Contributed about as much as you bringing up spellcasters you've played, in a thread about sundering melee weapons....and the sudden snark that contributed nothing was for what, exactly?
Anyway, I'm surprised nobody's complained about Bull Rush or Awesome Blow yet.
You mentioned backup weapons as a thing related to Sunder.
So, you just admitted that the original derail is totally on you here.
You mentioned two examples of characters that "might" have a backup weapon. I mentioned that even my non-melees carry backups, and an example of why (anti-magic fields).
You mentioned two examples of spellcaster who did not have a need(so far) for backup weapons, because you said you play them smart. I said you were playing them right.
You got miffed because I commended you for making smart choices and not needing a backup. (you totally misread snark)
Now, you're just looking for a reason to bicker.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mentioned backup weapons as a thing related to Sunder.
So, you just admitted that the original derail is totally on you here.
And yet another example of why one can't debate in good faith with you.
I'd say that line applies to you better than to me, Brian.
And Shallow, which post was your point directed at here?
I'd say that line applies to you better than to me, Brian.
And Shallow, which post was your point directed at here?
How did I call foul? I said that I tend to always carry a backup. If you don't carry one, then that's your playstyle choice and YOUR problem when you lose your main weapon.
Blah. You changed your post, now mine just looks silly.
No worries, we saw his specious accusations.
Apology accepted. I will admit I have a fairly sarcastic tone and it gets difficult to distinguish from genuine agreeance. Happens in RL a lot.
At whoever thinks they don't need to a back up because they think they are going to get a safety net from the DM.
And Shallow, which post was your point directed at here?
I am not sure of who (if anyone) claimed as such. My point was that with the touch attack that a Lich gets, the Necromancer will probably not be in much need of a backup weapon. However, I'm pretty sure he will have one anyway, though it's less about being practical and more about fitting the character concept in his case. And yeah, any race that has a Natural Attack or two will technically never need a backup weapon.
I think at this point most of us can agree that Sunder exists in the core rulebook, and should not be over-used. Yes?
That I can agree with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think at this point most of us can agree that Sunder exists in the core rulebook, and should not be over-used. Yes?
I think that's a rather reasonable statement and a rational outlook at the mechanic.
Personally, though, I'd further state that, as Sunder does exist in the Core Rulebook, a DM shouldn't feel s/he needs to disclaimer it's use to the players - in fact, unless a rule is clearly stated as an "optional" rule, it's use should not need to be under disclaimer.
Changing core rules or invoking optional rules? Certainly. But using core rules as written? No way.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
IBTL?
"What's she holding?"
"Nothing, she's casting a spell."
"Ah, FISTICUFFS!"
The moral of the story is: Carry a weapon, kiddos, if for no other reason than to foil untrained grapple attempts.
Except snark.
Sadly, I'll have to disagree. Too much snark gets tiring eventually.
IBTL?
** spoiler omitted **
I think I'm going to borrow this tactic. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think at this point most of us can agree that Sunder exists in the core rulebook, and should not be over-used. Yes?
I disagree. Let's argue for twelve more pages.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Monks.
*hides*
** spoiler omitted **Monks.
*hides*
MONKS SHOULD BE BANNED FROM USING SUNDER. THEY'RE OVERPOWERED AS IT IS.
Oh, fine, I'll play. Sunder should be banned because casters can't have nice things.
;)
It's probably an evil act for paladins, too.
Sunder all the spell components!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course, if the player doesn't roleplay that background, it's equally his fault that he doesn't get the sword restored. If your ancestral weapon gets sundered and you just start looking for a better replacement, something is wrong.
This is the key, and let me expound on it for my philosophy of being a GM/Player.
As a GM, I will alway reward the player who cares with a story they can care about. If you and I work out an elaborate backstory, it is my job to have that backstory become part of the story, regardless of if I am running an AP, module, or homebrew. You took the time and energy to come to me and work it out, the least I can do is work with you to help you create what is in your head, as best can be done in the framework of the game.
But if you don't come to me, or you aren't willing to work out theme and story, I can't know what you want, and so I can't give it to you.
If you have some hierloom that you want to build your character around, you need to have that discussion out of game so the GM can work with you.
I would never sunder a key componet of a players narrative UNLESS it was part of a major story arc that would either improve or replace the item.
But that pretty sword you bought is just a sword you just bought, and the world is a dangerous place.
|
And while I'm not sure 'bad' is the best word, there are backstories that just ain't good ideas. For instance, creating a backstory that requires the GM to make modifications to the rules just so it can work (it was suggested by someone that the GM double a 'key' weapon's Hit Points).
I think it's a bad idea to create any backstory, that goes into any kind of detail regarding what the character will achieve in his future.
It's called backstory for a reason.
You're supposed to look back on it, to see how you got from there, to where you are right now.
The future is the future, and hasn't been mapped out.
The purpose of playing is to find out what the PC can achieve (if anything), or not.
So, here's a thought on the little issue of backstory.
Step One: Character has an elaborate backstory about their destiny to whatever.
Step Two: Character dies at level one. Unsurprisingly, nobody can afford a resurrection.
Step Three: Backstory is ruined.
Way to ignore that player's hard work, GM. ;D
That's why I simply don't write 'destined' PCs.
You're just setting yourself up for a fall, and it will be even more embarrassing, when your PC dies in a ditch, if you introduced them as 'The Chosen One, Seventh Son of A Seventh Son, Bearer of the Birthmark That Only Appears Once In Every Hundred Generations', than if you were playing Baldrick the Unlikely Peasant Hero, who 'got swept up in a story beyond his comprehension, following a misunderstanding on his way to the Turnip Festival'.
|
Exactly. We had the example of a sword that Bob the Just can use to prove he's the rightful king of Thislandia. That's not a good idea, in my opinion. Especially if Bob's player cooked it up without consulting his GM. 'Cos if I'm a GM, and you try to claim a kingdom on the basis of an old sword, and I haven't already agreed to you being the rightful king of Thislandia, then I'm going to have the nobles of Thislandia laugh you out of town. And then lynch you for treason.
I think it's a bad idea to create any backstory, that goes into any kind of detail regarding what the character will achieve in his future.
It's called backstory for a reason.
You're supposed to look back on it, to see how you got from there, to where you are right now.
The future is the future, and hasn't been mapped out.
The purpose of playing is to find out what the PC can achieve (if anything), or not.
I like the approach of making your backstory as you go, but I disagree that making your backstory before you begin is a 'bad idea' or 'wrong'.
Some people like to have a good idea of who they're playing before they set out. Even PCs starting at level one are fairly competent, so it'd make sense that they might not just be former peasants.
I like to make backstories because it's fun, it gives the GM a sizeable inkling of where I'm going and coming from with the character, and I feel my backstories are more cohesive if I don't just make them up as I go along.
But I have made characters whose backstories barely existed until I started playing, and it was plenty enjoyable.
It's just a matter of play style. Neither technique is right or wrong.
That's why I simply don't write 'destined' PCs.
Me neither. Though it's fun to play a character who thinks he's destined. I had a hobgoblin who was perpetually angry because he thought his backstory was to sacrifice his life for a great hero. He hated it, but anybody who tried to argue that his fate wasn't predetermined just got him extra ticked.
|
You have to be very careful when it comes to backstories because some people try and gain advantages through their backstory. That's not what a backstory is for, it's giving a brief synopsis of your character and how he came to be where he is today.
Now if you and your DM sit down and come up with something together then that's fine.
I've had wizard player's try and fit their Grand Archmage Father's spellbook into their backstory. That didn't go over too well.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To make a very very long story short.
You, as a player, don't get to decide whether "Sundering" is used or not, that is entirely up to the DM.
actually they do. Its called firing your butt and finding a new DM.
The game is a social congratct that runs both games. You as the DM can do whatever you want. WE as the PLAYERS can decide whether we want to put up with the attitude above.
|
|
To make a very very long story short.
You, as a player, don't get to decide whether "Sundering" is used or not, that is entirely up to the DM.
actually they do. Its called firing your butt and finding a new DM.
The game is a social congratct that runs both games. You as the DM can do whatever you want. WE as the PLAYERS can decide whether we want to put up with the attitude above.
And then when no DM decides to run for your group because they don't let you do what you want then what happens?
To make a very very long story short.
You, as a player, don't get to decide whether "Sundering" is used or not, that is entirely up to the DM.
actually they do. Its called firing your butt and finding a new DM.
The game is a social congratct that runs both games. You as the DM can do whatever you want. WE as the PLAYERS can decide whether we want to put up with the attitude above.
It's a player-heavy, DM-light world.
Don't let the door hit you in the butt on your way out.
Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.
Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.
Don't need to. The truth is pretty evident.
Plus, my players are rational and mature. :)
Maybe you just don't hang out with enough people. For me:
3 groups
16 people
10 of whom have GMed in 2012 one session or more
14 if you look back as far as 2010
I know some people are intimidated by GMing and it can take a while for that to go away in some groups. There are as many potential GMs as there are players in an area, some of those players just don't realize it yet.
Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.I would say you don't even worry about learning your DM's names because they aren't around long enough for it to matter.
That would be awkward since I was the best man at my current GM's wedding.
Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.Don't need to. The truth is pretty evident.
Plus, my players are rational and mature. :)
Since my group just got a new DM (while already having three), it's a myth around here where I live.
|
|
That would be awkward since I was the best man at my current GM's wedding.Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.I would say you don't even worry about learning your DM's names because they aren't around long enough for it to matter.
I'm happy for you.
Still, playing the old "let us have our way or we kick you out" is bulls*&t.
Unless the rest of your group comes on here to back you up, you only speak for you and nobody else.
Ever thought that maybe it's not the DM?Since my group just got a new DM (while already having three), it's a myth around here where I live.Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.Don't need to. The truth is pretty evident.
Plus, my players are rational and mature. :)
Maybe it's not the DM that does what?
I've seen many an inadequate DM, trust me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would be awkward since I was the best man at my current GM's wedding.Keep perpetuating that myth to keep players in line.I would say you don't even worry about learning your DM's names because they aren't around long enough for it to matter.I'm happy for you.
Still, playing the old "let us have our way or we kick you out" is bulls*&t.
Unless the rest of your group comes on here to back you up, you only speak for you and nobody else.
Nope, but if you run a bad game or don't take input from the players in my group, yeah your game probably isn't going to last long. I don't make ultimatums, or accept them from others whenim just looking to participate in a hobby activity.
Maybe that's what you don't understand about my approach. I don't play childish mind games with my GM or players. You seem to assume that is what I'm doing, but it isn't. I like having reasonable discussions about what works, what doesn't work and why.
If I sundered a players sword and they got upset, I wouldn't kick him out of the game. I would talk to them, try to see their point of view while also expressing mine. I do expect that from my GMs as well.
I'm not sure why you think that is an awful way to run a game.