| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a matter of what kind of game you want to play.
In some games it is totalt unrealistic that no one sedates the skinny dude in the dress and steal his arcana bond and Spell book.
In others that would be considered bad form.
The same goes for using sunder or disintegate on a players new brast plate of command +5.
The game is a story and the GM andre players need to agree on what kind of story it is.
If a story is ment to be Classic fantasy, where the goodguys win in the end and Evil is its own(not very plesant) reward. Then the guy who wanna kill every prisoner and never belive that a bad guy can reform is gonna be out of genre.
Make sure that the players and the GM is on the same page and all will be well.
I've had a number, but I also like naming equipment and putting backstory and the like into it so breaking equipment is a little more brutal than just breaking a +3 sword, though some players just like to treat the flaming sword with a cool name like another +3 sword still...
Also, stapled?
The "Stapling Shot" ability from the 2nd edition Elven Archer Kit. It was especially useful for simultaneously destroying gear and immobilizing a target. You could staple cloaks to horses or peoples feet/boots to the ground. I once even saw a PC staple a Cleric of Banes hand to the Zentarim footsoldier that he was buffing with a held action and a well placed shot.
Good times. :)
Wait wait wait... what's wrong with sunder?
Giving an item the broken condition doesn't destroy it... an evil npc is highly unlikely to keep sundering an already broken item, so the PC has to get it fixed. This is just like taking ability damage, you can use a spell (make whole) or you can go back to town or you can fix it yourself with craft.
The only caveat I would present is to disallow the sundering of items other than held items and armor (because a 125, 000 gp headband still goes poof with less than 10 dmg)
Also, keep in mind that tge sunderer can choose to leave the item at 1 hitpoint, so pcs never have to destroy gear. Similarly, evil npcs might see the value of certain items and choose not to destroy them for the same reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked in a thread if anyone who was using a whip build ever had thier GM sunder the whip, and this is one of the responses I got.
"I've never had a GM who screwed his players over by abusing sunder.
It's just bad form to destroy player's magical weapons."
So is it wrong to uses combat maneuvers against a PC if said maneuver would destroy a players equipment?
No it is not bad form any more the a coup de grace is. The only way something is "bad form" or a "jerk move" is if the social contract of the table basically frowns upon such things, but there are many ways to play the game so almost nothing is a jerk move by default.
Letting real life influence things could be a jerk move because that would be a personal decision, not game based.
I had a dragon steal(disarm) a players main weapon in a fight, so he had to resort to natural attacks. That dragon was smart to do so. Why let that barbarian stab/smash him in the face if he can prevent it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Bad form"? I'd hesitate to go that far, but I'd say it's something you use sparingly.
I have (I think...) a sort of unspoken gentleman's agreement with my current GM, playing a Barbarian (who took Improved Sunder to make Spell Sunder look nice in combat), I won't neuter some of his enemies by breaking all their junk, and he'll avoid doing the same thing to me.
One time I broke this agreement (I was on my last legs after some weird ass Crusader uber Vital Strike Smite b&#$&+*# did 100+ damage to me in one shot), and smashed everything an enemy had to stop him from killing me as easily (except his shield, missed on the darn shield with a 1), and he later had a dragon Yoink! And away with my shiny +4 (equivalent) Adamantine Earthbreaker.
S'all good, but I know I'd be super pissed if it happened more often.
Ignoring the fact that characters kinda rely on gear in this game, it's the most annoying possible thing to have to constantly replace your stuff.
Imagine if someone came up to you every day and took something of yours. Snatched your stapler, or your cutting board, or your laptop...and you couldn't do anything to prevent it, when all's said and done.
Yeah...
Right up there with tossing Dominates at a guy until he rolls a 1 on the save and then orders him to sit in a corner for 3 rounds/over an hour, twiddling his thumbs. *gives wraithstrike the stinkeye*
Oh and here is the player...:)
<evil GM laugh>
Back on topic: I think I have only used Sunder once in my GM career, and I avoid monsters that auto-attack weapons such as the babau. No I am not changing my stance OP. But as you can see from this post we have sort of a social contract. I won't be making anyone feel useless every game. Well I try not to anyway. :)
I don't even see what's so bad about sundering. Yeah, the weapon breaks, but how much is a scroll of Make Whole?
I dont think getting items fixed after combat is the problem. The problem is being useless in combat. Personally I carry 2 or more spell component pouches or holy symbols when I am a player, because I will never know when the GM will sunder those and take away my casting power. Sure those items are cheap, but in the thick of battle I dont want to be twiddling my thumbs. :)
Does that mean I will never destroy a DF? Nope. It just means it will be a very rare thing. So rare I have yet to do it.
edit: Strangely enough it was an official published 3.5 adventure that taught me to use that tactic. I never did get to run the adventure though.
edit 2: As for tripping players I have done that to keep them from the boss guy while the other minions tried to hit their lower AC from being prone.
Crap, I remembered I still forgot to buy an AoMF. =/
Now I'm wondering whether that's a better option than the "Magic Armor of "Not-Dying".
Hmmmm...
Crap, I remembered I still forgot to buy an AoMF. =/
Now I'm wondering whether that's a better option than the "Magic Armor of "Not-Dying".
Hmmmm...
I would at least get a +1 to bypass DR magic. It is only 4000 gp. You should still be able to afford the armor.
Well, I already had to borrow ~400 from the party fund, I didn't want to start drawing too much from there. I'll think about it.
But back to our regularly scheduled programming. =)
I had a dragon steal(disarm) a players main weapon in a fight, so he had to resort to natural attacks. That dragon was smart to do so. Why let that barbarian stab/smash him in the face if he can prevent it?
Depends on how overconfident the dragon is and how badly the dragon wants to add that particular shiny to his/her hoard.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He was buffed to the gills and had his blizzard cloud thingy up when he ambushed our unbuffed selves out in the open.
He was pretty damn confident, or so I imagine.
Smart PCs carry backup weapons, even if it's backups of the same weapon
keeping a second or third magic scimitar for your magus, or keeping a different magic weapon of the same family and handedness as a fighter, or 3 more magic 2handers as a barbarian works wonders for helping against sunder and disarm.
in my opinion, a high level martial character should be traveling with a small armory upon their person
Is "tax" really the right way to think about it? Obtaining sunder protection doesn't strike me as a "tax," but as a necessary defense. Just a wizard might invest in both a headband (to increase spellcasting juice) and a Secret Chest spell (to keep his spellbooks safe), I think a martial character ought to invest both in offensive capabilities (Weapon Focus, etc.), and in ways to keep other people from taking away his Sword of Awesomeness.Another consideration: Players DO have defenses against sundering. There are feats, items, abilities, and leveling options that all counter sunder-happy foes. If you're going to invest a bunch of gold in the Sword of Awesomeness, did you think about getting it made of adamantium? Did you take the Improved and Greater Sunder feats? Some races let you take a bonus to CMD against sundering when you gain a level in fighter. Did you take advantage of this?Those sound like taxes rather than preparations in some cases. Alternatively a lot of people take things more versatile or good for any situation, rather than improved and greater sunder just in case they might have sunder used against them.
and even better solution is to not put all your eggs in one basket. accept that sunder can and will eventually happen, and invest in multiple backup weapons as appropriate for the situation, and as appropriate for countering sunder. a smart fighter carries a small armory, a smart wizard carries multiple spellbooks. there isn't a simple limited number of inventory slots to deal with.
a smart fighter carries a small armory, a smart wizard carries multiple spellbooks. there isn't a simple limited number of inventory slots to deal with.And a smart player listens when his GM drops hints.
true
but most fighters will at least carry a golf bag of backup weapons, typically between 5 and 8 looted backups is reasonable by levels 8-12, not all of them have to be magical; most wizards will eventually keep at least 2 or 3 backup spellbooks.
a fighter who only carries one weapon is a dead fighter, a wizard who never protects their spellbook and never invests in contingencies, is a dead wizard
Is "tax" really the right way to think about it? Obtaining sunder protection doesn't strike me as a "tax," but as a necessary defense. Just a wizard might invest in both a headband (to increase spellcasting juice) and a Secret Chest spell (to keep his spellbooks safe), I think a martial character ought to invest both in offensive capabilities (Weapon Focus, etc.), and in ways to keep other people from taking away his Sword of Awesomeness.Another consideration: Players DO have defenses against sundering. There are feats, items, abilities, and leveling options that all counter sunder-happy foes. If you're going to invest a bunch of gold in the Sword of Awesomeness, did you think about getting it made of adamantium? Did you take the Improved and Greater Sunder feats? Some races let you take a bonus to CMD against sundering when you gain a level in fighter. Did you take advantage of this?Those sound like taxes rather than preparations in some cases. Alternatively a lot of people take things more versatile or good for any situation, rather than improved and greater sunder just in case they might have sunder used against them.
Yes, I still think its a tax the way you put it, rather than a 'necessary defense', and I have a very low opinion of GMs who go after the spell books. Personally, I don't feel that either make the game more fun and can often make it less. So in my games I don't sunder or steal spell books or coup de' grace. Calling it 'necessary defense' absolves anyone but the player of blame, despite no amount of prep being able to defend against GM fiat or what the GM can throw at you knowing what you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
8-12 weapons is a lot. Pathfinder does DR the way they do now to stop the golfback effect.
I have one backup similar to my primary weapon. If the primary weapon is two-handed then I have a one handed or light weapon in case I am grappled or swallowed.
I then have a ranged weapon. If that is my primary weapon, then I have two ranged weapons.
I also try to cover bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.
Personally, I always have a dagger or something similar stashed and likely have spiked gauntlets and maybe even spiked armor, just in case. They don't do much good once DR starts to pop around though, but never go without your dagger and rope, and spikes are just too cool not to have.
|
I used sunder once as a GM, and caught the icy glare of death from my PCs. It wasn't even on a magical item - one of the PCs had a backup ranseur in case they needed a reach weapon, and they were employing it against a large water elemental to deal with its own reach capabilities, managing to keep it from engaging the squishies directly. The elemental got frustrated that the fleshy mortals could vex it so, and it snapped the ranseur like a twig.
The party killed the elemental in short order, but they were still hacked off that I took away a backup, nonmagical weapon.
I've not used the tactic since, and my players never seem to use it against the NPCs, so we chalk it up to lessons learned.
Now disarm is a horse of a different color . . .
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may be a jerk move. Having said that, most of the bad guys in my campaign are jerks.
Not for nothing, but this is why in PFS my main weapon is an Adamantine Greatsword. It's WAY easier for a bad guy to disarm me than it is for him to sunder me. Of course, I'm building a Sunder based character, and I've already knocked through walls, and I'm not above Sundering the BBEG's armor if no one else in the party can hit him.
And with the whole "leave it at 1hp thing", yeah nerfing the crit range/damage is nice, but only for crit builds. As a bad guy, I want to live, and I want to make sure my superiors are not going to have me killed. If I'm a guy with Sunder, I'll sunder weapons/armor/misc all day long if it means I'll take less damage and end the fight sooner. Of course, that's assuming I'm any kind of intelligent/destruction minded enemy (which there are plenty of bad guys that don't fall into those categories that it shouldn't come up too often).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only way something is "bad form" or a "jerk move" is if the social contract of the table basically frowns upon such things, but there are many ways to play the game so almost nothing is a jerk move by default.
I think this is really what the issue of sundering (or a lot of other playstyle questions) boils down to. The point of playing Pathfinder is for everyone at the table to have fun. If sundering makes the game more fun for everyone at the table, then do it. If it just drags the game down and pisses people off, then don't do it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is really what the issue of sundering (or a lot of other playstyle questions) boils down to. The point of playing Pathfinder is for everyone at the table to have fun. If sundering makes the game more fun for everyone at the table, then do it. If it just drags the game down and pisses people off, then don't do it.
This is a great point for any part of the game. Allowing the players to be on notice as to what to expect from a game makes the experience so much better.
When players think that their GM pulled something over on them rule-wise, they loose trust in the GM.
Yes, of course it is. Its the same as removing a character from a fight with little to no chance of failure. The rogue just got hit with 2d4 rounds of panic? He'd better run and grab pizza then. Totally unfun for the player and whats unfun for the players is generally not fun for the GM.
The big problem to me is that martials are the ones hurt most by item destruction since they need to spend more wealth on weapons/armor. And most buggers who break gear do it in melee.
Yes, of course it is. Its the same as removing a character from a fight with little to no chance of failure. The rogue just got hit with 2d4 rounds of panic? He'd better run and grab pizza then. Totally unfun for the player and whats unfun for the players is generally not fun for the GM.
The big problem to me is that martials are the ones hurt most by item destruction since they need to spend more wealth on weapons/armor. And most buggers who break gear do it in melee.
It is not fun being killed either, but not having fun is not the same as not having an enjoyable time session.
Example: If I get killed/feared/etc I can accept it. That is not what I prefer but I know adventuring is dangerous, and I might be put in a situation where I lose time not being able to play.
Now at the same time if I am playing, but I realize the GM is going out of his way to help me out, I would be annoyed. That does not mean I expect for other players to be annoyed if they get help, but everyone's "not fun" is different.
So like I said there is no default "bad form". You just have to be on the same page as a group. To say there is, is like saying everyone else is doing it wrong.
Yes, of course it is. Its the same as removing a character from a fight with little to no chance of failure. The rogue just got hit with 2d4 rounds of panic? He'd better run and grab pizza then. Totally unfun for the player and whats unfun for the players is generally not fun for the GM.
The big problem to me is that martials are the ones hurt most by item destruction since they need to spend more wealth on weapons/armor. And most buggers who break gear do it in melee.
It is not fun being killed either, but not having fun is not the same as not having an enjoyable time session.
Example: If I get killed/feared/etc I can accept it. That is not what I prefer but I know adventuring is dangerous, and I might be put in a situation where I lose time not being able to play.
Now at the same time if I am playing, but I realize the GM is going out of his way to help me out, I would be annoyed. That does not mean I expect for other players to be annoyed if they get help, but everyone's "not fun" is different.
So like I said there is no default "bad form". You just have to be on the same page as a group. To say there is, is like saying everyone else is doing it wrong.
So your completely okay with just waiting for an encounter to end? When some encounters can take about an hour to finish?
I know the definition of fun can be pretty broad but generally it doesn't include waiting around because you failed a save you couldn't make 9 times out of 10.
Yes, of course it is. Its the same as removing a character from a fight with little to no chance of failure. The rogue just got hit with 2d4 rounds of panic? He'd better run and grab pizza then. Totally unfun for the player and whats unfun for the players is generally not fun for the GM.
The big problem to me is that martials are the ones hurt most by item destruction since they need to spend more wealth on weapons/armor. And most buggers who break gear do it in melee.
It is not fun being killed either, but not having fun is not the same as not having an enjoyable time session.
Example: If I get killed/feared/etc I can accept it. That is not what I prefer but I know adventuring is dangerous, and I might be put in a situation where I lose time not being able to play.
Now at the same time if I am playing, but I realize the GM is going out of his way to help me out, I would be annoyed. That does not mean I expect for other players to be annoyed if they get help, but everyone's "not fun" is different.
So like I said there is no default "bad form". You just have to be on the same page as a group. To say there is, is like saying everyone else is doing it wrong.
So your completely okay with just waiting for an encounter to end? When some encounters can take about an hour to finish?
I know the definition of fun can be pretty broad but generally it doesn't include waiting around because you failed a save you couldn't make 9 times out of 10.
Yes i am ok with it. I would prefer to be playing, but even more than that I would prefer for the GM to not hold back.
In many groups we have someone that can remove status affects, but even if I have to sit out, I just deal with it.
Not having the most fun is not the same as having a bad time. Now if I were upset about sitting out for an hour that would be having a bad time. But I would only be upset about sitting out if I was sitting out due to a rule being misinterpreted, or something crazy happened*, so like I said everyone is different, and there is no default "bad form".
*Read some of the "bad GM" threads to get examples.
edit: I also have player(real life) that gets annoyed if he notices the GM(when it is not me) is fudging to save him. He almost never dies because he plays well, but those dice gods are fickle.
Honestly sometimes I wonder why I bother to stick around if I'm hit with something that puts me out for over an hour. That's 1/4 of a session right there, or more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly sometimes I wonder why I bother to stick around if I'm hit with something that puts me out for over an hour. That's 1/4 of a session right there, or more.
Its exactly what I'm talking about. Now you get the delightful pleasure of listening about whats happening and being unable to contribute.
In other words, because you failed a save you weren't likely to make, you are not being allowed to play. The DM has metaphorically walked around the table and taken your sheet and dice away. Woopee! Are we having fun yet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are people honestly suggesting that GMs shouldn't use fear effects? Or am I misinterpreting things?
Its exactly what I'm talking about. Now you get the delightful pleasure of listening about whats happening and being unable to contribute.
In other words, because you failed a save you weren't likely to make, you are not being allowed to play. The DM has metaphorically walked around the table and taken your sheet and dice away. Woopee! Are we having fun yet?
Well in my case it's usually because I roll a 1 on a save I could have made with any other number (sometimes including that 1 if it weren't an auto-fail). I've developed a deep, abiding hatred for that rule.
I don't think I've ever had something thrown at me that I "wasn't likely to make" though. Most characters I make have solid saves in all 3 categories.
Are people honestly suggesting that GMs shouldn't use fear effects? Or am I misinterpreting things?
More musing on the fact that effects that take a player out of the game completely for lengthy periods of time are poorly designed, I think.
Are people honestly suggesting that GMs shouldn't use fear effects? Or am I misinterpreting things?More musing on the fact that effects that take a player out of the game completely for lengthy periods of time are poorly designed, I think.
Yeah that was what I was getting at more. I tend to try to use less completely damning abilities in my games on the PCs. Staggered is cool, frightened sure, nauseate is pushing it. Those status effects make players think. What can I do to maximize my actions? Stunned, panicked, hold person. General save or lose stuff just doesn't feel good to throw at the players. If you do it enough, eventually it will stick and they will die/lose the fight.
I think what makes Sunder seem a lot worse to players than other forms of death/disabling/getting knocked out of the fight is the fear that they'll be stuck playing a permanently weak character. Stuff like panic effects, hold spells, and the like can still take a character out of an encounter, but after that the effect is over and life moves on. Even if the character dies, they can just roll up a new one and get back in the game.
Meanwhile, sundered gear is destroyed forever, and consequently leaves a character permanently weaker in terms of wealth. So to a player, sundering gear can seem much like having monsters that permanently reduce their ability scores or hit points. The fear is that by the time they can replace their lost gear, everyone else will have enough to get better gear. And so on from there, leaving the character eternally one step behind the rest of the party and the challenges they'll be facing. That might not be true from a strict number standpoint, but how the players feel won't always match the math.
Its exactly what I'm talking about. Now you get the delightful pleasure of listening about whats happening and being unable to contribute.
In other words, because you failed a save you weren't likely to make, you are not being allowed to play. The DM has metaphorically walked around the table and taken your sheet and dice away. Woopee! Are we having fun yet?
Well in my case it's usually because I roll a 1 on a save I could have made with any other number (sometimes including that 1 if it weren't an auto-fail). I've developed a deep, abiding hatred for that rule.
I don't think I've ever had something thrown at me that I "wasn't likely to make" though. Most characters I make have solid saves in all 3 categories.
Are people honestly suggesting that GMs shouldn't use fear effects? Or am I misinterpreting things?More musing on the fact that effects that take a player out of the game completely for lengthy periods of time are poorly designed, I think.
I think that is a side affect of combat taking so long at higher levels. A 3 round combat at level 5, seems to go by a lot faster than a 3 round combat at level `13+.
Yeah that was what I was getting at more. I tend to try to use less completely damning abilities in my games on the PCs. Staggered is cool, frightened sure, nauseate is pushing it. Those status effects make players think. What can I do to maximize my actions? Stunned, panicked, hold person. General save or lose stuff just doesn't feel good to throw at the players. If you do it enough, eventually it will stick and they will die/lose the fight.Are people honestly suggesting that GMs shouldn't use fear effects? Or am I misinterpreting things?More musing on the fact that effects that take a player out of the game completely for lengthy periods of time are poorly designed, I think.
ok..That is different than saying it was "across the board" and should not be done..
Yeah I know you did not say that, but anything that is bad form generally means "don't do it", which is different from, "do it sparingly".
So I guess we do agree then, that doing it "all the time" will be annoying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess we do agree then, that doing it "all the time" will be annoying.
Can't argue with that!
My DM went through a phase of using 7th level kobold adepts against low level PCs, on the grounds they are only CR 3 or something. Twin scorching rays "all the time" was definitely annoying.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rust Monsters had an amazing way of scaring the bloody crap out of most of the party then and there.
I've seen parties charge dragons they're nowhere ready for, but a rust monster? THAT sends them charging right the other way.
Ain't that the truth.
We had that exact scenario come up in one of my games. One of our guys had been playing a dwarf fighter in full plate mail. That dwarf didn't fear anything and he would not hesitate to throw himself into the fray. At one point, our group had ventured down into a mountain and came across a sizable settlement. The party split at one point with the dwarf going his own way while may small group goes to the marketplace.
Our GM liked to separate players when their characters would go in different directions; so at one point, he takes the player with the dwarf aside to GM his part. A short time later, the GM comes back to play through the market scene...so while our characters are talking to a vender on the street, we all suddenly hear this loud, clashing sound coming towards the square. As we look down one of the streets leading to the market, we suddenly see the dwarf hoofing it across the road at faster than would normally be dwarf-possible and out then out of sight, while the entire time yelling "HELLLLLLLP MEEEEEEEEEE!". Of course, a moment later, we see a rust monster wobbling on after the dwarf. It was funny as hell and one of those moments that we still talk bout once in a while. The GM did well that day...
No, Raven, by backup I do not mean identical abilities. I mean that +1 weapon that gets left in the pile that no one wants, but a martial character could still use as a back-up.
In the old "grognard" days, that's exactly what we did. There were not magic stores, no crafting rules, no way to turn four +2 weapons into a +3 weapon. If you found a +3 weapon, you used it. If you also had a few +2 weapons, you could throw them away, give them to some friends or relatives, or carry them around as "backup" weapons. That's it.
With no way to convert spare gear into better gear, you just kept the spare gear.
Nowadays, you take your four +2 weapons and a couple thoursand gold pieces into town, find a mage, and pay him to make you a new +3 weapon (or upgrade one of the +2 weapons and you can save a bunch of cash). So, nowadays, nobody carries backup weapons because they actually CAN convert spare gear into better gear.
Did the old days also have a punishing magic item treadmill? That's part of why it sucks to lose gear. Its just punishing, a lot of creatures have DR you want to bypass and the game expects you to have so much at certain points.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
if i ever GM'd for a group who started throwing a temper tantrum after i sundered an item, stole an item, etc... i would LOL and kick that immature asshat off my table.
but back to the issue at hand: as a gm when i sunder or destroy an item i usually increase the loot at the end of the adventure to let them get that item back, unless i think the item was over powering my campaign in which case i would give a similar but different item to replace the one lost.