|
This sounds like two separate issues. I won't address the more looming one (the social issue of people apparently not getting along at the table), but I will address the mechanical one.
Assuming the GM sundered the magical sword correctly (which actually amazes me, given that a magical sword +1 has 20 HP and a Hardness of 10), the player can just have a Wizard spam Make Whole on the sword to repair it completely.
The cost is 480 GP to restore a Magic Weapon's magical properties after it has been destroyed. The reason for this is a Caster at Level 24 must cast Make Whole. Thus, the cost is 24 (CL) * 2 (Spell Level) * 10 GP = 480 GP.
After casting Make Whole, the item is restored from 0 HP by 1d4 HP.
You can then pay a Wizard to spam Mending on the weapon to heal the item 1d4 HP each time, for 60 GP per casting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I have. It let us get close, then attacked the person that was closest: our archer. We ended up running and locking it up so it couldn't come after us.
Nah, bra, You're good. I just ccame back to a game were my barbarian got bushwhacked by a coupleof were-bats while I was away and came back into the game with a warhammer, shield, and a pair of pants. That's it. Then to boot he was being chased by gnolls with composite longbows. He got reduced to 4 HP before the encounter ended three rounds later due to meeting up with his party. I nearly came back just to be killed. If that would have happened,then so be it. It was a great scene.
|
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.Wouldn't you rather figure this out before you waste your time playing with them?
Well when I say I am running a game of Pathfinder and I leave it at that then you should assume that I am running the game by the rules.
This sounds like two separate issues. I won't address the more looming one (the social issue of people apparently not getting along at the table), but I will address the mechanical one.
Assuming the GM sundered the magical sword correctly (which actually amazes me, given that a magical sword +1 has 20 HP and a Hardness of 10), the player can just have a Wizard spam Make Whole on the sword to repair it completely.
The cost is 480 GP to restore a Magic Weapon's magical properties after it has been destroyed. The reason for this is a Caster at Level 24 must cast Make Whole. Thus, the cost is 24 (CL) * 2 (Spell Level) * 10 GP = 480 GP.
After casting Make Whole, the item is restored from 0 HP by 1d4 HP.
You can then pay a Wizard to spam Mending on the weapon to heal the item 1d4 HP each time, for 60 GP per casting.
The caster level of a +1 Sword is only CL 3rd. To repair a +1 Sword, you only need a 6th level caster. So the actual price is 120 gp, not 480.
Also, unlike Forgotten Realms, not everyone and their grandmother is an archmage in Golarion/Pathfinder. Especially since the level cap is 20, you won't be finding any level 24 Casters just floating around and desiring nothing more than to repair your swords.
If you went by the book, a Metropolis has 8th level spellcasting services available. So the highest level caster you're likely to find in a Metropolis (the largest city size) is 15th. That means items of up to CL 7th can be repaired in a Metropolis. CL 8, and you're SOL.
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.
Sure those things can happen. But is is just a game and in most games, a bit of adversity often comes along. While we do want GMs to know their tables of players, we should also expect players to handle setbacks gracefully. After all, while a powerful magic sword may represent a big investment for the PC, it's a trivial one for the player. The DM didn't actually burn down the player's house by Sunderland his PCs favorite sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically the BBEG, ogre fighter, sundered the barbarians magical greatsword and now the player is pissed to the point of rage quitting. We all explained that sundering is a legit rule but he wouldn't here of it. He's angry at the DM for pulling a "cheap" move as he calls it. The DM did explain that the game will be played by the rules as written but the player just won't listen.
Ever have this in your game?
Any player who wants all options available to use tactically against enemies in the game but cries when a tactic is used against him is a petulant self absorbed child. As long as the tactic was used and applied fairly they have NOTHING to complain about and the GM is not a dick.
Tired of listing to players cry about what's fair and not fair. If players only want to get beat on their own terms then that's not really fair either that's just childish.
|
Well when I say I am running a game of Pathfinder and I leave it at that then you should assume that I am running the game by the rules.So you would rather spend four hours wasting each others time instead of figuring out beforehand that your playstyles don't match?
I think where a lot of the concern comes up isn't home game, but not being able to expand home game into public without running into conflicting playstyle.
Hence the wars for establishing the norm.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people complain that an imaginary monster broke an imaginary sword and now they'll have to spend imaginary money to fix it, then they really need some perspective.
If your signature weapon breaks now you get to explore what your character is like when on the backfoot. When Roy's sword was sundered in Order of the Stick it took the story in a new direction, and Roy made do with a big club. There aren't setbacks in Pathfinder just opportunities. Wolverine had bone claws for a while, Spider-Man has gone entire arcs with broken web-shooters. Heck even Iron Man has just had to rely on wits alone to face his villains. If those characters just started whining that its not fair their villains broke their toys then you would call those characters children, stop reading and rightly so.
Suck it up and remember the heroic part of heroic fantasy doesn't come from being powerful, it comes from being vulnerable.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people complain that an imaginary monster broke an imaginary sword and now they'll have to spend imaginary money to fix it, then they really need some perspective.
If your signature weapon breaks now you get to explore what your character is like when on the backfoot. When Roy's sword was sundered in Order of the Stick it took the story in a new direction, and Roy made do with a big club. There aren't setbacks in Pathfinder just opportunities. Wolverine had bone claws for a while, Spider-Man has gone entire arcs with broken web-shooters. Heck even Iron Man has just had to rely on wits alone to face his villains. If those characters just started whining that its not fair their villains broke their toys then you would call those characters children, stop reading and rightly so.
Suck it up and remember the heroic part of heroic fantasy doesn't come from being powerful, it comes from being vulnerable.
Hell, I know that Peter Parker has, in a de-powered state, pulled on the spandex and gone out to face off against some of his villains. On multiple occasions, even.
|
|
Well when I say I am running a game of Pathfinder and I leave it at that then you should assume that I am running the game by the rules.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.Wouldn't you rather figure this out before you waste your time playing with them?
Are you telling me you don't spent the first four or five sessions going page-by-page through all the rulebooks confirming whether or not each and every rule in the game will apply?
FIRE THE GM!!! FIRE THE GM!!! FIRE THE GM!!! FIRE THE GM!!!
Well when I say I am running a game of Pathfinder and I leave it at that then you should assume that I am running the game by the rules.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.Wouldn't you rather figure this out before you waste your time playing with them?
No ones arguing against that. When a player is surprised by something in game and doesn't enjoy it, I'm just curious why your first impulse is to show them the door instead of having a conversation (outside of the game session).
Well when I say I am running a game of Pathfinder and I leave it at that then you should assume that I am running the game by the rules.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.Wouldn't you rather figure this out before you waste your time playing with them?
To add, when you say "running a game of pathfinder" and leave it at that, that is extremely vague. I've been playing for 20 years and I've seen dozens of DMs running the same edition of a game, all thinking they're running RAI but playing very differently.
And don't think for a second I'm not willing to do nasty things, within the rules, to players in my games. I'm probably one of a handful of people on these boards who think John Wick is interesting and has anything of value to say about GMing. So in no way am I advocating whiny players running a game, which is what you seem to often think I'm suggesting. I do acknowledge that people have different play styles and I accommodate that both in how I talk about and how I play games.
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!Gamers also have the unfortunate habits of assuming the designers didn't even think about what their rules do when used, and of interpreting everything relating to gaming in terms of black & white extremes rather than the full spectrum of possibilities between.
For example, sundering a PC's weapon is neither always a dick move nor always completely cool.
It depends on how frequently the tactic is used, and whether the group feels that carrying a back-up weapon is smart and part of immersion, so annoying to track that all of the good qualities of doing so should be tossed out and the downsides made irrelevant by changes in use of the rules, or something somewhere between.
Yup. You can tell the ones who see the game in black and white by the repetitive statements they make when they feel defensive.
People seem to forget the absolute most important rule of the entire game, which is to have fun.
If sundering a PC's weapon ruins the fun for him/her (and the other players), then you are failing as a DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I DM I apply the golden rule : what is good for the goose is good for the gander
If my players use some technics , I feel free to use the same .
If they then protest, I do not feel guilty
This. I allow pretty much everything in my games - including a lot of 3.5 stuff - on the prerequisite that if the PCs can have access to it, so can the bad guys.
Thus far the only thing my groups have universally agreed to ban is the 20-20-20-ded houserule.
|
|
People seem to forget the absolute most important rule of the entire game, which is to have fun.
If sundering a PC's weapon ruins the fun for him/her (and the other players), then you are failing as a DM.
That is not wholly correct.
If we are going to go this route then I guess we need to go through each and every rule to find but if it ruins your fun or not.
Sunder is the same as any other standard rule out there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Players have this weird sense of entitlement. It's like they assume that because they are the protagonists of the story, they get a certain degree of "plot immunity," and/or that things that affect npc's in a bad way don't apply to them.
I ran a game once, where the players were sent after a warring Orc clan called the "Blade-Breaker Clan," who were known for destroying everything in sight, often times the spoils of their victims, and my players still were shocked and surprised when one of the orcs attempted a sunder against them... I facepalmed pretty hard.
People seem to forget the absolute most important rule of the entire game, which is to have fun.
If sundering a PC's weapon ruins the fun for him/her (and the other players), then you are failing as a DM.
That is not wholly correct.
If we are going to go this route then I guess we need to go through each and every rule to find but if it ruins your fun or not.
Sunder is the same as any other standard rule out there.
Error message on the bolded part. Every player on the table should be having fun. Also, why do you think houserules exist? And while Josh brings a good point, I think sundering enemies should be a thing informed of beforehand (same as with the very high risk of death instead of just a normal risk of dying, risky themes etc.) because otherwise it will usually feel like a surprise stake up the place where the sun doesn't shine.
Hence the wars for establishing the norm.Yes, the mythical 'norm' that has caused arguments for years.Decades.
And PFS is fighting the good fight.
Just wondering how this situation would therefore work in PFS. If a GM sundered a PC's weapon? Would (s)he be able to get someone to cast Mend? Would it cost prestige points?
Would it be magically restored at the end of the session or just crossed off the sheet forever?
Aside: You can run the game by the Rules and have NO magic items for PC's since WBL is a guide-line.
Basically the BBEG, ogre fighter, sundered the barbarians magical greatsword and now the player is pissed to the point of rage quitting. We all explained that sundering is a legit rule but he wouldn't here of it. He's angry at the DM for pulling a "cheap" move as he calls it. The DM did explain that the game will be played by the rules as written but the player just won't listen.
Ever have this in your game?
Yes, this happenned to me when I was 11 and my brother was 8, a pack of rust monsters ate his +5 chainmail and +5 longsword. My brother GMed the next session and he found a new +5 chainmail and +5 longsword. :)
But seriously, does he know that a mere 3rd level spellcaster can reforge a sundered +1 weapon? It's basically no big deal to have weapons sundered (unless it's a +4 weapon or higher), it's an inconvenience. They can be fixed. Tears shouldn't be shed for an inconvenience.
That is all.
Tears shouldn't be shed for an inconvenience.
True Words, indeed.
However...
But seriously, does he know that a mere 3rd level spellcaster can reforge a sundered +1 weapon? It's basically no big deal to have weapons sundered (unless it's a +4 weapon or higher), it's an inconvenience. They can be fixed.
Umm... how do you come to the conclusion of a 'mere 3rd level caster'?
|
|
I think sundering enemies should be a thing informed of beforehand (same as with the very high risk of death instead of just a normal risk of dying, risky themes etc.) because otherwise it will usually feel like a surprise stake up the place where the sun doesn't shine.
Do you give your players a breakdown of ALL your enemies tactics?
I think sundering enemies should be a thing informed of beforehand (same as with the very high risk of death instead of just a normal risk of dying, risky themes etc.) because otherwise it will usually feel like a surprise stake up the place where the sun doesn't shine.Do you give your players a breakdown of ALL your enemies tactics?
If it includes torture, rape or any abuse you should. But is it really too much hassle for a GM to say "Oh, I do sunder armour & weapons on occasion."
Error message on the bolded part. Every player on the table should be having fun.
If we are going to go this route then I guess we need to go through each and every rule to find but if it ruins your fun or not.
In my opinion, the only thing more important than making sure the players are having fun is probably the GM having fun.
GMing is a lot more taxing than playing. Therefore, if the GM isn't having fun, you have a very serious problem.
I think sundering enemies should be a thing informed of beforehand (same as with the very high risk of death instead of just a normal risk of dying, risky themes etc.) because otherwise it will usually feel like a surprise stake up the place where the sun doesn't shine.Do you give your players a breakdown of ALL your enemies tactics?
Referring back to my "Blade-Breaker Clan" example, I allow for Knowledge checks of the enemies in question have some kind of known reputation. This clan, for instance, had become widely known and feared by local communities for their tactics and smashing everything in sight, including smashing their opponents gear in order to weaken and terrorize them.
Had it been some kind of aeons-old, unique creature at the bottom of a forgotten dungeon, then the check would be a LOT higher, if I allowed one at all.
Umm... how do you come to the conclusion of a 'mere 3rd level caster'?
My mistake. A +1 weapon needs caster level 3 to repair, so you need a caster of level 6+ to use "Make Whole" to bring it from destroyed to broken. You can then use a 3rd level caster to cast Mending the rest of the way.
We're still talking about an inconvenience for +1 and +2 weapons, and not a lot of cost.
|
|
...but if the DM never comes out and says "I will never sunder your weapons," then why would the player develop the expectation that it will never happen rather than the expectation that it might happen at some point?
Unspoken table agreement. Maybe the player tried using it and another player reprimanded them for 'starting an arms race'.
I am genuinely curious as to how someone would come to a different expectation.By playing with DMs that don't use those rules....but if the DM never comes out and says "I will never sunder your weapons," then why would the player develop the expectation that it will never happen rather than the expectation that it might happen at some point?
That's what I don't get - how does something not happening in the past despite being listed as possible in the rulebook become a belief that said thing will never happen.
It seems, to me, a similar process to that in which someone begins to believe they will never be wounded while doing something dangerous because they have managed to escape harm thus far... except in that case most people would say "that's what you get for thinking you're invincible," rather than feeling sympathetic.
As a player, I haven't had an enemy sunder one of my weapons in... I don't think ever. None of the GMs I've played with has used it. I used it with one character, but he had an artifact sword that was basically described as the sword that could cut through anything. I haven't used it as a GM either.
So I can understand why another player might be surprised by its use.
|
|
I am genuinely curious as to how someone would come to a different expectation.By playing with DMs that don't use those rules....but if the DM never comes out and says "I will never sunder your weapons," then why would the player develop the expectation that it will never happen rather than the expectation that it might happen at some point?
That's what I don't get - how does something not happening in the past despite being listed as possible in the rulebook become a belief that said thing will never happen.
It seems, to me, a similar process to that in which someone begins to believe they will never be wounded while doing something dangerous because they have managed to escape harm thus far... except in that case most people would say "that's what you get for thinking you're invincible," rather than feeling sympathetic.
As a player, I haven't had an enemy sunder one of my weapons in... I don't think ever. None of the GMs I've played with has used it. I used it with one character, but he had an artifact sword that was basically described as the sword that could cut through anything. I haven't used it as a GM either.
So I can understand why another player might be surprised by its use.
In all my years if gaming, there are a few monsters that I have not been up against, now does the DM need to clear it with me before introducing this particular monster?
|
|
Gamers have an unfortunate habit of assuming that the designers are all-knowing and all-wise...Hang on... are you implying that the designers are not all-knowing and all-wise?
Sometimes I see things that not only make me question their "all-knowing and all-wise" -ness, but also their sanity and basic competence as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to forget the absolute most important rule of the entire game, which is to have fun.
If sundering a PC's weapon ruins the fun for him/her (and the other players), then you are failing as a DM.
This is not a rule. It's a goal.
They aren't the same thing, and sloppy syntax causes all sorts of difficulties.
As for the second part of your statement... I think I've mentioned that if some player's fun is ENTIRELY dependent on a particular piece of gear, they REALLY need to re-think their gaming style.
Furthermore, the reactions described by the OP delineate a childish, unwarrantedly-entitled, bad-at-gaming player. Were I in that GM's shoes, my response to a tantrum of that ilk would be "fine, don't show up next time, have a nice night."
EVEN IF you, as a player, are upset/disappointed by the events that happen in game, that REALLY doesn't make it OK to screw everyone else's enjoyment of the game.
The root of this problem is NOT (imo) with the GM, but with the maturity level of the players with which s/he is saddled.
I also have never played a game which a GM has used sunder against the party. I also have rarely seen a player try to use it. I can totally understand the being upset part. Rage quitting is not the best thing to do, though.
We create these people, we give them a abilities, spells, weapons, hair color, scars, a birthday. We give them family, likes, dislikes, we create someone for them to love, people for them to hate, and we love the character. We love them and we become them. So when a weapon gets sundered, even though that sword belongs to Joe the fighter, it still hurts like it was real. When a character dies, I feel like a piece of me dies. It hurts. That night I'm mad, I have to force myself to cool down and realize its not real. Maybe this guy took longer to do that than the typical person.
I am genuinely curious as to how someone would come to a different expectation.
Maybe you are low-magic campaign and you don't find magic weapons often, maybe you cannot carry spare weapons due to encumberance, maybe your weapon is rare and you have no proficiency in other weapon groups.
Just because there are rules in book doesn't mean that will definitely always be used, they can be an option.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To simplify: that doesn't make any kind of sense. It's almost an implication that if your GM doesn't do something every session then you can expect he won't do it in any session ever... at least, it follows the same line of reasoning.
Since when have players ever made any kind of sense? If you're asking for justification, I'm not giving it. You asked how a person could come to that conclusion. You didn't ask for it to be a sensible conclusion.
As a player, I haven't had an enemy sunder one of my weapons in... I don't think ever. None of the GMs I've played with has used it. I used it with one character, but he had an artifact sword that was basically described as the sword that could cut through anything. I haven't used it as a GM either.
So I can understand why another player might be surprised by its use.
As Irontruth says, people can come to the conclusion. It may not make sense to you, but it does to others.