Overly controlling DM?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Kazaan wrote:
Pull his DM card and appoint a new one for the group. If he disagrees, kick him out of said group. Pathfinder isn't a simulation game and is more interested in balancing mechanics as a game than simulating real life. If he can't grasp that concept, he isn't fit to be a DM. Period.

Yeah - I've seen a lot of potentially solid systems which went too far out of their way to provide simulation rather than following the KISS rule and focusing on the fun bits. (pretty much any rpg I've seen with vehicles which have any amount of crunch)

2nd edition had that - where certain armors got bonus AC against certain weapon types. There's a reason that 3rd ed dropped it.

Scarab Sages

Mana Chicken wrote:
Blackvial wrote:
Davor wrote:

Say "I attack him with my greatsword." Silly semantic argument nullified.

knowing DMs like this they will always ask for you to describe how you are attacking with your greatsword
He'd assume I was stabbing the person...

Fine. If he tries to make you ineffective, simply state "Well, my CHARACTER, as a proficient swordsman, would know how to strike effectively, so let's just say he does that every time."


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Not so much 'overly controlling' DM as 'overly terrible' DM.


It's quite common to make minor house rules for 'realism' - "Yes, an illusory enemy can help you flank as long as the enemy believes he's flanked, even though it doesn't 'threaten' by RAW." "If you Cackle for an hour, you're going to be Fatigued; I don't care if that's in the rules or not."

This particular house rule is very, very bad; it requires the entire combat system to be rebalanced according to undefinable considerations. Can a monk hurt someone in plate mail? A giant with a sword? A kobold with a wooden club? An ogre with a wooden club? A wolf? A bear? A tiger?


10 people marked this as a favorite.

So the note said there was a traitor, and then the cleric started betraying you. That's the only funny bit about that story.

Sovereign Court

Mana Chicken wrote:

So I have a DM that decided that if you try to slash at someone with heavy armor it wouldn't do any damage because in the real world it wouldn't. You have to stab at the person.

Normally that wouldn't matter but now he's saying if I try to cleave I do no damage against people with heavy armor because "realistically speaking" it wouldn't do anything.
Does this seem right to you guys?

I am all in favour of more realism, and more rules to limit magic, but there's such a thing as pushing it too far ...


Weren't large two-handed swords like the great sword specifically used to fight people in heavy armor? It had enough heft that it could cleave right through an arm or a leg even in full plate.


bookrat wrote:
Weren't large two-handed swords like the great sword specifically used to fight people in heavy armor? It had enough heft that it could cleave right through an arm or a leg even in full plate.

Actually it more dented the armor. It would cleave through the joints though as they were less protected in order to allow for flexibility.

In the game that's why heavy armor give you a higher armor bonus to AC to reflect that it's harder to hit those less protected areas. To say slashing does no damage is one thing but then you might as well drop the armor bonus by 6. The game really isn't designed for this sort of thing.


Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.

Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.
Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.

Derailing slightly... I was playing a PFS scenario last week and there were two hostages that were hung (standing on a bench, the bench was kicked out). The counter started, I wrongly assumed it was even remotely realistic... they died in 3 rounds... seriously two average grown adult males suffocated to death in 18 seconds? Even if I 100% exhale the air out of my lungs I can hold my breath for twice that. If you cut the standard time a person could hold their breath dramatically for dramas sake it should still take 6-10 rounds to suffocate someone.

That is one of my main grips about the pathfinder system. They seem to apply the 6 second round only to certain things that suit their whims. I have always thought that a standard round should be closer to 20 seconds not 6, based on all of the things that can happen in a round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adagna wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.
Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.

Derailing slightly... I was playing a PFS scenario last week and there were two hostages that were hung (standing on a bench, the bench was kicked out). The counter started, I wrongly assumed it was even remotely realistic... they died in 3 rounds... seriously two average grown adult males suffocated to death in 18 seconds? Even if I 100% exhale the air out of my lungs I can hold my breath for twice that. If you cut the standard time a person could hold their breath dramatically for dramas sake it should still take 6-10 rounds to suffocate someone.

That is one of my main grips about the pathfinder system. They seem to apply the 6 second round only to certain things that suit their whims. I have always thought that a standard round should be closer to 20 seconds not 6, based on all of the things that can happen in a round.

If hung correctly, it would have been snapped necks, not strangulation that would kill them (meaning round one death).

But, if done in an amateur fashion, you definitely have a point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.
Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.

Garrottes perform a blood strangulation, not a normal airway strangulation


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This is precisely the sort of thing that should occur in Pathfinder. Well, not exactly, but you get the idea...

Total derail, but I can't watch that without wanting to put my own eyes out. Don't know how you can stand it.

Makes the old Hanna-Barbera cartoons (hand-drawn as quickly and as cheaply as possible, and steeped in absurd melodramatics) look like state-of the-art computer animation of Shakespeare plays.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This is precisely the sort of thing that should occur in Pathfinder. Well, not exactly, but you get the idea...

Total derail, but I can't watch that without wanting to put my own eyes out. Don't know how you can stand it.

Makes the old Hanna-Barbera cartoons (hand-drawn as quickly and as cheaply as possible, and steeped in absurd melodramatics) look like state-of the-art computer animation of Shakespeare plays.

That was also some of the worst dialog I've ever heard. "He's also known as the Thirty Man Slayer, and also known as the Bear Slaughterer" lol


I'm more upset about the complete negation of a feat than the weapon. You can change weapons but to say the cleave feat will never work? Just riles me.


Cavall wrote:
I'm more upset about the complete negation of a feat than the weapon. You can change weapons but to say the cleave feat will never work? Just riles me.

Cleave looks like it'll work, you just need to get into a position where you can bludgeon two people at once, or impale two people in a line on your spear.


My Self wrote:
Cavall wrote:
I'm more upset about the complete negation of a feat than the weapon. You can change weapons but to say the cleave feat will never work? Just riles me.
Cleave looks like it'll work, you just need to get into a position where you can bludgeon two people at once, or impale two people in a line on your spear.

[Random House-Rule GM] No you can't, those things aren't cleaving. The feat's called Cleave, so you have to use a slashing weapon. Otherwise you're not cleaving, you're impaling or bludgeoning.[/Random House-Rule GM]


I was wondering what this guy would do if you wanted to swing your earthbreaker at someone in plate armour. The whole point behind maces, warhammers, flails, and so on was to make a big enough dent in the can that it mashes the goodies inside.

And while second edition had rules for varying against attack type ... one, those were optional, and two, those only changed armour class. Your sword gets past whatever mod is in place, it's still going to hurt (varying depending on how big you are -- this IS second edition).

Matthew Downie wrote:
This particular house rule is very, very bad; it requires the entire combat system to be rebalanced according to undefinable considerations. Can a monk hurt someone in plate mail? A giant with a sword? A kobold with a wooden club? An ogre with a wooden club? A wolf? A bear? A tiger?

A wolf with a wooden club does 1d6+1 bludgeoning damage. If it took Martial Weapon proficiency to use a greatclub, I'd laugh because greatclubs suck and it should've picked a heavy flail instead.

Silver Crusade

As other people have noted, if at all possible, I believe that you should definitely change the people you play with. This type of uncooperative aggression detriments from the fun had as a whole, and really doesn't have a place in a game unless everyone is on board from the start. I do understand that in some towns it can be really hard to find a group to play with, and if you've exhausted your options, well, my condolences.

However, if there are other people nearby who play Pathfinder, you really should look them up pronto.


the title of this thread

Silver Crusade

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.
Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.
Garrottes perform a blood strangulation, not a normal airway strangulation

Not to mention that if you're using a wire garrote rather than a strangling cord you can just straight-up decapitate someone.


bookrat wrote:
Weren't large two-handed swords like the great sword specifically used to fight people in heavy armor? It had enough heft that it could cleave right through an arm or a leg even in full plate.

Actually, large two-handed swords (like the montante or zweihander) were used more like polearms, mostly for thrusting when facing plate armor. Against less armored foes you could cut and chop but with plate armor, you pretty much need to get them on the ground and then drive the point through one of the gaps.


Aaron Whitley wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Weren't large two-handed swords like the great sword specifically used to fight people in heavy armor? It had enough heft that it could cleave right through an arm or a leg even in full plate.
Actually, large two-handed swords (like the montante or zweihander) were used more like polearms, mostly for thrusting when facing plate armor. Against less armored foes you could cut and chop but with plate armor, you pretty much need to get them on the ground and then drive the point through one of the gaps.

I was reading some articles about them; turns out you can swing them to do some serious damage to plate armor. It won't necessarily cleave through, but it will dent and damage, and dented armor makes for a very in effective combatant.

William Wallace was also known to decapitate people in full plate - right through the the plated neck guards - with his claymore. (I think it was Wallace, I read it earlier today and now I can't find the article).

I also remember seeing a documentary on ancient weapons and axes were great weapons for digging into armor - even plate armor. And that's a slashing weapon, too, by pathfinder rules.

Sorry for not providing citations. :(


bookrat wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Weren't large two-handed swords like the great sword specifically used to fight people in heavy armor? It had enough heft that it could cleave right through an arm or a leg even in full plate.
Actually, large two-handed swords (like the montante or zweihander) were used more like polearms, mostly for thrusting when facing plate armor. Against less armored foes you could cut and chop but with plate armor, you pretty much need to get them on the ground and then drive the point through one of the gaps.

I was reading some articles about them; turns out you can swing them to do some serious damage to plate armor. It won't necessarily cleave through, but it will dent and damage, and dented armor makes for a very in effective combatant.

William Wallace was also known to decapitate people in full plate - right through the the plated neck guards - with his claymore. (I think it was Wallace, I read it earlier today and now I can't find the article).

I also remember seeing a documentary on ancient weapons and axes were great weapons for digging into armor - even plate armor. And that's a slashing weapon, too, by pathfinder rules.

Sorry for not providing citations. :(

I'm not arguing that swinging wouldn't have an effect. Just not as effective as thrusting.

A lot of it comes down to the quality of the plate armor which obviously ranged from older steel armors through later hardened steel plate armor. Some of it comes down to where they have maile vs. plates and much of it comes down to fit. Punching a hole in a breastplate? Not a big deal. Punching a hole in your greaves? That will hurt.

With plate armor the thing to keep in mind is that pretty much all breast plates had space between the breast plate and the body due in one part to shape (the armors weren't flat but globe shaped to reflect blows) and to the fact that something was worn underneath. Early on maile was worn underneath and later a quilted doublet was worn. Both of which provide good protection against whatever gets through the plate armor. For helmets, it really depends on what kind of helmet. Most soldiers in plate armor are likely wearing a great helm of some sort which is worn over another helmet. So denting or piecing it isn't going to be a huge inconvenience.

Greaves, however, and some of the armor on the extremities, were pretty much shaped to the individual wearer and so punching a hole would leave a wound.

The effect of dented armor on a user (even a helmet) is highly overrated.

You also have to be careful with William Wallace since there is a lot of myth, legend, and propaganda included in the writings (from both sides of the conflict) and the Wallace Sword that hangs in a museum is a Frankenstein monster of a weapon. The handle is 16th century (since according to records it was re-hilted) and the blade, as far as metallurgists can determine, is actually three blades forged together. Swords of that size pretty much didn't exist or weren't used at that time. That said, Wallace did use a two-handed sword, it's called a longsword.

If you watch anything produced by the History Channel or The Learning Channel with regards to historical weapons, you can ignore most of what they say. The shows are highly dubious.

Mid to late plate armor was really really good. There's a reason everyone switched to polearms and guns.

EDIT: If you find the Wallace article I would love to read it. I've been reading a bunch of stuff about him recently and its been fascinating to see all of the different ways he was portrayed by different groups in different periods of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mana Chicken wrote:

Alright thank you guys. I honestly don't know if I'll be going back to that game or not. I am apparently getting a bad reputation for leaving games in my community but only because of bull s~%%.

My first game I left because the guys refused to smoke outside, knowing that I can't breath around ciggarette smoke indoors. They gave me a bottle of febreeze...the DM from that game still gets pissed at me every once in a while asking if I'm going to just up and leave the current campaign I'm part of for no reason.

My second campaign was canceled by the DM because of a huge argument but I would have left anyways because the DM's wife was a LG cleric but she was NOT acting like her character should. She attacked me (a LG Paladin) over a stupid evil holy symbol I picked up that she wanted to destroy. Then the DM started arguing over how theres no reason for me to want that symbol. I'm sorry, the LG character attacks another LG character in the same party and me picking up a stupid trinket is your problem???

The third game I left because the DM brought in another player to be the boss for a boss battle but I absolutely did NOT like that guy because he was an a#& h@~$ so I said I wasn't coming for the final fight. Then when the guy said he wasn't showing up I told the DM I was fine coming back but NOBODY came to the final boss battle and the DM just ended it because he was tired of the campaign anyways.

Now there's this campaign....I have horrible luck with this crap and unfortunetely my future gaming is suffering because of it.

...Ever considered moving to the other side of the screen and running a game? Seriously. It's fun in different ways than playing as a PC, and seems like you've had plenty of experience in "what not to do", which would help you.


Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.
Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.
Garrottes perform a blood strangulation, not a normal airway strangulation

Or a choke hold - its not about suffocation or breath holding, its about blocking the blood flow to the brain via the carotid artery which causes nearly immediate unconsciousness. Having done it to others and had it done to me during training, I can attest that when done correctly, you will "see the wizard" and pass out in seconds, and stay out for another 10seconds or so and then take another 15-20 to get your crap together enough to do anything intelligent.

So...plenty of time for coup-de-gras with a weapon following a proper 1 or 2 round choke hold (regardless of CON, since its not about holding breath its the immediate stoppage of blood to brain).


Aaron Whitley wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Aaron Whitley wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Weren't large two-handed swords like the great sword specifically used to fight people in heavy armor? It had enough heft that it could cleave right through an arm or a leg even in full plate.
Actually, large two-handed swords (like the montante or zweihander) were used more like polearms, mostly for thrusting when facing plate armor. Against less armored foes you could cut and chop but with plate armor, you pretty much need to get them on the ground and then drive the point through one of the gaps.

I was reading some articles about them; turns out you can swing them to do some serious damage to plate armor. It won't necessarily cleave through, but it will dent and damage, and dented armor makes for a very in effective combatant.

William Wallace was also known to decapitate people in full plate - right through the the plated neck guards - with his claymore. (I think it was Wallace, I read it earlier today and now I can't find the article).

I also remember seeing a documentary on ancient weapons and axes were great weapons for digging into armor - even plate armor. And that's a slashing weapon, too, by pathfinder rules.

Sorry for not providing citations. :(

I'm not arguing that swinging wouldn't have an effect. Just not as effective as thrusting.

Sorry; I wasn't aiming to contradict you. I'm by no means a historian of any sort, and you seem really knowledgable on this topic, so I'm happy to defer to your knowledge. I was just trying to add to what you were saying.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

...And in conclusion, I think we can agree that adding excessive realism to a roleplaying game might be a biiiit too broken. XD


Rednal wrote:
...And in conclusion, I think we can agree that adding excessive realism to a roleplaying game might be a biiiit too broken. XD

Like the realistic effects of swim checks? Imagine you, in full plate, getting hit by Control Water. After flailing around underwater for a few seconds, choking for a few more, then trying to claw open your armor or somehow swim to safety while covered in metal plates, you drown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The key word here is "excessive". XD


Rednal wrote:
...And in conclusion, I think we can agree that adding excessive realism to a roleplaying game might be a biiiit too broken. XD

It can work fine... if everyone at the table is OK with the occasional insta-kill. But there's a reason a lot of modern games like that have some sort of luck/fate points to weasel out of said insta-kills.

Aside from Call of Cthulhu, which is a horror game.

Grand Lodge

Realistic magic.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Realistic magic.

You sit around chanting for three hours, then nothing happens?


GM 1990 wrote:
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Otherwhere wrote:
In RL, a garotte would basically coup-de-gras in 1 round.
Only in the movies. In "RL," it takes a lot longer than 6 seconds to strangle someone to death.
Garrottes perform a blood strangulation, not a normal airway strangulation

Or a choke hold - its not about suffocation or breath holding, its about blocking the blood flow to the brain via the carotid artery which causes nearly immediate unconsciousness. Having done it to others and had it done to me during training, I can attest that when done correctly, you will "see the wizard" and pass out in seconds, and stay out for another 10seconds or so and then take another 15-20 to get your crap together enough to do anything intelligent.

So...plenty of time for coup-de-gras with a weapon following a proper 1 or 2 round choke hold (regardless of CON, since its not about holding breath its the immediate stoppage of blood to brain).

The garotte often broke the victim's neck if it didn't end up (as Isonaroc mentions) decapitating them when they were made from wire. It didn't kill via choking off the airways, though that happens as well.

Since Pathfinder is a game, however, such insta-gib attacks we can do in RL would make things too lethal, un-heroic, and therefore un-fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Run away as fast as you can.

Failing that, ask the GM why he says you're playing Pathfinder if he's not going to run Pathfinder.

Then tell him if he wants to play a separate game with separate rules to please present a printed document of those rules prior to the next game.

Insist on rebuilding your characters with the rules of this new game in mind.


Otherwhere wrote:

The garotte often broke the victim's neck if it didn't end up (as Isonaroc mentions) decapitating them when they were made from wire. It didn't kill via choking off the airways, though that happens as well.

Since Pathfinder is a game, however, such insta-gib attacks we can do in RL would make things too lethal, un-heroic, and therefore un-fun.

Yeah, and a rapier would pierce your heart and kill you instantly that way -- you don't even have to wait a few seconds, or laboriously saw through someone's neck. But instead we call it 1d6/18-20, for exactly the same reason. ALL lethal weapons would get "insta-gib" attacks; that's the whole point of them.

So, statements like "realistically, a garrote would instantly kill everyone immediately on the first round" are exactly the same as "realistically, a rapier would kill everyone immediately instantly." But for some reason no one makes these kind of statements about anything except katanas and garrotes.


Anyway, back on topic, the DM in question seems not to understand that full plate armor ALREADY prevents slashing damage. Specifically, it eliminates all slashing damage roughly 45% of the time. We model that in the game by assigning it a +9 armor bonus to AC.

Sovereign Court

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!

Liberty's Edge

In this DM's admittedly very slim defense, plate mail did grant an AC bonus against slashing weapons.

Back in 1989.

Three and a half editions* of Dungeons & Dragons ago.

If you're using a greatsword (which might or might not be taller than your character) against a guy in plate armor, respectfully remind your DM that Armor Class is an abstraction and representative of the total modified d20 roll you need to successfully hit and injure a man-sized target wearing plate armor. Also remind him that because you're really strong, even if you roll high enough to hit your target and he rules your sword smashes into his plate mail, tell him, "Dude, I've got 20 Strength and I hit him four times as hard as a normal human should**. He's at least getting a really big discolored bruise under all that armor because of me."

If your DM insists that slashing weapons don't work against armored opponents, sit back and tell him, "Horizontal slash, neck level. YOU guess the result." Or tell him how much of a f#@!ing idiot he is.

Just don't attempt to use the Core Rulebook as a bludgeoning weapon. That -4 penalty for improvised weaponry is a real drawback. =p

*I'm counting Second -> Third -> 3.5e -> Fourth -> Fifth. You might count Second -> Third/3.5e -> Fourth -> Essentials -> Fifth, which is valid but kinda louses up my metaphor.

**I wish I could find the source for it, but Sean Reynolds said the intent of the d20 System, 3e in particular, was that going up +5 points in an ability score means you're twice as good as you were before. If you look at the carry capacity table, it's really obvious.

Sovereign Court

Snorb wrote:

In this DM's admittedly very slim defense, plate mail did grant an AC bonus against slashing weapons.

Back in 1989.

And as a DM back then, I loved to ignore that annoying and stupid table. AC was a suitable abstraction back then, and it still is.

Tell your DM you're no longer interested in the type of game he runs, and that you respectfully bow out. Then spend all your energies finding a new group.

Liberty's Edge

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Snorb wrote:

In this DM's admittedly very slim defense, plate mail did grant an AC bonus against slashing weapons.

Back in 1989.

And as a DM back then, I loved to ignore that annoying and stupid table. AC was a suitable abstraction back then, and it still is.

Tell your DM you're no longer interested in the type of game he runs, and that you respectfully bow out. Then spend all your energies finding a new group.

Hell, I don't blame you. I looked at my copy of the 2e PHB and I still don't know how to make heads or tails of that chart.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snorb wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Snorb wrote:

In this DM's admittedly very slim defense, plate mail did grant an AC bonus against slashing weapons.

Back in 1989.

And as a DM back then, I loved to ignore that annoying and stupid table. AC was a suitable abstraction back then, and it still is.

Tell your DM you're no longer interested in the type of game he runs, and that you respectfully bow out. Then spend all your energies finding a new group.

Hell, I don't blame you. I looked at my copy of the 2e PHB and I still don't know how to make heads or tails of that chart.

You want to check out the 1e chart. Seriously. Every weapon had a modifier depending on the type of armour the target was wearing, which were defined by unmodified AC, not counting shields, magical enhancements or anything else. So a dagger against chain mail had one modifier, while against full plate it had something completely different. Oh, and the table got ignored against creatures not wearing armour, unless they were creatures with no armoured skin/scales/whatever, so attacking a giant wearing a suit of chain mail would provide the same modifier as attacking a human wearing chain mail, but attacking a dragon with exactly the same AC as the giant would be unmodified, and completely different to attacking an unarmoured human.

I hated that chart, because I simply didn't understand it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chemlak wrote:
Snorb wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Snorb wrote:

In this DM's admittedly very slim defense, plate mail did grant an AC bonus against slashing weapons.

Back in 1989.

And as a DM back then, I loved to ignore that annoying and stupid table. AC was a suitable abstraction back then, and it still is.

Tell your DM you're no longer interested in the type of game he runs, and that you respectfully bow out. Then spend all your energies finding a new group.

Hell, I don't blame you. I looked at my copy of the 2e PHB and I still don't know how to make heads or tails of that chart.

You want to check out the 1e chart. Seriously. Every weapon had a modifier depending on the type of armour the target was wearing, which were defined by unmodified AC, not counting shields, magical enhancements or anything else. So a dagger against chain mail had one modifier, while against full plate it had something completely different. Oh, and the table got ignored against creatures not wearing armour, unless they were creatures with no armoured skin/scales/whatever, so attacking a giant wearing a suit of chain mail would provide the same modifier as attacking a human wearing chain mail, but attacking a dragon with exactly the same AC as the giant would be unmodified, and completely different to attacking an unarmoured human.

I hated that chart, because I simply didn't understand it.

That's the chart that made me want to become an engineer, as life needed to make sense after I looked at it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Chemlak wrote:
Snorb wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Snorb wrote:

In this DM's admittedly very slim defense, plate mail did grant an AC bonus against slashing weapons.

Back in 1989.

And as a DM back then, I loved to ignore that annoying and stupid table. AC was a suitable abstraction back then, and it still is.

Tell your DM you're no longer interested in the type of game he runs, and that you respectfully bow out. Then spend all your energies finding a new group.

Hell, I don't blame you. I looked at my copy of the 2e PHB and I still don't know how to make heads or tails of that chart.

You want to check out the 1e chart. Seriously. Every weapon had a modifier depending on the type of armour the target was wearing, which were defined by unmodified AC, not counting shields, magical enhancements or anything else. So a dagger against chain mail had one modifier, while against full plate it had something completely different. Oh, and the table got ignored against creatures not wearing armour, unless they were creatures with no armoured skin/scales/whatever, so attacking a giant wearing a suit of chain mail would provide the same modifier as attacking a human wearing chain mail, but attacking a dragon with exactly the same AC as the giant would be unmodified, and completely different to attacking an unarmoured human.

I hated that chart, because I simply didn't understand it.

That's the chart that made me want to become an engineer, as life needed to make sense after I looked at it.

Just to turn it into PF terms, you got a modifier to hit based on the raw armour bonus of the armour on the target, so against a target wearing chain mail (+5 armour bonus) you got one modifier, which would be completely different to the modifier for full plate (+9 armour bonus), but a suit of +4 chain mail (+9 armour bonus) would have the modifier of chain mail, not full plate, but the table told you that against +5 armour bonus you get +/- X to hit.

And if that all makes perfect sense, play a 1e Cavalier.

Liberty's Edge

It's like Classic Traveller all over again! ^_^x


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Uga... Incoming rant... Skip if you don't want to read any whining... "realism"... I really hate that in games (As a game designer, it's ever worse, it plagues me whenever someone brings it up as an "argument").
There has been a s%%@-ton of things that is supposed to simulate "realism" in games, many times it's not even realistic, just a big fat lie of what realism is (like when shooting guns in games makes the sight move up, while realistically it would pull in all directions and a trained soldier would adjust their aim and not shot the roof after a few seconds of holding down the trigger, etc.). I really hate the attempt of realism in that sense.

Another reason why I hate realism is because realism =/= good gameplay (good gameplay is way more important). Sure it's cool that all NPCs in Skyrim have their own daily schedule, realistic open times on stores, etc. But what's really added to the gameplay? It's that you need to stop playing, open the menu and click wait, until the stores open. That's not good gameplay (it's not even gameplay, actually, it just breaks up the gameplay), so why even bother implementing it?
Why is time a thing in Pathfinder? Because you can't open a menu and click "wait", time is part of the gameplay.

Another problem is that when something is trying to be "realistic" while some other parts of it are not, the argument doesn't hold up, at all. If the goal with Skyrim was to make a realistic game, how is it that one can stop time to cram down ~100 wheels of cheese in less than one second? It's not a realistic game, so why even bother at all? Especially when it's on the expense of good or fluid gameplay.
This is something anybody needs to understand before making a decision based on realism. Because realism isn't inherently good or fun.

If someone really wants to experience something realistic rather than good gameplay, there is probably other games that are much better suited for that. What I do know is that there is real life, where everything is realistic (and a great example of where the gameplay isn't made better by realism).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:

Uga... Incoming rant... Skip if you don't want to read any whining... "realism"... I really hate that in games (As a game designer, it's ever worse, it plagues me whenever someone brings it up as an "argument").

There has been a s~~&-ton of things that is supposed to simulate "realism" in games, many times it's not even realistic, just a big fat lie of what realism is (like when shooting guns in games makes the sight move up, while realistically it would pull in all directions and a trained soldier would adjust their aim and not shot the roof after a few seconds of holding down the trigger, etc.). I really hate the attempt of realism in that sense.

Another reason why I hate realism is because realism =/= good gameplay (good gameplay is way more important). Sure it's cool that all NPCs in Skyrim have their own daily schedule, realistic open times on stores, etc. But what's really added to the gameplay? It's that you need to stop playing, open the menu and click wait, until the stores open. That's not good gameplay (it's not even gameplay, actually, it just breaks up the gameplay), so why even bother implementing it?
Why is time a thing in Pathfinder? Because you can't open a menu and click "wait", time is part of the gameplay.

Another problem is that when something is trying to be "realistic" while some other parts of it are not, the argument doesn't hold up, at all. If the goal with Skyrim was to make a realistic game, how is it that one can stop time to cram down ~100 wheels of cheese in less than one second? It's not a realistic game, so why even bother at all? Especially when it's on the expense of good or fluid gameplay.
This is something anybody needs to understand before making a decision based on realism. Because realism isn't inherently good or fun.

If someone really wants to experience something realistic rather than good gameplay, there is probably other games that are much better suited for that. What I do know is that there is real life, where everything is realistic (and a great example of where the gameplay isn't made better by realism).

As a gamer and a board game playtester, I find realism helpful for making some rules obvious and for creating a story about the game. A Pathfinder newbie should realize out that armor protects his character and weapons damage his opponents before he even reads the Equipment chapter of the rulebook. A Pandemic player can excitedly recount how they almost won, but Tokyo was hit by an outbreak and by the time they contained it, the city deck ran out. (Losing because a deck of city cards ran out is the unrealistic part: I like to interpret it as the UN's trial period for the special medical force ended.)

Skyrim is part exploration, where the players discover the rules and setting by experience. The shop closing times makes the player think that his character should go to an inn to sleep for the night, and discover the Rested bonus that comes from sleeping. If the shops were always open, the player character might never sleep. Also, some players play burglars, so they need a time to break in and rob the shops. The difference between night and day in the cities and the countryside give the player two different enviroments to play in, and the player can chose between them by using the Wait and Sleep functions.

Then there is the point where realism interferes with good gameplay. This is most noticable in Pathfinder when the rules toss out realism in favor of quick gameplay. Worrying about how the material of armor interacts with the type of weapon would slow down combat too much, so Pathfinder reduces armor down to armor bonus to AC and slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage do not interact with armor. Cleverly detecting a cleric's lie through her behavior is reduced to a Sense Motive roll. Channeling healing is reduced to an area effect, and if the enemy cleric finds that unrealistic, he can study Selective Channeling to correct that, i.e., use a feat to add complexity. A rogue needs a backstab while her target's back is turned, but tracking facing would be way too time-consuming, so Pathfinder allows sneak attack during flanking and flatfooted as shorthand for when a character is facing away.

And the Overly-Controlling DM throwing realism back in at whim is fundamentally an excuse to cheat.


The problem with Skyrim's implementation was that its attempt to cater to many playstyles ACTUALLY resulted in a lot of disruption for players, frequently taking them out of the game and into menus. Not to mention there were often problems like having to wait AFTER you sped up time in the hopes the NPCs would actually show up.

In practice, I often found it disruptive and inconvenient. ^^; Noooooot particularly good for a game.


At least Skyrim wasn't as broken as Morrowind... I literally ended up simultaneously the mages guild Archmage, yet completely untrusted enough to complete any of the 3 guilds questlines... including the mage's guild questline... if I tried to do them one of the guilds would be like "but you're a member of this guild.... you can't take that"... with no real option to refuse. :(


Yeaaaaaah. XD;

...

You CAN futz around with the command lines and all from within the game, but I don't feel like that should be necessary. ^^;

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Overly controlling DM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.