Hey AK ... I'm just curious, but has even one of us said that we keep our campaign guidelines/house rules "soopersekret" and don't let anyone know what they are, only to spring them on the poor unsuspecting players?
On the other hand, I consider it somewhat bad form to have designed a character without even ASKING politely.
RDM42 wrote: Hey AK ... I'm just curious, but has even one of us said that we keep our campaign guidelines/house rules "soopersekret" and don't let anyone know what they are, only to spring them on the poor unsuspecting players? Well, according to you players have to ask for a list of houserules, politely... But no, no one has actually said that. Why do you ask?
Quote: On the other hand, I consider it somewhat bad form to have designed a character without even ASKING politely. I expect from my DM the courtesy to list his houserules, otherwise he's indeed keeping them "soopersekret".
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: RDM42 wrote: Hey AK ... I'm just curious, but has even one of us said that we keep our campaign guidelines/house rules "soopersekret" and don't let anyone know what they are, only to spring them on the poor unsuspecting players? Well, according to you players have to ask for a list of houserules, politely... But no, no one has said that. Why do you ask?
Quote: On the other hand, I consider it somewhat bad form to have designed a character without even ASKING politely. I expect from my DM the courtesy to list his houserules, otherwise he's indeed keeping them "soopersekret". No ...
Both statements are perfectly capable of being simultaneously true.
House rules are listed. It's still polite to ask, because you may have misunderstood something, he might have misunderstood something, there might even be mutual misunderstanding! I personally don't, however, think its all that polite to treat a list of house rules or guidelines as a set of loopholes to try to jump through to try to get around what is obviously trying to be avoided.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: I wouldn't even want to play with such a DM. I don't play with jerks. That's why I want the DM to list his houserules. So I can say "Uh, this isn't a game from me, I'm gonna bow out. Bye."
I won't even mention the fact that it's NOT his game, but OUR game... but it might become HIS game and HIS ALONE, because he would be alone, without players.
I don't play with jerks either. I suspect there are many, many, many cases where a GM would love to hear "Uh, this isn't a game from me, I'm gonna bow out. Bye." just so they don't have to listen to the constant whining of one player. Based on some of the posts by people along this thread, some players will sit and whine and complain and make rude remarks and demands until a GM collapses and gives in just to get that person to shut up so the game can go on.
If you want to play with a GM who plays it as OUR game instead of HIS game, more power to ya. Have fun in your search. I'd be willing to bet that at least 80% of players will have no problem working within the constraints that a GM has placed on a campaign.
RDM42 wrote: Both statements are perfectly capable of being simultaneously true. No, you guys are contradicting yourself. If I have to ask then the houserules are "secret". If they weren't then I wouldn't have to ask, now would I?
Quote: House rules are listed. It's still polite to ask, because you may have misunderstood something, he might have misunderstood something, there might even be mutual misunderstanding! You see, personally I consider "asking for houserules" and "asking for clarifications for said houserules" to be two very different things.
Quote: I personally don't, however, think its all that polite to treat a list of house rules or guidelines as a set of loopholes to try to jump through to try to get around what is obviously trying to be avoided. So now we go from "entitlement" right straight to "munchkinism"? You guys like to throw those ad hominem around, don't you. I wouldn't step so low when I run out of arguments. I would just bow out of the discussion. But each to their own, I guess.
And I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. When people start arguing posters ("They're all whiners!") or strawmen ("They're just trying to weasel out some loopholes in my rules!") instead of actual points, it's time to quit. Bye bye.
Oh joy. Another person on here who wikipedia searched fallacies and think he's the king of logic and thinks his arguments are fullproof. Btw, discrimination is a fundamental part of society as a whole. We discriminate against fast drivers, we discriminate against people who take things that don't belong to them, we discriminate against people who kill other people. I would also discriminate against someone who thinks they can use any book they want (which I've had happen).
You keep insisting that not allowing books is houseruled. Please show me anywhere where it says all published books being used is "standard PF".
You keep acting like your way is some golden standard set by the PF Association of America and if a DM doesn't intuitively know that your way is the "right way" he is failing to tell you "houserules" beforehand. If a DM limits his game to CRB only that is NOT houserules. That is simply not using alternate sources. It gets old that people think a new book coming out means a DM is supposed to use it.
APG, ARG, UC, UM etc are NOT CRB2, CRB3, CRB4, and CRB5. A home game is not PFS where there is some set standard of what is useable and what isn't.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: I wouldn't even want to play with such a DM. I don't play with jerks. That's why I want the DM to list his houserules. So I can say "Uh, this isn't a game from me, I'm gonna bow out. Bye."
I won't even mention the fact that it's NOT his game, but OUR game... but it might become HIS game and HIS ALONE, because he would be alone, without players.
Oh it is to laugh...
I hear that old saw all the time.
But you know what? I have never seen a gm without a game but plenty of players without one.
Makes one wonder who is the jerk dont it?
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: RDM42 wrote: Both statements are perfectly capable of being simultaneously true. No, you guys are contradicting yourself. If I have to ask then the houserules are "secret". If they weren't then I wouldn't have to ask, now would I?
Quote: House rules are listed. It's still polite to ask, because you may have misunderstood something, he might have misunderstood something, there might even be mutual misunderstanding! You see, personally I consider "asking for houserules" and "asking for clarifications for said houserules" to be two very different things.
Quote: I personally don't, however, think its all that polite to treat a list of house rules or guidelines as a set of loopholes to try to jump through to try to get around what is obviously trying to be avoided. So now we go from "entitlement" right straight to "munchkinism"? You guys like to throw those ad hominem around, don't you. I wouldn't step so low when I run out of arguments. I would just bow out of the discussion. But each to their own, I guess.
And I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion. When people start arguing posters ("They're all whiners!") or strawmen ("They're just trying to weasel out some loopholes in my rules!") instead of actual points, it's time to quit. Bye bye. And yet you find it absolutely kosher to do what you accuse others of yourself?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It makes me laugh when I keep hearing of these Bolshevik Players on the forums with these "Power to the Player!" arguments about how it isn't the DMs game. It is his game, so please, get mad that you can't use certain sources and try to rise up against the tyrannical DM and see how many people go with you. I have a feeling you'll walk out looking stupid as these type of Players think everyone in PF agrees with them and are on his side only to soon realize he's all alone.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: And I think I'm going to bow out of this discussion ... Bye bye. Don't worry. His inimitable charm will continue to warm us all.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: No, you guys are contradicting yourself. If I have to ask then the houserules are "secret". If they weren't then I wouldn't have to ask, now would I? Communication is a two way street. Just because you didn't ask doesn't mean something doesn't exist. If you are curious, and given that you want to know something you must be, it would be in your benefit to ask the question for verification.
Some GMs like myself give out information sheets or break things down verbally with people. You might be shocked at how many questions I get that are asking the exact same thing I wrote/said. And, shockingly, sometimes I've left something out and need to clarify.
Communication. Really, seriously, this is the number one thing that you need to be a gamer. More than bathing at cons, more than having dice, if you are incapable of communicating back and forth you are going to have issues. Don't expect to be spoon fed. Take the initiative and responsibility to find things out.
If your build requires you to have items at X, Y and Z levels or else it is ruined, then it is your responsibility to explain that to the GM and see if that is going to be a reality in this campaign.
As a final note, I see a lot about needs for this or that build. To paraphrase the late George Carlin, you might want to drop some of your needs in some games or else make sure that your play style matches the game you're in.
I agree with the above entirely.
You have to modify your expectations based on the scenario. There are times when you simply cannot build a niche concept and have it work.
I think that, unfortunately, can be the exact opposite of the intent of the DM's that run restrictive rule sets though.
Some character tropes seem as though they should be easy to pull off because they are so normal (like the finesse fighter concept), and people assume that you can make it work inside the system easily when, in fact, those very obvious seeming character concepts are very near to unworkable without doing mechanical back flips.
Communication for the win.
knightnday wrote: Communication. Really, seriously, this is the number one thing that you need to be a gamer. More than bathing at cons... Hey hey hey!
Let's not get crazy, here. ;)
MattR1986 wrote: It makes me laugh when I keep hearing of these Bolshevik Players on the forums with these "Power to the Player!" arguments about how it isn't the DMs game. It is his game, so please, get mad that you can't use certain sources and try to rise up against the tyrannical DM and see how many people go with you. I have a feeling you'll walk out looking stupid as these type of Players think everyone in PF agrees with them and are on his side only to soon realize he's all alone.
the scary thing about the statement "he will be gming alone" is I don't think the people who toss it about so casually realize they are making a veiled threat (play it my way or else).
Lord knows I hate to drag this thread back to the OP's original topic, but I'm still having a hard time with the metagaming aspect of "getting what you want."
I had a response that some items require a particular build to be "effective" (and words like that make me really nervous... because it seems like effective would be dependent on the campaign and GM). Well, yes and no. An agile weapon would be a good addition for many rogues, ninjas, rangers, or any other Dex-based character. Will it make that character a DPS king? Probably not (but we are talking rogues here...). But it would still be a nice find that would make the character better or more flexible.
See, I play Pathfinder, not Buildfinder. So what happens during play is more important to me than before play. Not saying people can't enjoy build-crafting. To each his own. But I have a hard time commiserating with someone who is upset because they didn't get the "perfect" piece of equipment right on time. Because the character couldn't know that he should get said equipment... not without some kind of metagaming. And that takes me even farther from Pathfinder as an RPG (rather than a tactical battles simulator)...
again, in those peoples defense, it isn't really about getting something magical so much as it is about achieving a mechanical representation of the character they envision that is accurate. No one wants to play a swashbuckler type character that absolutely must have a specific weapon. The weapon property is a bad patch for a cludgy mechanic.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
knightnday wrote: Communication. Really, seriously, this is the number one thing that you need to be a gamer. More than bathing at cons Hey now. Let's not get radical.
Trogdar wrote: again, in those peoples defense, it isn't really about getting something magical so much as it is about achieving a mechanical representation of the character they envision that is accurate. No one wants to play a swashbuckler type character that absolutely must have a specific weapon. The weapon property is a bad patch for a cludgy mechanic. Then what you are telling me is that the game is fundamentally flawed. If the mechanics to recreate the desired character can only be achieved in one way (by the use of external elements), or not at all, then the game has failed.
Except, I don't think it has. Because the mechanics might constrain your dice rolls, but they don't limit your character! A swashbuckler can be dashing, witty, brave, foolhardy, debonaire, without a single magical item. What he might not be able to do is average xD6 +30 damage per round. One of those is metagaming...
Eirikrautha wrote: Lord knows I hate to drag this thread back to the OP's original topic, but I'm still having a hard time with the metagaming aspect of "getting what you want." Yeah, sometimes the derails are way more fun/interesting than the original topic.
Quote: I had a response that some items require a particular build to be "effective" (and words like that make me really nervous... because it seems like effective would be dependent on the campaign and GM). Well, yes and no. An agile weapon would be a good addition for many rogues, ninjas, rangers, or any other Dex-based character. Will it make that character a DPS king? Probably not (but we are talking rogues here...). But it would still be a nice find that would make the character better or more flexible. Dex based Rangers? Are we playing the same game? This is the class that gets to ignore dex requirements for feats which usually have them.
That being said, like Trogdar said, an Agile weapon is there because the game currently doesn't provide any other way to have a swashbucklery type to actually deal damage (outside of Sneak Attack, but that's a highly specific mechanic relegated to specific classes and specific circumstances) with any weapon aside from the scimitar.
Quote: See, I play Pathfinder, not Buildfinder. So what happens during play is more important to me than before play. Not saying people can't enjoy build-crafting. To each his own. But I have a hard time commiserating with someone who is upset because they didn't get the "perfect" piece of equipment right on time. Because the character couldn't know that he should get said equipment... not without some kind of metagaming. And that takes me even farther from Pathfinder as an RPG (rather than a tactical battles simulator)... See, I play Pathfinder, not Begfinder. So what happens during play is more important to me than between play, wherein some people get down on my hands and knees and beg the almighty GM to give them a way to make their character actually match their vision of him. Not saying people can't enjoy beg-crafting. To each his own. But I have a hard time commiserating with someone who is upset because they didn't get the "perfect" thing right on time. Because the character didn't know that he should get said equipment... not without some kind of metagaming. And that takes me even farther from Pathfinder as an RPG (rather than a religion simulator)
Eirikrautha wrote: Trogdar wrote: again, in those peoples defense, it isn't really about getting something magical so much as it is about achieving a mechanical representation of the character they envision that is accurate. No one wants to play a swashbuckler type character that absolutely must have a specific weapon. The weapon property is a bad patch for a cludgy mechanic. Then what you are telling me is that the game is fundamentally flawed. If the mechanics to recreate the desired character can only be achieved in one way (by the use of external elements), or not at all, then the game has failed.
Except, I don't think it has. Because the mechanics might constrain your dice rolls, but they don't limit your character! A swashbuckler can be dashing, witty, brave, foolhardy, debonaire, without a single magical item. What he might not be able to do is average xD6 +30 damage per round. One of those is metagaming... You know, I would agree with this... if the game didn't require a certain amount of damage output to viably perform a martial character's role in combat.
A Swashbuckler who can't put anything down is going to have a very hard time actually surviving/not-getting-fired by his adventuring party for being a liability.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Eirikrautha wrote: Trogdar wrote: again, in those peoples defense, it isn't really about getting something magical so much as it is about achieving a mechanical representation of the character they envision that is accurate. No one wants to play a swashbuckler type character that absolutely must have a specific weapon. The weapon property is a bad patch for a cludgy mechanic. Then what you are telling me is that the game is fundamentally flawed. If the mechanics to recreate the desired character can only be achieved in one way (by the use of external elements), or not at all, then the game has failed.
Except, I don't think it has. Because the mechanics might constrain your dice rolls, but they don't limit your character! A swashbuckler can be dashing, witty, brave, foolhardy, debonaire, without a single magical item. What he might not be able to do is average xD6 +30 damage per round. One of those is metagaming... You know, I would agree with this... if the game didn't require a certain amount of damage output to viably perform a martial character's role in combat.
A Swashbuckler who can't put anything down is going to have a very hard time actually surviving/not-getting-fired by his adventuring party for being a liability. So yes there should be "a way" to viably contribute at a particular style. But there is no entitlement to a SPECIFIC means of doing so.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Eirikrautha wrote: Lord knows I hate to drag this thread back to the OP's original topic, but I'm still having a hard time with the metagaming aspect of "getting what you want." Yeah, sometimes the derails are way more fun/interesting than the original topic.
Quote: I had a response that some items require a particular build to be "effective" (and words like that make me really nervous... because it seems like effective would be dependent on the campaign and GM). Well, yes and no. An agile weapon would be a good addition for many rogues, ninjas, rangers, or any other Dex-based character. Will it make that character a DPS king? Probably not (but we are talking rogues here...). But it would still be a nice find that would make the character better or more flexible. Dex based Rangers? Are we playing the same game? This is the class that gets to ignore dex requirements for feats which usually have them.
That being said, like Trogdar said, an Agile weapon is there because the game currently doesn't provide any other way to have a swashbucklery type to actually deal damage (outside of Sneak Attack, but that's a highly specific mechanic relegated to specific classes and specific circumstances) with any weapon aside from the scimitar.
Quote: See, I play Pathfinder, not Buildfinder. So what happens during play is more important to me than before play. Not saying people can't enjoy build-crafting. To each his own. But I have a hard time commiserating with someone who is upset because they didn't get the "perfect" piece of equipment right on time. Because the character couldn't know that he should get said equipment... not without some kind of metagaming. And that takes me even farther from Pathfinder as an RPG (rather than a tactical battles simulator)... See, I play Pathfinder, not Begfinder. So what happens during play is more important to me than between play, wherein some people get down on my hands and knees and beg the almighty GM to give them a way to make their... So any back and forth with the gm about how to make things happen within the bounds of the campaign world and restrictions is now "begging"?
It's not valid unless you just demand it and get it, like ordering from a catalogue?
That last portion was mostly just me messing with his/her statement. It seemed a little too 'one true way' to me and I figured I'd turn it around.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
The derision in names like Buildfinder and Begfinder is beneath people of your intelligence and insight.
Frankly, the argument can be made that any significantly planned build is meta-gaming.
I don't quite understand, myself, why it's so appealing. Controlling precisely and meticulously what your character will be capable of throughout his or her life really does eliminate innumerable opportunities to let the evolving narrative influence development in unforeseen and delightful ways.
It's a role-playing game about fantasy, adventure and wonder. Let yourself wonder what's going to happen next ... what your character can be if he's not on a schedule from which you refuse to deviate.
Plan a build, if you must. But don't be a slave to it. Talk to your DM; don't beg. If he or she is any good in the role, it's not necessary, because he or she wants you to be as cool and bad-ass as you do. It makes the world created for you all the richer and more colorful.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaelithe wrote: knightnday wrote: Communication. Really, seriously, this is the number one thing that you need to be a gamer. More than bathing at cons... Hey hey hey!
Let's not get crazy, here. ;) Bathing at cons is a pretty bad idea.
People tend to stare at you and ask why you didn't just do it back at the hotel, and then there's that whole problem with public decency laws...
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Jaelithe wrote: The derision in names like Buildfinder and Begfinder is beneath people of your intelligence and insight.
Frankly, the argument can be made that any significantly planned build is meta-gaming.
I don't quite understand, myself, why it's so appealing. Controlling precisely and meticulously what your character will be capable of throughout his or her life really does eliminate innumerable opportunities to let the evolving narrative influence development in unforeseen and delightful ways.
It's a role-playing game about fantasy, adventure and wonder. Let yourself wonder what's going to happen next ... what your character can be if he's not on a schedule from which you refuse to deviate.
Plan a build, if you must. But don't be a slave to it. Talk to your DM; don't beg. If's he or she is any good in the role, it's not necessary, because he or she wants you to be as cool and bad-ass as you do. It makes the world created for you all the richer and more colorful.
This oh so much. I feel like sometimes the mystery and wonder gets lost with a checklist of must have items. It is a race to get the items on the build list rather than finding something that goes outside of what you expect, of determining that it wasn't what you had in mind but it is just plain cool.
I'd love to see less emphasis on DPR and more on rediscovering the wonder of playing the game. And you are never too far into the game or too experienced to do so.
When I'm lucky enough to play, I find the mystery and wonder in the adventures and encounters I share with the rest of the players. It has jack-all to do with the magic items that show up or get purchased.
At least to me, gear is gear, who cares as long as it works for the character? Once in a while a piece of gear with a history might come along and make things meaningful, but that's one of those things that I feel is best in very small quantities.
Frankly, one of the problems I have with PF is the sheer quantity of gear required. There shouldn't be any magical gear required in my opinion, all the bonuses and such required should be built into character progression so a hero is 90% as good with a chair leg as he is with his main sword.
It's why if a piece of equipment is 'necessary' for a specific build, usually I'll try to homebrew a feat that does the necessary thing instead, so we aren't talking a "necessary" item and can move on to more "cool or flavorful" items.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
At least to me, gear is gear, who cares as long as it works for the character? Once in a while a piece of gear with a history might come along and make things meaningful, but that's one of those things that I feel is best in very small quantities.
Frankly, one of the problems I have with PF is the sheer quantity of gear required. There shouldn't be any magical gear required in my opinion, all the bonuses and such required should be built into character progression so a hero is 90% as good with a chair leg as he is with his main sword.
Heh, once again we reach the same conclusion from opposite directions.
I like magic items to feel special, so I like them to be rare.... which is why I'd rather there wasn't any magical gear required and that more of that power was built into character progression. :)
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Matt Thomason wrote: Jaelithe wrote: knightnday wrote: Communication. Really, seriously, this is the number one thing that you need to be a gamer. More than bathing at cons... Hey hey hey!
Let's not get crazy, here. ;) Bathing at cons is a pretty bad idea.
People tend to stare at you and ask why you didn't just do it back at the hotel, and then there's that whole problem with public decency laws... It's the standing, pointing at you-know-what and laughing that always gets me.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
WBL was the absolute worst thing ever introduced into RPGs.
It is a guide not an expectation or a forgone conclusion.
And oddly enough I have characters with no magic that have managed to survive past level 10 without issue.
It is a matter of perspective.
As well as false assumptions.
Magic items are not a forgone conclusion.
The "Big 6" or "Big 10" are not requirements for survival.
They help... but they are not required.
please, tell me how the heck your party survived past level 10 without a single magic item to provide the required bonuses?
did you secretly use weaker encounters or utilize kid gloves?
did you bake those bonuses into the system?
did you have single encounter days where casters would nova their resources to keep the martial characters effective?
please, tell me in detail, how the hell your group included characters that survived to 10th level with neither a magic item of any kind, nor a potion, scroll, wand or whatever. because consumables are technically magic.
please, tell me your secret
i want proof your group functioned, in explicit detail, not just anecdotal evidence, i want to know how far from the core rulebook you deviated from through use of houserules to pull this off.
i want to know what inferior tactics and encounters you used to keep the PCs from dying
what absurdly generous attribute generation methods you used?
what custom feats you created?
what optional rules you played with?
because if you are playing pure unadulterated unfiltered Pathfinder as the rulebooks are published without houserules, there is no way you can survive past level 5 without magic items
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: Damian Magecraft wrote:
WBL was the absolute worst thing ever introduced into RPGs.
It is a guide not an expectation or a forgone conclusion.
And oddly enough I have characters with no magic that have managed to survive past level 10 without issue.
It is a matter of perspective.
As well as false assumptions.
Magic items are not a forgone conclusion.
The "Big 6" or "Big 10" are not requirements for survival.
They help... but they are not required.
please, tell me how the heck your party survived past level 10 without a single magic item to provide the required bonuses?
did you secretly use weaker encounters or utilize kid gloves?
did you bake those bonuses into the system?
did you have single encounter days where casters would nova their resources to keep the martial characters effective?
please, tell me in detail, how the hell your group included characters that survived to 10th level with neither a magic item of any kind, nor a potion, scroll, wand or whatever. because consumables are technically magic.
please, tell me your secret
i want proof your group functioned, in explicit detail, not just anecdotal evidence, i want to know how far from the core rulebook you deviated from through use of houserules to pull this off.
i want to know what inferior tactics and encounters you used to keep the PCs from dying
what absurdly generous attribute generation methods you used?
what custom feats you created?
what optional rules you played with?
because if you are playing pure unadulterated unfiltered Pathfinder as the rulebooks are published without houserules, there is no way you can survive past level 5 without magic items .
Really? Take opponents, without the extra magical abilities. Give them NPC levels until they are cr appropriate. Fight. All using rules in the book. Designing encounters for characters without those items is merely a matter of math, using only in game options to make similarly unequipped npcs.
In other words, if you are fact facing against cr appropriate opponents who don't have intranet abilities and get their special things from class levels and who are similarly on the low end in terms of magic item possession, there shouldn't be much problem. Besides; I don't think I have seen anyone suggesting NO magic items will be in their game?
so your solution is the use of NPC classes to get around gearless PCs?
must be a pretty dull campaign, must not be a single monster, let alone an animal that isn't bigger than a wolf and usually nothing stronger than *gasp* a human.
please enjoy your campaign that can't even use 90% of the bestiary entries and has no options in enemy tactics besides "i attack horribly" and "i full attack horribly."
So encounters can only be interesting if they are with monsters?
Are the pcs 'not interesting' because they AREN'T Monsters?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: so your solution is the use of NPC classes to get around gearless PCs?
must be a pretty dull campaign, must not be a single monster, let alone an animal that isn't bigger than a wolf and usually nothing stronger than *gasp* a human.
please enjoy your campaign that can't even use 90% of the bestiary entries and has no options in enemy tactics besides "i attack horribly" and "i full attack horribly."
Are you seriously complaining about people playing wrong? Again? I would hazard a guess that if enough players continued playing to level 10 and beyond with no magic items it was the opposite of dull.
Why is it that people with no imagination keep accusing people of playing wrong and being dull and not using the rules and being bad at their role and playing the bad guys wrong and not using the right bad guys?
EDIT: You know what Umbriere? I'm just gonna come right out and say it instead of dancing around it. YOU are playing the game WRONG.
... And I have never played a magic item less campaign. You just said it would be impossible to survive past level five in such a campaign. I was just saying that was self evidently not true using only material from within the book. Obviously for higher than zero magic items, the same thing can be done.
Simon Legrande wrote: Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: so your solution is the use of NPC classes to get around gearless PCs?
must be a pretty dull campaign, must not be a single monster, let alone an animal that isn't bigger than a wolf and usually nothing stronger than *gasp* a human.
please enjoy your campaign that can't even use 90% of the bestiary entries and has no options in enemy tactics besides "i attack horribly" and "i full attack horribly."
Are you seriously complaining about people playing wrong? Again? I would hazard a guess that if enough players continued playing to level 10 and beyond with no magic items it was the opposite of dull.
Why is it that people with no imagination keep accusing people of playing wrong and being dull and not using the rules and being bad at their role and playing the bad guys wrong and not using the right bad guys?
EDIT: You know what Umbriere? I'm just gonna come right out and say it instead of dancing around it. YOU are playing the game WRONG. as i said later, the Narrative Portion isn't the only thing i care about, i care about the tactical portion too. you can have NPC classed human characters with very interesting narrative descriptions, but it doesn't change the fact that NPC classes are lacking in tactical options when you engage them in combat. no amount of description will clean up the bad taste in my mouth that comes from playing a character whose only combat option is "Hulk Smash!" it is why i would never play a Single classes Fighter, Rogue, Monk, or Cavalier. at least with a Paladin or Ranger, i can gain a limited series of options that allow me to mix things up if tactics call for it. if i wanted simple and straightforward combat, i would play Savage Worlds, where you at least have the excitement of success not being guaranteed in your primary focus.
RDM42 wrote: So encounters can only be interesting if they are with monsters?
Are the pcs 'not interesting' because they AREN'T Monsters?
PCs can be interesting without being monsters, and NPC classed characters can be interesting on a narrative level, doesn't change how dull to me combat against a foe with only a single attack form is. though the narrative side is interesting, i am also interested in the tactical side too. pretty hard to have the tactical side when the only opponents you face, have to same only combat option as the party fighter. there is a reason i don't play fighters. they feel too bland to me.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: Simon Legrande wrote: Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: so your solution is the use of NPC classes to get around gearless PCs?
must be a pretty dull campaign, must not be a single monster, let alone an animal that isn't bigger than a wolf and usually nothing stronger than *gasp* a human.
please enjoy your campaign that can't even use 90% of the bestiary entries and has no options in enemy tactics besides "i attack horribly" and "i full attack horribly."
Are you seriously complaining about people playing wrong? Again? I would hazard a guess that if enough players continued playing to level 10 and beyond with no magic items it was the opposite of dull.
Why is it that people with no imagination keep accusing people of playing wrong and being dull and not using the rules and being bad at their role and playing the bad guys wrong and not using the right bad guys?
EDIT: You know what Umbriere? I'm just gonna come right out and say it instead of dancing around it. YOU are playing the game WRONG. as i said later, the Narrative Portion isn't the only thing i care about, i care about the tactical portion too. you can have NPC classed human characters with very interesting narrative descriptions, but it doesn't change the fact that NPC classes are lacking in tactical options when you engage them in combat. no amount of description will clean up the bad taste in my mouth that comes from playing a character whose only combat option is "Hulk Smash!" it is why i would never play a Single classes Fighter, Rogue, Monk, or Cavalier. at least with a Paladin or Ranger, i can gain a limited series of options that allow me to mix things up if tactics call for it. if i wanted simple and straightforward combat, i would play Savage Worlds, where you at least have the excitement of success not being guaranteed in your primary focus.
RDM42 wrote: So encounters can only be interesting if they are with monsters?
Are the pcs 'not interesting' because they AREN'T Monsters?
PCs... Fine. Pc classed opponents who don't have magic items.
Regardless, if it is possible to survive - and it self evidently is - with NO magic items, it's clearly also possible with any level of limited magic items right from that point up through normal load - by adjusting what the encounters are composed of.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: Simon Legrande wrote: Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: so your solution is the use of NPC classes to get around gearless PCs?
must be a pretty dull campaign, must not be a single monster, let alone an animal that isn't bigger than a wolf and usually nothing stronger than *gasp* a human.
please enjoy your campaign that can't even use 90% of the bestiary entries and has no options in enemy tactics besides "i attack horribly" and "i full attack horribly."
Are you seriously complaining about people playing wrong? Again? I would hazard a guess that if enough players continued playing to level 10 and beyond with no magic items it was the opposite of dull.
Why is it that people with no imagination keep accusing people of playing wrong and being dull and not using the rules and being bad at their role and playing the bad guys wrong and not using the right bad guys?
EDIT: You know what Umbriere? I'm just gonna come right out and say it instead of dancing around it. YOU are playing the game WRONG. as i said later, the Narrative Portion isn't the only thing i care about, i care about the tactical portion too. you can have NPC classed human characters with very interesting narrative descriptions, but it doesn't change the fact that NPC classes are lacking in tactical options when you engage them in combat. no amount of description will clean up the bad taste in my mouth that comes from playing a character whose only combat option is "Hulk Smash!" it is why i would never play a Single classes Fighter, Rogue, Monk, or Cavalier. at least with a Paladin or Ranger, i can gain a limited series of options that allow me to mix things up if tactics call for it. if i wanted simple and straightforward combat, i would play Savage Worlds, where you at least have the excitement of success not being guaranteed in your primary focus.
RDM42 wrote: So encounters can only be interesting if they are with monsters?
Are the pcs 'not interesting' because they AREN'T Monsters?
PCs... Also, I was unaware that adepts had only the same options as human fighters.
RDM42" wrote:
Fine. Pc classed opponents who don't have magic items.
Regardless, if it is possible to survive - and it self evidently is - with NO magic items, it's clearly also possible with any level of limited magic items right from that point up through normal load - by adjusting what the encounters are composed of.
that sounds appropriate and feasible
effectively, we finally found a solution that works and can have an interesting set of tactical options.
i would actually be accepting of that.
just don't expect to fight dragons and giants without magic items, but 0HD humanoids and low end animals, sure.
RDM42 wrote: Also, I was unaware that adepts had only the same options as human fighters Adepts have a very limited spell list that doesn't make for many tactical options. they have more than a human fighter, but i forgot about them when i lumped them up with the other NPC classes.
Besides, a lack of magic items or limits on them can also,open up some mundane tactical options that are normally rendered less useful by an abundance of magic when you start getting up in level.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: RDM42" wrote:
Fine. Pc classed opponents who don't have magic items.
Regardless, if it is possible to survive - and it self evidently is - with NO magic items, it's clearly also possible with any level of limited magic items right from that point up through normal load - by adjusting what the encounters are composed of.
that sounds appropriate and feasible
effectively, we finally found a solution that works and can have an interesting set of tactical options.
i would actually be accepting of that.
just don't expect to fight dragons and giants without magic items, but 0HD humanoids and low end animals, sure. actually...
the final "boss" fight of that particular campaign was an Adult Black Dragon.
With proper tactics even a "traditional" monster can be fought with NO magic.
But I do not expect everyone to find that type of campaign entertaining.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There are a huge number of factors to be taken into consideration in that statement though Damian.
There's the question of the party's level in relation to the Adult Black Dragon's CR. There's also the question of how many party members you had (you tend to have pretty massive parties based on your stories here on the boards.) Lastly, there's the question of how many members of the party were casters (Paladins included if we're talking a PF rather than 3.5 campaign) who tend to be screwed over less by reduced magic gear.
RDM42 wrote: Besides, a lack of magic items or limits on them can also,open up some mundane tactical options that are normally rendered less useful by an abundance of magic when you start getting up in level. a lot of those options generally do work better against 0HD humanoids and 0HD outsiders with class levels if you are playing in a world where all the foes you face are humanoids with class levels.
yes, planetouched may be 0HD outsiders and Grippli, 0HD Fey, but i consider them 0HD humanoids for the purpose of this discussion due to their humanoid anatomy, and well, lack of hit dice
it makes the game more lethal all around due to a lack of magical defenses and often leads to short adventuring days because caster resources are spent patching up wounded martials whom did most of the fighting.
it's not a playstyle everyone can handle, and while it can accomodate animals or some of the smaller giants without much issue, it tends to collapse when you include some of the larger and more magical foes of the animal and giant type
it can definitely result in faster combat due to how quickly you can knock a class leveled character into the negatives due to their lack of gear
but has no relative impact on full casters whom weren't relying on much gear to begin with beyond stretching their resources.
a larger party can mitigate this to a point.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
actually...
the final "boss" fight of that particular campaign was an Adult Black Dragon.
With proper tactics even a "traditional" monster can be fought with NO magic.
But I do not expect everyone to find that type of campaign entertaining.
tactical play and mcguyver levels of creativity only carry you so far, the numbers on your sheet do the rest. and your stories often talk of massive parties, much like my own, and well, even without magical gear, i'm sure you had a good amount of spellcasters, and judicious consumable use that made the dragon defeatable
even if the characters may not have had magic items to provide the bonuses, i'm fairly sure there was a spellcaster or potion providing the lost bonuses.
spellcasters can use spells to compensate the bonuses they normally delegate to equipment, but this black dragon thing sounds like, the casters buffed the martials in a massive party and let the martials do the killing
it's Akin to Ashiel's strategy of Playing a Ranger and having everybody grease her ranger up in magical oils to fight the boss. buffing isn't teamwork, it's delegation, and in a low magic game, casters are more likely to use delegation because their role pretty much changes to buffer all around.
but this is an assumption based on the fact you need a magic weapon to bypass a Dragon's DR and well, without those bonuses, a Dragon's Damage will badly wound or even incapacitate an average PC
thing is, once you remove the items, it becomes time to use spells as a means to compensate.
kyrt-ryder wrote: There are a huge number of factors to be taken into consideration in that statement though Damian.
There's the question of the party's level in relation to the Adult Black Dragon's CR. There's also the question of how many party members you had (you tend to have pretty massive parties based on your stories here on the boards.) Lastly, there's the question of how many members of the party were casters (Paladins included if we're talking a PF rather than 3.5 campaign) who tend to be screwed over less by reduced magic gear.
True I GM large parties...
But I am a rarity according to most.
When I PC I am at the mercy of the GM just like everyone else.
The party in question consisted of 5 PCs.
Not a single spell slinger amongst us.
We had a Barbarian Dwarf (Drunken Brute), two Human Phalanx Soldiers, an Elf Zen Archer, and a human Monk of the Sacred Mountain (me).
The dragon was a cr11.
Make of that what you will.
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote: Damian Magecraft wrote:
actually...
the final "boss" fight of that particular campaign was an Adult Black Dragon.
With proper tactics even a "traditional" monster can be fought with NO magic.
But I do not expect everyone to find that type of campaign entertaining.
tactical play and mcguyver levels of creativity only carry you so far, the numbers on your sheet do the rest. and your stories often talk of massive parties, much like my own, and well, even without magical gear, i'm sure you had a good amount of spellcasters, and judicious consumable use that made the dragon defeatable
even if the characters may not have had magic items to provide the bonuses, i'm fairly sure there was a spellcaster or potion providing the lost bonuses.
spellcasters can use spells to compensate the bonuses they normally delegate to equipment, but this black dragon thing sounds like, the casters buffed the martials in a massive party and let the martials do the killing
it's Akin to Ashiel's strategy of Playing a Ranger and having everybody grease her ranger up in magical oils to fight the boss. buffing isn't teamwork, it's delegation, and in a low magic game, casters are more likely to use delegation because their role pretty much changes to buffer all around.
but this is an assumption based on the fact you need a magic weapon to bypass a Dragon's DR and well, without those bonuses, a Dragon's Damage will badly wound or even incapacitate an average PC
thing is, once you remove the items, it becomes time to use spells as a means to compensate. You make too much out of the DR.
It is DR5/magic.
By RAW that means only magic bypasses the DR not that only magic can hurt it.
5 points off of damage dealt is nothing spectacular or life threatening.
|
