3.5 Loyalist wrote:
There go King Arthur, Roland de Roncevaux, Thor, Zeus, Aragorn, Isildur, Sauron and a host of other great characters from legend and fiction both.
Honestly, I am left wondering why we even bother with all these Magic Items. Or maybe they are NPCs' use only ?
Right, it is absolutely never ever the fault of a GM to have zero interest in what his players want for their characters, or even to take pleasure in thwarting his players' expectations and fun under the guise of "creating a challenging and brilliant story".
And it's not like PCs may feel like they are always on the receiving end of such one-minded and thus high-impact concepts.
There are so many NPCs out there who are clearly one-trick poneys created only to use against a PC party and who would be just unable to get by in everyday life, let alone as part of an adventuring party.
I never heard a single GM complain about how one-dimensional and irrealistic such characters are though.
In all-honesty, NPCs are mostly immune to the Sunder CMB because the large majority of players will not use it, for fear of ruining the loot. Why then should PCs not enjoy a similar immunity ?
Or is the BBEG really not interested in keeping the PCs' shiny baubles intact for his use after he kills them all ?
The black raven wrote:
Hold on a moment there.
Nobody is complaining about people with one dimensional characters, what I am complaining about is the fact that player's want you to cater to their one dimensional characters and essentially take away all the disadvantage. When you specialize in something, you run the risk of being bad in some things while being exceptionally good in a specific area.
That would be like someone creating a sorcerer with nothing but fire spells and complaining to the DM when he throws fire resistance creatures at your party.
The DM isn't required to minimize your risks from your character's concept.
I know that some players can get attached to characters and there gear but if the DM sundered the weapon for a good in game reason ( ie the bbag was getting the monkeys kicked out of him and sort to disarm the character ) then that's just the way it goes
The black raven wrote:
I personally told my players not to bother picking up loot from enemies, that I'd just generate treasure equivalent to the CR of the fight instead (so they're free to sunder away). It makes keeping track of loot easier (I don't run APs, though I do enjoy collecting them).
They want easy mode, with easy wins like the games they are so used to. Reminds me of the arguments around dark souls.
The black raven wrote:
Really? You are going to do that?
All these characters are not just their one magic item. There is more to them than that. If the setting or story takes away their item, as happened to some of them, it is the chance for heroics, plots, terrible vengeance and adapting without the magic item crutch.
Yep, specialisation is a real risk. Hard strategy games teach you this (unless you rage quit and refuse to see), and dnd is no different here.
Sunder is a valid tactic in one of our games the dwarf fighter would regularly sunder opponents shields to lower there ac
Well if the DM is just going to casually break the item my characters backstory is based around without the possibility of repairing said item what is the point of asking players to write a backstory to their characters. It's all fine to say "player entitlement" yet if the player works with the DM from the start to incorporate a item into the characters history and well that means nothing than I'm not going to ever build any backstory to any character for that particular DM game. Espcially if I get told "well crap happens live with it." I'm not saying not to Sunder a item. A the very least give a player the ability to repair or replace the item. Incorporate it as a potential side quest in the game. The irony is that DM who go around saying that sunder is a valid tactic are the ones at least in my experiences who are the ones who scream the loudest when their weapons get sundered as a pc. All o sudden it's not player entitlement for them. Just me as a DM being unfair.
I'm sorry but your backstory is not a tool that is used to protect your character and his resources.
Here we go again.
Did anyone (outside of ridiculous straw man suppositions) suggest NOT allowing the possibility of repairing or replacing an item?
It's all fine to say "player entitlement" yet if the player works with the DM from the start to incorporate a item into the characters history and well that means nothing than I'm not going to ever build any backstory to any character for that particular DM game.
An item important to a character's backstory being sundered does NOT mean the history and the item is unimportant.
Hell, Isildur has been cited a couple times as why sundering an item is badwrong, when, in fact, the sundering of Narsil was a pretty damned important point of the story.
(But, as we all know, the player of Isildur rage-quit the game because of a horrible unfair DM that sundered his sword. I'm sure the only reason he provided the repaired sword to another PC was so they'd talk out of game and further enrage the player who quit.)
For the record, my player agreed to replace his curve blades with bastard swords, though he's disappointed about the loss of the crit range.
And I agree--losing a weapon 'crucial' to a character can actually make things pretty cool. The half-orc cleric in my campaign lost his greataxe in a river, and it's sort of become a running gag that they'll run into a boggard or ettercap later wielding that axe.
Jumping in a moment as a GM who loves it when players write a (brief) background for their character that I can mold into the campaign:
If you have some ancestral weapon or family heirloom, I am probably going to make it have some use as a plot device during the campaign - and that means your ancestral macguffin blade is likely to be stolen, broken, or some other "nefarious" means of removing it from your comfortable possession...
Then you will be expected to recover or repair it because your background says you care about it.
Alternatively, if your sword is just "my sword" - I probably won't bother with the effort to find a way to break or steal it because your response would likely be simply buying another sword.
An item being actually important to your character does not make taking that item from you into some kind of jerk DM behavior - it makes that item a tool to keep you and your character involved and integrated in the story unfolding in the campaign.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Are you saying that easy mode is a badwrongfun way of playing the game? Because if you aren't saying that, I have no clue what you're saying.
Fluff does not give a bonus against sunder. Or at least, I've never heard of it. Fluffy bonus for item protection?
People wanting an easy mode is why there is anger, pathos, when it turns out they are not playing on easy mode. Their stuff can be broken/lost/destroyed and this is felt to be wrong, too hard, cheap, etc. A combat manoeuvre is felt to be badwrongfun because it inconveniences them!
One way I have gotten around item fixation, apart from tearing out the magic item crafting rules and making them an npc only thing, is to give the players a wealth of powerful and unusual weapons in the course of their adventuring. Most of these, are back-up weapons. A basilisk tooth shuriken that can turn a foe to stone, a bleeding light weapon, an ancient spear with a lot of juice (not orange, give them lemon lime), weapons easily fashioned out of monster parts (horns, tail, teeth, that sort of thing), a magic staff that can summon wood woads (who then can beat foes with clubs while blinking between trees), funky bows of various sizes, a toxic tetsubo (a bit like bleed). Give them a lot of armaments, far less of the typical rings +1 and they will keep on fighting if they lose something. They will tear the foes apart with the cool weapons you give them, which they earn through adventure.
I just finished Rivers Run Red today, and there was a monster that had Improved Sunder. However, it never got a chance to use it since it was an Animal and our Ranger managed to crit on her Wild Empathy check so the encounter was resolved peacefully. And there's still no rule saying that I have to use a certain rule just because it's there. If there was, nobody would ever want to play a Paladin or Cleric.
Hey, the rule is there so I gotta use it, right? Because they can fall and lose their powers, I have to make that happen every time. Just like something being able to sunder and automatically going for it. Makes little sense, especially with the earlier turtle since the combat log read it means to bite targets to death, not gnaw on their gear for the hell of it. It basically had a feat slot wasted on a feat it's not even supposed to use if you go by the book!!
No one says you have to use the rule, just that you should be able to use it because it is, in fact, a rule without having your table scream "wtf hax." If it makes sense to use, use it. If you're going out of your way to make an excuse to use it, might want to take a step back and think this through before using it.
Yeah, just had to say that since someone said "If I see Improved Sunder on an enemy, I will make said enemy use it" yet Old Crackjaw's tactics don't include the use of Sunder despite him having the feat. It's one thing to use the maximum amount of resources a creature has to a realistic degree and another to simply force the creature to do things it normally wouldn't just to harry the players.
If I really wanted to ruin your day then destroying items would not be at the top of the list. I could always purposefully throw creatures at you that are way out of your league to kill you. I sunder as a tactic, I play my monsters like a player would play his character, that monster wants to survive and it will do whatever it takes to accomplish this.
Depends on the monster/foe and the party they are facing. If a creature has sunder, but it is fighting an unarmed monk and invisible foes (as happens a fair bit in my game of late with the ninja and monk combo) then sunder won't get much use.
If someone waves a weapon at crackjaw, he may break it in two, that is how it can go, but not always how it will go.
Archers likewise don't get sundered much, but an enemy merc with sunder may sunder that bow if the archer is in charge range.
Archer: my bow!
And the way you run your AP's don't effect me either.
Neither way is wrong.
But if the DM just takes it away and does nothing to integrate it into the campaign, why even have it?
You have a point. Players should not write backgrounds, regardless of what details those backgrounds include, if their DM has no plan to use them.
Perfectly reasonable. Only don't expect players to make any backstory for the game. If I have to waste the time and effort to be told "to hell with your backstory it means nothing and subject to however the dice rolls" than your not getting a backstory from me. Or at least anyone that involves a item. I'm not going to distrup the game. I'm also not going to waste time on a backstory just so the DM can ignore it. Same way I won't take any crafting skills or feats if I have no access to crafting. Waste of time and skill points imo
Having an item broken=/=your backstory meaning nothing.
Unless you are going to houserule, which is fine by the way, Pathfinder is designed as a game that runs on the roll of the dice.
Why is it so hard for you to run with the concept, all the while being susceptible to the dangers of possibly losing that weapon?
Why should a backstory ever protect you from the harms of the game?
You can't enjoy the concept if there is a risk involved?
I enjoy the risk. Nor do I think that my character should not suffer some sort of hardship. Yet if a DM ask me to make a character background then ignores it. Well what was the point. Espcially if he was involved in the making of the background. I have lost and had items broken. I also expect the DM to allow me to get a replacement or allow me to alter my background to include the replacement. IF I need sowrd xyz to kill the tarrasque and have it lost or sundered being told sword abc just won't do and that sword xyz is the only sword that will do is imo a dick dm move.
I'm seriously starting to think that some in this thread don't get what it means to have to work with a player background. You don't ask them to waste time to write up a background than proceed to toss it out the window because it's meaninless and/or refuse to work it into the game. I'm not saying that the DM has to be a slave to a players background either. Yet as a player if it means nothing than don't waste my time.
Why are you hiding behind the ignoring part? Essentially what you are trying to do is hide behind your background about your character being tied to a certain weapon. I don't care how you want to justify it but the result is the same.
You are claiming that unless the DM leaves your weapon alone, he is ignoring your backstory.
I'm sorry but that's a load of you know what.
Tell you what I'm going to do.
I'm going to give my character a background where he never has to pay for anything because he is such a smooth talker that he can talk anyone into giving him anything that's available. Hell, I'll never ever have to spend a single gp on anything and if the GM makes my pay then I will claim he is ignoring my backstory.
How about that?
I'm not the one hiding behind the ignoring part. You keep telling me that background should not shield your character from any hardship. Which is the same as ignoring it imo. BY all means damage the weapon or take it away. Don't expect no reaction from the player because of the rules say your allowed to do it. If your going to no take into account what effect sundering weapon will have on my background than I see no reason to go out of way to write one up. I see this thread is going from a sunder weapon yes or no thread. To a player vs DM thread. DMs can do everything and anything to players because the rules say they can. And as players were not supposed to say anything because it's player entitlement. Not going to happen. If the DM screw me over I'm not going to stay quiet because the rules allowed him to do a dick move to my charscter. I'm not going to rage quit. Nor flip over the gaming table. Expect me to stay silent sorry no not going to accomate you.
Here I thought this was a actual thread to discuss the topic at hand. Not a echo chamber style of thread.
If that style of play works for your group then that's all that matters.
I can tell you right now that it doesn't fit my group nor does it fit the default of the game. Sundering is just as much a rule of the game as AC, hit points, and saving throws. Your background should never put a DM in a situation where he/she can't use a certain rule, that is not what a backstory is for. You are trying to put that DM into a situation where he can't use Sunder because, according to you, will wreck your character and ignore your whole backstory.
Not really it's just a disagreement on our respective postions. Still not sure if I want to respond in this thread anymore. Seems less like a thread on discussing whether Sunder should be used or not and more a echo chamber style thread. Where DM should use it all the time and players who say anything about it are suffering from player entitlement.
In some situtions Sunder is approriate to use against a pc. Not in every situation. Just because it says that Sunder should be used does not mean it has to be used all the time.
An example I already provided...
...Old Crackjaw, an angry turtle who's only tactic as written is to bite you really hard till you die.
He happens to have Improved Sunder, but he didn't use it on the Druid he killed, nor on the Elemental Gem near him.
You keep telling me that background should not shield your character from any hardship. Which is the same as ignoring it imo.
Do you mean to say, that a character's background IS a shield from hardship?
Because what I got from reading those two sentences is that if I have some important item stolen or broken that plays an important part of your character's background, then I am ignoring your character's background...
How is that NOT a shield from character hardship?
If that's not the case, then would you please explain what you meant by those two sentences (I honestly wish to know)?
Seems less like a thread on discussing whether Sunder should be used or not and more a echo chamber style thread.
You keep using that term. It's not very polite, nor is it constructive.
I'm pretty firmly disagreeing with you over the matter of sundering important weapons. The thing is, shallowsoul is right. You're saying the backstory should shield the weapon from being destroyed, and that sounds crazy.
If a player creates a key weapon, he has a key weapon. I'm not going to hold off on trying to destroy it if it fits the encounter. If I have an orc barbarian who likes to smash stuff, he will smash the PC's stuff. I will not hold back on the PC with the special sword, because doing that is ignoring the orc's background. And that is racism.
And your implications--wait, no, your statements--that shallowsoul is saying the GM should use Sunder 'all the time' are simply false. The closest I've seen to actual strawmanning so far in this thread.
You keep telling me that background should not shield your character from every hardship.
Oh, I agree with SS, then. It shouldn't shield a PC from every hardship. It should scarcely shield them from any! If they don't need to think of fresh material to survive, fresh material won't be produced.
No offence, but why are you reposting it? I think people saw it the first time, and I think it got addressed.
Nobody's saying you must use Sunder whenever possible. But if using Sunder is the best move for the monster, and the monster is smart enough to realize that, he should Sunder.
And if the monster has any reason to Sunday, or Grapple, or Trip, there's no reason not to do that! Combat Manoeuvres make combat more exciting, and can even up the stakes. If there's an idiot goblin, feel free to have him try to grapple the druid, even if it would be a better idea to just stab the guy.
If the GM feels like using Sunder, and it makes sense, the GM should not feel like he has to ask the players' permission.
If the player based their backstory around a weapon, they knew the risks full well. If they wanted to avoid the risks, they should have based their backstory around something that wouldn't be so incredibly easy to lose.
No a characters background should not be a shield to hardship. Yet neither should the DM go out of his way to target a characters weapon at all times simply because the rules say they can. To be fair if it's a run it's a generic weapon that can be replaced than the DM should and can use Sunder. If it's a item that is non-replaceable or a important part of the character background while it should not be immune to sunder attempts I would not break it as easily I would a generic weapon. Double the hp or hardiness of the weapon. I guess DE being told that not only should I not say anything if the DM sunders my weapon that if I do it's player entitlement just not a good attempt at dipomacy on the part of the DM.
I agree that the GM shouldn't go out of his way to destroy a weapon at all times. Nobody has said that. In fact, I just said the exact opposite. Not sure when anybody implied that sundering was mandatory--I think these echoes are a bit warped. :P
However, the idea of doubling the Hardness/HP just because it's an important weapon sounds very strange to me. If the PC wants his weapon to not be broken, he should cough up the dough for adamant. I'm not going to give him something so huge as a x2 to weapon Hit Points just because he wrote a fragile backstory. That's unfair to the other players.
If he wants his character to revolve around a single, breakable item, that is his choice. Just as the GM should not ignore backstories, it is unwise for a player to ignore rules--especially if they threaten to derail the entire story he's written.
Plenty of characters have revolved around swords and similar weapons. And plenty of those weapons have been lost or broken--sometimes even permanently. Gollum lost his ring, but you didn't see his player complaining. :P
It's perfectly possible to smash a player's beloved masterwork mace without ruining their backstory. If the PC really will collapse without that mace, then the player has done something stupid and needs to make a new character. Preferably before the campaign starts, so his stupid choice won't inconvenience the GM by requiring a new PC be introduced in the middle of the adventure.
I don't give players special treatment for making mistakes. I allow them to remedy the mistakes, and I help them remedy the mistakes, but I do not pretend it is not a mistake.
Creating a PC whose story revolves around a priceless antique Ming is one thing. Creating a PC whose story depends on a priceless antique Ming is quite another.
KC I think we will have to agree to disagree. Going through all the work to make a character background that revolves around a weapon to have it broken within the first 10 minutes of the game just not what I consider fun. I guess for me as a DM use the combat manuever just not for every single situation imo. I think I'm too leninet as a DM. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Not enjoying something and considering it badwrongfun are different things.
I'm actually on your side of the fence on this. I like consequences and a little pain and suffering in my games. At the same time, I'm not going to say derogatory things about people who don't like that stuff in their games, or say they are playing the game wrong.