Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Temple of Elemental Evil' started by anatoliy, Jan 11, 2021.
It is always fun when you do it to someone, but never fun when you get it done to you
Just Disintegrate everyone instead... Mwahahaha!!!!
Destructive power when used can be... destructive. Surprise.
First of all attended objects have the saving throw of their owner and magic items the saving throw of their owner or their own (whichever is higher) so there is no guaranteed loss of reward, but only the risk to lose it. And generally *a* fireball won´t eradicate the whole equipment an enemy is wearing or carrying if that enemy is of an approbiate CR. And if he/they are not then it would be the parties own fault for using powerful destructive spells for foes that could be overcome without spells or with less AoE-damage.
Second equipment is only part of the reward. XP is the reward for a won fight, too.
Third mundane equipment should be generally damaged / unusable from normal combat too - if a barbarian clobbers an enemy with a great axe that should be quiet as destructive as using a spell.
And fourth - you make it sound as if the enemies equipment is only there to fill the parties coffers. What about potions of e. g. Cure light wounds? A prepared enemy might dare to drink and use those up while the party watches him, wasting "their" reward, too...
Edit: and something I forgot - quite a lot of adventures have treasure to be found in trash piles or hidden below some rocks so that they would not come into direct contact with a fireballs blast.
Most gm's are not aware that a magic weapon/armor can only be sundered by a magic weapon with a greater enchantment as stated in the DMG under magic items
Destroying objects with spells that weren't specifically targeted on an object to be intentionally destroyed is kinda like the Paladin's code of conduct: They're technically in the rules and some people like them but invoking rarely makes for a better game.
On the contrary. A Paladin without his code of conduct is nothing at all.
Someone who claims that he plays a Paladin but wants to do away with the code of conduct does not want to play a Paladin at all - he just wants the special abilities (and depending on system better starting minimum stats) without the core of what a Paladin is about.
Even more than a noble knight who could be a fighter, a Paladin is centered on his code of conduct and lives to be the epitome of his LG alignment and his code as the connection to his god that grants him his powers.
A Paldin constantly walks the line between his ideals and a dark world that challenges his beliefs at every step and that challenge is what makes playing a Paladin so difficult and interesting.
If you want that without the code - create a Fighter/Cleric.
We've reached a difference of understanding and opinion perhaps summarized best by aesthetics vs. mechanics: Mechanically, in 3.x, a Paladin is usually best used for a 2-level dip for +CHA bonus to saves. Aesthetically, they can be, and often are, more of what you said.
My preference for games has often been on the mechanical side of things: If a rule says "X", it's X, and as a game company, we test how satisfied players are with rule X and its interactions with other rules. From my experience as a Paladin player, a GM of Paladins, and someone who's heard accounts of Paladins as PCs and NPCs, the class's code is a notable feature, but one that doesn't improve the experience of playing the class. In tabletop 3.x, much or all of what a Paladin can do mechanically (minus the code) can be done by something else in the system. Thus, don't normally play a Paladin in 3.x if you want to be the most powerful character. A straight Cleric, especially a melee Cleric with the right stats, can do similar or better things mechanically than a Paladin and may even consider or hall himself one regardless of what the rules state. However, the threat of "behave and often help/force your party to behave in a specific way or you lose your character" doesn't make for a better game as someone playing with it. As GM, I've never permanently revoked a PC's Paladinhood, but merely suspended his powers for a little while for intentionally messing with the party (lying to a long-time friend and party member) for fun. We each took it in stride, laughed it off, and fast forwarded to the part when the character had his Paladin powers back.
Ultimately, I still respect your opinion. This is also the point where I acknowledge that serious further continuation of this discussion is notably off the original topic.