Monks, Paladins, and Fighters, oh my!

[Fax Celestis]

Or better: what kind of rulesset would you recommend for a core evel 20 duel?

No ban list. DM's option for arena and "win conditions". Applicable material: "If it is in the SRD, it is usable."

[Stompy]

Because leadership is clearly the most powerful available and is not even located in the PH, and and relativly easy to meet check with no opposed roll to gain an ally is clearly broken?

Better yet, you are assuming the higher level cohorts, as well as the "every-spell" kingdom our level 20 fighter has, exists.


But monks have a class ability that makes it easier for them to be pals with budding kobold paladins!

I disagree. Wizards can use Dominate Person and have a pet bard with ranks in diplomacy do the talking.

[Sir Giacomo]

No ban list. DM's option for arena and "win conditions". Applicable material: "If it is in the SRD, it is usable."

Wouldn't this then lead to the outcome I described above? Both opponents entering the duel site with a hundred minions+ each?
Or, differently: do you really wish to see or do such a duel yourself?

Also, again: for my position I follow the core definition of the SRD and the PHB/DMG/MM covers. So, no epic rules, no psionics, no unearthed arcana which are part of SRD but not core.

EDIT: 9mm, what would you suggest?

- Giacomo

[Boci]

Wouldn't this then lead to the outcome I described above? Both opponents entering the duel site with a hundred minions+ each?
Or, differently: do you really wish to see or do such a duel yourself?

I think the point he was trying to make was "If core is balanced as you claim, why do you need to ban anything?"

[Sir Giacomo]

I think the point he was trying to make was "If core is balanced as you claim, why do you need to ban anything?"

But such an outcome is completely balanced. It just does not illustrate what two different characters could do in a duel involving only the two of them.

And I think this is what Doc Roc and many others are looking for.

- Giacomo

[Fax Celestis]

Wouldn't this then lead to the outcome I described above? Both opponents entering the duel site with a hundred minions+ each?
Or, differently: do you really wish to see or do such a duel yourself?

Also, again: for my position I follow the core definition of the SRD and the PHB/DMG/MM covers. So, no epic rules, no psionics, no unearthed arcana which are part of SRD but not core.

- Giacomo
PHB/DMG/MM is fine, but you asked what I would recommend. I do not really have interest in such a duel, but it would give the most conclusive results.

And to be honest, it might end up like that. But I doubt it.


But such an outcome is completely balanced. It just does not illustrate what two different characters could do in a duel involving only the two of them.

...what.

Do me a favor: define "balanced".

[Boci]

But such an outcome is completely balanced.

Just because something broken is available to everyone doesn't mean it is balanced.

[DragoonWraith]

He means the two are evenly matched. Which, if it happens as he describes, is not quite accurate, IMO (equally powerful nations with a Fighter at the head of one and a Wizard at the head of the other means the Wizard-nation is more powerful, but that assumes that the Wizard is more powerful which defeats the purpose of the duel), but he has something of a point.

[Stompy]

Wouldn't this then lead to the outcome I described above? Both opponents entering the duel site with a hundred minions+ each?

Don't forget

casters you have through diplomacy/leadership
minions you have through diplomacy/leadership/enchantment/intimidation/bluff
golems you have constructed earlier
your entire kingdom of peeps that you are ruling (somehow)
gate/planar binding cheese
minions you have through a dominated bard. :smallamused:
similacrums
other cheese I'm sure I am missing
familiars
animal companions
previous animal companions that are awakened and still love you
family (EDIT2: I have a huge million member elven family, and all off us look the same and are level 20 wizards, with the same skills and feats.)
significant others
etc...


Honestly, either the campaign world has to be defined, with rules on who can have what minions, territory, etc. or I would suggest that no minions come into the arena before the battle starts, besides animal companions and familiars. Summoning/making minions in combat I'd allow.

EDIT: Honestly, 9mm (or whoever is running the duel) is going to have to define balanced, or any side can (unfairly) get rid of abilities that the opponent has under the cause that they are broken.

[Doc Roc]

But he's so wrong though! This could very well be the thread where he realizes the grievous errors in his thinking and methodology. It could!

You are cruel, sir. Cruel, but funny. I actually am just in it for the duel, because I'm going to get to stretch my skills a bit for the first time in almost six months.


Here's my list of things I need gone or ruled on:
Gone:
Candles of Invocation
Dust of Sneezing and Choking
Calling spells
Leadership
Lyre of Building
Ruled on:
Dust of Disappearance
Rod Of Cancellation
contingency
Simulacrums
Gate

Straight Monk 20 versus Straight Wizard 20.
DM's ruling stands.
Any debate longer than five posts results in a DQ for the malingering side.
Victory decided by a jury of our peers.
Best of However Many You Want.

Gia, we're both old with deep roots. We're both opinionated. We both represent a portion of the spectrum that is... extremely rarefied. We're arguing about a game that I have gradually come to largely revile, and which is out of print. I gently suggest that we make this the capstone on the long and drawn-out debate.

[9mm]

You are cruel, sir. Cruel, but funny. I actually am just in it for the duel, because I'm going to get to stretch my skills a bit for the first time in almost six months.


Here's my list of things I need gone or ruled on:
Gone:
Candles of Invocation
Dust of Sneezing and Choking
Calling spells
Leadership
Lyre of Building
Ruled on:
Dust of Disappearance
Rod Of Cancellation
contingency
Simulacrums
Gate

Straight Monk 20 versus Straight Wizard 20.
DM's ruling stands.
Any debate longer than five posts results in a DQ for the malingering side.
Victory decided by a jury of our peers.
Best of However Many You Want.

Gia, we're both old with deep roots. We're both opinionated. We both represent a portion of the spectrum that is... extremely rarefied. We're arguing about a game that I have gradually come to largely revile, and which is out of print. I gently suggest that we make this the capstone on the long and drawn-out debate.

I'll begin my full rules write up then.

tentitive rules and thread: (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8622491#post8622491)

[Gametime]

Gia, we're both old with deep roots. We're both opinionated. We both represent a portion of the spectrum that is... extremely rarefied. We're arguing about a game that I have gradually come to largely revile, and which is out of print. I gently suggest that we make this the capstone on the long and drawn-out debate.

Since The Glyphstone hasn't done so yet, I guess I'll bring the popcorn!

[Stompy]

Since The Glyphstone hasn't done so yet, I guess I'll bring the popcorn!

How much popcorn have we run through this week?

Anyway I am sick of it. I'm bringing a double-decker cookie cake instead.

[Amphetryon]

Veggie platter with ranch and blue cheese instead?

[The Glyphstone]

Since The Glyphstone hasn't done so yet, I guess I'll bring the popcorn!

Back on page 3, actually, but I suppose it's run out by now. You can bring popcorn this time if you want, I'm switching to nachos.

[Gametime]

Back on page 3, actually, but I suppose it's run out by now. You can bring popcorn this time if you want, I'm switching to nachos.

Apparently the groundlings demand more substantial fare. I'll whip up a cheese platter, in honor of the spirit of this challenge.

[Pluto]

Since we've already started slinging mud, can we skip right ahead to the 50cm-long sentence-by-sentence deconstructions of one-anothers' posts?
Hooray! :smallbiggrin:

[Lycar]

Doing that service doesn't take a feat slot. A Feat should gain you something, and the DMG specifically states that if a character is looking for a particular item and it is within their WBL, the DM should accommodate them on it either by having it in the shops, or show up in the loot. So yes, item crafting should get you more effective WBL, because you blew some of your personal power to get it. If the crafting rules are balanced (not saying they are), then the increase in effective WBL should be equivalent in power to any other feat. That's not really the case, but that's largely irrelevant to my position.

Huh, so you are okay with fabricate-shenanigans too then? After all, someone is merely using a rules-legal class feature (and the brokenness of the rules) to create arbitrary amounts of wealth.

Yes, a DM should work with his players to get them the magic the wish for, within reason. But that still means that in a world without Magic-Marts, the PCs will have to find a way to get the good stuff.

Maybe as a quest reward. If a PC sacrifices a feat to be able to build stuff, he can have an easier time to get certain items. But he still needs to know how to actually manufacture them and gather the necessary resources. Again, this is mostly up to DM fiat.

Personally, I can see these feats mostly in effect for consumable items, like wands for blasting spells and potions and such.

Oh, I have a nice analogy here: You can hit stuff with your STR modifier. But if you pay a feat slot, you can use your DEX instead. This can be very helpful for certain kinds of characters. The crafting feats allow you access to an alternative means of acquiring magic items. This does not mean that you should be allowed to break WBL. At any rate, it is up to the DM to enforce the rules as he sees fit. If your DM is cool with crafting allowing you to spend only half of your cash to get gear... maybe he counts all the consumables you use up during your career against the total WBL too to compensate though...

The point is just: If you try to get something for nothing you are plain out cheating. And if you say a feat supposedly allows you to break a fundamental rule about game balance (no matter how balanced or not it is to begin with)... yeah, how about no?

Lycar

[Mr.Bookworm]

I'd like to propose a challenge to the two combatants, if that's okay.

Giacomo says that a monk can negate/reproduce everything a Wizard can do with WBL. Then "logically", a Wizard should be able to negate everything a Monk can do with WBL with his WBL, having access to the exact same resources as the Monk.

Thus, it seems logical that the fairest challenge would involve almost no equipment at all.

Optionally, since the Wizard gets one magic item (his spellbook), to "even" the field, the Monk gets one magic item of his choice, of any type. You can grab a major artifact if you want.

Otherwise, buck naked.

This makes it all about the strength of the respective class-features, instead of a pointless WBL slapfight.

Does that sound reasonable to anyone at all?

[Bitter Iocus]

I'd like to propose a challenge to the two combatants, if that's okay.

Giacomo says that a monk can negate/reproduce everything a Wizard can do with WBL. Then "logically", a Wizard should be able to negate everything a Monk can do with WBL with his WBL, having access to the exact same resources as the Monk.

Thus, it seems logical that the fairest challenge would involve almost no equipment at all.

Optionally, since the Wizard gets one magic item (his spellbook), to "even" the field, the Monk gets one magic item of his choice, of any type. You can grab a major artifact if you want.

Otherwise, buck naked.

This makes it all about the strength of the respective class-features, instead of a pointless WBL slapfight.
Does that sound reasonable to anyone at all?

No WBL.... I... I figur' I eat enough of poor glyph's popcorn that it's time to sing for my supper. This is me, throwing down. I hopin' it won't be me actually taking up the challenge, but..

[Boci]

Huh, so you are okay with fabricate-shenanigans too then? After all, someone is merely using a rules-legal class feature (and the brokenness of the rules) to create arbitrary amounts of wealth.

Yes, a DM should work with his players to get them the magic the wish for, within reason. But that still means that in a world without Magic-Marts, the PCs will have to find a way to get the good stuff.

Maybe as a quest reward. If a PC sacrifices a feat to be able to build stuff, he can have an easier time to get certain items. But he still needs to know how to actually manufacture them and gather the necessary resources. Again, this is mostly up to DM fiat.

Personally, I can see these feats mostly in effect for consumable items, like wands for blasting spells and potions and such.

Oh, I have a nice analogy here: You can hit stuff with your STR modifier. But if you pay a feat slot, you can use your DEX instead. This can be very helpful for certain kinds of characters. The crafting feats allow you access to an alternative means of acquiring magic items. This does not mean that you should be allowed to break WBL. At any rate, it is up to the DM to enforce the rules as he sees fit. If your DM is cool with crafting allowing you to spend only half of your cash to get gear... maybe he counts all the consumables you use up during your career against the total WBL too to compensate though...

The point is just: If you try to get something for nothing you are plain out cheating. And if you say a feat supposedly allows you to break a fundamental rule about game balance (no matter how balanced or not it is to begin with)... yeah, how about no?

Lycar

Seem's to be a pretty bad feat then. I'll just sell my magical items and by what I want. I don't need to worry about falling behind WBL, because I'll get what the DMG recomends.

[The Glyphstone]

Um - for the arguing about usage of crafting feats - isn't everyone forgetting that they consume XP as well? Since this is a one-shot arena, there's no opportunity to take advantage of XP being a river...if the wizard wants to use crafting feats, he'd have to start at a level lower than 20th so he has enough XP to spend on making anything. That's an opportunity cost for cheaper items, and different from 'I have infinite wealth from Craft(Decorative Cake Frosting) lol'.

[Mr.Bookworm]

No WBL.... I... I figur' I eat enough of poor glyph's popcorn that it's time to sing for my supper. This is me, throwing down. I hopin' it won't be me actually taking up the challenge, but..

Oh, hell no. :smalleek:

I'm not talking about DMing that or playing it myself, I'm just proposing it because it seems a million times more sensible then arguing about crafting feats and who can buy the bigger rod of lordly might.

[Pluto]

Thus, it seems logical that the fairest challenge would involve almost no equipment at all.
Now, I don't agree with Giacomo - especially in the context of a real game, where WBL tends to be several orders of magnitude higher than the actual gear players acquire - but this doesn't even acknowledge his argument, which is founded on the principle of diminishing returns [regardless of how applicable this principle really is].

[Mr.Bookworm]

Now, I don't agree with Giacomo - especially in the context of a real game, where WBL tends to be several orders of magnitude higher than the actual gear players acquire - but this doesn't even acknowledge his argument, which is founded on the principle of diminishing returns [regardless of how applicable this principle really is].

Yes, but at the most basic level, his argument ignores the fact that Wizards get the exact same shiny toys in addition to spellcasting that a Monk gets.

It also allows us to sweep all of the bullcrap about partially charged wands and their ilk into the fires of Dis, where they belong.

[Pluto]

Yes, but at the most basic level, his argument ignores the fact that Wizards get the exact same shiny toys in addition to spellcasting that a Monk gets.
Kind of. He downplays it; that's different.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Kind of. He downplays it; that's different.

True. But still.

Maybe you could do 3 tests?

1st: As outlined above, no WBL.

2nd: With WBL.

3rd: A man with a black belt in karate versus an old man armed with a flamethrower.

[The Glyphstone]

True. But still.

Maybe you could do 3 tests?

1st: As outlined above, no WBL.

2nd: With WBL.

3rd: A man with a black belt in karate versus an old man armed with a flamethrower, a sniper rifle, a belt of grenades, a handheld GPS and some of those tracking bugs cop shows use, his own personal jet airplane, and a penthouse suite guarded by Rotweillers. Who may or may not breathe fire

Fixed that for you. :)

[mikej]

Wasn't buying partially charged wands high-lighted in some other book ( thinking MiC ) that's outside of Core?

[Prodan]

There are Eternal Wands in the MiC, that much I know.

[Eldariel]

Wasn't buying partially charged wands high-lighted in some other book ( thinking MiC ) that's outside of Core?

No, the only reference ever made to them far as I know is in DMG for making characters above level 1. That is, it's expected you've used a certain number of charges. I have never seen a reference that would suggest you could expect to find them in shops.

[tyckspoon]

Wasn't buying partially charged wands high-lighted in some other book ( thinking MiC ) that's outside of Core?

MIC lists wands with charges in increments of 10, starting at 10. Which does suggest you could probably make a wand in that value, if you wanted to, but still doesn't support being able to create or readily find wands with an arbitrary number of charges (such as, in the extreme case, a stack of single-charge wands suitable to replace much more expensive scrolls.)

[DragoonWraith]

Huh, so you are okay with fabricate-shenanigans too then? After all, someone is merely using a rules-legal class feature (and the brokenness of the rules) to create arbitrary amounts of wealth.

Yes, a DM should work with his players to get them the magic the wish for, within reason. But that still means that in a world without Magic-Marts, the PCs will have to find a way to get the good stuff.

Maybe as a quest reward. If a PC sacrifices a feat to be able to build stuff, he can have an easier time to get certain items. But he still needs to know how to actually manufacture them and gather the necessary resources. Again, this is mostly up to DM fiat.

Personally, I can see these feats mostly in effect for consumable items, like wands for blasting spells and potions and such.

Oh, I have a nice analogy here: You can hit stuff with your STR modifier. But if you pay a feat slot, you can use your DEX instead. This can be very helpful for certain kinds of characters. The crafting feats allow you access to an alternative means of acquiring magic items. This does not mean that you should be allowed to break WBL. At any rate, it is up to the DM to enforce the rules as he sees fit. If your DM is cool with crafting allowing you to spend only half of your cash to get gear... maybe he counts all the consumables you use up during your career against the total WBL too to compensate though...

The point is just: If you try to get something for nothing you are plain out cheating. And if you say a feat supposedly allows you to break a fundamental rule about game balance (no matter how balanced or not it is to begin with)... yeah, how about no?

Lycar
Whoosh? A feat is an opportunity to grow in power. In the case of the Crafting feats, that increase in power is experienced through a slight increase in your effective WBL. What is your issue with this fact? That it's not balanced properly and you get more than a feat is worth? Well, fine, fix that then. But to 'punish' a player for taking a feat which many regard as sub-optimal to begin with, by causing it to effectively do nothing, is a very poor choice by a DM, in my opinion.

Fabricate does not use up any player resources, and so it should not gain the player anything, really, except on a temporary term. Feats do cost player resources.

[Philistine]

Huh, so you are okay with fabricate-shenanigans too then? After all, someone is merely using a rules-legal class feature (and the brokenness of the rules) to create arbitrary amounts of wealth.
Not exactly arbitrary amounts of wealth. He can make some items (the ones for which he has the relevant crafting feats) at half the normal GP cost to buy them, giving him at most double WBL - if and only if he spends a boatload of feats to be able to craft every kind of item he'll ever want. Otherwise it's less than double WBL, and probably a lot less.


Yes, a DM should work with his players to get them the magic the wish for, within reason. But that still means that in a world without Magic-Marts, the PCs will have to find a way to get the good stuff.
In the Land of No Magic-Marts, the Crafter PC is King. He and he alone can get whatever magic item he wants (and has the feat to craft), by making it himself. Sorry, but the "No Magic-Mart" idea increases the crafters' advantage.


Maybe as a quest reward. If a PC sacrifices a feat to be able to build stuff, he can have an easier time to get certain items. But he still needs to know how to actually manufacture them and gather the necessary resources. Again, this is mostly up to DM fiat.
By the rules, taking the relevant feat is all the character needs to do in order to know to create any item. Your houserules are not RAW.


Personally, I can see these feats mostly in effect for consumable items, like wands for blasting spells and potions and such.
The problem with this, of course, is that there are several different crafting feats. You're accounting for Brew Potion and Craft Wand (and presumably Scribe Scroll) - but what about players who take Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Forge Ring, or Craft Wondrous Item (the clear "if you're only going to take one crafting feat, this is the one" favorite)?


Oh, I have a nice analogy here: You can hit stuff with your STR modifier. But if you pay a feat slot, you can use your DEX instead. This can be very helpful for certain kinds of characters. The crafting feats allow you access to an alternative means of acquiring magic items. This does not mean that you should be allowed to break WBL. At any rate, it is up to the DM to enforce the rules as he sees fit. If your DM is cool with crafting allowing you to spend only half of your cash to get gear... maybe he counts all the consumables you use up during your career against the total WBL too to compensate though...

The point is just: If you try to get something for nothing you are plain out cheating. And if you say a feat supposedly allows you to break a fundamental rule about game balance (no matter how balanced or not it is to begin with)... yeah, how about no?

Lycar
First, your analogy is nonsensical. Second, there's nothing "supposed" about how crafting feats work - that's what the rules say. Over the course of a campaign, the crafting-feat-taking PC participates in the same encounters as other PCs in the party and gains an equal share of loot. But after he dumps the junk he doesn't want, he makes stuff that he does want for half the GP cost, plus a pittance of XP. That is exactly what the crafting feats do. It is what they are for. It cannot be cheating, because it doesn't involve breaking any rules. It isn't even an exploit, because that would require abusing the rules to make them work in an unintended way - and if the crafting rules weren't intended to do exactly what they do, then what in the world were they meant to do?

[Aharon]

As you have to sell the items you find at half price, it should even out if the DM gives those characters who don't sell things what they want more often. If the barbarian gets his +1 greatsword of x, and the wizard gets a Horn of Blasting he has to sell for 10000 gp, so he can afterwards craft his headband of intellect +4 and some other stuff, he does gain a bit, but not all too much. It's just a problem if the characters both start at a higher level, with the same gold to spend.

It will still be an advantage if you invest heavily in crafting, considering that most groups use houserules/the rules in one of the completes to allow bargaining for better prices, and considering that you can reduce the cost of your crafting if you invest more than one feat. But if you invest more, you should get more, I think...

[Lycar]

Whoosh? A feat is an opportunity to grow in power. In the case of the Crafting feats, that increase in power is experienced through a slight increase in your effective WBL. What is your issue with this fact? That it's not balanced properly and you get more than a feat is worth? Well, fine, fix that then. But to 'punish' a player for taking a feat which many regard as sub-optimal to begin with, by causing it to effectively do nothing, is a very poor choice by a DM, in my opinion.
Uhm... not to put too fine a point to it, but Wizards get the opportunity to double their allowed WBL from lv. 1 on as a class feature. Granted, it is all in the form of expendable scrolls but still...

Or are you actually arguing that doubling your effective WBL is 'a slight increase'? :smallannoyed:

And with feats like 'Toughness' and 'Weapon Focus' in play... why should the crafting feats not be 'weak' feats?

Feats are situational. Tripping can be great or useless, or Disarming. Depending on what opponents you face obviously. And when Waterdeep is but a teleport away, why bother with crafting when you have all those NPC losers who shell out their XP so you can buy custom made magic items at leisure?

No, crafting feats aren't supposed to break WBL, they are supposed to give a new way to work with that. Because the worth of an item is what it says in DMG, not what the PC actually paid for it. Otherwise, an item found as loot would have a value of zero. Because the PC didn't actually pay a measly copper to get it...

Not exactly arbitrary amounts of wealth. He can make some items (the ones for which he has the relevant crafting feats) at half the normal GP cost to buy them, giving him at most double WBL - if and only if he spends a boatload of feats to be able to craft every kind of item he'll ever want. Otherwise it's less than double WBL, and probably a lot less.
See above, Wizards can double their WBL starting at lv. 1 by your interpretation.

But that is an non-issue since by the holy RAW, you are supposed to have a certain amount of stuff, measured by the item's worth as listed, not by what the PC actually paid for it.

In the Land of No Magic-Marts, the Crafter PC is King. He and he alone can get whatever magic item he wants (and has the feat to craft), by making it himself. Sorry, but the "No Magic-Mart" idea increases the crafters' advantage.
'No Magic-Marts' is just the situation where crafting feats are a good investment. It still is nice not be depending on them, even if they do exist though.

You still don't get to break the rules, see above.


By the rules, taking the relevant feat is all the character needs to do in order to know to create any item. Your houserules are not RAW.
Oh? If you houserule that crafting feats allow you to ignore WBL guidelines at leisure, then my houserule is just as valid. Or do you actually claim that the DM does have no say whatsoever about what and what not items the party can get their hands on? Really?

Hey, I've got an idea for you: Why bother with a pesky DM at all? Obviously the guy only exits to limit your fun? Why put up with that? Just give yourself everything you ever read about in any splatbook or online or in your dreams... sky's the limit, if at all...

EDIT: Oh and by the way: Even at half (gold) price, you still need to pony up the dough to pay for the crafting. Guess who controls just how much cash you actually get? That's right, the DM.

First, your analogy is nonsensical.
Care to explain?

As stated, crafting feats offer an alternative way to get your WBL allotment of magical gear, just as Finesse allows you an alternative way to get a decent to-hit.

But hey, since you are arguing the equivalent of 'Finesse allows you to ADD your DEX mod to to-hit, on top of your STR mod', yeah, I can see why you find that analogy flawed. :smallamused:

Second, there's nothing "supposed" about how crafting feats work - that's what the rules say.
There is also nothing 'supposed' about how WBL works. You are allowed a certain amount of net worth. And nothing more, crafting feats or not. -Thats also what the rules say but you try to argue around that.

Over the course of a campaign, the crafting-feat-taking PC participates in the same encounters as other PCs in the party and gains an equal share of loot. But after he dumps the junk he doesn't want, he makes stuff that he does want for half the GP cost, plus a pittance of XP. That is exactly what the crafting feats do. It is what they are for. It cannot be cheating, because it doesn't involve breaking any rules. It isn't even an exploit, because that would require abusing the rules to make them work in an unintended way - and if the crafting rules weren't intended to do exactly what they do, then what in the world were they meant to do?
Aharon has it right:

As you have to sell the items you find at half price, it should even out if the DM gives those characters who don't sell things what they want more often. If the barbarian gets his +1 greatsword of x, and the wizard gets a Horn of Blasting he has to sell for 10000 gp, so he can afterwards craft his headband of intellect +4 and some other stuff, he does gain a bit, but not all too much. It's just a problem if the characters both start at a higher level, with the same gold to spend.

It will still be an advantage if you invest heavily in crafting, considering that most groups use houserules/the rules in one of the completes to allow bargaining for better prices, and considering that you can reduce the cost of your crafting if you invest more than one feat. But if you invest more, you should get more, I think...
If you actually play characters up from lv. 1, the crafting feats help make up the loss you incur if you sell off unwanted items at half price. Your DM can still use the treasure guidelines as is and be reasonably sure that the party gets about the amount of gear they need. Also saving money on acquiring permanent magic items allows you to purchase more expendables.

Or do you consider spent expendables a net loss to your supposed WBL? Giamonks beware... :smallwink:

But to argue that a, say, 10th level character is allowed to have double his supposed WBL, or even the entire friggin' party's for that matter, is just plain cheating.

Lycar

[lesser_minion]

Wands are not available in single-charge forms - the discount they get over multiple-charge items is meant to represent the various economies of scale assumed to be involved in making 50 charges of a spell all at once.

Basically, you can't have a single-charged wand for 1/50th the price for the exact reason Giacomo uses them.

Apparently that's word of god, so it's not too far from rules as written.

Well, actually, there's one exception. You can get a half-price wand with d50 charges.

I've seen a suggestion that players be allowed to recharge wands, provided they do so in increments of 10 - likewise, buying charges in batches of 10 should be fine for most games.

[Sliver]

Lycar, a large part of your argument is that you break a rule by doubling your WBL. But it is just guidelines. It's not a rule at all...

You could be more convincing if you focused more on the "WBL is what your item's worth". WBL measures the worth of your items at the creation of your char, not your actual gold. If you want to use all that to craft items, you have to sell all what you own and craft with that, which will leave you with the same wealth value as before.

Item crafting feats, if you care for WBL, then there is no point to them before character creation. (unless your DM rolls random items for you)

But is it the only way to look at that? Some DMs see WBL as how much gold a character spends on their equipment, not how much it's worth.

[candycorn]

Wait, if a wizard crafts items, doesn't he pay XP? Isn't the value of the XP spent equal to half the gold cost of the item?

In that case, a crafter is just using an additional resource (his XP) to cover part of the cost of items.

That means that a level 20 fighter would be against a level 19 wizard with extra items from crafting. I don't think it's about getting something for nothing. It's just using a different account for some of the charges, that's all.


Lycar, a large part of your argument is that you break a rule by doubling your WBL. But it is just guidelines. It's not a rule at all...

You could be more convincing if you focused more on the "WBL is what your item's worth". WBL measures the worth of your items at the creation of your char, not your actual gold. If you want to use all that to craft items, you have to sell all what you own and craft with that, which will leave you with the same wealth value as before.Couldn't a character just start with some of their wealth being platinum coins?

[Sliver]

Wait, if a wizard crafts items, doesn't he pay XP? Isn't the value of the XP spent equal to half the gold cost of the item?

1/25 of it's cost, actually.


In that case, a crafter is just using an additional resource (his XP) to cover part of the cost of items.

The claim is that the xp cost is for being able to control what items you have, instead of relying on random drop. Which is meaningless in an arena dual where both players start with whatever they want, so there is nothing to it besides trying to get as much as doubling your wealth.

Edit: Yes, you could do that, but what do you say when the DM asks you why didn't your character do it before the game? "It isn't as abusive" is your only answer there... It all depends on if the DM tells you that you spend that much in wealth, or if you have that much wealth. Having that wealth negates the benefits of crafting, but you should respect your DMs desires if he says that's how he wants it.

[mikej]

MIC lists wands with charges in increments of 10, starting at 10. Which does suggest you could probably make a wand in that value, if you wanted to, but still doesn't support being able to create or readily find wands with an arbitrary number of charges (such as, in the extreme case, a stack of single-charge wands suitable to replace much more expensive scrolls.)

So it's not really Core. So it makes Giacomo contradict himself with his falsehood of "Core" balanced and with one of his most prominent counter claims, cross-classed UMD and partially charged wands. Probally saying the obvious but it should warrant another go.

A DM could rule otherwise, but if it's going by DM's interpretation to work, it loses all creditibily. At least in my opinion.

[candycorn]

1/25 of it's cost, actually.



The claim is that the xp cost is for being able to control what items you have, instead of relying on random drop. Which is meaningless in an arena dual where both players start with whatever they want, so there is nothing to it besides trying to get as much as doubling your wealth.

Edit: Yes, you could do that, but what do you say when the DM asks you why didn't your character do it before the game? "It isn't as abusive" is your only answer there... It all depends on if the DM tells you that you spend that much in wealth, or if you have that much wealth. Having that wealth negates the benefits of crafting, but you should respect your DMs desires if he says that's how he wants it.
What you're saying is that having 10 gold is better than having 1 platinum, cause you have 10 times as much.

It's not how big the number is, it's what it's worth. And XP has value. If you have to pay XP for something, then you're paying a cost. It's not free.

[Amphetryon]

"It isn't as abusive intelligent a use of time and resources for a character built around being a super genius" is your only answer there
That's just a random thought on an alternate answer.

[Sliver]

That's just a random thought on an alternate answer.

No. If your DM says that WBL is how much wealth you have and not how much money can you spend in wealth, then it's not an intelligent way of doing it, just abuse. "You have items worth a total of X gold." "Alright, can I have some of it as actual gold?" "sure" "I use this gold for crafting, making it worth more." is undermining what the DM just told you.

candycorn - I myself agree. But some believe that the cost is for being able to decide what you have. It has no special value before game starts, but no other feat has it either.

[sdream]

I think it's sad that they designed magic the way they did.

It clearly leads to these shenanigans because wizards are incredibly powerful if they have the right spells prepared, and the breathing room to use them.

And incredibly weak (like an old man in a robe) if they don;t have the breathing room to prepare the right spell.

In duals like this, wizards have an incredible advantage they don't normally get in regards to knowing that in a few seconds a fight for their life will commence, and they should prepare defensive spells, and offensive spells, and shift their flexible but slow to respond class strengths to that kind of a fight.

An often overlooked scenario is the wizard getting ganked in his bed by the fighter friend of the guy he pulled scry and die tactics on a year ago, after he has let his guard down.

After all, in our last game we paid an NPC caster to cast a scry and teleport to drop us on top of a sorcerer who was breaking the law and terrorizing the neighborhood.

Scry and Teleport aren't AT ALL hard to afford the services of a low level caster, and were cheap for the value of dropping melee directly on a squishy unsuspecting caster, drinking from a stream. A normally CR12 opponent dead in the surprise round.

Fighters and monks have less flexibility to shift their class perks around, but benefit from their class perks continuously, and are much tougher targets for an opponent who leaps out at them from behind, with the mage-killer feat.

Where this relates to the current discussion is the "I teleport away and you have to spend the rest of your life hiding"... if it is fair to consider one party leaving the confines of the encounter, it is fair to consider the other also leaving the confines, and buying help cheaply.

That said, I definitely agree that ToB goes a long way towards fixing the plain boring suckitude of the melee classes, and giving them cool options and perks to look forward to on levels much more equal to that of reasonable casters as they were intended (exploring the dungeon with the rest of party, hoping they have the right spells and hiding behind the meat shields... not holed up in a pocket dimension, chain casting divination, and gating solars).

[Amphetryon]

As stated by others, Sliver, I can certainly see why a DM might choose to rule as you've suggested, but it's not red letter RAW, and it hacks away at a part of what makes item crafting so powerful.

EDIT
An often overlooked scenario is the wizard getting ganked in his bed by the fighter friend of the guy he pulled scry and die tactics on a year ago, after he has let his guard down. A Wizard not resting in his Magnificent Mansion, or at least his Portable Hole and with 'his guard down,' deserves it. That's ignoring his own Intelligence score, in my opinion.

[lesser_minion]

That's just a random thought on an alternate answer.

Not, of course, that the character built around being a super genius necessarily has the wisdom score actually required to consistently act rationally.

[Amphetryon]

Wisdom isn't rational thought, Intelligence is. Wisdom is common sense.

[Sliver]

As stated by others, Sliver, I can certainly see why a DM might choose to rule as you've suggested, but it's not red letter RAW, and it hacks away at a part of what makes item crafting so powerful.

Which is one of the problems people have with those feats. They are more powerful than the average feat. If you have a level 20 dual and the wizard starts at level 19 but with much more wealth, he loses only a tiny bit of his wizard powers but gains much more in equipment.

[lesser_minion]

Wisdom isn't rational thought, Intelligence is. Wisdom is common sense.

No, wisdom covers sanity, ability to remain cool, awareness of your surroundings, and ability to act rationally.

Intelligence covers memory and ability to deduce things correctly given accurate information and a sound state of mind - both of which need either a decent wisdom score, or everything to be given to you on a plate.

If you don't have a decent wisdom score, then you can have an intelligence as high as you like, but you still still don't have the capacity to use it all the time.

The bottom line is that "hypergenius" == "guy who can always figure out the best thing to do". Not "guy who always takes the best possible course of action".

It's a tangent, but arguing that failing to optimise a wizard is bad roleplaying really gets on my nerves.

[Amphetryon]

Which is one of the problems people have with those feats. They are more powerful than the average feat. If you have a level 20 dual and the wizard starts at level 19 but with much more wealth, he loses only a tiny bit of his wizard powers but gains much more in equipment.

"Some feats are more powerful than others" is not exactly a revelation....

[Doc Roc]

"Some feats are more powerful than others" is not exactly a revelation....

I wish it was though :)

[Sliver]

"Some feats are more powerful than others" is not exactly a revelation....

Doesn't mean it's balanced. Of course, Giacomo will have to say that it does, since Core is totally balanced because to counter magic item crafting abuse his character can just use the craft skill (which can be used untrained and requires no investment besides time to have an arbitrary amount of gold, unlike magic crafting which requires a feat, xp, will not do more than double your wealth and you have no benefit of crafting what you can't use) and since both sides have a way to abuse the rules, the rules are balanced completely but it's not what we supposedly want to prove so it should be banned. But it's balanced. And banned.

[lesser_minion]

Untrained use of the craft skill nets 1 sp a day. You can't even live off it, let alone sit around and work as an artisan for three hundred years.

[DragoonWraith]

Uhm... not to put too fine a point to it, but Wizards get the opportunity to double their allowed WBL from lv. 1 on as a class feature. Granted, it is all in the form of expendable scrolls but still...

Or are you actually arguing that doubling your effective WBL is 'a slight increase'? :smallannoyed:
That use of WBL is wasted. A Wizard who does that, or anything even remotely close to that, is gimping himself. Scrolls are a painfully inefficient way to do anything. A Wizard will use some early when his spell slots are still very low, but by 7 or 8 he really ought to never consider scribing another scroll again.


And with feats like 'Toughness' and 'Weapon Focus' in play... why should the crafting feats not be 'weak' feats?
Wizards designed the game with "good options" and "bad options" to reward "rules mastery" in their "ivory tower" image of game design. It's something that worked very well for them in Magic: The Gathering, so they sought to replicate it in D&D. They continued this trend straight through until Tome of Battle, and 3.5 is riddled with "traps", at least some of which were placed there intentionally. Toughness has been specifically and explicitly listed as one of these.

At the same time, Wizards overestimated the importance of attack bonuses. When Weapon Focus was first released, it was considered overpowered, "what person wouldn't take that?" Now it's a painful prerequisite to certain PrCs, and nothing else. By the same token, the Paladin and Ranger were considered powerful - "full BAB and spells?"

I'm not saying that Wizards was right about what they did with Item Crafting. I'm not suggesting you ought to play the game that way. I am saying that someone ought to receive something for taking a particular feat, and under your rules they get nothing, and that's just a poor decision in my opinion. Surely, at least in theory, you can agree that there is some level of effective WBL increase that would be appropriate in trade for a feat?


Feats are situational.
Agreed. Item Crafting feats are only useful if you have the time and the appropriate Feat for the item you want.


No, crafting feats aren't supposed to break WBL, they are supposed to give a new way to work with that. Because the worth of an item is what it says in DMG, not what the PC actually paid for it. Otherwise, an item found as loot would have a value of zero. Because the PC didn't actually pay a measly copper to get it...
The WBL guidelines are just that. If the players sell a looted item, it's only worth the sale price. If they keep it, it's apparently worth more than the sale price, which is not necessarily the same as the full price. But with the payment of the feat and XP, the item is worth less than its full price in gp as well - because you've already paid in non-standard currencies. The WBL that the players get should reflect this. Your suggestion that they do not negates any bonus from Item Crafting feats.

If someone spends all of their time crafting, and actually is doubling or even getting some substantial percentage of "extra" WBL, I can see cutting back. But literally deducting the cost of the item from the WBL they receive in response? That is an utterly unfair and punishing response.


But that is an non-issue since by the holy RAW, you are supposed to have a certain amount of stuff, measured by the item's worth as listed, not by what the PC actually paid for it.
WBL is a guideline, not a rule, written or otherwise. You need to stop with your thinly veiled insults in my direction, now. I'm getting very, very tired of it.


'No Magic-Marts' is just the situation where crafting feats are a good investment. It still is nice not be depending on them, even if they do exist though.
'No Magic Marts' (or, at the least, players not receiving desired items in the appropriate price range) specifically and explicitly flies in the face of the same guidelines in which WBL is presented. Your effective WBL is significantly reduced if you cannot purchase what you want with it. This inflates the value of item crafting feats, I agree, and considering your houseruling of how wealth is being handled, I could see houseruling how item crafting feats work in that setting.

But this is by no means the suggested way for either wealth or item crafting to be handled. The DMG is rather specific about this.


You still don't get to break the rules, see above.
Still not a rule. Please stop accusing me of cheating.


Oh? If you houserule that crafting feats allow you to ignore WBL guidelines at leisure, then my houserule is just as valid. Or do you actually claim that the DM does have no say whatsoever about what and what not items the party can get their hands on? Really?
The DMG specifically suggests that he doesn't, actually.


Hey, I've got an idea for you: Why bother with a pesky DM at all? Obviously the guy only exits to limit your fun? Why put up with that? Just give yourself everything you ever read about in any splatbook or online or in your dreams... sky's the limit, if at all...
You really need to apologize for this crap. Seriously, this is intolerable. You are demeaning and insulting for absolutely no reason, you have attacked me and others who agree with me without cause and without justification, and you need to apologize. Immediately.

[NEO|Phyte]

Untrained use of the craft skill nets 1 sp a day. You can't even live off it, let alone sit around and work as an artisan for three hundred years.

You're thinking of Profession.

[lesser_minion]

You're thinking of Profession.

Nope. Straight from the craft skill description:


(Untrained laborers and assistants earn an average of 1 silver piece per day.)

It wouldn't even make sense for that rule to apply to profession but not craft, since craft already has a slight advantage in that you can potentially get cheap nonmagical gear.

[NEO|Phyte]

Nope. Straight from the craft skill description:



It wouldn't even make sense for that rule to apply to profession but not craft, since craft already has a slight advantage in that you can potentially get cheap nonmagical gear.

Spooky. I suppose this gets into the question of whether that is referring to untrained crafters, or the untrained helpers the craft skill helps you supervise. Yay for vague skills.

(For reference, profession says "Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day. ")

[lesser_minion]

Spooky. I suppose this gets into the question of whether that is referring to untrained crafters, or the untrained helpers the craft skill helps you supervise. Yay for vague skills.

(For reference, profession says "Untrained laborers and assistants (that is, characters without any ranks in Profession) earn an average of 1 silver piece per day. ")

Well, the body of the rule is mostly the same, so I'd assume that they're just two sides of the same rule - you may make money using a Perform skill (Remember that Tumble is a perform skill, only dex-based), a Profession skill, a Craft skill, Survival*, or Heal*. If you have no training in a money-making skill, you receive 1 silver a day (which is just enough to live self-sufficiently according to the upkeep rules).

* Those are a little on the edge, but word of god is explicit that Survival is basically Profession (Outdoorsman), and I suspect that the same is true for Heal.

[Kaiyanwang]

That said, I definitely agree that ToB goes a long way towards fixing the plain boring suckitude of the melee classes, and giving them cool options and perks to look forward to on levels much more equal to that of reasonable casters as they were intended (exploring the dungeon with the rest of party, hoping they have the right spells and hiding behind the meat shields... not holed up in a pocket dimension, chain casting divination, and gating solars).

:smallconfused: How can ToB disallow chain gating solars? We could discuss about what's fun of melee PC and my opinion about a lot the suckitude thing, but that's not the point.

If you consider standard situation the bolded sentence, what ToB does to fix?

If your fighter is now a warblade, hase more trick on his sleeve and can reroll some save. GREAT. More fune to us.

But.. what can he do about the issue? IHS the gate? If you don't like the way core meleers are made we can agree of disagree (disagree? I pointed out how sucky the feat scale in these boards one million time).

But really, if you play casters that way, I really don't see what ToB can do about it, even if a lot of people keep repeating what you said.

[DragoonWraith]

He was saying that Tome of Battle effectively allows melee to compete with "reasonable" casters, which he defined as exploring a dungeon with the rest of the party, hoping they have the right spells and hiding behind meat shields, not hiding in pocket dimensions, scrying and gating and such.

Of course, I think he misses the in-between option, which is how most casters actually play - explore the dungeons with the party, but never worry about having the right spells or where the meat shield is, because you know in the back of your head that you have more than enough firepower to get through just about anything, you're only holding back for the sake of the group. That's how a lot of casters end up playing.

[Greenish]

Well, the body of the rule is mostly the same, so I'd assume that they're just two sides of the same rule - you may make money using a Perform skill (Remember that Tumble is a perform skill, only dex-based), a Profession skill, a Craft skill, Survival*, or Heal*.Adding Sleight of Hand for completeness.

"You can also use Sleight of Hand to entertain an audience as though you were using the Perform skill. In such a case, your “act” encompasses elements of legerdemain, juggling, and the like."

[Kaiyanwang]

In italy, most gamers have never seen ToB. HAs not been printed, because the company translating books from wotc decided to interrupt publication and switc to 4th edition (guess how many money had from me for this: yes, 0).

How we managed to play without ToB in the scenarios above? Yeah, right. With PH and complete series classes (and presige classes). People played and had fune anyway, mostly because, seriously, they don't give a damn about it.

[Doug Lampert]

Untrained use of the craft skill nets 1 sp a day. You can't even live off it, let alone sit around and work as an artisan for three hundred years.

It gives half your check total in gold per week, even with three int and a take ten that's FAR FAR more than 1 sp/day.

Craft is usable untrained, and the craft skill clearly states what the income is.

There's ALSO the OPTION to work as unskilled labor, which pays FAR FAR less, but there's nothing whatsoever in the rules to make you do that rather than using craft untrained. The skill clearly indicates that it can be used untrained, and it clearly indicates what the income is.

The unskilled labor category is meaningless because there's nothing that says I can't use the normal craft rules without training, and in fact the rules clearly state that I CAN use the normal craft rules without training, and the normal craft rules pay more than unskilled labor.

[Doug Lampert]

Well, the body of the rule is mostly the same, so I'd assume that they're just two sides of the same rule

Or you could assume that they FAILED TO NOTICE that craft is usable untrained and cut and pasted from profession (which isn't), or you could assume that they FAILED TO NOTICE that craft is usable untrained, and wrote a bad rule which they cut and pasted to profession.

But none of this changes that craft is usable untrained and gives an income based on the check result which is better than "unskilled labor". And hence that there's no reason whatsoever to ever use the "unskilled labor" rules.

[lesser_minion]

It gives half your check total in gold per week, even with three int and a take ten that's FAR FAR more than 1 sp/day.

Craft is usable untrained, and the craft skill clearly states what the income is..

And clearly states that it changes if you're using it untrained.

They aren't retarded. If an 'option' appears to be available to someone in a weaker position, then that 'option' is obligatory. At no point is it even described as an option - it is Right. In. The. Exact. Same. Paragraph. Right under 'check'.

There is no way it can be construed otherwise - you can, if you can find a buyer, make items and sell them untrained, and you can maintain your equipment untrained. You only make 1 sp if you want to shoe horses, however.

Basically:

Rules as intended: you can sub a trained craft check for a profession check to practice a trade.

Rules as written: exactly as intended.

[Gametime]

Oh? If you houserule that crafting feats allow you to ignore WBL guidelines at leisure, then my houserule is just as valid. Or do you actually claim that the DM does have no say whatsoever about what and what not items the party can get their hands on? Really?



I'm confused as to how you expect DMs to handle this situation, under your proposed schema. Let's say you have a wizard in an adventuring party. That party gets some gold and levels up. The wizard takes a crafting feat, and starts using his gold to make magical items.

According to you, the wizard has now broken WBL. How do you propose the DM fixes this? By only dropping magical items that other members of the party want? He certainly can't drop gold or unwanted magic items - those would be sold and (presumably) divided evenly among the party.

So, in order to make sure the wizard falls back in line, you need to only drop magical items that other members of the party want. In essence, everyone's getting what they want - the crafter because he's crafting, everyone else because you're making it happen - but the crafter has to pay experience points for the privilege.

That's...odd. You might have a point if crafting didn't require experience (which I seem to recall is the case with Pathfinder, though I'm not certain), but experience points have value. Spending them is often worthwhile for a crafter, but it kind of ceases to be if they could get the exact same result without spending the points.

[Fax Celestis]

That's...odd. You might have a point if crafting didn't require experience (which I seem to recall is the case with Pathfinder, though I'm not certain), but experience points have value.

Pathfinder has no XP costs anywhere.

[Kaiyanwang]

XP and gold are not everything. There is time, too.

See, I'm for long campaings, where my PCs have generally time to do their businness. But, this is not true for every case and every person.

[Gametime]

XP and gold are not everything. There is time, too.

See, I'm for long campaings, where my PCs have generally time to do their businness. But, this is not true for every case and every person.

Also very true. Using the variant crafting from UA helps a lot - it basically assumes you spend your downtime crafting and thus imposes no time constraints, even if you have practically no downtime. In a lot of campaigns, you simply don't have time to make magic items.

Crafting holds a significant cost, both actual (experience) and theoretical (time). If all crafting does is get you what you would've gotten basically for free anyway (magic items through adventuring), then what is the point?

Weapon Finesse has been used as an analogy. I'm going to take this opportunity to point out that no one takes Weapon Finesse if their dexterity is lower than their strength. Feats are supposed to be beneficial, even if they wouldn't help in every situation.

Arbitrarily limiting the power of crafting might be healthier for a game in terms of balance, but you're achieving that balance by making crafting the equivalent of a Weapon Finesse that can only be taken when your dexterity is lower than your strength. Options only have value when they are at least sometimes superior to the default.

[candycorn]

candycorn - I myself agree. But some believe that the cost is for being able to decide what you have. It has no special value before game starts, but no other feat has it either.

That's silly. The cost is for making the item. Deciding what you have? If a DM doesn't want something in the game, it won't be, right? If you make a magic item, you pay half in gold, and half in experience.

What a cost is for doesn't matter if you're the one buying. It's only important if you're selling. Then you have to worry about how much it costs to make, and how much your cashiers cost to pay. If you're buying (or making), then the cost is for the item, whether that's 10,000 gp, or 5,000 gp and 400 xp. You don't worry about what the cost is for unless you're the one trying to sell it.

[Prodan]

:smallconfused: How can ToB disallow chain gating solars?
If we define the chain gating of Solars as a negative condition...



How we managed to play without ToB in the scenarios above? Yeah, right. With PH and complete series classes (and presige classes). People played and had fune anyway, mostly because, seriously, they don't give a damn about it.

I do not believe anyone was saying that you could not have fun as a non ToB melee class. If they were, please point them out to me so that I may take action.

I believe the main thrust of the argument was that non ToB melee characters do not compare well to casters in terms of power.

[Kaiyanwang]

If we define the chain gating of Solars as a negative condition...

That's always fun to think indeed.

Warblade: "MRPFRGR" *solar disappears*



I believe the main thrust of the argument was that non ToB melee characters do not compare well to casters in terms of power.

That's my point too. If one play with magic not restrained by rules and situations, and care for pefect balance, ToB is not an answer. If you consider fighter boring, warblade can be an answer. That's all. Warblade can do nothing about caster power.

[ericgrau]

Web (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm) > fighter.
Grease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm) > fighter.
Glitterdust (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/glitterdust.htm) > fighter.

I think this indirectly summarizes the issue. Spell summaries are in a clearly defined place that makes their effectiveness easy to see. The rules for reality are on page 1234 of the DMG about 1/3 of the way down, 2nd column, which you must then combine with the 17th line of the spell text body to figure out what to do. What I mean is that webbing a fighter is a joke, on account of strength checks and flaming swords. Greasing a fighter is a joke, on account of the combat actions to overcome it are equal to the actions to cast it, and that's only if he fails his saves & checks. Glitterdusting a fighter is a joke, in that a blind inebriated fighter can still beat up a frail wizard (or still pose a threat to w/e else) you just need to check the blindness rules. Once you cross out these rules and replace them with the more convenient "incapacitated", "incapacitated", "incapacitated" then low level wizards become game breaking.

In practice most people don't know the spells either, or they know them but they're not actively trying to break the game, or they read the spell/other text and what seemed like a great idea at first falls flat in practice. In most/all groups I've witnessed or heard about the problem is nonexistant and purely theoretical. If a powergamer does arrive, he is often booted or corrected. Not only for knowing the rules to some disruptive tricks, there is that, but also for starting silly rules arguments and often bending the rules.

[sofawall]

often bending the rules.

No, see, you've got us powergamers confused with another group. Powergamers try to make a powerful character within the constraints of whatever ruleset is being used. Be that ToS or a set of houserules, a Powergamer will not break the rules. It's sort of a challenge.

A munchkin, on the other hand, will bend or break rules to become powerful. You must be thinking of them.

[Prodan]

What I mean is that webbing a fighter is a joke, on account of strength checks and flaming swords.
"If the save fails, the creature is entangled and can’t move from its space, but can break loose by spending 1 round and making a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 25 Escape Artist check. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10. "
Incidentally,
"An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity."
Also
"Any fire can set the webs alight and burn away 5 square feet in 1 round. All creatures within flaming webs take 2d4 points of fire damage from the flames. "


Greasing a fighter is a joke, on account of the combat actions to overcome it are equal to the actions to cast it, and that's only if he fails his saves & checks.
You may want to address the likelyhood of his failing said saves and checks.


Glitterdusting a fighter is a joke, in that a blind inebriated fighter can still beat up a frail wizard (or still pose a threat to w/e else) you just need to check the blindness rules.

Please elucidate. I assume the fighter uses the Listen skill to find where the wizard is in order to beat him up?

Incidentally, do Fighters get Listen as a class skill?

Well, I guess they can always get a masterwork tool of it, though going into battle with an earhorn may be a bit tricky.

[Boci]

What I mean is that webbing a fighter is a joke, on account of strength checks and flaming swords.

1. Strength checks are only possibly if you succeed your save.
2. It takes more than 1 round to hack your way out of a web spell.


Greasing a fighter is a joke, on account of the combat actions to overcome it are equal to the actions to cast it, and that's only if he fails his saves & checks.

1. Quicken spell (or rod of quicken).
2. Failed balance check.



Glitterdusting a fighter is a joke, in that a blind inebriated fighter can still beat up a frail wizard (or still pose a threat to w/e else) you just need to check the blindness rules.

I am. The fighter's AC is slightly lower, his speed is halved, and unless he beats the wizard move silent check by 20, he needs to guess which square they're in.



Not only for knowing the rules to some disruptive tricks,

So choosing the more powerful spell is a disruptive trick?

[Kaiyanwang]

The game is more situational and complex than you show it. Would you glitterdust a grimlock fighter? Would you cast grease on a dune? In a swamp?

[Boci]

The game is more situational and complex than you show it.

True, I agree. That does not change the fact that fighters cannot match the versatility of a wizard.


Would you glitterdust a grimlock fighter?

I'm pretty sure you can see they do not have eyes so probably not. Web or greace.

[Prodan]

The game is more situational and complex than you show it. Would you glitterdust a grimlock fighter? Would you cast grease on a dune? In a swamp?

You could grease the fighter's weapon.

[Kaiyanwang]

You could grease the fighter's weapon.

I could quickdraw some bolas and trip you. See what are we doing?

[Boci]

I could quickdraw some bolas and trip you. See what are we doing?

So I triped. Good thing my offensive capabilities aren't as nerfed as fighter. I use my metamagic rod of quicken to cat web.

[Kaiyanwang]

So I triped. Good thing my offensive capabilities aren't as nerfed as fighter. I use my metamagic rod of quicken to cat web.

Web expires since I'm on fire. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: wow, ogre! Giant Type!

[Prodan]

Web expires since I'm on fire. :smallbiggrin:


I'm satisfied with that result.

[ScionoftheVoid]

I could quickdraw some bolas and trip you. See what are we doing?

The Bolas that you probably don't have proficiency with, have a range which is rather small and doesn't scale as a spell's does and which you are trying to hit someone who has probably just moved back after casting because they can see that you have a backup ranged weapon? Not to mention that being prone doesn't even affect casting so the Wizard may just stand with no fear of retribution (Fighter doesn't have a weapon he can threaten with, so no AoO) and cast again, or not even bother standing and gain +4 AC versus the ranged attacks the Fighter is now using.

Real effective there aren'tcha?[/SARCASM]

[Kaiyanwang]

I'm satisfied with that result.

Of course wizzie has more option.. I don't want to troll Boci (Boci, I didn't intend to offend you).

I simply say that thinking dismiss things with one spell could be simplicistic in an environment like the one of D&D, full of wieird situations and races and so on.

Theoretically wizzie is unbeatable and pratically is very powerful. Magic is powerful, and melee could have twice the options without being broken.

But.. I see the game as cooperative. I always managed to behave with this in mind as a DM. Make players don't expect what will come, have them play like a team. No fihgter vs wizard. Fighter and wizard vs fighters and wizards.


The Bolas that you probably don't have proficiency with, have a range which is rather small and doesn't scale as a spell's does and which you are trying to hit someone who has probably just moved back after casting because they can see that you have a backup ranged weapon? Not to mention that being prone doesn't even affect casting so the Wizard may just stand with no fear of retribution (Fighter doesn't have a weapon he can threaten with, so no AoO) and cast again, or not even bother standing and gain +4 AC versus the ranged attacks the Fighter is now using.

Real effective there aren'tcha?[/SARCASM]

White text is very popular, recently, or I started to find it late?

Barring the fact that for a ranged TOUCH attack the proficency could really not be relevant. A better conter-argumentation could be, say, blur or mirror image, but you miss my point.

Fighter could be at threat range, have mercurial strike and draw a weapon to strike the wiz. could have nothing. Could have drawn a poisoned knife. Wizard could have saved vs poison. could have not.

In the meanwhile, what their allies are doing?

[Gametime]

I could quickdraw some bolas and trip you. See what are we doing?

You'd spend one of your feats on bola proficiency?

If you aren't adjacent to the wizard already, tripping isn't really that big of a deal. They'll stand up without provoking attacks and just cast another spell at you.

After fifth level, there's a low to medium chance they'll be flying out of reach of the bolas.

[Amphetryon]

I could quickdraw some bolas and trip you. See what are we doing?Given that it's no detriment to the Wizard to literally voluntarily begin combat prone, I'm not seeing a big threat from your hypothetical exotic weapon choice.

[Kaiyanwang]

I find disturbing the amount of people thinking that you need proficency with bolas to use them.

For the other things, see above.

[Fax Celestis]

I find disturbing the amount of people thinking that you need proficency with bolas to use them.

Do you enjoy a -4 penalty to your attack rolls?

[DragoonWraith]

Bolas are a touch attack; you can afford a -4 penalty usually.

[Kaiyanwang]

Bolas are a touch attack; you can afford a -4 penalty usually.

Exactly. That was the point. You don't always need to use something at best to use it quite effectively. Of course, against a target with high touch AC..

The right target, the right weapon. Not to compare flexibility with the wiz, but DragoonWraith nailed it.

[Gametime]

I find disturbing the amount of people thinking that you need proficency with bolas to use them.

For the other things, see above.

Bolas have a 10 ft. range increment. Assuming the wizard isn't flying (in which case he'd probably be out of your reach with the bolas anyway), you'd have to be, at most, 80 ft. away to get off a ranged trip. Presumably, he's more than 30 ft. away, or you'd just run up and hit him in melee. We're looking at a range penalty of between -4 and -6. Combined with your non-proficiency penalty, that's a total of -8 to -10 to your touch attack.

Unless you have a decent dexterity bonus or some magic bolas, you're now attacking at next to no bonus if you're not at high levels. At low levels? You're attacking at a penalty. Even an AC of 10 is tough to hit when your attack is in the negatives, and wizards can usually afford a dexterity of at least 14.

So, no, you don't need proficiency to use a bola, but to actually guarantee success it's a good idea.

[SilveryCord]

Certainly, if you're advocating the fighter, while we're talking about the early levels you can probably flip through the SRD and find ways to address one of the wizard's tactics. But, you can't just say, fighter A has hypothetical answer B to wizard C's spell D, because what really matters is the number of Bs compared to the number of Ds.

[Greenish]

Bolas are a touch attackSRD neglects to mention this.

[NEO|Phyte]

SRD neglects to mention this.

Trip attacks are initiated with a touch attack. The bola's special ability is that it can be used for ranged trip attacks.

[Greenish]

Trip attacks are initiated with a touch attack. The bola's special ability is that it can be used for ranged trip attacks.Oh right. :smallredface:

[Kaiyanwang]

Bolas have a 10 ft. range increment. Assuming the wizard isn't flying

What we want to assume? They met at the supermarke? They met at the court of the Efreet Grand Visir? At the court of the crimson king?

10 fet away? From the orbit?

When the fight started? Why they fight? They are enemies?

They are lovers? The fighter did something with the fey queen and the wizard went upset? Discovering it thorugh a divination? So they fight at home?

Or they are ambushing each other in Baphometh's courtyard?

Is the fighter sick? Is the wizard drunk? Who's near? An ancient Bronze dragon trying to make two friends find an agreement? A fien tempting the wizard?

People, we are talking about PC in a gameworld. No arena. Multiverse and their inhabitants is our arena.

[Boci]

What we want to assume? They met at the supermarke? They met at the court of the Efreet Grand Visir? At the court of the crimson king?

10 fet away? From the orbit?

When the fight started? Why they fight? They are enemies?

They are lovers? The fighter did something with the fey queen and the wizard went upset? Discovering it thorugh a divination? So they fight at home?

Or they are ambushing each other in Baphometh's courtyard?

Is the fighter sick? Is the wizard drunk? Who's near? An ancient Bronze dragon trying to make two friends find an agreement? A fien tempting the wizard?

People, we are talking about PC in a gameworld. No arena. Multiverse and their inhabitants is our arena.

You can ask all the questions you want, iot does not hide the fact that the wizards options are more versatile and generally superior.

[Kaiyanwang]

You can ask all the questions you want, iot does not hide the fact that the wizards options are more versatile and generally superior.

True. Silverycord addresses it well:

Certainly, if you're advocating the fighter, while we're talking about the early levels you can probably flip through the SRD and find ways to address one of the wizard's tactics. But, you can't just say, fighter A has hypothetical answer B to wizard C's spell D, because what really matters is the number of Bs compared to the number of Ds.

I simply say that dismiss a class with a spell in a vacuum is pointless.

[Boci]

True. Silverycord addresses it well:


I simply say that dismiss a class with a spell in a vacuum is pointless.

Buts its a valid points. Obviously "web beats fighter" is hyperbol, but a low level wizard can screw up a fighter pretty well with web. Even if they succeed their save they might not get out in 1 round. Low level fighter against a high level wizard? Assuming he's ranged he can ready an attack to disrupt his spell casting, but that requires him to hit the wizard's AC (and by pass the other defenses) and for the wizard to fail their concentration check.

Edit: For a better example. compare a low level wizard against a high CR melee monster and a low level fighter against a high CR melee monster.

[Kaiyanwang]

Really? And if I can draw a knife with drow poison?

Swingy combat.. I could fail a reflex save, you could fail a fortitude one. Interesting.

See? we are restarting the discussion. Maybe we should agree to (partially) disagree.

[Gametime]

What we want to assume? They met at the supermarke? They met at the court of the Efreet Grand Visir? At the court of the crimson king?

10 fet away? From the orbit?

When the fight started? Why they fight? They are enemies?

They are lovers? The fighter did something with the fey queen and the wizard went upset? Discovering it thorugh a divination? So they fight at home?

Or they are ambushing each other in Baphometh's courtyard?

Is the fighter sick? Is the wizard drunk? Who's near? An ancient Bronze dragon trying to make two friends find an agreement? A fien tempting the wizard?

People, we are talking about PC in a gameworld. No arena. Multiverse and their inhabitants is our arena.

That's kind of my point. My assumption wasn't in favor of the wizard - it was assumption that was necessary for your proposed countermeasure to work at all.

I get your point, and I agree with it in general. I was only responding to two things: one, your proposed countermeasure (a ranged trip), and two, your effective assertion that nonproficiency with bolas made little difference as to their effectiveness. The former is unreliable at best, and the latter is untrue in most situations where the bolas would even be helpful.

As to your premise that different situations make a great deal of difference, you're right. That's not what I was talking about, though.

Although, for the record, none of the situations you outlined above would make the slightest iota of difference in the effectiveness of a bola trip on the wizard except, perhaps, the wizard being drunk. Just sayin'.

[Boci]

Really? And if I can draw a knife with drow poison?

Swingy combat.. I could fail a reflex save, you could fail a fortitude one. Interesting.

See? we are restarting the discussion. Maybe we should agree to (partially) disagree.

You're comparing the versatility of greace, glitterdust and web to a consumble poison?

Also, for web, I never assumed they would fail their save. Pass yr save on poison, you're fine for a minute. Pass your save on web...and you're still stuck.

Plus, a lot more creatures are immune to posion than to those 3 spells. And a dagger has a range of 50ft.

[Gametime]

Really? And if I can draw a knife with drow poison?

Swingy combat.. I could fail a reflex save, you could fail a fortitude one. Interesting.

See? we are restarting the discussion. Maybe we should agree to (partially) disagree.

Drow Poison is pretty potent, but it requires you to get next to the wizard. A lot of the time this will be easy - at least at low levels.

Of course, you also have a nearly 10% chance to accidentally poison yourself, but if you do that while applying the poison it isn't a huge deal since you're not in combat. And you have a pretty good shot at avoiding either the Reflex save to avoid poisoning yourself on a natural 1 or to make the Fortitude save when you do.

At the levels before flight is a common option, though, you're probably better off just hitting the wizard. Low hit points and all that.

[Lycar]

Lycar, a large part of your argument is that you break a rule by doubling your WBL. But it is just guidelines. It's not a rule at all...
Hrm... but by the same token, 'the DM should make the magic items the players want to have available to them' is also merely a guideline and not a rule... :smallannoyed:


You could be more convincing if you focused more on the "WBL is what your item's worth". WBL measures the worth of your items at the creation of your char, not your actual gold. If you want to use all that to craft items, you have to sell all what you own and craft with that, which will leave you with the same wealth value as before.

Item crafting feats, if you care for WBL, then there is no point to them before character creation. (unless your DM rolls random items for you)

But is it the only way to look at that? Some DMs see WBL as how much gold a character spends on their equipment, not how much it's worth.
See, but that is the point: If you start a game and are making up a character of level x, are you going to allow a single party member to have double the amount of gear the DMG suggests he ought to have? Really?

I suppose using crafting to get past the suggested WBL is not so bad if this goes for the whole party and not just only for some antisocial jerk who happens to be a caster. In this case, it would be the same as picking a 32 point buy (high powered campaign) in stead of a 25 point buy. Fair enough if all agree to this.

But what about an arena game... are you really going to allow one player double the gear? Really? Because that is what some people claim the crafting feats allow them to do. I call that blatant cheating. Int he end it is up to the GM to make a call on that. But seriously, if that is your ruling... who ever in his right mind is ever going to pick anything but a caster for a character ever? :smallfrown:

Casters already get to break reality. If they do it on behalf of the party, rather then to show up other players this can be fun and enjoyable. If they do it to degrade other players to mere sideshow freaks, it destroys the game. The same goes for WBL: If the whole party benefits from crafting, sure, go for it. But never, ever, allow a single immature prick to ruin the game for everyone else.


That use of WBL is wasted. A Wizard who does that, or anything even remotely close to that, is gimping himself.
Congratulations, you just disqualified yourself from the discussion.

Why? You used the 'g' word.

Why is it that every time a player finds it necessary to curtail the power of the class he chose to play for the sake of the game, some people cry 'gimping!'?

I'll give you a hint: If a player finds himself in a situation where he can

a) curtail the theoretical power of the character, so that the game remains fun to play for everyone (I'll just go ahead and assume he is playing with friends and not with strangers/sworn enemies)

b) use every trick in the book to break the game and ruin the fun for everyone else

then one of those options is the responsible, mature one and the other option is the... immature one.

And if one choses the mature one, rest assured, someone will but in and cry 'waah, you are gimping your character you stupid noob!'.

Protip: If you pick the immature option, even if you are old enough to be supposed to be mature, you are retarded by definition.


Wizards designed the game with "good options" and "bad options" to reward "rules mastery" in their "ivory tower" image of game design.
So because the game is badly made you are entitled to act like a jackass and ruin your fellow players fun?


I'm not saying that Wizards was right about what they did with Item Crafting. I'm not suggesting you ought to play the game that way. I am saying that someone ought to receive something for taking a particular feat, and under your rules they get nothing, and that's just a poor decision in my opinion.
My rules?! You've got some nerve! :smallfurious:

Read the friggin' DMG page 135, there is a nice little table that TELLS YOU what kind of wealth a character of a certain level ought to have to be about balanced!

Crafting feats give characters the option of making custom magic items without relying on Magic-Marts! Because those simply don't exist in some settings! This CAN be a very powerful feat indeed! Or a waste of a feat, yeah, but this depends entirely on the setting!

If a M-M is just around the corner do not take crafting feats! Because then they SUCK!

But if your characters find themselves in a world where magic items are rare and only found in forgotten tombs or dragon hoards, and the chance of finding something useful rests on the whim of a die roll, then these feats become powerful!

Just like Toughness is actually a viable choice for a 1st level elven wizard who has the feeling that 3 HP are just not going to cut it!


If someone spends all of their time crafting, and actually is doubling or even getting some substantial percentage of "extra" WBL, I can see cutting back. But literally deducting the cost of the item from the WBL they receive in response? That is an utterly unfair and punishing response.
Wrong! It is unfair to punish people for not being casters. And 'doubling WBL' is exactly what you propose! And in an arena game nonetheless!


WBL is a guideline, not a rule, written or otherwise. You need to stop with your thinly veiled insults in my direction, now. I'm getting very, very tired of it.
Oh really, is that so... let us see what else are 'guidelines' and not 'rules' shall we?

- The DM is encouraged to give players loot they can actually use/they would like to have.

Or he can just roll some dice, declare that only crap comes up and watch his players sell off the junk for half price. In that case, crafting feats are actually a sheer necessity just to keep up with WBL.

Also, a lot of Wizard power comes from their vast (theoretical) spell selection. Sure, a Wizard can cover his bases with the 2 spells he learns each level. Bu no DM is in any way compelled to allow things like 'collegiate wizards' or even drop scrolls or spellbooks as loot that contain new spells...

You know what else is a 'guideline`? Level appropriate encounters....

- just look at the wizard's spell selection for the day and pop an encounter his spells are crap against...

- or make encounters so weak that the PCs don#t earn any XP....

- or just make a TPK encounter and your players to roll up new PCs...

Yeah, guideline my ass!

Just because YOU don't like to have your 'smart little trick' ruined by some jerk of DM who tells you to shove it doesn't mean you get your way. If your DM rolls like that, good for you. If he doesn't, well, sucks to be you.


'No Magic Marts' (or, at the least, players not receiving desired items in the appropriate price range) specifically and explicitly flies in the face of the same guidelines in which WBL is presented. Your effective WBL is significantly reduced if you cannot purchase what you want with it. This inflates the value of item crafting feats, I agree, and considering your houseruling of how wealth is being handled, I could see houseruling how item crafting feats work in that setting.
Oh really... now you say that the ability to make your own items is actually worth something if you can't get everything you can dream of per mail order?

Or even better: In the very same sentence you claim that NOT giving players items they wish for is 'flying in the face of the rules' but making players adher to suggested WBL is also 'flying in the face of the rules'? Make up your mind, you get to pick one, not both! EITHER players can gets stuff up to around WBL, no matter how, OR they can get random stuff, no GP limit, but good luck finding something usefull in all the junk! :smallmad:

And stop lying about me houseruling anything. Just stop! Table 5-1 is RAW, not a house rule! :smallfurious:

The game suggests that it is balanced around characters of a certain level having a certain amount of gear. How the players get this net worth is up to the GM. Crafting feats just make it less of a hassle to get stuff your PCs can actually use.


But this is by no means the suggested way for either wealth or item crafting to be handled. The DMG is rather specific about this.
The DMG is indeed quite specific about the issue. Just not in the way you claim it to be. STOP. LYING. :smallfurious:


Still not a rule. Please stop accusing me of cheating.
You know what? I'll stop accusing you of cheating as soon as you, you know, stop cheating, how about that? Fair enough? No? Didn't think so...


You really need to apologize for this crap.
Oh that is rich... you lie about the rules, accuse others of 'houseruling' stuff that is printed in the frigging DMG and have the NERVE to demand an apology?

How about no! :smallfurious:

Lycar

[Boci]

And in an arena game nonetheless!

The wizard will be lower level.

[Kaiyanwang]

You're comparing the versatility of greace, glitterdust and web to a consumble poison?

Also, for web, I never assumed they would fail their save. Pass yr save on poison, you're fine for a minute. Pass your save on web...and you're still stuck.

Plus, a lot more creatures are immune to posion than to those 3 spells. And a dagger has a range of 50ft.

Being stuck by a web is not as being unconscious. You can thow said knife even being entangled.

But we are going on a circle. Moreover, reread my posts. Did I ever said that fighters are as versatile as wizard? I restate it: I simply say that dismiss a whole PC for some advantageous spell use is preposterous.

This not means that some spells and combos are way too ovepowered for their cost, expecially when levels go up.

[Boci]

Being stuck by a web is not as being unconscious.

True. One of the differences is that being stuck in a web cannot be entierly avoided with a save.


You can thow said knife even being entangled.

On a completly unrelated side note, I don't think web entrangles you, since I always read it as flavour text. It is certainly powerful enough without it.


But we are going on a circle. Moreover, reread my posts. Did I ever said that fighters are as versatile as wizard? I restate it: I simply say that dismiss a whole PC for some advantageous spell use is preposterous.

I already acknowledged that. My point has been:
A 10th level part gets a 3rd level follower. If its a fighter, he's not worth much. If its a wizard on the other hand.

[Kaiyanwang]

A 10th level part gets a 3rd level follower. If its a fighter, he's not worth much. If its a wizard on the other hand.

If is 3rd level in a 10th level adventures, he's dead anyway :smallwink:

[Prodan]

Being stuck by a web is not as being unconscious. You can thow said knife even being entangled.

If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover. If you have at least 20 feet of web between you, it provides total cover.


On a completly unrelated side note, I don't think web entrangles you, since I always read it as flavour text. It is certainly powerful enough without it.



Creatures caught within a web become entangled (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#entangled) among the gluey fibers. Attacking a creature in a web won’t cause you to become entangled.

The spell description is a fascinating read.

[Tinydwarfman]

I'm sorry, I may be coming way too late into this conversation, but is Lycar suggesting that crafting feats don't actually give you more money to play with because to craft you have to sell stuff for half price? If you just happened to find that +1 twilight mithral feycraft armor, couldn't you have also found 200,000 gp and just bought the materials for crafting?

[Boci]

If is 3rd level in a 10th level adventures, he's dead anyway :smallwink:

But a 3rd level wizard can contribute to combat at 10th level. Sure the first AoE or monster to get annoyed with him will finish it, but the fighter won't fair too better, and his offesnive capabilities against CR: 10 creatures will be just north of negligible.
Maybe that doesn't say much about the different classes, but to me it says a lot.


The spell description is a fascinating read.

Read charm. Threaten is not used in there as the game term. I was using PH, which for some strange reason lacks hyperlinks.

[Prodan]

Read charm. Threaten is not used in there as the game term. I was using PH, which for some strange reason lacks hyperlinks.

Get an iPad.

[Kaiyanwang]

But a 3rd level wizard can contribute to combat at 10th level. Sure the first AoE or monster to get annoyed with him will finish it, but the fighter won't fair too better, and his offesnive capabilities against CR: 10 creatures will be just north of negligible.
Maybe that doesn't say much about the different classes, but to me it says a lot.


Eh. Maybe the 3rd level fighter menages to prepare an action with a towershield just in time to save a PC. Maybe manages to trip a worthy target with a well placed strike of the so-much-debated bolas. Maybe put himslef in a place good for flank and a rogue can eviscerate a target thank to this...


The spell description is a fascinating read.

Fine so couldn't I pass the reflex save, move to avoid cover issue, drawing the knife in the meanwhile (BAB +1 or grater), and strike the wizzie?

[Boci]

Eh. Maybe the 3rd level fighter menages to prepare an action with a towershield just in time to save a PC.

Can you grant others cover with your own tower shield?


Maybe manages to trip a worthy target with a well placed strike of the so-much-debated bolas.

Maybe. Certainly a much bigger maybe than the wizard's spells.


Maybe put himslef in a place good for flank and a rogue can eviscerate a target thank to this...

The wizard can do that as well. Both are going to last equally as long: 1 round.


Fine so couldn't I pass the reflex save, move to avoid cover issue, drawing the knife in the meanwhile (BAB +1 or grater), and strike the wizzie?

Moving to cover will typically require a DC: 30 strength check. But that comment was directed at my saying I felt the entangle part of web spell was just flavour text.

[Prodan]

Fine so couldn't I pass the reflex save, move to avoid cover issue, drawing the knife (BAB +1), and strike the wizzie?
"Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is entangled, but not prevented from moving, though moving is more difficult than normal for being entangled (see below). If the save fails, the creature is entangled and can’t move from its space, but can break loose by spending 1 round and making a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 25 Escape Artist check. Once loose (either by making the initial Reflex save or a later Strength check or Escape Artist check), a creature remains entangled, but may move through the web very slowly. Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10."

[tyckspoon]

Fine so couldn't I pass the reflex save, move to avoid cover issue, drawing the knife in the meanwhile (BAB +1 or grater), and strike the wizzie?

Can you readily make a DC25+ Strength check? Probably not? Then no, you can't easily move within a Web.

[Kaiyanwang]

Can you grant others cover with your own tower shield?

Fair point :smallconfused: I've to check.



The wizard can do that as well. Both are going to last equally as long: 1 round.

I could recycle the tower here. Move to grant flank, and prepare an action. Then use it for cover when the enemy turns on you. Then die form some AOE.. but whatever :smallbiggrin:

I could recycle even for the web :smallconfused: take cover and manage to put the web on fire. I see the issue of Str 25 check. But: correct me if I'm wrong, the check is less difficult if you passed the reflex save first..

[Prodan]

I could recycle the tower here. Move to grant flank, and prepare an action. Then use it for cover when the enemy turns on you. Then die form some AOE.. but whatever :smallbiggrin:

"Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance. "

[Kaiyanwang]

"Shield, Tower

This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else.

When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance. "

Wotc never cleared up what was intended for "give up the attacks". That has been clarified in FAQs:



Total cover prevents any attack against you. You canuse a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all yourattacks. What does “give up all your attacks” mean? Canyou move while getting total cover from the shield? Can
you cast a spell? Also, do you get total cover from alldirections or from just one side of your square? Will the total cover from a tower shield negate spell effects? Will it negate attacks of opportunity from movement or from other actions such as spellcasting? Will it prevent charge attacks against you? What about bull rush attacks? Can it prevent grapple attacks or snatch attacks? Will it stop fear effects, gaze attacks, or clouds of poison gas? Will it defeat traps?

To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a standard action. The tower shield rules don’t say that, but that’s what they mean. Since you can take only one standard action each round, you cannot also attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item (except for some use-activated items), use a special ability, use total defense, or start or complete a full-round action during the same round you claim total cover from the shield. You can, however, take a move action before or after you claim cover from the shield.

[DragoonWraith]

{snip}
I find your post insulting and offensive. I've reported it to the moderators as flaming; we'll let them sort through this. Feel free to do the same to any of mine you find to be so, but I think you'll have a hard time of it. I have repeatedly asked you, politely, to stop insulting me, and you have not, you have only escalated your efforts, so I think this is the only appropriate and responsible step I can make at this time.

[Prodan]

Wotc never cleared up what was intended for "give up the attacks". That has been clarified in FAQs:

Just keep in mind the FAQ isn't always right. Or consistent, for that matter.

[Kaiyanwang]

Just keep in mind the FAQ isn't always right. Or consistent, for that matter.

True - but in case of tower shield cover actionTM it's the most official position we have - and directly from the sage, it was even in Dragon Magazine IIRC.

It became official AFAIK - even Pathfinder adopted it, check in the PRD.

[Prodan]

True - but in case of tower shield cover actionTM it's the most official position we have - and directly from the sage, it was even in Dragon Magazine IIRC.
The Sage and Dragon Magazine...

No, not going to say it. Too easy. Must aspire to greater things.


It became official AFAIK - even Pathfinder adopted it, check in the PRD.

Pathfinder adopted a lot of things.

[Kaiyanwang]

The Sage and Dragon Magazine...
No, not going to say it. Too easy. Must aspire to greater things.


Oh well since:

1) Your tone is way too dismissing

2) It's time to go to bed for me

Goodbye and goodnight. Have fun. :smallsmile:

[Prodan]

Your dismissal of my dismissal was dismissive.

[Gametime]

Your dismissal of my dismissal was dismissive.

Yo dawg, i herd u liek dismissal, so we

Scratch that. I always assumed that switching to total cover with a tower shield required that you "give up your attacks" because if you have total cover from them, they have total cover from you.

I'm not sure if the rules for total cover support that, although I'm having trouble of thinking of a non-tower shield example of one-way total cover, so it seems reasonable.

[The Glyphstone]

Bleh, I think this new batch of popcorn got burnt by all the flames shooting around.

[Greenish]

Just keep in mind the FAQ isn't always right. Or consistent, for that matter.It is pretty sensible in this case, though.
Bleh, I think this new batch of popcorn got burnt by all the flames shooting around.Should've brought marshmallows, eh?

[Gametime]

Should've brought marshmallows, eh?

Marshmallows it is! I also took the liberty of packing chocolate and graham crackers.

[Lycar]

I'm sorry, I may be coming way too late into this conversation, but is Lycar suggesting that crafting feats don't actually give you more money to play with because to craft you have to sell stuff for half price? If you just happened to find that +1 twilight mithral feycraft armor, couldn't you have also found 200,000 gp and just bought the materials for crafting?

No. I am pointing out that on page 135 of DMG there is a table listing what amount of wealth should make for appropriate gear for certain character levels and that crafting feats should not allow you to disregard these rules/guidelines/whatever, just because you feel like it.

I am also pointing out that someone who claims that his caster character, in an arena game no less, should be allowed to have effectively double WBL worth of gear is plain cheating.

Lycar

[Boci]

I am also pointing out that someone who claims that his caster character, in an arena game no less, should be allowed to have effectively double WBL worth of gear is plain cheating.

You're 1 level lower in return for extra gear. Doesn't sound like cheating to me.

[DragoonWraith]

I am also pointing out that someone who claims that his caster character, in an arena game no less, should be allowed to have effectively double WBL worth of gear is plain cheating.
Your continued flames in the face of my notice that I've already reported you are rather disconcerting.

In point of interest, I've never been in any arena game, and no character of mine has ever actually crafted anything. I have argued repeatedly that your interpretation nullifies the entire purpose of the Craft (Item) feats, and that is all I have done.


EDIT: I take that back; one of my characters is using a homebrewed class that relies on self-crafted dolls; that character has crafted exactly one of these dolls. Still, seeing as that is homebrew, and is an important part of her class features, I don't think it has any bearing on this argument. Actually, I don't think anything any of my characters has ever done should have any bearing on this argument, but since you keep bringing them up I suppose they do, for you, at least.

[Da'Shain]

No. I am pointing out that on page 135 of DMG there is a table listing what amount of wealth should make for appropriate gear for certain character levels and that crafting feats should not allow you to disregard these rules/guidelines/whatever, just because you feel like it.

I am also pointing out that someone who claims that his caster character, in an arena game no less, should be allowed to have effectively double WBL worth of gear is plain cheating.Er ... isn't that the point of feats in general? Spending finite, irreplaceable resources to gain advantages in certain areas compared to other characters who made different choices with their finite, irreplaceable resources?

The fact that they're better than a lot of other choices doesn't mean that they're somehow cheating.

[The Glyphstone]

Let's run some numbers here, since I feel semi-responsible for this diversion.

If the wizard is 'doubling his wealth' for an arena game, then he's got 760,000*2 = 1,520,000 GP worth of gear. Since he must have crafted it all himself to get said doubling, he's also spent 60,800 XP (1/25 of the total value of his items) besides the 760,000 GP of raw materials that he started with.

19,000 XP gets you from lvl19 to lvl20.
37,000 XP, gets you from lvl18 to level 20.
54,000 XP, gets you from lvl17 to level 20.
70,000 XP, would get you from lvl16 to lvl20.

He only spent 60,800 though....so this hypothetical wizard who "doubled his wealth" did so by voluntarily starting at 16th level (+10K xp). What's this nonsense about 'cheating for double starting gear' again?




EDIT: I take that back; one of my characters is using a homebrewed class that relies on self-crafted dolls; that character has crafted exactly one of these dolls. Still, seeing as that is homebrew, and is an important part of her class features, I don't think it has any bearing on this argument. Actually, I don't think anything any of my characters has ever done should have any bearing on this argument, but since you keep bringing them up I suppose they do, for you, at least.
Is this homebrew on the boards somewhere? I wrote something very similar-sounding a long time ago, and I'd be curious to see how they compare.

[Gametime]

I am also pointing out that someone who claims that his caster character, in an arena game no less, should be allowed to have effectively double WBL worth of gear is plain cheating.


Double is something of an exaggeration, since they are unlikely to craft all their gear. I'm not sure there's even 1,520,000 GP of worthwhile magic items for a wizard in the DMG, and the experience cost of crafting all that would drop you a whopping four levels.


You're 1 level lower in return for extra gear. Doesn't sound like cheating to me.

If we assume that gear is responsible for roughly half your power (which is a bizarre assumption, but let's go with it), and that every two levels represents a doubling in power (as is assumed for ECL) then one level in exchange for twice as much gear is (very roughly) an even trade.

Of course, neither of those assumptions is particularly defensible, and it's a moot point anyway since doubling your level 20 wealth would drop you four levels, not one.

To lose one level, you have a maximum of 19,000 experience to play with. That'll get you 475,000 gp worth of magic items at half price, so you profit by 237,500 gp. Roughly a 30% increase of your WBL, nowhere near 100%.

Probably still worth the extra 8th and 9th level spell slots, though.

EDIT: Thrice-cursed math ninjas!

[Greenish]

He only spent 60,800 though....so this hypothetical wizard who "doubled his wealth" did so by voluntarily starting at 16th level (+10K xp). What's this nonsense about 'cheating for double starting gear' again?You're obviously missing the point, which is that the exp burned and feats used don't cost the character anything. :smallamused:

[The Glyphstone]

Indeed.

*math-ninja's Gametime's marshmallows*

[AstralFire]

You're obviously missing the point, which is that the exp burned and feats used don't cost the character anything. :smallamused:

Ironically, this would be a lot closer to true when crafting in a campaign regularly leveling up.

[Gametime]

Ironically, this would be a lot closer to true when crafting in a campaign regularly leveling up.

I was surprised to find out that this was the case, because I always thought that the party's average level was the basis for experience gain. I think our group always did it that way because it never really mattered - none of us were crafting or casting spells with experience costs. Under that model, you might gain slightly more experience after crafting (if your lower level made the party's average lower), but it would be divided among the party anyway. You would take much longer to catch back up.

There are probably better ways to deal with crafting experience - eliminating it altogether and relying on your players to not break the game in half is one I myself enjoy - but I still like my way better than theirs. :smalltongue:

[AstralFire]

I was surprised to find out that this was the case, because I always thought that the party's average level was the basis for experience gain. I think our group always did it that way because it never really mattered - none of us were crafting or casting spells with experience costs. Under that model, you might gain slightly more experience after crafting (if your lower level made the party's average lower), but it would be divided among the party anyway. You would take much longer to catch back up.

There are probably better ways to deal with crafting experience - eliminating it altogether and relying on your players to not break the game in half is one I myself enjoy - but I still like my way better than theirs. :smalltongue:

My method of dealing with crafting is to make people pay the gold value to craft. :smallamused: It breaks the 'economy', but D&D's a terrible world simulator anyway.

[DragoonWraith]

Is this homebrew on the boards somewhere? I wrote something very similar-sounding a long time ago, and I'd be curious to see how they compare.
It is; it is the ungodly verbose monstrosity here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=122904). It's also on Fax's very generously offered Wiki, here (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Puppet_Master). In any event, despite the length of the rules, it actually plays pretty smoothly. It helps that I do know the rules by heart, having written them, though.


My method of dealing with crafting is to make people pay the gold value to craft. :smallamused: It breaks the 'economy', but D&D's a terrible world simulator anyway.
What's the point of the feat then?

[AstralFire]

What's the point of the feat then?

Making magic items that are not available in stores or through adventure-won loot. I give my players plenty of downtime (so it is easy to find a time to use crafting), but I don't let them just purchase anything they want to have. I play settings with relatively low proliferation of high-powered magitech.

[Koury]

Making magic items that are not available in stores or through adventure-won loot. I give my players plenty of downtime (so it is easy to find a time to use crafting), but I don't let them just purchase anything they want to have. I play settings with relatively low proliferation of high-powered magitech.

So, if I want Item X but I don't have a crafting buddy or the feats myself, I'm SOL unless it just so happens to be an item you allow to be sold in stores?

[DragoonWraith]

Making magic items that are not available in stores or through adventure-won loot. I give my players plenty of downtime (so it is easy to find a time to use crafting), but I don't let them just purchase anything they want to have. I play settings with relatively low proliferation of high-powered magitech.
I'd argue that D&D 3.5 was not designed for such a setting and it may have unforeseen consequences, but I know you know what you're doing so I'll just assume that you've accounted for that, and that your players are on board with it.

By the same token, though, I do have to recommend against that approach for the average game, for the same reasons by which I was arguing with Lycar - you've expended a certain amount of a highly-finite, highly-valuable, and utterly-non-renewable resource to gain this ability, it needs to come with some kind of advantage to make it worth the feat. By default, the DMG recommends allowing players to either buy or find any reasonable item they wish, so that's not a benefit. Thus, in a normal campaign, one should expect crafting to actively increase ones effective WBL at a rate roughly equivalent with the expected power increase gained by any feat.

[AstralFire]

So, if I want Item X but I don't have a crafting buddy or the feats myself, I'm SOL unless it just so happens to be an item you allow to be sold in stores?

Yes. Bear in mind, I play low powered, very houseruled games. Parties can get up to level 14 and carry 2-3 magic items apiece. But in a party of six, four of them may carry minor artifacts highly tailored to them and two will have very useful baubles obtained via story progression. More stuff like Kwalish's Apparatus or Nystul's Magic Pigments. Or those flying disks in Eberron's Sharn.

Essentially:


I'd argue that D&D 3.5 was not designed for such a setting and it may have unforeseen consequences, but I know you know what you're doing so I'll just assume that you've accounted for that, and that your players are on board with it.

By the same token, though, I do have to recommend against that approach for the average game, for the same reasons by which I was arguing with Lycar - you've expended a certain amount of a highly-finite, highly-valuable, and utterly-non-renewable resource to gain this ability, it needs to come with some kind of advantage to make it worth the feat. By default, the DMG recommends allowing players to either buy or find any reasonable item they wish, so that's not a benefit. Thus, in a normal campaign, one should expect crafting to actively increase ones effective WBL at a rate roughly equivalent with the expected power increase gained by any feat.

Is dead on correct. My approach to crafting would need to be considerably more nuanced for a standard D&D campaign, but I rarely go with standards. (And thanks for the vote of confidence, DW~)

[lesser_minion]

No. I am pointing out that on page 135 of DMG there is a table listing what amount of wealth should make for appropriate gear for certain character levels and that crafting feats should not allow you to disregard these rules/guidelines/whatever, just because you feel like it.

I am also pointing out that someone who claims that his caster character, in an arena game no less, should be allowed to have effectively double WBL worth of gear is plain cheating.

Lycar

How is it cheating to follow the rules completely in both letter and spirit?

Initially, it was recommended that the characters actually got items they could make themselves at half price. Currently, the only guideline that uses wealth by level:

Mandates that it be treated as if you'd just awarded the player a giant chunk of gold Suggests allowing the player to use some of that gold along with XP to make items.


WBL is meant to just about reflect the average rate at which characters accumulate treasure (for reference, you can fudge it as 1 gp per XP before allowing for consumables).

If you don't like it, change it, but don't accuse everyone else of 'cheating' because they don't play by your personal rules.

[Lycar]

{Scrubbed}

[lesser_minion]

Now if we get to making a character at a higher level of play, how much gold should said character have available at creation?

DragoonWraith claims that a caster with item creation feats gets double the suggested WBL worth in gear. Because a 10th level character gets to buy stuff worth 49.000 gp and since he is smart enough to pick the win-combo of caster + crafting, all those GP have been spent crafting stuff while the character leveled up.

So DragoonWraith wants to have his cake (be a 10th level character) and eat it (get extra stuff).

Not in the slightest. He is voluntarily starting at a lower level and expending a feat in exchange for a small amount of extra equipment (to which the same 'reasonable' criteria apply) and a bit more flexibility in choice.


And even if he 'conceded' that he would start at a lower level in exchange for that extra gear, that would be not much of a price to pay since the greater rate of earning XP means he'll catch up.

So? Had that not been the case, the DM would be expected to throw him a bone (i.e. a solo adventure) anyway, and the advantage is not permanent in any format where the opportunity to catch up exists.


Question to you: How do you handle DragoonWraiths 9th level character with extra gear as he levels up? Do you make sure he receives loot in accordance to suggested WBL or not?

If not, pray tell, why!?!?

Because it was assumed characters have the ability to make items when the wealth by level guidelines were written. Because the items benefit everyone, not just their maker. Because the advantage isn't permanent, any more than the XP penalty is.
Because I do not consider it acceptable to unfairly negate the advantage of a feat that I've already seen fit to include in the game.
Because I like to think that I'm competent enough to create a balanced game without being coddled at all times by four hundred scraps of paper.



It's worth bearing in mind that pre-game crafting:

Doesn't confer an unfair advantage on the crafter (if the player likes being invited to the table, anyway) Doesn't bypass the 'reasonale items' restriction. Puts the character behind for a significant chunk of time in an ongoing campaign, where items will be expended or stop being useful over time anyway. Puts the character behind forever in all other formats.

[Sliver]

So DragoonWraith wants to have his cake (be a 10th level character) and eat it (get extra stuff).

This is .. plain cheating.

That is why I want to beat DragoonWraith to a bloody pulp with a DMG. Preferably his own.

Question to you: How do you handle DragoonWraiths 9th level character with extra gear as he levels up?

Lycar

This starts sounding like a personal attack and plain flaming the more I read this... You were already asked to stop. Please, do so. It doesn't help the discussion, at all.

You take your interpretation of the guidelines (that you should note that it is written that it is what the items you have from random encounters on average are wroth. And the DMG gives you the amount of gold you earn from them. You are perfectly entitled to pay XP to get a discount in GP) and declare it is the one to rule them all, that it is in fact a rule (which is not, as many games move away from the guidelines as they play, with low or high valued drops, or don't even look at them) and anyone that doesn't agree is trying to cheat.

[Gametime]

DragoonWraith claims that a caster with item creation feats gets double the suggested WBL worth in gear. Because a 10th level character gets to buy stuff worth 49.000 gp and since he is smart enough to pick the win-combo of caster + crafting, all those GP have been spent crafting stuff while the character leveled up.

Are we still going with "double" as the benefit of crafting? Because it's already been pointed out, but in order to get double your WBL you'd have to spend every single gold piece on crafting. This means, among other things, that you'd have to spend several feats, not just one (unless you're satisfied with just wondrous items, I suppose, which is possible).

Also, massive experience costs.


And even if he 'conceded' that he would start at a lower level in exchange for that extra gear, that would be not much of a price to pay since the greater rate of earning XP means he'll catch up.



Wait, I thought we were talking specifically about how unfair it is for someone in a one-shot arena duel to start with "double" their allocated WBL level. Catching up on experience because you're at a lower level only works in ongoing campaigns - the rules for the duel that we were originally discussing specifically stated that each contestant only have the minimum amount of experience needed to reach level 20 and that crafting would reduce their level accordingly.

So, a few people pointed it out and you haven't yet responded. To double your 20th level WBL would require an investment of four character levels. Doesn't it seem like you've been utilizing hyperbole for a while now?

I mean, you could just say that crafters are trying to get 30% extra WBL for free. It'd still be a contentious statement, but it would be much more grounded in the actual math.

[Salbazier]

Uh, I thought this thread was supposed to be about the 'weaknesses' of melee classes...:smallconfused:

[Koury]

Uh, I thought this thread was supposed to be about the 'weaknesses' of melee classes...:smallconfused:

Psh, yeah, like 600 posts ago. :smallamused: Besides...
http://mindlesscomfort.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/are-you-not-entertained.jpg

[Kaiyanwang]

Your dismissal of my dismissal was dismissive.

:smallbiggrin:

Besides, yes, Dragon Magazine had good and bad moments, but I want to point out the I talked about the Sage, not the customer service. There is a slight difference: customer service is several people, with several ideas of the game leading to several, discording answers.

The sage is one dude. And the tower shield thing was his answer, published on an (like it or not) official magazine of the game.

If there were another "moar official" answer, somewhere, is one thing. But that is our only answer, the only one that mechanically describes how the thing happen.

So, this time, we have nothing more official for this martial move. If you don't want to accept it, that is: but, at least, see why I consider the answer satisfying and I use it for examples.

Barring the fact that makes tower shield use way more fun and flexible.

[Prodan]

The sage is one dude. And the tower shield thing was his answer, published on an (like it or not) official magazine of the game.

It's just that I've noticed him giving no-RAW answers for RAW questions. They might would make good houserules, but they're not quite what we're looking for.

[lesser_minion]

Wotc never cleared up what was intended for "give up the attacks". That has been clarified in FAQs:

And it's wrong, as far as I can tell.

The original version was (outdated text, from the 3.0 PHB):


It's basically a portable wall meant to provide cover. It can provide up to total cover, depending on how far you come out from behind it. A tower shield does not, however...

Take what that implies about the act of taking total cover behind a tower shield, and combine it with "you must give up your attacks", and I'm pretty sure the expected reading was "all other characters have total cover with respect to you on a round where you are using the shield for total cover."

Not that that's RAW either, but it's at least closer to the text than some standard action thing coming right out of nowhere.

[Kaiyanwang]

Sorry lesser minion but...:smallconfused:

What you have written doen not clarifies the action used. Moreover, the sage answer (If you wish, I'll report it as a whole) takes care about the direction of the cover and other issues. I don't understand why we should ignore it.

[Math_Mage]

DragoonWraith claims that a caster with item creation feats gets double the suggested WBL worth in gear. Because a 10th level character gets to buy stuff worth 49.000 gp and since he is smart enough to pick the win-combo of caster + crafting, all those GP have been spent crafting stuff while the character leveled up.

So DragoonWraith wants to have his cake (be a 10th level character) and eat it (get extra stuff).

I would like to ask where, exactly, DW decided to nullify the XP cost of crafting when creating new characters for established campaigns, and that all item crafting could be accomplished with a single feat. As an aside, I should note that at least one prominent Wizard handbook (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God) warns players away from crafting as a 'lose-combo', as it were.


That is why I want to beat DragoonWraith to a bloody pulp with a DMG. Preferably his own.

Er...you might want to reread this. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)


And even if he 'conceded' that he would start at a lower level in exchange for that extra gear, that would be not much of a price to pay since the greater rate of earning XP means he'll catch up.

Ah, but now we are in an actual campaign. The wizard will have to continually craft new items as he advances--the wondrous item he made at level 4 won't be much help at level 8. Other party members will want to take advantage of this service--and though they can contribute the funds, the XP cost belongs solely to the wizard. These two elements, among others, keep the wizard solidly behind in XP even with the catch-up factor. In the case of WBL expressed through loot, granted not an issue in character generation but certainly an ongoing issue in play, the wizard is only gaining customization in items for his XP cost (I am assuming loot sells at half-price for convenience; I think most DMs will not allow their players to sell loot at full price, in any case). If the wizard wishes to gain the kind of benefits you describe through crafting, he must expend several feats to do so, which is a major opportunity cost.

Please note, I do not claim that DW's interpretation is RAW or RAI; I merely think it is less unbalancing than you claim. This is a linear increase in wealth, at a polynomial cost in class level (assuming a wizard) and linear cost in feats, to buy items whose potency only scales as the square root of price, at a first approximation. I'm not sure it's even a good option, let alone a broken one. Granted, item versatility also scales, and WBL is a powerful asset in general terms. It's not a clear-cut issue, and certainly nothing to throw sourcebooks over.


Question to you: How do you handle DragoonWraiths 9th level character with extra gear as he levels up? Do you make sure he receives loot in accordance to suggested WBL or not?

If not, pray tell, why!?!?

Lycar

Well, for all I've said up to now, I don't have the DMing experience to answer that question with authority. But I'd probably at least experiment with DW's suggestion, if he were a player in my campaign making that case.


Wotc never cleared up what was intended for "give up the attacks". That has been clarified in FAQs:

But the FAQ response contradicts the item description, since the former allows attacks via extra actions (belt of battle etc.), whereas the latter is very specific about not attacking, and ignores other possible actions (you can, for example, take a double move action while using a tower shield as total cover; the FAQ specifically disallows that). Given the clear difference between the semi-official FAQ response and the RAW, I am suspicious of the FAQ's claim to be merely 'clarifying' the tower shield rules. It seems more like revision--which belongs in errata.

*shrug* This doesn't really affect your overall point that the diversity of potential scenarios in a campaign world can outweigh the abstract potency of individual spells or classes. Nor does it determine the best way to interpret the tower shield rules.

[Salbazier]

Psh, yeah, like 600 posts ago. :smallamused: Besides...
http://mindlesscomfort.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/are-you-not-entertained.jpg

Oh, I do :smalltongue: I also slightly worried though...

[Kaiyanwang]

But the FAQ response contradicts the item description, since the former allows attacks via extra actions (belt of battle etc.), whereas the latter is very specific about not attacking, and ignores other possible actions (you can, for example, take a double move action while using a tower shield as total cover; the FAQ specifically disallows that). Given the clear difference between the semi-official FAQ response and the RAW, I am suspicious of the FAQ's claim to be merely 'clarifying' the tower shield rules. It seems more like revision--which belongs in errata.

Now I see the point.



*shrug* This doesn't really affect your overall point that the diversity of potential scenarios in a campaign world can outweigh the abstract potency of individual spells or classes. Nor does it determine the best way to interpret the tower shield rules.

*flexes his dungeon master muscles*

[Gnaeus]

Ah, but now we are in an actual campaign. The wizard will have to continually craft new items as he advances--the wondrous item he made at level 4 won't be much help at level 8. Other party members will want to take advantage of this service--and though they can contribute the funds, the XP cost belongs solely to the wizard.

That isn't entirely true, unless he is adventuring among a party of fighters. DMG is pretty clear that you can cooperate in crafting items, and then you can choose which of the crafters is the main crafter who pays the XP cost. Almost certainly any caster can be required to pay their fair share of the overall party crafting XP cost, and even skillmonkeys can often contribute if you make items that require x ranks in a skill.

[Math_Mage]

That isn't entirely true, unless he is adventuring among a party of fighters. DMG is pretty clear that you can cooperate in crafting items, and then you can choose which of the crafters is the main crafter who pays the XP cost. Almost certainly any caster can be required to pay their fair share of the overall party crafting XP cost, and even skillmonkeys can often contribute if you make items that require x ranks in a skill.

I was not aware of that. Thank you. That mitigates the trouble somewhat--how much depends on essentially the same campaign-based variables that determine how effective crafting is to begin with.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread seems to have gotten needlessly hostile. Thread locked.