|
Darwinism posted:You're also probably a bad DM, because enemies should probably play to their IC knowledge, so why does everyone know to go for the dude in bathrobes wiggling his fingers while their friends are being sliced apart by the frontliners? This hinges on spellcasters being incredibly rare in the setting, though. If you're running a setting where the PC wizard is one of 20 arcane casters on the whole planet, then this makes sense. If it's Greyhawk D&D, though, or especially Planescape D&D, then one of those dirt bandits, at least one of the top-poo poo ones back at the hideout, is probably a wizard or sorcerer themselves.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
Rannos22 posted:At the very least as soon as the guy in the bathrobes blows up a couple dudes with a fireball he should be the center of everyone's attention. Definitely! Before that, though, you'd think most things that haven't seen adventurer-type casters would respect the huge guy in plate mashing faces with a hammer more. deadly_pudding posted:This hinges on spellcasters being incredibly rare in the setting, though. If you're running a setting where the PC wizard is one of 20 arcane casters on the whole planet, then this makes sense. If it's Greyhawk D&D, though, or especially Planescape D&D, then one of those dirt bandits, at least one of the top-poo poo ones back at the hideout, is probably a wizard or sorcerer themselves. Possible, but unless you're making enemies with the PC generation rules their casters likely aren't anywhere near as scary as yours unless they're major villains. Darwinism fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Why? Adventurers are things unto themselves, unless these kobolds have met adventuring wizards before (in which case why are they alive), how do they know this? Adventurers and wizards and such are all over the place in most D&D settings. Darwinism posted:Definitely! Before that, though, you'd think most things that haven't seen adventurer-type casters would respect the huge guy in plate mashing faces with a hammer more. Not really, there's a good chance he's just missing and not doing much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
All this talk of villains knowing the rules is uncomfortably close to Goblins/Order of the Stick territory and that's a place no one wants to be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Adventurers and wizards and such are all over the place in most D&D settings. Not really? Forgotten Realms is really the only major setting that's seemingly populated entirely by adventurers, though a ton of people conflate FR with D&D in general. S.J. posted:Not really, there's a good chance he's just missing and not doing much. So what you're saying is that a guy in a dress doing nothing in the back row is just as scary as a guy in a mass of metal attacking your friends
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Possible, but unless you're making enemies with the PC generation rules their casters likely aren't anywhere near as scary as yours unless they're major villains. Okay but which hypothetical version of DnD are we playing now? I've lost track of it. Also the whole point of "dirt bandits probably have wizards" was that they probably understand that robes = wizards. Considering that even first level spells can cause serious problems for a party, and 5th Ed is almost certainly going to refer back to the PHB for spells, even ones built on different rules than PCs, I think it's pretty reasonable that to assume at least some intelligent humanoid enemies will want to target the caster. That's why fiat tanking is bad. I think in most medium to high magic settings "geek the mage first" is probably an excellent truism. If you need to make wizards mysterious and unknown just to somehow enable Fighters to actually draw heat from the monsters there's a serious problem with the rules. I shouldn't have to twist my fantasy sandbox into knots just to allow one of the classes to do their job. EDIT: quote:So what you're saying is that a guy in a dress doing nothing in the back row is just as scary as a guy in a mass of metal attacking your friends If I, as a fantasy denizen of this fantasy universe, have literally ever heard a story about a wizard, then yes. Also, 'doing nothing'? Does this assessment work for the first 30 seconds of combat and then go away? Is that how this works? Mendrian fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Lightning Lord posted:All this talk of villains knowing the rules is uncomfortably close to Goblins/Order of the Stick territory and that's a place no one wants to be. No it's really not. It's not meta knowledge for the bad guys to know the capabilities of the good guys especially if there are a bunch of people with similar abilities running around the land.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
If D&D monsters were rational actors making informed decisions why would they ever pick a fight with an adventurer anyway, because that's nothing but a good way to get yourself, everyone you care about and potentially your entire village/race robbed and murdered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:Okay but which hypothetical version of DnD are we playing now? I've lost track of it. Also the whole point of "dirt bandits probably have wizards" was that they probably understand that robes = wizards. Considering that even first level spells can cause serious problems for a party, and 5th Ed is almost certainly going to refer back to the PHB for spells, even ones built on different rules than PCs, I think it's pretty reasonable that to assume at least some intelligent humanoid enemies will want to target the caster. That's why fiat tanking is bad. You already have to do that for pretty much every class, because if you're running enemies as having knowledge of the mechanics you're always going to simply ignore the Fighter to murder the poo poo out of the easier-to-kill people like Rogues and Wizards because it's the smart thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
And kobold / goblin / orc spellcasters are thing. Monsters aren't going to assume they're the only ones who ever learned to finger-wiggle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Judgement posted:If D&D monsters were rational actors making informed decisions why would they ever pick a fight with an adventurer anyway, because that's nothing but a good way to get yourself, everyone you care about and potentially your entire village/race robbed and murdered. You say that like adventurers aren't usually the ones going out and picking fights to begin with. "What's that you say? There's a dungeon over yonder that might have money in it? gently caress yeah I'm gonna kill everything between it and me!" Also I love the idea of everybody in fantasyland just being so confused by that weird, bearded man in the robe and pointy hat with the staff who's mumbling to himself. Gosh, who is that? Some kind of tourist, maybe? Is he a safety inspector? I just can't figure it out. Oh well, guess I'll go focus all my attention on the Fighter because if there's anything I know players love it's blatant pandering.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Yeah arguing about just how much the wizard should get stabbed is great and all, but how is it a good solution to the problem anyway? Wizards still have assault weapons and are magic swiss army knives. Is the way to fix this to tell their players 'yeah sometimes the DM says gently caress you, gives you no spells, no spell components, and targets you for fun because gently caress you some more' ? also like hats of disguise and poo poo. If I'm a wizard I'm putting on bard clothes and doing my damndest to make sure no one knows I'm about to nuke them into oblivion. edit: also what about psions? How do you know the guy is nuking you into oblivion when he doesn't have to chant any incantations and can wear full plate like anyone else? IT BEGINS fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:48
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Not really? Forgotten Realms is really the only major setting that's seemingly populated entirely by adventurers, though a ton of people conflate FR with D&D in general. The only one? Really? I mean, it's not like they have to be all over the place, everyone in every D&D setting knows what wizards and adventurers are because the entire history of practically every D&D setting is shaped by powerful adventurers and an adventuring lifestyle is a thing that pretty much everyone is aware of.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
If you're an experienced bandit, raider or general generic member of an evil race, you probably know that it's easier to ambush and capture the squishies and ransom them back to the armoured fighters who were meant to be protecting them. You don't get killed, they come back with more shinies later. It's like farming only better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:Not really? Forgotten Realms is really the only major setting that's seemingly populated entirely by adventurers, though a ton of people conflate FR with D&D in general. Well, it was the unofficial default setting for years and now is the official default setting.  S.J. posted:The only one? Really? I mean, it's not like they have to be all over the place, everyone in every D&D setting knows what wizards and adventurers are because the entire history of practically every D&D setting is shaped by powerful adventurers and an adventuring lifestyle is a thing that pretty much everyone is aware of. Greyhawk too, but that's really it. Most settings's histories are shaped by powerful figures who I wouldn't necessarily call adventurers. Are the Dark Lords adventurers? The Sorcerer Kings? The admirals of the Elven and Scro armadas? Eberron's history isn't shaped by adventurers, and though adventuring is a lifestyle, it's a fairly recent one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:So yeah, it's less about making the Wizard more annoying to play, but more about letting the Fighter declare that he can do several things, period, no check needed, because he is a Fighter (or changing a Wizard's spell repertoire such that it allows them to attempt things, but under the same rules as everyone else trying to do it with their natural ability) 13th Age's take on the classic Knock spell is a pretty great example of this. Yeah, sure, it lets the Wizard pick locks--but it isn't automatic. All it really does is let the Wizard try to pick a lock with an INT roll instead of a DEX roll, and at a distance, but explicitly does nothing about traps. So it's useful, but not a guaranteed success and doesn't in any way replace what a Rogue can do. Plus, it still seems "magical," which is important for people who like to play spellcasters, I think. Granted, that's only one small example, but I think letting spellcasters attempt things in the same way anyone else does--just magical things instead of mundane things--is a great step in the right direction when it comes to not letting casters entirely overshadow non-casters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Well, it was the unofficial default setting for years and now is the official default setting. Yeah, I'd say powerful individuals doing stuff in the world qualifies as being an adventurer in D&D.  Although I guess I should clarify, when I say D&D, I don't mean only official D&D settings.
S.J. fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Sage Genesis posted:Multiclassing is totally different. It used to be that you could select to multiclass at character creation and from there on out you'd just split up your earned xp between your classes and eventually level up here and there, taking the best traits from all your classess. In 3e it changed so that each time you leveled up you could select on the spot which class that level would be in. This gave rise to "builds" that got pretty complicated if you throw supplements and prestige classes into the mix. You could plan a 3e character ahead for 20 levels and take them to all sorts of wild places, unlike in 2e where the course was pretty much set at level 1 and could only barely be adjusted afterwards (especially if you're non-human).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
quote:Greyhawk too, but that's really it. Most settings's histories are shaped by powerful figures who I wouldn't necessarily call adventurers. Are the Dark Lords adventurers? The Sorcerer Kings? The admirals of the Elven and Scro armadas? Eberron's history isn't shaped by adventurers, and though adventuring is a lifestyle, it's a fairly recent one. Yes I'm sure in Dark Sun, ruled by sorcerer kings and laid waste by magic, no one knows what a wizard is. This is a really dumb argument only made worse by people pretending that D&D is in any way a gritty or low-magic setting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Yeah, I'd say powerful individuals doing stuff in the world qualifiers as being an adventurer in D&D. Yeah, I'd disagree. People like Kalak and Strahd and Vol didn't go on adventures like the PCs in a D&D campaign do. And when you're talking about major setting, you're talking about official published ones. OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yes I'm sure in Dark Sun, ruled by sorcerer kings and laid waste by magic, no one knows what a wizard is. This is a really dumb argument only made worse by people pretending that D&D is in any way a gritty or low-magic setting. Yeah, I never said that people of DS don't know what wizards are, just that DS's history has not been shaped by adventurers and the adventuring lifestyle is not a big deal in DS like it is in FR or GH. Maybe this argument could be a little less dumb with a little more paying attention.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Yes I'm sure in Dark Sun, ruled by sorcerer kings and laid waste by magic, no one knows what a wizard is. This is a really dumb argument only made worse by people pretending that D&D is in any way a gritty or low-magic setting. But wizards are explicitly rare in Dark Sun and most people only ever see the quasi-divine Templar magic granted by the sorcerer kings? Like, Defilers and Preservers are things, but they're really not common in-setting. But this is a pretty dumb argument; my point is that if you have everyone acting on the metagame knowledge that casters are the most powerful and such you're going to have a really un-fun game where enemies focus-fire the squishy casters and rogues while ignoring the fighters because that's just good tactics if you have assumed world knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Also, in DS no one really knows that the SKs are powerful defilers or that they laid waste to the world. On the other hand, the motto in DS is probably "get the psion first!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:But wizards are explicitly rare in Dark Sun and most people only ever see the quasi-divine Templar magic granted by the sorcerer kings? Like, Defilers and Preservers are things, but they're really not common in-setting. I just think it's not unreasonable to assume that the inhabitants of the world have knowledge of the world? Like, if you know that wizards exist and cast spells by doing ____ weird thing, then at most that dude's gonna cast one spell before he gets pumped full of arrows. Your reality of wizards sometimes having familiars and staves is definitely going to disseminate to the masses in the form of "gently caress up that guy with the pet rat and the quarterstaff if you plan to rob and kill his friends" at some point. I think I just kind of want onto the train that says "fighters should have an actual tanking mechanic, and not just the GM playing along with it". Like, in FATE, you can easily create a battlefield aspect along the lines of "center of attention" for the tank PC, and that Thing is simply true until something changes that fact. Moreover, the party can leverage that fact for bonuses related to everything trying to murder the tank instead of them. D&D fighters should have like (ex)Chivalry that works like a backwards Turn Undead- everything affected by the move has to fight the guy who used (ex)Chivalry unless they flee or are attacked by somebody else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:And when you're talking about major setting, you're talking about official published ones. It's almost like I went out of my way to clarify what I was talking about, weird Darwinism posted:But wizards are explicitly rare in Dark Sun and most people only ever see the quasi-divine Templar magic granted by the sorcerer kings? Like, Defilers and Preservers are things, but they're really not common in-setting. The assumption that people don't automatically know what wizards are in a variety of worlds that are shaped by wizards and magic is kind of a silly argument in and of itself. The word wizard in this conversation means more than just the character class 'wizard,' just like in every other D&D conversation we have in this forum. They don't have to be commonplace for them to be common knowledge. S.J. fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
None of the logic in this discussion addresses the two most likely scenarios: malevolent intelligences with suicidally loyal minions (undead at the very least but theres dozens of other examples--anything bug like or elemental/arcane), and pitiless traps. Walking in the back shouldnt make you less vulnerable to opportunistic attacks based on nothing more elaborate than trying to demoralize nd split up a group-wizard or not. Even if you just inject rndom chance into the mix a wizard should be unconcious at least a quarter of all encounters and using escape magic more often than combat magic. Thats not meant to be a defense of how screwed up the relationship is, either. You always have to practically invent your own game out of dnd mechanics in order to make a campaign work, no matter which edition we re talking about. The problem is that 1 and 2e gave the impression that there was a set of 4 types of character that every game should have, and then between 3e and 4e that became the mmo 'trinity'. A mechanism for encouragign people who didnt know each other to play together and all feel useful. In pen and paper you can assume that part. Really, no campaign should have to make all the archetypes balanced simultaneously. Here are some classic parties: - hobbit: 8 or whatever fighters. 2 rangers, one thief. Npc wizard often absent. - fellowship of the ring: 2 thieves, 5 fighters, 2 fighter/thieves or rangers. Npc wizard often absent. - harry potter: 3 low level wizards. Npc wizards of various levels on a rotating basis. - knights of the round table: some number of paladins. A couple npc wizards that usually hang out at home. - star wars: 1 fighter/ wizard, 2 fighters, 1 fighter/thief. Npc wizard dies during second adventure. - sex in the city: 2 bards, 1 thief, 1 illusionist - the muppets: 3 druids, 12 bards, 2 thieves, 1 warlord, 1 vengeance paladin, 3 mahnamahnas, and 2 critics. I say balance via exclusion. Think fighters get bored around wizards? Pick which kind of story you want and go for that. I had more fun being part of a 4-fighter squadron of wyvern riders, and a 3 cleric 'mission to the demihumans' than i ever did playing neopolitan dnd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
S.J. posted:It's almost like I went out of my way to clarify what I was talking about, weird Yeah, I was clarifying what the guy you responded to said. You ignored the major part. Note that it's a pretty meaningless clarification. The only settings we can really use to describe what D&D settings are like are the published ones because those are the only ones we can share any experience with and they influence the home brewed ones And that knowledge really depends on who you're talking about in the setting. People aren't necessarily aware of their world's history or the powers that shape it, especially cave dwelling primitives. I get the part about wizard being a generic term, hence my joke about psions in DS. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Wizards should never have been involved from the first. They were imported battlefield artillery, rare and fragile glass cannons that had somehow been convinced to go on a looting trip. It was a silly idea. A silly idea in my elf games. It cannot be allowed to stand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:But wizards are explicitly rare in Dark Sun and most people only ever see the quasi-divine Templar magic granted by the sorcerer kings? Like, Defilers and Preservers are things, but they're really not common in-setting. Man if only there were a class of PCs who would defend those people, maybe called Defenders with explicit mechanics that made the whole 'metagame knowledge' thing completely pointless... Seriously 4E PC roles was a great idea and 5E running away from that is a gigantic and terrible step backwards. We have all these same problems again because they are a core and fundamental problem of D&D 3.X.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Yeah, I was clarifying what the guy you responded to said. You ignored the major part. I wasn't ignoring it, I was explaining that I was talking about more than just that. Come on, dude. People don't need to be intricately aware of the details of their world's history in order to have fables and stories passed down, and considering how most of those worlds still tend to live in and around metropolitan areas it isn't like getting info passed around is uncommon. People in D&D settings know what wizards are, even if they haven't met one. Wizard academies are a thing. Druid covens are a thing. Sorcerers are a thing. Witches are a thing. Shaman are a thing. This isn't a stretch of imagination here. Wizards, etc, tend to be also have important places in government and current events in D&D settings. Entire races are sometimes considered magical. But regardless, the point is that the argument is stupid either way - and the argument only exists because of how hosed D&D's rules are in contrast with what it wants to do with its various settings. S.J. fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:You already have to do that for pretty much every class, because if you're running enemies as having knowledge of the mechanics you're always going to simply ignore the Fighter to murder the poo poo out of the easier-to-kill people like Rogues and Wizards because it's the smart thing to do. But that's just it, this isn't some Order of the Stick bullshit. You don't need knowledge of the mechanics to target the wizard. You only need knowledge of the setting. We can argue about how common wizards are and how much dirt farmers know about them but old wizened dudes with magic staves wearing robes are a trope in almost every fantasy setting I'm aware of. Elves are pretty and in tune with nature, dwarves love gold and mining, wizards lean on staves and speak in riddles. I would argue if anything the average wizard probably has a harder time concealing his class than the average cleric, unless he goes out of the way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
S.J. posted:The assumption that people don't automatically know what wizards are in a variety of worlds that are shaped by wizards and magic is kind of a silly argument in and of itself. The word wizard in this conversation means more than just the character class 'wizard,' just like in every other D&D conversation we have in this forum. They don't have to be commonplace for them to be common knowledge. The assumption that every wizard is a godlike being capable of putting an end to the battle is where I think you're going wrong, though. Sure, okay, if every wizard is going around doing that they're gonna be priority targets, but that's a weird assumption to make. Is every wizard in the setting a battlemage? Mendrian posted:But that's just it, this isn't some Order of the Stick bullshit. You don't need knowledge of the mechanics to target the wizard. You only need knowledge of the setting. We can argue about how common wizards are and how much dirt farmers know about them but old wizened dudes with magic staves wearing robes are a trope in almost every fantasy setting I'm aware of. Elves are pretty and in tune with nature, dwarves love gold and mining, wizards lean on staves and speak in riddles. I would argue if anything the average wizard probably has a harder time concealing his class than the average cleric, unless he goes out of the way to do it. Why? I mean we throw around the 'in robes' stuff tons but.... what's stopping the Wizard from just dressing like a regular 'adventurer' sans heavy plates everywhere?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
If your wizard is that special, why isn't your fighter? Why should the fighter be an ignorable option?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:The assumption that every wizard is a godlike being capable of putting an end to the battle is where I think you're going wrong, though. Sure, okay, if every wizard is going around doing that they're gonna be priority targets, but that's a weird assumption to make. Is every wizard in the setting a battlemage? They don't all need to be able to do that. Only one has to be able to do that. If you have a Fighter with a sword and a shield, everybody has a pretty good idea what he's capable of just by looking at him, which actually is something that the system reinforces (moreso in 5e than any other edition!) Wizards are unpredictable. Sure you might be dealing with some kind of diplomancer or an aquamancer or some bullshit but what if that guy can control your mind, or turn you into a baby, or turn himself into a demonic bear? Which tales do you think spread about wizards faster - "Wizards are cool dudes who are good for trade" or "One time some rear end in a top hat wizard turned my friend into a mushroom"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Boars are a thing that actually exist, and you've probably even heard of people fighting them. A boar somehow appears in the mall and starts attacking people. You are a cop with a handgun and a nightstick. Please detail your tactics for dealing with the situation, given that you have 6 seconds to start acting. Just because people are aware that spellcasters exists, doesn't mean that the shlubs you find guarding the kobold's garbage pit are going to know how to deal with one in a fight. Just because every so often Barks-Weirdly the town wizard casts a spell and can suddenly read whatever weird human writing you occasionally get, and one time during a wolf attack he mumbled something and then half of them fell down on the spot, doesn't mean they all have the insight to ignore the guy stabbing them and focus fire on the guy in robes who hasn't done anything yet (because if he had done something, then he's already won the fight).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
goatface posted:If your wizard is that special, why isn't your fighter? Why should the fighter be an ignorable option? Laphroaig posted:Man if only there were a class of PCs who would defend those people, maybe called Defenders with explicit mechanics that made the whole 'metagame knowledge' thing completely pointless... Yeah, I like how 4E actually gave pretty good reasons for things to attack defenders because otherwise a 'smart' group of enemies is just naturally going to attack the soft targets because class roles are still a thing, even if you don't highlight that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:The assumption that every wizard is a godlike being capable of putting an end to the battle is where I think you're going wrong, though. Sure, okay, if every wizard is going around doing that they're gonna be priority targets, but that's a weird assumption to make. Is every wizard in the setting a battlemage? Presumably if they're going out of their way to get into fights, sure. In the same way that a fighter isn't just a town guard, an adventuring wizardy dude isn't just a scribe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
Dilb posted:Boars are a thing that actually exist, and you've probably even heard of people fighting them. A boar somehow appears in the mall and starts attacking people. You are a cop with a handgun and a nightstick. Please detail your tactics for dealing with the situation, given that you have 6 seconds to start acting. They shoot the animal every single time. loving goons
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Presumably if they're going out of their way to get into fights, sure. In the same way that a fighter isn't just a town guard, an adventuring wizardy dude isn't just a scribe. There's some weird stuff going on here - they know the wizard's dangerous because they know wizards are dangerous, but you admit that not all wizards are dangerous? How would they know the difference at first? edit: I'm not saying that everything is ignorant, but I am saying that it's pretty implausible for most creatures (especially pretty ignorant monsters) to realize that this dude in the back should be a priority target precisely because wizards exist and he must be a wizard because he's doesn't fit another classes' archetypical appearance Darwinism fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:There's some weird stuff going on here - they know the wizard's dangerous because they know wizards are dangerous, but you admit that not all wizards are dangerous? How would they know the difference at first? People who go out of their way to get into bad situations probably know how to get out of them? Or at least, that's a safe assumption when they're trying to kill you/they're out and about intentionally in dangerous places. That's kind of a thing regardless of whether we're talking about fighters or wizards. How is this at all complicated? You seem to have misread my post completely. S.J. fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
S.J. posted:People who go out of their way to get into bad situations probably know how to get out of them? Or at least, that's a safe assumption when they're trying to kill you/they're out and about intentionally in dangerous places. That's kind of a thing regardless of whether we're talking about fighters or wizards. How is this at all complicated? You seem to have misread my post completely. So the guy avoiding the fight and not wearing much armor must know how to defend himself and end a fight because... he's in the back not wearing armor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:41
|
|