, or 42%.

Meanwhile, she gets her own 7k cash + 2k cash from 3 other orders for
a total of 13k cash. Normally that would mean she can get a item
worth 26k. That's an increase of 19/7 = 256% for her.

So all her comrades get a significant boost in magic - but she gets a
HUGE boost in magic.

The downside, of course, is twofold. First, she falls behind in XP.
1200 XP on the 3 orders from the others, 840 XP for her own item =
2040 XP. That's about 1/5th of a level. Second, those feats spent on
making magic items could have been spent on other things (like
melee-related feats). She is NOT strong in melee.

So it's a tradeoff - but I think that the party, overall, is stronger
and I think my cleric is, overall, more effective this way. I don't
get the melee-glory face time, true. She's much more effective doing
"buff the party" spells or using magic items than she would be
swinging a weapon. But individual glory is not my goal as a player.
I want the TEAM to win.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
If you employ a houserule to the effect of 'beatstick can use his own
XP, to fuel the creation of items made for him' then yeah, sure, we
can do that. Do you have time for all that crafting? Because it's
going to take several YEARS to get him fully geared up. And several
more years for the caster to gear themselves. And several more years
for each other person. Do you know of any campaigns with decades of
downtime? I don't. Years sure. But not that many years.

We are not using the houserule you mention for XP. If someone is
actually contributing something to the manufacturing process (a feat,
a spell, skills, etc.) then XP can be donated and the price my cleric
charges goes down, but the beatstick normally cannot donate XP. My
cleric loses XP compared to the others - but gains in extra magic
compared to them, and if my cleric goes down a level she gets more XP
until she has caught up. Right now we have three 10th level PCs
(including my cleric) and an 11th level PC. Of course, part of the
evenness of levels is because I haven't missed a single gaming session
while all of the rest of them miss a session now and then - but
overall this works well for us.

Time to craft is a factor, yes. I'll freely admit that most campaigns
I have played in did NOT allow enough time for crafters to make items,
so as a consequence no one took the crafting feats. In the current
campaign there is more time being allowed, so I took crafting to see
what effect it had. On the whole I recommend it - as long as crafting
time IS allowed and as long as personal glory is not your primary goal
as a player.

decalod85

2009-04-02 02:45:07 UTC

Time to craft is a factor, yes. I'll freely admit that most campaigns
I have played in did NOT allow enough time for crafters to make items,
so as a consequence no one took the crafting feats. In the current
campaign there is more time being allowed, so I took crafting to see
what effect it had. On the whole I recommend it - as long as crafting
time IS allowed and as long as personal glory is not your primary goal
as a player.

Don't forget that there is a certain satisfaction in beating the hell
out of something you made with your own two hands.

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-02 11:17:36 UTC

Post by Harold Groot
My cleric is the crafter in our party. While it may reduce her
personal power a bit to make magic items for others (and this is quite
debateable - see below), on the whole I feel it produces a collective
power boost to the party.
*snip*

You don't have to explain Experience is a River to me. I already know
about it, and as I primarily play an Artificer I am extremely familiar
with it. However, for the same reason I am well aware that just making
your own stuff out of the cash you get is enough for this - that is to
say, if you craft all your own gear, you will be 1 level behind the
others. You then either run out of resources to make anyone else's, or
have to fall further behind... and remember, if you are 2 levels lower
than the party, you are effectively a cohort. If you are 3 or more,
don't even bother coming.

It is for this reason I point out that houserule, as it is what lets
everyone else get some cheap items too. Which by the way, is essential
for beatstick functioning as they need something like... 150% WBL or
more just to meet their needs.

Arandor: Collegiate Wizard gives you 4 spells a level. Also, I don't
think they'll ever get that protection from arrows is basically
useless. You are dealing with willful ignorance after all. Luckily,
ranged attacks are very easy to make trivial, starting with the 500
gold +2 AC item (at a level when AC still matters, and it helps touch
AC in any case) and moving up to the 2,500 gold +5 AC item as above,
and then to the Ring of Entropic Deflection + Quickness armor
property. So while you're shoving it to beatsticks by moving more than
5 feet and still being relevant, all ranged attacks not fired from a
Seeking bow are missing you 50% of the time automatically. And that's
only costing you 13k. It could also be used with the crystal, above.
Just the fact you are moving means you can also basically ignore every
melee creature that isn't ToB or a Pouncer as they can only attack, at
most once... Very cheap and consistent defense there.

Arandor

2009-04-02 13:01:07 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Arandor: Collegiate Wizard gives you 4 spells a level.

Kewl. Where's that from?

Anyway, yes, that Wizard will have his 1,000 pages filled in no time
flat at that rate. :)

Post by s***@yahoo.com
5 feet and still being relevant, all ranged attacks not fired from a
Seeking bow are missing you 50% of the time automatically. And that's

Improved Precise Shot. What do you mean, miss chance? If you're going
to be an archer, be a good one. :)

Post by s***@yahoo.com
only costing you 13k. It could also be used with the crystal, above.
Just the fact you are moving means you can also basically ignore every
melee creature that isn't ToB or a Pouncer as they can only attack, at
most once... Very cheap and consistent defense there.

Dervish (CW) is also a very good class for this very reason (you can
move + attack). The one in my party was very effective.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-02 15:34:01 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Arandor: Collegiate Wizard gives you 4 spells a level.

Kewl. Where's that from?

Actually, I dunno. I was correcting you, because you said 3. That
wasn't what you meant?

Post by Arandor
Improved Precise Shot. What do you mean, miss chance? If you're going
to be an archer, be a good one. :)

Look at Ring of Entropic Deflection again. It's not concealment or
anything. The ONLY thing that bypasses it is the Seeking weapon
property. Which he should have, but bones anyone that doesn't, and
bones anyone that can't.

Post by Arandor
Dervish (CW) is also a very good class for this very reason (you can
move + attack). The one in my party was very effective.

The problem in this case is you have to keep moving, which leads to
various issues, including potentially having to spread attacks which
is automatically a terrible tactic in any CEF style HP game. Such as
D&D (all editions). With that said it is decent, but would be far
better if it wasn't focused on the style it was because said style =
meh.

David Lamb

2009-04-03 02:48:17 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Arandor: Collegiate Wizard gives you 4 spells a level.

Kewl. Where's that from?

Actually, I dunno. I was correcting you, because you said 3. That
wasn't what you meant?

Complete Arcane, page 181, according to
http://www.crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Feats.pdf

Harold Groot

2009-04-03 05:16:26 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Arandor: Collegiate Wizard gives you 4 spells a level.

Kewl. Where's that from?

They hide that one - it's not with the rest of the feats in the book.
COMPLETE ARCANE, p. 181. It can only be taken at 1st level. It also
gives you +2 on Kn:Arcana rolls.

Arandor

2009-04-03 07:46:01 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Actually, I dunno. I was correcting you, because you said 3. That
wasn't what you meant?

I just looked up the one I was thinking of last night (I knew where it
was, just not the name).

It was Aerenal Arcanist, from Player's Guide to Eberron. Some prereqs
(yes, you have to be an Aerenal Elf :), +2 to Knowledge (arcana) and
one extra spell per level learned, including 1st.

So there's even one that gives you 4? I never knew that one. Must've
missed it. It's flat out superior.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Look at Ring of Entropic Deflection again. It's not concealment or
anything. The ONLY thing that bypasses it is the Seeking weapon
property. Which he should have, but bones anyone that doesn't, and
bones anyone that can't.

D'oh, it's not concealment. Pretty good. Still, the archer can stand
still and full attack (and with Improved Rapid Shot, not even suffer a
penalty for it). Your investment sure helps, though.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
The problem in this case is you have to keep moving, which leads to
various issues, including potentially having to spread attacks which
is automatically a terrible tactic in any CEF style HP game. Such as
D&D (all editions). With that said it is decent, but would be far
better if it wasn't focused on the style it was because said style =
meh.

I think the style is pretty good (and pretty kewl). Remember, nobody
is forcing you to make all your attacks (after all, your -10 and -15
attacks are usually just icing on the cake, with /Haste/ it's only
really the first three that matter). And between high movement speed -
that the class gets, even without /Haste/ - and the Take 10 on Tumble,
so you can move at full speed and just take the -10 penalty for it,
those Dervishes tend to be pretty hard to nail down. He can just dance
around in a 2x2 squares area, smacking you every time he comes by.

He hardly ever *had* to spread attacks; if he wanted to whack someone
4-5 times, he did so. And either benefited from, or provided, flanking
bonuses.

Of course, the group was highly mobile - out of 6, the lowest movement
is the Dwarf with 'only' 30', and over half of them have teleport/
dimension door/dimension leap-like abilities available. Many of those
swift.

It didn't save them from a spellcaster that knew what she was doing,
though, so...
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-03 13:19:54 UTC

Post by Arandor
So there's even one that gives you 4? I never knew that one. Must've
missed it. It's flat out superior.

I never noticed that other one. And yeah. Eberron is a nice campaign,
but most of the feats specific to it suck.

Post by Arandor
D'oh, it's not concealment. Pretty good. Still, the archer can stand
still and full attack (and with Improved Rapid Shot, not even suffer a
penalty for it). Your investment sure helps, though.

True. But he also needs to have Force, otherwise you can trivialize
him with Wind Wall. So now he's forced to burn +3 of 9 special
property slots on his weapon, for a minimum cost of 30k above the cost
of a basic +1 weapon, just to counter your 13k investment, and your
low level spells that you no longer care about by the time he gets
such a bow and have had long before he did. Also, as a Wizard you are
less gear dependent (and thus come up with x amount of cash faster)
and can potentially craft it (further reducing the price).

Otherwise he has a max of a 47.5% chance to hit you, and you haven't
even begun actually paying attention to him to use real defenses such
as Mirror Image (which Seeking only ignores if he aims at the right
square, and you can spread out the images). Stuff like Blur and
Displacement won't work, because it's concealment. However Blink still
works as well, and the Greater version even better.

At high levels he needs to burn another 3 enhancement slots, and
another 68k minimum to get Splitting. Otherwise you can just ignore
him, as his output is too low to matter without that doubling of his
available attacks.

And that leaves only 3 slots available for everything else.

Also, unless he's upgrading a very specific bow, the composite bonus
doesn't adjust with him. Which means whatever Str he has when he first
upgrades his bow, is what his final bow will be set to. Even if he
actually has higher Str then. This also leads to amusing things like
Ray of Enfeeblement screwing him hard.

So basically archers are extremely specific builds, that become
completely useless if told no to any of the many questions at any
time. Aside from as mook bait, they are disregarded accordingly.

I think the style is pretty good (and pretty kewl). Remember, nobody
is forcing you to make all your attacks (after all, your -10 and -15
attacks are usually just icing on the cake, with /Haste/ it's only
really the first three that matter). And between high movement speed -
that the class gets, even without /Haste/ - and the Take 10 on Tumble,
so you can move at full speed and just take the -10 penalty for it,
those Dervishes tend to be pretty hard to nail down. He can just dance
around in a 2x2 squares area, smacking you every time he comes by.
He hardly ever *had* to spread attacks; if he wanted to whack someone
4-5 times, he did so. And either benefited from, or provided, flanking
bonuses.
Of course, the group was highly mobile - out of 6, the lowest movement
is the Dwarf with 'only' 30', and over half of them have teleport/
dimension door/dimension leap-like abilities available. Many of those
swift.
It didn't save them from a spellcaster that knew what she was doing,
though, so...
--
Cheers,
Arandor

Arandor

2009-04-03 14:12:44 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I never noticed that other one. And yeah. Eberron is a nice campaign,
but most of the feats specific to it suck.

At the moment I read it, I thought "hey, that's funny", but didn't
consider it overly powerful. Still, I thought, for a spell collector,
fun to have.

No idea how I even missed the other one... probably too long since I
browsed the book.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
True. But he also needs to have Force, otherwise you can trivialize
him with Wind Wall.

Well, /Wind Wall/, like /Protection from Arrows/, is something you
probably won't have, unless you know up front it's going to be
useful. :-) And are you going to spend a round on it, even if you do?

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Otherwise he has a max of a 47.5% chance to hit you, and you haven't
even begun actually paying attention to him to use real defenses such
as Mirror Image (which Seeking only ignores if he aims at the right
square, and you can spread out the images).

That 47.5% is per arrow; there's quite a lot of them.

Those images won't last long - he just targets one image after the
other, until he hits you, then continues hitting you. You can only
shuffle the remaining images in *your* round.

Alternatively, he has a spell like /Storm of Arrows/. You are hit
*and* they're all gone in one round.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Stuff like Blur and
Displacement won't work, because it's concealment. However Blink still
works as well, and the Greater version even better.

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/spellsAtoB.html#blink

"You “blink” back and forth between the Material Plane and the
Ethereal Plane. You look as though you’re winking in and out of
reality very quickly and at random.

Blinking has several effects, as follows.

Physical attacks against you have a 50% miss chance, and the Blind-
Fight feat doesn’t help opponents, since you’re ethereal and not
merely invisible. If the attack is capable of striking ethereal
creatures, the miss chance is only 20% (for concealment)."

A force attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures; so all you
have left is concealment. That was negated. So /Blink/ won't do diddly
squat.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
At high levels he needs to burn another 3 enhancement slots, and
another 68k minimum to get Splitting. Otherwise you can just ignore
him, as his output is too low to matter without that doubling of his
available attacks.

Not IME. Properly built archer can do fairly decent damage per arrow,
and has a lot to toss around.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Also, unless he's upgrading a very specific bow, the composite bonus
doesn't adjust with him. Which means whatever Str he has when he first
upgrades his bow, is what his final bow will be set to. Even if he
actually has higher Str then. This also leads to amusing things like
Ray of Enfeeblement screwing him hard.

Bow of the Wintermoon. It scales automatically, even without the feat
investment. If you *do* invest the feat, you get Frost and Drow Bane
for free.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
So basically archers are extremely specific builds, that become
completely useless if told no to any of the many questions at any
time. Aside from as mook bait, they are disregarded accordingly.

Again, not IME. Archer held her own pretty well.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-03 14:31:47 UTC

Post by Arandor
Well, /Wind Wall/, like /Protection from Arrows/, is something you
probably won't have, unless you know up front it's going to be
useful. :-) And are you going to spend a round on it, even if you do?

Wind Wall however actually works on the things it is supposed to, and
is not countered by anyone with magic weapons... even a mook could
have a few +1 arrows, off his standard NPC wealth. Further, it
continues to work, even at high levels, and if they don't have Force
they can't do shit about it. There is no parallel between this and the
joke spell that is Protection from Arrows.

That 47.5% is per arrow; there's quite a lot of them.

You're cutting the full attack in half without even trying. That's
big. At mid levels it means he's only hitting you once, and is thus
automatically irrelevant. At higher levels it might be 2 or 3 hits...
if he can deal with iterative penalties. And again, this is with
absolutely no conscious effort and no resource use. Start throwing on
real defenses and he's lucky to hit you once, period.

Post by Arandor
Those images won't last long - he just targets one image after the
other, until he hits you, then continues hitting you. You can only
shuffle the remaining images in *your* round.

Which takes about... 2 rounds. We are still playing D&D right? Because
that means if the combat isn't over, there's one round left.

Post by Arandor
Alternatively, he has a spell like /Storm of Arrows/. You are hit
*and* they're all gone in one round.

What's that do? Hit everyone once? See irrelevancy. Also, by the time
he's doing that, popping an Immediate and a 4th level slot to put it
right back up is trivial.

Post by Arandor
A force attack is capable of striking ethereal creatures; so all you
have left is concealment. That was negated. So /Blink/ won't do diddly
squat.

Blink isn't concealment. It's more like invisibility, that turns on
and off. Notice that it basically says you need Ghost Touch or
similar, and see invis to counter it. So while Force effects still
hit, you still have a 20% miss chance he can't ignore. This just
further reinforces the need for Seeking and Force, just to keep up.

Post by Arandor
Not IME. Properly built archer can do fairly decent damage per arrow,
and has a lot to toss around.

Define this term. Because as an archer, you are either doing low
damage per shot and depending on numbers of attacks (thus, Splitting)
to save your DPS, or you are doing slightly better damage per shot but
are dependent on fighting your favored enemies (as otherwise, you
cannot ignore immunity) and more to the point, have to be at very
close ranges to do this as Skirmish has a max range of 30 feet.

Post by Arandor
Bow of the Wintermoon. It scales automatically, even without the feat
investment. If you *do* invest the feat, you get Frost and Drow Bane
for free.

Yes, that is the very specific bow in question. I would certainly
allow a PC to take one and upgrade it. However, from what I have
gathered here the general stance of these forums is 'Fighters Do Not
Get Nice Things', which means you can expect a lot of opposition to
upgrading that relic bow.

Kyle Wilson

2009-04-03 14:47:52 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
I never noticed that other one. And yeah. Eberron is a nice campaign,
but most of the feats specific to it suck.

At the moment I read it, I thought "hey, that's funny", but didn't
consider it overly powerful. Still, I thought, for a spell collector,
fun to have.
No idea how I even missed the other one... probably too long since I
browsed the book.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
True. But he also needs to have Force, otherwise you can trivialize
him with Wind Wall.

Well, /Wind Wall/, like /Protection from Arrows/, is something you
probably won't have, unless you know up front it's going to be
useful. :-) And are you going to spend a round on it, even if you do?

Perhaps a scroll read by a cohort if the situation merits it? It may
be that some of these spells aren't generally taken by 'working' mages
at all. A few practitioners producing scrolls (or wands in some cases
like protection from arrows) might make a decent living selling to the
military. I could see a low level wizard reading a wind wall scroll
before an assault wave goes 'over the top' or casting protection from
normal missiles from a wand on a small assault group or sappers who'll
be in an exposed position for a short time.

--

Kyle Wilson
email: ***@wilson.mv.com

Harold Groot

2009-04-03 05:10:41 UTC

Maybe we're not getting as much non-magical treasure as you are used
to. We simply AREN'T seeing the "drop behind" effect at the
magnitudes you describe. My PC has never been more than one level
behind anybody, and to make up for it she has more magic than anybody.
But if we really are in a "treasure-poor" game compared to yours (and
thus not losing so many XPs crafting), all the more reason to maximize
the beneficial effects of the amount of treasure we ARE getting.

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

2009-04-02 23:28:35 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
On Apr 1, 3:38 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"

So now you're dependent on pity, basically.

No. You're dependent on playing a ROLEPLAYING GAME in which the
CHARACTERS act like PEOPLE.

Post by s***@yahoo.com
Because without
houserules, crafting is 'reduce own XP and thus power,

Almost trivially -- you'll have the XP back by the day after tomorrow
with most things. You'll be behind by one level for a very short time.
Maybe.

There were quite a number of discussions on this back in the early days.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

decalod85

2009-04-01 21:06:44 UTC

I thought the exact same thing. The weapon crystals felt way too much
like GW, Diablo, or WOW to me. Therefore, if they appear at all, they
appear as part of a unique magic item with a unique history.
I am introducing elements from the MIC, but only the ones I want. And
you would never be able to buy any of it from a magic shop. Hell, I
am very reluctant to offer some items from the DMG at a magic shop. A
pair of +2 bracers? Sure... A holy avenger? NEVER!

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Gotcha? The only thing you've "got" is a possibly fatal combination
of hubris and stupidity.

Not all D&D games are run the same, and there is no "right" way to run
a campaign.

I play with people who hate the idea of the WoW vendor selling world-
changing magic to anyone who has enough gold. And while I agree with
my players, I have enough common sense to know that if someone else
runs their campaign like a game of Diablo, the players can still have
a fun and memorable time.

Now, go back to your cave, troll. Your antics, while amusing, amount
mostly to a waste of bytes that the world needs.

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

2009-04-01 22:04:27 UTC

Post by decalod85

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Gotcha? The only thing you've "got" is a possibly fatal combination
of hubris and stupidity.
Not all D&D games are run the same, and there is no "right" way to run
a campaign.

Of course there is. My way.

Unfortunately other people insist on THEIR way.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Glenn Dowdy

2009-04-01 22:16:55 UTC

Post by decalod85

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Gotcha? The only thing you've "got" is a possibly fatal combination
of hubris and stupidity.
Not all D&D games are run the same, and there is no "right" way to run
a campaign.

Of course there is. My way.
Unfortunately other people insist on THEIR way.

Because we're older, wiser and have been playing longer ;)

Glenn D.

decalod85

2009-04-02 02:48:56 UTC

Post by Glenn Dowdy

I thought the exact same thing. The weapon crystals felt way too much
like GW, Diablo, or WOW to me. Therefore, if they appear at all, they
appear as part of a unique magic item with a unique history.
I am introducing elements from the MIC, but only the ones I want. And
you would never be able to buy any of it from a magic shop. Hell, I
am very reluctant to offer some items from the DMG at a magic shop. A
pair of +2 bracers? Sure... A holy avenger? NEVER!

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Gotcha? The only thing you've "got" is a possibly fatal combination
of hubris and stupidity.
Not all D&D games are run the same, and there is no "right" way to run
a campaign.

Of course there is. My way.
Unfortunately other people insist on THEIR way.

Because we're older, wiser and have been playing longer ;)

It's funny how having some life experiences makes your RPG sessions so
much better.

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)

2009-04-02 23:30:13 UTC

Post by Glenn Dowdy

Post by decalod85

In other words, you are the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Gotcha.

Gotcha? The only thing you've "got" is a possibly fatal combination
of hubris and stupidity.
Not all D&D games are run the same, and there is no "right" way to run
a campaign.

Of course there is. My way.
Unfortunately other people insist on THEIR way.

Because we're older, wiser and have been playing longer ;)

Yes, I am older, wiser, and have been playing longer. (I believe I do
hold the record for first PBEM RPG run -- 1977-78.)

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com

Jim Davies

2009-03-28 00:19:34 UTC

Where on earth is this from? What sort of bonus is it? At 1/10 the
price of a general +5 AC item, it's stupidly cheap and I wouldn't
allow it for that price.

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.

Mark Blunden

2009-03-28 00:42:28 UTC

Where on earth is this from? What sort of bonus is it? At 1/10 the
price of a general +5 AC item, it's stupidly cheap and I wouldn't
allow it for that price.

From the name, it's probably an armour crystal from Magic Item Compendium,
in which case it may have the hidden cost of only being useable with
sufficiently-enhanced armour.

--
Mark

Rick Pikul

2009-03-29 20:07:44 UTC

Make up your mind: You are either willing to play characters who spend
for _absolutely no system side gain_, or you are unwilling to play
characters who spend for a suboptimal gain.

I'll spend it on 'funny' / interesting spells. Not on spells that
claim to be good for combat, but aren't.

Then you have never played a full-up spell collector, (i.e. "it's a spell,
therefore I want it in my spellbook.)

Such as....

/Invisibility/, /Web/, etc.

Invisibility: 1 min/lev duration, goes away with a single attack.

Web: 10 min/lev duration, unusable in even vaguely open terrain.

Try again.

Stop demanding that everyone run the same kind of world as you.

Stop pretending that spell has any value. :) Other than "aaw, but it's
so cute".

As I already pointed out: It is for specific situations, if you are not
going to run into those situations you shouldn't be using it.

Some campaigns, even today, do end up with 'on the mundane battlefield'
as a common encounter type.

The rules need to cover multiple types of campaign, not just the ones you
like to play.

It is a rare campaign where every spell is useful, and many campaign setups
can change an 'meh' spell into a vital one.

Post by Arandor
Most campaigns out there do not have large scale battles and if they do,
even *if* the PCs are involved, most GMs handwaive the rest of the
battle away, and focus on what the PCs do - it becomes a skirmish again.
There, the spell is not so good.

Even when only resolving the part of the engagement that the PCs are
involved in, they are still going to be facing ordinary troops.

To begin with: It's not only the Wizard who can be protected by the spell.

Get an item that's 2,500 gp. It's called 'Crystal of Arrow Deflection'.
It gives you a +5 to AC against ranged attacks. *Any* ranged attacks.
From arrow or not, mundane or not, even spells.

Correct, it is also:

From a book that is known for underpricing things.

A slotted item.

Requires that one also have magical armour.

Something that would both stack and synergize with Protection from Arrows.

Something that grants no protection in the not-uncommon situation on a D&D
battlefield of needing a natural 20 to hit, (chain mail and two range
increments add up to an effective AC of 19 in and of themselves).

Hiding behind cover, real good way to improve morale and
command/control on a pre-modern style battlefield.

That 'cover' consists of the troops - who gladly give it to him. If he
is so worried about arrows, /Protection from Arrows/ is not the way to
go.

That kind of cover does not apply to arrow volleys.

Post by Arandor
Unlike you claim, it does *not* protect you all day.

Are you normally an overly literal git, or are you just doing it in lieu
of an actual argument?

I chose examples that involved absolutely no magic for a reason.

Yes, because you need a corner case. Otherwise, the spell just isn't so
good.

You seem to think that pointing out that the spell is best in specific
environments is somehow an argument against my position. Here is a hint:
It isn't.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-03-30 09:20:08 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
Then you have never played a full-up spell collector, (i.e. "it's a spell,
therefore I want it in my spellbook.)

Then your GM has never enforced any limit.

Sure, if he doesn't, then give me every spell known to mankind. And
elfkind. And goblinkind. And dragonkind, while we're at it! :)

Post by Rick Pikul
Invisibility: 1 min/lev duration, goes away with a single attack.
Web: 10 min/lev duration, unusable in even vaguely open terrain.
Try again.

These spells are more generally useful then /Protection from Arrows/.
They're not corner cases. They can actually do things.

Try again.

Post by Rick Pikul
As I already pointed out: It is for specific situations, if you are not
going to run into those situations you shouldn't be using it.

Then we agree with each other.

1) It's a corner case spell. Outside those corner cases, it sucks.
First you pick better spells.

2) There are plenty of spells out there that are a lot less corner
case, so will be picked way ahead of this one. This one is way down
the list. Even for spell collectors; there's just too many juicy
spells out there. /Invisibility/ and /Web/ *will* get picked before
this one.

3) If you can pick every spell you want, sure, give me this one, too!
However, Sorcerers certainly don't have this luxury, and even Wizards
can not keep adding spells to their spell book for free. (Unless your
GM waives this... Doesn't happen often IME.)

4) If your GM specifically tailors the campaign / situation so that
this spell is no longer a corner case, then, hey, guess what, *now* I
want it. You pulled it out of its corner, now it suddenly becomes a
good spell. Again, doesn't happen often IME.

Post by Rick Pikul
The rules need to cover multiple types of campaign, not just the ones you
like to play.

And as a party, you can not prepare for every eventuality. You make do
with what you have. If you don't have a clue what you will face, will
you prepare a general purpose spell like /Invisibility/, or a corner
case like /Protection from Arrows/?

Exactly.

Post by Rick Pikul
It is a rare campaign where every spell is useful, and many campaign setups
can change an 'meh' spell into a vital one.

Thus pulling a sucky spell out of its corner. Doesn't change the fact
it was a sucky spell to begin with, and you *need* to change
circumstances to make it not suck.

Post by Rick Pikul
Even when only resolving the part of the engagement that the PCs are
involved in, they are still going to be facing ordinary troops.

Then get the crystal. Or, realise you're in a campaign where it's not
a corner case, and prepare that spell - *if* you spent resources on
getting it. I wouldn't. Unless this sort of thing happens *all the
time*.

Post by Rick Pikul
From a book that is known for underpricing things.

Knee-jerk reaction, and not true.

Post by Rick Pikul
A slotted item.

So is your item. :) Point is?

Post by Rick Pikul
Requires that one also have magical armour.

You mean, a masterwork shield or buckler. Something I see that
paranoid commander certainly having.

Post by Rick Pikul
Something that would both stack and synergize with Protection from Arrows.

Or, you spend that ~7,500 gp on something *useful*.

If that commander has +1 full plate, a +1 large shield, that Crystal
and some minor items, he's got such a high AC that even those natural
20s from 'stray arrows' from base soldiers (low-level warriors, most
likely) will hardly ever get confirmed.

Post by Rick Pikul
Something that grants no protection in the not-uncommon situation on a D&D
battlefield of needing a natural 20 to hit, (chain mail and two range
increments add up to an effective AC of 19 in and of themselves).

Get a Healing Belt. It's 1/10th the cost of your item.

Post by Rick Pikul
That kind of cover does not apply to arrow volleys.

You mean, special rules the spell needs to be useful?

Post by Rick Pikul
Are you normally an overly literal git, or are you just doing it in lieu
of an actual argument?

If I see your "argument"... let's just not go there and agree to
disagree.

Post by Rick Pikul
You seem to think that pointing out that the spell is best in specific
It isn't.

Here's a hint:

Yes, it is. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean you'll be right.

I'll paraphrase for you:

1) It's a corner case spell. Outside those corner cases, it sucks.
First you pick better spells.

2) There are plenty of spells out there that are a lot less corner
case, so will be picked way ahead of this one. This one is way down
the list. Even for spell collectors; there's just too many juicy
spells out there. /Invisibility/ and /Web/ *will* get picked before
this one.

3) If you can pick every spell you want, sure, give me this one, too!
However, Sorcerers certainly don't have this luxury, and even Wizards
can not keep adding spells to their spell book for free. (Unless your
GM waives this... Doesn't happen often IME.)

4) If your GM specifically tailors the campaign / situation so that
this spell is no longer a corner case, then, hey, guess what, *now* I
want it. You pulled it out of its corner, now it suddenly becomes a
good spell. Again, doesn't happen often IME.

'nuff said.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Jim Davies

2009-03-30 22:29:51 UTC

Post by Arandor
Get a Healing Belt. It's 1/10th the cost of your item.

Uh-oh. Is this as b0rken as the crystal?

--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim

D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.

Arandor

2009-03-31 07:34:13 UTC

Post by Arandor
Get a Healing Belt. It's 1/10th the cost of your item.

Uh-oh. Is this as b0rken as the crystal?
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff onhttp://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and sohttp://www.aaargh.orgdoesn't work.

Just as (un)broken, yes. ;-) Both are fine items. I'll take them for a
while, and eventually trade them out for something better.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Arandor

2009-03-31 07:51:34 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
And we are back to you being unwilling to spend resources because your
character would want to, and restricting yourself to numbers on paper.

No, we're not. We're back to you misinterpreting my words.

I'll spend it on 'funny' spells. Some spell that 'gives you insight in
the great, draconic prophecy' - but doesn't really do much. Or a funny
utility spell. Or a prankster spell, if I play one of those.

But if I pick 'a combat spell', then I pick 'a combat spell'. Not a
corner case.

Post by Rick Pikul
First you will have to come up with a better spell. Not a spell that is
better in some circumstances, but one that is better, full stop.

Strawman. I only have to come up with a spell that is better in *most*
circumstances.

/Web/ beats /Protection from Arrows/ in most circumstances. So does /
Invisibility/. Do does /Glitterdust/.

/Protection from Arrows/ is, and remains, a corner case.

Post by Rick Pikul
It's not specifically tailoring for this spell, but just being in a
particular kind of campaign.

A campaign that is tailored in such a way that the spell is useful.
There, sure, I'll take it - it's now a viable combat spell.

But in most campaigns, you don't keep fighting flunkies with non-magic
bows. You face different monsters - mostly with melee attacks. And
quite often magical.

Post by Arandor
Then get the crystal.

Which actually won't be useful, as I pointed out.

*sigh* Yes, it will. It'll prevent them from confirming that threat on
anything but *another* natural 20. It'll also help you if they happen
some kind of bonus and would - without that crystal - hit on something
else than a natural 20.

Even a first level warrior can easily have a +3 or +4 (BAB +1, Dex +1,
Weapon Focus, he may even have a masterwork bow). With support of a
single 3rd-level Bard, that can be doubled.

That AC will save him, better than the spell will. *IF* your campaign
revolves around, or at least quite frequently involves, that.

Post by Rick Pikul
"A lesser augment crystal only functions when attached to an object with a
magical enhancement bonus of +1 or higher."

D'oh. My bad - I was thinking of the prereq. Least, not Lesser
version.

Post by Rick Pikul
(Of course, if for whatever reason you aren't wearing a shield....)

Which, of course, a commander of an army would never, ever do. :-)

Now I don't have those 'massed firing' rules in front of me, but
didn't a shield, if held overhead, provide some sort of defense
against it?

Post by Rick Pikul
Some news for you: THEY STILL HIT.

And your point?

* Fewer will hit with, than without, that crystal
* Those that hit on a natural 20 only, don't get to confirm it as
easily

Post by Rick Pikul
If you want to void the use of rules from both Complete Warrior and Heroes
of Battle, then you will also have to give up items from the MIC.

Let me get this straight... Now you're dictacting *my* campaign?

I'm willing to bet more use Magic Item Compendium, than Heroes of
Battle or (the mass-battle rules of) Complete Warrior.

Again - *most* circumstances.

Post by Rick Pikul
I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT WAS A GENERAL USE SPELL, I SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT
THAT IT FOR SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT A TYPICAL PARTY WOULD NOT ENCOUNTER.

Actually, you said "along the way it prevents him from becoming a
pincushion". Which was demonstrably false.

To which I essentially said "therefore, the spell sucks".

Post by Rick Pikul
That you keep arguing against it being a general purpose spell means that
you either never understood my position in the first place, or that you
are being dishonest.

I saw somebody formulate the perfect answer... "Mirror says 'hi'". :-)

Post by Arandor
'nuff said.

Only if you are reading another person's posts, then replying to them by
following up to my posts.

Like I said, 'nuff said.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Rick Pikul

2009-04-01 06:00:10 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
And we are back to you being unwilling to spend resources because your
character would want to, and restricting yourself to numbers on paper.

No, we're not. We're back to you misinterpreting my words.

You are either willing to spend character resources on things of 0 value n
the character sheet, or you are unwilling to spend character resources on
things of >0 value on the character sheet but less than some threshold.

Pick one, you don't get to flip back and forth depending on which is more
convenient.

NB: You seem to be making an assumption that the only limit on what
spells a wizard gets beyond the basic 2/level is how much it would cost to
ass them to his spellbook. This is not a correct assumption in many, if
not most, campaigns.

Post by Rick Pikul
First you will have to come up with a better spell. Not a spell that is
better in some circumstances, but one that is better, full stop.

Strawman. I only have to come up with a spell that is better in *most*
circumstances.

Yes, you are arguing against a strawman. How about arguing against a
position I have actually taken?

Post by Arandor
/Web/ beats /Protection from Arrows/ in most circumstances. So does /
Invisibility/. Do does /Glitterdust/.
/Protection from Arrows/ is, and remains, a corner case.

Hello!

That farmer is going to be mighty annoyed at what you are doing to his
scarecrow.

Post by Rick Pikul
It's not specifically tailoring for this spell, but just being in a
particular kind of campaign.

A campaign that is tailored in such a way that the spell is useful.
There, sure, I'll take it - it's now a viable combat spell.
But in most campaigns, you don't keep fighting flunkies with non-magic
bows. You face different monsters - mostly with melee attacks. And
quite often magical.

If you keep arguing against this strawman, I'm going to have to conclude
that you have no argument against my position and that you know it.

It's not like your attempts to quietly shift your position isn't already
implying the same thing.

Post by Arandor
Then get the crystal.

Which actually won't be useful, as I pointed out.

*sigh* Yes, it will. It'll prevent them from confirming that threat on
anything but *another* natural 20.

Against an effective AC (AC - net attack modifier) of 20, you hit on a
natural 20 and you confirm a critical on another natural 20.

Against an effective AC of 25, you hit on a natural 20 and you confirm a
critical on another natural 20.

Post by Arandor
It'll also help you if they happen
some kind of bonus and would - without that crystal - hit on something
else than a natural 20.
Even a first level warrior can easily have a +3 or +4 (BAB +1, Dex +1,
Weapon Focus, he may even have a masterwork bow). With support of a
single 3rd-level Bard, that can be doubled.

And against +1 full plate and a +1 large shield will need a natural
20 at three range bands for the highest attack bonus you get there.

Post by Arandor
That AC will save him, better than the spell will. *IF* your campaign
revolves around, or at least quite frequently involves, that.

Incorrect.

Post by Rick Pikul
(Of course, if for whatever reason you aren't wearing a shield....)

Which, of course, a commander of an army would never, ever do. :-)

Unless he is an archer, or wields a two-handed weapon, or has other things
to do with his hands, etc.

Post by Arandor
Now I don't have those 'massed firing' rules in front of me, but
didn't a shield, if held overhead, provide some sort of defense
against it?

Nope, it's a reflex save to avoid damage.

Post by Rick Pikul
Some news for you: THEY STILL HIT.

And your point?

That yammering, incorrectly, about the chance of confirming a critical is
a non sequitur.

Post by Arandor
* Fewer will hit with, than without, that crystal

Not when the natural roll needed is already 20

Post by Arandor
* Those that hit on a natural 20 only, don't get to confirm it as
easily

Not when the natural roll needed is already 20

Post by Rick Pikul
If you want to void the use of rules from both Complete Warrior and
Heroes of Battle, then you will also have to give up items from the
MIC.

Let me get this straight... Now you're dictacting *my* campaign?

Nope, just what you need to do to make a working argument.

You can use things from supplemental books, or you can exclude things from
supplemental books. Trying to do both is dishonest.

Post by Arandor
I'm willing to bet more use Magic Item Compendium, than Heroes of Battle
or (the mass-battle rules of) Complete Warrior.

For the set of games that spend a significant amount of time on
battlefields, I would doubt it. To begin with, more groups have CW than
MIC.

Post by Rick Pikul
I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT WAS A GENERAL USE SPELL, I SPECIFICALLY POINTED
OUT THAT IT FOR SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT A TYPICAL PARTY WOULD NOT
ENCOUNTER.

Actually, you said "along the way it prevents him from becoming a
pincushion". Which was demonstrably false.

In the extreme outlier case of a lone wizard with below NPC curve AC
facing 200 goblins at near point blank range.

Oh, and quote mining is for creationists and conspiracy nutters.

Post by Arandor
'nuff said.

Only if you are reading another person's posts, then replying to them
by following up to my posts.

Like I said, 'nuff said.

Then you should post your replies as followups to the articles of this
third person.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-04-01 12:03:56 UTC

Let's go back to your original quote:

"What? Your characters never spend resources on things determined by
their personality? Things the characters want, rather than what makes
for the best set of numbers on a piece of paper they will never see?

You don't play guys who "party now, for tomorrow we may die"?

You don't play philanthropic types who give away more than they
perhaps should?

You don't play the truly faithful, who believe that there should be a
shrine to their goddess in every town?

I hate to be cliche, but this is a _role_-playing game that we are
talking
about."

It is *not* black-n-white.

1) Either I play a "heavy combat, heavy optimaxed" char. Then, unless
I know up front that PfA is going to be useful, I'm not going to take
it. And then only if I'm a Wizard; not if I'm a Sorcerer. There's only
rules for the *best* spells, or spells with multiple purposes (if I
don't know what I'm going to face).

2) I play "fun". I'll pick *funny* spells (/Bigby's Playful Hand/? :)
But still: *if* I then go for *combat* spells, I go for the "best".
And "best" can vary upon circumstances. (Mayve PfA *is* the best, in
this campaign.) Still, I keep an eye on my expenses. You can't keep
partying forever.

3) The GM enforces no limit. Yay! Gimme, gimme.

No flipping - when I make a character, I pick a type and stay with it
throughout the campaign. I *do* play type 2. And even he usually
doesn't pick up PfA... but he might. If he has *any* choice in the
matter, though, for a combat spell, he'll pick another. Again, unless
I know PfA is going to be da bomb here.

I certainly don't play fools who cast silly spells just for fun. That
kind of character tends to die, unless the whole campaign is designed
to be silly. In which case, I'm not playing, but I'll wish you fun.

Post by Rick Pikul
NB: You seem to be making an assumption that the only limit on
what spells a wizard gets beyond the basic 2/level is how much it
would cost to ass them to his spellbook. This is not a correct
assumption in many, if not most, campaigns.

If you have no choice, then, you have no choice. (No time to write,
can't find/buy the spells, etc.?) You make do with what you have.
Let's hope the GM made sure we have everything we need.

If you *do* have choice, see above.

Post by Rick Pikul
Against an effective AC (AC - net attack modifier) of 20, you hit on a
natural 20 and you confirm a critical on another natural 20.
Against an effective AC of 25, you hit on a natural 20 and you confirm
a critical on another natural 20.

And that effective AC will be reached more easily by a +5 item (a big
boost, especially against flunkies).

Post by Rick Pikul
And against +1 full plate and a +1 large shield will need a natural
20 at three range bands for the highest attack bonus you get there.

And *with* that crystal, you'll reach that AC at 'point blank' range
already, as it's in the same order of magnitude of the penalty of
three range increments. See how handy it is?

Post by Rick Pikul
Not when the natural roll needed is already 20

Which will occur much more easily with the crystal. Add the armor
crystal that gives you DR 3/- (max. 30/day) and you're still cheaper
off and more all-round than your custom-made item, which still has GM
approval needed.

Post by Rick Pikul
You can use things from supplemental books, or you can exclude
things from supplemental books. Trying to do both is dishonest.

Again, it's not either / or. It's not black-n-white.

First, check campaign type. I know the campaign is going to feature a
lot of the party facing low-level flunkies with bows (which I'd find
getting real boring, real fast, but hey, to each their own), then I
might be toting PfA around.

Second, what character am I? The wizard, or the commander? As the
commander, I'd go for high AC and perhaps keep a healer close by (or
wear that Healing Belt). The crystal will basically give me an
effective AC of 20, unless there's extreme cases.

As the Wizard, I'll probably have a lot more difficulty getting that
effective AC 20, even *with* the crystal. But then, who's going to
blame me for hiding behind (improved) cover?

Third, what's my goal? Lead the troops? Face enemy commanders? Blast
them to bits (for the wizard) or do scouting? Or just stay the hell
alive? For the last two, I'm *not* going to go for PfA, but for /
Invisibility/.

Post by Rick Pikul
For the set of games that spend a significant amount of time on
battlefields, I would doubt it. To begin with, more groups have CW
than MIC.

Proof? IME, more groups use MIC than CW - and even those that do
anything in "battle", basically handwaive the entire battle, and focus
on what the PCs do. No arrows involved and if they are, they're
magical, because an enemy 'commander' is firing them from his magical
bow...

Post by Rick Pikul
In the extreme outlier case of a lone wizard with below NPC curve AC
facing 200 goblins at near point blank range.
Oh, and quote mining is for creationists and conspiracy nutters.

It was you saying it - not any other person. You stated the spell
would save him - it doesn't.

He might've survived with the crystal. :) He can always carry a
mithral buckler...

Post by Rick Pikul
Then you should post your replies as followups to the articles of this
third person.

I did.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

David Lamb

2009-04-01 15:31:05 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
For the set of games that spend a significant amount of time on
battlefields, I would doubt it. To begin with, more groups have CW
than MIC.

Proof? IME, more groups use MIC than CW - and even those that do
anything in "battle", basically handwaive the entire battle, and focus
on what the PCs do.

I doubt anybody has the actual statistics to say which is more common.
IMO it's plausible MIC is rarer because it came out later than CW and
there was more time for people to stop spending on 3.5 stuff.

It doesn't seem like a fair argument to say "protection from arrows is
useless because the groups I play with never to bother having the mooks
use arrows."

Arandor

2009-04-02 09:17:48 UTC

Post by David Lamb
It doesn't seem like a fair argument to say "protection from arrows is
useless because the groups I play with never to bother having the mooks
use arrows."

It's the *frequency* that matters. Sure, we have mooks firing bows. In
those few situations, sure, PfA would've been great to have running.
But we didn't know in advance. So we picked general purpose spells,
and pulled through just fine. PfA would've been a waste in other
situations
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Kyle Wilson

2009-04-02 14:51:08 UTC

Post by David Lamb
It doesn't seem like a fair argument to say "protection from arrows is
useless because the groups I play with never to bother having the mooks
use arrows."

I'd actually like more spells (perhaps as a web sourced thing) that
aren't ideal for adventurers, but might make sense in-world (largely
for DM use to build more interesting and 'believable' encounters). I
like the idea of the group stumbling across a battlefield (or other
sort of non-traditional dungeoneering location) and encountering
spells and spell effects that most adventurers would not use.

I'd expect that in a D&D-like world (given that many of the base
assumptions are a bit silly to begin with) that you'd have a range of
spells that were useful in an organized battle that wouldn't be of
interest to adventuring parties. I'd also expect lots of other areas
of endeavor to find uses for specialized spells (and cost isn't all
that much of an issue...consider how much a back-hoe or grader costs
in our world).

This also leads to fun things equivalent to modern characters fighting
with pneumatic nailers or chain saws (or large cranes...). These
things ought to exist, and there really is no reason for adventuring
parties to stock them (either as scrolls or in spell books).

I'd expect that in addition to protection from normal arrows (and mass
versions) that you might find spells that make shield walls or pike
blocks more effective, spells that bolster cavalry charges and spells
that make terrain more or less friendly. In particular, custom built
spells that are more specialized to the objective should be lower
level and have fewer undesirable side-effects.

--

Kyle Wilson
email: ***@wilson.mv.com

David Lamb

2009-04-03 02:52:03 UTC

Post by Kyle Wilson
This also leads to fun things equivalent to modern characters fighting
with pneumatic nailers or chain saws (or large cranes...).

I am embarrassed to recall a T-Rex-vs-forklift battle in one movie.
Embarrassed to admit I watched Carnosaur.

Rick Pikul

2009-04-03 06:46:28 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
You are either willing to spend character resources on things of 0
value n the character sheet, or you are unwilling to spend character
resources on things of >0 value on the character sheet but less than
some threshold.
Pick one, you don't get to flip back and forth depending on which is
more convenient.
You don't play the truly faithful, who believe that there should be a
shrine to their goddess in every town?
I hate to be cliche, but this is a _role_-playing game that we are talking
about."

It is *not* black-n-white.

Required minimum came system value is a threshold, if you set it at 0, you
cannot also say that >0 is too low.

By saying that PfA is not good enough to spend resources on, you are
saying that your threshold is above 0.

Post by Arandor
I certainly don't play fools who cast silly spells just for fun. That
kind of character tends to die, unless the whole campaign is designed
to be silly. In which case, I'm not playing, but I'll wish you fun.

At least it's a new version of the strawman.

Post by Rick Pikul
NB: You seem to be making an assumption that the only limit on
what spells a wizard gets beyond the basic 2/level is how much it
would cost to ass them to his spellbook. This is not a correct
assumption in many, if not most, campaigns.

If you have no choice, then, you have no choice. (No time to write,
can't find/buy the spells, etc.?) You make do with what you have.
Let's hope the GM made sure we have everything we need.

The main one is that there is no "scrolls 'n more" store, you get the
spells you get. And when you capture the spellbook of a battle mage, you
get spells for use on the battlefield.

And that effective AC will be reached more easily by a +5 item (a big
boost, especially against flunkies).

On the battlefield, hitting that 20 is trivial.

Post by Rick Pikul
And against +1 full plate and a +1 large shield will need a natural
20 at three range bands for the highest attack bonus you get there.

And *with* that crystal, you'll reach that AC at 'point blank' range
already, as it's in the same order of magnitude of the penalty of
three range increments. See how handy it is?

Not really, since:

Most commanders try not to be right on the very front.

Most missile units try not to come into close contact with the enemy.

Post by Rick Pikul
Not when the natural roll needed is already 20

The crystal need approval as well, and we have already seen that there are
a number of GMs here who would say no.

Post by Rick Pikul
You can use things from supplemental books, or you can exclude
things from supplemental books. Trying to do both is dishonest.

Again, it's not either / or. It's not black-n-white.

Actually, it is: If you get to use things from supplements in your
arguments, so do I.

Misunderstanding once is understandable, I wasn't perfectly clear that I
was speaking of what you can bring into the argument. Repeating the
misunderstanding after having been corrected is a sign of dishonesty.

This whole sequence is a non sequitur.

Post by Arandor
First, check campaign type. I know the campaign is going to feature a
lot of the party facing low-level flunkies with bows (which I'd find
getting real boring, real fast, but hey, to each their own), then I
might be toting PfA around.

IOW: You concede that I was right in the first place.

Post by Arandor
Second, what character am I? The wizard, or the commander? As the
commander, I'd go for high AC and perhaps keep a healer close by (or
wear that Healing Belt). The crystal will basically give me an
effective AC of 20, unless there's extreme cases.

You don't need the crystal to hit that 20 most of the time, (that +1 Full
Plate and +1 Large Shield is an AC of 22 right there).

Post by Arandor
As the Wizard, I'll probably have a lot more difficulty getting that
effective AC 20, even *with* the crystal. But then, who's going to
blame me for hiding behind (improved) cover?

Actually, on the battlefield, that 20 is rather easy to get for everyone
but the mass of War 1/2s.

A Wiz 10 does it by remembering that his spells have a good range.

Post by Arandor
Third, what's my goal? Lead the troops? Face enemy commanders? Blast
them to bits (for the wizard) or do scouting? Or just stay the hell
alive? For the last two, I'm *not* going to go for PfA, but for /
Invisibility/.

Invisibility is not very useful for scouting, due to its short duration.
It was great in earlier editions, back when you could do things like cast
it the day before.

Post by Rick Pikul
For the set of games that spend a significant amount of time on
battlefields, I would doubt it. To begin with, more groups have CW
than MIC.

Proof?

Um, I can read the mind of the person I am claiming doubts something.

Post by Arandor
IME, more groups use MIC than CW

My experience is quite the opposite, it's rare that I run into a campaign
that doesn't use CW, and most of those basically ban every supplement.

Post by Arandor
- and even those that do anything in "battle", basically handwaive the
entire battle, and focus on what the PCs do. No arrows involved and if
they are, they're magical, because an enemy 'commander' is firing them
from his magical bow...

You seem to think that the only things a PC will do when on a battlefield
are fights against the other side's 'star players'.

Sometimes getting to those fights means taking a path where pure stealth
is not an option.

It was you saying it - not any other person. You stated the spell
would save him - it doesn't.

Quote mining is the stripping of the context of a quote to change the
meaning. There is no requirement that it be from a third party.

Such as changing away from something being a rather loose example with out
to lunch numbers, or the larger context that things are about what
parties, and not lone characters, are facing.

Post by Arandor
He might've survived with the crystal. :) He can always carry a
mithral buckler...

Post by Rick Pikul
Then you should post your replies as followups to the articles of this
third person.

I did.

Then why are they showing up quoting my posts and arguing against someone
else's position?

(Hint: A better path of argument against me would be to argue that PfA
should be 1st level.)

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

Arandor

2009-04-03 08:15:20 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
Required minimum came system value is a threshold, if you set it at 0, you
cannot also say that >0 is too low.
By saying that PfA is not good enough to spend resources on, you are
saying that your threshold is above 0.

Still misunderstanding...

First you determine the system you're dealing with. If you don't have
a choice, then you take what you can get. If you do have a choice, you
determine: am I optimaxing? If so, then: what kind of campaign? If:
"campaign where PfA is usefel", take it. If not: don't take it.

Not black-n-white, you need context.

Post by Rick Pikul
The main one is that there is no "scrolls 'n more" store, you get the
spells you get. And when you capture the spellbook of a battle mage, you
get spells for use on the battlefield.

So the situation is: "you make do with what you can get". Then, guess
what, you do just that.

Post by Rick Pikul
On the battlefield, hitting that 20 is trivial.

Flunkies can quite easily get big boosts; as long as the effective AC
is below 30, flunkies could actually *reach* you.

What if those lvl. 1 archers are Elves? BAB +1, Dex 15 = +2, Weapon
Focus, masterwork bow = +1 = +4 right there. Bring one lvl. 3 Bard
with Song of the Heart, /Inspirational Boost/ and use a lute: +4
attack, +2 damage.

All we need is a Cleric with /Prayer/.

Post by Rick Pikul
Most commanders try not to be right on the very front.

Leading from the front does tend to 'up' morale. Leading from the back
is not good for morale. This was your own argument. Also, the
commander is likely one of the most capable.

Post by Rick Pikul
Most missile units try not to come into close contact with the enemy.

And most melee units *do* try to do that. Even if they're all heavily
armored (unlikely; medium armor is more likely), they will *at least*
double move - if not flat out run - for a couple of rounds. There will
be casualties, yes, but a melee unit is no good standing still.

Post by Rick Pikul
The crystal need approval as well, and we have already seen that there are
a number of GMs here who would say no.

Again, knee-jerk. More GMs will say 'yes' to the crystal, than to a
self-made item, since it's hard to judge the balance of it, however
reasonable it may seem on the surface.

Post by Rick Pikul
IOW: You concede that I was right in the first place.

Uhm, hello? I *always* said that, if the corner case applies, then,
sure, I'll take it. Doesn't change the fact that the spell needs the
corner case to shine.

Were you paying attention at all?

Post by Rick Pikul
You don't need the crystal to hit that 20 most of the time, (that +1 Full
Plate and +1 Large Shield is an AC of 22 right there).

And against those Elven archers with +8 or +9, he's going to be hit on
12+ or 13+. With two range increment penalties, on 16+ or 17+.

The crystal would help him a *lot*. It won't guarantee his survival,
but, then neither would PfA. Toss enough arrows in his direction and
he *will* die. Duh.

Post by Rick Pikul
Actually, on the battlefield, that 20 is rather easy to get for everyone
but the mass of War 1/2s.

Demonstrably false.

Post by Rick Pikul
A Wiz 10 does it by remembering that his spells have a good range.

Even his medium range spells have 'only' 200 ft. range. That's only a
-2 for longbow dudes. If he stands further away, then, sure, it's a
-4, but now only his long-range spells can do anything.

Post by Rick Pikul
Invisibility is not very useful for scouting, due to its short duration.
It was great in earlier editions, back when you could do things like cast
it the day before.

If you know what you're doing, sure it is.

Post by Rick Pikul
My experience is quite the opposite, it's rare that I run into a campaign
that doesn't use CW, and most of those basically ban every supplement.

Very different experiences, then. And I only played a couple of
campaigns where "do something against big bodies of troops"
featured... and I found those pretty boring, personally, and so did
the rest. It's fun the first few times, then it gets old hat, real
fast.

YMMV. Obviously.

Post by Rick Pikul
You seem to think that the only things a PC will do when on a battlefield
are fights against the other side's 'star players'.
Sometimes getting to those fights means taking a path where pure stealth
is not an option.

You seem to think everything is only black-n-white. Sure, sometimes it
might happen. Sometimes it might not. Meaning: it's still a corner
case, and unless I knew up front that corner case was coming up, or
that "corner case" comes up all the frakkin' time (and thus, is by
definition no longer a corner case - not in this campaign!), I'll do
something else than tote PfA around.

Unless I had no choice (couldn't get my hands on anything else).

Post by Rick Pikul
(Hint: A better path of argument against me would be to argue that PfA
should be 1st level.)

I don't care about the spell's *level*. I think it should be DR 10/-
(but from arrows/bolts etc. only) instead of DR 10/magic. So that, at
higher levels, it *will* still protect me from arrows/bolts. And not
only on a battlefield, from flunkies with non-magical bows, but also
from enemy big shots.

Then, it'd be a fun lvl. 2 spells that's pulled out of its corner a
bit. It will do what it claims it does.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Arandor

2009-04-03 08:36:39 UTC

Post by Arandor
Flunkies can quite easily get big boosts; as long as the effective AC
is below 30, flunkies could actually *reach* you.

Not enough coffee... should be "AC", not "effective AC", here.

Also, I think it wasn't the lute that gives +1 attack, but -1 damage,
but another string instrument... was it a fiddle?

Post by Arandor
And against those Elven archers with +8 or +9, he's going to be hit on
12+ or 13+. With two range increment penalties, on 16+ or 17+.

Again, not enough coffee. They need a 13+ or 14+ to hit, of course,
and with two range increments that becomes 17+ or 18+.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

Baird Stafford

2009-04-03 10:26:38 UTC

In article
<d78116ed-cd36-445d-a5a0-***@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Arandor <***@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

Post by Arandor
Leading from the front does tend to 'up' morale. Leading from the back
is not good for morale. This was your own argument. Also, the
commander is likely one of the most capable.

Depends. If it's a skirmish, you're probably right. If it's a major
battle, the commander pretty well *has* to be where he/she can see the
whole battlefield in order to know which troops to dispatch where.

All my characters who have ended up in command of armies have had to
learn that one the hard way - it isn't necessarily intuitive in a D&D
world.

<snip>

Baird

--
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods-
They kill us for their sport.
-Gloster, in _Lear_

Arandor

2009-04-03 10:48:36 UTC

That's what you have scouts for. You know, Wizards with /
Invisibility/... :-)

In a large-scale battle, morale is just about anything. Cut down an
enemy's champion, or their standard bearer, and you may have just won
the battle, despite huge losses on your side.

That's epic stuff!
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-03 13:27:38 UTC

I forgot to respond to the rest of that before hitting send there.
Oops.

When I said style, I was thinking of TWFing (likely sans bonus
damage). Which unless I'm completely fucking up in recollection, is
what Dervishes are.

Post by Arandor
Of course, the group was highly mobile - out of 6, the lowest movement
is the Dwarf with 'only' 30', and over half of them have teleport/
dimension door/dimension leap-like abilities available. Many of those
swift.
It didn't save them from a spellcaster that knew what she was doing,
though, so...

Sounds about right. Being mobile is how you stay relevant on the
battlefield (and is why most non casters do not, because they can't).
That includes teleports. Spellcasters still win, but at least you can
play the same game.

In my game, lowest land speed is 40, and the group is usually flying
so minimum speed is higher. Obviously, casters can move and still be
relevant. The gish uses Hustle or Lion's Charge towards the same end,
or a teleport effect. The cohorts however don't have this
maneuverability. And it is one of these that has been the subject of
about half the total deaths so far for exactly this reason. Also, no
caster deaths.

Arandor

2009-04-03 14:15:52 UTC

Post by s***@yahoo.com
When I said style, I was thinking of TWFing (likely sans bonus
damage). Which unless I'm completely fucking up in recollection, is
what Dervishes are.

Nope, there's no compelling reason for Dervishes to use TWF. He gets a
minor bennie (scimitars treated as light, so he could TWF with them),
but the Dervish in my campaign went two-handed. Worked perfectly well.

It just has to be *slashing*. No Dervishing with a maul... sorry. :-)

Post by s***@yahoo.com
In my game, lowest land speed is 40, and the group is usually flying
so minimum speed is higher. Obviously, casters can move and still be
relevant. The gish uses Hustle or Lion's Charge towards the same end,
or a teleport effect. The cohorts however don't have this
maneuverability. And it is one of these that has been the subject of
about half the total deaths so far for exactly this reason. Also, no
caster deaths.

Maybe your GM doesn't know what to do against them - if I want to, I
can kill casters *real* fast. :-) Without their own spells as support,
they tend to be really, really fragile.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-03 14:35:23 UTC

Post by Arandor
Nope, there's no compelling reason for Dervishes to use TWF. He gets a
minor bennie (scimitars treated as light, so he could TWF with them),
but the Dervish in my campaign went two-handed. Worked perfectly well.
It just has to be *slashing*. No Dervishing with a maul... sorry. :-)

That's a bit better then.

Post by Arandor
Maybe your GM doesn't know what to do against them - if I want to, I
can kill casters *real* fast. :-) Without their own spells as support,
they tend to be really, really fragile.

I am well aware how to kill casters. That list begins and ends with
better casters. However, as such opponents would absolutely slaughter
anything weaker than casters, they are intentionally kept rare. From
the sounds of it though, you are aiming at something else. Said
something is either absolutely laughable for any purpose except
feeding the casters free XP and loot, or is one of those things that
would threaten casters, but would absolutely slaughter everyone else
depending on the execution you had in mind. So what are you talking
about?

David Lamb

2009-04-01 15:25:40 UTC

Hmm. I'm naive on this topic; what other costs are involved? The
number of spellbooks to carry around? The need to stay friendly with
other mages so you can trade?

Post by Arandor
Actually, you said "along the way it prevents him from becoming a
pincushion". Which was demonstrably false.

Oh, and quote mining is for creationists and conspiracy nutters.

I think it's actually a common human tendency.

Arandor

2009-04-02 09:16:11 UTC

Hmm. I'm naive on this topic; what other costs are involved? The
number of spellbooks to carry around? The need to stay friendly with
other mages so you can trade?

First, a spellbook costs money, plain and simple.

Bear with me for the details, IDHTBIFOM and can't be bothered to look
in the SRD right now. :) I'm feeling lazy. Details might be off, but
you'll get the picture.

An 'economical' way is using the Blessed Book:

* 1,000 pages
* no cost to write the spell INTO the book (you still need to get the
BOOK itself, and you still need to get the SPELL itself, say, on a
scroll?)

This book costs 12,500 gp, or 6,250 gp if he makes it himself (which
also costs him a feat, 30 days, and 500 xp, but we'll handwaive all
that - this is not a discussion about the usefulness of item creation,
after all).

A spell takes up 1 page per spell level (lvl. 0 spells count as 1 for
this purpose), so he can have 1,000 "spell levels" in his book.

For a 10th level Wizard (who gets the full benefit of the PfA spell),
12,500 gp, or even 6,250 gp, is a fairly substantial cost. But, for a
spell collector, quite worth it. He *may* have more than one, but
unless he went the item creation route, he's now seriously gimping
himself. Also, he'll likely need a Handy Haversack (another 2,000 gp,
or 1,000 gp, 2 days and 40 xp if he made it himself) to lug them
around.

A spell collector is likely a generalist Wizard (why skimp on a
school? you'd miss out on cool spells to collect!) and at 10th level
has *at least*

4 5th level spells (20 pages)
4 4th level spells (16 pages)
4 3rd level spells (12 pages)
4 2nd level spells (8 pages)
5 1st level spells (plus whatever his Int bonus was at 1st level -
base case, at least Int 16, so 8 pages)
ALL 0 level spells (~20-25 pages depending on how many splatbooks you
use)

That's roughly 80-90 pages. He didn't need to pay for these spells
(neither time, nor money); they were his free "level-up" spells.
There's a feat out there that lets you get 3, not 2, spells extra
level. This is golden for such a character, and makes the list above:

6 5th level spells (30 pages)
6 4th level spells (24 pages)
6 3rd level spells (18 pages)
6 2nd level spells (12 pages)
6 1st level spells (plus whatever his Int bonus was at 1st level -
base case, at least Int 16, so 9 pages)
ALL 0 level spells (~20-25 pages depending on how many splatbooks you
use)

Then we can go over 118 pages. Just over 10% of his book, of course.
But hey, this is just the *base*. He's a spell collector, remember? No
spell collector worth his salt would collect then, let's say...

10 more lvl. 1 spells (10 pages)
8 more lvl. 2 spells (16 pages)
6 more lvl. 3 spells (18 pages)
4 more lvl. 4 spells (16 pages)
2 more lvl. 5 spells (10 pages)

Another 70 pages, we're at 20% of the book. This is probably
concervative for a real 'spell collector'. And the higher up in level
you go, the more pages the spells eat.

Also, these spells are *not* free. You need to acquire them somehow.
E.g., found scrolls in random treasures, or buy them - a lvl. 5 scroll
is 1,125 gp. The list above would represent treasure of 8,750 gp, also
a fairly respectable chunk of the Wizard's money. You can also copy
from another Wizard's spellbook, but you'll usually be charged a fee.

Also, there's a factor of time - writing spells in your book costs 1
day per spell. The above costs 30 days. Granted, part of this can be
during your resting periods. Elves are great spell collectors -
meditate a few hours, and sit in the dark writing in your spellbook.
That's probably why they have lowlight vision. :)

Mind you - I'm not saying a Wizard is unviable (far from it!) or that
'spell collectors' are silly (I played them too and had fun).

But even so, that spell collector above had 'only' 10 2nd level
spells. There are a *lot* of 2nd level spells. Why waste it on a spell
that claims it does something in combat, but doesn't?

Couple of possible reasons:

* "the campaign is geared for it" - now it's not a corner case spell!
* "I couldn't get anything else" - you make do with what you can get!
* "I don't care, I like it anyway" - more power to you!
--
Cheers,

Arandor

David Lamb

2009-04-03 02:58:48 UTC

Post by David Lamb
Hmm. I'm naive on this topic; what other costs are involved? The
number of spellbooks to carry around? The need to stay friendly with
other mages so you can trade?

Thanks for taking the trouble for the long explanation; I think I was
already aware of the basic idea but was subconsciously lumping it all

Post by Rick Pikul
NB: You seem to be making an assumption that the only limit on what
spells a wizard gets beyond the basic 2/level is how much it would
cost to add them to his spellbook. This is not a correct assumption
in many, if not most, campaigns.

So, Rick, did you mean the sort of thing Arandor wrote, or were you
thinking of something else?

Rick Pikul

2009-04-03 06:53:15 UTC

So, Rick, did you mean the sort of thing Arandor wrote, or were you
thinking of something else?

Well, he did mention that main thing I was thinking of: What you can get.
One thing that may be true in a campaign, is that spells designed for
things more common than adventuring will be easier to get than spells
designed for adventuring.

Most of what he covered was the transcribing cost, (in money, time, etc.).

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

David Lamb

2009-04-03 14:16:41 UTC

Post by David Lamb
So, Rick, did you mean the sort of thing Arandor wrote, or were you
thinking of something else?

I've been in discussions where anything less than easy availability of
whatever magic the players wanted to buy off the Magic Shoppe shelf was
"control freak DM." Not so much here as on various web fora.

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-03 14:37:36 UTC

Post by David Lamb
So, Rick, did you mean the sort of thing Arandor wrote, or were you
thinking of something else?

That's because it is. Non casters NEED that (in addition to somehow
getting about 150-200% normal WBL to afford everything, which usually
involves saving costs via crafting) just to be relevant, and attempt
to play the same game as everyone else. So if you aren't giving them
this, you are either demonstrating a failed understanding of the
system, or are power tripping to mess with the gimp characters. As all
such instances of this are first countered by explanations as to why
this is so, either it turns out to be the first option and is
corrected, or it is in fact power tripping.

Rick Pikul

2009-03-31 06:02:26 UTC

Post by Rick Pikul
Then you have never played a full-up spell collector, (i.e. "it's a spell,
therefore I want it in my spellbook.)

Then your GM has never enforced any limit.
Sure, if he doesn't, then give me every spell known to mankind. And
elfkind. And goblinkind. And dragonkind, while we're at it! :)

And we are back to you being unwilling to spend resources because your
character would want to, and restricting yourself to numbers on paper.

Post by Rick Pikul
Invisibility: 1 min/lev duration, goes away with a single attack.
Web: 10 min/lev duration, unusable in even vaguely open terrain.
Try again.

These spells are more generally useful then /Protection from Arrows/.
They're not corner cases. They can actually do things.

Will you kindly take this strawman and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Post by Arandor
Try again.

First you will have to come up with a better spell. Not a spell that is
better in some circumstances, but one that is better, full stop.

Post by Rick Pikul
As I already pointed out: It is for specific situations, if you are
not going to run into those situations you shouldn't be using it.

Then we agree with each other.

If we did, you wouldn't be acting like that is an argument against me.

Post by Arandor
4) If your GM specifically tailors the campaign / situation so that this
spell is no longer a corner case, then, hey, guess what, *now* I want
it. You pulled it out of its corner, now it suddenly becomes a good
spell. Again, doesn't happen often IME.

It's not specifically tailoring for this spell, but just being in a
particular kind of campaign.

Post by Rick Pikul
The rules need to cover multiple types of campaign, not just the ones
you like to play.

If you keep using this same straw man, I'm going to do the cramming.

Post by Rick Pikul
It is a rare campaign where every spell is useful, and many campaign
setups can change an 'meh' spell into a vital one.

Thus pulling a sucky spell out of its corner. Doesn't change the fact it
was a sucky spell to begin with, and you *need* to change circumstances
to make it not suck.

Right.

{Grab, pin}

**RRIIPP**

{Stuff}

Post by Rick Pikul
Even when only resolving the part of the engagement that the PCs are
involved in, they are still going to be facing ordinary troops.

Then get the crystal.

Which actually won't be useful, as I pointed out.

Post by Arandor
Or, realise you're in a campaign where it's not a
corner case, and prepare that spell - *if* you spent resources on
getting it. I wouldn't. Unless this sort of thing happens *all the
time*.

Perhaps I should get a match.

Post by Rick Pikul
Requires that one also have magical armour.

You mean, a masterwork shield or buckler. Something I see that paranoid
commander certainly having.

Magic Item Compendium, p 221:

"A lesser augment crystal only functions when attached to an object with a
magical enhancement bonus of +1 or higher."

(Of course, if for whatever reason you aren't wearing a shield....)

Post by Rick Pikul
Something that would both stack and synergize with Protection from Arrows.

Or, you spend that ~7,500 gp on something *useful*.
If that commander has +1 full plate, a +1 large shield, that Crystal and
some minor items, he's got such a high AC that even those natural 20s
from 'stray arrows' from base soldiers (low-level warriors, most likely)
will hardly ever get confirmed.

Some news for you: THEY STILL HIT.

Post by Rick Pikul
Something that grants no protection in the not-uncommon situation on a
D&D battlefield of needing a natural 20 to hit, (chain mail and two
range increments add up to an effective AC of 19 in and of themselves).

Get a Healing Belt. It's 1/10th the cost of your item.

And has half the net protection at best.

Post by Rick Pikul
That kind of cover does not apply to arrow volleys.

You mean, special rules the spell needs to be useful?

If you want to void the use of rules from both Complete Warrior and Heroes
of Battle, then you will also have to give up items from the MIC.

Post by Rick Pikul
You seem to think that pointing out that the spell is best in specific
environments is somehow an argument against my position. Here is a
hint: It isn't.

Yes, it is. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean you'll be right.

Listen:

I NEVER ARGUED THAT IT WAS A GENERAL USE SPELL, I SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT
THAT IT FOR SPECIFIC SITUATIONS THAT A TYPICAL PARTY WOULD NOT ENCOUNTER.

That you keep arguing against it being a general purpose spell means that
you either never understood my position in the first place, or that you
are being dishonest.

Post by Arandor
'nuff said.

Only if you are reading another person's posts, then replying to them by
following up to my posts.

--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)

David Lamb

2009-03-31 19:31:47 UTC

Post by Arandor
1) It's a corner case spell. Outside those corner cases, it sucks.
First you pick better spells.
4) If your GM specifically tailors the campaign / situation so that
this spell is no longer a corner case ... Again, doesn't happen often IME.

"Corner case" is inappropriately contemptuous of other peoples' style of
play. AFAIK nobody has any statistics on how many people or groups
prefer one style of campaign or another -- or even a good way of
characterizing campaign styles so ytu *could* gather meaningful data.
Your experience, like most people's, is strongly influenced by
self-selecting the kind of campaign you like. It may be that your
favourite kind of campaign, apparently combat-heavy, is common, but:
- You don't have the data to prove it.
- Common or not is totally irrelevant when people are discussing their
preferred campaign style and tailoring choices to that style.

Arandor

2009-04-01 12:06:27 UTC

Post by David Lamb
- Common or not is totally irrelevant when people are discussing their
preferred campaign style and tailoring choices to that style.

And as I always said: if you play in such a campaign, and you have the
spell or can afford it, then sure, pick that spell - you know it'll be
useful.
--
Cheers,

Arandor

s***@yahoo.com

2009-04-01 15:10:31 UTC