|
He was referring to the fact that you travelled for weeks before reaching your destination, and never saw fit to use your wand. Then, all of a sudden you begin the scenario and you mysteriously know it would be a good idea to use your wand before adventuring further. It is metagamey and I might actually buy a pearl now on my non spellcasters. I never thought to do it that way.wait why not just a wand of mage armorDuration is an hour per level, the wand nets me 1 hour per change.
If the wizard is >5th the pearl lasts alot longer.... and when we get to APL 8 and above it often lasts all day.
I've always kind of had a problem with the Meta-gamey aspect of:
Judge: "you've traveled for 2 weeks getting here, and just before entering town..."
Monk to Wizard: "tap me with my wand of mage armor"ah, ok, I understand why you would use the PoP
but I absolutely disagree once again with the usage of a wand as meta-gameystill that term is bandied about so much that it has essentially become subjective, so to each their own
I absolutely know what he was referring to
againdisagree
|
So question:
Are players supposed to be able to accommodate themselves in every single way, no exceptions, or are they just supposed to have stuff for healing?
I would say yes, to a certain extent. Not only should a fighter have weapons and armor, but he should have a way to bypass DR by a certain level. He should also be able to attack flying creatures, whether by using a ranged weapon or being able to fly himself.
I expect someone in the party to have some way to overcome invisibility and/or effects like blur or displacement. While UMD and a wand of faerie fire (or a druid with it!) are the best, glitterdust (hello bards, wizards/sorcerers and magi) and even bags of powder are helpful!
I personally try to have a way to overcome the most common situations on every character as you never know who you will be sitting with and they may or may not be able to.
|
|
Not to derail, but I've had this questions many times and GMs that I've played with consistently allow it. Is there an official Paizo or PFS stance on whether one provides a Flank bonus when in Total Defense?
Total Defense: You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
Flanking: Only a creature or character that threatens the defender can help an attacker get a flanking bonus.
Attacks of Opportunity: Threatened Squares: You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your turn. Generally, that means everything in all squares adjacent to your space (including diagonally). An enemy that takes certain actions while in a threatened square provokes an attack of opportunity from you. If you're unarmed, you don't normally threaten any squares and thus can't make attacks of opportunity.
The assumption comes from making a connection from being "unable to make attacks of opportunity" to "not threatening those squares."
|
|
Full defense = total defense? If so, I don't think you threaten while doing that.Not to derail, but I've had this questions many times and GMs that I've played with consistently allow it. Is there an official Paizo or PFS stance on whether one provides a Flank bonus when in Total Defense?
Again, apologies for an OT post.
It's implied, but not outright stated, in the definition for Total Defense in the Core Rulebook:
Total Defense
You can defend yourself as a standard action. You get a +4 dodge bonus to your AC for 1 round. Your AC improves at the start of this action. You can't combine total defense with fighting defensively or with the benefit of the Combat Expertise feat. You can't make attacks of opportunity while using total defense.
If you can't take attacks of opportunity, then it's implied that you don't threaten those squares. But again, it doesn't say that outright. I could see both sides of this argument, but if I were GMing, I'd probably rule that you don't threaten in Total Defense, so you don't flank.
That said, I'd suggest that the player attack defensively instead of using Total D, rather than surprising them with "Sorry, you don't flank" on their ally's turn after the fact. If I didn't realize this was their intent until it was too late to change their mind, then I'd probably let it slide for a round and correct them for future rounds. Keeping the game flowing smoothly is more important than making a perfect ruling as a GM, unless a PC death is on the line.
|
|
My personal opinion, with no offense intended to anyone who feels otherwise: one cannot play a game of this sort without metagaming. Metagaming in-character knowledge is not good, but is different from metagaming game mechanics.Ever cast a Will save spell on an ogre because they have poor Will saves? You've metagamed.
Ever avoided casting a Fort spell on a cloud giant because they have huge Fort saves? You've metagamed.
Ever fought an ooze and thought "ooooh, my med BAB character can power attack this one!" because they have no AC, and proceeded to do so? You've metagamed.
I disagree that any of your examples are metagaming. Assuming the PC in question made the proper knowledge roll (or someone else in the party did and told them), then the character would know what techniques work against a particular monster.
Focusing on will save type spell against a dumb ogre? To quote Obi-Wan Kenobi, "The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded."
Avoiding fort save stuff on a cloud giant? "Those types of giants have tough bodies. Better to attack their mind or blast them with elemental energy than try something physical."
Power attacking an ooze because you're not worried about the reduced miss chance? "I've learned this technique of putting more force behind my swing, at the expense of accuracy. But cutting through this ooze seems like cutting through butter, so accuracy isn't really an issue here." That one even works without a knowledge check, because the PC would know that power attack is more useful against enemies that aren't in armor, unless they have a thick hide or dodge really well, which 2 seconds of observation will tell you isn't an issue with an ooze.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you can't take attacks of opportunity, then it's implied that you don't threaten those squares. But again, it doesn't say that outright. I could see both sides of this argument, but if I were GMing, I'd probably rule that you don't threaten in Total Defense, so you don't flank.
So, Fromper, let me double-check: Let's say that your cleric acts in combat, then a ghoul, then my ninja, then a yeti.
Your cleric moves to flank the yeti with my ninja. The ghoul moves past the cleric and triggers your attack of opportunity. (You hit, by the way, killing the ghoul!)
Let's say the cleric doesn't have Combat Reflexes. Having used up your AoO, you are now in the situation that a character who has assumed a Full Defense position would be in. (Can't make (another) AoO.)
Is it your understanding that, when my ninja attacks the yeti, your cleric does not provide flanking?
|
|
No, you clearly still threaten even if you've used all your AoOs for the turn, so you still flank.
But if you're covering yourself, avoiding attacks, and screaming "Not the face!" (the usual RP for using Total Defense), then any enemy will know you can't attack and won't have to cover their rear to protect themselves from you. ie You're not threatening, both in game terms and non-game terms.
Again, it's not really clear, and I can see both sides of the argument. But if we're going to debate this, we really should start a new thread for it instead of derailing this one.
|
ah, ok, I understand why you would use the PoP
but I absolutely disagree once again with the usage of a wand as meta-gameystill that term is bandied about so much that it has essentially become subjective, so to each their own
My personal opinion, with no offense intended to anyone who feels otherwise: one cannot play a game of this sort without metagaming. Metagaming in-character knowledge is not good, but is different from metagaming game mechanics.
Ever cast a Will save spell on an ogre because they have poor Will saves? You've metagamed.
Ever avoided casting a Fort spell on a cloud giant because they have huge Fort saves? You've metagamed.
Ever fought an ooze and thought "ooooh, my med BAB character can power attack this one!" because they have no AC, and proceeded to do so? You've metagamed.
For myself, there is a significant difference between in-character metagaming ("I know where you went last night!"), and game mechanic metagaming (playing your character effectively).
I think the general accepted term for what you are calling 'in character meta-gaming' is 'using knowledge your character would likely know through experience and knowledge of his/her world'. Ogres are notorious for being somewhat dull and easily fooled (i.e. more susceptible to mind controlling magicks) and giants are known to be very hearty (i.e. can shrug off physically debilitating effects more easily than most). The catch comes when there's a disagreement between the player and GM on what a character would know.
That said, these 'fine lines' do not annoy me. What annoys me are the obvious meta-gamers. Even more so when they trot out really terrible rationale on why they aren't meta-gaming. It's called a role-playing game for a reason (rather than a 'tactical miniatures game'). /endrant
|
I think the general accepted term for what you are calling 'in character meta-gaming' is 'using knowledge your character would likely know through experience and knowledge of his/her world'. Ogres are notorious for being somewhat dull and easily fooled (i.e. more susceptible to mind controlling magicks) and giants are known to be very hearty (i.e. can shrug off physically debilitating effects more easily than most). The catch comes when there's a disagreement between the player and GM on what a character would know.
That said, these 'fine lines' do not annoy me. What annoys me are the obvious meta-gamers. Even more so when they trot out really terrible rationale on why they aren't meta-gaming. It's called a role-playing game for a reason (rather than a 'tactical miniatures game'). /endrant
That is all fair position as far as I am concerned. I would only add that I personally view this game as both a role-playing game and a tactical miniatures game in relatively equal portions. I expect that view would change dramatically from individual to individual based upon how they and their group(s) like to enjoy the game, however. And there is nothing wrong with that.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Building on nosig's post...
"Pathfinders! Your mission is to go to Denny's Dungeon, and retrieve the MacGuffin of MacGuffiness. Get to it!"
*party arrives at the entrance of Denny's Dungeon.*
"Wally Wizard, will you hit me with my wand of mage armor before we go in?"
"Sure thing Manny Monk!"
That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
"Ok, on the way to Denny's Dungeon I need a percep-"
"Quick! Wally Wizard hits me with my wand of mage armor!"
That's metagaming.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Building on nosig's post...
"Pathfinders! Your mission is to go to Denny's Dungeon, and retrieve the MacGuffin of MacGuffiness. Get to it!"
*party arrives at the entrance of Denny's Dungeon.*
"Wally Wizard, will you hit me with my wand of mage armor before we go in?"
"Sure thing Manny Monk!"That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
"Ok, on the way to Denny's Dungeon I need a percep-"
"Quick! Wally Wizard hits me with my wand of mage armor!"That's metagaming.
Is a crit in Denny's Dungeon a Grand Slam?
|
|
Building on nosig's post...
"Pathfinders! Your mission is to go to Denny's Dungeon, and retrieve the MacGuffin of MacGuffiness. Get to it!"
*party arrives at the entrance of Denny's Dungeon.*
"Wally Wizard, will you hit me with my wand of mage armor before we go in?"
"Sure thing Manny Monk!"That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
"Ok, on the way to Denny's Dungeon I need a percep-"
"Quick! Wally Wizard hits me with my wand of mage armor!"That's metagaming.
If you want to run out someone's wand of mage armor, just randomly put them on a combat grid every few hours when they travel.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
If you want to run out someone's wand of mage armor, just randomly put them on a combat grid every few hours when they travel.Building on nosig's post...
"Pathfinders! Your mission is to go to Denny's Dungeon, and retrieve the MacGuffin of MacGuffiness. Get to it!"
*party arrives at the entrance of Denny's Dungeon.*
"Wally Wizard, will you hit me with my wand of mage armor before we go in?"
"Sure thing Manny Monk!"That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
"Ok, on the way to Denny's Dungeon I need a percep-"
"Quick! Wally Wizard hits me with my wand of mage armor!"That's metagaming.
I love doing this. There's a particular low level scenario that includes a lot of non-combat locations. I love putting the party on a map for each of them, filling it with other minis, then seeing if I can split them in social situations. Makes people squirm.
|
|
If you want to run out someone's wand of mage armor, just randomly put them on a combat grid every few hours when they travel.Building on nosig's post...
"Pathfinders! Your mission is to go to Denny's Dungeon, and retrieve the MacGuffin of MacGuffiness. Get to it!"
*party arrives at the entrance of Denny's Dungeon.*
"Wally Wizard, will you hit me with my wand of mage armor before we go in?"
"Sure thing Manny Monk!"That's not metagaming, that's tactics.
"Ok, on the way to Denny's Dungeon I need a percep-"
"Quick! Wally Wizard hits me with my wand of mage armor!"That's metagaming.
absolutely
you can certainly do this, but then again, my usage of an MA wand is not predicated on seeing a combat mat being laid down
matthew morris already basically said what I would have anyway in the sense of when I personally would and would not agree that the usage of a MA wand is metagaming
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my honest, n o BS take on the issue.
When a Marine unit is on a patrol, they have a Navy Corpsman with them. The Corpsman is the equivalent of the Cleric in this case, patching up troops who take a round, or who, in general, are finding themselves in need of medical assistance. With that being said, every Marine has on him an IFAK, or Individual First Aid Kit. The purpose of this is to make sure that if Doc gets hit, or to help if more hands are needed. Since Marines get basic first aid instruction in boot camp and during work-ups to deployment, it's a secondary resource so that Doc doesn't have to carry everything with him and bog him down.
Now, consider that in this case, the government (Pathfinder Society) is not issuing things to you. The Cleric is the one buying the items beyond his own healing spells to keep the party going. A single Wand of Cure Light Wounds costs 750 GP, but over time that adds up. Couple that with buying Antitoxin, or potions, or whatever and the Cleric finds himself quickly falling behind in gear, increasing the chance that he dies. Everyone else has +2 items, and the Cleric is sitting there in mithral chain a shield, and a masterwork weapon. Remember, you may not be the only party that the Cleric is running with--such is the way of organized play in any form. You don't know what else he has had to buy for other groups to keep them up.
The same goes with buffs and the like. You should prepare for occasions you don't anticipate happening. A Potion of Fly is good until drunk, so you should have one if you're a melee specialist to help. Don't expect everyone else to waste their resources to make it so you can do your part properly. A team only works when everyone pitches in. Don't be the guy who doesn't show up to help with the group project but expects to get a good grade with the rest of the group.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just played a scenario today where L3 (4?) Barbarian didn't have a CLW wand. Had total PTSD flashback to this thread. I explained to the Rogue (who also didn't have a wand) that it was like going to BYOB party without bringing brews--folks may not initially mind sharing...but after a certain point they'll be pissed you didn't bring your own beer to any of the parties.
|
|
Just played a scenario today where L3 (4?) Barbarian didn't have a CLW wand. Had total PTSD flashback to this thread. I explained to the Rogue (who also didn't have a wand) that it was like going to BYOB party without bringing brews--folks may not initially mind sharing...but after a certain point they'll be pissed you didn't bring your own beer to any of the parties.
Yeah, I don't mind sharing a little bit, especially on level 1s who don't have the resources for their own wand yet. But this was only my 3rd time playing that cleric (he's up to level 3 because of GM credits), and I'm already down to 20 charges on my first wand. I've decided I'm going for a wand of Infernal Healing next - just more healing per gold, if you can afford the time to heal up between fights.
|
|
Just played a scenario today where L3 (4?) Barbarian didn't have a CLW wand. Had total PTSD flashback to this thread. I explained to the Rogue (who also didn't have a wand) that it was like going to BYOB party without bringing brews--folks may not initially mind sharing...but after a certain point they'll be pissed you didn't bring your own beer to any of the parties.
I once had to spend around 30 charges on my wand in a brutal 1-5 because my druid was the only person who had a clw wand in a level 2-4 group. Keep in mind over half the party could use clw wands and I was the lowest level (2) and also the only front liner.....
I about flipped when I realized that in the first fight.
|
I had a situation Saturday, where it was a little different. My wizard did have a Wand of Infernal healing, and I am pretty sure that everyone else had healing.
I kept trying to use my wand on the groups barbarian, but she kept using her CLW wand (she had a level of Bard or something, I believe). Kept telling her it is worth it for me to pay 15gp for her to take 10hp of damage for me. :P
But, that's how it should be, right? People offering to help as they can. That was also an "interesting" group... Wiz 3, Wiz 4, Wiz 5, Druid w/ Tiger 5, and a Barbarian/something 3 (playing up to a 4-5 scenario).
|
|
I have seen two poeple that own the book me and a friend of mine. I am 0/3 of people I met that have the book and use that wand that I have asked if they have that book.
I have and use the book for infernal healing with my magus, so you now have 1/4. :)
And yes, I also know it doesn't heal silver or good aligned damage, nosig. ;)
|
|
I have seen two poeple that own the book me and a friend of mine. I am 0/3 of people I met that have the book and use that wand that I have asked if they have that book.I have and use the book for infernal healing with my magus, so you now have 1/4. :)
And yes, I also know it doesn't heal silver or good aligned damage, nosig. ;)
I am sorry I have not met you yet.
I did not know about silver or good, but I never used the spell.
|
|
My current high level character is a level 9 Hospitlar Paladin. I have found in PFS that my character has a much higher chance of survival if all of my companions are fully healed at all times. Not only do I have a few cure light wands but have eight channels per day an 12 lay on the hands as well as greater mercy and ultimate mercy so I can bring back my companions that have fled this mortal coil. When ever I sign up for a 7-11 tier game at my lodge al the players always ask me to play my Paladin as they like his unselfish ability to heal his comrades in order for everyone to be able to complete their mission.
Everyone should work together to complete the societies great work and pool their resources to do this as it befits not only the society as a whole buts it also benefits each member of the society.
Raphael Hospitlar of Iomadae
|
|
Infernal healing is one of my "Do you have the book" checks. It is so commonly used but I have only seen the book once at any table I have played at. I don't do "book checks" often but I feel that certain commonly used items found only in obscure "non-core" books make for a quick way to enforce it. Another would be spring-loaded wrist sheaths. Everyone loves this 5gp item but how many people own Adventurer's Armory.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Infernal healing is one of my "Do you have the book" checks. It is so commonly used but I have only seen the book once at any table I have played at. I don't do "book checks" often but I feel that certain commonly used items found only in obscure "non-core" books make for a quick way to enforce it. Another would be spring-loaded wrist sheaths. Everyone loves this 5gp item but how many people own Adventurer's Armory.
I own both, but I don't use infernal healing. ISWG is one of the few print books that I own, and it generally ends up in my briefcase for reading when I don't have access to electronics.
|
|
In low level games its not reasonable to expect every or even anyone to have cure light wounds wands when they may not even be able to afford all the basics for there class.
The only time this applies is with a full party of brand new level 1s. Most players in our region buy a CLW wand with their first 2PA earned in their first scenario. Unless they're a ranger, they might buy a composite bow with those two PA or a wand of magic missiles if they are a wizard or sorcerer (but then their SECOND purchase is a wand of CLW after earning their next two PA). So I would argue its pretty reasonable to expect people to have a CLW wand by level 2.
|
|
It is not reasonable to require it however.
In our area, it is expected that you will have some way to provide your own healing. Wands, potions, what have you. While no one would turn a character away for lack of healing, it would be pointed out that they really should pick up a way to heal themselves. Considering how cheap a wand of CLW is, after first level there really is no excuse for not having one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say it's no more reasonable for other players to REQUIRE you to buy ANYTHING than it is to expect other players to expend their resources on you.Part of not expending resources for others is accepting the consequences.
Is the consequence that some deadbeat runs out of hit points and is therefore no longer able to continue demanding that I subsidize his character?