|
Ferrinus posted:It's probably more expensive to train the latter, or fewer people have the knack, or similar. Maybe the bodyguards of a mage academy all know basic cantrips, but most feudal lords haven't got the materials in their keeps or literacy in their populace to be able to count on it. Why would a world were money and power is tide almost exclusively to your access to magic develop anything close to feudalism. A system that developed because money and power in the middle ages was almost excursively based on how much land you owned. We should see sky high lieracy rates as every person who has enough training to memorize basic spells is another asset for there city or nation, and you could keep the literacy that high because you could make books using fabricate instead of having to copy them by hand. Rules wise D&D has never come close to supporting anything close to actual feudalism in any edition. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Sep 3, 2014 |
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
Most people don't gain class levels, learn feats, or otherwise advance in power in their entire lives the way a player character does over the course of, like, a week of vigorous activity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
The most economic way to heal wounds in the world of 3e is to get pin-cushioned with spell storing shurikens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Most people don't gain class levels, learn feats, or otherwise advance in power in their entire lives the way a player character does over the course of, like, a week of vigorous activity. Even just a line about "PCs are special, these rules don't apply to non-heroes" would do the trick, right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:03
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:But "you can learn Firebolt with a single feat" isn't a problem with 5e. Humans get one just from existing. And again, High Elves. Its worth noting that the feat in question doesn't have any sort of stat requirement or other prerequisite that would keep the 'unwashed plebs' from learning it, too. Unless mages are jealously guarding their mystical arcane cantrips for the sake of jealously hoarding. Which then would skew the world's narrative, because I'm pretty sure ultra secretive and powerful but dispersed, untrustworthy spellcasters hiding up in their towers would be summarily hunted down and either press-ganged into slavery, tortured for the information and training of future LOYAL mages in an industrial capacity, or killed off out of fear by any reasonable king or warlord. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Even just a line about "PCs are special, these rules don't apply to non-heroes" would do the trick, right? Thats up to the GM.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Some people really can't stand it if npc's and pc's have different rules. It's cheating or unrealistic or something stupid. I found having to build a character for npc's horrible, and I wouldn't mind something like ol' hitdice or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
Kind of funny considering in 3.5 level 20 martials supposedly on par with the demigod status of level 20 casters are only tied or below the level of real life Olympic athletes when it comes to physical abilities. Not exactly what I would call figures of legend well above the realm that ordinary men can even dream of achieving.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:09
|
|
|
dichloroisocyanuric posted:Edit: I've also already posted in here multiple times that I like low fantasy settings, so this is obviously just My Opinion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:12
|
|
|
Magic equipment christmas tree characters is still the stupidest thing ever. I mean I love settings where the mechanics and the fluff actually match and work together but when everything interesting is completely mundane it gets dumb. I don't know why you would look at D&D as a game that avoids that. Thats basically its defining feature.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Even just a line about "PCs are special, these rules don't apply to non-heroes" would do the trick, right? Why, when it's obvious from the text? I mean, it doesn't have to be true. You could run Eberron instead of Greyhawk. But this doesn't cleave the mind in twain to conceive of or something. Strength of Many posted:Humans get one just from existing. And again, High Elves. Its worth noting that the feat in question doesn't have any sort of stat requirement or other prerequisite that would keep the 'unwashed plebs' from learning it, too. Humans get +1 to all ability scores. It's an option to trade that out for a feat, and maybe that's even reasonably common, such that you're much more likely to run into a human with knacks or talents outside their wheelhouse than into a dwarf or halfling who stands out from the crowd. But so what? Who says you, IC, get to choose your feat, or whether to have one at all? Clearly, most people don't, which is why they're lovely, powerless peasants instead of fireball-slinging X-Men. And, yeah, all the high elves - all the high elves - have minor magical powers. They're elves! I heard they don't even sleep like you or me! quote:Unless mages are jealously guarding their mystical arcane cantrips for the sake of jealously hoarding. Which then would skew the world's narrative, because I'm pretty sure ultra secretive and powerful but dispersed, untrustworthy spellcasters hiding up in their towers would be summarily hunted down and either press-ganged into slavery, tortured for the information and training of future LOYAL mages in an industrial capacity, or killed off out of fear by any reasonable king or warlord. That'd be like me hunting down an olympic athlete and forcing them, on pain of death, to give me the secrets of their incredible athleticism. That way I can become as mighty as they are!
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:17
|
|
|
A 5e character with a +10 to their jumping can set the world running long jump record by a less than 3 inches by rolling a 20 going by the old sample DCs. By the current rules you'd need a strength score of 30. Anyone slightly taller than 4ft without a negative strength modifier can slam dunk. Ok wait. Do the basic rules really not have a table of contents? What the christ.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Unless mages are jealously guarding their mystical arcane cantrips for the sake of jealously hoarding. Which then would skew the world's narrative, because I'm pretty sure ultra secretive and powerful but dispersed, untrustworthy spellcasters hiding up in their towers would be summarily hunted down and either press-ganged into slavery, tortured for the information and training of future LOYAL mages in an industrial capacity, or killed off out of fear by any reasonable king or warlord. This post is is going to make me reverse my position, sorry. This sounds like an actual reason that it's OK to kick almost any wizard's doors in and take their stuff. Raiding the evil wizard's tower and stealing his hoard of magic stuff is a classic D&D plotline that I've always loved, but has always struck me as a bit, you know, like you were just making up a reason to do it in case there was a cool magic sword in there. If they're magic-hoarding dickholes who are happy for the world to suffer as long as they get to keep their secrets, then gently caress 'em. My friend here with the robe and staff? Nah, he's cool, he teaches firethrowing tricks to the magically-disadvantaged on his day off. (Magic) Powers to the people! Elector_Nerdlingen fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:27
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:The book talks up magic as absolutely crucial to the point of being taken for granted by adventurers, but never forgets to let you know how rare and wondrous magic spells are in general. If everyone and their brother doesn't know how to cast Firebolt - which is the default milieu presented by the books - then you can either play ball and think of Firebolt in terms that make it nontrivial to cast, or you can cross your arms and refuse to make any buy-in whatsoever. But "you can learn Firebolt with a single feat" isn't a problem with 5e. Sure, but how does the book present feats? Apart from the comparison we're making between the uncommon/common nature of feats and magic. Learning firebolt with a feat isn't a mechanical issue, but does the book also reinforce how rare and powerful adventuring PC's are, using feats as an example to differentiate them from level 0 adepts, or whatever? I don't have the book, so I'm seriously curious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Sure, but how does the book present feats? Apart from the comparison we're making between the commonality of feats and magic. Learning firebolt with a feat isn't a mechanical issue, but does the book also reinforce how rare and powerful adventuring PC's are, using feats as an example to differentiate them from level 0 adepts, or whatever? How many sample peasants, brigands, courtiers, soldiers, assassins, town guards, etc. are listed as being able to cast simple spells? There is your answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:35
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:How many sample peasants, brigands, courtiers, soldiers, assassins, town guards, etc. are listed as being able to cast simple spells? There is your answer. Like I said, I don't have the book, so I'm asking for an actual answer. And at any rate, I'm asking about the language regarding feats now, not spells. Is it rarer for a sample NPC to have feats or spells is an interesting question if spells are much more talked up for their rarity. S.J. fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
In fact, poo poo, forget cantrips, how many of those generic low-CR warrior monsters have Action Surge? Second Wind? Superiority dice? Would some of you in this thread be demanding to know why each and every soldier in the king's army isn't coordinating massive Action Surge alpha strikes? If fighters got actual martial powers, would it automatically follow that the only reason everyone and their brother couldn't [insert heroic exploit here] was that those evil, grasping fighters were hoarding all their secrets? Come on. This stuff boils down to "I don't understand how to integrate game rules into a fantasy world". In World of Darkness, random laymen don't have a 10% chance to succeed at heart surgery, and in Dungeons and Dragons random laymen don't automatically learn magic by completing all their assigned homework. Criticize something worthy of criticism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Humans get +1 to all ability scores. It's an option to trade that out for a feat, and maybe that's even reasonably common, such that you're much more likely to run into a human with knacks or talents outside their wheelhouse than into a dwarf or halfling who stands out from the crowd. But so what? Who says you, IC, get to choose your feat, or whether to have one at all? Clearly, most people don't, which is why they're lovely, powerless peasants instead of fireball-slinging X-Men. Its funny you're pushing for this distinction so hard when a firebolt is actually worse than a light crossbow, longbow, or heavy crossbow and requires hoop jumping to achieve for anyone besides aforementioned High Elves. Hoop jumping we have established that is possible for even the average Human to achieve because literally nothing in the rules says they're stuck with the +1 to all stats option. So mechanical abuse is really out the window when compared to actual ranged weapons, if the players or DM wanted to pursue that route, and the rest has no hard ruling or information about it. Do you like, have a vendetta against the idea of fireball flinging hedge-mage armies or something? It sounds like a logical conclusion to any settings in a Caster Supremacy edition of D&D. edit: ..... I now realize that's actually a common feature in a lot of fantasy anime so I guess that might be part of the turn off for so many people. loving japanese cartoons, putting their magic and action in my elfgames!! edit 2: idk about some people but I was arguing for the idea of it blurring to some extent, at least where it might have interesting implications for a setting. Suddenly war colleges are teaching basic spells as part of their anti-mage tactical regimen! How is that not interesting? AlphaDog posted:This post is is going to make me reverse my position, sorry. To be fair the mantra of Wizards (and unsurprisingly, a lot of Wizard Supremacy proponents) IS in fact 'gently caress you, got mine'. So. Tearing them down and forcing them into a controlled capacity is probably the smartest thing anyone could do. Unless its a setting like Forgotten Realms. Then you get blown out by stupid overgods of magic. Strength of Many fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:...and in Dungeons and Dragons random laymen don't automatically learn magic by completing all their assigned homework. I get the rest of what you're saying - essentially that PCs are special, villains are also special. OK, the book doesn't say that because of stupid reasons, but whatever, fine, that's how it works. You're right, it's stupid that if your game's skill system says that you always succeed on a roll of 20 then an untrained child has a 5% change of accidentally forging a sword if they decide to try, that's not the way reasonable people would play the game. But if you don't get to be a wizard by studying up, how does it work?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:That'd be like me hunting down an olympic athlete and forcing them, on pain of death, to give me the secrets of their incredible athleticism. That way I can become as mighty as they are! Actually considering that you only need an ability score of 10 int to learn magic it would be more like getting a professional baseball player and getting him to teach you to throw a slider. Ferrinus posted:How many sample peasants, brigands, courtiers, soldiers, assassins, town guards, etc. are listed as being able to cast simple spells? There is your answer. The question isn't how many magic users the game says there are, the question is how many magic users would there be if society in D&D developed around the existence of magic in the first place instead of just being a copy of medieval Europe with elfs and orcs. Because at moment there's a major disconnect between how the games setting wants magic to be, and how rare magic is in the rest of game rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Wait, I thought skill checks didn't have critical successes or failures?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:19
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Wait, I thought skill checks didn't have critical successes or failures? Is this referring to my post? It's a hypothetical example. You can't crit skill checks in D&D 5e. I should have said "if your game's (etc) on a 24 on 4d6 (etc)".
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Wait, I thought skill checks didn't have critical successes or failures? Well the problem is that D&D as the rule say it is and D&D as most people play it are not necessarily the same thing, heck I think almost no one played 3.5 RAW. And skill criticals is probably one of those house rules that's more common the actual rule, like money on free parking in monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:22
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:Is this referring to my post? It's a hypothetical example. You can't crit skill checks in D&D 5e. I should have said "if your game's (etc) on a 24 on 4d6 (etc)". Understood, I was mostly just hoping that they didn't put critical successes on skill checks into the game, not trying to call you out. Vorpal Cat posted:Well the problem is that D&D as the rule say it is and D&D as most people play it are not necessarily the same thing, heck I think almost no one played 3.5 RAW. And skill criticals is probably one of those house rules that's more common the actual rule, like money on free parking in monopoly. I'm definitely aware. Some of those assumed house rules even end up making it into other games in the process without anyone even realizing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:The question isn't how many magic users the game says there are, the question is how many magic users would there be if society in D&D developed around the existence of magic in the first place instead of just being a copy of medieval Europe with elfs and orcs. Because at moment there's a major disconnect between how the games setting wants magic to be, and how rare magic is in the rest of game rules.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:23
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:In fact, poo poo, forget cantrips, how many of those generic low-CR warrior monsters have Action Surge? Second Wind? Superiority dice? So if we presume that not everyone can learn Magic, a wizard giving a bunch of peasants Wand of Fireball is actually similar to giving the serfs rocket launchers. Hilarious but probably not conducive to a healthy society.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Jackard posted:How many NPC classes have access to magic Well if your playing 4th non because NPCs don't have classes. That would be silly, why would you wants npcs be build like player characters?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:28
|
|
|
Wait what setting are we talking about? 3e Forgotten Realms describes magic as incredibly commonplace and used for convenience; 4e Realms and any Eberron takes that even further
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
Jackard posted:How many NPC classes have access to magic In the back of the free DM's PDF, there are 10 stat blocks under "Nonplayer Character". 3 of them have spell lists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
Strength of Many posted:Its funny you're pushing for this distinction so hard when a firebolt is actually worse than a light crossbow, longbow, or heavy crossbow and requires hoop jumping to achieve for anyone besides aforementioned High Elves. Hoop jumping we have established that is possible for even the average Human to achieve because literally nothing in the rules says they're stuck with the +1 to all stats option. So mechanical abuse is really out the window when compared to actual ranged weapons, if the players or DM wanted to pursue that route, and the rest has no hard ruling or information about it. Actually, we haven't established that at all. Despite how good feats are, most listed humans possess no feats. It follows, then, that a human in the fantasy world of D&D cannot will themselves to have a feat. Before you are born, you do not get to write your own character sheet. The person playing you does that, and they might well intend for you to have no feats at all. Rules aren't physics. Player decisions aren't the same thing as character decisions. Not all humans have a feat, not all Dynasts have Melee 5, and not all mortals have 5 points of Cool, despite the obvious advantages these game traits bring within the imaginary game-world. quote:Do you like, have a vendetta against the idea of fireball flinging hedge-mage armies or something? It sounds like a logical conclusion to any settings in a Caster Supremacy edition of D&D. How easy magic is to learn, and how easy magic is to teach on a mass scale, is up to the DM. I'm joking. It's actually up to the DM and players together as they negotiate the parameters of the fantasy world they'll be playing in. Whether magic is literally only in the hands of PC-class luminaries, or whether it's available to wealthy elites, or whether everyone and their brother knows a charm for drying laundry or expurgating roaches, is a matter of worldbuilding. It doesn't actually flow from the game rules as presented at all, because the rules track the development of a small group of exceptional characters, not everyone ever born. How is it that you have maneuvered yourself into the position of needing to have this explained to you? AlphaDog posted:But if you don't get to be a wizard by studying up, how does it work? Oh, wizards learn magic by studying it, definitely. But there are things you can study for years of your life and never even begin to perform successfully because you just haven't got the knack, or you started too late, or you're dispositionally unsuited, or whatever. "Intelligence" is not the same thing as "Magical Talent". I mean, how do you get to be a fighter? Even a level 20 fighter? Basically, practice. So why isn't everyone a level 20 fighter? Because it doesn't work that way. Vorpal Cat posted:Actually considering that you only need an ability score of 10 int to learn magic it would be more like getting a professional baseball player and getting him to teach you to throw a slider. See, no. You don't only need an ability score of 10 int to learn magic. You also need a class level in wizard, or a feat, or a background. Not everyone has those, or has the option to get them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
I like the idea of Wizards as the mujahideen; bent on keeping the common folk of the world mired in toil and grunt-work, sending young suicide-wandguys into firebolt-training camps and such
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:See, no. You don't only need an ability score of 10 int to learn magic. You also need a class level in wizard, or a feat, or a background. Not everyone has those, or has the option to get them. So why isn't society set up so that like 20% of the population has a background that teaches them magic considering how useful that would be for society as a whole. I mean at the end of the day its easier as a game designer to just create generic medieval fantasy land #387 then to fallow through on the consequences of the fantastic elements of your setting. But its still kind of silly D&D at least sense 3ed edition is a game where the entire character progression system is build around the idea that your getting access to a steady supply of increasingly powerful magical artifacts. Trying to tie that with any kind low magical setting is kind of ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:So why isn't society set up so that like 20% of the population has a background that teaches them magic considering how useful that would be for society as a whole. I mean at the end of the day its easier as a game designer to just create generic medieval fantasy land #387 then to fallow through on the consequences of the fantastic elements of your setting. But its still kind of silly D&D at least sense 3ed edition is a game where the entire character progression system is build around the idea that your getting access to a steady supply of increasingly powerful magical artifacts. Trying to tie that with any kind low magical setting is kind of ridiculous. I might have made "background" up. I'm looking at "Acolyte" and "Sage" right now and what they give you is social ties to other faithful and/or research skills. I'm not even sure there are backgrounds that grant spellcasting. I assume that if there are, though, they grant like... a cantrip. So let's say we're determined to give as many people as possible whatever background grants spellcasting powers, and that we have the material resources available to bring up 20% of our dark ages population such that they're literate and able to spend most of their time each day reading occult texts rather than tilling the soil, and indeed that we're a Civilization-style overmind that autocratically organizes all society according to some top-down grand strategy. At the end of the day we've got a bunch of people with like +2 or +3 on Intelligence (Arcane lore) checks and the ability to flavor food or throw molotovs without using any spices or lamp oil. Also a bunch of fields are going untilled and so on. Hooray?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:I assume that if there are, though, they grant like... a cantrip. So let's say we're determined to give as many people as possible whatever background grants spellcasting powers, and that we have the material resources available to bring up 20% of our dark ages population such that they're literate and able to spend most of their time each day reading occult texts rather than tilling the soil, and indeed that we're a Civilization-style overmind that autocratically organizes all society according to some top-down grand strategy. At the end of the day we've got a bunch of people with like +2 or +3 on Intelligence (Arcane lore) checks and the ability to flavor food or throw molotovs without using any spices or lamp oil. Also a bunch of fields are going untilled and so on. Hooray? I'm not sure if this is intentional, but what you're describing here is what might happen if you introduced the idea of "lets train some cantrip chuckers" into an pre-existing mundane "dark ages" society that maybe has a few wizardy wizards in secluded towers and whatnot. Vorpal Cat is talking about magic always having been common and the differences that would be obvious between that society and a "dark ages' society that maybe has a few wizards in secluded towers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
Well that's fine because we can just have our clerics of the non rear end in a top hat god who doesn't sucktm can just create food for free. edit: I'm going to assume that such a god exists because the followers of such a god would have such a massive advantage over the followers of any god that didn't give it's followers free food that within two or three generations they would be able to overwhelm and destroy them by shear weight of number, thus after a few thousand years of history the only civilizations that would survive would be ones whos priests could create free food. And the instant you don't have 80-90% of your population tied up in food production any pretense of having a society even close to feudal Europe falls apart. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 08:53 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:42
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:I'm not sure if this is intentional, but what you're describing here is what might happen if you introduced the idea of "lets train some cantrip chuckers" into an pre-existing mundane "dark ages" society that maybe has a few wizardy wizards in secluded towers and whatnot. "Magic has always been common" is wrong, though. It isn't and has never been common. Wizards and clerics and warlocks aren't "common". You can't guarantee you'll have one, you can't guarantee you'll be one, and even if you manage either of the former you can't guarantee that yours will ever advance past level one. You wanna use clerics to feed your populace? Okay, how many have you got? How many of them can even cast a spell above level zero? What are you going to do when vampires or something show up and you've used your village's only wellspring of divine power to slightly shorten the average workday for your farmers rather than to keep the cemetery properly consecrated? I guess that's a village, though. You take an entire academy of mages and an entire church of priests and tons of labor and arable land and so on and you probably can build a shining metropolis whose streets are lit by floating crystals and whose gates are guarded by invincible golems. Then you'll get a god angry or accidentally open a portal to the wrong place or whatever, and then get blasted out of time or sunk beneath the sea or buried under a mountain, and in a few centuries a group of plucky adventurers will be wandering through your ruins, fighting desperately against your automated defenses, and gaping in awe at the wonders of the past. Because that's how this works. This rules-as-physics, everyone-is-literally-optimizing-their-character-sheet-IC stuff got really popular in Exalted a few years back and it was a goddamn cancer. Let's head this off straightaway, please?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:"Magic has always been common" is wrong, though. It isn't and has never been common. Are we still talking about the game of Dungeons & Dragons, with the healing potions in every minor villain's backpack and the magic swords scattered around every old ruin and cave?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 09:07
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:This rules-as-physics, everyone-is-literally-optimizing-their-character-sheet-IC stuff got really popular in Exalted a few years back and it was a goddamn cancer. Let's head this off straightaway, please? Were talking about settings where people can literally receive magic powers by joining a priesthood, I don't need to argue rules as physic to know that that is going to massively change how society functions. Settings wise, not rules wise, is there any reason for non magical nobility to exist in a D&D world? Its kind of hard to argue divine right of kings when the guy next to you can literally bring people back from the dead via the power of god and says he should be in charge instead. This is without getting into what kind of effects magical artifacts, wandering monsters, and random adventuring parties would have on agriculture, the economy, and society. Or why there's not large scale institutions in place to find and train more potential wizards, druids, clerics, and other casters in order to give nations advantages over there rivals. Because if 1% of your rivals population can use magic, and 1.5% of your own population can, your going to crush them both economically and militarily. I'm not trying to argue that the rules are 1 to 1 representation of the setting, but I do think that the setting should reflect the fantastic elements in the rules rather then ignoring them or pretending that civilizations which developed in a magical world would look exactly like medieval Europe but with elfs. edit: spelling and grammar. Vorpal Cat fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Sep 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
Going off the ol' settlement rules from 3e and Pathfinder, a city the size of my graduating high school class would have access to 4th level spells, and would have 1000gp in magic items. 8th level spells still only take a city with 25,000 people. So it's not crazy to think that every hamlet had a hedge mage and thousands of gold worth of magic items.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 17:13 |
|
|
AlphaDog posted:You're right, it's stupid that if your game's skill system says that you always succeed on a roll of 20 then an untrained child has a 5% change of accidentally forging a sword if they decide to try, that's not the way reasonable people would play the game. Note: I have literally had this happen in a campaign when I was a stupid newbie and my DM let it happen to burn off the money I'd conned my way into, and for laughs. WELL WHO LAUGHED AT WHO, HUH?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2014 09:37
|
|
