During our session on Saturday, we were in a situation where we needed to attack an orc encampment and trying to do so as quietly as possible due to other encampments that were nearby.
Before I could suggest casting the “Sleep” spell (I am a Sorcerer) our fighter of the group jumps up and suggests it first. Our DM said “Do you have Spellcraft?” (Which he knows he does not). The DM warned him if he makes a suggestion like that again out of character, he would be docked minor xp.
The player who had the fighter made the argument that he has seen me cast it before so he is aware it can be done. My question to all of you, how do you handle a character, who does not have Spellcraft, make suggestions on spells that he has seen cast before multiple times?
Should he be able to bring it up? Or is he forever barred to make reference to the spell name or suggest a spell due to he does not have Spellcraft? Our DM indicated it would have been ok if the fighter came across with something along the lines of “Hey, can you do that magic that makes them fall asleep?” (or something similar), but not use actual spell names.
How does your DM handle that? Or if you are a DM, how do you handle it?
I would say no the can not make suggestion in charicter. Can the real person sure. but I would also make sure it gose the other way as well if fighting thugs dont let single out the spell caster if they do not have ranks on spell craft. It has to go both ways good for one good for all. It a game that is ment to be fun for all. So be nice as GM and the Player.
Also it bad form for the fighter to step on the wizard role play time.
When he know that his PC has nothing that he can truely add. Let every one take a turn and play nice with each other.
that like saying that unless you have a rank of spell craft you're unaware that magic exists. DM sounds a bit douchy to me, but the fighter should have phrased it differently.
Instead of "Cast an empowered sleep, but keep it within the range to hit that group over there. etc etc etc" The fighter could have said " Hey, magey man, Do that thing where they fall asleep again."
Persepective
So the fighter has seen the sorcerer cast this spell, yet he can't ask for it by name? Has the sorcerer ever used its name? Even if he hasn't, calling a sleep spell a sleep spell doesn't seem harsh to me. The potential XP penalty does seem harsh OTOH though. When the sorcerer gets fireball, will the fighter lose XP he mentions the sorcerer creating/casting a fireball?
I understand that some people enjoy immersion and love speaking in-character, but if you get penalized for calling a spade a spade, is it really fun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess as long as this sort of thing is applied to all the characters where applicable, it'd be okay.
Sorcerer: "Eek! Undead! Cleric, channel energy to harm them."
DM: "Uh oh. Do you have ranks in Knowledge (religion)? No? Hmm, minor XP penalty."
Later...
Druid: "I cast heat metal on the orc's greatsword."
DM: "Uh oh. Do you have martial weapon proficiency? No? Then you can't call a greatsword a greatsword. Minor XP penalty."
Alternatively, the DM could avoid being unnecessarily silly.
If the sorcerer suggested that fighter attack with a sword does the GM threaten him with loss of xp because he doesn't have profession(soldier)?
That's just silly, but it is basically the same situation.
I would say if you were going to handle this mechanically it would be a knowledge(arcana) to know that such a spell exists. Knowledge checks can be used untrained for DC 10 or less. Knowing that a spell exists to put people to sleep seems like it would be common knowledge.
I would never handle it so mechanically. If the PC had actually seen it used, he would know that the such a thing exists although we wouldn't have the spellcraft to actually figure out if someone was casting it or details about the spell.
Perhaps the player could have phrased it better in character as, "Gee. I wish we could make those guys pass out. It would be so easy if they enemy was asleep."
This is more a matter of in-game knowledge vs. out-of-character knowledge. Having seen it cast makes it in-game knowledge. If the character had never seen it cast and it was some obscure spell, I could see not allowing that.
Also, I've seen this when a player wants to run every one else's character and tell them how to use their abilities. That's an out-of-game problem that does not need an in-game solution. As a player I would always allow the sorcerer character's player some time to suggest how to use his own abilities before making such a suggestion. Because I believe each player should run his own character.
Ok, just want to say our DM has always been fair, and he is also a good friend of mine. So he isn’t a ‘douche’ or being ‘silly’.
He just made the comment in regards to the xp penalty because sometimes, as a group, we have had issues spouting out what we know as players, and our characters shouldn’t know.
But that is why I posed the question here on the forums in regards to how you handle non-Spellcraft characters knowing about spells. Can they bring them up and suggest them, or do you treat it as such where they really only know there are spells that could do something from what they have seen.
I will bring up what has been said here to him, minus the critical words.
During our session on Saturday, we were in a situation where we needed to attack an orc encampment and trying to do so as quietly as possible due to other encampments that were nearby.
Before I could suggest casting the “Sleep” spell (I am a Sorcerer) our fighter of the group jumps up and suggests it first. Our DM said “Do you have Spellcraft?” (Which he knows he does not). The DM warned him if he makes a suggestion like that again out of character, he would be docked minor xp.
The player who had the fighter made the argument that he has seen me cast it before so he is aware it can be done. My question to all of you, how do you handle a character, who does not have Spellcraft, make suggestions on spells that he has seen cast before multiple times?
Should he be able to bring it up? Or is he forever barred to make reference to the spell name or suggest a spell due to he does not have Spellcraft? Our DM indicated it would have been ok if the fighter came across with something along the lines of “Hey, can you do that magic that makes them fall asleep?” (or something similar), but not use actual spell names.
How does your DM handle that? Or if you are a DM, how do you handle it?
I normally let it go, but if I were playing in a more immersion based group it would depend on whether or not the fighter has seen the spell before. If you know how a weapon works then it makes sense to know when to use it, even if you can't operate(cast) the weapon(spell) yourself. I don't think mentioning a spell by name is an issue. The fighter would most likely just ask the name of the spell anyway. I would ask people in other fields the names of their equipment when I was in the military so it makes sense to do so in Pathfinder also.
I guess what my DM had the issue with, is the fighter spoke like he ‘knew’ the ins and outs of the spell.
Sleep is a bad example as it is pretty self-explanatory. What my GM doesn’t like is when a player, who has a character with no Spellcraft, say “Can’t you put up a Wall of Force to block them in the passageway? It should be long enough for your level to block the whole opening.” He feels that they shouldn’t have that much working knowledge of a spell if they don’t have spellcraft to identify the use of it. However, he would be ok with “Hey, can’t you put that invisible wall up again, like you did last time?”
And I can see his point.
Oh, and one last thing, where he did threaten to dock xp last session for speaking out of character, it isn't something he has ever done before. I think he more said it in frustration more than anything.
Spellcraft
(Int; Trained Only)
You are skilled at the art of casting spells, identifying magic items, crafting magic items, and identifying spells as they are being cast.
Check: Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question. This skill is also used to identify the properties of magic items in your possession through the use of spells such as detect magic and identify. The DC of this check varies depending upon the task at hand.
Action: Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors. Learning a spell from a spellbook takes 1 hour per level of the spell (0-level spells take 30 minutes). Preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook does not add any time to your spell preparation. Making a Spellcraft check to craft a magic item is made as part of the creation process. Attempting to ascertain the properties of a magic item takes 3 rounds per item to be identified and you must be able to thoroughly examine the object.
Retry: You cannot retry checks made to identify a spell. If you fail to learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll, you must wait at least 1 week before you can try again. If you fail to prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook, you cannot try again until the next day. When using detect magic or identify to learn the properties of magic items, you can only attempt to ascertain the properties of an individual item once per day. Additional attempts reveal the same results.
Knowledge Arcane(Int ; Trained Only)
You are educated in a f ield of study and can answer both
simple and complex questions. Like the Craft, Perform,
and Profession skills, Knowledge actually encompasses
a number of different specialties. Below are listed typical
fields of study.
• Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane
symbols, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)
Untrained: You cannot make an untrained Knowledge
check with a DC higher than 10. If you have access to an
extensive library that covers a specific skill, this limit
is removed. The time to make checks using a library,
however, increases to 1d4 hours. Particularly complete
libraries might even grant a bonus on Knowledge checks in
the fields that they cover.
Identify auras while using detect magic Arcana 15 + spell level
Identify a spell effect that is in place Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify materials manufactured by magic Arcana 20 + spell level
Identify a spell that just targeted you Arcana 25 + spell level
Identify the spells cast using a specific material component Arcana 20
Skill Checks
When your character uses a skill, he isn't guaranteed success. In order to determine success, whenever you attempt to use a skill, you must make a skill check.
Each skill rank grants a +1 bonus on checks made using that skill. When you make a skill check, you roll 1d20 and then add your ranks and the appropriate ability score modifier to the result of this check. If the skill you're using is a class skill (and you have invested ranks into that skill), you gain a +3 bonus on the check. If you are not trained in the skill (and if the skill may be used untrained), you may still attempt the skill, but you use only the bonus (or penalty) provided by the associated ability score modifier to modify the check. Skills can be further modified by a wide variety of sources—by your race, by a class ability, by equipment, by spell effects or magic items, and so on.
So that all the rules about it. Hard RAW ruling if you have no ranks in spellcraft and Knoweldge Arcane then you no freeking idea what magic is. Cause you can not make DC 15 check untrained. This one the many reasons that skills system need to be over hauled. So the GM is right on. I do not like that rule so I do not use it that way.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
How does your DM handle that? Or if you are a DM, how do you handle it?
I'd say, "How about you let Hobbun play his character, and you play your character?"
For the sleep spell, I would say its perfectly in character, as it would be a common enough spell that even if you hadn't actually seen it used, you would probably have heard of it, and even the wall of force, if seen before and phrased from the perspective of the fighter, would be acceptable. I agree that the problem with your example sounds like one of phrasing rather than inappropriate use of out of character knowledge.
On the other hand, if the fighter and/or the sorcerer occasionally rped having technical discussions of their respective trades, even if the fighter still doesn't have spellcraft or knowledge (arcana), he would still have some detailed knowledge on his friend's tricks and capabilities, just as his friend would be able to differentiate between a greatsword and a bastard sword despite not having any martial training.
In the end, it comes down to making sure that any such comments sound like they could have come from the character and not just the player, whether they have trained skills or rp knowledge. I can understand the DM's frustration, but that kind of thing must be a common occurance for him to be that frustrated, which means sitting down and talking about it with everybody is probably the best solution.
I guess what my DM had the issue with, is the fighter spoke like he ‘knew’ the ins and outs of the spell.
Sleep is a bad example as it is pretty self-explanatory. What my GM doesn’t like is when a player, who has a character with no Spellcraft, say “Can’t you put up a Wall of Force to block them in the passageway? It should be long enough for your level to block the whole opening.” He feels that they shouldn’t have that much working knowledge of a spell if they don’t have spellcraft to identify the use of it. However, he would be ok with “Hey, can’t you put that invisible wall up again, like you did last time?”
What the GM seems to be trying to deal with is a player who is using meta-game knowledge while in game. This is hard to deal with, but from my past experience trying to deal with it in game is not going to work.
It seems like the GM is attacking the problem from the wrong angle. He needs to take the know-it-all player aside and explain that he needs to separate what he knows from what his character knows. He should also stay out of the meta-game aspects of playing and leave those details to the GM. Also, he should let other players play their characters, even if he knows a 'better' way.
To me certain meta-game terms like spell names are okay because they serve as a kind of shorthand. The player says "cast wall of force," while the character would say, "Use that ritual that creates a invisible barricade."
I doubt all mages would use the same terms in real life. For example, Hobbun's mage might cast 'Sorcerous Slumber' instead of sleep, but having to explain what 'Sorcerous Slumber' does will just waste time (for some value of 'waste time,' I realize there are players out there that like this level of immersive roleplay) using the standardized term sleep just makes it more likely everyone will understand what is going on.
I once told a DM, that my character "summons the fury of his ancestors and strikes a fearsome blow with all the strength he can muster." The DM blinked, "Wha? "I rage and maximum power attack." "Oh. Why didn't you say so?"
For the sleep spell, I would say its perfectly in character, as it would be a common enough spell that even if you hadn't actually seen it used, you would probably have heard of it, and even the wall of force, if seen before and phrased from the perspective of the fighter, would be acceptable. I agree that the problem with your example sounds like one of phrasing rather than inappropriate use of out of character knowledge.
.
All 1st level spell are DC 16 so to now about there is NO common knowedge about them. And if you no rank you can not make the roll to say that you do. It poor hold over 3.0 set of rules that no one ever changed.
I had a proud and prickly Wizard character who had to deal with this kind of situation. Whenever a non-spellcasting character would try to coach Aldor on which spell to use he would say something along the lines "See, your ignorance gets the better of you. The stars are not right, and this particular enchantment cannot be weaved." After a few times, they took the hint and stopped doing that ;)
See, here's the thing. An adventuring party is at least as cohesive an arrangement as a special forces squad. A fighter is supposedly a master of combat and warfare, like an experienced soldier. Such a person would likely have extensive discussions and demonstrations of what a person is capable of doing with every other member of the party. In a similar fashion, even if a person doesn't know exactly how to operate a spread spectrum encrypted radio to call in artillery, he knows about it in terms of a black box---the radio operator/wizard uses it and after an appropriate delay/casting time, X happens. Most of the discussion can be assumed to take place offscreen.
All you have to do is have 1 rank in spellscaft to make that true and roll DC 18.
You don't need spellcraft to remember something you SAW the wizard do. Even your stereotypical fighter with an int of 8 can remember that the wizards SLEEP spell makes people fall asleep. Now if the fighter tells you you can't get all the ogres with the same spell, THEN you whap him on the nose with the newspaper.
All 1st level spell are DC 16 so to now about there is NO common knowedge about them. And if you no rank you can not make the roll to say that you do. It poor hold over 3.0 set of rules that no one ever changed.For the sleep spell, I would say its perfectly in character, as it would be a common enough spell that even if you hadn't actually seen it used, you would probably have heard of it, and even the wall of force, if seen before and phrased from the perspective of the fighter, would be acceptable. I agree that the problem with your example sounds like one of phrasing rather than inappropriate use of out of character knowledge.
.
You're also an adventurer who has to be able to coordinate with your teammates. Unless it's your first encounter with an individual, chances are very good that you would have spent time off screen sharing information about your respective abilities, at least if you are playing a cooperative party and not a "each man for himself" type party. Even if you couldn't come up with the words, the motions, or even all of the technical effects, you would still be familiar with the commonly used 1st level spells, and as you gain in levels, the commonly used spells at each level, just so you know when to stay the heck out of the way. IF you have a teammate that just got the fireball spell, and they scream "Fireball," even the dumb fighter is going to know what they are talking about. If it was your first adventure or just a 1st level character in general, it would be different, but part of being an experienced adventurer is knowing common tactics and threats, even if you don't know the technical jargon behind them.
A better example to highlight the problem instead of sleep or wall of force would have been more obscure spells or spells that that aren't completely self explanatory by their names, which there are plenty of, like chill touch (which does str, but not cold, damage) or possibly burning hands (in which the hands don't actually burn, but simply serve a focus for the burning). Just looking over the 1st level wizard spell list, though, I don't see very many that you couldn't figure out 75% of the spell just by the name, and none of the effects are particularly hard for even a 1st level fighter to describe or so far fetched that a fighter couldn't think of them as plausible effects to ask about. Now, if they are obviously doing it in a manner that the player is speaking through the character with nothing in the character's background to back it up, that is a different problem.
Sean basically has the core of it. Nobody likes a know-it-all Buttinski. Everybody play their own character and let everybody else play theirs. Only real exceptions to this is if there is a strategy session before the action starts, in which case reasonable knowledge can be used, but still have to stay in character as far as what your character knows, or if there is a newbie player who really needs (and asks for) help.
GM should chat with players about this and lay down expectations outside the game, and let them know he will remind people and enforce if necessary. A simple reminder that 1) their character has no way to know that much about magic; and 2) there is no time to be making these suggestions during a six second combat round, should suffice to discourage all but the most determined metagaming meddlers. For those few, perhaps the GM could make a ruling like one of these:
1) Your character has forfeited their next action because you are so busy telling other characters what to do.
2) Your character suffers a -2 penalty to all rolls for this round (or combat) because you are distracted by the need to tell everyone else what to do.
3) The enemy has noticed that you are instructing all the other players what to do and has assumed you are the party leader. They are concentrating all attacks on you.
4) You must put the next five skill ranks you earn into Spellcraft to simulate the knowledge you can't seem to help using.
Thanks for all the great answers and suggestions. I will bring them to my GM.
Sounds to me as though your GM is a bit controlling, but if it works for you guys, more power to you. It's his game, he can make whatever rules he wants.
-Kle.
No, actually he's not. He can sometimes be pretty stringent on keeping the treasure down (which I like, actually), but otherwise he is very accomodating for the most part. As I said, he has never actually docked us any xp, I think it's just part of the frustration sometimes where our characters will speak out with player knowledge.
Also, part of his frustration is how do you keep track of what spells a party member has seen or hasn’t seen yet?
It’s one thing when it’s a spell that is casted on a consistent basis, but if it’s that spell that only comes up once in a great while, how do you remember without writing each spell down?
1) Your character has forfeited their next action because you are so busy telling other characters what to do.
2) Your character suffers a -2 penalty to all rolls for this round (or combat) because you are distracted by the need to tell everyone else what to do.
3) The enemy has noticed that you are instructing all the other players what to do and has assumed you are the party leader. They are concentrating all attacks on you.
4) You must put the next five skill ranks you earn into Spellcraft to simulate the knowledge you can't seem to help using.
The first 3 are quite reasonable, but the last one is one that as a player, even if I wasn't the player being hit with it, I would flinch and flinch hard. I would say at most 1 rank in spellcraft or know (arcana) (and maybe not even that, as the fighter would learn basic things about his buddy's spells just from the repetition of seeing them cast over and over), and if it requires more than that, it's not a character problem that will have an effective in game solution, it's a player problem that requires an appropriate out of game counseling session.
|
How does your DM handle that? Or if you are a DM, how do you handle it?
In one of the early Pathfinder Journels, there was a scene in which Eando Kline and his companion (the half-orc Whatshisname) were locked in a crt of some sort and Eando is trying to cast a spell to get them out. The whole time he is concentrating, the half-orc is throwing out spell suggestions, but he obviously doesn't know too much about magic.
Reminds me of what you're describing.
-Skeld
|
All 1st level spell are DC 16 so to now about there is NO common knowedge about them. And if you no rank you can not make the roll to say that you do. It poor hold over 3.0 set of rules that no one ever changed.For the sleep spell, I would say its perfectly in character, as it would be a common enough spell that even if you hadn't actually seen it used, you would probably have heard of it, and even the wall of force, if seen before and phrased from the perspective of the fighter, would be acceptable. I agree that the problem with your example sounds like one of phrasing rather than inappropriate use of out of character knowledge.
.
Sorry but none of the example DC for spellcraft/knowledge arcana you cited give a diffiulty fo " suggesting an useful spell" or "general knowledge of what a spell do".
You cite a DC of 16 in relation to sleep.
You mean this skill check: "Identify auras while using detect magic Arcana 15 + spell level"?
It has nothing to do about knowing what a spell do.
It is a check about identifying magic auras.
As far as rules go knowing that a "Sleep" spell exist can have a DC of 1 or 100 as there is no rules saying what the difficulty is.
I would say that it is the DM job to decide the difficulty, based on how common is the use of magic in his world.
Some famous battle was won with the use of fireballs?
Kings have been slain while theirs guards where subject of magical slumber?
Very good chance the existence of those spells is a common knowledge and the DC is something like 5.
Wizard are 1 in a million guys? DC is 20 or more.
The first 3 are quite reasonable, but the last one is one that as a player, even if I wasn't the player being hit with it, I would flinch and flinch hard. I would say at most 1 rank in spellcraft or know (arcana) (and maybe not even that, as the fighter would learn basic things about his buddy's spells just from the repetition of seeing them cast over and over), and if it requires more than that, it's not a character problem that will have an effective in game solution, it's a player problem that requires an appropriate out of game counseling session.1) Your character has forfeited their next action because you are so busy telling other characters what to do.
2) Your character suffers a -2 penalty to all rolls for this round (or combat) because you are distracted by the need to tell everyone else what to do.
3) The enemy has noticed that you are instructing all the other players what to do and has assumed you are the party leader. They are concentrating all attacks on you.
4) You must put the next five skill ranks you earn into Spellcraft to simulate the knowledge you can't seem to help using.
#4 is definitely the most severe, as it has permanent game consequences. I would reserve it for only the absolute most unrepentant metagaming meddlers, who refused to get the message through all more gentle means of persuasion. It would essentially be me as a GM saying: "You're really pissing me and the other players off and you're not getting the memo." Next step would probably be duct tape over the mouth, to be removed only when it is his turn in the initiative order. Seriously, I doubt there are many players out there who would be that dense. I'd love to say there are none, but my experience tells me otherwise.
#4 is definitely the most severe, as it has permanent game consequences. I would reserve it for only the absolute most unrepentant metagaming meddlers, who refused to get the message through all more gentle means of persuasion. It would essentially be me as a GM saying: "You're really pissing me and the other players off and you're not getting the memo." Next step would probably be duct tape over the mouth, to be removed only when it is his turn in the initiative order. Seriously, I doubt there are many players out there who would be that dense. I'd love to say there are none, but my experience tells me otherwise.The first 3 are quite reasonable, but the last one is one that as a player, even if I wasn't the player being hit with it, I would flinch and flinch hard. I would say at most 1 rank in spellcraft or know (arcana) (and maybe not even that, as the fighter would learn basic things about his buddy's spells just from the repetition of seeing them cast over and over), and if it requires more than that, it's not a character problem that will have an effective in game solution, it's a player problem that requires an appropriate out of game counseling session.1) Your character has forfeited their next action because you are so busy telling other characters what to do.
2) Your character suffers a -2 penalty to all rolls for this round (or combat) because you are distracted by the need to tell everyone else what to do.
3) The enemy has noticed that you are instructing all the other players what to do and has assumed you are the party leader. They are concentrating all attacks on you.
4) You must put the next five skill ranks you earn into Spellcraft to simulate the knowledge you can't seem to help using.
The problem with #4 is that people that dense rarely are annoying in just that one area of game play. Chances are that the player behind such a character is just plain pissing everybody off, and all of pissed off people can probably list multiple reasons for why they feel that way. Therefore, as a DM, I probably wouldn't actually ever get to #4, because that would require both them and me to still be playing in the group, which isn't very likely at that point.
If the fighter has seen the sorcerer cast the spell before and has seen the effect, then it's perfectly within reason for him to say something like "why dont you do that thing that puts d00dz to sleep".
If he hasnt? Not so much...
The problem with #4 is that people that dense rarely are annoying in just that one area of game play. Chances are that the player behind such a character is just plain pissing everybody off, and...#4 is definitely the most severe, as it has permanent game consequences. I would reserve it for only the absolute most unrepentant metagaming meddlers, who refused to get the message through all more gentle means of persuasion. It would essentially be me as a GM saying: "You're really pissing me and the other players off and you're not getting the memo." Next step would probably be duct tape over the mouth, to be removed only when it is his turn in the initiative order. Seriously, I doubt there are many players out there who would be that dense. I'd love to say there are none, but my experience tells me otherwise.The first 3 are quite reasonable, but the last one is one that as a player, even if I wasn't the player being hit with it, I would flinch and flinch hard. I would say at most 1 rank in spellcraft or know (arcana) (and maybe not even that, as the fighter would learn basic things about his buddy's spells just from the repetition of seeing them cast over and over), and if it requires more than that, it's not a character problem that will have an effective in game solution, it's a player problem that requires an appropriate out of game counseling session.1) Your character has forfeited their next action because you are so busy telling other characters what to do.
2) Your character suffers a -2 penalty to all rolls for this round (or combat) because you are distracted by the need to tell everyone else what to do.
3) The enemy has noticed that you are instructing all the other players what to do and has assumed you are the party leader. They are concentrating all attacks on you.
4) You must put the next five skill ranks you earn into Spellcraft to simulate the knowledge you can't seem to help using.
Good point. One of the best rules of gaming is "Don't play with jerks."
The whole idea of group members getting to know the abilities and tactical tendencies of their fellow teammates is natural. You don't think a lineman in football ever learns what a Slant pattern is that receivers run?
Anyhow, when roleplayed well this can lead to hilarity and good times. For instance, in the group I play in there is a Rage Prophet (with the blindness curse and a drinking problem) who always yells at my character (an Eldritch Knight build focused on archery) to "Cast that flaming arrow death spell you have!" when he is really referring to my character being under the effects of Greater Invisibility and taking a full attack with Flaming arrows.
Just remember that, unless the magic using characters sit down with the fighter and explain the nuances of the spells they are casting, the fighter should get it WRONG some of the time, or at least be partially confused on what the heck the spell is doing.
I guess what my DM had the issue with, is the fighter spoke like he ‘knew’ the ins and outs of the spell.
Sleep is a bad example as it is pretty self-explanatory. What my GM doesn’t like is when a player, who has a character with no Spellcraft, say “Can’t you put up a Wall of Force to block them in the passageway? It should be long enough for your level to block the whole opening.” He feels that they shouldn’t have that much working knowledge of a spell if they don’t have spellcraft to identify the use of it. However, he would be ok with “Hey, can’t you put that invisible wall up again, like you did last time?”
And I can see his point.
Oh, and one last thing, where he did threaten to dock xp last session for speaking out of character, it isn't something he has ever done before. I think he more said it in frustration more than anything.
That is different, and I would not allow it.
Well let me be more specific I allow newer players to metagame some, but I tell them upfront that I will slowly be taking it away. By the times I ween them off getting advice from another person they are ready for it.
The whole idea of group members getting to know the abilities and tactical tendencies of their fellow teammates is natural. You don't think a lineman in football ever learns what a Slant pattern is that receivers run?
A lineman who comes into the huddle and suggests to the quarterback that the receiver run a slant, rather than a go pattern is most likely to get a quarterback in their face telling them to shut up and just do their own job and let the QB and WR do theirs. Probably laced with at least six profanities. During a timeout or on the sidelines, some QBs (or actually offensive coordinators, these days, since they call all they plays) might be amenable to suggestions from a veteran, respected lineman. Or they might not. In the huddle, during regular playcalling (which is actually a good comparison to a six second combat round) there is no time for that kind of BS. The QB has to announce the play, the formation, the blocking scheme and the count, all in about 15 seconds or less. It's not a democracy and not a debating society.
I'm all for speaking in character during gaming sessions, and I don't care for players (whether in character or ooc) spouting off information about things without rolling to see if their character actually knows that tidbit or not (like knowledge checks to identify trolls and their weaknesses).
As to players helping each other out with suggestions, I have no problem with that. Consider it in character if you want or ooc if you prefer, but the group working together to overcome the obstacle is what the game is all about. Let everyone play their character, naturally (no bossing or ordering around of others), but if the group is behaving harmoniously it's all good around our table.
Before I could suggest casting the “Sleep” spell (I am a Sorcerer) our fighter of the group jumps up and suggests it first. Our DM said “Do you have Spellcraft?” (Which he knows he does not). The DM warned him if he makes a suggestion like that again out of character, he would be docked minor xp.
This board is amazing. I thought I had bad GMs before, but the more I read here, the more I'm convinced that they weren't that bad.
I really need to put that thing I have with the blunt instrument and the shovel and the bag of quicklime into my signature or profile and refer people to it.
I mean, a guy who says that unless you have ranks of spellcraft, you cannot suggest the spell you already saw, and it puts people to sleep, and just call it "the sleep spell".
GMs like that are the reasons munchkins exist.
|
Assuming for a moment that this is being done for a rational reason...
I can see someone making a suggestion like this if there is a player who does a ton of meta-gaming and essentially runs the table.
It really bugs me as a GM when the guy playing "UGG the THUG" who dumped INT is making suggestions left and right to the spellcasters and other players about tactics and spell suggestions. I can see getting irritated and doing something like this.
I don't really think that's the best way to approach the problem but I can see it... *shrug*
It's really tough when you hear 1/2 the story to really get an idea of what's happening at a gaming table.
If the fighter has worked with a caster for any remotely significant amount of time, he has a working, if not particularly detailed knowledge of the caster's spells. Certainly enough to suggest casting the spell which makes things go to sleep on a cluster of enemies. And it's wholly natural to abbreviate that to 'the sleep spell.'
Extensive tactical advice on spellcasting which requires more thought and knowledge of spell specifications--the optimal place to put a magical wall or some such--that would require Spellcraft to be an in-character suggestion. However, since many wizard players are not the master tacticians that their characters 18+ intelligence suggests, I think it's perfectly fine to let other players make OOC casting suggestions, which are the wizard's thought process in character.
|
|
Forget the DM for a minute. Do you as a player care when someone offers you spell suggestions?
I know in my games the combats are hard enough that if they don't put all their heads together tactically (generally I consider it an out of game thing since not all of my players who play wizards have the equivalent of an 18 or 20 int I'll let them use their lifelines at will =p), they will die.
If you're the caster and you know damn well what spells to cast and have it under control you can just tell him so; if he still does it afterwards then ask the GM to step in.
|
|
I usually deal with these sorts of things like this:
Say player #1 is playing a character whose INT, skills, feats, abilities, etc. far outshine any knowledge the player has. For instance, a new player to the game might not be up on tactics or a slow player is playing an INT 20+ character.
Player #2 decides to help by suggesting the character do X even though their own character doesn't know a thing about said action. If it's a good plan and player #1 agrees, I declare player #1's character made the plan and player #2's suggestion was out-of-game so, even though player #2 came up with the idea, player #1's PC gets the glory because he's the guy who should know this stuff. The players essentially form a knowledge pool that allows the high INT PC to look smart even when the player isn't. Nobody gets docked anything, the PC still gets to be a hero and we all move on. However, I do draw the line when it seems the player in question doesn't really care to do their own reading and they're just going along with whatever the party tells them to do out of apathy.
|
|
Jesus, if we got docked even minor XP every time we spoke out of character of just used game terminology for shorthand of what the character would probably actually say, nobody in any of the groups I've ever played in would have ever advanced to 2nd level. Hell, we would owe the GM hordes of dead orcs just to stay 1st level.
The player who had the fighter made the argument that he has seen me cast it before so he is aware it can be done.
HEY EARL! WHY CANTCHA JUST CAST WANNA THEM THER SLEEP SPELLS?
Seems totally in character to me. I think your GM was being a prude. Tell your fighter to make his next suggestion with a southern accent.
Before I could suggest casting the “Sleep” spell (I am a Sorcerer) our fighter of the group jumps up and suggests it first. Our DM said “Do you have Spellcraft?” (Which he knows he does not). The DM warned him if he makes a suggestion like that again out of character, he would be docked minor xp.This board is amazing. I thought I had bad GMs before, but the more I read here, the more I'm convinced that they weren't that bad.
I really need to put that thing I have with the blunt instrument and the shovel and the bag of quicklime into my signature or profile and refer people to it.
I mean, a guy who says that unless you have ranks of spellcraft, you cannot suggest the spell you already saw, and it puts people to sleep, and just call it "the sleep spell".
GMs like that are the reasons munchkins exist.
And you're amazing. I guess you didn't bother to read the rest of my responses, did you?
You all act like because of the one situation I brought up, my GM docks us exp all the time and he's this godawful DM. As I said already, it isn't something he has done ever actually done, I think he just said it that once because he was frustrated at the time.
For those of you who have given good suggestions, I really do appreciate it. To those who found the need to belittle my DM, you need to hold your tongue. You don't know him, you've never met him and you've especially never played under him, but yet you call him names, call his DM style silly and say he is a bad DM.
He is a good friend of mine and is actually a very good DM. So excuse me for being blunt, but quit spouting accusations about a person you don't even know.
|
I'm quite happy for players to discuss tactics across the table so as long as the combat isn't slowed down too much. In the old D&D days of group initiative the players would huddle and the 'caller' would tell the DM what they did and in which order. Team work. Everyone's involved, not just waiting for their go.
It can be a problem if one player is dominating and making all the decisions. In this case, I'd pull Sean's line.
The alternative is to do it in character. More verisimilitude and role playing opportunities.
There's really no right or wrong, just what works for you. I wouldn't, however, be threatening XP docking. I'd just make it clear how in game / out of game discussion was going to work.
|
|
He is a good friend of mine and is actually a very good DM. So excuse me for being blunt, but quit spouting accusations about a person you don't even know.
This is pretty typical of forum responses (not just here, everywhere). Everyone has their own preconceived notions and jumps to conclusions often with less than perfect information.
Your best bet is to point out to your GM that it's a little unusual and ask him why I thought it up. I suspect there is an underlying frustration and he thinks it's easier to try and build rules around it rather than ask someone to change their behavior.
I would never support the docking of XP for any reason. The game is meant to be a means of having fun, not as a means of punishing people. Furthermore, an XP penalty is FOREVER. Pathfinder does not allow you to catch up on such things unless you go on solo adventures. You will forever be behind everyone else, which often makes it less fun. Eventually, players will stop caring about their characters and will simply have them killed off so they can make new ones at full power. If you don't allow that, they often quit the playing altogether.
When I first started GMing I actually did things like that. Talked too much? XP penalty! Metagamed? XP penalty! Talked back to the GM is a disruptive and disrespectful manner? XP penalty! I also rewarded bonus XP for things like cleaning up after the game, finding and correcting errors on character sheets, etc. Before long my players simply stopped caring, mockingly yelling things like "I gained another level of b*~@&!" That's when the game really devolved into terrible, terrible disruption. I had lost all respect as a GM.
Eventually, I wisened up and threw out XP penalties altogether, apologized to my players, and wouldn't you know it? Things got much better. I regained their respect, and we've had some great times together.
EDIT: I know Hobbun's GM hasn't docked XP. I'm speaking generally. Consider it a warning to GMs new and old everywhere.