Slightly tricky brooch of Shielding question (was easy)

[carborundum]

Now we're cooking with gas

Cheers!

 

[Artoomis]

...The feat in question is Fell Drain, and it is a metamagic effect with a +2 level cost. It basically says "any living creature that is dealt damage by the spell also gains a negative level."

If a Shield stops a magic missile regardless of metamagic (and these feats didn't exist when that was written) then it does no damage and gives no level drain...

Correct. No level drain under these circumstances.

To be fair to the PC who is using these Magic Missles, The Brooch of Shielding that is absorbing the damage should not start out at the full 101 hit point capability. Some percentange of that should have been used up in previous encounters.

 

[Quartz]

Just note that the Heighten Spell metamagic feat will affect a spell's susceptibility to the Globes of Invulnerability spells but not Magic Missile's susceptibility to Shield.

 

[Nifft]

To be fair to the PC who is using these Magic Missles, The Brooch of Shielding that is absorbing the damage should not start out at the full 101 hit point capability. Some percentange of that should have been used up in previous encounters.

Some players I've known would protest that's unfair, since the PC's loot would be worth proportionately less.

Like giving an NPC a wand of fireballs with just 5 charges left.

Cheers, -- N

 

[billd91]

Some players I've known would protest that's unfair, since the PC's loot would be worth proportionately less.

Like giving an NPC a wand of fireballs with just 5 charges left.

Cheers, -- N

Nothing unfair about that if you calculate the value of used item, prorated for the amount of charges remaining, and then use that value when kitting up the NPC and balancing the treasure amount.

 

[Nifft]

Nothing unfair about that if you calculate the value of used item, prorated for the amount of charges remaining, and then use that value when kitting up the NPC and balancing the treasure amount.

Really? Okay, let's look at a more extreme example: an evil NPC Wizard with 10 kobold apprentices (teifling wizard 7 + 10x kobold sorcerer 1).

Consider the difference between full one wand of scorching ray and ten wands of scorching ray (5 charges each).

The latter puts the party at a marked disadvantage, despite its identical cost. (This is because wand prices only work if they're usually fully charged. Wands are a 50% discount over scrolls, and this has to be for a reason, right?)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Will]

Well, wands have one advantage over scrolls; caster level is irrelevant.

So you could have a kobold sor1 with a wand of Resist Energy at CL 11 and he could use it happily.

Mind you, it's freakin' unlikely that a 1st level character could afford to use such a wand, but you get the idea.

 

[Artoomis]

Really? Okay, let's look at a more extreme example: an evil NPC Wizard with 10 kobold apprentices (teifling wizard 7 + 10x kobold sorcerer 1).

Consider the difference between full one wand of scorching ray and ten wands of scorching ray (5 charges each).

The latter puts the party at a marked disadvantage, despite its identical cost. (This is because wand prices only work if they're usually fully charged. Wands are a 50% discount over scrolls, and this has to be for a reason, right?)

Cheers, -- N

Sure, but that's just abusing the system.

It's absolutely reasonable that the wands and other charged items an NPC has are not fully charged. It's just as likley as, over time, that the PC's items are not fully charged.

 

[Nifft]

Sure, but that's just abusing the system.

It's absolutely reasonable that the wands and other charged items an NPC has are not fully charged. It's just as likley as, over time, that the PC's items are not fully charged.

It's actually just a matter of degree. Both are abuses: one is more obvious than the other.

If you're merely charging the NPC full price for her partially used wand (i.e. reducing her wealth -> reducing the party's reward), then that's fine. You're not increasing the NPC's power level, you're just reducing her treasure. If you're compensating the PCs in other ways, this is a fine method for reducing monster treasure.

I'm careful not to make NPCs with wands that are less than half full, because I want to be morally in the black when I deny my players the ability to buy and/or craft wands with fewer than 50 charges. Why am I careful about this? Because wands are already a good deal, at their current 'volume discount' price. Any cheaper and scrolls become a bad deal.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Artoomis]

...I'm careful not to make NPCs with wands that are less than half full, because I want to be morally in the black when I deny my players the ability to buy and/or craft wands with fewer than 50 charges. ...
Cheers, -- N

That's a reasonable approach, and not at variance at all with what I said.

On the other hand, to have NPCs always have equipment that is fully charged strains credibility.

It would also be reasonable to have an NPC with a wand with very low charges, but also have another fresh wand as a backup.

It's best to try and think of NPCs as people, not just a collection of numbers. The numbers are a great starting point to ensure encounters are reasonably balanced.