Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6201153" data-attributes="member: 6681948">So what are we arguing?  First, we have the assertion that the Wizard autowins pretty much every challenge.  When the response is that the rules provide checks and balances that reign in the caster, we are told that actually applying these rules clearly makes us adversarial, and neuters the wizard to the point there is no enjoyment to be had in playing such a character and he would clearly wish to change characters.  This suggests that the wizard is either utterly useless or omniscient and omnipotent, with no possible middle ground.  I find that difficult to credit.I also find the phrasing designed to be postitive to the OP wizard and negative to the GM who reads and enforces the rules.  For example, "exploitation of inherent vagueries of the purple prose nature of some spells" versus simply reading the actual words, not assuming the ones that convey the desired (over)power of the spell are relevant, but that those that limit them are mere colour and should have no in-game impact.  I've seen one poster (IIRC, on a different thread) suggest that he can just send the fighter ahead to describe the scene, and he can now ignore the line of effect rules and cast his spells, with pinpoint accuracy, around corners.  We should ignore the Line of Effect rules, or at least interpret them in the manner most favourable to the Wizard.To the manner in which these are presented, I have added an alternate presentation, several as one might perceive the arguments of the wizard's player, desiring to hold a place of superiority (admittedly biased in many cases, but I think largely biased as much as the "poor put upon wizard" presentation they are juxtaposed against.- Terminally obstinate (effectively a mundane Mindblank) chamberlains.  A simple Charm spell renders the target into the caster's sock puppet.  Although this one was initially presented as non-magical, suggesting there was no way that anyone could be fully resistant to the PC's Diplomacy roll, or could depart without waiting the full required time for diplomacy to be rolled.  Does that mean the PC's are also frozen in stasis for a minute or more should the opposition wish it to be so?  Of course not - this would not favour the wizard!  - Unheralded, rotating sentinels as complications.  as  opposed to a spell which allows sensing of targets in the vaguest detail alone resulting in automatically choosing a target perfectly positioned for the desired results.- Ad-hoc, bolted-on Scent that obscures the line of its mechanical codification.   No creature may ever deviate in the slightest from the presentation of the average member of its species in a book.  [I note that the Scent was unnecessary as the Dragon, by the books, has Blindsense.  They all do.- Spell components thievery common enough that it would require a codification into local law as to whether it is a petty offense or a crime of high seriousness.  Can't really speak to this one, other than to note that if they are so easily located, prepackaged into "spell component spells", it seems reasonable to believe there is considerable awareness of the components Wizards use.- A society so riddled with magic, that players should expect all NPCs to have exposure to, and knowledge of, rudiments of spells and their effects, thus deployment of divination and enchantment spells become "nuclear options."  Opposed with a society that has no knowledge whatsoever of spells that are nevertheless easily acquired off the shelf in potion, scroll and wand form, with details of their casting mechanics routinely available to the PC's.  No one has ever heard of these rare magicks until we want one, in which case it's available wherever we happen to be.  Why would it be more socially acceptable to mystically Charm the King than to secure his aid through bribes or blackmail?- A society so loaded to bear with magic, that all/most steadings should be expected to have a high level court mage who can failsafe the redoubt with anti-scrying and anti-teleportation contingencies...or at the very least, only the ones that the PCs actively engage with.  Again, we come back to how rare or common wizards are.  I don't see how there can be high level spells ripe for the picking, and a free market of magical items, yet the wizards who have knowledge of such spells, and the skills to craft such items, being scarce as hen's teeth and virtually unknown in society This seems like a tradeoff - if magic is rare and mysterious, then we should be back to the 1e suggestion that even a scroll of single first level spell is a treasure beyond all reckoning, so spells to expand the wizard's repertoire are far more difficult to obtain than in the standard rules.  If it is readily available, then it must logically be better known.- Many/most time(s) I try to craft a scroll/wand, I am mysteriously interrupted by vandals et al. Not one I am fond of, though unlimited time is an issue to be addressed in its own right.  To me, gold caps off crafting availability fine.  But, with scrolls/wands common, spells become more common and one would expect more members of the society to be aware of the significance when one is brandished about.In other words, Mystery and Rarity go hand in hand, in my view.  3rd Ed makes magic very available by default - it is assumed PC's can access magic items as desired, they have a ready market and known pricing structures, and wizards have little difficulty gaining new spells.  Most settlements have a spellcaster or three available for hire.  That implies that magic is not so much an unknown quantity as it would be in a milieu where "even a scroll of single first level spell is a priceless treasure" - here, it is a 25 gp purchase, pretty easy to locate in most settlements of any size.</blockquote>

Verification