Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Petrosian" data-source="post: 291171" data-attributes="member: 1149">In order to get to 3-5 extra points of damage, we compared it to a rogue using somewhere like 17k of magic weaponry (the two +2 swords) AFTER he spent multiple feats.We bought a 375 gold wand.We were up against some 12k+ of magical defense.To beat it we bought a 375 gold magic wand.For 750, i could have bought a wand of magic missile at 1st level and did 1d4+1.That would not have made for a viable option. The rate of damage off the 750 wand is way too low for the 10th level character. That does not seem to be an error.By buying the 375 gold wand, we do as much or more damage than with the 17k of weapons we spent multiple feats on, we beat the 12k+ of armor and defenses, and we way outstrip the 750 gold wand.All in all, that wand for 375 is worth a whole lot more than its gold cost.How frequent is it in your games that the party runs up against foes armored enough to make the fighters not have an automatic hit? I have this happen fairly often. Dragons, other fighters in plate, monsters in armor... heck the frequency of foes with 15+ or more of their Ac coming from armor is not &quot;rare&quot; at all.&nbsp; this seems a bit much for 375 gold.it may not be imbalancing to the point of being game breaking.it is certainly well beyond &quot;getting what you pay for&quot; however.the guy playing the rogue in my game expressed his own concern quite simply. &quot;When i sat down to design a rogue and thought f sneak attacking, i thought of bow and my swords. i never thought of &quot;ray of frost wands&quot; but i would be an idiot more often than not to try with the bow.&quot;to me this is a problem. neither my players nor i envisioned your thieves guild standard equipment as including ray of frost wands... but it makes too much sense not to.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Petrosian, post: 291171, member: 1149"] In order to get to 3-5 extra points of damage, we compared it to a rogue using somewhere like 17k of magic weaponry (the two +2 swords) AFTER he spent multiple feats. We bought a 375 gold wand. We were up against some 12k+ of magical defense. To beat it we bought a 375 gold magic wand. For 750, i could have bought a wand of magic missile at 1st level and did 1d4+1. That would not have made for a viable option. The rate of damage off the 750 wand is way too low for the 10th level character. That does not seem to be an error. By buying the 375 gold wand, we do as much or more damage than with the 17k of weapons we spent multiple feats on, we beat the 12k+ of armor and defenses, and we way outstrip the 750 gold wand. All in all, that wand for 375 is worth a whole lot more than its gold cost. How frequent is it in your games that the party runs up against foes armored enough to make the fighters not have an automatic hit? I have this happen fairly often. Dragons, other fighters in plate, monsters in armor... heck the frequency of foes with 15+ or more of their Ac coming from armor is not "rare" at all. this seems a bit much for 375 gold. it may not be imbalancing to the point of being game breaking. it is certainly well beyond "getting what you pay for" however. the guy playing the rogue in my game expressed his own concern quite simply. "When i sat down to design a rogue and thought f sneak attacking, i thought of bow and my swords. i never thought of "ray of frost wands" but i would be an idiot more often than not to try with the bow." to me this is a problem. neither my players nor i envisioned your thieves guild standard equipment as including ray of frost wands... but it makes too much sense not to. [/QUOTE]

Verification