D&D 3E/3.5 what book are 3.5 forsakers in?

[moritheil]

I've got no problem with the XP gain. Every campaign is different. My players are doing more with mass tactics than taking on a single BBEG (It's usually 4 or 5 against 20 or 30 less powerful foes by the end of the session). They progress well enough (thank you DMG encounter chart!).

But claiming that a PrC is not playable because he doesn't use magic? Everyone has fly? Everyone uses teleport? Seems like D&D may be heading towards the 'one trick pony' route if magic is that important to a game.


My thoughts. YMMV

The problem is that magic basically makes everything better, and nothing worse. (Friendly magic, at least.)

What tradeoff do you give for a stoneskin spell for the tank, or an improved invis for the rogue? None, really. (Okay, cost of material components . . . but it doesn't usually have an immediate and painful impact.)

 

[Storyteller01]

The problem is that magic basically makes everything better, and nothing worse. (Friendly magic, at least.)

What tradeoff do you give for a stoneskin spell for the tank, or an improved invis for the rogue? None, really. (Okay, cost of material components . . . but it doesn't usually have an immediate and painful impact.)

Doing it the old fashioned way doesn't get negated by anti-magic or counterspells? AN Anti magic field doesn't suddenly make a rogue worthless?

All things being equal, a party using magic can expect the same from an equally powerful opponent. Why can't your BBEG purchase items if your players are as well?

If magic is such a commodity, the players can expect their opponents to be equally (in power) equipped. Let's not forget, most opponents have the same prepatory abilities and reasoning abilities as the characters. Mages that fly regularly can expect opponet=nts to be using nets. Heck, if the opponents are after live prisoners (slavers?), they'll have them anyway.

Ever have a party walk through a trail covered by ankle-breaker traps? Great fun!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

The problem is that magic basically makes everything better, and nothing worse. (Friendly magic, at least.)

Why should magic make things worse? Who would use magic if it were like that?

 

[Crothian]

Why should magic make things worse? Who would use magic if it were like that?

Magic should make some things worse because it is too good. One of the things the creators said about classes and feats is that if everyone takes and uses it, it is too good. Well, everyone uses magic. As the game is there is no reason not to. If it were a class or a feat like this everyone would yell and deamnd it is broken. But for some reason just because it is magic, it is okay.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Magic should make some things worse because it is too good. One of the things the creators said about classes and feats is that if everyone takes and uses it, it is too good. Well, everyone uses magic. As the game is there is no reason not to. If it were a class or a feat like this everyone would yell and deamnd it is broken. But for some reason just because it is magic, it is okay.

This is flawed reasoning. I could use the same logic and say that "weapons" are to good. Or "armour class-increasing stuff".

 

[Storyteller01]

Why should magic make things worse? Who would use magic if it were like that?

Haven't you heard of the 3-fold law?

 

[Storyteller01]

This is flawed reasoning. I could use the same logic and say that "weapons" are to good. Or "armour class-increasing stuff".

Not quite. Other classes are naturally better at weapons and armor. Spellcaster's rarely increase their combat viability with either (how often does the wizard get the longsword/full plate +5?). But use magic to increase a fighter's survivabilty? Certainly!

A rogue with a ring of armor, or leather +5

A fighter with artifact level sword, armor and shield can last a while against a spellcaster. It's worse if the artifacts are designed to kill spellcasters.

A bard witj an intelligent violin?


As has been mentioned in other threads, many creatures published can't be defeated without all members of a party haviing access to some type of magic.


Try playing a magic free campaign. It's great, requires of certain level of creativity, but your damage potential is nowhere closs to what's possible with magic weapons.



Really, think about it. When someone on this site asks for a build of some kind, how many propose said build WITHOUT levels in magic user or with a plethera of magic equipment?

 

[Storyteller01]

Rant on magic.

Why should magic make things worse? Who would use magic if it were like that?

Same reason everything has requirements or consequences. Your computer needs electricity, but takes away on exercise. Cars need gas and produce pollution. It's fact of life.

ANd, to be honest, plenbty of things are made worse with magic use, but most DM's tend to gloss over these or provide 'answers' as to why those consequences don't happen. No one thinks about it, and the environment provides enough distraction not to.

Is the question 'why should magic make things worse?' or 'Why do I want to think about consequences?'?

By the way, this isn't an attack, just a statement. No inappropriate flaming please (ie, no mother comments folks )

 

[Crothian]

This is flawed reasoning. I could use the same logic and say that "weapons" are to good. Or "armour class-increasing stuff".

No it isn't. Weapons and armor though get supoassesd by magic so you can't say the same about them. We see characters without armor and weapons in games, but not without magic. Armors though doehave a negative, it slows you dowm.

 

[Particle_Man]

Sounds like you guys will like Iron Lore when it comes out. Magic items are rare and risky, and come to that magic spells are rare and risky. Yet the characters are meant to be badass enough to take on MM critters of the appropriate challenge level, at least as well as equivalent level core class characters can.