| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OMG.
I've actually found myself in agreement with Shallowsoul across large sections of this thread.
"What the gods have brought together, let no mortal put a-SUNDER."
Whoo-hoo, sorry about the pun.
OK, no I'm not.
:)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
KC I think we will have to agree to disagree. Going through all the work to make a character background that revolves around a weapon to have it broken within the first 10 minutes of the game just not what I consider fun. I guess for me as a DM use the combat manuever just not for every single situation imo. I think I'm too leninet as a DM. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Who is saying it has to be sundered in the first 10 minutes ( although, really, is there some grace period I didn't hear about at the PF GM's union meeting or something)? Who is saying it has to be used in every single situation? Nobody.
I'm actually on your side of the fence on this. I like consequences and a little pain and suffering in my games. At the same time, I'm not going to say derogatory things about people who don't like that stuff in their games, or say they are playing the game wrong.
I agree. If people like a game a certain way, that's fine. No sense in telling them it's 'wrong'.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can I just also say that books are written with their endings already known and never change no matter how many times you read them.
Pathfinder/D&D revolves around the roll of the dice, books and novels do not. There was never ever a chance in hell that Drizzt was going to lose his scimitars on the 93rd reading of "The Thousand Orcs". It is fine to create character based on having a specific weapon but unfortunately, you don't get the protection that a character from a certain novel may get and it's not wrong if a DM doesn't cater to that. Now if he agrees to it then that's a whole different story which would be agreed upon from the beginning.
Let's say for instance, I invite you over to play in my game. I tell you that I am running a sandbox style game and I leave it at that. Now you decide that you are going to create your character based on a certain weapon, like Elric for instance. During the course of the game, that weapon get's sundered by a Fire Giant and you throw an absolute fit because I apparently ignored your characters backstory by destroying your weapon. In the end though, that would be your fault because nothing was ever said about no sundering in the game. You can't come to a table assuming their is no sundering just because you wrote up a background that is trying to essentially make you immune to sundering.
I've always hated the Elric, Drizzt, King Arthur, Thor etc excuses used in D&D/Pathfinder.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could throw 16 Great Wyrm Red Dragons at your 1st level party if I wanted to and it be 100% legal, but why would I.
So why do you think I am going to just start sundering everything your character has just because?
Like others have said before, if sundering is a valid tactic in a certain situation then there is nothing wrong with using it. If you step up with this glorious, ancient, bad ass looking weapon and you smack the crap out of that ogre with it, don't be surprised when he tries to destroy that powerful thing that just hurt him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, you can object to losing something to sunder, but there are a lot worse things that can happen in this game. Level drain, every piece of metal (and all the gold) eaten by rust monsters, poisoned to 1 con, stun/hold person juggled, caught in black tentacles and slowly killed, eaten by a monster, spat out and then critted while trying to get up.
I love this game btw.
|
|
Ever since I came to these forums I have seen a few things that are assumed is supposed to happen in games when it comes to players.
1: Sundering is by social contract only.
2: Counting ammo is optional.
3: Encumbrance is only optional.
4: Prepared spellcasters, such as Wizards, don't write out their spell lists each day and tick them off after they have been cast.
Games seem to attract cheaters. Pen dice and paper, com, console or a friendly game of cards, it doesn't matter, they arrive.
There will always be someone who thinks everyone else is an idiot, and they can disrespect the rules of the game, that the annoying rules don't apply to them.
I think we are in a bitter pow wow here.
I just finished Rivers Run Red today, and there was a monster that had Improved Sunder. However, it never got a chance to use it since it was an Animal and our Ranger managed to crit on her Wild Empathy check so the encounter was resolved peacefully. And there's still no rule saying that I have to use a certain rule just because it's there. If there was, nobody would ever want to play a Paladin or Cleric.
Is there a rule saying you can crit on a Wild Empathy check?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
KC I think we will have to agree to disagree. Going through all the work to make a character background that revolves around a weapon to have it broken within the first 10 minutes of the game just not what I consider fun. I guess for me as a DM use the combat manuever just not for every single situation imo. I think I'm too leninet as a DM. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Why is everything always assumed to be the extreme with you?
DM's "always" sundering "every chance they get" or breaking your stuff "within the first 10 minutes"?
Or "a DM ask me to make a character background then ignores it"
Or, best yet, "Seems less like a thread on discussing whether Sunder should be used or not and more a echo chamber style thread. Where DM should use it all the time and players who say anything about it are suffering from player entitlement."
Once again, bud, NOBODY is arguing for this extreme. NOBODY.
You're do much better to actually respond to statements people make, instead of extremes that NOBODY but you mentioned. Further, you'd do well to stop playing the martyr when someone points out your inane arguments citing extreme examples that nobody advocated for.
|
Ever since I came to these forums I have seen a few things that are assumed is supposed to happen in games when it comes to players.
1: Sundering is by social contract only.
2: Counting ammo is optional.
3: Encumbrance is only optional.
4: Prepared spellcasters, such as Wizards, don't write out their spell lists each day and tick them off after they have been cast.
Beyond Sundering which has been discussed in this thread. I have yet to see any of 2,3 and 4 appear in any post in this forum. Maybe you go into more threads than I do and maybe 2,3 and 4 have not really happened. I have yet to see anyone on these boards saying that counting ammo is optional. Or that encumbrance is. Same thing with number 4. So unless you can link to some threads stop with the hyperbole.
The only reason we don't worry about 3 is that our sorcerer can muscle 2 tons on his back, no magic involved.
|
|
The only reason we don't worry about 3 is that our sorcerer can muscle 2 tons on his back, no magic involved.
Must have permanent Enlarge cast on him then. Or Ant Haul. Did some research beyond a few threads where the some posters mentions that in their game no one keep track of ammo or encumberance. Still see no sign of 2,3, or 4 anywhere.
|
|
KC I think we will have to agree to disagree. Going through all the work to make a character background that revolves around a weapon to have it broken within the first 10 minutes of the game just not what I consider fun. I guess for me as a DM use the combat manuever just not for every single situation imo. I think I'm too leninet as a DM. Which is not necessarily a bad thing.Why is everything always assumed to be the extreme with you?
DM's "always" sundering "every chance they get" or breaking your stuff "within the first 10 minutes"?
Or "a DM ask me to make a character background then ignores it"
Or, best yet, "Seems less like a thread on discussing whether Sunder should be used or not and more a echo chamber style thread. Where DM should use it all the time and players who say anything about it are suffering from player entitlement."
Once again, bud, NOBODY is arguing for this extreme. NOBODY.
You're do much better to actually respond to statements people make, instead of extremes that NOBODY but you mentioned. Further, you'd do well to stop playing the martyr when someone points out your inane arguments citing extreme examples that nobody advocated for.
Brian, you are absolutely correct.
Memorax, what you are doing is using nothing but "what if's" to justify your argument and that's not the way to do it.
After having read over your various posts, I can honestly say that you are the type of player that would not be playing with a DM that did crazy things like sundering everyone's equipment anyway so I don't understand why you continue to use those extreme examples. If a DM is going to consistently sunder your equipment then I'm pretty damn sure he/she is also doing other crazy things as well which in turn would cause you to not play with that DM anyway.
|
|
Beyond Sundering which has been discussed in this thread. I have yet to see any of 2,3 and 4 appear in any post in this forum. Maybe you go into more threads than I do and maybe 2,3 and 4 have not really happened. I have yet to see anyone on these boards saying that counting ammo is optional. Or that encumbrance is. Same thing with number 4. So unless you can link to some threads stop with the hyperbole.Ever since I came to these forums I have seen a few things that are assumed is supposed to happen in games when it comes to players.
1: Sundering is by social contract only.
2: Counting ammo is optional.
3: Encumbrance is only optional.
4: Prepared spellcasters, such as Wizards, don't write out their spell lists each day and tick them off after they have been cast.
To be perfectly honest, it's this forum, Wizards, and Enworld that have a good many people that say WTF when I mention ammo counting.
I use that as an example because there are a certain group of people that obviously go through the books and purposefully leave out certain things that would inconvenience them and they then assume that "all" games are supposed to be played that way.
|
|
After having read over your various posts, I can honestly say that you are the type of player that would not be playing with a DM that did crazy things like sundering everyone's equipment anyway so I don't understand why you continue to use those extreme examples. If a DM is going to consistently sunder your equipment then I'm pretty damn sure he/she is also doing other crazy things as well which in turn would cause you to not play with that DM anyway.
So just by reading a few posts on this board your qualified to know what I would do without even meeting me in person. A honest to goodness post whisperer who knew.. How about playing with me first before making comments about the way I play the game and about me personally.
I'm all for sundering. I just refuse to do it on a item that cannot be replaced or repaired. Just because the rules say I'm allowed to as a DM. Nor is that a bad thing or encouraging player entitlement. I have a different style of dming as do you. We are not going to come to a total agreement on the sunder issue.
To be perfectly honest, it's this forum, Wizards, and Enworld that have a good many people that say WTF when I mention ammo counting.
Whatever forum it's still making a blanket statement that is imo kind of insulting to the entire forum. Sure no one poster was named yet your saying that people on these forums cheat. Not a good thing imo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After having read over your various posts, I can honestly say that you are the type of player that would not be playing with a DM that did crazy things like sundering everyone's equipment anyway so I don't understand why you continue to use those extreme examples. If a DM is going to consistently sunder your equipment then I'm pretty damn sure he/she is also doing other crazy things as well which in turn would cause you to not play with that DM anyway.So just by reading a few posts on this board your qualified to know what I would do without even meeting me in person. A honest to goodness post whisperer who knew.. How about playing with me first before making comments about the way I play the game and about me personally.
I'm all for sundering. I just refuse to do it on a item that cannot be replaced or repaired. Just because the rules say I'm allowed to as a DM. Nor is that a bad thing or encouraging player entitlement. I have a different style of dming as do you. We are not going to come to a total agreement on the sunder issue.
To be perfectly honest, it's this forum, Wizards, and Enworld that have a good many people that say WTF when I mention ammo counting.
Whatever forum it's still making a blanket statement that is imo kind of insulting to the entire forum. Sure no one poster was named yet your saying that people on these forums cheat. Not a good thing imo.
Am I wrong?
You may put in your head in the sand but I don't. There are people on these forums and all the others that do cheat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever forum it's still making a blanket statement that is imo kind of insulting to the entire forum. Sure no one poster was named yet your saying that people on these forums cheat. Not a good thing imo.
It's not even necessarily cheating. A lot of people argue about how the game is played from the filter of the house rules they play with - which typically include getting rid of inconveniences for players and PCs. In 1e, one of the big rules frequently dispensed with is training costs and you see plenty of people talking about 1e's treasure hauls with no reference to spending on training. It's just that the way they play is the way they play and they debate and argue based on their experiences - not necessarily the rules. That's fine if they include their particular house rule caveats, but many don't do that.
|
|
Am I wrong?
You may put in your head in the sand but I don't. There are people on these forums and all the others that do cheat.
People do cheat beyond just in rpgs. Unless you have proof though imo it's just bad form to paint a entire board as a potential bunch of cheaters. I get it your passionate about the game. All I'm saying is that you might want to recheck the post you plain to submit on the fourm. That advice applies to everyone including me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, 3.5 Loyalist, do you mean that those who disagree with you, for example on this thread, are cheaters ?
Because reading your most recent posts, it really sounds like it.
I am sorry that telling you that I do not share the same feeling you do against a player who dared being angry at the GM only ends up in my posts being ridiculed and aspersions cast in my general direction (as well as that of other posters who disagreed with you).
If you only want vindication that your opinion is the right and proper one (see the original post), please let it be known from the start, so that people who do not see things your way will not waste their time trying to explain their point of view, especially to end up being called cheaters.
|
|
People do cheat beyond just in rpgs. Unless you have proof though imo it's just bad form to paint a entire board as a potential bunch of cheaters. I get it your passionate about the game. All I'm saying is that you might want to recheck the post you plain to submit on the fourm. That advice applies to everyone including me.
Am I wrong?
You may put in your head in the sand but I don't. There are people on these forums and all the others that do cheat.
You still haven't answered my first question.
I'm talking about RPGs, not cheating in general. If you are the DM then you can do what ever you you but the player doesn't have that luxury.
We are talking about the default game people, houserules can't really be argued.
|
|
Shallowsoul, 3.5 Loyalist, do you mean that those who disagree with you, for example on this thread, are cheaters ?
Because reading your most recent posts, it really sounds like it.
I am sorry that telling you that I do not share the same feeling you do against a player who dared being angry at the GM only ends up in my posts being ridiculed and aspersions cast in my general direction (as well as that of other posters who disagreed with you).
If you only want vindication that your opinion is the right and proper one (see the original post), please let it be known from the start, so that people who do not see things your way will not waste their time trying to explain their point of view, especially to end up being called cheaters.
The answer is in the post above this one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You still haven't answered my first question.
Yes I have. You don't like my answer not my problem.
I'm talking about RPGs, not cheating in general. If you are the DM then you can do what ever you you but the player doesn't have that luxury.
I am not going to get drawn back into that old argument again. Was this ever really about Sunder or just a attempt to restart your old "DM is god" style thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, 3.5 Loyalist, do you mean that those who disagree with you, for example on this thread, are cheaters ?Because reading your most recent posts, it really sounds like it.
I am sorry that telling you that I do not share the same feeling you do against a player who dared being angry at the GM only ends up in my posts being ridiculed and aspersions cast in my general direction (as well as that of other posters who disagreed with you).
Not so much cheaters so much dredging up a old argument under a new thread title. The usual "DM is god and players can't disagree or argue with a DM because of it. If you do your suffering from players entitlement and possibly cheaters". Not to say some players don't suffer from entitlement or cheat. In some cases they do. Seen it both as a player and a DM. Notice though how it's gone from actually talking about sundering yes and no and whather it was fair and unfair to the player. To how much power a DM should have vs players. It's classic Shallowsoul imo.
If you only want vindication that your opinion is the right and proper one (see the original post), please let it be known from the start, so that people who do not see things your way will not waste their time trying to explain their point of view, especially to end up being called cheaters.
Well not the first time a poster has done something like this on the boards. Won't be the last time.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not so much cheaters so much dredging up a old argument under a new thread title. The usual "DM is god and players can't disagree or argue with a DM because of it. If you do your suffering from players entitlement".
This didn't happen until you and Icyshadow showed up, trying to equate a single example of a weapon being sundered to "all DM's who sunder only ever sunder and sunder everything again and again and again and DM's are horrible people who do nothing but try to screw over the players and ignore the backstory of untouchable weapons that should be shielded from anything ever happening to them!"
See, I can play your game! Fun, right?
No, not really.
It's tired. Put it to bed, both of you.
Well not the first time a poster has done something like this on the boards.
Nope, one just needs to look at your post history.
|
|
You still haven't answered my first question.
Yes I have. You don't like my answer not my problem.
I am not going to get drawn back into that old argument again. Was this ever really about Sunder or just a attempt to restart your old "DM is god" style thread.
I'm talking about RPGs, not cheating in general. If you are the DM then you can do what ever you you but the player doesn't have that luxury.
Dodging the question isn't answering it. Do you play with DMs who engage these extreme instances that you use for your arguments?
This has to do with sundering and any other rule that some players have taken upon themselves to turn into something optional. You come off as sundering needs to be agreed upon by everyone at the start of each game.
Do you feel the same about coup de grace?
@Brian Harris
I never spoke about untouchable weapons or backstory, and I presented my arguments without baseless accusations.
Consider your post flagged. And really, as long as the game is fun you are doing it right, that's how Pathfinder is supposed to be.
As for that silly little attempt at an insult you had earlier, the player rolled a 20 on the Wild Empathy check, hence me using the term crit on that topic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dodging the question isn't answering it. Do you play with DMs who engage these extreme instances that you use for your arguments?
Says the guy who dismissed my actual real life scenario in a previous thread and claimed his own personally tailored hypothetical was more relevant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Consider your post flagged.
Who even says this? You Flag his post, then you respond to it?
The fact is, a lot of this argument seems to be people making massive exaggerations and taking things too seriously. All Shallow said was that he's seen cheaters on the board, and a big fuss arose because of it. Reminds me of election season.
The bare bones of the argument are simple: The GM should not modify the rules to benefit a player because the player made a bad backstory.
If a player who made a bad backstory expects to gain double HP on his weapon-that-his-character-will-dissolve-without, that is entitlement.
Oh, and here's what I really want to know. This argument is based around hypothetical--and rather implausible--situations.
Please provide an example of a PC who actually cannot be played without his weapon. Please, I'm very curious.
If his entire claim to royalty relies on a stupid sword that can be stolen (making it rather shoddy proof in the first place!), maybe he shouldn't be using the sword in combat. Maybe he should be, I dunno, keeping it safe and using a different weapon.
PC needs weapon because he swore an oath to kill somebody with the weapon.
Welp, oaths break. If somebody disintegrated his special sword, it can serve as a valuable lesson to the character: vengeance isn't sacred. Not all bloody quests for justice go exactly as planned. He shouldn't be focusing on revenge, he should be focusing on making sure his target doesn't do any more evil. See? Character development!
PC needs weapon because it's the only thing that can kill a villain.
First off, this should be discussed with the GM first. The GM should be able to nix an otherwise impervious villain if he wants to, because that's kind of a big deal.
And if the sword is the only thing that can kill someone, the sword is probably invulnerable too, so we're back to asking for special treatment because of an already inconvenient backstory! "Hey, GM, mind introducing an unbeatable foe only my PC can kill? Also, mind making my masterwork longsword unbreakable?"
If the sword breaks, the GM can work with you to alter the backstory. Maybe there's another weapon your character didn't know about. Maybe the villain being invulnerable was a myth he allowed to spread.
If you're willing to be as flexible as you're asking the GM to be, it will work.
Actually, I think that last line sums up my entire point nicely.
If you're willing to be as flexible as you're asking the GM to be, it will work.
@Brian Harris
I never spoke about untouchable weapons or backstory, and I presented my arguments without baseless accusations.
Consider your post flagged. And really, as long as the game is fun you are doing it right, that's how Pathfinder is supposed to be.
Flagged? Saltire or Tri-Color?
As far as "doing it right" did I say anything about "doing it wrong" ?? As impossible as it sounds, you're making less sense then memorax typically does.
As for that silly little attempt at an insult you had earlier, the player rolled a 20 on the Wild Empathy check, hence me using the term crit on that topic.
No insult at all. You used a term that has a specific meaning. Last time I checked, you can't crit on a skill check, per the rules. A 20 is not an automatic success on skill checks.
I was curious, hence my question. I'm sorry you used inappropriate game terminology to refer to something.
Consider your post flagged.Who even says this? You Flag his post, then you respond to it?
The fact is, a lot of this argument seems to be people making massive exaggerations and taking things too seriously. All Shallow said was that he's seen cheaters on the board, and a big fuss arose because of it. Reminds me of election season.
The bare bones of the argument are simple: The GM should not modify the rules to benefit a player because the player made a bad backstory.
If a player who made a bad backstory expects to gain double HP on his weapon-that-his-character-will-dissolve-without, that is entitlement.
Oh, and here's what I really want to know. This argument is based around hypothetical--and rather implausible--situations.
Please provide an example of a PC who actually cannot be played without his weapon. Please, I'm very curious.
** spoiler omitted **...
While I'm trying not to take Brian's posts seriously, I will not tolerate his insulting tone in said messages.
As for the bolded part, when was this topic ever about backstories? And what is the definition of a bad backstory, exactly?
I agree that this is mostly exaggerations on both sides, but I can also see what Irontruth and Memorax are trying to say here.
There is a visible DM vs PC debate at the basis of this topic. I won't even bother discussing it, mainly because Shallow's arguments about the player even asking one small thing somehow equating to "player entitlement" reminds me of some bad past experiences concerning the topic. Just so you know, there are limits to what a DM should do (not what he can do at least in theory) and also limits to what a PC can ask for. However, said limitations vary between groups rather heavily.
@ Icyshadow:
The backstory argument is sourced out of Memorax's posting, and it's been going on for pages now.
A working definition for a bad one is that it gets used as justification for demanding special treatment.
Finally, expecting a personal exception to the rules as written is not, in my opinion, a "small thing."
Why should one PC be immune to Sunder? Is it at all fair to the other PCs to grant that immunity? Or does EVERYONE get their personal rules exemption? In what world does a backstory trump the rules?
At some point, you have to look at the absurdity of rules applying "except to X" (and/or X's stuff) and get on with the game.
If that means taking Sunder off the table -- ENTIRELY, NOT on a piece-by-piece basis -- that's fine. Etc., ad. infin.
But expecting to short-circuit the whole process of house-ruling via a character's backstory is (a)ridiculous and (b) bad form.
EDIT
And this isn't a "DM vs. PC" issue: it's a "By the rules is reasonable vs. the rules shouldn't matter if they irk me" issue.
...and when did anyone mention anything about immunity to Sunder or houserules / backstory doing something ridiculous like that?
So far the only houserules I use are making Mysterious Stranger + Pistolero a legal combo, and critical failures needing a confirmation roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and when did anyone mention anything about immunity to Sunder or houserules / backstory doing something ridiculous like that?
So far the only houserules I use are making Mysterious Stranger + Pistolero a legal combo, and critical failures needing a confirmation roll.
Sigh. Maybe go back and read the thread in which you're posting? Just a suggestion.
I did read it, but I don't see how it has any bearing on the actual OP and main topic.
Now would you try not being a jerk while you post a reply? You're being Evil, and not in a cool way.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again I say it depends on the situation. If the pc needs the weapon to prove he is the last in a long line of kings and without it no one beleives him then the DM has imo just screwed the player over. Espcially if the pc back story is centered around the pc actually being the last of a long line of kings.
That's odd.
I don't remember a broken family heirloom preventing Aragorn becoming King of Gondor.
I did read it, but I don't see how it has any bearing on the actual OP and main topic.
Now would you try not being a jerk while you post a reply? You're being Evil, and not in a cool way.
I find your assertion difficult to take at face value, given
Icyshadow wrote:
...and when did anyone mention anything about immunity to Sunder or houserules / backstory doing something ridiculous like that?
Now, I'll grant you that there is little bearing on the topic of the thread, but this issue has been a significant derail for (as mentioned) pages.
To sum up, there has been quite a lot of arguing that PCs are justified at being pissed-off if a weapon (or whatever) written into their backstory gets Sundered (or lost, or stolen, whatever).
So I find it hard to believe you've been reading -- or at least, paying attention to what's been written -- when you have to ask when anyone mentioned the Sunder-immunity backstory link.
You're right, I was more than a little snarky at you; my apologies. I was frustrated by what I took as disingenuous obtuseness, when it could just be you missed a couple of points. I'll try to be more polite.
Again I say it depends on the situation. If the pc needs the weapon to prove he is the last in a long line of kings and without it no one beleives him then the DM has imo just screwed the player over. Espcially if the pc back story is centered around the pc actually being the last of a long line of kings.That's odd.
I don't remember a broken family heirloom preventing Aragorn becoming King of Gondor.
That's because he got it fixed before he went on to claim his throne.
:)
...by this point, I am not even sure what the two sides are even arguing.
Both sides want Sunders to be limited, but methods and points still differ strongly.
I did read it, but I don't see how it has any bearing on the actual OP and main topic.
Now would you try not being a jerk while you post a reply? You're being Evil, and not in a cool way.
I thought you were opposed to insulting tones in messages? Pot, meet kettle?
And I thought you could tell the difference between snark and a genuine insult.
Why would you think that? It's quite clear that people can't...