The sphinx of Thebes was sent as a curse against Thebes. So was the Minotaur sent against the king and queen of Minos. A whole commune of atheists might be turned into assorted monsters overnight. When they start eating their neighbors, you have a module.
The useless statements are unsupported or in the wrong places.
Llamias? The gods are angry.
Fire breathing sorcerers or even fighters? Because, Dragons.
But fighters not getting enough blood on their weapons? Not because magic. Not enough Anime.
Evolution? (ducks)I once toyed with the premise that magical creatures came from spontaneous generation. Minotaurs, Lamia, Medusas, and Sphinxes all come from the gods.Well aside from wizards f%%%ing about with stuff they shouldn't where else would those things come from?
Some cases maybe but I'd like to know how s$## like the owlbear and peryton evolved without magic getting in the mix somewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes when an owl loves a bear very much, and also happens to be very confused or drunk...,
Alternate clone. It's in a book in Special Discoveries. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, we do have expectations for our fantasy worlds. We do tend to expect things that aren't called out as fantasy in one way or another to work like we'd expect them too.
"Because dragons" doesn't excuse everything. We still assume people are basically people, that most of the world basically works the way the real one does (or did.) Some people might have powers that let them fly or breathe underwater, but your average Joe doesn't.
Only some people have those expectations though.
There are others who happily accept a world that grew and evolved with powerful magic reacts fairly differently to our world.
When magic breaks the laws of physics, don't expect the laws of physics to be the same in a magical world.
What some folks seem to want is a realistic setting similar to earth, but also with high magic. When those mix, it can create issues. Especially if you're using RAW arguments vs setting responses.
This is very true. I've said before that it's more of a matter of where an individual draws the line. Some people want "gritty" true to life games, while others want games that are a 180 from our world. Neither is wrong, but people rarely want to admit that their lines tend to be arbitrary.
|
Here another one and one that I never and never will understand. A gamer in the hobby is tired of existing rpgs. Finds they don't give him what they want. Decide to buy a generic rpg like Hero System or Gurps. Then complain they don't like those rpg because they are "too generic" or require them to build everything from scratch.
That's why they are called generic systems imo. One does not complain about say Golarion as a background. Then complain they have to build one from scratch.
I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.I have seen 45 people claim that casters dominate play except at very low levels, 47 claim that casters dominate play outside of combat, and 23 claim that the game seems balanced between martials and casters. Even if we assume the first two groups are exactly the same people, that's still around two-thirds of forum users who have that problem in actual gameplay.
I have seen the same thing. But there's a HUGE difference between claiming that "casters dominate play" vs "casters dominate play IN MY GAME".
When confronted they usually say their houserules or way of playing prevents casters from dominating play at their table.
I'm right here.Then when somebody says "I know there's a C/MD because [ACTUAL GAMEPLAY]", you reply that their experiences don't matter;I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?
DrDeth, should we add to this list the 15-20 people from when you made a thread specifically asking for gameplay experiences, or were they already counted in the "very few" you were talking about?
Tormsskull "I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums."
PIXIE DUST sez a beastbound witch outdoes the rogue at scouting. That does not mean casters dominate play. That menas one caster in one game is better at one thing.
7thGate sez " I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game" are you counting that?
Create Mr. Pitt sez "Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.
There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures."
Lemmy sez "Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder,..." and goes on to give times when it happened to others. Still, not in his game. I asked for "what actually happened in your games."
MMCJawa " I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT..."
and so forth.
Yes, you did list a game where you fighter got sidelined at high level, but your cleric ruled. You only played in two games? Great- does this happen all the time, or do you know always play nothing but full casters?
I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate. I saw examples of a time they did dominate, sure. But I have played thousands of games, i can give you an example of everything. In fact, in my OP there, I gave an example of when casters did dominate. It happens.
But does it happen consistently in all the games you play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, TOZ, in your games, casters dominate play? No use playing anything but a full caster? Or have you "fixed" it?I haven't run anything but organized play in three or four years, so yes, yes, and no.
OK, then, good example.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
DrDeth, should we add to this list the 15-20 people from when you made a thread specifically asking for gameplay experiences, or were they already counted in the "very few" you were talking about?Tormsskull "I haven't noticed it in actual play, only heard about it on forums."
PIXIE DUST sez a beastbound witch outdoes the rogue at scouting. That does not mean casters dominate play. That menas one caster in one game is better at one thing.
7thGate sez " I had it happen once, in a 3.0 game" are you counting that?
Create Mr. Pitt sez "Also if I am facing something with a ton of SR and DR and immunities the wizard needs the fighter almost as much as the fighter needs the wizard.
There's never good to be a perfect power parity between classes; but a fully-leveled martial is sometimes the only thing that can actually take down an enemy, even if you hire warriors or summon a ton of creatures."
Lemmy sez "Well... It haven't happened to me, specifically in Pathfinder,..." and goes on to give times when it happened to others. Still, not in his game. I asked for "what actually happened in your games."
MMCJawa " I didn't really encounter caster martial disparity. BUT..."
and so forth.
Yes, you did list a game where you fighter got sidelined at high level, but your cleric ruled. You only played in two games? Great- does this happen all the time, or do you know always play nothing but full casters?
I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate. I saw examples of a time they did dominate, sure. But I have played thousands of games, i can give you an example of everything. In fact, in my OP there, I gave an example of when casters did dominate. It happens.
But does it happen consistently in all the games you play?
You created a thread asking for examples of C/MD in actual gameplay, with the clear purpose of establishing whether it was a "real" issue in people's gameplay experiences (as opposed to just theorycraft or some kind of internet boogeyman).
People then came in and offered their experiences, as asked. Given the context of your request for those experiences, a reasonable person would conclude that the people responding are doing so because they want to communicate the nature of their typical experiences. The people who didn't see C/MD as a common issue said so directly, because that was the point of your thread. The people who did give examples also did so as a way to address the concept at the heart of your thread. To claim that any example given in that thread must be treated as unrepresentative unless explicitly labeled as representative is dismissive of the entire context of that discussion.
Additionally, let me clear up some factual errors from this last post of yours.
For one, you say that Lemmy gave examples of when it happened to others: "Still, not in his game.," you said. This is false. If you read past the first couple of lines in his post (which is something I recommend if you're going to make claims about what other people have or have not said), you'll see that he labels those stories as "things that happened in games I played".
Additionally, you say "I saw no one admit that in the games they play, casters always dominate." This is also false. In the fourth post of the thread, kyrt-ryder says "In the games I see and run, casters repeatedly prove themselves the equal to the martials at levels 1 and 2, and open a gap as levels go up from there."
Hope that clears some things up.
I have seen very few people actually claim that in their games, casters dominate in actual game play.I have seen 45 people claim that casters dominate play except at very low levels, 47 claim that casters dominate play outside of combat, and 23 claim that the game seems balanced between martials and casters. Even if we assume the first two groups are exactly the same people, that's still around two-thirds of forum users who have that problem in actual gameplay.I have seen the same thing. But there's a HUGE difference between claiming that "casters dominate play" vs "casters dominate play IN MY GAME".
When confronted they usually say their houserules or way of playing prevents casters from dominating play at their table.
This was specifically in the context of me asking about people's experiences in their own games.
"In my game, casters dominate play, except at very low levels" received 45 votes"In my games, disparity is prevented by significant house-ruling: E6, banning overpowered spells, or similar" received only 4 votes.
"In my games, disparity is prevented by players voluntarily refusing to take the overpowered options" received 30 votes, a more significant minority.
I find the psychological mechanisms of confirmation bias fascinating. When someone reads something that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, they remember it to bring up in future arguments. When they read something that contradicts their pre-existing beliefs, their brain files it away in the same category as "things that are boring". After a while they forget these things. Everybody does it, but some people do it more than others.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. I've pretty much given up trying to fix the system's poorer pieces and just strongly encourage my players to play knights and bishops if they don't want to play queens, and for those who stubbornly clung to their pawns I keep the option of upgrading to a better piece on the table at all times (without that annoying requisite of crossing the entire board first, to boot).
My opinion actually has changed. Now that I have read first person posts where players didn't get to go because the casters wiped out the enemy or new players quit the game because of the disparity, I realize it exists for some people.
How I differ is in how I plan to deal with the problem. Instead of bugging the people who make Pathfinder to hobble spellcasters, I will continue to encourage them to enhance classes with feats, items, and other things all over homebrew.
Currently spellcasters have to nuke the enemy because they cannot survive combat. There are so many ways defensive spells could go off when a goblin with a bow targets them because they have no armor. I've designed an amulet of defensive spells. There could also be a feat. Maybe universalist wizards could be given one spell slot that makes a defensive spell always active but not usable for anything else.
True strike should be useless for wizards and sorcerers. Why are they being encouraged to put extra points into strength? It discourages them from role playing. True strike should be available for paladins, cavaliers, and rangers. Forcing fighters to take a level in wizard or sorcerer to get true strike hurts their character. A fighter can wear plate armor, large shield, with a martial weapon, with +5 on each.
I'm all for martial weapons that have either true strike or a ranged touch attack built in. Even at 3 times a day they are better than most magic weapons currently available.
Of course bad guys will have access to these. That's how PCs should get ahold of these.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I suppose this is really stupid to keep hammering (Dead horse, please report to the Green Room)
But
I've been a DM since 1976 (yeah here comes the old guy rebuttal that is also beat to death). I have run literally dozens of games, both one shot and campaigns (one of my campaigns lasted 5 years from level 1 to level 13, when the player characters retired)
Never, ever, in any of my games did I have a player complain that a spell caster (of another player character) was dominating the encounters or was more powerful than the other player characters
Never.
People tend not to complain about things that they've already accepted as normal. ;)
Did some posts get removed, or are these posts a response to another thread or something?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Five totally useless statements
1. My fighter can take that wizard.
2. I hardly think will saves will matter when I'm 15th level.
3. Of course we need a rouge (yes, the misspelling is intentional).
4. Surely, we're better off with a Paladin in our midst.
5. I can totally grapple that Succubus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been a DM since 1976 (yeah here comes the old guy rebuttal that is also beat to death). I have run literally dozens of games, both one shot and campaigns (one of my campaigns lasted 5 years from level 1 to level 13, when the player characters retired)
Never, ever, in any of my games did I have a player complain that a spell caster (of another player character) was dominating the encounters or was more powerful than the other player characters
Never.
Hey, that's great! However, you should consider that not everyone has 40 years of GM experience to fall back on. I have been GM'ing since the 1980's, and it was really a different game back then. If a player wanted to do something, he need to consult a "sage" or the GM. The players had access to less than half the rules, and entire aspects of the game that players now control happened behind the screen, or in the GMs head. The rules were bizarre and full of crap, so a GM had to wing many aspects, and there was lots of great guidance about how that was supposed to function in the DMG. The only outside help a GM could get would be talking to other GM's or writing a letter to Dragon magazine "Ask the Sage".
I never played 3.0, but 3.5 was a VERY different game then AD&D. The "Sage" was gone, and the players handbook was thicker then the DMG. Players had skills with clearly defined outcomes, and control of magic item creation. Combat happened on a grid with clearly defined movement rules. There were rules for what a characters could do, and those rules were now on the other side of the screen.
Pathfinder combined the Players Handbook and DMG into a single book, and players now had access to all the rules in the game. There was also virtually no information about the design philosophy in the rules. Rules questions can now go through the forums and hundreds of questions have been answered in the FAQ.
The point being that your gaming style developed in a very different time, with a very different game. It has apparently served you well, but not everyone has the same background. I think what many people are asking for is a game that can be played by fairly new players, playing by-the-rules, without these common problems coming up.
Here another one "if a flaw in rpg does not happen at a posters gaming table it does not exist". Usually brought up when martial/caster disparity discussions are had on forums. Only to find out that their a gentleman agreement amongst casters and fighters at tables. To not use their abilities to the fullest to make sure a class does not get overshadowed. Or the DM uses 3pp.That "if I haven't seen it, it isn't a problem," is definitely going on the list.
I've seen this in a pretty wide range of topics, from discussions of a given class archetype, to sexist behavior at a table, to whether or not 3rd party material should be allowed. A lot of the time the attitude of "WE don't do that, so it's clearly not a problem," is very present.
This is piling a lot of VERY disparate things into one lump. Clearly sexism in any form is a problem regardless of whether or not you 'see it'.
As far as class power or even 3rd party material, I don't agree that the 'don't see it, not a problem' argument is invalid. For that person, within the game/group they play, it ISN'T a problem. Not a problem worth discussing anyway. Taking my group for example, we don't give a damn about the lfgw argument. We've seen it, we've discussed it, (and how silly it is) it's just not relevant to the game we want to play. Does that make us right? Certainly not. What it makes us is happy with the game we play.
In the end, if you and your group are having fun, then that is what matters.
I suppose this is really stupid to keep hammering (Dead horse, please report to the Green Room)
But
I've been a DM since 1976 (yeah here comes the old guy rebuttal that is also beat to death). I have run literally dozens of games, both one shot and campaigns (one of my campaigns lasted 5 years from level 1 to level 13, when the player characters retired)
Never, ever, in any of my games did I have a player complain that a spell caster (of another player character) was dominating the encounters or was more powerful than the other player characters
Never.
Terquem, we are of a kind... +1 to this. (We speak grognard)
I've been a DM since 1976 (yeah here comes the old guy rebuttal that is also beat to death). I have run literally dozens of games, both one shot and campaigns (one of my campaigns lasted 5 years from level 1 to level 13, when the player characters retired)
Never, ever, in any of my games did I have a player complain that a spell caster (of another player character) was dominating the encounters or was more powerful than the other player characters
Never.Hey, that's great! However, you should consider that not everyone has 40 years of GM experience to fall back on. I have been GM'ing since the 1980's, and it was really a different game back then. If a player wanted to do something, he need to consult a "sage" or the GM. The players only had access to half the rules, and entire aspects of the game that players now control happened behind the screen, or in the GMs head. The rules were bizarre and full of crap, so a GM had to wing many aspects, and there was lots of great guidance about how that was supposed to function in the DMG. The only outside help a GM could get would be talking to other GM's or writing a letter to Dragon magazine "Ask the Sage".
I never played 3.0, but 3.5 was a VERY different game then AD&D. The "Sage" was gone, and the players handbook was thicker then the DMG. Players had skills with clearly defined outcomes, and control of magic item creation. Combat happened on a grid with clearly defined movement rules. There were rules for what a characters could do, and those rules were now on the other side of the screen.
Pathfinder combined the Players Handbook and DMG into a single book, and players now had access to all the rules in the game. There was also virtually no information about the design philosophy in the rules. Rules questions can now go through the forums and hundreds of questions have been answered in the FAQ.
The point being that your gaming style developed in a very different time, with a very different game. It has...
This made me think: Is it possible that we who started in the 'way back' had to use our imaginations more BECAUSE there was such a lack of material out there? I'm really asking here - no sarcasm intended. The people in these discussions who tend to think like Terquem and myself all tend to be older. Is that a factor of how we had to adapt and make our own games/worlds/campaigns? Do we have TOO many rules now? So many that we can't think for ourselves? Pre-computer, there was no such thing as RAW and RAI. None. Never. Everything was 'RAI' because you had to adapt.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You people keep saying will is the most important save yet I've only seen PCs die or almost die on failed reflex saves.
You people keep saying will is the most important save yet I've only seen PCs die or almost die on failed reflex saves.
Then you've never seen a Mythic Barbarian dominated and nearly slaughter his party.
I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.
So...Yeah...more imagination.
Weather statements about the FMUD are useless is central to the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This made me think: Is it possible that we who started in the 'way back' had to use our imaginations more BECAUSE there was such a lack of material out there? I'm really asking here - no sarcasm intended. The people in these discussions who tend to think like Terquem and myself all tend to be older. Is that a factor of how we had to adapt and make our own games/worlds/campaigns? Do we have TOO many rules now? So many that we can't think for ourselves? Pre-computer, there was no such thing as RAW and RAI. None. Never. Everything was 'RAI' because you had to adapt.
I don't think it is about imagination, RAI, RAW, or quantity of rules, but rather the fundamental value placed on rules, as opposed to the role of the GM. In AD&D the GM was not the referee, but rather the god of the game. Players did not have access to the rules, and rules often sucked to begin with. It was about the GM, not the rules. Good GM= good game, bad GM= bad game. (Note: While many look back fondly at this era, the number of people who had bad experiences and stopped playing paints a less rosy picture.)
Now the players know the rules, and the GM is the referee of the rules. In this situation, the rules play a more prominent role then they once did. It now requires everyone at the table to fix a bad rule, not just the GM. Thankfully, the rules are much better then they once were, however, there are still some problems that appear in many games.
EDIT:
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Note how different this is from the old "Rule Zero". Players and GM agree in advance about any rule changes, then play by the rules. No AD&D game ever worked like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people in these discussions who tend to think like Terquem and myself all tend to be older.
Another old grognard here, but one who totally disagrees with your approach. Winging results because there weren't any rules for a lot of stuff was, in my opinion, detrimental to the game, not advantageous to it. It meant that I, as DM, was being encouraged to subconsciously make my personal storyline come true, at the expense of the players' volition.
"Oh, he wants to do X? I never thought of that! Well, it probably won't work. Now he wants to do Y? Yeah, that's what I was expecting. OK, it works!"
Obviously no one would do this on purpose, but we have no way of assuring anyone that our subconscious minds didn't.
Having clear-cut rules, in the open, means that now I'm running an actual game instead of dictating a story hour. I vastly prefer that, both as a player and as a DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.
Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.
The people in these discussions who tend to think like Terquem and myself all tend to be older.Another old grognard here, but one who totally disagrees with your approach. Winging results because there weren't any rules for a lot of stuff was, in my opinion, detrimental to the game, not advantageous to it. It meant that I, as DM, was being encouraged to subconsciously make my personal storyline come true, at the expense of the players' volition.
"Oh, he wants to do X? I never thought of that! Well, it probably won't work. Now he wants to do Y? Yeah, that's what I was expecting. OK, it works!"
Obviously no one would do this on purpose, but we have no way of assuring anyone that our subconscious minds didn't.
Having clear-cut rules, in the open, means that now I'm running an actual game instead of dictating a story hour. I vastly prefer that, both as a player and as a DM.
Lemme turn up my hearing aid.
The clear cut rules are a nice change from the old days; that said, there are still areas that aren't fully covered just as then and I'm more than willing to let random charts and dice cover that. I didn't think of it and they wanted to do what? Gimme a second to hammer out some mods and then roll .. er .. yeah, that.
Sure, my "subconscious" can still jigger the results when I make the modifiers or I can keep an open mind and let fate/the dice decide things. While I am not the biggest fan of always saying yes, I am a fan of taking a breath and giving some ideas a chance.
That is what being a "grognard" means to me, really, is just having some experience under your belt in a variety of systems and hundreds of games to be able to GM with a napkin and an idea and roll with the punches. The rules give a nice safety net.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.
I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
People tend not to complain about things that they've already accepted as normal. ;)I suppose this is really stupid to keep hammering (Dead horse, please report to the Green Room)
But
I've been a DM since 1976 (yeah here comes the old guy rebuttal that is also beat to death). I have run literally dozens of games, both one shot and campaigns (one of my campaigns lasted 5 years from level 1 to level 13, when the player characters retired)
Never, ever, in any of my games did I have a player complain that a spell caster (of another player character) was dominating the encounters or was more powerful than the other player characters
Never.
This makes absolutely no sense to me at all
So my players, recognized that casters were more powerful than martials in the game, saw that that was normal, and so did not complain about it.
So it is normal, not abnormal? Why would anyone complain about something if it was normal? Why would you play in a game that has as a "feature" (it is normal) for one group of players to accept that they will not have characters as powerful as another player if they make a choice to play something other than a caster?
Looks like I've been misunderstood; let me try again.
I was only pointing out one possible reason why your players have never complained about a disparity (other than its nonexistence, as tends to get inferred by Certain Interested Parties). Specifically, if all the gameplay elements that make up the disparity are things that your players have come to expect as a natural part of the game, then they're not likely to complain about it (or, potentially, not even notice it).
To go into a little more detail, a player might get used to ("accept as normal") the idea that the only thing the fighter does is hit things with a weapon while the wizard can fly, teleport, turn invisible, create magic items, see the future, and have breakfast in Nirvana. If the player comes to expect this (especially if it's at an intuitive level), then none of it surprises or confuses him, so he never notices the imbalance, and therefore doesn't complain (which is fine).
Naturally, there are plenty of other reasons players might never complain about the C/MD:
• They might knowingly prefer that magic is better than nonmagic (which is fine)
• They might just not care about balance (which is fine)
• Their games might include large amounts of anti-magic or similar things that rebalance the equation (which is fine)
• They might have houserules or other elements which empower skills to accomplish a lot more and therefore have less reliance on magic (which is fine)
The list goes on. Sorry for not being clearer or more thorough; I was brief in an attempt at sounding clever. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.
Is that actually what he was saying? I read it as a roleplaying choice he made regardless of the success of the roll.
Is that actually what he was saying? I read it as a roleplaying choice he made regardless of the success of the roll.I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.
It's a choice, I suppose. Is it one that if the situation were reversed that players would be less than amused at? You try to charm the merchant, he takes a nap. You go to dominate the barbarian bad guy, he falls over and refuses to accept commands.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a choice, I suppose. Is it one that if the situation were reversed that players would be less than amused at? You try to charm the merchant, he takes a nap. You go to dominate the barbarian bad guy, he falls over and refuses to accept commands.
While I agree that you shouldn't be able to pass out in response to being dominated, the image of a merchant taking a nap when you try and exercise any sway you have over them with Charm Person is such a great visual.
Mage: How much is that +1 longsword?
Merchant: About 2,000 gp give or take.
Mage: But how much is it for a friend?
Merchant: It's about...um...ZZZZZ
Fighter: That's one hell of a sleep spell you have there, mage!
Mage: It's not a...oh, nevermind. Just steal everything before he wakes up.
You know what's a better way to get a discount? Sow Thought. "That ring you have there is cursed, might want to get rid of it soon" throughout the day can drop the price like a stone if done quietly.
Is that actually what he was saying? I read it as a roleplaying choice he made regardless of the success of the roll.I agree with Orthos here. I'd ask you to step away from the table a bit and have a talk with me if this came up; yes, it sucks to be mind controlled but this is tantamount to flipping the table in my opinion. You're basically saying that if the results come out in a way you don't care for, you won't play.I would never get away with this at a convention, but in a home game I had a character just,"My character passes out from the stress of the attempted mind control." If he failed the save he would be doing something he wouldn't do. He just had a nervous breakdown.Yeah, I'm rather surprised your GM allowed that. I certainly wouldn't have.
It really doesn't matter to me what the motivation was; the end result is the same - nullifying an unwanted game construct effect. Unless he had some kind of ability on-paper that allowed him that kind of option following a roll, I as GM wouldn't allow it. My response would be somewhere along the lines of "you're not in control anyway, so the domination spell puppets your body. Now roll to attack the rogue."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me the worst offenders are the "realistic/unrealistic" arguments, particularly with regards to fantasy combat. Leaving aside the absurdity of applying "realistic combat" concepts to a world where people fly and shoot bolts of lightning from their hands, what really annoys me is people trying to enforce "this is how it used to be in the real world" in an RPG.
First, unless someone actually was a knight, musketeer, archer, legionaire or hoplite back in the day, they should shut the hell up. They have no idea what combat was really like in the 1200s or whenever. Historical records are notoriously inaccurate for a number of reasons: personal bias, miscommunication, misinterpretation, censorship, etc. That doesn't mean historical records are useless, but they're definitely no substitute for actually being there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but if you stab a person, they will most probably die.
Which means that you can't apply any real-world "realism" to D&D/PF, a game in which you can be stabbed repeatedly through the face and guts and still be just fine, as long as you have at least 1 hp left.
I only did that once, and to give you the situation would be a spoiler.
Actually, it is far from an uncommon occurrence that someone survives a stab wound.