|
It depends on the situation. If it just a run of the mill weapon without any attachement than I agree that it's the player acting entitled. If the whole purpose of character something along the lines of finding a family heirloom and the player goes out of his way to protect his weapon and be careful with the weapon. Then the DM is imo being unfair. Espcially if it's one of a kind unique weapon that can't be duplicated. A little of topic yet a DM is not god. A player cna and should respectfully let a DM know when he is unhappy. Not throwing dice flipping table etc. Nothing wrong with being unhappy about what happens to a character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Ahem*
I am right. Bruunwald is wrong.
This is a fact.
Nothing can persuade me otherwise, because I am right and he is completely and utterly incorrect.
It may be so that a statement like this is unconstructive. But in this case, it is simply true. There is no point in being constructive, because the correct answer has already been found. I am right, and he is not.
I would ask you all not to complicate this, but I'm sure you will. Like sheep running from a shepherd, you cannot see that I am only trying to explain what is obvious only to me.
I will not bother to argue. The sheep will come to see reason in time.
Until then, I will depart. My people need me.
Fortunately, he was quite alright, since nobody here cares about continuity in stupid passive aggressive tangents.
Moving on.
It was more okay to die than to lose his sword.Yes. In life, many people feel it is better to start over with a new thing, than to carry on with something they consider sullied or ruined.
The player probably had a very definite idea of his character in his mind, and in this case, that included the sword.
I bet you have also, at some point in your life, felt like something was ruined for you, for whatever reason. Hopefully, when it happened to you, nobody went online to a popular forum and made light of it and tried to gather consensus as to how big a dummy you were.
Bad GM move. Not in using a tactic. Tactics are just tools. But in not knowing his players, and not understand the depth of connection this player had with the image of his character, or understanding the player's nature, he has revealed that not a lot of thought goes into his style. Part of being a GM is knowing your players, and knowing who can take what kind and what level of intrusion into their own self-image and own world concept.
I am right.
You all will rage at me. It will be like wind howling at the mountain. I will still be right.
Guy has a right to be upset, to a certain degree. OP is not a hero for broadcasting it here; he ought to be helping the group work it out if it means so much to him. GM is a tactic monkey but a bad manager of people.
I.
Am.
Right.Live with it.
This is the funniest post in the whole thread. Maybe the funniest I've read this month.
My original response was pretty much exactly yours, Psychic. Then I realized I wasn't sure if he was joking, and I didn't want to seem insulting. So I posted a patronizing parody instead.
>_>
<_<
Kobold logic: Never use a hammer when something of similar size will do exactly the same thing.
Kobolds don't like hammers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So let me get the gist here...
Sunder is 'unfair' and should never be used because it puts the character at a disadvantage even though it is a temporary issue and 'fixable'. That pretty much opens the door for a player to object to anything that inconveniences the character.
The other thing I'm hearing is - anything that counters the player's 'vision' of how his character should be is also 'unfair' and, I assume, should also be avoided as well.
Right. So a GM pretty much can't use rogues who steal character equipment, anti-magic fields because no player envisions his mage being powerless, no Minor or Major Globes of Invulnerability (same reason), no Stat damage or drain, no use of spells like Feeblemind, no rust monsters, few to no Combat Maneuvers... because no one imagines his heroic character being tripped or pinned, no incorporeal creatures (because they would chop down on that Barbarian's effectiveness), no...
Well, you get the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's why, per player/GM accord, we don't use Sunder in my campaigns. Makes both sides happy.
So let me get the gist here...
Sunder is 'unfair' and should never be used because it puts the character at a disadvantage even though it is a temporary issue and 'fixable'. That pretty much opens the door for a player to object to anything that inconveniences the character.
The other thing I'm hearing is - anything that counters the player's 'vision' of how his character should be is also 'unfair' and, I assume, should also be avoided as well.
Right. So a GM pretty much can't use rogues who steal character equipment, anti-magic fields because no player envisions his mage being powerless, no Minor or Major Globes of Invulnerability (same reason), no Stat damage or drain, no use of spells like Feeblemind, no rust monsters, few to no Combat Maneuvers... because no one imagines his heroic character being tripped or pinned, no incorporeal creatures (because they would chop down on that Barbarian's effectiveness), no...
Well, you get the point.
As a GM, you can do anything. You can make a level 20 rogue to steal everything from the level 3 party. That doesn't mean you should though.
If your players are going to throw tantrums whenever you put a speed bump in their path, and you enjoy pitting them against things harder than speed bumps, there is a disconnect in gaming styles that needs to be smoothed out.
Remember, there is no BADWRONGFUN. Just the goal of having fun.
Some people enjoy their characters being ground into the dirt and having nothing but bad things happen. Others want to see good things happen to them.
So either this player was exposed to a gaming style he doesn't enjoy, or he isn't familiar with it and doesn't understand how it could be turned into something fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. In life, many people feel it is better to start over with a new thing, than to carry on with something they consider sullied or ruined.
The player probably had a very definite idea of his character in his mind, and in this case, that included the sword.
I bet you have also, at some point in your life, felt like something was ruined for you, for whatever reason. Hopefully, when it happened to you, nobody went online to a popular forum and made light of it and tried to gather consensus as to how big a dummy you were.
Bad GM move. Not in using a tactic. Tactics are just tools. But in not knowing his players, and not understand the depth of connection this player had with the image of his character, or understanding the player's nature, he has revealed that not a lot of thought goes into his style. Part of being a GM is knowing your players, and knowing who can take what kind and what level of intrusion into their own self-image and own world concept.
Broken equipment can be repaired, losing your favored sword to a sunder is only a temporary inconvenience and does not at all affect the players vision of his character. The next visit to a town will see the sword back in perfect working order, or even a party wizard with the right spell prepared.
Thing is, in PFRPG almost nothing is permanent, you can lose an arm and have it reconnected or just get a new one on the next temple visit. At a certain level even death is only a fee.
A character is certainly not ruined by any of these.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those nice posts above better illustrate the cheapening of roleplaying than any rant I read before. It seems that characterization is now player's entitlement and that DPR and other mechanical benefits are all that matters.
Another great example of player entitlement. Basically, all you can do is tell him to suck it up and be mature about it.
I hate players who complain or act pissy when bad things happen to them at all.
Right, because GMs show so much mature reactions when you just stroll through their oh-so-precious campaign :-/
Not to mention those special NPC-only houserules that will prevent PCs from likewise sundering a BBEG's weapon and turning what the GM expected to be an epic confrontation into a joke.
|
|
As I said it depends on the context. If it's a easily replaceable weapon then by all means break the pc weapon. If it's one of kind non-replaceable weapon than no a DM should not be targeting the weapon. Since you can't ever get a similar weapon ever again. The first is player entitiement the second is imo the DM being unfair. Espcially when in most cases it's the DM making sure the weapon is one of kind non-replaceable anywhere in th game world. Also remember where here to discuss a thread. not everyone is going to agree on the topic or the op. It's not a echo chamber style thread last time I checked.
If it's not replaceable, destroying it is character-building. I'm not saying you should target the weapon because it's important, but there's no sense in shrinking from it.
I never like how players get annoyed when what happens in the campaign intervenes with their 'plan'. The campaign is supposed to be the reason for the character development. If you get to plan everything that your character goes through, where's the excitement? It's like the GM throwing a fit over a dead would-be recurring villain.
OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
|
|
If it's not replaceable, destroying it is character-building. I'm not saying you should target the weapon because it's important, but there's no sense in shrinking from it.
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. Now if the unique weapon can be repaired through a quest or a couple of quests then that to me is character building.
I never like how players get annoyed when what happens in the campaign intervenes with their 'plan'. The campaign is supposed to be the reason for the character development. If you get to plan everything that your character goes through, where's the excitement? It's like the GM throwing a fit over a dead would-be recurring villain.
What's the point of asking players to write backgrounds for their characters if the DM is not going to take them into account. I'm not saying the DM needs to be a slave to player characters backgrounds. Yet if DM is just going to toss my pc background out the window because it does not mesh well with his campaign then I'm not wasting time writing one up for that particular DM either. Now if a player cries because his standard longsword is broken than imo he is suffering from player entitlement. If the longsword is a family heirloom that proves he is the last in a line of kings the dm sundrrs it and then say "too bad suck it up it's perfectly leagal by the rules." Without giving a pc a change to get the weapon back. Well if I wa the pc I would ask to either rewrite ,y pc backstory. Or just make a graceful exit from the game. Kind of pointless to keep playing a character who origin story involves having a weapon he no longer has access to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, a player who bases his entire character around an item he uses in combat and has plenty of chances to lose is kind of reckless. If he can't play without the item, it's putting all his eggs in one easily broken basket.
I don't wholly disagree with you, but I think making your PC utterly unplayable without a single item is a plain stupid move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of Paizo's adventure paths, there is a place that makes all of your magical items non-magical. Two players in the group were angry about that and, even though the GM flat out told everyone there was a way to get the items magical qualities back, we never saw them again.
I thought is was pretty fun, but then I like certain aspects of the game more than a few of my friends.
|
So let me get the gist here...
Sunder is 'unfair' and should never be used because it puts the character at a disadvantage even though it is a temporary issue and 'fixable'. That pretty much opens the door for a player to object to anything that inconveniences the character.
The other thing I'm hearing is - anything that counters the player's 'vision' of how his character should be is also 'unfair' and, I assume, should also be avoided as well.
Right. So a GM pretty much can't use rogues who steal character equipment, anti-magic fields because no player envisions his mage being powerless, no Minor or Major Globes of Invulnerability (same reason), no Stat damage or drain, no use of spells like Feeblemind, no rust monsters, few to no Combat Maneuvers... because no one imagines his heroic character being tripped or pinned, no incorporeal creatures (because they would chop down on that Barbarian's effectiveness), no...
Well, you get the point.
As a GM, you can do anything. You can make a level 20 rogue to steal everything from the level 3 party. That doesn't mean you should though.
If your players are going to throw tantrums whenever you put a speed bump in their path, and you enjoy pitting them against things harder than speed bumps, there is a disconnect in gaming styles that needs to be smoothed out.
Remember, there is no BADWRONGFUN. Just the goal of having fun.
Some people enjoy their characters being ground into the dirt and having nothing but bad things happen. Others want to see good things happen to them.
So either this player was exposed to a gaming style he doesn't enjoy, or he isn't familiar with it and doesn't understand how it could be turned into something fun.
Unless you go out of your way to change the default of Pathfinder then it is assumed you play by the rules. Playing the default isn't a play style, it's playing the game as it was intended by the designers. Having bad things happen in a game isn't a play style, it's just playing the game. You roll the dice and see what happens, that's how it is. Now removing bad things and ignoring some things because you want only good things to happen to a player character is a type of play style. You are essentially leaving the default rules of the game in order to make it something else. Removing "Sundering" is making a game homebrew, not counting ammunition is homebrew, etc...
If I invite you over for a game Pathfinder and I leave it at that then you need to assume I am playing by the default rules. If I plan on deviating from that route then it is up to me to notify you before hand. If you come to a game assuming I am not going to sunder your weapon, it then gets sundered and you throw a fit then that is 100% your fault.
Also, throwing around the "fun" card can get you thrown out of games and not invited back. Some people's idea of fun is at times to really realistic. If I sunder your weapon you can't give out to me because I ruined your fun, that's a part of the game that you know about and should come to expect. If I told you no sundering and I did it anyway then that's a different story.
|
|
OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
When you play by the rules then you keep everyone on the same playing field. Spouting off about your fun when something bad happens to your character is just a cheap way to get what you want.
Does a magical item's magic come back after the item is fixed? If yes, then sundering a PC's favorite toy might be okay. If not, it's a dick move. Yeah sure, it's a valid tactic from a realistic PoV. Just like a BBEG gathering all his minions into one room and springing a surefire TPK on the party is a realistic and valid tactic from his PoV. Doesn't make it a good DM choice.
I seem to be saying this a lot today, but if I wanted realism, I'd play GURPS.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If yes, then sundering a PC's favorite toy might be okay. If not, it's a dick move. Yeah sure, it's a valid tactic from a
Then why even include these rules at all!?
Oh right, they're for the Game Master to read for S&G's (but never, never to use because if he uses, you know, the actual rules of the game, he get's labeled a dick)...
We might as well all just play Candy Land the RPG (I would suggest Shoots & Ladders the RPG, but having to start back at the beginning again after a bad die roll might be too un-fun)!
[/end sarcasm]
Ugh. If you have to resort to unrealism to avoid a TPK, you're doing something wrong. Or your players are.
So, judging by the exclamation-question marks aimed in my direction, and the accusations of 'doing something wrong,' am I to conclude that a PF mended/reforged item does NOT regain whatever magical properties it had before being sundered?
|
|
To be honest, a player who bases his entire character around an item he uses in combat and has plenty of chances to lose is kind of reckless. If he can't play without the item, it's putting all his eggs in one easily broken basket.
I don't wholly disagree with you, but I think making your PC utterly unplayable without a single item is a plain stupid move.
I have nothing against a pc losing a item. Destroying it completly without being able to get it again. I'm kind of leery of doing that if it's important to the pc backstory. It's hard enough to get players to make backstories and roleplay. That I rather not screw over a player whol does roleplay too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, judging by the exclamation-question marks aimed in my direction, and the accusations of 'doing something wrong,' am I to conclude that a PF mended/reforged item does NOT regain whatever magical properties it had before being sundered?
This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.
Here's the problem, a +2 Longsword has a Caster Level of 6, so you need to be 12th level to repair it and restore it's magical properties.
A +4 sword has a Caster level of 12th, you need to have a caster level of 24th to repair it.
When it comes to magical items, you use the highest caster level of whatever property it has.
So a +2 Sword of Speed has a Caster Level of 6 from the +2 but Speed requires a Caster Level of 7th. So to repair a +2 Sword of Speed, you need to be Caster Level 14th to do so.
A Metropolis sized city (the largest available) has spellcasting services of up to 8th level spells. So you can reasonably find 15th level casters in a Metropolis. Basically, unless your caster level is high enough, you'll have to pay another Caster to repair your magical item, but you can only reliably find repair services of up to 7th level items.
A +2 Sword of Speed could easily be repaired in a Metropolis, but a +3 Sword would be a lot harder to repair. The formula to purchase such a spell is Caster Level * Spell Level * 10 gp. So to pay a 14th level caster to repair your +2 Sword of Speed would cost 280 gp.
My original response was pretty much exactly yours, Psychic. Then I realized I wasn't sure if he was joking, and I didn't want to seem insulting. So I posted a patronizing parody instead.
He talks like that all the time.
I have nothing against a pc losing a item. Destroying it completly without being able to get it again. I'm kind of leery of doing that if it's important to the pc backstory. It's hard enough to get players to make backstories and roleplay. That I rather not screw over a player whol does roleplay too much.
Hey, I agree that permanently destroying something a PC depends upon is a bit much. It's targeting a single player's concept.
Though if the GM makes it clear before characters are created that he won't be pulling any punches, it's probably less of a problem. The villains aren't metagaming, they're taking advantage of a hero's potential for despair at the loss of his little teddy bear/huge magic axe. It's just the GM being ruthless, and the players were warned.
I think we agree.
So, judging by the exclamation-question marks aimed in my direction, and the accusations of 'doing something wrong,' am I to conclude that a PF mended/reforged item does NOT regain whatever magical properties it had before being sundered?This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.
Thanks for the info.
So basically if a PC's favorite toy gets sundered, he has to take it back to town so that Griswold can repair it. So much fuss and hoop-jumping!
Ugh. If you have to resort to unrealism to avoid a TPK, you're doing something wrong. Or your players are.
So when's the last time a party of 1st level PCs strolled into what they thought was a mere goblin den, only to find themselves hopelessly outmatched by some high-CR monster keeping a low profile? 'Cause that happening at least occasionally is realistic. Similarly, at least one Paizo AP begins with a dungeon tomb created by legendary people...and yet all of the hazards and foes within are tailored to the PCs' power level.
Yes, TPKs are avoided by turning to unrealism all the time.
We might as well all just play Candy Land the RPG (I would suggest Shoots & Ladders the RPG, but having to start back at the beginning again after a bad die roll might be too un-fun)!
[/end sarcasm]
Let's leave the hyperbole at the door, shall we?
|
|
Check the sunder rules. Odds are the GM was wrong. Sunder got nerfed hard regarding magic items.Actually, if I recall, Sunder got beefed regarding magic items. It used to be that you couldn't damage an item at all if you didn't have an equivalent enhancement bonus. Now it just improves hardness and HP. Also, in 3.5 you couldn't sunder armor worn by a creature. Now you can break that turtle out of his shell and get to the squishy bits.You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.
If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object's Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition. If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.
I can't find it in the PRD, but it came up in a rules thread a while back.
PG 468 of core
Damaging Magic Weapons: An attacker cannot damage a magic weapon that has an enhancement bonus unless his weapon has at least as high an enhancement bonus as the weapon struck.
EDIT: Apparently this was errataed at some point (just checked). Too bad, I preferred the old rule. Gave the advantage to PCs and fighters, since they generally have the better weapons. And if they didn't they wouldn't mistakenly sunder something nice.
When you play by the rules then you keep everyone on the same playing field. Spouting off about your fun when something bad happens to your character is just a cheap way to get what you want.OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
Are you trying to attack me, because I'm recommending talking to the player and showing how your style of game could also be fun? Because that is what I'm recommending.
I'm assuming all these comments were meant for me since you quoted me.
As a GM, you can do anything. You can make a level 20 rogue to steal everything from the level 3 party. That doesn't mean you should though.
Not sure why you chose to make this comment since I've never suggested, much less said, that a DM should abuse their players in this manner.
If your players are going to throw tantrums whenever you put a speed bump in their path, and you enjoy pitting them against things harder than speed bumps, there is a disconnect in gaming styles that needs to be smoothed out.
Agreed. Personally, I've never encountered the OP's problem at my table because I make a point of discussing/agreeing to the ground rules of the game before play begins.
Remember, there is no BADWRONGFUN. Just the goal of having fun.
I think you are reading something into my quote that wasn't there. I was pointing out the slippery slope those two 'unfair' actions are standing on. I never said people shouldn't play under those 'rules' or that they are 'bad fun'.... Or were you just lecturing in general?
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
I'm not really completely disagreeing with you, either; the value of clear communication is impossible to overestimate, in my opinion.
But, however, comma...
If having an item temporarily put out of commission "removes all fun for the player," the player needs to visit the grip shop and get one. Other than in the manner which ALL the rules are optional, sunder is not an optional rule: it's part of the basic combat structure, like any other maneuver.
For someone to throw a fit over a broken item (weapon or whatever) is, again my opinion, completely unreasonable and entirely immature.
Does it suck to not have your shiniest goody? Sure it does. Can you be mad about it? Sure -- but it's really spoiled-brat behavior to try to make everyone else suffer because your character had a setback, and I don't tend to encourage spoiled-brat behavior at games I'm in, either as a player or a GM.
I guess my main point in all this is the damn thing is FIXABLE. Take a breath and go about fixing it. Don't nerdrage all over the game.
|
|
So, judging by the exclamation-question marks aimed in my direction, and the accusations of 'doing something wrong,' am I to conclude that a PF mended/reforged item does NOT regain whatever magical properties it had before being sundered?This spell functions as mending, except that it repairs 1d6 points of damage per level when cast on a construct creature (maximum 5d6).
Make whole can fix destroyed magic items (at 0 hit points or less), and restores the magic properties of the item if your caster level is at least twice that of the item. Items with charges (such as wands) and single-use items (such as potions and scrolls) cannot be repaired in this way. When make whole is used on a construct creature, the spell bypasses any immunity to magic as if the spell did not allow spell resistance.
Here's the problem, a +2 Longsword has a Caster Level of 6, so you need to be 12th level to repair it and restore it's magical properties.
A +4 sword has a Caster level of 12th, you need to have a caster level of 24th to repair it.
When it comes to magical items, you use the highest caster level of whatever property it has.
So a +2 Sword of Speed has a Caster Level of 6 from the +2 but Speed requires a Caster Level of 7th. So to repair a +2 Sword of Speed, you need to be Caster Level 14th to do so.
A Metropolis sized city (the largest available) has spellcasting services of up to 8th level spells. So you can reasonably find 15th level casters in a Metropolis. Basically, unless your caster level is high enough, you'll have to pay another Caster to repair your magical item, but you can only reliably find repair services of up to 7th level items.
A +2 Sword of Speed could easily be repaired in a Metropolis, but a +3 Sword would be a lot harder to repair. The formula to purchase such a spell is Caster Level * Spell Level * 10 gp. So to pay a 14th level caster to...
That all depends if your DM decides to use the "guidelines" for cities. When I run my games you can't go and look in the DMG and expect to find this level caster that can cast this level spell. You can go into the city and attempt to find what you need but it isn't guaranteed to be there.
|
|
Are you trying to attack me, because I'm recommending talking to the player and showing how your style of game could also be fun? Because that is what I'm recommending.When you play by the rules then you keep everyone on the same playing field. Spouting off about your fun when something bad happens to your character is just a cheap way to get what you want.OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
Not at all, just stating that the "ruins my fun" card can get played a little too often.
|
|
EDIT: Apparently this was errataed at some point (just checked). Too bad, I preferred the old rule. Gave the advantage to PCs and fighters, since they generally have the better weapons. And if they didn't they wouldn't mistakenly sunder something nice.See, I always felt the other way about it - the PC is up against a big-bad weapon-wielding monster, like a death knight or whatever... and can't harm the thing's +3 unholy bastard sword because his +1 adamantine greatsword doesn't hit the benchmark.
The only upside: guarantees that any weapon you want to keep from your enemies is sunder proof, turning sunder into "loot radar".
Then, the rule itself... why is there an increase in hardness and hit points if you need an equivalent or better weapon in the first place?
It was changing numbers without changing the effect, and that's what I like to call wasting time.
Post-errata, however, weapons that can carve through stone, iron, and steel with the same ease that steel cuts through paper (mundane adamantine) no longer stop dead at first sign of enchantment - which really helps my believability of the rules.
I think the logic of the old rule (which I'm keeping) is that the enchantment is what makes it able to cut through stone, iron, etc...and the more enchanted, the more you can cut through.
Most PCs who are focused on weapons are going to have higher enchantments than those they fight, simply because WBL for PC's is much higher. And I am fine with sunder working except against really powerful weapons.
Really don't like the "fix". But my core still says the old way, so I'll just keep it that way.
So when's the last time a party of 1st level PCs strolled into what they thought was a mere goblin den, only to find themselves hopelessly outmatched by some high-CR monster keeping a low profile?** spoiler omitted **
I'm not familiar with that adventure, but I'm guessing that its high-CR low-profile baddie doesn't just TPK the party -- because that would be a dick move, and bad adventure design. Despite being a very realistic possibility.
I am ok with it. Part of the fun really. I would certainly be bummed if I got my item busted, but whatever, in the end it is not a big deal, I will just pick up something else. Though in my games I don't use it until the players open that door.
case in point in one of my PbP a new player joined. Well he had always been in, but had been waiting to be introduced. He burst into a big bad fight. His first move was to attempt to sunder the big bads weapon. He rolled a 9 or something and wasn't even close, but for my money that door is open.
There is a point down the road where some bad guys will be armed with heavy picks...you better believe those are going to be attempting to sunder armor now. Not exclusively, because that is a dick move.
Not at all, just stating that the "ruins my fun" card can get played a little too often.Are you trying to attack me, because I'm recommending talking to the player and showing how your style of game could also be fun? Because that is what I'm recommending.When you play by the rules then you keep everyone on the same playing field. Spouting off about your fun when something bad happens to your character is just a cheap way to get what you want.OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
So when someone says they're not having fun, you'd rather attack them then talk to them and figure out a solution?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So when someone says they're not having fun, you'd rather attack them then talk to them and figure out a solution?Not at all, just stating that the "ruins my fun" card can get played a little too often.Are you trying to attack me, because I'm recommending talking to the player and showing how your style of game could also be fun? Because that is what I'm recommending.When you play by the rules then you keep everyone on the same playing field. Spouting off about your fun when something bad happens to your character is just a cheap way to get what you want.OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
That's not attacking someone, that is playing by the rules.
Sundering is 100% by the rules, it isn't an option, it isn't a guideline, it is a rule of the game just like failing a save against a Finger of Death will kill you. There are some people out there who use the "fun card" to keep bad things from happening to their PC's which is something I don't put up with. If I am running a game and I don't tell you before of any rule changes then you better expect to be playing by the rules in which sunder is a part of.
If I ruin your fun because I did something bad to your PC, with in the rules, then I'm afraid you need to find another game to play in.
In my experience, Sunder tends to end games, while disarming or just outright stealing someone's weapon mid-fight tends to keep them going. I try to avoid using it on either side of the screen. It may be a valid tactic, but something can be a valid tactic and also a dick move- stealing the wizard's spellbook, etc.
So when someone says they're not having fun, you'd rather attack them then talk to them and figure out a solution?Not at all, just stating that the "ruins my fun" card can get played a little too often.Are you trying to attack me, because I'm recommending talking to the player and showing how your style of game could also be fun? Because that is what I'm recommending.When you play by the rules then you keep everyone on the same playing field. Spouting off about your fun when something bad happens to your character is just a cheap way to get what you want.OMG.
In my opinion.
Sunder is perfectly-fair game for the GM.
It isn't even PERMANENT, and cheaper to fix than death (which is also temporary in Pathfinder).
So the big bad barbarian has to be less-than-optimal for a few encounters. Cry me a river.
Weapons (and armor, and wands and spellbooks and etc.) get broken on occasion. Suck it up and move on, get it fixed at the next town. Hell, if it's THAT important, LEAVE THE DUNGEON and go back to town to get it fixed.
But don't approve of a PC whining at a GM for a valid tactical decision on the part of an NPC.
If you were replying directly to me, I'm not completely disagreeing with you.
I'm simply pointing out that if the GM does something that removes all fun for the player, something bad is happening in the game. I'm not saying its the GMs fault, merely that there is a disconnect of expectations and understanding between GM and player and that is the real issue, not sunder.
That's not attacking someone, that is playing by the rules.
Sundering is 100% by the rules, it isn't an option, it isn't a guideline, it is a rule of the game just like failing a save against a Finger of Death will kill you. There are some people out there who use the "fun card" to keep bad things from happening to...
So if someone at your table isn't having fun, you'd rather kick them out than talk them about it.
That's not attacking someone, that is playing by the rules.
Sundering is 100% by the rules, it isn't an option, it isn't a guideline, it is a rule of the game just like failing a save against a Finger of Death will kill you. There are some people out there who use the "fun card" to keep bad things from happening to...
It *IS* an option. The ogre isn't REQUIRED to sunder.
Just like Power Word Kill is a option. Yes, the spell exists but no one hAS to cast it.
It's like CdGing a downed PC. Now sure, by the rules a monster CAN take a extra round and kill a PC he dropped last round. Perfectly legal. Still, it's considered to be a "richard" move by just about everyone.
Lots of things are 100% legal by the rules that in the spirit of good sportsmanship and fun for all shouldn't be done.
I'm not familiar with that adventure, but I'm guessing that its high-CR low-profile baddie doesn't just TPK the party -- because that would be a dick move, and bad adventure design. Despite being a very realistic possibility.So when's the last time a party of 1st level PCs strolled into what they thought was a mere goblin den, only to find themselves hopelessly outmatched by some high-CR monster keeping a low profile?** spoiler omitted **
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not attacking someone, that is playing by the rules.
I'm sure there are some players who play "the fun card" too often, but I've only met one.
What I've seen much more often is players and DMs using game rules without really considering how it affects the campaign and other players. Gamers have an unfortunate habit of assuming that the designers are all-knowing and all-wise, and if they wrote a rule, well by golly it's there to be used whenever I want! It's a game right? And games have rules that are meant to be used! The player version of this attitude results in destructive optimization; the DM version results in callous treatment of the players, which often leaves the DM without a group to DM.
** spoiler omitted **I'm not familiar with that adventure, but I'm guessing that its high-CR low-profile baddie doesn't just TPK the party -- because that would be a dick move, and bad adventure design. Despite being a very realistic possibility.So when's the last time a party of 1st level PCs strolled into what they thought was a mere goblin den, only to find themselves hopelessly outmatched by some high-CR monster keeping a low profile?** spoiler omitted **
I was thinking something more along the lines of a CR 20 dragon or outsider. (CRs are notoriously sketchy, so a CR 7 baddie might be considered beatable in a real meat-grinder adventure.)
Anhow, when the party encounters said baddie, does it just gank them without preamble? Or do they have options? And have you actually played this adventure?