|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the Paladin thread, an interesting discussion about the Cavalier popped up and I figured I would create a new thread so the discussion wouldn't derail the thread even more.
Someone mentioned that a DM is essentially being a dick if they target a Cavalier's horse during battle.
I don't agree with this at all because that is one of the risks of playing that class. Just like it's a risk with a Wizard's spellbook and familiar, or a Witches' familiar etc...
There are certain classes that you know are there and you can't hold your DM to the wall with threats of being a dick if he does this.
I know there are extremes but a DM should never be made to feel like he can't at all. Fighter's have their weapons sundered at times, Wizard's spellbooks get destroyed, Paladin's have their code, Witches' familiar dies etc....
It's just one of the challenges that you face when playing these classes.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Players need to ask their DMs how they run certain things. Questions of 'what preparations are you taking to safeguard your spellbook' or 'how are you keeping your animal companion alive' need to be laid out before the game starts, not when the DM says 'you find your spellbook isn't where you left it the night before' or 'the ogre cuts your steed down with his greatsword, make a check to jump off'.
Gentleman's agreements against such tactics are just as valid a style as no-holds-barred combat, but everyone should be aware of what volume level the stereo is set to before it gets turned on.
I go with what makes sense to me. A fighter probably doesn't know a witch needs her familiar to cast spells, but a wizard with the proper spellcraft (or knowledge: arcana) or even a fellow witch would figure it out after a couple of spells. That's how I handle killing familiars and breaking spellbooks and even then, it is a rare occasion that I do that. Usually, I may just have them steal a spellbook one in awhile.
As for attacking mounts, well, they are fair game. Again, I usually allow the baddie one good swing at the player before switching to attacking the mount.
I do think it's a good idea to know how your DM likes to play these certain things. in the end, however, I guess it all seems somewhat fair-game to me.. especially attacking a mounted warrior's mount. Seems like the quickest way to equalize the fight (or get the upper hand) to any semi-intelligent opponent.
Players need to ask their DMs how they run certain things. Questions of 'what preparations are you taking to safeguard your spellbook' or 'how are you keeping your animal companion alive' need to be laid out before the game starts, not when the DM says 'you find your spellbook isn't where you left it the night before' or 'the ogre cuts your steed down with his greatsword, make a check to jump off'.
Gentleman's agreements against such tactics are just as valid a style as no-holds-barred combat, but everyone should be aware of what volume level the stereo is set to before it gets turned on.
pretty much this. Talk about it ahead of time so people know what to expect. There is nothing wrong with having risks but people should be aware of those risks, and understand them so they can make informed choices. I have played with dms that handwave a whole bunch of stuff like stabling horses, or feeding animal companions, or keeping spell books safe, and others that track every ration, and every ounce of load, and have thieves everywhere. Both are fine, both can be fun, but after years of play, there is no default playstyle for me.
Even in my group which has been together for literally years, the style of game varies depending on the adventure and the dm. So there is nothing wrong with targeting a horse, or making an archer count their arrows, or stealing a spell book. But players should be made aware that it is that kind of game ahead of time, and not surprised with it.
|
|
Players need to ask their DMs how they run certain things. Questions of 'what preparations are you taking to safeguard your spellbook' or 'how are you keeping your animal companion alive' need to be laid out before the game starts, not when the DM says 'you find your spellbook isn't where you left it the night before' or 'the ogre cuts your steed down with his greatsword, make a check to jump off'.
Gentleman's agreements against such tactics are just as valid a style as no-holds-barred combat, but everyone should be aware of what volume level the stereo is set to before it gets turned on.
Why? Assuming that these things won't happen is on the player and not the DM. These things are special circumstances that the game doesn't cover. It's like telling a DM that he should tell his player's that magic items aren't going to be easily bought in cities.
Theft, sundering, and killing are all on the same level as AC and hitpoints.
Players need to ask their DMs how they run certain things. Questions of 'what preparations are you taking to safeguard your spellbook' or 'how are you keeping your animal companion alive' need to be laid out before the game starts, not when the DM says 'you find your spellbook isn't where you left it the night before' or 'the ogre cuts your steed down with his greatsword, make a check to jump off'.
Gentleman's agreements against such tactics are just as valid a style as no-holds-barred combat, but everyone should be aware of what volume level the stereo is set to before it gets turned on.
Why? Assuming that these things won't happen is on the player and not the DM. These things are special circumstances that the game doesn't cover. It's like telling a DM that he should tell his player's that magic items aren't going to be easily bought in cities.
Theft, sundering, and killing are all on the same level as AC and hitpoints.
They are also a matter of play style. Some dm's do these things some dont. Some adventures focus on them and some donw. The point is to set expectations. The 'dick move' is not doing the thing. Its doing the thing when the player wasnt even aware he ought to prepare for it.
And a dm SHOULD tell players how magic items fit into his game world. Again its a matter of setting expectations for your campaign. Because like I said, even in a group like mine that has been together for more then a decade there is no default playstyle.
|
|
Do you apologize to your friends when you turn your radio on and it hurts their ears because you left it blaring?
If so, why? Shouldn't they have said 'hey can you make sure your radio isn't too loud'?
Your not comparing like for like I'm afraid.
Games come with rules and Pathfinder is no different. You talk to your player's if there are going to be changes to the rules.
You, as a player, cannot come to a table expecting the game to played any other way except by the rules. That is how you approach the table, after that happens if there are any changes that are going to be implemented then the DM should let you know of those. Killing your Cavalier's steed should not even be discussed before the game. Do you discuss the fact that your PC could die during the game?
|
|
When I go to a game I expect the game to run according to the rules unless the DM says otherwise.What rules?
If you say 'lets go play football' and they show up with a pigskin, and you meant soccer, whose fault is it?
Are you seriously asking what rules?
Try using examples that actually have relevance.
|
|
Players need to ask their DMs how they run certain things. Questions of 'what preparations are you taking to safeguard your spellbook' or 'how are you keeping your animal companion alive' need to be laid out before the game starts, not when the DM says 'you find your spellbook isn't where you left it the night before' or 'the ogre cuts your steed down with his greatsword, make a check to jump off'.
Gentleman's agreements against such tactics are just as valid a style as no-holds-barred combat, but everyone should be aware of what volume level the stereo is set to before it gets turned on.
Why? Assuming that these things won't happen is on the player and not the DM. These things are special circumstances that the game doesn't cover. It's like telling a DM that he should tell his player's that magic items aren't going to be easily bought in cities.
Theft, sundering, and killing are all on the same level as AC and hitpoints.
They are also a matter of play style. Some dm's do these things some dont. Some adventures focus on them and some donw. The point is to set expectations. The 'dick move' is not doing the thing. Its doing the thing when the player wasnt even aware he ought to prepare for it.
And a dm SHOULD tell players how magic items fit into his game world. Again its a matter of setting expectations for your campaign. Because like I said, even in a group like mine that has been together for more then a decade there is no default playstyle.
That has nothing to do with playstyle. Enforcing the Paladin's code, killing familiars and killing horses is not playstyle, that's a part of the default game. Spinning it as anything else isn't accurate.
|
In the Paladin thread, an interesting discussion about the Cavalier popped up and I figured I would create a new thread so the discussion wouldn't derail the thread even more.
Someone mentioned that a DM is essentially being a dick if they target a Cavalier's horse during battle.
As the person in question: This isn't what I said at all.
What I said, is that the Cavalier's horse is, pretty much definitionally, less badass than any of the PCs, and should thus come in for a lower share of fire, proportionally (as a general rule, anyway) than any of those PCs do.
And that any GM who routinely targeted the horse a lot more than that just to screw the Cavalier was a dick.
.
.
.
Now, on the actual subject, I like realism. I think a logical degree of targeting such things is fine, but targeting them more than the enemies in question logically would is being a dick (because you, the GM [as opposed to the enemies], are trying to screw the player in question).
Not targeting them at all could work, I suppose, but seems vaguely immersion breaking for several reasons.
|
|
Wouldn't rules for barding, armor for unusual creatures, rules for combat training mounts ect indicate that the mount might get hit during a battle?
;)
Do not weapons such as dogslicer or horse chopper indicate the tactic of removing the mount?
A worse thing is archers targeting the horses!
This is why we have infantry, calvary and artillery units!
think about it ;)
Amazing, isn't it?
They also have feats like Mounted Combat that allow you to make a ride check to negate a mount being hit.
|
That has nothing to do with playstyle.
Everything has to do with playstyle. Games using the exact same rules can have wildly different results just because the players have different attitudes, expectations, and habits.
We're argued this many times before, and I don't expect you to suddenly 'get' it. But I cannot believe you are so opposed to communication as you seem.
I had a similar encounter that I'd like people's opinion on.
The PC's are fighting the BBEG in the finale to a certain adventure path. The BBEG is a wizard of awesome power and intelligence who has been watching the party for a long time.
In the party there's a Barbarian that's been destroying everything, massive damage and HP's, and the bad guy knew. The first thing the BBEG should've done is Mazed him. Bang, out of the fight. I had been convinced that that would've been a dick move so I held off. So of course the Barbarian got in close and did several hundred points of damage in a round.
The bad guy never recovered and the fight was a bit of a let down for everyone.
So instead of one player being let down, the entire party was let down (except for the barbarian who was pretty damn happy with how he did).
What would you have done? Had the super-genius bad guy remove the threat, the way he would, or keep the player around to not be a "dick", even though you know it could make the rest of the fight anti-climatic.
Related to this if the bad guys know that the guy on the horse is devistating while on the horse, then they should nuke the horse. It's the easiest way to negate the threat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you apologize to your friends when you turn your radio on and it hurts their ears because you left it blaring?
If so, why? Shouldn't they have said 'hey can you make sure your radio isn't too loud'?
Your not comparing like for like I'm afraid.
Games come with rules and Pathfinder is no different. You talk to your player's if there are going to be changes to the rules.
You, as a player, cannot come to a table expecting the game to played any other way except by the rules. That is how you approach the table, after that happens if there are any changes that are going to be implemented then the DM should let you know of those. Killing your Cavalier's steed should not even be discussed before the game. Do you discuss the fact that your PC could die during the game?
Actually the level of 'deadliness' IS something I discuss ahead of time. Because it has an impact on the game and the kind of characters my players create. If I am going to run a 'gritty' campaign where the players are constantly on their heels, and are near death (or actually dead) every session, that has an impact on what kind of characters they are going to play. If I am running a mostly social, investigative rp heavy game that too has an impact on the kind of characters.
The fact is I want my players to both have fun and have characters that will get involved in my story. The kind of story I am telling will have an impact on that choice, both in terms of the character's personality and back story and in terms of their mechanics.
Saying the players should expect to play by the rules is nonsense. Killing a mount, or stealing a spell book isnt a matter of rules, its a matter of convention. Some people play that way, some people dont. The risks are different campaign by campaign. A player should be able to make an informed choice about those risks. And a player should be given the information they need to make a character that not only is fun to play but is fun to play IN THE CAMPAIGN your are running.
The same way I would think twice about playing a court bard in a wilderness adventure, or a city hating druid in a wilderness adventure,
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In today's episode of shallowsouls recurring "how to be a dick GM and feel good about it" series...
Ayup.
Assuming you're friends with the rest of the group, and assuming you're not a sadomasochist as far as gaming goes, you should talk to your players/GM.
Talk about coup-de-grace tactics, talk about nightly watches, talk about spellbooks and animal companions. Why would you not try to be on the same level and keep the game happy for every player?
|
|
Related to this if the bad guys know that the guy on the horse is devistating while on the horse, then they should nuke the horse. It's the easiest way to negate the threat.
If you're dealing with a particularly mount-focused Cavalier*, and the bad guy's done his research? Sure, go for it.
Though anything that could take out the mount might well take out the Cavlier, too, and possibly be better targeted at him (depending on what it is).
*Not a given. A Beast Rider with a pet tiger might never ride his friend into combat, working as flanking buddies instead or some such.
|
|
I had a similar encounter that I'd like people's opinion on.
The PC's are fighting the BBEG in the finale to a certain adventure path. The BBEG is a wizard of awesome power and intelligence who has been watching the party for a long time.
In the party there's a Barbarian that's been destroying everything, massive damage and HP's, and the bad guy knew. The first thing the BBEG should've done is Mazed him. Bang, out of the fight. I had been convinced that that would've been a dick move so I held off. So of course the Barbarian got in close and did several hundred points of damage in a round.
The bad guy never recovered and the fight was a bit of a let down for everyone.
So instead of one player being let down, the entire party was let down (except for the barbarian who was pretty damn happy with how he did).
What would you have done? Had the super-genius bad guy remove the threat, the way he would, or keep the player around to not be a "dick", even though you know it could make the rest of the fight anti-climatic.
Related to this if the bad guys know that the guy on the horse is devistating while on the horse, then they should nuke the horse. It's the easiest way to negate the threat.
The barb was fair game, period. As long as you are following the rules, unless the rule is obviously broken, then you are doing nothing wrong, you also shouldn't have to fear being a dick if you use the rules as written.
|
|
In today's episode of shallowsouls recurring "how to be a dick GM and feel good about it" series...Ayup.
Assuming you're friends with the rest of the group, and assuming you're not a sadomasochist as far as gaming goes, you should talk to your players/GM.
Talk about coup-de-grace tactics, talk about nightly watches, talk about spellbooks and animal companions. Why would you not try to be on the same level and keep the game happy for every player?
All of those things you mentioned are the defaults of the game and shouldn't have to be discussed beforehand.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The barb was fair game, period.
This, I agree with. A super-genius final boss should behave as such.
As long as you are following the rules, unless the rule is obviously broken, then you are doing nothing wrong, you also shouldn't have to fear being a dick if you use the rules as written.
Okay, this is ridiculous. Of course you can be a dick using the rules as written.
You can literally never let the Ranger's Favored Enemy show up, put the Paladin in no-win situations to make him fall (and then deny him Atonement by saying there's nobody around to cast it), kill the Witch's familiar every combat by targeting all possible attacks on it, even if the villains have no reason to, have APL+3 Rogues steal the wizard's spellbook every night, and a dozen other things, all without technically violating the rules at all.
|
|
The barb was fair game, period.This, I agree with. A super-genius final boss should behave as such.
As long as you are following the rules, unless the rule is obviously broken, then you are doing nothing wrong, you also shouldn't have to fear being a dick if you use the rules as written.Okay, this is ridiculous. Of course you can be a dick using the rules as written.
You can literally never let the Ranger's Favored Enemy show up, put the Paladin in no-win situations to make him fall (and then deny him Atonement by saying there's nobody around to cast it), kill the Witch's familiar every combat by targeting all possible attacks on it, even if the villains have no reason to, APL+3 Rogues steal the wizard's spellbook every night, and a dozen other things, all without technically violating the rules at all.
I already stated in my original posts that there are extremes but I'm not talking about extremes.
I don't have to sit down with my ranger player and say, "Well I just wanted to let you know that out of 8 encounters, 5 of them will be your favored enemy."
It is up to me to try and give you some encounters but if there are less one session then I shouldn't have to fear being called a bad DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently had two players walk away from the table because they let their expectations run away with them.
I had informed my players about six weeks ago that we would be starting Skull & Shackles next. The two players I mentioned quietly went off on their own and began researching everything involving gunslingers.
Now, naturally, being players, they completely ignored all the Golarion setting warnings in the APG about emergent and early firearms and concentrated exclusively on the advanced firearms.
And, of course, when I found out about their plans I was forced to burst their bubble. Unfortunately, I did not find out for almost a month. This gave them lots of time to build up their misconception of the firearms available to them.
So....I set them both down and explained early and emergent firearms rules and explained that they were not going to be able to get advanced firearms and that for reasons I will not go into here (Due to spoilers)
they will not have any access to firearms until about late third level. I also explained to them that they were choosing to play an equipment dependent class in an equipmentless module written by one of the deadliest authors of the Pathfinder AP's.
It was like I had demanded their first born children.
Now, one of the players was a former D&D GM who had sworn to never run another game. I hear he opened a table of his own a few days later.
Personally, I think it is great that he wants to run a PF game. If his leaving my table caused him to reopen his own, then I will take that as a win.
All things considered, they will not be missed at my table. They were my only problem-players.
I told this story simply to underscore how necessary it is for GM's to discuss what to expect with players from their particular games.
|
|
I already stated in my original posts that there are extremes but I'm not talking about extremes.I don't have to sit down with my ranger player and say, "Well I just wanted to let you know that out of 8 encounters, 5 of them will be your favored enemy."
It is up to me to try and give you some encounters but if there are less one session then I shouldn't have to fear being called a bad DM.
You're the one who made the absolute statement, which you seemed to mean from context. I'm just responding to what you wrote.
If that's not what you meant, sorry man, guess we're even now.
The position you advance in this post (as opposed to that earlier one) seems entirely reasonable to me, for reference.
The barb was fair game, period.This, I agree with. A super-genius final boss should behave as such.
As long as you are following the rules, unless the rule is obviously broken, then you are doing nothing wrong, you also shouldn't have to fear being a dick if you use the rules as written.Okay, this is ridiculous. Of course you can be a dick using the rules as written.
You can literally never let the Ranger's Favored Enemy show up, put the Paladin in no-win situations to make him fall (and then deny him Atonement by saying there's nobody around to cast it), kill the Witch's familiar every combat by targeting all possible attacks on it, even if the villains have no reason to, APL+3 Rogues steal the wizard's spellbook every night, and a dozen other things, all without technically violating the rules at all.
I already stated in my original posts that there are extremes but I'm not talking about extremes.
I don't have to sit down with my ranger player and say, "Well I just wanted to let you know that out of 8 encounters, 5 of them will be your favored enemy."
It is up to me to try and give you some encounters but if there are less one session then I shouldn't have to fear being called a bad DM.
No you dont have to be that specific of offer guarantees. The point is if the player says hey, I am gonna be an undead hunter ranger, and you dont tell him the campaign will involve almost no undead, you are a bad dm. If you tell him and he still plays the undead hunter, thats cool, but he should have the information to make the choice at the start of the campaign, and not sit there wondering if he will ever get to use his favored enemy.
At the start of a campaign, the DM has all the information available, and the players have none, except what the dm gives them. How you transfer this information is how you are or arent a dick dm in this case. If you transfer the information by making a paladin fall, or never having the ranger's favored enemy show up, you are a bad dm. If you talk to your paladin about what his code means in terms of actual behavior and you tell the ranger what kind of favored enemies are a good idea in your game, then you are a good dm.
There is a reason that every paizo ap's players guide has favored enemy recommendations, and its not because they like spoilers. Its because this is information the players need to make characters that fit the adventure. THe same goes for the guide to skull and shackles talking about paladins in the adventure. Yes the rules tell you a paladin has to be 'good' and 'lawful' which these boards have proven is stupid amounts of subjective, but how that fits into the campaign is a different story. And warning the players about the fact that 'YOU WILL BE PIRATES' is important for someone who was thinking of playing a character that would never steal, hates the sea, is afraid of water, and believes in the rule of law.
|
|
I recently had two players walk away from the table because they let their expectations run away with them.
I had informed my players about six weeks ago that we would be starting Skull & Shackles next. The two players I mentioned quietly went off on their own and began researching everything involving gunslingers.
Now, naturally, being players, they completely ignored all the Golarion setting warnings in the APG about emergent and early firearms and concentrated exclusively on the advanced firearms.
And, of course, when I found out about their plans I was forced to burst their bubble. Unfortunately, I did not find out for almost a month. This gave them lots of time to build up their misconception of the firearms available to them.
So....I set them both down and explained early and emergent firearms rules and explained that they were not going to be able to get advanced firearms and that for reasons I will not go into here (Due to spoilers)
they will not have any access to firearms until about late third level. I also explained to them that they were choosing to play an equipment dependent class in an equipmentless module written by one of the deadliest authors of the Pathfinder AP's.It was like I had demanded their first born children.
Now, one of the players was a former D&D GM who had sworn to never run another game. I hear he opened a table of his own a few days later.
Personally, I think it is great that he wants to run a PF game. If his leaving my table caused him to reopen his own, then I will take that as a win.All things considered, they will not be missed at my table. They were my only problem-players.
I told this story simply to underscore how necessary it is for GM's to discuss what to expect with players from their particular games.
I agree with what you are saying but that is a completely different kettle of fish. Under the firearms section is specifically talks about having GM approval so that is something that should be discussed.
Having your animal companion, or familiar die is not one of them.
Sounds to me like some people on this thread want all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.
If you want a spellcaster that isn't dependent on their spellbook then play a Sorcerer. Sacred your animal companion is going to be killed? Play another class, don't use that class feature, or go extra lengths to make sure you protect your animal companion.
Sounds to me like some people on this thread want all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.
If you want a spellcaster that isn't dependent on their spellbook then play a Sorcerer. Sacred your animal companion is going to be killed? Play another class, don't use that class feature, or go extra lengths to make sure you protect your animal companion.
And I dont have a problem with that kind of game, I just want to know about it ahead of time. I have even at times played characters who didnt have an easy time in a specific game because i thought the concept and roleplay opportunities of a fish out of water character would be fun. Most people here arent saying these things shouldn't happen. They just want to know what kind of game they are playing before they start.
I am fine with a dm going after spell books, or killing animal companions, so long as the players know to take precautions. Because there are plenty of games out there that dont require such precautions, and even some dms who would get irritated if game time and effort were put towards describing and preparing said precautions. So again, the act itself, or the disadvantage is not the issue, its the informed choice that matters.
You are correct, Shallowsoul. The two are indeed apples and oranges.
It never occurred to me as a GM not to attack mounts or familiars. Anything that attacks my bad guys is fair game! In fact, my bad guys don't disriminate much at all over what shapes or sizes the skulls they bash in need to be.
On the subject of spellbooks, any thief worth his salt knows what they are worth. Best that their owners treat them accordingly. Additionally,
any enemy of the PC's would be just as interested in getting a hold of that spellbook as any thief.
Now, should this be laid out for the Players, or should they discover these as they go?
Simple answer. A new player should be brought up to speed. An experienced player takes advantage of a monsters weaknesses. Why should'nt a monster take advantage of a characters weakness? Espescially an intelligent monster.
|
TOZ is right. There's lots of different styles of play. And styles of play are different from houserules.
And I would totally let my players know if they're going to find it super difficult to find magic items in big cities. What's more fun, spending ten seconds saying that it's going to be hard to find them and then moving on, or listening to the players whine about it for hours because they didn't expect it and it screwed up their plans?
|
|
Sounds to me like some people on this thread want all the advantages with none of the disadvantages.
If you want a spellcaster that isn't dependent on their spellbook then play a Sorcerer. Sacred your animal companion is going to be killed? Play another class, don't use that class feature, or go extra lengths to make sure you protect your animal companion.
I don't think that's what people are asking. They just want to know what kind of game it's going to be beforehand.
Is it going to be a game where encumbrance is tracked to the pound, and where you need to have enough food? Or is that all going to be handwaved to make room for more hack and slash?
Are the animal companions going to be routinely attacked, or are they lower priority targets? Will it be different depending on the enemy fought?
There is nothing wrong with talking to your GM or players about what kind of game you're playing. If you want one where the animal companion is in danger and the spellbook is in jeopardy of being stolen, tell your players that. It's not a dick move to target certain aspects of a character, but it is a dick move to not communicate with your group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a cooperative game. The only "wrong" way of playing RPGs is when the game becomes an adversarial clash where both sides of the table attempt to dominate and control each other. This can happen from both sides: Dick GMs who play God and rule 0 everyone into submission, or players who attempt to "win" the game by forcibly making GM lose control over the story and the world.
|
|
TOZ is right. There's lots of different styles of play. And styles of play are different from houserules.
And I would totally let my players know if they're going to find it super difficult to find magic items in big cities. What's more fun, spending ten seconds saying that it's going to be hard to find them and then moving on, or listening to the players whine about it for hours because they didn't expect it and it screwed up their plans?
There are different styles of play but this isn't about style. Interpreting the Paladin's could be one that you could say you should discuss beforehand because not everyone sees the code the same way.
But the other things that have been discussed have nothing to do with playstyle. Pathfinder comes with a default set of rules that are deemed, the norm or default.
Here is the massive problem we have right now. Some people are used to a certain way their DM's run the game, so to them it becomes the norm. Now, if another DM doesn't play that we then they think that DM does his job outside the norm.
Weslocke gave a perfect example with regards to something that is made into the system that still requires a DM's approval, or something the DM needs to talk about ahead of time because it actually says so. Saying that your DM fireballed your cavalier and killed his horse can't be called a playstyle, or having the druid get a fireball and killing his companion. Those are not playstyles, those are aspects of the game. If they weren't then they wouldn't have hitpoints and defense scores.
When people say that I need to talk to my players ahead of time for these things is like I need to seek their approval and that's not the case. I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I told them that they couldn't target the enemies mounts because they would be bad players if they did.
Now, should this be laid out for the Players, or should they discover these as they go?
Simple answer. A new player should be brought up to speed. An experienced player takes advantage of a monsters weaknesses. Why should'nt a monster take advantage of a characters weakness? Espescially an intelligent monster.
Going along with your last paragraph, should the viciousness of the GM depend upon the experiance of the players?
I am currently playing in a game with a first-time tabletop game player. They picked a wizard for the flavor and are not advanced enough to really exploit monster weaknesses or min/max.
If I were the GM, I would worry about targeting this particular player because it might drive them away from the game. On the other hand, running into these situations helps the player become a better player.
|
|
When people say that I need to talk to my players ahead of time for these things is like I need to seek their approval and that's not the case. I'm sure they wouldn't like it if I told them that they couldn't target the enemies mounts because they would be bad players if they did.
You need their approval as much as they need yours, else the group falls apart.
But if you don't care about them leaving then there is no problem treating them that way.
The fireball example of above isn't a good one. If the cavalier is riding his mount, and he's the target of the spellcaster, then of course the mount is going to have to save versus fireball. Same for a druid's animal companion.
Now, if several magic missiles and scorching rays are aimed at the mount...
We really don't have time to be moderating argumentative and combative threads like this, and it's not going anywhere good, fast. Feel free to discuss this topic in a different thread, but keep the fighty bits out. Thread locked.