|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Ok, this thread has me really confused. I was under the impression that metagaming was a big no-no for most folks. Yet I've read circa-500 posts on a thread totally dedicated to players choosing specific magic items for their characters to use half-a-dozen levels in the future. Wha?
I mean, if I have to roll dungeoneering in order to recognize an Orc (or else I'm a bad player), how is it even the slightest bit logical for my character to know the contents of the Ultimate Equipment inside and out, so that he can be on the lookout for that agile vorpal bow of recall +3? This isn't metagaming? Of course it is!
I recognize that buildcrafting is one source of entertainment for some players, and to each his own. But please don't pretend that it isn't as much metagaming as buying silver weapons as soon as you find out you're going to be playing an AP with lycanthropes in it. If your GM is down with that, hope you all have fun. But if he isn't, I don't see how you have any more complaints than if he doesn't shower those gloves of dueling on you, either...
As pointed out up-thread, certain magic items (for example, an Agile Weapon) are pretty much worthless if the character is not built for them.
EDIT: pssst Orcs are Humanoids, the skill you're looking for is Knowledge:Local
EDIT 2: Orcs are so damned common in the typical setting that you'd have a very hard time not identifying them. Everybody gets a roll against DC 5ish and it can be done untrained.
Eirikrautha wrote: Ok, this thread has me really confused. I was under the impression that metagaming was a big no-no for most folks. Yet I've read circa-500 posts on a thread totally dedicated to players choosing specific magic items for their characters to use half-a-dozen levels in the future. Wha?
For me it's a big no-no, but hey, if some people enjoy it more power to them :)
Also, 500 posts is a relative drop in the ocean - as is pretty much any view on any thread here.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Yep ... a build that requires a certain piece of equipment to be effective is not only meta-gaming, it means on some level you feel you deserve that object—that you're ... ahem ...
... entitled to it.
Quick note Eirik, while a character likely wouldn't know the exact details of what an Agile weapon was, it's not like they wouldn't know that they don't hurt things hard enough when they hit it with their rapier or short swords because they rely on their skill vs power (using Weapon Finesse) and need to find a way to compensate.
It's only natural such a character would seek out something to help him fill in the gaps, and if the world has Agile weapons then sooner or later I'd expect such a character to find what he's looking for.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lamontius wrote: wait what is a regular game Exactly! What is a regular game? Does it mean anything goes or does it mean core only or does it mean that we throw a dart at a board to determine this week's rules?
Eirikrautha wrote: Ok, this thread has me really confused. I was under the impression that metagaming was a big no-no for most folks. Yet I've read circa-500 posts on a thread totally dedicated to players choosing specific magic items for their characters to use half-a-dozen levels in the future. Wha? The biggest takeaway on the thread should be "don't assume, ask." Pay attention to the campaign conversation or hand outs or pizza meet and greet. If none of those things occur and this is going to be more than a one off game, ask openly or to the side to the GM about their rules on crafting, magical item drops and so on. It's the only real way to know -- presuming will just cause problems and hard feelings.
Quote: Anything can be made to work in a Pathfinder setting. Anything. Your setting is no exception. Emphasis mine. No one is denying that anything CAN be done with the setting and rules. The question is should it be? Does it have to be? And no, it doesn't have to be. There are no mandatory requirements for using this rule system. I don't have to allow Cavaliers or tengu or guns or kaiju or Cheliax if I don't want to.
The GM is allowed to lay out a setting for the players. The players are allowed to not buy in or to try to persuade the GM. But nothing is a given, not even from table to table or in some groups, from campaign to campaign.
Jaelithe wrote: Yep ... a build that requires a certain piece of equipment to be effective is not only meta-gaming, it means on some level you feel you deserve that object—that you're ... ahem ...
... entitled to it.
This just in folks, all wizards are dirty entitled munchkins. How dare they demand access to a spellbook? If your starting one gets sundered then the gm is under no obligation to just hand out a replacement. Or even to make one available at all. Those darned wizards should be prepared to spend the game without a spellbook, it would be a TERRIBLE wizard build that relies on always having one.
I would love it if there was some way to make finesse fighter types function without magic weapons Jaelithe, but I have to work inside this game and its constraints.
Just to set this up in a premise conclusion format:
If I want to be a dextrous swashbuckler type, then I am playing the wrong game.
Arachnofiend wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Yep ... a build that requires a certain piece of equipment to be effective is not only meta-gaming, it means on some level you feel you deserve that object—that you're ... ahem ...
... entitled to it.
This just in folks, all wizards are dirty entitled munchkins. How dare they demand access to a spellbook? If your starting one gets sundered then the gm is under no obligation to just hand out a replacement. Or even to make one available at all. Those darned wizards should be prepared to spend the game without a spellbook, it would be a TERRIBLE wizard build that relies on always having one. Did you build that straw man yourself, or find it in your last dungeon?
Arachnofiend wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Yep ... a build that requires a certain piece of equipment to be effective is not only meta-gaming, it means on some level you feel you deserve that object—that you're ... ahem ...
... entitled to it.
This just in folks, all wizards are dirty entitled munchkins. How dare they demand access to a spellbook? If your starting one gets sundered then the gm is under no obligation to just hand out a replacement. Or even to make one available at all. Those darned wizards should be prepared to spend the game without a spellbook, it would be a TERRIBLE wizard build that relies on always having one. Frickin hilarious!
Mark Hoover wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: Jaelithe wrote: Yep ... a build that requires a certain piece of equipment to be effective is not only meta-gaming, it means on some level you feel you deserve that object—that you're ... ahem ...
... entitled to it.
This just in folks, all wizards are dirty entitled munchkins. How dare they demand access to a spellbook? If your starting one gets sundered then the gm is under no obligation to just hand out a replacement. Or even to make one available at all. Those darned wizards should be prepared to spend the game without a spellbook, it would be a TERRIBLE wizard build that relies on always having one. Frickin hilarious! But unfortunately dead wrong.
Trogdar wrote: I would love it if there was some way to make finesse fighter types function without magic weapons Jaelithe, but I have to work inside this game and its constraints.
Just to set this up in a premise conclusion format:
If I want to be a dextrous swashbuckler type, then I am playing the wrong game.
That may be, if an optimized dextrous swashbuckler build that does precisely the same damage and has precisely the same potential for mayhem as an armored personnel carrier designed for one is a necessity for you.
I myself as DM would happily take into account the desires for actualization a player had in mind when designing his or her character ... but I'd never tie myself to guaranteeing the appearance of a certain piece of hardware. That's so asinine it doesn't even need a substantive refutation.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Any magic item that gives a +: remove from game, give static bonuses when you want.
So, does that solve it then? Oh, wait, stat increases. Award x3 stat bonuses every 4 levels to be used on 3 different stats.
Everyone happy? I'm guessing not. See, because not everyone's happy, period. Some people like PF core; others tweak it. Some like AD&D 1e and some like 4e. Bottom line, there's AT LEAST 3 different ways of playing, but maybe more.
Will my game be right for Anzyr? No. Will his be right for Jaelithe? Maybe, maybe not. But this thread, despite its INSANE tangents has suggested ways to work with the RAW, work around it, or completely do away with it in regards to magic items.
Pick your faves. Or don't; it's entirely up to you. Your fun is your own and no amount of rules, systems, settings or magic items is going to change that. Make YOUR game what YOU want and own what you make.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Hoover wrote: Make YOUR game what YOU want and own what you make. QFT
Please explain to me how a finesse fighter needs a dex-to-damage item less than a wizard needs his spellbook.
I don't particularly disagree with the assessment that being tied to a magic item to make a concept work is not ideal. Unfortunately for me, there are a great deal of concepts that are very cludgy inside the mechanics of pathfinder.
I have never made the claim that I wanted to do precisely as much damage as a strength based fighter. I would like to be able to use a rapier without being neutered by DR though. The thing is, if I use a rapier and manage to apply my dexterity modifier to damage, I will still never ever ever put up damage like a barbarian with a battle axe. I'm totally fine with that, by the way.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Arachnofiend wrote: Please explain to me how a finesse fighter needs a dex-to-damage item less than a wizard needs his spellbook. Please explain to me how an item that a character needs at 1st level and is fundamental to the class is the same as an item that may or may not be received later and is only fundamental to a certain build.
A wizard needs a spellbook. A whatever doesn't need an enchanted whatever. They just decide they want one before the fact, and construct a build that require a DM to deliver what they want rather than playing the damned game and seeing how it develops.
Anyone who actually plays finesse fighters knows that you're just not going to do as much damage as a standard 2-handed greatsword power attacker. You have to spend a feat on it (2 and 2 skill points that are hard to come by for fighters if you're Dervish Dancing), you're fighting one-handed, and you have to spend a +1 enchantment on Agile.
But... it's fun. I like it because the idea of relying on swiftness and dexterity in a fight has always been a favorite of mine; I grew up on Fire Emblem, and I lived on high speed classes like the Myrmidon. I wanted to be able to make a Myrmidon. The Agile enchantment barely makes that possible, but it's close enough to play.
If you are going to draw comparisons, I would suggest that the agile weapon property is like having a wizard item that determines spell DC's. Don't have the item? well then I guess your DC's are going to be the minimum set by spell level.
Trogdar wrote: I don't particularly disagree with the assessment that being tied to a magic item to make a concept work is not ideal. Unfortunately for me, there are a great deal of concepts that are very cludgy inside the mechanics of pathfinder.
I have never made the claim that I wanted to do precisely as much damage as a strength based fighter. I would like to be able to use a rapier without being neutered by DR though. The thing is, if I use a rapier and manage to apply my dexterity modifier to damage, I will still never ever ever put up damage like a barbarian with a battle axe. I'm totally fine with that, by the way.
It seems to me that a player and a DM can come up with ways to make the character more effective without a freakin' avocation that collapses into irrelevance if certain steps aren't taken.
I wouldn't challenge anyone creating a build. I'd warn them beforehand, though, that there are no guarantees that the piece they need to make Frankenstein's monster work are on the table ... or even anywhere in the workshop.
Of course, I'd also tell them that we'd find something that makes the game fun for them either way.
Arachnofiend wrote: But... it's fun. That's what matters. And were I your DM I'd go above and beyond to find a way for you to have fun the way you want to without me being "bound to deliver unto thee the device that thou hast always craved, even before knowing it did exist."
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
...How is a finesse fighter a "Frankenstein's monster"? This is a very basic and archetypal build. Outside of tabletops the good guy is usually the finesse fighter and the two-handed power attacker is his big stupid antagonist. Paizo has given us exactly two ways to play the finesse fighter: you can Dervish Dance (and have to explain why your character is using a scimitar in a new and interesting way every friggin time) or you can use the Agile enchantment. I'm praying for a generic dex-to-damage feat so I don't have to deal with this crap anymore but until then I have to appeal to the GM if I want to play my kind of character.
Arachnofiend wrote: ...How is a finesse fighter a "Frankenstein's monster"? This is a very basic and archetypal build. Outside of tabletops the good guy is usually the finesse fighter and the two-handed power attacker is his big stupid antagonist. Paizo has given us exactly two ways to play the finesse fighter: you can Dervish Dance (and have to explain why your character is using a scimitar in a new and interesting way every friggin time) or you can use the Agile enchantment. I'm praying for a generic dex-to-damage feat so I don't have to deal with this crap anymore but until then I have to appeal to the GM if I want to play my kind of character. I would probably invent such a feat. And possibly port a version of deadly aim as a feat usable with melee weapons that are finessed.
I would do the same, but I'm not my GM.
Then appeal to the GM. That's better than telling him, "Here's my build. You'd BETTER give me this eventually," which is what one that requires a Device of Specific Enhancement does.
Inventing such a feat is, in my opinion, a DM's privilege for a player who has a cool vision and no way to implement it.
I certainly wasn't saying that any finesse fighter is a "Frankenstein's Monster," Arachnofiend. I was referring to specific builds that require a piece of hardware that may or may not even exist in someone's campaign to be optimally effective—using hyperbole to make my point.
I don't know. Maybe you guys have DMs that love to see you suffer. I'd rather have a player who says, "I want a guy who can eventually do this," and then lets me help them through the course of the campaign to achieve that ... but in a way that allows for spontaneity and wonder, not one that is predicated on eventually getting exactly what is described on page so-and-so of the Compleat Kewl Stuff Guide.
Jaelithe wrote: Then appeal to the GM. That's better than telling him, "Here's my build. You'd BETTER give me this eventually," which is what one that requires a Device of Specific Enhancement does.
Inventing such a feat is, in my opinion, a DM's privilege for a player who has a cool vision and no way to implement it.
I certainly wasn't saying that any finesse fighter is a "Frankenstein's Monster," Arachnofiend. I was referring to specific builds that require a piece of hardware that may or may not even exist in someone's campaign to be optimally effective—using hyperbole to make my point.
I don't know. Maybe you guys have DMs that love to see you suffer. I'd rather have a player who says, "I want a guy who can eventually do this," and then lets me help them through the course of the campaign to achieve that ... but in a way that allows for spontaneity and wonder, not one that is predicated on eventually getting exactly what is described on page so-and-so of the Compleat Kewl Stuff Guide.
Very much this. If I know you really want a finesse fighter, I'll work with you to make it happen, but its not going to be a shopping list.
Trogdar wrote: I would love it if there was some way to make finesse fighter types function without magic weapons Jaelithe, but I have to work inside this game and its constraints.
Just to set this up in a premise conclusion format:
If I want to be a dextrous swashbuckler type, then I am playing the wrong game.
You really are. 3.X (PF included) primary publishers hate the stat dexterity. Cries of 'it does too much!' ring out across metaphorical landscape, resounding from the throats of grognards and devs alike.
If you want to buck the defaults expect to pay through your nose for it.
(Or go third party of course, where all kinds of magical (not magic, just fantastic) options can be found. Not that I've ever played a game in person with a GM aside from myself who allowed third party material.)
Just to give you an example, in my first game I wanted to play a street tough boxer. I was very new (I'm still very new actually but I'm also a fast learner) and wasn't familiar with any of the archetypes and didn't quite have the time to do the research, so I just saw the Monk and figured that would be the unarmed class I'd need. The GM said no because Monks are always lawful. If we hadn't stumbled upon the Martial Artist I wouldn't have gotten to play that character at all. Now that I know more about the game I really wish I was playing a Brawler but them's the breaks.
What I was able to get the GM to agree to? To get me an Amulet of Mighty Fists around the time I would be expected to have the money to afford it. It was in the game, there was a set rule as to about when I should have access to it, so it was fine by him.
RDM42 wrote: I would probably invent such a feat. I think there is a feat that will accomplish much the same thing, currently listed under "Craft Magic Arms and Armor". It will also save you a boat load compared to trying to shop for it.
So you worked with your DM to do something of what you wanted. That's good.
I've created entire character classes for people who had a very specific vision of what they wanted.
(That's probably why I don't DM much anymore. It consumes me when I do.)
Anachrony wrote: RDM42 wrote: I would probably invent such a feat. I think there is a feat that will accomplish much the same thing, currently listed under "Craft Magic Arms and Armor". It will also save you a boat load compared to trying to shop for it. See, that's funny. I'd enjoy working with Arachnofiend or someone else to invent a custom feat for them.
I don't mind special snowflakes if I'm on the design team.
Anachrony wrote: RDM42 wrote: I would probably invent such a feat. I think there is a feat that will accomplish much the same thing, currently listed under "Craft Magic Arms and Armor". It will also save you a boat load compared to trying to shop for it. And perhaps you just don't want to get into the whole crafting angle.
I usually don't ask for custom stuff because, despite being new to tabletops, I am quite the veteran gamer. Furthermore, when I get into a game I research the hell out of it and will typically know most everything there is to know within a few months. I already know more about the rules and what options are available within all the different books than anyone else at the table.
Everyone else is very casual and just plays what they like; there's nothing wrong with that, but when you have a girl like me sitting at that table that can cause some problems if you just give in to every idea that puts a glimmer in her eye. They know that, I know that, so I just... stay within the rules as much as possible. If I can't cite it I don't ask for it.
Yeah, I enjoy coming up with flexible chassis upon which a number of characters can be built. I combined the barbarian and a wizard to create a Gish class that could function using one of three separate primary stats. It was also totally not dependent upon shocking grasp shenanigans... your welcome :P
Arachnofiend wrote: Furthermore, when I get into a game I research the hell out of it and will typically know most everything there is to know within a few months.
.....
I just... stay within the rules as much as possible. If I can't cite it I don't ask for it.
So. Much. This.
It took me years to let go of my obsession with system mastery and start looking into homebrew as a superior solution to trying to work within imperfect systems.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: Furthermore, when I get into a game I research the hell out of it and will typically know most everything there is to know within a few months.
.....
I just... stay within the rules as much as possible. If I can't cite it I don't ask for it.
So. Much. This.
It took me years to let go of my obsession with system mastery and start looking into homebrew as a superior solution to trying to work within imperfect systems. I would do this, but I fear my attempts to homebrew will result in me starting to work on a ground up revision of d20 that I will likely never complete due to losing interest.
Despite our differences, I'd be interested in what you came up with; you do, indeed, have a creative mind.
Anzyr wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: Furthermore, when I get into a game I research the hell out of it and will typically know most everything there is to know within a few months.
.....
I just... stay within the rules as much as possible. If I can't cite it I don't ask for it.
So. Much. This.
It took me years to let go of my obsession with system mastery and start looking into homebrew as a superior solution to trying to work within imperfect systems. I would do this, but I fear my attempts to homebrew will result in me starting to work on a ground up revision of d20 that I will likely never complete due to losing interest. that sir, is a never ending project. Regardless of system.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Removed a few posts. Leave personal insults out of the conversation.
I see some irrational hate towards magic items in here. People are saying they would work with their player to make his vision a reality, going as far as homebrewing feats or even whole classes, but for some reason they draw the line on handing them an item they need? What is this double standard, I don't even...
Magic items are not integral to a character, only to particular builds. They are an addition. Expecting an item as opposed to working on your character's evolution is the distinction you're perhaps failing to see.
Some GM's enjoy creating a setting where magic items are far more rare, precious and distinct than PF's rules generally dictate.
So long as they're willing to put in the legwork to ensure the character's are fully capable while meeting the player's concept, I don't mind it personally.
Jaelithe wrote: Magic items are not integral to a character, only to particular builds. They are an addition. Expecting an item as opposed to working on your character's evolution is the distinction you're perhaps failing to see. Items are part of characters since the ancient times.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ya I remember when Arthur traded out Excalibur for a Holy Avenger +5. Merlin was like, "Go to the local magic shoppe and upgrade your weapon, noob."
kyrt-ryder wrote: Some GM's enjoy creating a setting where magic items are far more rare, precious and distinct than PF's rules generally dictate. Yep. I actually abhor the proliferation of magic items in Pathfinder/Golarion.
Over 30+ years, perhaps five characters under ... hmm ... 3rd level have ever had a magic item besides a spell-book in my games, and I've perhaps ... hmm ... again, maybe five times ... used one from the DMG/Core Rulebook. I prefer to conceive and create my own.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Items are part of characters since the ancient times. Who said they weren't?
They're certainly not always on the manifest of 1st, 2nd or 3rd level characters, or low-level monsters, though.
I love magic items. I just prefer interesting ones, instead of those that a player can know everything about by employing his meta-gaming powers and turning to page 127 of the Kewl Stuff Guide. Sorry, dude/dear: You'll have to learn about it the true cool way: By playing.
|
