The risks of playing certain classes. Part 2


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Has anyone ever had an experience as a Wizard with a DM who kept trying to steal their Arcane Bond item?


shallowsoul wrote:

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 bad DM 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 bad DM 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.

It is not anymore wrong than going after a familiar. It still might be a bad call depending on the group's playstyle though.


CommandoDude wrote:

Mounts should have more health to make up for their abysmal AC. Seriously, 2d8? That's crap. They should have a full d8 to start at least, with 2d8 average for a light horse and a 3d8 average for a heavy horse, and their level for determining Constitution bonuses should be based on hit dice.

This would make mounts more survivable.

What abysmal AC? Even without magic a animal companion can have an AC in the mid-30s by level 9-10, and AC 40 is in the realm of possibility at that level. Allot of the time the mount companion is the thing in the party with the best AC.


Korpen wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Mounts should have more health to make up for their abysmal AC. Seriously, 2d8? That's crap. They should have a full d8 to start at least, with 2d8 average for a light horse and a 3d8 average for a heavy horse, and their level for determining Constitution bonuses should be based on hit dice.

This would make mounts more survivable.

What abysmal AC? Even without magic a animal companion can have an AC in the mid-30s by level 9-10, and AC 40 is in the realm of possibility at that level. Allot of the time the mount companion is the thing in the party with the best AC.

Maybe he was talking about a regular, non-companion mount?


To me baddies targetting the characters power sources or mounts or companions, or what have you is not an every day thing, and mostly depends on the bad guys in question. If the PC's have made a reputation then more people will know about them, and the more that see them fighting learn thier tactics. If one PC makes a habit of performing lots of ride by attacks and being nearly untouchable while on his mount, smart bad guys wanting to engage the party will try to neutralize the threat. Same with a very powerful wizard who seems to be a lynchpin in the parties tactics. The latter will take a more devious and resourceful bad guy or group to realize and accomplish, and depending on how well outfitted the cavalier has his mount, it might be a pointless endeavor to try and kill said horse as well.

Key point being that it shouldn't be every group of random bandits that know everything about the party and counter/screw over the entire party.

Asta
PSY


Except for Goblins. They'll probally go for the horse every time, although maybe at range. =)

Quote:
Goblin hatred runs deep, and few things inspire their wrath more than gnomes (who have long fought against goblins), horses (who frighten goblins tremendously), and regular dogs (whom goblins regard as pale imitations of goblin dogs).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adoke wrote:
Except for Goblins. They'll probally go for the horse every time, although maybe at range. =)

Want to keep a couple of goblins busy? Spam them with summoned Riding Dogs...

As for 'going for the mount / the familiar / the coup-de-grace'... I prefer to play the players' opposition realistically, and in character.

The battle hardened veteran unit will employ radically different tactics than a horde of orcs does.

A random bandit will not pause for slitting a downed enemy's throat if someone else is still attacking him (even if I, as GM know that said bandit would survive the AoO), while a hired assassin might, and a raving madman who is on a personal vendetta agains said downed enemy will.

If you play the encounters realistically, taking into account knowledge, personality, goals and morale of the opponents, the chance of reasonably being accused of making a dick move should be reasonably slim.

Simply taking the mathematically optimum choice, on the other hand, will lead to 'dick move' accusations. This is not a computer game we are playing.

Liberty's Edge

Adoke wrote:
Except for Goblins. They'll probally go for the horse every time, although maybe at range. =)

See, this I'm cool with. They're Goblins, it's a horse, of course they should all go to kill it.

If they still all go for the mount when it's a Beast Rider with a Tiger mount...then we're getting a lot sketchier.


(post deleted... I hit reply instead of edit)


shallowsoul wrote:

Someone mentioned that a DM is essentially being a bad DM 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...

Wha... ? Who said that ? That's actually an excellent strategy.

However, as a DM, I would actually roll a die to see what an enemy targets, just to offset my own strategy, because sometimes, a dumb monster wouldn't act as smart as a DM. Basically, low INT would target the rider, high INT would target the horse and mid INT would target either, but with a die roll.

If you guys looking for risks, I can't think of any bigger one than playing a fighter and having his gear rusted by a rust monster. Then again, getting Improved Unarmed Strike and, if available, Superior Unarmed Strike can prepare you for such a calamity.

Liberty's Edge

JiCi wrote:


Wha... ? Who said that ?

Nobody. shallowsoul is referring to something I said, and utterly misinterpreting it. As I discuss in an earlier post in this very thread (and also the one preceding it). Just to be clear.


JiCi wrote:

Basically, low INT would target the rider, high INT would target the horse and mid INT would target either, but with a die roll.

Honestly, I disagree that low intelligence enemies would target the rider. The horse is a bigger target in easier reach, so low-intelligence creatures are more likely to take a swing at that - by which I mean "animals and monstrous brutes", things in the maybe 6 or lower range. (Although thinking about it, that's me assuming that the horse gives the height advantage as it tends to in the real world - against an ogre, the human is closer to shoulder height so he becomes the natural target again.) I'd say it's the 7-11ish "low to average" range where they're smart enough to know that the guy on top is the dangerous part but not necessarily smart enough to immediately realize that cutting the horse out from under him will give him serious problems, depending on their experience and inclination. Above that, they're smart enough to realize that, but may also be smart enough to realize that a paladin's mount (for example) can take more effort than it's worth, so at higher intelligence ranges clever strategy and available information really cloud the waters on general rules like that.

Dark Archive

Please please please attack my Cavaliers horse.

He has a cranked ride skill and Mounted combat.

Do it.

Silver Crusade

TarkXT wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Korpen wrote:
This is really no different then a GM going to of his way to coup-de-grace cohorts (and PCs) in the middle of the fight just to get rid of them.
Just to be clear, you're not entirely against bad guys finishing fallen good guys in battle, right? Because in a world where one turn later that fallen good guy could be right back on his feet at full offensive capability thanks to the party healer, that's a legitimate tactic for a smart foe who knows there's a healer in the mix.

And a bloody nuisance for the player whose character you straight up murdered.

As a GM I really don't want to deal with the hurt feelings and wasted time of a player trying to rebuild a character or familiar or cohort.

Let's cut to the chase. Each of these things requires an investment of time on part of the player. Investment in writing, investment in book keeping, and investment in reading.

This investment is what attaches players to their characters and to those aspects of that character.

This actually is a good thing to me since I tend to run character driven games where much of the plot is determined by the actions of the characters.

You see I understand the investment that players have with their characters and understand that it's an immense nuisance to have to make a new one up particularly with the demands I make in detailing characterization and history to bring said character to life.

This does not mean I softball my players. And I think my players would agree that any softballing on my part is an illusion leading to the acid filled pit. The thing is I find practical ways of negating advantages and resources without resorting to making the player waste an hour of his time writing a new character.

Let's take for example the mounted character. "Kill the horse" feels like the mantra of a GM who is lazy with his encounter design. Why aren't your archers using low cover such as a wall or a log? Why aren't they disrupting charge lanes or flying out of reach...

You cannot use the investment argument to shield your character from harm. If you want to go that route then the DM should be able to shield his stuff more because his investment is going to be a hell of a lot more than yours.

That is not the way RPG's work. Just because you come up with the coolest concept and it takes you an hour to write everything down doesn't mean you are going to get any sort of special protection. If that's how you play then I can promise you that you wouldn't be welcomed at a lot of tables.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's all about running a balanced game. Enemies should do what makes the most sense to them at the time. Note, however, that what makes sense to them at the time may not be the optimal thing to do according to the mechanics.

Silver Crusade

CommandoDude wrote:

Mounts should have more health to make up for their abysmal AC. Seriously, 2d8? That's crap. They should have a full d8 to start at least, with 2d8 average for a light horse and a 3d8 average for a heavy horse, and their level for determining Constitution bonuses should be based on hit dice.

This would make mounts more survivable.

Mounted Combat + Ride = Makes mount more survivable.

Silver Crusade

It's like I said in the other thread.

Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.

In situations like this I hate the following excuses:

1: It ruins my fun.
2: You will lose players.
3: DM is a control freak.
4: Ruins my verisimilitude.
5: It took me X hours to come up with this character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There's a fine line between what makes sense tactically and metagaming.

If a baddie tries to hit a horse in combat, that's not an issue. If he fails and keeps trying over and over again instead of hitting the guy on the mount that's actually doing the damage, that leans more towards the metagaming side. If every single guy you fight all go after the horse every single time, that's pretty much metagaming.

Same goes for spellbooks. If suddenly every Tom, Dick, and Harry is trying to steal and burn your spellbook, the player is going to get ticked. There's a time and a place for these things and while yes, the player does have a weakness that CAN be exploited doesn't mean that it has to be every single encounter. Or else you start getting into an arms race that no one is going to enjoy.

And really, if one person keeps trying to sunder my weapon or stab my horse over and over again without success, I'd have to question it's intelligence.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
shallowsoul wrote:

It's like I said in the other thread.

Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.

In situations like this I hate the following excuses:

1: It ruins my fun.
2: You will lose players.
3: DM is a control freak.
4: Ruins my verisimilitude.
5: It took me X hours to come up with this character.

Is there a point to making this thread? You started out with statements and I did not see a single point of question or asking for comment.

Did you do this just to announce that you are the kind of DM who will make as their first priority in EVERY encounter to..

1. Target the Witch's Familiar

2. Target the Wizard's Spellbook

3. Target the Wizard's Familliar if a Witch familliar is not available and you've already burnt the Wizard's spellbook.

4. Target the Cavalier's or Paladin's Horse, the Druid's animal companion.

5. Target the player's mounts,

....or in short target everything but the players themselves, just because it's there and a major character investment?

A DM who wants to screw their players around has all the advantages, they've got knowledge of the NPC's and knowledge of what the players do.

Sure many of these moves may seem the most "logical" at least on paper. They also make for very gamist, and not very interesting combats as opposed to simple dick moves. But if that's the way you run your games and your players put up with it fine. But if you expected to get some form of salute or award for your GM style, you wasted your time in posting this thread.


shallowsoul wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Mounts should have more health to make up for their abysmal AC. Seriously, 2d8? That's crap. They should have a full d8 to start at least, with 2d8 average for a light horse and a 3d8 average for a heavy horse, and their level for determining Constitution bonuses should be based on hit dice.

This would make mounts more survivable.

Mounted Combat + Ride = Makes mount more survivable.

If you fail even one of those checks your mount will probably be taken out since they have so few hitpoints, if not outright killed at the mid levels.

Grand Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:

It's like I said in the other thread.

Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.

You keep talking about these people, but I never see any evidence of them.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What do you mean 'these people'? :p

Dark Archive

Is it just me or does going after a wizard's spellbook not make much sense in combat. I mean, yes it cripples the wizard after that, but not until much after the combat is over and the one who got the spellbook is dead, and if the wizard has his say, in the most agonizing way possible. Having someone deal with the spellbook out of combat in some way I can see, but while you are fighting going after what is killing you seems like a much better idea.


SaddestPanda wrote:
Is it just me or does going after a wizard's spellbook not make much sense in combat. I mean, yes it cripples the wizard after that, but not until much after the combat is over and the one who got the spellbook is dead, and if the wizard has his say, in the most agonizing way possible. Having someone deal with the spellbook out of combat in some way I can see, but while you are fighting going after what is killing you seems like a much better idea.

Not much tactical sense, no. But then some spells (e.g. Cup of Ashes), abilities, and/or tactics are much better suited toward revenge. It's much more fun to have the previously foiled BBEG send some semicompetent minion, such as a sneaky type, to stalk the PCs and try to pilfer the spellbook anyway. (The goal of which isn't to succeed but to introduce some variety and keep the PCs on their toes).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

It's like I said in the other thread.

Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.

You keep talking about these people, but I never see any evidence of them.

They are all over the message board complaining about classes being overpowered, then immediately saying DMs are mean when the weaknesses of classes are pointed out.

Grand Lodge

That's pretty generic.

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's pretty generic.

The wizard threads are the worst, with the whole "What do you mean no 15 minute encounter day or safe areas for me to stop mid-combat to memorize new spells." mixed with the "My spellbook is off limits no matter what!"

Cleric and buff caster spells are second worst IMHO as they always assume the enemy stands back while you cast all your buff spells before combat.

I could link to the specific threads, but you've been in most of them.

It only kind of bothers me when people go munchkin, it really bothers me when people go cheese, complain the game is broken because the went cheese, then throw fits when DMs don't let them cheese.

Grand Lodge

I haven't had any trouble buffing with my fighter/cleric in mdt's game.

Edit: Character sheet.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's why I always cast Sanctuary first if I can :) It's good to have that little buffer.

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:

It's like I said in the other thread.

Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.

In situations like this I hate the following excuses:

1: It ruins my fun.
2: You will lose players.
3: DM is a control freak.
4: Ruins my verisimilitude.
5: It took me X hours to come up with this character.

Is there a point to making this thread? You started out with statements and I did not see a single point of question or asking for comment.

Did you do this just to announce that you are the kind of DM who will make as their first priority in EVERY encounter to..

1. Target the Witch's Familiar

2. Target the Wizard's Spellbook

3. Target the Wizard's Familliar if a Witch familliar is not available and you've already burnt the Wizard's spellbook.

4. Target the Cavalier's or Paladin's Horse, the Druid's animal companion.

5. Target the player's mounts,

....or in short target everything but the players themselves, just because it's there and a major character investment?

A DM who wants to screw their players around has all the advantages, they've got knowledge of the NPC's and knowledge of what the players do.

Sure many of these moves may seem the most "logical" at least on paper. They also make for very gamist, and not very interesting combats as opposed to simple dick moves. But if that's the way you run your games and your players put up with it fine. But if you expected to get some form of salute or award for your GM style, you wasted your time in posting this thread.

Do I need to remind you that this is a discussion forum?

Grand Lodge

He's asking if you actually meant to discuss anything, and if so, what.


shallowsoul wrote:
You cannot use the investment argument to shield your character from harm. If you want to go that route then the DM should be able to shield his stuff more because his investment is going to be a hell of a lot more than yours.

They already do. Or have you ever had a BBEG laugh at the players and make a clever escape? Never put a BBEG in a situation where out an out direct conflict would have had a negative impact on the players? These are pretty common tropes in fiction of all kinds so I fail to see how that's even an argument.

The other point to make is that part of a GM's job is to present those throwaway characters whose lives are relatively unimportant to the grand scehme of the game and whose deaths work more towards the end goal; fun.

We GM's devote a lot of time to throwaway characters and temporary establishments and sometimes we are rewarded with player's who spend an equal amount of time investing into interesting characterization and detailed back stories which we can use to further that story along.

And in a sense a GM makes the kinds of players he wants to play with. If you are ruthless to your player's characters you can expect to build ruthless characters you have to deal with. Do you honestly believe people are going to continue playing classes with such exploits when classes exist that are just as powerful and have few to no such exploits?

But let's continue on to the next quote.

Quote:


It's like I said in the other thread.

Some people want all the advantages of a class but not the disadvantages.

Sounds like you're just lazy at encounter design. It really does.

There are weaknesses to every class. And you can exploit most of these without ever killing a single horse, burning a spellbook, or otherwise ripping up character sheets.

Since we're on cavaliers let's talk about the weaknesses of a cavalier.

1. Hindering terrain.
2. Close Quarters.
3. Anything that can stop a charge.
4. Long encounter days that exhaust challenges/tactician/limited order abilities.
5. Flying Creatures. (Unless cavalier has flying mount)
6. Invisible creatures.
7. Large crowds.
8. Archers.
9. Archers on high ground.
10. Caltrops.

All of these things nullify a mounted character without ever targeting the horse once. Sure, I'll target the horse if it simply makes sense (hungry Bullete's, Griffons, etc.) but I find that most of the time the bad guys aren't so much afraid of the cavalier as what he can do if given a charge lane. Not unlike the wizard not being so scary once Senor Lichbreaker has him in his patented Lower Jaw Spinebreaker.

Quote:


In situations like this I hate the following excuses:

1: It ruins my fun.
2: You will lose players.
3: DM is a control freak.
4: Ruins my verisimilitude.
5: It took me X hours to come up with this character.

Sorry, we're people not gaming systems. If you hate that people will say they don't like it because it ruins their fun (you know the goal of the game?) then perhaps it may be best you stop playing with people.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
He's asking if you actually meant to discuss anything, and if so, what.

Pfffttt a logical discussion with a sound and rational resolution on the internet?

Surely you must jest.

Silver Crusade

CommandoDude wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
CommandoDude wrote:

Mounts should have more health to make up for their abysmal AC. Seriously, 2d8? That's crap. They should have a full d8 to start at least, with 2d8 average for a light horse and a 3d8 average for a heavy horse, and their level for determining Constitution bonuses should be based on hit dice.

This would make mounts more survivable.

Mounted Combat + Ride = Makes mount more survivable.
If you fail even one of those checks your mount will probably be taken out since they have so few hitpoints, if not outright killed at the mid levels.

You do understand that a Cavalier's mount works exactly like a Druid's Animal Companion?

Also, a Cavalier doesn't take any armor check penalties to his/her ride check.

A horse has 2d8 + 6 hp at first level which means the horse has more hitpoints than the PC's. A Cavalier's horse begins play with light armor proficiency and has two more feats to choose from on top of that.

The horse is not as fragile as you make it out to be.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, attacking the spellbook never made sense to me. First of all, how does the person know you are a wizard and not, say, a sorcerer? A wizard only needs his spell book to prepare spells, not as a focus to cast them. As far as any muggle is concerned, a sorcerer and a wizard are the same thing. Taking their spellbook in combat is worthless for that combat and only useful for the next day (assuming they've prepared all of their slots). I can't expect every random schmuck to rummage through my knapsack in the middle of combat to get my spellbook.

Again, there's nothing wrong with going for the jugular. But every combat is much too far on the extreme. Believe me, when you start sundering a spellbook every combat or disintegrating the cavalier's horse for the third time that session, your players will stop caring about the game and their characters will go from being living, breathing entities to just unenjoyable loose ends. I find that it is much better to mix up difficulties, having a good amount of semi-diffcult fights with some easy and challenging fights peppered in and a very hard miniboss and boss. They tend to last longer and feel much more fun. And when I do make it a hard encounter, I don't go for cheap scares like sundering spellbooks.

Silver Crusade

TarkXT wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
You cannot use the investment argument to shield your character from harm. If you want to go that route then the DM should be able to shield his stuff more because his investment is going to be a hell of a lot more than yours.

They already do. Or have you ever had a BBEG laugh at the players and make a clever escape? Never put a BBEG in a situation where out an out direct conflict would have had a negative impact on the players? These are pretty common tropes in fiction of all kinds so I fail to see how that's even an argument.

The other point to make is that part of a GM's job is to present those throwaway characters whose lives are relatively unimportant to the grand scehme of the game and whose deaths work more towards the end goal; fun.

We GM's devote a lot of time to throwaway characters and temporary establishments and sometimes we are rewarded with player's who spend an equal amount of time investing into interesting characterization and detailed back stories which we can use to further that story along.

And in a sense a GM makes the kinds of players he wants to play with. If you are ruthless to your player's characters you can expect to build ruthless characters you have to deal with. Do you honestly believe people are going to continue playing classes with such exploits when classes exist that are just as powerful and have few to no such exploits?

Once again, no matter how you spin it, character investment gives you nothing extra. Now if your DM did then that's his personal preference.

Even in the DM section I have never seen anything that says you should be lenient on the PC's because of the investment in their characters.

Silver Crusade

Odraude wrote:

Honestly, attacking the spellbook never made sense to me. First of all, how does the person know you are a wizard and not, say, a sorcerer? A wizard only needs his spell book to prepare spells, not as a focus to cast them. As far as any muggle is concerned, a sorcerer and a wizard are the same thing. Taking their spellbook in combat is worthless for that combat and only useful for the next day (assuming they've prepared all of their slots). I can't expect every random schmuck to rummage through my knapsack in the middle of combat to get my spellbook.

Again, there's nothing wrong with going for the jugular. But every combat is much too far on the extreme. Believe me, when you start sundering a spellbook every combat or disintegrating the cavalier's horse for the third time that session, your players will stop caring about the game and their characters will go from being living, breathing entities to just unenjoyable loose ends. I find that it is much better to mix up difficulties, having a good amount of semi-diffcult fights with some easy and challenging fights peppered in and a very hard miniboss and boss. They tend to last longer and feel much more fun. And when I do make it a hard encounter, I don't go for cheap scares like sundering spellbooks.

I always make my PC's roll for anything like scrolls and books if they are hit by spells like fireball or a fire breath weapon. Now if their scrolls are in a case then they are protected but a book just being in your bag doesn't protect it. I might give the save a bonus but it still can be effected.

Scarab Sages

So far IMC, our cavalier's horse tends to survive better than the rest of the party that is not the fighter or cavalier. The only time it was ever really in danger was around 5th level when two trolls flanked the horse (the cavalier in my party tends to use it to flank with when in melee rather than do ride by's) and got some rends in.

Three characters have died, but so far the druid's boar AC who gets used as a secondary tank, and the cavalier's mount rarely get their lives seriously threatened.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

And that is fair in my opinion. It's an AoE ability so it makes sense, plus it's not like someone can spam fireball or a dragon's breath over and over again. It make much more sense than a fighter that keeps trying to stab the wizard's book instead of... well, the wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
I always make my PC's roll for anything like scrolls and books if they are hit by spells like fireball or a fire breath weapon. Now if their scrolls are in a case then they are protected but a book just being in your bag doesn't protect it. I might give the save a bonus but it still can be effected.
PRD wrote:

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.


shallowsoul wrote:


Once again, no matter how you spin it, character investment gives you nothing extra. Now if your DM did then that's his personal preference.

Even in the DM section I have never seen anything that says you should be lenient on the PC's because of the investment in their characters.

Thank you for reminding me why I am lucky to have gamed with the people I have.

After all I appreciate the investment every player and GM puts into my games. You apparently do not care about such investments and seeing as your only argument is "the book doesn't say I have to". I'm happy to have never gamed with you. I am afraid my joy for the game would have been far diminished at this point had I had to repeatedly make characters I did not want to due to petty exploitation of class weaknesses rather than producing encounters that challenged the group as a whole. It's for that reason I got out of a lot of competitive games from the start.

Silver Crusade

TarkXT wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:


Once again, no matter how you spin it, character investment gives you nothing extra. Now if your DM did then that's his personal preference.

Even in the DM section I have never seen anything that says you should be lenient on the PC's because of the investment in their characters.

Thank you for reminding me why I am lucky to have gamed with the people I have.

After all I appreciate the investment every player and GM puts into my games. You apparently do not care about such investments and seeing as your only argument is "the book doesn't say I have to". I'm happy to have never gamed with you. I am afraid my joy for the game would have been far diminished at this point had I had to repeatedly make characters I did not want to due to petty exploitation of class weaknesses rather than producing encounters that challenged the group as a whole. It's for that reason I got out of a lot of competitive games from the start.

Investment should never be a form of "plot armor".

The reason for this is the fact that not every player has the know how when it comes to character investment. Why should I show you any favoritism because you know how to write a 5 page background while the other guy has a few sentences?

Silver Crusade

Joana wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I always make my PC's roll for anything like scrolls and books if they are hit by spells like fireball or a fire breath weapon. Now if their scrolls are in a case then they are protected but a book just being in your bag doesn't protect it. I might give the save a bonus but it still can be effected.
PRD wrote:

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that
detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per
caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates
almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and
height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead
streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a
material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed
range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact
results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead
through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you
must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the
bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects
in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as
lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze.
If the damage caused to an
interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may
continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops
at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

AKA Spellbooks and Scrolls.

Liberty's Edge

Deadmanwalking wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
Someone mentioned that a DM is essentially being a bad DM if they target a Cavalier's horse during battle.

And one more time (reposted from the other thread, because I want to make this perfectly clear):

Deadmanwalking wrote:

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.

That's really all I've got to say on the subject. And, for the record, I meant offensively badass when saying the horse'd be less so than the actual PCs.

Why? Killing the mount will often mean (both in RL and in game) that you decrease the efficiency of the rider by a great amount. Unless your goal was to take the mount to sell or ransom it it was standard tactic for infantry to kill the cavalry mounts during medieval times.

Scarab Sages

I hear what you are saying TarkXT and agree in theory with what you are saying. However, my experience has been the opposite, in that as soon as the players learn you are putting on the kid gloves to help them "protect their investment", they start exploiting this GM kindness. Soon they start taking bigger and bigger risks, assured that nothing too bad will happen to them, and those games soon break down since there is little risk of death. Plus, I have never had a game where more than one or two players put that sort of investment in. Unless you favor those few players, that sort of game play becomes difficult to manage.

One time in particular an experienced barbarian player in one of my games deliberately brought extra fights to the party when he discovered I was slightly "sheltering" two brand new players who knew nothing about RPGs. I think this sort of investment protection only works well if you manage to keep it from the players, but then again that is just my personal experience.


shallowsoul wrote:

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that
detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per
caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates
almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and
height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead
streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a
material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed
range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact
results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead
through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you
must “hit” the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the
bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects
in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as
lead, gold, copper, silver
, and bronze. If the damage caused to an
interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may
continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops
at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

Or do you make your PCs roll to see if their clothes catch fire and all their coins melt into a molten mass in their pouch, as well?


FSM, shallowsoul. You ignore the rules for attended objects vs. spells and instead fry every combustible item in a character's inventory that isn't in a fireproof case every time they're hit with a fireball?

Scarab Sages

Diego Rossi wrote:
Why? Killing the mount will often mean (both in RL and in game) that you decrease the efficiency of the rider by a great amount. Unless your goal was to take the mount to sell or ransom it it was standard tactic for infantry to kill the cavalry mounts during medieval times.

I agree. If you are a warrior in Golarion and you see or hear about what happens when a mounted lance wielder hits something for 100+ damage with spirited charge, you are probably going to go for his horse. Just because this might be considered dishonorably usually isn't goint to stop an evil foe.

Dark Archive

shallowsoul wrote:
Joana wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I always make my PC's roll for anything like scrolls and books if they are hit by spells like fireball or a fire breath weapon. Now if their scrolls are in a case then they are protected but a book just being in your bag doesn't protect it. I might give the save a bonus but it still can be effected.
PRD wrote:

Items Surviving after a Saving Throw: Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.

If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.

Fireball

School evocation [fire]; Level sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M (a ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Area 20-ft.-radius spread
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Reflex half; Spell Resistance yes
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that
detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per
caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates
almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and
height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead
streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a
material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed
range, blossoms into the fireball at that...

You forgot a sentence in there I went ahead and bolded it for you. Note the unattended part that is kinda important.

Scarab Sages

I thought you only rolled saves for items in AoE's if their owner failed their save? Or is that just old school memories over-writing the RAW?

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The risks of playing certain classes. Part 2 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.