Fighters and Percepton

[ShadowHare]

So, one of the things that's always bothered me - as in, really been a hardcore peeve of mine - is how Fighters don't have perception skills as their class skills. (Spot and Listen in 3.0 and 3.5, Perception in Pathfinder). I've found this to be more than a slight rules oversight, but actually a pretty big deal which leads to some thematic holes in the system. I'd be curious to hear what others think; if you believe it's as big of an issue or not, or perhaps what you have done to rectify the issues that stem from it.

The issue to me is primarily one of thematics more than mechanics. I imagine a certain type of NPC archetype: the guard, sentry, watchman, patrolman, bouncer, sentinel, warden, or anyone of the sort whose job description is to essentially stand guard over a place. I envision most such characters as fighters (or warriors, the weak NPC equivalent, which suffer the same issue); however, I also envision them as being exceedingly good at being perceptive, vigilant, and alert. Indeed, it's right in the name of most of these job titles. As fighters do not have (easy) access to the perception skills, I end up in a sort of paradox. Either


Guards are not fighters, but instead all rogues, rangers, monks and the like (or at least all multiclass dip into these classes)
Guards are fighters, and they're all incompetent at their jobs


Both of these options seem very silly to me. Fighters are, as described in the Player's Handbook, supposed to be one of the most common classes (moreso than the others mentioned above) and are confirmed to be associated with positions of guard duty.

The issues also relate to PC fighters as well. At least in my mind, I envision many PC fighter archetypes as the sort that are not only very good at melee combat, but also the ones who are able to be alert and bring their combat abilities to bear as soon as they are needed. "First ones into a fight, and the last ones out of it." As it stands, combined with what can often be a fairly mediocre initiative and a poor flat-footed armor class when surprised, they are more of the dunce-cap idiot who looks around like "duuuuh" for the first round of combat. It just seems so very silly. Fighters are usually the guys you shove in the front of your party's marching order for protection, and yet most everyone behind them sees the things directly in front of them before they do, in my experience.

I've heard the argument that the idea is that, from a game enjoyment perspective, the designers don't want the fighter to step on the toes of the rogue, both by letting the rogue be the master of perception skills as well as making sure the fighter isn't able to so easily negate their stealth abilities. Perhaps it would make rogue players feel bad if all the skill points they put into stealth skills could be negated and countered by a fighter who put an equal about of points in perception skills. To me, though, this is actually the whole point. Realistically, I would expect these two archetypes (Sentry Fighter vs Sneaky Rogue) to be having a sort of arms race in trying to outdo each other, with the population of guards overall constantly needing to improve their skills of vigilance to keep places safe, and with sneaky thieves needing to step up their game in order to continue fooling them. As it stands, rogues gain both stealth and perception, while fighters gain neither, making it almost trivial for a rogue to sneak past a fighter guard as levels increase, while making it necessary to use rogue guards to counter other rogues effectively.

There's also the argument that, due to how few skillpoints Fighters get (exact amounts depend on whether you're playing Pathfinder or such) and their poor ability to use skills in general, that giving them yet another skill that they'd just not take alongside all the others they can't afford to take would be rather meaningless. Indeed, if you were to get 2 skill points per level, are you really going to be spending 1 of them on this new skill that was just added? And to this I say... absolutely 100% yes. To be frank, not only do I feel like fighters should have perception as a class skill, I think it's literally their #1 most important skill, which is what makes it so jarring to me. For the reasons above, I find that most fighters flat out can't do their primary duties without it. NPC fighters are terrible at one of their iconic archetypes without it, and PC fighters just make a lot more sense as well. For at least a significant subset of builds, I think it should be flat-out one of their core defining specialties, right alongside actually fighting things.

So, personally, I have for a long time now house-ruled that Fighters (and Warriors) have Spot/Listen/Perception (as system appropriate) as class skills. It's simple enough to do, and I could have simply gone and done that silently without complaining about it, but I was interested in getting some opinions from others on the matter. Does it bother you too? Or do you think I'm blowing it all out of proportion? How have you handled making perceptive fighty types yourself in the past?


As a footnote, I do understand that D&D 5th Edition fixed this issue and gave Fighters the option to take the Perception skill. I think that's great; I simply haven't played much of 5E to appreciate this fact.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I mean, the Fighter has a lot of problems; lack of perception skills is certainly one of them. "Crappy, ill-suited skills" is right below "lack of actual class features" on the list of reasons people dislike the class.

If you must stick to RAW for some reason, Rangers-- especially Urban Ranger varieties, either via the UA or the Cityscape web enhancement features-- make solid guards. They've got plenty of skills, Favored Enemy (Organization)/Rival Organization are thematically perfect...

[Nifft]

Yep.

The fact that some classes (including Fighters) are incompetent within their chosen role is one of the major problems with this edition.

[ShadowHare]

I mean, the Fighter has a lot of problems; lack of perception skills is certainly one of them. "Crappy, ill-suited skills" is right below "lack of actual class features" on the list of reasons people dislike the class.

If you must stick to RAW for some reason, Rangers-- especially Urban Ranger varieties, either via the UA or the Cityscape web enhancement features-- make solid guards. They've got plenty of skills, Favored Enemy (Organization)/Rival Organization are thematically perfect...


Yep.

The fact that some classes (including Fighters) are incompetent within their chosen role is one of the major problems with this edition.

Well, do you guys think that this issue is one of the more glaring examples of this issue, or is there something else that you find even more crippling of the same nature?

[Nifft]

Well, do you guys think that this issue is one of the more glaring examples of this issue, or is there something else that you find even more crippling of the same nature?

There's really no end of stuff to get angry about if you're looking for that experience.

For me, the solutions are more interesting.

So... are you the DM?

Do you have the power to fix this problem in your game?

[ShadowHare]

There's really no end of stuff to get angry about if you're looking for that experience.

For me, the solutions are more interesting.

So... are you the DM?

Do you have the power to fix this problem in your game?

Sure. I've been both a DM and a player countless times over the last 15 years. I don't have any problem that needs solving by anyone else. I'm just venting over something that irks me in a, "How did they miss that?!" kind of way.

[angelpalm]

Yeah I was tackling the whole issue with fighter these last couple of days.

Basically gave it a good will save, spot/listen(perception/pathfinder), +2 skill points per level. Then mettle at level 3 and improved mettle at level 15(stalwart/pathfinder).

For pathfinder I made Bravery a flat +4 bonus to demoralization attempts you use and those used against you. Kind of front loaded but I wanted it to be a slightly hard choice to give it away.

Thinking maybe an ability at 7th level that lets you add half of your constitution bonus to any wisdom based skill check or pool. If your hp is based off another attribute then you use that instead, but then again that is only for pathfinder. Then at level 14 you use your full constitution bonus. Not sure what that would all interact with, I know ki pools and such come to mind but can't think of anything else besides Perception and Healing checks. Oh and Grit pools. I know they aren't pools per say but I would specify for them to qualify in this situation.

[Elricaltovilla]

I solved this problem by banning fighters and using Tome of Battle or Path of War instead. Fighter is a dumb name for a class anyway. :smalltongue:

[Nifft]

Sure. I've been both a DM and a player countless times over the last 15 years. I don't have any problem that needs solving by anyone else. I'm just venting over something that irks me in a, "How did they miss that?!" kind of way.

Got it.

Well, you're right.

It certainly is a problem.


Tome of Battle is usually my go-to Fighter-fixer, but it doesn't help here.


One thing I do is condense skill groups into single skills, so muggle-types who rely on skill points have more basic competency per skill rank spent.

Acrobatics <= Balance, Jump, Tumble, Escape Artist
Athletics <= Climb, Jump, Ride, Swim
Perception <= Listen, Spot
Stealth <= Hide, Move Silently

I also allow Profession skills to cover activities which that profession would need to do. Like, a Sailor would know some knots that are used on a ship; a Hunter or Trapper would know some knots that are used in deadfalls and slipnoose traps.

[Psyren]

It's hardly "crippling"; in PF all you'd have lost out on is a +3, and you don't lose because Traits are cheap. Seeker is generic enough that any character could take it; for the specific Fighter justification you mention in the OP though, Eyes And Ears Of The City aligns closely.

[ShadowHare]

It's hardly "crippling"; in PF all you'd have lost out on is a +3, and you don't lose because Traits are cheap. Seeker is generic enough that any character could take it; for the specific Fighter justification you mention in the OP though, Eyes And Ears Of The City aligns closely.

I have never heard of "traits" before. How do they work?

[Marlowe]

See here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm)

A "trait" gives you a plus to some skills at the expense of a minus to others.

[ShadowHare]

See here. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm)

A "trait" gives you a plus to some skills at the expense of a minus to others.

What is the detriment to the Seeker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/seeker/) trait that was mentioned? I do not see any drawbacks.

[Fizban]

I imagine a certain type of NPC archetype: the guard, sentry, watchman, patrolman, bouncer, sentinel, warden, or anyone of the sort whose job description is to essentially stand guard over a place. I envision most such characters as fighters (or warriors, the weak NPC equivalent, which suffer the same issue); however, I also envision them as being exceedingly good at being perceptive, vigilant, and alert.
Ah, but that's your problem right there. Most guards in stories are exceedingly bad at their jobs, falling asleep or otherwise being snuck past by the characters all the time, even kids and sometimes people who are specifically called out as being terrible at sneaking. It's only certain super-elite guards that are actually good at their jobs, and those guys have enough levels to mix in ranger or rogue or whatever. Also note that at 1st level, where 99% of everyone is, even max ranks is only a +4. Which on a d20 roll-off is far from guaranteed and it only takes 40' of distance to bring that down to a +0.

The real power of a skilled guard is actual dedication: you can move action to force two active spot checks per round, and the Quick Reconnoiter feat gives you another as a free action every round. That's three rolls vs one even without the feat, which is a much dicier proposition for the defender.

I don't mind giving fighters the spotting skills though, it's a perfectly reasonable response to power creep and the skillfulness of ToB classes- in fact since only the Swordsage has even listen, giving Fighters spot+listen gives them an advantage to counterpoint the Crusader and Warblade.

[torrasque666]

What is the detriment to the Seeker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/seeker/) trait that was mentioned? I do not see any drawbacks.
The problem is that Marlowe linked the 3.5 traits page while the ones Psyren was referring to (and the one you linked) are pathfinder. Pathfinder traits more rarely have actual drawbacks (with the exception of the actual Drawback category)

[ATHATH]

What is the detriment to the Seeker (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/social-traits/seeker/) trait that was mentioned? I do not see any drawbacks.
Barring certain feats and the Adopted trait, you can normally only have 2 traits (or 3 with a drawback (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/drawbacks/)), so it's an opportunity cost, so to speak.

[emeraldstreak]

Sure. I've been both a DM and a player countless times over the last 15 years. I don't have any problem that needs solving by anyone else. I'm just venting over something that irks me in a, "How did they miss that?!" kind of way.

I don't think they missed it. More likely, their position was 'only some classes can be perceptive.' And they went 'Should the Ranger be more perceptive than a Fighter? The rogue? The monk? The barbarian? We have to have a martial class that lacks perception, right?' So they went with Fighter and PF inherited it.

[DMVerdandi]

I think that the issue with the fighter in 3.5 is that everything that they need or should have has been taken away from them by classes that don't necessarily need to exist.

I think fighter should be the wizard of martial classes. It can do everything they can, and better. Monk stuff? Rogue stuff? Barbarian stuff? Done. And just as flexible.
Like a warrior should be that guy who knows a couple of tricks (and fighter bonus feats are tricks).
A fighter should be like... absolutely perfect with melee combat. the par excellence of that field.



That being said, With archetypes, I think that the Lore warden/Martial master/myrmidon Archetypes in pathfinder are the perfect expression of what my mind imagines as a fighter.
Like, that combination is how they should be. Period. They created the perfect pieces to fit the puzzle.

[Mordaedil]

I think that the issue with the fighter in 3.5 is that everything that they need or should have has been taken away from them by classes that don't necessarily need to exist.

I think fighter should be the wizard of martial classes. It can do everything they can, and better. Monk stuff? Rogue stuff? Barbarian stuff? Done. And just as flexible.
Like a warrior should be that guy who knows a couple of tricks (and fighter bonus feats are tricks).
A fighter should be like... absolutely perfect with melee combat. the par excellence of that field.
So if you give the fighter the ability to do everything of every class, why even play any other class?

Not that there's much reason to play a fighter.

[Necroticplague]

Not that there's much reason to play a fighter.

There's not much, but the reasons there are are very huge.
1)Dungeoncrasher
2)Two level dip for two feats can significantly ease progress in some builds.

[ShurikVch]

Among the variant classes in Dragon #310, Fighter got Bodyguard, Commander, Corsair, Pugilist - with Spot as class skill
No class variants for Listen skill (but it may be acquired via Race/Template, or by means "borrowed" from other games...)

[Psyren]

Barring certain feats and the Adopted trait, you can normally only have 2 traits (or 3 with a drawback (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/drawbacks/)), so it's an opportunity cost, so to speak.

I'm not sure what the point is here; anything in limited quantities has an opportunity cost. For instance, Fighters only get 21 feats out of hundreds, so every single one they take has an opportunity cost. But unless you're going to just stand there and admire your empty feat slots, you do have to pick some eventually; same with Traits. I wouldn't call that a drawback.

Perception is hands down the most-rolled skill in the game, and moreover it can have individual consequences for your character (like being unable to act in the surprise round while your allies can) so it's pretty much always a good choice as a "make this a class skill" trait.

[eldskald]

I've heard the argument that the idea is that, from a game enjoyment perspective, the designers don't want the fighter to step on the toes of the rogue, both by letting the rogue be the master of perception skills as well as making sure the fighter isn't able to so easily negate their stealth abilities. Perhaps it would make rogue players feel bad if all the skill points they put into stealth skills could be negated and countered by a fighter who put an equal about of points in perception skills.

This is very funny. Literally anyone who has a skill as a class skill is as good as a rogue at this skill. If you take a trait, you can be as good as a rogue in that skill even without having it as a class skill. In PF, this is even more glaring because there are less skills and more skill points to spend, meaning you can be as good as a rogue in lots of skills. In fact, rogues end up being less perceptive than clerics and druids in almost every game I played. The sneaking part of the rogue can be done by literally any class that uses light armor or no armor at all. How come the "master of skills" gets no bonus for skills? They may even have less skill points per level than a wizard! That is also a glaring mistake in design. At D&D 5E, this is also fixed. I never played 5E, but the more I read about it, the more I love their design.

[Psyren]

How come the "master of skills" gets no bonus for skills?

1) Be an Unchained Rogue
2) There is no 2
3) Profit

[Nifft]

I never played 5E, but the more I read about it, the more I love their design.

5e isn't perfect, but it's pretty great.

Definitely give it a try.

[eldskald]

1) Be an Unchained Rogue
2) There is no 2
3) Profit

Yeah, this is all pretty absurd. Even those unchained skills have some pretty weird uses and everyone still can get them. And even if you make signature skills rogue only feats, investigators will still beat the crap out of them in skill monkeying. Investigators are what rogues were supposed to be. That only shows how Paizo evolved and learned with their design, at least. I like how the later books are a lot better in this aspect when compared to Core. Like, every 3/4 BAB d8 hit die class is a half caster now, and almost every class has mechanics that needs at least two ability scores. Even unchained monk got full BAB now. Why unchained rogue has no full BAB? Weren't rogues supposed to be quick and precise, striking multiple times with top precision?


5e isn't perfect, but it's pretty great.

Definitely give it a try.

I love how they simplified every table into one with that proficiency bonus. I also love how they simplified those situational numerical bonuses/penalties to d20 rolls into advantage/disadvantage. It makes things so much easier to remember and DM... I feel like those rules makes the game flow easier and faster without hurting the completeness of 3.5. I will definitely play it once I finish learning everything. Is combat still slow? I feel like it still is, but it must be somewhat faster than PF.

[Psyren]

Yeah, this is all pretty absurd. Even those unchained skills have some pretty weird uses and everyone still can get them.

Nope - everyone can get one. Only the Rogue can get multiple, so they get to keep the title you care about so much.



Investigators are what rogues were supposed to be.

Then ban rogues and replace them at your table, you have that right. But I think you'll find that plenty of people still want to play a guy who's just sneaky and good with a knife, without having to rely on chemical stimulants, and enjoy the challenge such brings.



Why unchained rogue has no full BAB? Weren't rogues supposed to be quick and precise, striking multiple times with top precision?

You don't need full BAB to be precise. Moreover, Unchained Rogue exceeds this by combining surprise/flanking with Debilitating Injuries.

[eldskald]

Nope - everyone can get one. Only the Rogue can get multiple, so they get to keep the title you care about so much.


Then ban rogues and replace them at your table, you have that right. But I think you'll find that plenty of people still want to play a guy who's just sneaky and good with a knife, without having to rely on chemical stimulants, and enjoy the challenge such brings.

This is exactly why I don't ban rogues. Not all spies, thieves, diplomats and even investigators need to be all about alchemy and science. The thing I don't like about signature skills is that their cute tricks are not enough. In fact, they're pretty far from being enough. In truth, I was on a proccess of homebrewing new ones, but I don't have time to play test unfortunately. Even if they were good, I still think that the simple numerical bonuses that bards and investigators get are better all around, mostly because they apply to so many different skill checks. I mean, getting a cool trick to one skill is good, but a flat bonus on most skill checks? This trick is better be worth it. Now, even if we discount inspiration and bardic knowledge, investigators have the empyricist archetype to use Intelligence instead of charisma and wisdom to a lot of skills and bards have versatile performance. All of which work at very low levels while the rogue only get a single signature skill at level 5. So even without bardic knowledge and inspiration, rogues are worse skill monkeys than investigators and bards?



You don't need full BAB to be precise. Moreover, Unchained Rogue exceeds this by combining surprise/flanking with Debilitating Injuries.

Yeah, they got a lot better at being precise, but that doesn't make them more precise than most full BAB classes, for example. Fighters and swashbucklers still get weapon training and they don't depend on anyone to flank neither they need to set up a turn hiding or rolling high initative and getting a surprise round. Rangers and slayers also get bonuses that don't depend on all those things. Even a raging barbarian brute is more precise than a rogue! Also, higher BAB means more iterative attacks. In fact, I think that playing a Slayer and fluffing it as rogue is better than going rogue already. They can even get trapfindind and sense trap! Now, come to think about the investigator again. Studied combat gives them better precision than debilitating injury, and again, they don't need to hit first to get those bonuses neither need surprise, flank, etc...

Sigh... I just wish rogues were balanced :smallfrown:

[Psyren]

I think your standards for rogues are a bit unreasonable eldskald, but there's nothing I can really do about your feelings. Just know that there are people out there (like myself) who are actually capable of building perfectly competent skill-based rogues.

Also - if you want Int to a bunch of skills, you can do that without Empiricist thanks to traits like Clever Wordplay.

[eldskald]

Yeah, that is true indeed. The fact is that even if I build a functional rogue, the thought that if I was playing a slayer I would be better at my job bothers me a lot. It happens to me at every game, unbalance does indeed bothers me a lot. The only thing rogues do better than anyone else is doing damage with dex. They are the only class that can TWF with dex to dam right now. And yikes, Investigators can get clever wordplay and student of philosophy too, and if they do, they get to completely eliminate cha from their skills. To an empyricist, cha only serves to be high enough so they don't go into coma when they take cha damage.

[Psyren]

They are the only class that can TWF with dex to dam right now.

Natively/at low levels yes, but Agile weapons exist for everyone else.

The main advantage of uRogue though is that it's still compatible with all the existing archetypes. So if you want an Underground Chemist, Counterfeit Mage, Bandit etc. you can build any of those on top of uRogue; it's a straight buff.


And yikes, Investigators can get clever wordplay and student of philosophy too, and if they do, they get to completely eliminate cha from their skills. To an empyricist, cha only serves to be high enough so they don't go into coma when they take cha damage.

Investigator is a caster. I'm not hung up on a caster being generally superior to a non-caster, it's to be expected. If you are, then that sucks, but the game is what it is.

And honestly, it's not like you need the face and the skillmonkey to be the same character anyway, unless you're low on players.

[Segev]

Just a thought that the first post had me thinking: maybe most professional watchmen are actually Experts for their first level. It's not that far behind a Warrior for battle prowess, and gives them the skills they need for their job that don't involve fighting. Maybe they tend to pick up Warrior as their second level.

or maybe they're 2nd level, having started as Warriors who just went where they were told, and got promoted to Watchman as they trained in standing guard effectively (i.e. got a level of Expert).

[ryu]

Just a thought that the first post had me thinking: maybe most professional watchmen are actually Experts for their first level. It's not that far behind a Warrior for battle prowess, and gives them the skills they need for their job that don't involve fighting. Maybe they tend to pick up Warrior as their second level.

or maybe they're 2nd level, having started as Warriors who just went where they were told, and got promoted to Watchman as they trained in standing guard effectively (i.e. got a level of Expert).

I'm of the opinion that lowest level of security should include at a minimum a constantly up alarm spell. You know so the security can't reasonably be defeated by an uncannily lucky thieving street urchin? It probably also costs less than one of your guards while providing more benefit to security.

[Segev]

I'm of the opinion that lowest level of security should include at a minimum a constantly up alarm spell. You know so the security can't reasonably be defeated by an uncannily lucky thieving street urchin? It probably also costs less than one of your guards while providing more benefit to security.Paying a 3rd level caster to cast a 2nd level spell, once, at his convenience, is 60 gp, I believe. The alarm spell would last for 6 hours.

Compare to less than 1 gp/day for a hireling guard.

[ryu]

Paying a 3rd level caster to cast a 2nd level spell, once, at his convenience, is 60 gp, I believe. The alarm spell would last for 6 hours.

Compare to less than 1 gp/day for a hireling guard.

And paying for individual castings of a spell from a person not directly affiliated with you is the least efficient method of buying spells.

[Segev]

And paying for individual castings of a spell from a person not directly affiliated with you is the least efficient method of buying spells.

What more efficient ways - aside from "be a spellcaster, yourself," and "be in an adventuring party" - do you know of? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

What more efficient ways - aside from "be a spellcaster, yourself," and "be in an adventuring party" - do you know of? :smallconfused:

I'd guess getting one as a cohort or some other end run around paying market price.

[ShadowHare]

What more efficient ways - aside from "be a spellcaster, yourself," and "be in an adventuring party" - do you know of? :smallconfused:

I think that's exactly what they're implying. Or at least be close enough friends with a spellcaster that they'll give you a discount below standard generic NPC price.

[Jormengand]

Fighters not having perception skills is just a small part of the enduring critical existence failure of what a fighter actually is. "Fighter" as a class is such a boring idea because barbarians, rangers, rogues, clerics, druids, monks, paladins, and even the odd crossbow-toting wizard, sorcerer or bard are all fighters anyway. Being able to fight is the fighter's sole schtick, to the extent that they're not even competent at common soldiery (perception is a good start, but soldiers also need to know the area that they're fighting in, which is why it's a pity that knowlege (geography) and (local) aren't class skills, they generally need to be able to hide and move silently which is why it's a pity that they get neither of those, and so forth). Fighter isn't really a soldier or a guard or an anything except for maybe a trial-by-combat champion or possibly a no-nonsense gladiator who doesn't have time for performance.

The answer to the problem isn't so much "Give the fighter decent class skills" as "Discontinue the idea that fighting should be its own class with niche-protection, and by extension discontinue the fighter class." We wouldn't have the paladin, barbarian or ranger if the fighter's niche was protected properly.

[ryu]

Or pay up for access to permanent alarm, or get a few eternal wands and have an expert with UMD on payroll, or hell if you ARE a wizard make them some cheapo wands. or a resetting alarm trap. These costs are larger up front, but will save you immense amounts of money in the long run which is exactly the sort of thing you should look for in daily tasks you fully expect to have to do in perpetuity.

[Segev]

I'd guess getting one as a cohort or some other end run around paying market price.


I think that's exactly what they're implying. Or at least be close enough friends with a spellcaster that they'll give you a discount below standard generic NPC price.Not really options for your average person-who-wants-guards. We aren't (necessarily) talking about PCs, here.


Or pay up for access to permanent alarm, or get a few eternal wands and have an expert with UMD on payroll, or hell if you ARE a wizard make them some cheapo wands. or a resetting alarm trap. These costs are larger up front, but will save you immense amounts of money in the long run which is exactly the sort of thing you should look for in daily tasks you fully expect to have to do in perpetuity.

All those magic items add up fast. At-will alarm in an item is 10,800 gp. A continuously-active alarm item is 12,000 gp. A wand of alarm is 4,500 gp, which is 90 gp per casting. That's more than the 60 gp for just hiring a spellcaster to do it. Now, the at-will command-activated item pays for itself compared to paying a spellcaster daily after 90 days, assuming 2 castings per day. That's actually pretty good! But you're going to have to already be very well-off to afford it up front.

Oh, and that's compared to hiring even a trio of guards at the exorbitant rate of a full gp per day, which would take 3600 days, or just under 10 years, to make cost more than the item.

[ryu]

Not really options for your average person-who-wants-guards. We aren't (necessarily) talking about PCs, here.



All those magic items add up fast. At-will alarm in an item is 10,800 gp. A continuously-active alarm item is 12,000 gp. A wand of alarm is 4,500 gp, which is 90 gp per casting. That's more than the 60 gp for just hiring a spellcaster to do it. Now, the at-will command-activated item pays for itself compared to paying a spellcaster daily after 90 days, assuming 2 castings per day. That's actually pretty good! But you're going to have to already be very well-off to afford it up front.

Oh, and that's compared to hiring even a trio of guards at the exorbitant rate of a full gp per day, which would take 3600 days, or just under 10 years, to make cost more than the item.

Now factor in all the failure related expenditures based upon using guards who may or may not even have decent spot and listen. For example gold which may well be stolen or need to be reimbursed, or the lower trader presence which will naturally come from lower security making your town or city less attractive. Now continue factoring in that this is a task you fully expect to need to perform for decades. In anything more than a dirt farming hovel or equivalent you will be better off spending on alarms than guards.

[Nifft]

My impression of guards is that they exist as high-visibility detriments to make people avoid just walking up and taking your stuff.

This includes deterring blatant theft by people who are themselves quite tough and potentially good at fighting.

If you also want someone who can perceive subtle theft, that's a separate job.

That said, "bouncer" isn't really a PC job in the first place.

[ryu]

My impression of guards is that they exist as high-visibility detriments to make people avoid just walking up and taking your stuff.

This includes deterring blatant theft by people who are themselves quite tough and potentially good at fighting.

If you also want someone who can perceive subtle theft, that's a separate job.

That said, "bouncer" isn't really a PC job in the first place.

First level of defense. Second and in many cases equally important is the subtle stuff. In any city of large enough size theft is a much more common problem than simple extortion/mugging/robbery by force.

[Psyren]

That said, "bouncer" isn't really a PC job in the first place.

Lots of adventurers had other jobs before becoming adventurers though. And while retraining does exist, most of the time they had those jobs while in their PC class, albeit low levels.

[ryu]

Lots of adventurers had other jobs before becoming adventurers though. And while retraining does exist, most of the time they had those jobs while in their PC class, albeit low levels.

Alternatively mid-low level adventurer that had a near death experience and decided to get out while still alive. Levels are on average 13 fights, and you're supposed to have four a day. Combine with listed mortality rates because every now and then you're expected to have a dangerous encounter and you get scads of low level basically every PC class.

[Nifft]

First level of defense. Second and in many cases equally important is the subtle stuff. In any city of large enough size theft is a much more common problem than simple extortion/mugging/robbery by force.

Absolutely true.

Product "walking off" or "falling off the back of the wagon" are serious problems.

A big dude, just standing there and being big, will prevent blatant theft, which is a necessary layer of defense in a city of moderate size.

More crucially, the big dude being there can react to blatant threats, which allows the subtle defense to remain hidden -- and the subtle defense is thus more difficult to probe -- so the subtle defense remains effective in the face of moderately organized criminal recon attempts.

[Segev]

Now factor in all the failure related expenditures based upon using guards who may or may not even have decent spot and listen. For example gold which may well be stolen or need to be reimbursed, or the lower trader presence which will naturally come from lower security making your town or city less attractive. Now continue factoring in that this is a task you fully expect to need to perform for decades. In anything more than a dirt farming hovel or equivalent you will be better off spending on alarms than guards.

You're thinking too modern. Whether or not the money is saved over time depends on a number of factors, the first of which is simply whether you really are going to be robbed by somebody you need the perfection of an alarm to detect, or those guards are good enough for. Secondly, up-front costs.

Those costs you list? They're paid out over time.

Financing options are rarely so generous in the time periods and societies portrayed in D&D. Sure, you're liable to see a magic alarm in an upper middle-class establishment guarding moderately-precious items. Not so much in a stable, where the horse itself can be an alarm system, or in a high-volume warehouse storing, say, grain, where you still want guards to prevent theft, but losses due to a few thieves succeeding are small.

And castles will have guards to RESPOND to alarms, so you have to weigh the likelihood of the guards' being insufficient to the task of spotting compared to being insufficient to the task of dealing with any threats that could slip by them but not by alarms.


So the question is: Who is paying for this protection? What are they protecting?

[Nifft]

You're thinking too modern. Whether or not the money is saved over time depends on a number of factors, the first of which is simply whether you really are going to be robbed by somebody you need the perfection of an alarm to detect, or those guards are good enough for. Secondly, up-front costs.

Those costs you list? They're paid out over time.

Financing options are rarely so generous in the time periods and societies portrayed in D&D. Sure, you're liable to see a magic alarm in an upper middle-class establishment guarding moderately-precious items. Not so much in a stable, where the horse itself can be an alarm system, or in a high-volume warehouse storing, say, grain, where you still want guards to prevent theft, but losses due to a few thieves succeeding are small.

And castles will have guards to RESPOND to alarms, so you have to weigh the likelihood of the guards' being insufficient to the task of spotting compared to being insufficient to the task of dealing with any threats that could slip by them but not by alarms.


So the question is: Who is paying for this protection? What are they protecting?

Something occurs to me: the large area and high price of magical protection may tend to push commercial ventures in the direction of larger organizations -- either Guilds, or Corporations, or Coops.

This trend might tend to bring along more modern concepts of markets & banking & commerce.


It'd be interesting to see a liberal free-trade globalization revolution which preceded the setting's industrial revolution.

[ryu]

Something occurs to me: the large area and high price of magical protection may tend to push commercial ventures in the direction of larger organizations -- either Guilds, or Corporations, or Coops.

This trend might tend to bring along more modern concepts of markets & banking & commerce.


It'd be interesting to see a liberal free-trade globalization revolution which preceded the setting's industrial revolution.

It's almost like access to a source of power competitive with and at times outpacing technology doesn't really allow the concept of the standard setting to make sense as anything but a brief daydream while the power is still being discovered and mapped. Why you may even say that even the most simple of level 0 spells applied intelligent have hilarious and grand effects on society as a whole.

[Nifft]

It's almost like access to a source of power competitive with and at times outpacing technology doesn't really allow the concept of the standard setting to make sense as anything but a brief daydream while the power is still being discovered and mapped. Why you may even say that even the most simple of level 0 spells applied intelligent have hilarious and grand effects on society as a whole.

Standard-setting-as-brief-daydream is a solid concept, and deserves more attention.

IMHO it's a lot more interesting than standard-setting-as-eternal-status-quo (which is how some of the crappier settings seem to be arranged).

This is even more true in the presence of interesting PCs, who tend to wreck stuff and create new paradigms / governments / eternally exploitable magical phenomena as their weekly leisure activity.

[Psyren]

That's a fine endpoint or at least goalpost for someone's specific campaign. The rulebooks themselves don't go in for that because not everyone is interested in an Emperor Tippy style of extrapolating from the rules that way. So gods were invented to maintain the status quo as presented, or at best result in minor changes.

Consider Starfinder as an example - while more advanced a setting than PF, it is far from the kind of post-scarcity world that a Golaron without gods and with this kind of RAW-focused application of magic would result in.

[ryu]

That's a fine endpoint or at least goalpost for someone's specific campaign. The rulebooks themselves don't go in for that because not everyone is interested in an Emperor Tippy style of extrapolating from the rules that way. So gods were invented to maintain the status quo as presented, or at best result in minor changes.

Consider Starfinder as an example - while more advanced a setting than PF, it is far from the kind of post-scarcity world that a Golaron without gods and with this kind of RAW-focused application of magic would result in.

You don't necessarily have to go as far as full post scarcity, but the basic acknowledgement that YES people are making use of these completely obvious and simple spells to combat or cure exactly the problems they were specifically designed to combat is important for verisimilitude. The alternatives are that literally everyone is stupid, or that the gods are stupid and use their authority to keep the rest of the world in the dark ages.

[dhasenan]

What more efficient ways - aside from "be a spellcaster, yourself," and "be in an adventuring party" - do you know of? :smallconfused:

Hire them as an employee. Then they aren't charging you for the probability that they will fail to find work tomorrow.

As for fighters being poor guards, maybe there's an NPC Guard class that WotC just hasn't seen fit to describe? Class skills including Perception, Intimidate, and Standing Still, bonus to Fort saves to hold your bladder.

[Psyren]

You don't necessarily have to go as far as full post scarcity, but the basic acknowledgement that YES people are making use of these completely obvious and simple spells to combat or cure exactly the problems they were specifically designed to combat is important for verisimilitude. The alternatives are that literally everyone is stupid, or that the gods are stupid and use their authority to keep the rest of the world in the dark ages.

Well first, there are more alternatives than that. Spells do what they say they do by RAW for gaming expediency, but in-universe magic is probably not as precise as all that, or we wouldn't have anomalies like wild magic, or spellblights, or the Mournland, or owlbears. It's quite possible to assume that folks set out to create the magical utopia you describe, and it's not too farfetched to believe that great magic empires like Netheril, Qualinost, or Azlant were prototypical attempts to use magic to better the lot of all. Invariably in these settings though, some cataclysm or foe arrives and derails these attempts quite brutally.

Second - yes, absolutely, the gods are stupid. Or at least, a portion of them are. For example, the ones that want to end existence itself, of which they are a part - entities like Shar, or Rovagug, or Nerull. Even those gods that want to make things better need to spend their time and energy battling them, and there are plenty of gods who simply exploit the conflict to pursue their own agendas. It is of course quite possible that a heroic PC (or band of PCs) will come along and put an end to the circular squabbling for good, and succeed where all those before have failed. It sounds like that might be a campaign you would enjoy. I'm merely pointing out that the starting premise - a world at quasi-medieval levels of technology and scarcity - can be justified despite all the wizardry being flung around.