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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8127461" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Oh yeah, Bards are also an excellent choice. They are just kind of in an odd spot where I'm never quite sure how they come about.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Why can't I use the rules of 5e to talk about the base assumption of 5e DnD? That seems like exactly something I should be able to do. Also, 2d6 means an average of 7 years. So I'm going to go forward with that. An average of 7 years to hit level 1. Now since you are insistent on not using 5e rules I'm just going to consult the chart for xp in 3.5. And okay, that is a big difference. Hitting level 3 (which has been my assumption, not hitting level 5) required 3,000 XP in 3.5. That is 3 times more than is required in 5e. So, assuming the XP value of 16 xp per fight is still acceptable (and yes, even a level 1 3.5 wizard could aid in this hunts, because they still had spells, and I'm assuming a combat lasted less than a round per day) I'll revisit my numbers. Starting at age 8, it takes about 7 years to reach level 1. At age 15 they begin hunting. And then, under 3.5 xp, which is three times larger than 5e (the ruleset I've been using) then it takes 30 years of hunting to reach level 3. So, now your position makes sense. Yes, under the rules of 3.5 a nobleman will not get enough XP to level up to level three in a reasonable amount of time. Of course, all of that goes out the window the moment you try and apply it to 5e. Because instead of 3,000 xp for level 3, it is 900. A pretty radical difference.So, ignoring your hyperbole, I'm wondering why you are saying an NPC Archmage is a not a "true spellcaster". They cast spells, not sure what other qualifications you need for being a "true spellcaster" Where do all of these NPC wizards come from then? No NPC has the ability to become a true spellcaster without extreme training (5e citation needed), extreme study (5e citation needed) special circumstances (5e citation needed) or allegiance... to someone, not sure who. And, if the nobility for all their time and money and power can't learn magic... how did you make a wizard PC? Did you train under a false spellcaster, yet somehow learn the secrets to becoming a true spellcaster? Were you required to have your PC train under a former PC, since they are the only true spellcasters? Really, this line of reasoning is opening far more questions that seem reasonable. A better line of thought seems to be... the designers want medieval europe, so they make medieval europe with nobility, and don't really consider the impact the existence of magic would have upon such a system. It is why we still have castles, even though enough dangerous beasts can fly that having a castle is really not guaranteed to protect you. Or why humans are in charge despite the fact that Gnomes, Elves and Dwarves would live longer, receive more magical and martial training and have immensely more resources. Because, even if getting every noble to 5th level takes a hundred years... most elves, dwarves and gnomes aren't considered adults until they are 100 years old. So, you have the humans with their shiny pointy sticks versus an army trained in the usage of magic. Wonder who wins that fight when the your infantry line is smashed by a hundred fireballs.Because nothing says "I'm in charge and protecting the kingdom" like taking the easy way out and buying the services of someone who is smarter, deadlier, and necessary to your very survival. What happens to all those nobles who buy mercenaries and rely on them to the point where their entire political structure relies on keeping the mercenaries happy?</blockquote>

Verification