| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I posted this is another thread once, but it's relevant here-
I've used two sheilds in weapons practice. It was on a whim, and kind of silly, but it was surprisingly effective.
I choreograph fights for stage and film and have a pretty extensive martial arts background, so I'm pretty adaptable when it comes to picking up (or making up) unorthodox fighting styles.
I found that using two shields from a boxer's crouch and striking with the edges of the sheilds in a very direct, aggressive style was extremely effective, especially against long weapons. I landed about 8 blows for every one I took against swords and polearms. I could get inside someone's guard with relative safety (which is usually the biggest hurdle when using weapons with short teach) and just pummel the hell out of someone while they tried to recover to a range they could employ their weapon.
Short weapons and flexible weapons gave me a lot of trouble though. Since our reach was the same, getting close gave me no real advantage beyond just having extra coverage over my target areas. It was handy, but not significantly better than just having one shield. Flexible weapons swung at my legs would wrap and strike practically every time. They were very hard to avoid, but luckily they have a slow recovery time, so if I resigned myself to just take the hit I could usually get in a few of my own in response. Another disadvantage I discovered was that if someone grabbed the edge of either shield and pulled across my front, it effectively stopped my other shield from being able to get around and hit. I was always able to get free, but I'd usually get hit in the side at least once.
I could absolutely buy two-shields as an effective combat style, particularly for a civilization with a "bulldozer" approach to combat, like dwarves. It practically requires heavy armor on the legs and back, but it still works really well against the most common battlefield weapons.
I could definitely see it as a fighting style developed by Dwarves. In a tunnel, the guy who can only be approached from the front and has a pair of shields that effectively form a sort of spiked beetle shell would be one hell of a road block.
I'M COMPLETELY CALM!!!YOU need to calm down. Someone not agreeing with your view does not make them a liar. And it does say add the bonus as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
You just put bolded it for me. At no point does it say "only add the bonuses". That is way to interpret it so you could also be lying if you want to use "read differently" as lying.
Obviously not. It's ok to be wrong sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two shields is flat out stupid, of course. No, the sensible way to use shields is having one shield in the left hand and using your right hand and legs to make unarmed attacks, yo!
Everyone knows shield/headbutt is the best fighting style.
Add your shield's enhancement bonus to attacks and damage rolls made with the shield as if it was a weapon enhancement bonus.
What matters is, the shield has an enhancement bonus to attacks and damage.
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
The shield is a weapon. It has an enhancement bonus that is being added to attacks and damage, a bonus which is treated like a weapon enhancement bonus.
Obviously not. It's ok to be wrong sometimes.I'M COMPLETELY CALM!!!YOU need to calm down. Someone not agreeing with your view does not make them a liar. And it does say add the bonus as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
You just put bolded it for me. At no point does it say "only add the bonuses". That is way to interpret it so you could also be lying if you want to use "read differently" as lying.
It's also okay to make a joke sometimes. Don't use an obvious gag as an excuse to patronize him—that makes us all look childish and discourages the calm atmosphere you claim to be seeking.
When disscussing what weapon styles are feasible in the context of the game, I think it's good to remember the attributes the characters can have.
Even if it was impossible for a human on Earth, with our basic NPC ability scores, would it really be impossible for a guy with 25 point buy?
A martial artist on Earth could have a 12 str, 15 dex, and 11 con. 15 str, 11 dex, and 12 con for a weightlifter, and 14 str, 13 dex, and 11 con for a more balanced martial artist/soldier.
17str, 15 dex and 13 con for someone who is particularly heroic and amazing like Bruce Lee, Lu bu or Musashi.
A PC can have 18str, 17dex and 14con
Doomed Hero, your opinion, please? Would the style be viable if you were two times quicker, had three times more endurance ad were almost four times stronger?
Same thing for starknives, doubleswords and spiked chains, really. Would they be possible for someone that is, at least, two times stronger, faster and tougher than the best martial artists in recorded history? Someone who could participate in the Olimpics at the weightlifting, gymnastics and long running events and reasonably expect to get gold in everyone of those?
Since it actually wasn't impossible for humans on Earth, VM, I'm not sure how much your otherwise pretty reasonable consideration applies. Of course, people in Pathfinder are designed to basically be able to pull off any style just by virtue of freakin' insane stats. Hell, I bet the "water balloon fighting technique" could be perfectly effective in Pathfinder.
Use it to:
- Extinguish torches!
- Distract casters!
- Freeze the water and break skulls!
- This is stupid.
EDIT: I'm not sure why you're addressing Doomed Hero with this, though—he was actually saying dual shields was a fairly viable real-life style.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at the Carrying Capacity Table I'm not sure if it's wise to compare what can be done in this game with what can be done in real life.
That said, people have in fact shown that Dual Weilding shields hve existed in both real life and other forms of fiction (Samurai Jack was an awesome cartoon), it should be easy to incorporate in what is, at it's most basic level, a fantasy game that encourages creativity.
It really strikes me how some people oppose this style of fighting so drastically for the most insane of reasons.
"It's silly?"
In a world where magic exists and wizards can create their own demiplanes, stop time or bend reality itself to their every whim, somehow using two shields in two hands is "silly?"
Seriously, folks?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since it actually wasn't impossible for humans on Earth, VM, I'm not sure how much your otherwise pretty reasonable consideration applies. Of course, people in Pathfinder are designed to basically be able to pull off any style just by virtue of freakin' insane stats. Hell, I bet the "water balloon fighting technique" could be perfectly effective in Pathfinder.
Use it to:
- Extinguish torches!
- Distract casters!
- Freeze the water and break skulls!
- This is stupid.EDIT: I'm not sure why you're addressing Doomed Hero with this, though—he was actually saying dual shields was a fairly viable real-life style.
I might have come out wrong. I just wanted to point out that he can do it with normal human abilities, imagine what someone who had PC stats could do with it. Not arguing with him,more using him as an example.
Heck, if you can consider a hard rubber ball filled with water as a water ballon, a barbarian with more arms strenght than the best baseball players could probably throw it with enough strenght to cave a persons skull or rib cage. A hard rubber ball, likea dodge ball, filled with water, would probably hit like it was mde of steel and weight way less. Throwing water ballons could be a viable style.
Throw Anything and alchemists (and related Wizards with the Arcane Bomber archetype), making lethal water balloons since 2014.
Hrm ....
This sounds like the basis of an alchemists' version of Arcane Blast, especially since it should stack wonderfully with the Vital Strike feats.
Instead of doing energy damage to a splash radius, the "water balloon of death" deals bludgeoning damage to a single ranged touch attack target within 30 feet equal to either (bomb) damage or (extract level sacrificed +2d6). Multiply accordingly via Vital Strike etc. As a weapon-like effect goodies affecting ranged weapon attacks add bonuses (such as an alchemists' Intelligence bonus to damage from their version of Throw Anything).
Alchemist qualifies for Vital Strike at 9th, "Water Balloon of Death" at 11th, Improved Vital Strike at 15th. Sounds like fun times to me! Going with 11th level bombs do 6d6 / 4th level extracts do 6d6 (4d6+2d6). Vital Strike = 12d6. Critical hits deal another 6d6 (thus, 12d6 or 18d6 on a confirmed critical hit).
Or perhaps this / something similar to this can be applied to such devices as fuse or pellet grenades for added oomph. "Impact Fuse" discovery/trait/feat/whatever plus "water balloon of death" for added happy, happy, joy, joy for the target.
^_____^
*scribbles notes for a feat / chain of feats for later use.*
Why is this still being brought up, after two years?
Well, I was browsing on my mobile on my work break, so did not know this was a thread necromancy.
As to why, I have a pet peeve about people of the view that things they can't imagine should not only not be supported in the game, they shouldn't be allowed.
Attitudes like this are why we can't have non-lawful ki-using Monks, or non-LG Paladins. It's not enough that a person have an option to just not use those options, no, they must be excised for everyone else as well.
It's the same thing as if the Fighting Man, many editions ago, had been swords-only. No axes, maces, clubs, flails, or polearms. Just swords. I mean, sure, I could just play my Fighting Man (or Fighter, for later editions) and have HIM just use swords and let other Fighter players use whatever they want, but why should I? We call this a game where your only true limit is your imagination, but in reality, my imagination is what shall be your limit.
Sounds perfectly ridiculous, but apply that so-called logic to a Monk who may well be disciplined but otherwise not Lawful, and watch how many people accept that selfishness.
And to hear this from someone working for the company? Frightening.
Now, in fairness, this is an attitude from two years ago. Now, we have a Shield-using Monk (well, Brawler, but I think we've figured out that the Monk is Paizo's Monk and the Brawler is our Monk). Captain America has been an archetype for an Unarmed, Unarmored, shield-wielding combatant since the 1940s, so this should've been available as of the core rulebook, but maybe it represents hope and change.
On the other hand, we're getting a book with a feat that applies Dex to damage for a whopping one weapon only, so everyone who's envisioning a non-rapier wielding Swashbuckler? Thou art SOL. That hope and change I mentioned? Just never mind.
Show me something from anything—history, movies, comic books, whatever—that's not an RPG— where someone uses two shields in a cool fighting style that doesn't look lame and actually looks like it works to both defend and fight... then we'll talk!
Movie.
Shaw Brothers.
1971 so that's close enough.
Return of the One Armed Swordsman.
Whirling Blade and his flunkies wield dual shields/bladed bucklers as melee and missile weapons.
1:57 for a shot of said fighters.
|
You just put bolded it for me. At no point does it say "only add the bonuses". That is way to interpret it so you could also be lying if you want to use "read differently" as lying.Your mastery of the shield allows you to fight with it without hindrance.
Prerequisites: Improved Shield Bash, Shield Proficiency, Shield Slam, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon. Add your shield’s enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls made with the shield as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
That feat could be written a hair clearer, I imagine, and doesn't sound like it makes the attack count as magical for the purposes of overcoming DR, or if the shield's material type (like mithral or adamantine) has any effect on the damage being done, and even could possibly be misinterpreted to suggest that the shield's enhancement bonuses stack with actual weapon enhancement bonuses on a shield spike or something...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doomed Hero, your opinion, please? Would the style be viable if you were two times quicker, had three times more endurance ad were almost four times stronger?
Same thing for starknives, doubleswords and spiked chains, really. Would they be possible for someone that is, at least, two times stronger, faster and tougher than the best martial artists in recorded history? Someone who could participate in the Olimpics at the weightlifting, gymnastics and long running events and reasonably expect to get gold in everyone of those?
I was able to make two sheilds work against some of the best weapon guys I know. Like any weapon style it is good against some kinds of weapons, and struggles against others. Keep in mind, this was just me screwing around. I'd never done it before, tried it as a joke, and within a few minutes I was beating the pants of guys that I usually struggled with when using sword and board or spear (which are my preferred weapons).
Someone stronger, faster and plain old better than me who had devoted considerable time to developing a two shield style could absolutely make it effective. It's actually a pretty intuitive fighting style. It is essentially just boxing and using your body mass as a wrecking ball to slam people off balance and set them up for "punches"
As for the other odd weapons, it's a different story. I actually made a double flail when I was younger. As long as the haft (the center pole) is at least 5 feet long it can be effective. There's a lot to be said for pole flails. Among people that actually practice with medieval weapons, flails are called "skill on a stick." Adding reach to that is practically unfair. Adding another flail at the other end really isn't much of an advantage, but it isn't really a hindrance either.
Similarly with double swords. Make the central haft long and it's perfectly usable. Darth Maul style? Not so much.
Spiked Chains are a variant of the Manriki-gusari, which is a hideously effective weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use it. I've seen a person put one of those through a car window, straight through the cab, and out the other window. I've also seen the same guy whip the weighted end into the bullseye of a dart board from ten feet away, recover, whip it around his arm, release it again, and hammer the bullseye again. This happened faster than I could easily see. The spiked chain, like the Manriki, would take a lot of practice, but I can see it being devistating.
The star knife is just absurd.
It's also okay to make a joke sometimes. Don't use an obvious gag as an excuse to patronize him—that makes us all look childish and discourages the calm atmosphere you claim to be seeking.Obviously not. It's ok to be wrong sometimes.I'M COMPLETELY CALM!!!YOU need to calm down. Someone not agreeing with your view does not make them a liar. And it does say add the bonus as if it were a weapon enhancement bonus.
You just put bolded it for me. At no point does it say "only add the bonuses". That is way to interpret it so you could also be lying if you want to use "read differently" as lying.
I did not think he was joking, but I was done at that point anyway.
With that out of the way I do see his point, and it does have merit. The writing is not perfectly clear. Magic Weapon gives enhancement bonuses, but it won't bypass DR. If the shield feat does work that way I may have to rebuild a character. I don't mind, but I rather do it sooner, than later.
It's also okay to make a joke sometimes. Don't use an obvious gag as an excuse to patronize him—that makes us all look childish and discourages the calm atmosphere you claim to be seeking.Thank you, but its ok. People who are insecure about their opinions tend to insult others to distract people from fallacies in their own arguments.
I will disagree with you on the shield enhancement. Paizo has flat out stated that shields do in fact have separate weapon and defensive enchants and the feat specifically calls out it only acts like weapons for the purpose of attack and damage.
Here we go again. Can you reply without an insult?
PS: I never insulted you. I told you to calm down and then I said you were not calm because you typed in all caps. If there was an insult quote me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
LITERALLY? That's...dear god, that's even more than figuratively!
It's also okay to make a joke sometimes. Don't use an obvious gag as an excuse to patronize him—that makes us all look childish and discourages the calm atmosphere you claim to be seeking.Thank you, but its ok. People who are insecure about their opinions tend to insult others to distract people from fallacies in their own arguments.
I will disagree with you on the shield enhancement. Paizo has flat out stated that shields do in fact have separate weapon and defensive enchants and the feat specifically calls out it only acts like weapons for the purpose of attack and damage.
Here we go again. Can you reply without an insult?
PS: I never insulted you. I told you to calm down and then I said you were not calm because you typed in all caps. If there was an insult quote me.
Obviously not. It's ok to be wrong sometimes.I made a joke and you were a patronizing s~~%. So I was done with you. If you're not intelligent enough to see a basic attempt at humor to alleviate tension in a situation you literally are not worth my time.
You blame me. Maybe you should have been more clear. You could have used an emoticon since text based communication does not carry tone of voice. I was smart(intelligent) enough to figure out how to correctly get your point across by suggesting an emoticon. Now who is not worth whose time? <--That is a rhetorical question by the way. No need to reply.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woooo boy. Guys, I found some rulers, maybe you should find a more private arena for this.
You blame me. Maybe you should have been more clear. You could have used an emoticon since text based communication does not carry tone of voice. I was smart(intelligent) enough to figure out how to correctly get your point across by suggesting an emoticon. Now who is not worth whose time? <--That is a rhetorical question by the way. No need to reply.You. Apparently you need a handicap in order to understand basic sarcasm. Do you ask people to hold up signs for you explaining their intent in day to day conversation?
How brilliant you must be! *claps hands excitedly* Don't you feel special?
(Sarcasm btw, just so you can understand it this time around)
You must still have time for me if you are still replying, and stop playing the victim.
I called someone a liar because they interpreted a rule differently than I did and I supposedly tried to ease the tension. Now I am just going to keep insulting people. My name is Thomas Long 175.
I will stop this now so the thread won't get locked.
Anyway back to the rules discussion...
Woooo boy. Guys, I found some rulers, maybe you should find a more private arena for this.
I am done. :)
I will FAQ the OP to see if this can be cleared up.
Guys, stop. One of you has to just stop answering. At this point neither of you is contributing to the actual discussion. Just let it drop and get back on topic, please.
I very much appreciate doomed hero's posts on this, and that he has "XP" in using shields offensive and defensively simultaneously with one in each hand.
Any boxer that has done mit work could also appreciate the possibilities of two bucklers. And there are drills to take hits on the mit while attacking with the other. The purpose being to make the attackers faster and more accurate, and to have to respond to both of the mits one the same timing.
Something to think about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7rY6PnSK9k
Also, I think two spiked shields would be terrifying.
My view is that a character regularly wielding two shields would be laughed at. He certainly would at our table. By me, for a start. He would need to come up with a really good backstory to avoid ridicule, and any pointing out cheesy rule exploits would make things worse.
Rather than painstaking search obscure martial arts and 'well I did it when LARPing so it must be true', I would encourage you to look to historical warriors. Being a professional soldier makes your choice of weapon rather more important than someone who is trying something out to see it is possible.
The fact that there are no records of the warriors of any nation in history regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields speaks volumes.
Kind of odd, really. New weapons are not exactly an area where Stupid doesn't flourish. For examples of this, how about the shield rifle, the axe rifle... Hell, even the minigun deserves mention.
My view is that a character regularly wielding two shields would be laughed at. He certainly would at our table. By me, for a start. He would need to come up with a really good backstory to avoid ridicule, and any pointing out cheesy rule exploits would make things worse.
Rather than painstaking search obscure martial arts and 'well I did it when LARPing so it must be true', I would encourage you to look to historical warriors. Being a professional soldier makes your choice of weapon rather more important than someone who is trying something out to see it is possible.
The fact that there are no records of the warriors of any nation in history regularly and deliberately equipping themselves with two shields speaks volumes.
If the standard the needs to be met for a fighting style to be "goodrightfun" is that it was frequently used in mass combat by professional soldiers, then at least half of the weapons in the game need to be taken out, and nearly all of the exotic weapons.
I'd happily lose plenty of the weapons in the game. Not sure why you'd need to get rid of the exotic weapons, though. Most are perfect normal weapons that happen to offer a mechanical advantage which is balanced with the 'Exotic Proficiency' requirement.
As for the historical standard being 'goodrightfun', that isn't what I said at all. Whips weren't used historically by armies in combat, but the whip is a perfectly acceptable weapon to use in the game. Shields are used in the game and are fine. Using two shields, however, is a triumph of cheese and rules exploitation, and would be treated as such at our table unless the player came up with an excellent reason why his character decided that specialising in fighting with two shields was a better idea than using a proper weapon and shield combination.
We'd mock it just like any other rules exploitation that has a poor rational explanation.
As an example, we had a Fantasy Hero campaign back in the late 1980s/early 1990s (in the 1est Edition days). Hero uses both killing/lethal damage and stun damage, and it is possible to realistically win combats simply by knocking your opponent unconscious. One player suddenly found a rules exploit/mistake which was that, by using a wooden katana instead of a steel one, he could actually inflict more stun damage and was consequently more dangerous. From then on he only carried a wooden sword. That's what I call exploiting the rules at the expense of in-game common sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd happily lose plenty of the weapons in the game. Not sure why you'd need to get rid of the exotic weapons, though. Most are perfect normal weapons that happen to offer a mechanical advantage which is balanced with the 'Exotic Proficiency' requirement.
As for the historical standard being 'goodrightfun', that isn't what I said at all. Whips weren't used historically by armies in combat, but the whip is a perfectly acceptable weapon to use in the game. Shields are used in the game and are fine. Using two shields, however, is a triumph of cheese and rules exploitation, and would be treated as such at our table unless the player came up with an excellent reason why his character decided that specialising in fighting with two shields was a better idea than using a proper weapon and shield combination.
We'd mock it just like any other rules exploitation that has a poor rational explanation.
As an example, we had a Fantasy Hero campaign back in the late 1980s/early 1990s (in the 1est Edition days). Hero uses both killing/lethal damage and stun damage, and it is possible to realistically win combats simply by knocking your opponent unconscious. One player suddenly found a rules exploit/mistake which was that, by using a wooden katana instead of a steel one, he could actually inflict more stun damage and was consequently more dangerous. From then on he only carried a wooden sword. That's what I call exploiting the rules at the expense of in-game common sense.
There's literally video. Of a fighting style. That uses two shields. In this very thread.
And who cares if soldiers actually used it? Did soldiers actually used the Spiked Chain? How many Soldiers showed up with Scythes (and not Scythes that had been modified to polearms)? How many Orc Double Axes have you seen in history? Seriously, having an opinion is fine, but your argument "historical standard" is completely invalid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to have fun.
My fun may be different from your fun, but it's no less valid for values of "fun" so long as it doesn't spoil your fun by exploiting you as a player.
This is why cheating is not fun.
This is why unwelcome sexual behavior during game-play is not fun.
But if I feel that wielding two shields could be fun, even though you don't, it's no less valid that you wielding a sword and a shield, or you wielding two swords.
That's largely because fun is subjective.
So rather than attempting to mock one of your players for wanting to have fun, when the whole purpose of playing a role-playing game is to have fun, then perhaps we can agree that we have differing values of fun and...
... play the g-ddamned game!
For... y'know... fun.
:)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As an example, we had a Fantasy Hero campaign back in the late 1980s/early 1990s (in the 1est Edition days). Hero uses both killing/lethal damage and stun damage, and it is possible to realistically win combats simply by knocking your opponent unconscious. One player suddenly found a rules exploit/mistake which was that, by using a wooden katana instead of a steel one, he could actually inflict more stun damage and was consequently more dangerous. From then on he only carried a wooden sword. That's what I call exploiting the rules at the expense of in-game common sense.
Musashi must have discovered the same exploit. He did that in real life.
There's literally video. Of a fighting style. That uses two shields. In this very thread.
And there's, like, literally, like, my point that an obscure modern martial art does not, like, make a style a realistic fighting proposition, literally like.
There are fighting styles that utilise spades and all sorts of other improvised weapons - does that make a warrior armed with a spoon any less ridiculous? No.
And who cares if soldiers actually used it? Did soldiers actually used the Spiked Chain? How many Soldiers showed up with Scythes (and not Scythes that had been modified to polearms)? How many Orc Double Axes have you seen in history? Seriously, having an opinion is fine, but your argument "historical standard" is completely invalid.
You may have missed the piece where I said that I'd happily throw out many Pathfinder weapons, or where I mentioned that some weapons are fine despite not being used by soldiers in battle.
And no, my argument is not 'invalid'. It is simply a different opinion and gaming style to yours.
Musashi must have discovered the same exploit. He did that in real life.
Mushashi wasn't exploiting a broken rule and the player in question wasn't using a bokken because he was deliberately handicapping himself. In real life, a steel sword is generally more effective than a wooden one.
I like to have fun.
My fun may be different from your fun, but it's no less valid for values of "fun" so long as it doesn't spoil your fun by exploiting you as a player.!
I guess that would also apply to your table should a player design a six-shooter-armed outlaw for a Lord of the Rings Game, a nerdy computer programmer for a bronze-age game or a fey swashbuckler for a game of gritty post-apocalypse survival?
Yes, the game is there for fun. However, it is not exclusively for any single player to have fun at the expense of the game, being the rest of the players and the GM. Players who want to be special snowflakes and demand to play characters that the rest of the group object to are not entitled to get their own way. Not at our table, anyhow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
[And there's, like, literally, like, my point that an obscure modern martial art does not, like, make a style a realistic fighting proposition, literally like.
A real combat style is not realistic?
In real life, a steel sword is generally more effective than a wooden one.
IRL, there are no dragons. And if there were, they wouldn't be able to fly. In real life, a rogue doesn't have a 5% chance of surviving a nuclear blast at ground zero completely unscathed.
What's possible IRL is no limitation to what's possible in a world where literally anything a GM imagines can happen.
I guess that would also apply to your table should a player design a six-shooter-armed outlaw for a Lord of the Rings Game, a nerdy computer programmer for a bronze-age game or a fey swashbuckler for a game of gritty post-apocalypse survival?
If the rest of the group is okay with that... Yes. It also applies.
Yes, the game is there for fun. However, it is not exclusively for any single player to have fun at the expense of the game, being the rest of the players and the GM. Players who want to be special snowflakes and demand to play characters that the rest of the group object to are not entitled to get their own way. Not at our table, anyhow.
Being a selfish and/or disruptive player is not tied to any preference. I've seen selfish players playing "traditional" tolkien-esque characters more often than I've one of them playing "unorthodox" characters.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that would also apply to your table should a player design a six-shooter-armed outlaw for a Lord of the Rings Game, a nerdy computer programmer for a bronze-age game or a fey swashbuckler for a game of gritty post-apocalypse survival?I like to have fun.
My fun may be different from your fun, but it's no less valid for values of "fun" so long as it doesn't spoil your fun by exploiting you as a player.!
In a Lord of the Rings Game, do the rules allow you to design a six-shooter-armed outlaw? If so, then A. If not, then B.
Do the rules of your bronze-age game allow you to design a nerdy computer programmer? If so, then A. If not, then B.
Does your gritty, post-apocalypse survival game allow you to design a fey swashbuckler? If so, then A. If not, then B.
----------
A: Yes, it applies.
B: It does not apply, unless I, as the GM, design some compatible rules to allow it at my table for anyone who wants to play that way, or find some compatible rules that someone else has designed that I wish to allow at my table.
Yes, the game is there for fun. However, it is not exclusively for any single player to have fun at the expense of the game, being the rest of the players and the GM. Players who want to be special snowflakes and demand to play characters that the rest of the group object to are not entitled to get their own way. Not at our table, anyhow.
You may notice that I had a caveat about player fun versus exploitation of players. The game is there to be played for fun.
No one here is arguing that anyone who wants to play a character that sounds cool to them is a special snowflake (bear in mind, every single snowflake is unique, and therefore special) who is demanding to play characters that the rest of the group objects to and are therefore entitled to get their own way. However, it is part of a GM's responsibility to objectively look at a character concept, decide if it will exploit other players, and if it doesn't, let the player that wants to play that character concept have their fun, too. To use your argument, if one character wants to play a sorcerer and everyone else at the game table wants to play fighters, that doesn't mean that all the players of fighters get to be special snowflakes and get their own way. Sure, it's one thing if you've all agreed to play in a game where everyone plays a fighter, but if you haven't... The person who wants to play a sorcerer isn't taking advantage of anyone.
Let's see if your argument fits in another context, though.
Hypothetical GM (Sam) is playing a game with four other hypothetical players; we'll call them Chris, Pat, Alex and Jamie. Chris, Pat and Alex want to play male characters. Jamie wants to play a female character. Chris, Pat and Alex don't want Jamie to play a female character, and Sam agrees with them.
This doesn't make Jamie the special snowflake for wanting to play a girl, despite the fact that the other players don't want female characters in the game. It's not against the rules. It doesn't exploit other players. Sam has a responsibility to tell Chris, Pat and Alex that they're going to have to stop being sexist and "suck it up" if they want to play, because Jamie is allowed to have fun, too.
"Oh, but historically, there were no girls in the knighthood," Pat whines. "Jamie's character sounds ridiculous!"
"Sorry, Pat," Sam says, acting like a reasonable GM, "You're going to have to live with Jamie's choice. This is a fantasy game, and there's going to be a lot in this game that isn't historically accurate. If you don't want to play in this game, I understand, and I hope that you find another table that better suits your style of game-play. I don't want to lose you as a player, but if you choose to leave, I'll understand."
----------
Now you can declare anything you like to be out-of-bounds at your game table. No one's telling you that you can't. Your table sounds to be a more restrictive environment than I'd prefer to play at. If I had a player that wanted to fight with two shields and shield-bash his or her way to glory, I'm not likely to tell them that's any more or less silly than the player who wants to boost their strength up to giant levels and wield an oversized weapon because it "looks cool" or the player that wants to play a goblin riding a warthog because it's so totally awesome.
If you want 100% verisimilitude, Pathfinder may not be the game for you.
Best wishes!
Lemmy and Bodhizen just nailed it. All of it. Well said, both of you.
This doesn't make Jamie the special snowflake for wanting to play a girl, despite the fact that the other players don't want female characters in the game. It's not against the rules. It doesn't exploit other players. Sam has a responsibility to tell Chris, Pat and Alex that they're going to have to stop being sexist and "suck it up" if they want to play, because Jamie is allowed to have fun, too.
Well we differ here. If the majority of the players (and I include the GM) are so set against a player's choice that it will spoil their enjoyment, I do not see that the player has the right to impose his will on the others. Personally I would find another group to play in in that particular situation. What you describe, however, is not one against the majority, but a 50:50 split.
I have left gaming groups where the gaming style is so contrary to my own that I wasn't having fun. I didn't demand that everyone plays to my particular way of doing things.
That goes for playing characters not your own gender, characters that grossly violate the game's theme, or two-dimensional characters whose only quality is they must be better than everyone else. Every style has a group that will accept it, but it is not for you to impose your style on a group that rejects it.
Yes, the game is there for fun. However, it is not exclusively for any single player to have fun at the expense of the game, being the rest of the players and the GM. Players who want to be special snowflakes and demand to play characters that the rest of the group object to are not entitled to get their own way. Not at our table, anyhow.
You yourself note it is a subjective thing. What is 'special snowflake' to you is not to others. What is 'at the expense of the game' is also in the eye of the beholder. Thus, everything must be hashed out between the players at the table, and nothing outside of that matters.
There is nothing objectively wrong with a dual shield user, a spiked chain warrior, or a dire flail. Trying to say something is silly because it doesn't match your likes is a nonstarter.
Well we differ here. If the majority of the players (and I include the GM) are so set against a player's choice that it will spoil their enjoyment, I do not see that the player has the right to impose his will on the others.
In his example, it's not the player imposing on the others, it's the GM.
A real combat style is not realistic?
There is a difference between a real fighting style and a fighting style that is a realistic fighting proposition. Boxing is a realistic fighting style but no army would expect its warriors to go out onto the battlefield armed only with a pair of boxing gloves.
IRL, there are no dragons. And if there were, they wouldn't be able to fly. In real life, a rogue doesn't have a 5% chance of surviving a nuclear blast at ground zero completely unscathed.
However, dragons are an existing part of medieval mythology. They do exist, but only in historical myth. Magic and wizards are also part of that mythology. The game as written is not supposed to be mirroring reality, but the mythology of medieval fantasy.
If the rest of the group is okay with that... Yes. It also applies.
No, you're sidestepping the point. The disruptive character concept is one that the rest of the group do not agree with. If I ask whether a disruptive character concept would be accepted at your table, it is not an answer to say, 'yes, as long as it isn't disruptive'.
There is nothing objectively wrong with a dual shield user, a spiked chain warrior, or a dire flail. Trying to say something is silly because it doesn't match your likes is a nonstarter.
Well given that finding something silly is also subjective, I would disagree.
In his example, it's not the player imposing on the others, it's the GM.
I count the GM as a player in this instance. He is there to play the game as much as those on the other side of the screen.
My point stands, however. If a table of five has the GM imposing his values and ideas on the other four against their will, then it is just as bad and unacceptable.
|
There is nothing objectively wrong with a dual shield user, a spiked chain warrior, or a dire flail. Trying to say something is silly because it doesn't match your likes is a nonstarter.Well given that finding something silly is also subjective, I would disagree.
Exactly, you can't use 'silly' to claim something is objectively bad or wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a difference between a real fighting style and a fighting style that is a realistic fighting proposition. Boxing is a realistic fighting style but no army would expect its warriors to go out onto the battlefield armed only with a pair of boxing gloves.
True, fighting unarmed against people who have weapons is generally a bad idea... Luckily, a dual shield warrior also has shields. Which can be used as effective weapons. If there is a real combat style based on dual-shield, that's because that fighting style is effective to some degree. I doubt many real-life warriors chose their combat style based on what looks cool.
The game as written is not supposed to be mirroring reality, but the mythology of medieval fantasy.
Ah, that's why they have chainsaws, shotguns, androids, spaceships and dinosaurs.
And who is to say that your idea of medieval fantasy is any more valid than that of anyone else?
No, you're sidestepping the point. The disruptive character concept is one that the rest of the group do not agree with. If I ask whether a disruptive character concept would be accepted at your table, it is not an answer to say, 'yes, as long as it isn't disruptive'.
I'm not. You implied that someone playing a dual-shield warrior would be disruptive. I'm saying that's a moot point, because being disruptive has nothing to do with any particular character concept. The player can be just as selfish when playing a sword and board fighter or elf ranger.