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.
in that case
the Party was either pretty optimized for combat outside of the Zen-Archer's Race, the dragon was played as a melee brute, or they caught the dragon on unfavorable terrain where it couldn't use its full ability
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.
it tends to stack up over time and without magic, it tends to be a lot harder to pile on attack and damage bonuses to make stuff like power attack or deadly aim useful. so that 5 represents an enlarged chunk of the character's damage per attack compared to normal
Not to mention problems like AC capping out at the low twenties (barring hyper-focused builds like a fighter who uses a tower shield while fighting defensively with combat expertise) in a magic-less campaign starts to become a real problem. Considering that according the bestiary the high attack on a CR 10 monster is +18, having your AC cap out at 20 is bad.
Not to mention problems like AC capping out at the low twenties (barring hyper-focused builds like a fighter who uses a tower shield while fighting defensively with combat expertise) in a magic-less campaign starts to become a real problem. Considering that according the bestiary the high attack on a CR 10 monster is +18, having your AC cap out at 20 is bad.
and most builds won't even have that
they may have a 15-17, if they push it
every time I see people arguing the "numbers" I am reminded of a story my Statistics 101 Professor told on the first day of class.
Three statisticians went deer hunting during bow season.
While trudging through the forest they stumbled across the granddaddy of all trophies. The Fabled Thirty point Buck.
The first steadies his nerves, nocks an arrow, raises his bow, draws and lets his arrow fly. It misses ten feet to the left.
The second shakes his head, gives the first a knowing look, takes aim at the buck and takes his shot. He misses ten feet to the right.
The third statistician starts excitedly jumping up and down and exclaims "We got him! We got him!"
The moral being numbers do not always tell the truth.
every time I see people arguing the "numbers" I am reminded of a story my Statistics 101 Professor told on the first day of class.
Three statisticians went deer hunting during bow season.
While trudging through the forest they stumbled across the granddaddy of all trophies. The Fabled Thirty point Buck.
The first steadies his nerves, nocks an arrow, raises his bow, draws and lets his arrow fly. It misses ten feet to the left.
The second shakes his head, gives the first a knowing look, takes aim at the buck and takes his shot. He misses ten feet to the right.
The third statistician starts excitedly jumping up and down and exclaims "We got him! We got him!"The moral being numbers do not always tell the truth.
Cute story, but utterly irrelevant as anything other than a cheap attempt at misdirection. Numbers do tell the truth when you're dealing with math problems, and Pathfinder combat includes a ton of math. How do you hit things? Math. How do you do damage? Math. What do buff and debuff spells do? Change the math. Even most of your tactical options are about math, like flanking in order to get better math.
By all means, explain how someone with 17 AC is not hit on anything other than natural 1 by a monster with +18 to-hit.
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.in that case
the Party was either pretty optimized for combat outside of the Zen-Archer's Race, the dragon was played as a melee brute, or they caught the dragon on unfavorable terrain where it couldn't use its full ability
That can't be possible since you just claimed that PCs can't use tactics with no magic, it must have been just a big storytelling battle.
That being said, PCs using tactics and environment to their advantage? That's unpossible! Based on your comments, I now feel kinda bad for you for never having played with a good GM and/or good players.
every time I see people arguing the "numbers" I am reminded of a story my Statistics 101 Professor told on the first day of class.
Three statisticians went deer hunting during bow season.
While trudging through the forest they stumbled across the granddaddy of all trophies. The Fabled Thirty point Buck.
The first steadies his nerves, nocks an arrow, raises his bow, draws and lets his arrow fly. It misses ten feet to the left.
The second shakes his head, gives the first a knowing look, takes aim at the buck and takes his shot. He misses ten feet to the right.
The third statistician starts excitedly jumping up and down and exclaims "We got him! We got him!"The moral being numbers do not always tell the truth.
Cute story, but utterly irrelevant as anything other than a cheap attempt at misdirection. Numbers do tell the truth when you're dealing with math problems, and Pathfinder combat includes a ton of math. How do you hit things? Math. How do you do damage? Math. What do buff and debuff spells do? Change the math. Even most of your tactical options are about math, like flanking in order to get better math.
By all means, explain how someone with 17 AC is not hit on anything other than natural 1 by a monster with +18 to-hit.
Oh good, another person comes along to say "you're doing it wrong." How can people not understand that you can't have fun if you're doing it wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now Simon, I don't think they were saying "you're doing it wrong" but rather explain the math because I think in terms of tactics and don't understand how you have a successful battle with the odds stacked so heavily against you.
I too would love to be regaled by the story. Not because I think ANYONE (Damian OR Chengar or even Simon) is doing it wrong but because my tactics suck and I probably would've been obliterated in the same scenario. I'd like to learn how this party survived.
1. As a GM I like learning about new tactics to challenge my tactically minded players
2. As a potential player in an upcoming game I want to improve my odds and not be my usual "boat anchor" self in the party
Add on the fact that I think EVERYONE can benefit from learning how to go low magic if for no other reason than to astonish fellow gamers. D-Mage, tell us how you pulled it off!
Thank you for that, Mark. As you said, there's no wrong way to play the game.
I am curious to see how frontliners can keep up in AC at higher levels without magic items. It's notable that of the classic "Big Six" magic items fully half of them are AC boosters, (Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, Magic Armor). Stat-boosting items can also fill that role, if it's adding to a stat that goes to AC.
As it stands, the only way I can see to get viable AC against an Adult Black Dragon (Which is at +21 to hit) is by focusing on some combination of defensive fighting/combat expertise that would tank the character's offensive ability. If pre-errate Crane Wing was part of the mix, that would help a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the things that really hampered and made players made in the Edition that Shall Not Be Named is the cost of making/buying magical items and the fact that it was highly suggested that the GM request Wish lists for the characters.
Wish lists for wanted items is a bad idea.
Really bad idea.
No, really. It is a bad, horrible idea.
Why is that a bad idea, but walking into the magic mart in a town of 12 (including one old dog) and finding everything short of artifacts is expected?
No, really, why is a wish list a bad idea?
Not in Pathfinder. You can't even find 1st level potions in a thorpe. Cantrip/Orisons sure, but not 1st level ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin: does the +5 to craft DC for "missing a prerequisite" also apply to Caster Level? I admit I am much more familiar with item crafting procedure in 3.5e than in Pathfinder. If a PF crafter can ignore minimum caster level by taking a +5 hit to the DC then yes, it seems like relatively low level crafters can make a lot more items. Doesn't feel right to me mind you.
For me it's a breath of fresh air. Clean. Pure. Verisimilitude producing air.
I freaking hated that in 3.x you had to meet X caster level to create a magic item because it forced way too much onto how I wanted to theme my worlds. Don't get me wrong, I hated pre-3E item creation infinitely more ("To scribe a magic spell scroll, you need the ink of a kraken" = wtf!? There would be no low-level scrolls ever you morons!).
But it basically meant that you had to have lots of high level spellcasters floating around just to justify items that weren't even very noteworthy. A +1 flaming weapon required a 10th level spellcaster to make, and that spellcaster had to know either flame blade, flame strike, or fireball which means adepts couldn't have made it either.
This reared its ugly head most visibly in the Eberron campaign setting where the narrative is designed around the idea that the highest level people in the campaign at the beginning of the game are around 10-12th level, and has an industry that has lots of elemental-binding magics to make things like airships and magic-trains. Except when you look in the books it's quite jarring because nobody can freaking make any of them. >_>
Then Paizo comes along and throws me a bone! Behold, item creation rules where your skill in creating items is the most important thing. Where I can have a campaign not flooded with demigod-powered NPCs to keep the game flowing well. Where it's entirely possible that you meet a skilled magical item artisan and it's a relatively normal woman with a talking raven that happens to be really good at working magic into items, even if she's not good at making things implode by snapping her fingers. :o
It also gives me something to have all the adepts in my worlds do. As an NPC class, I tend to have a spread of adepts similar to my spread of warriors and experts. You can find some in most settlements because I like magic in my settings. I want it to be a part of the world. I like that people know that magic is a thing instead of reacting like dark age peasants and freak out everytime a wizard utters a cantrip.
The vast majority of people in my campaigns are fairly low level, with high HD people standing out amongst them as quite formidable, but even those usually have more NPC levels than not so their CRs aren't individually very high.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for exactly making my point while I was out working. This is exactly my point about these kinds of characters in this setting. Every town across the world the PCs wander into has half the town slaughtering their goats to appease the tengu and kitsune and the other half trying to kill the devil and the creature that has returned from the dead. I'm not a fan of "but... but... PCCCCCCCCC!"So...a human only game is what you're looking for?
PCs are by their very nature special. It's fine if you want to fight that, but strange races and exotic weapons are one of the ways as a PC you're able to differentiate yourself from the commoner lot.
Personally, I think removing crafting feats and just letting anyone who put the investment in Craft would work for crafting, but in most of the games i'm seeing here, getting a party crafter would be priorty #1. Heck, a fun idea might be to have everyone in the party specialize in one crafting ability, so that downtime wasn't the mage crafting alone while everyone sat and waited for him.
Give the Fighter the ability to make his weapon of yore (possibly with the fang of the Giardwyrm that the party slayed), the Wizard makes his staves, Cleric pumping out rings, and the Rogue (or whomever if filling their slot) is being a jack of all trades with CWI.
As a side note, using treasures that we find to craft magic items directly is something that I and some other members of our group do regularly. Crafting magic items requires X gp worth of materials but there are no explanations as to what those materials are or should be, so we generally take advantage of that for fun.
For example, if I find a circlet studded with rubies I might toss that into the proverbial mixing pot and magic up the circlet since it's now a part of the materials I'm crafting from. In our Reign of Winter game my psionic witch commonly makes magic items for the party and when doing so it usually involves breaking down, modifying, or building from stuff we found in the game. She's currently wearing a robe that she made out of quickrunner shirts that the party looted. She carries a cauldron that she gave the ability to create a brew that when drank changes your shape into something you envision for an hour (with enough inside for five doses). The cauldron was looted from an encounter in an earlier adventure and did something entirely different.
We find lots of gemstones? When you ask my witch to make you a +1 flaming weapon, expect to haft or blade to be studded with gems forming magical circuits. In other campaigns my high Int crafters often do things like cut gems or make the jewelry that will be the basis of their crafting (using the Craft skill to triple the value of raw trade goods before using them as components for my item creation).
Hell in some cases I've melted down coins to use as a material in crafting. Yeah, I melted down a pound of platinum to make that shiny new +1 bracer of armor for you. >_>
Sometimes it might even be potluck (which is fun as it can add to the sort of hedgewizard feel) where random stuff goes into the mix to be enhanced. When making a +3 cloak of resistance and we throw in the +1 sword we found, a bag of gems, a troll skull, and few magic scrolls, and a horse blanket, expect the product that comes out of that to be a rather spectacular and personalized +3 cloak of resistance...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rise of the commoner lich!@Rynjin: does the +5 to craft DC for "missing a prerequisite" also apply to Caster Level? I admit I am much more familiar with item crafting procedure in 3.5e than in Pathfinder. If a PF crafter can ignore minimum caster level by taking a +5 hit to the DC then yes, it seems like relatively low level crafters can make a lot more items. Doesn't feel right to me mind you.Yep, anything applies to that, except having the right crafting Feat.
Honestly that fact has tickled me pink and made me so happy. However climbing the mountain of that 120,000 gp creation cost is the next hurdle, but one of these days Alice, one of these days... :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
as if the GM doesn't know the entirety of the world he created.Waitasecond, leaving the rest of your post aside for a moment, since when does the GM know the entirety of the world he created?
I know I sure don't. My campaign is ever evolving from a primordial ooze that was a few ideas and concepts that have slowly grown into a spreading fungus that seems to attract the unwary...
I usually make the base crafting just a bit harder, but allow special or creative uses of thematic components - which can include materials or "crafted during a full moon on the third day of the festival of swords, when the great hero such and so defeated the whatchamacallit." to eliminate the extra difficulty and even make things easier. In other words, you are encouraged to get creative and do the sorts of stuff you describe and get rewarded when you do. No, you don't HAVE to have kraken ink ... But it makes things better if you do.
Well do keep in mind that we're also adventuring and playing a cooperative game where we fight monsters, perform acts of daring-do, and collect tons of phat lewts and XP. Full moons and past heroes and such are nice and all but we're also playing in an adventure path and while time hasn't been super important (I've had plenty of downtime to work on stuff along with my companion fetish) I'm not sure it would be particularly suitable to go threw the bells and whistles of full moons on particular days and stuff to upgrade my friends armor to a +2 breastplate. >_>
Plus the more you mechanize the fluff the harder it becomes to be creative. As the magic item rules are now they're pretty simple and very functional. X GP value + Y time = Z magic item. Everything else, the crafters (sometimes with ideas from the GM) can fill in the blanks for. Much in the same way that we can refluff how magic works on an individual basis.
The moment you need to meet lots of fluffy requirements to make magic items effectively is also the moment when you shoot creativity in the knee. It might hobble along but it's crippled by comparison. "Sorry, you can't make a shrunken head out of your enemy that produces a fireball 3/day, you need a red dragon skull, preferably crafted during the summer solstice that has been soaked in a bew of fire lillies for two days prior. Since you're not doing that, the DC is going to be 10 points higher," doesn't really do anything to encourage creativity or even add to the game.
It also risks bogging the game down in even more bookkeeping when honestly the point of the game should not be what magic items you have but what's going on in the game. If a magic item becomes a significant plot-point it should probably either be something that is far above the common cut of magic item or an artifact. A mini-quest or side-session to roleplay the advancement of the +1 cloak to a +2 cloak is not really my idea of a great adventure. More like something I might muse about in a short story I was writing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For a similar example of why anchoring tons of fluff to mechanics is not a good thing, and why not is, let's look at magic for a moment.
Arcane Magic usually wants you to do the following...
1. Use vocal components.
2. Use somatic components.
Vocal means you must vocalize something to make the magic work.
Somatic means you have to move around a certain way and have a hand free.
With these rules you can create drastically different flavors and feels for your various spellcasters in your games. For example, all of the following are 100% legit in a standard Pathfinder game and with good reason.
Elf Wizard: "Oh ancient spirits of fire and destruction, heed my call, lend me your breath of destruction!" and casts fireball.
Human Wizard: "Veklo akto heto maro uto glayo combusto!" and casts fireball.
Dwarf Wizard: "By the fires of the great forge of the Balin, the mountain came down, and through the fires of the mountain his foes burned to the ground!" and he casts fireball.
Goblin Wizard: "BURN! BURN! BURN! GODDAMNIT BUUUUUUUUUUUURN!" and casts fireball and roasts a few of his buddies too.
Fair enough. The only thing that concerns me is that it seems like a system that requires a person to apply mechanical values to someone else's creativity only serves to punish those who aren't particularly creative or reward those who are already being rewarded.
Now Simon, I don't think they were saying "you're doing it wrong" but rather explain the math because I think in terms of tactics and don't understand how you have a successful battle with the odds stacked so heavily against you.
The odds aren't THAT heavily against you. Most of those same monsters have AC in the low 20s, don't have means of magical healing, and have just over 100 HP. It actually would be a pretty decent battle without overcoming DR; The PC's economy of action works in their favor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes! Player entitlement would be telling the GM he can't an evil chancellor in his campaign, because functionally those are equivalent. And I've never heard a player suggest that. I'll break down to make it simple.
GM controlling a player's choice in character = GM entitlement.
Player controlling GM's choice in world elements = Player entitlement.
It's pretty simple to understand this way. And I never hear players try and dictate what the GM can't have in their campaigns.
To be fair I'm one of the more avid pro-player GMs out there and even I have my limits. There are some campaigns where I just don't want to deal with having certain types of PCs. Also taking your argument to the logical conclusion sends up red flags in my mind, as it would seem that as long as you don't tell me what I can have as a GM in my campaign it would be totally fine for you to play a Pit Fiend or a Gelatinous Cube. >_>
Keep in mind that in my campaign setting I have over 20 playable races (including changelings and drider). I also thought refluffing the races/classes for the egyptian-themed game mentioned earlier in the thread was a great idea. In my current campaign one of the PCs is a vampire (using a significantly revised template for vampires that I use for my NPCs) tiefling wilder, a human paladin, a human sorceress, a *can't say because most of the PCs don't know in game and they may read this thread* multiclassed character, a human wizard, and a menagerie of party-tag-along NPCs that includes a goblin sorcerer, a human telepath, a human warrior/psion, a human vampire adept, and an orc barbarian/gunslinger/warrior.
That said, there are some players out there who just want to get the GM's goat. One such player who said he wanted to join one of my tabletop campaigns was presented with the character creation rules for my game, and a list of all the immediately accepted races and such, and he didn't even look at them. He opened up the monster manual and basically just started asking to play random monsters. He finally decided that he wanted to play a 3PP lizardfolk - but not lizardfolk - race that he found that came with a lot of fluffy stuff from a campaign that had nothing to do with mine and cited that as the reason he wanted to play one of them instead of any of the campaign races that he never looked at. (O.o)
Though thinking about it, to a great degree I don't understand why. I understand wanting to play what you want to play, but I don't understand what someone is getting out of it if their character has no meaningful relationships, background, history, or even place in the world. Especially if they're not getting some sort of mechanical advantage out of it.
For example, either of the two following scenarios would rub me the wrong way...
Player: "I want to play a half-giant!"
GM: "Well there aren't any half-giants in my world because the giants went extinct a few hundred years ago. But I like half-giants, so what would you think if refluffed half-giants to be a descended race of humans who have giant-blood in their ancestry and as a result tend to be really big? We could place you in a small tribe in this valley here."
Player: "No, stop trying to ruin my character,"
Player: "I want to a noble drow priestess of Lolth from Menzoberanzan,"
GM: "Lolth doesn't exist in this campaign setting, and while there are drow nobles the nobles don't have any extra powers over other drow. Their people are currently locked in a civil war between their queen and her brother the exiled prince. If you're looking for tyrannical priestess with a dark master feel, I think we could work something out with this faction..."
Player: "No, my priestess is from Menzoberanzan and she worships Lolth, from this house, and she is a noble drow so she levitates and beats people with a snake-headed flail. She can just have fallen into this world through a hole in the ground."
GM: "You realize that by insisting on such you are effectively making sure your character has little to build on and no NPCs to be connected to since you literally are not in your world anymore. Like, there will be no Lolth worshippers, no priestesses of your faith, no man-slaving Drizzt-hating folks wandering around, and your character has nothing to relate to the campaign, right?"
Player: "...Yeah, but I still want to,"
GM: *doesn't understand why really*
But again, don't get me wrong. If you're specifically looking for a fish out of water experience then that might be A-OK. I once had a game where my brother played a soldier from the real world who through a planar anomaly was transported to the campaign world. His entire shtick was that he was not in Kansas anymore Toto. He had clothing, weapons, tools, and so forth that didn't fit in the world, and had never seen any magic before in his life. The entirety of his metaplot revolved around him not fitting in the world.
I think I'm rambling now... *wanders off*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, Ashiel, you keep talking like this and I'm going to have to reassess your position as someone I generally disagree with.
You missed the last piece I asked for Damian. What level were you guys?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.
oh whoops sorry...
Final battle of the campaign we were level 10.
Though thinking about it, to a great degree I don't understand why. I understand wanting to play what you want to play, but I don't understand what someone is getting out of it if their character has no meaningful relationships, background, history, or even place in the world. Especially if they're not getting some sort of mechanical advantage out of it.
I often end up pushing DM limits with my special snowflake stuff, or at least I HAVE in the past. Most often because I really prefer the MAN OUT OF TIME trope, a normal guy/girl from Earth circa 20th-21st century magically transported to another world. This right here breaks verisimilitude for a lot of people, though it's happened in sooooo many fantasy/sci-fi stories I can't imagine why it would.
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.in that case
the Party was either pretty optimized for combat outside of the Zen-Archer's Race, the dragon was played as a melee brute, or they caught the dragon on unfavorable terrain where it couldn't use its full ability
I did not bother to pay attention to the builds of the other PCs (Not my character and I wasnt the GM) But yeah I was "optimized" (I prefer to call what I did min/maxing since I minimized my weaknesses not exacerbate them by ignoring them for my strengths).
And yes we fought the Dragon in terrain ill suited to it; its called tactics.Read Sun Tzu and Miyamoto Musashi and you will understand how ridiculous the accusation that the Dragon was caught in unfavorable terrain is not appropriate for this discussion or some how cheating sounds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Geez, Ashiel, you keep talking like this and I'm going to have to reassess your position as someone I generally disagree with.
Oh my! The sky is falling! :P
Now that you mention it though, I get the feeling that we - board people - often unintentionally take small things people say and inflate them to the point we think of those things as defining traits of that person. Or take their comments in extreme ways. It's something I try very hard to avoid doing because I am interested in logic and truth and it's very easy to obtain a perception bias - so I rail against that hard.
Still, I get the feeling that people on the boards have some really out-there ideas about how my games work, and I bet I can even explain why. For example...
1. In several threads I make logic-system arguments against things like forced alignments for Undead.
2. In several threads I acknowledge what certain game materials can do as part of the rules without any house rules (such as simulacrum being silly powerful if used to its potential; or when I acknowledged that it's really not very hard to planar binding wishes out of outsiders).
3. In several threads I discuss that ability scores don't have hard-coded grades and do not mean much more to a character beyond where they set the starting point for your character, and that the character's whole package makes up a real persona - not six numbers.
4. I stress that GMs should try to be flexible and work with their players, use communication, and not worry about their players doing cool things (players are supposed to do cool thngs), and that arbitrary judgments are to be avoided in favor of arbitration judgments (a subtle difference).
5. I discuss things from the standards expected in the core rules, acknowledging that it's not only legal to buy items of X value in the game at certain sized communities, including wands and such. I explain that a lot of care goes into changing these things and should be discussed with the whole group if that's the plan.
Except I'm pretty sure a lot of people end up with the following ideas.
1. All undead in his campaign are good.
2. Dirty powergamer game where everyone uses wish exploits to start with +5 inherent modifiers to everything at level 0.
3. Just wants to game the system, doesn't care about roleplaying.
4. All about player entitlement. A GM who hates GMs. Wants everything handed to them.
5. Has no creativity. Wants magic marts everywhere. Wants to cheat the system.
I'm pretty sure there's tons more. Hell, I'm pretty sure LazarX could write a small book about the horrors that he expects to find in my games.
The funny thing about it though is my games for the most part tend to be pretty mild. We play 15 point buy, don't use hero points (too crazy powerful, but we do use action points that don't give bonuses but let you spend them to take an extra action on your turn), and I tend to stick to humanoid NPCs plus stuff from the core bestiary (occasionally I'll branch out but honestly there's a lot of variation just within core stuff and it cuts down on my prep work). I tend to build NPCs to be people first, and build campaigns around my PCs.
I'd actually be really interested in knowing what sort of conceptions they have about me or their theory of my games for my own curiosity. If anyone wants to share I'd love them to (I'm thick skinned so it won't bother me if it's far from rose-tinted). It would be interesting to know how I and as a result my games are imagined on these boards.
Not to mention problems like AC capping out at the low twenties (barring hyper-focused builds like a fighter who uses a tower shield while fighting defensively with combat expertise) in a magic-less campaign starts to become a real problem. Considering that according the bestiary the high attack on a CR 10 monster is +18, having your AC cap out at 20 is bad.
Sorry to backtrack to this but AC capping out at the low twenties? Since when? The last two 10th level characters I had have around 33 AC after a round of buffs. My current lvl 5 dude has about 23-26 with plans to go higher at lvl 7. And I'm a player that likes to rely less on magical gear even when it's around. Do people really not care about AC? Do I build my characters weird?
To be fair other party members are around 20 AC but I thought that's because they are full casters and a barbarian.
I'm not exactly trying to challenge the statement I just feel like I missed something. By the time lvl 10 rolls around I don't feel safe with less than 30 AC.
Not to mention problems like AC capping out at the low twenties (barring hyper-focused builds like a fighter who uses a tower shield while fighting defensively with combat expertise) in a magic-less campaign starts to become a real problem. Considering that according the bestiary the high attack on a CR 10 monster is +18, having your AC cap out at 20 is bad.Sorry to backtrack to this but AC capping out at the low twenties? Since when? The last two 10th level characters I had have around 33 AC after a round of buffs. My current lvl 5 dude has about 23-26 with plans to go higher at lvl 7. And I'm a player that likes to rely less on magical gear even when it's around. Do people really not care about AC? Do I build my characters weird?
To be fair other party members are around 20 AC but I thought that's because they are full casters and a barbarian.
I'm not exactly trying to challenge the statement I just feel like I missed something. By the time lvl 10 rolls around I don't feel safe with less than 30 AC.
its an offshoot comment centered around my level 10 no magic party.
Not to mention problems like AC capping out at the low twenties (barring hyper-focused builds like a fighter who uses a tower shield while fighting defensively with combat expertise) in a magic-less campaign starts to become a real problem. Considering that according the bestiary the high attack on a CR 10 monster is +18, having your AC cap out at 20 is bad.Sorry to backtrack to this but AC capping out at the low twenties? Since when? The last two 10th level characters I had have around 33 AC after a round of buffs. My current lvl 5 dude has about 23-26 with plans to go higher at lvl 7. And I'm a player that likes to rely less on magical gear even when it's around. Do people really not care about AC? Do I build my characters weird?
To be fair other party members are around 20 AC but I thought that's because they are full casters and a barbarian.
I'm not exactly trying to challenge the statement I just feel like I missed something. By the time lvl 10 rolls around I don't feel safe with less than 30 AC.
You're not weird. My group uses 15 PB and the Paladin in my group is freshly 7th level and a bit under WBL (but not for long). Without buffs his AC is in the mid 20s. With buffs during a big encounter with a vampire lord recently his AC was 37. Counting his smite evil after eagle's splendor his AC would have been 40 vs the vampire lord.
Even with the +18 that the vampire lord had to hit with his +1 mithral longsword he couldn't have hit the Paladin on anything except a natural 20.
I'm not exactly trying to challenge the statement I just feel like I missed something. By the time lvl 10 rolls around I don't feel safe with less than 30 AC.
Tell me about it. My psionic witch in my friend's Reign of Winter game has a 29 AC when she's not really trying and a mid 30s AC when she buffs up. Her equipment currency consists off...
+2 Silk Armor (+1 armor, +2 enhancement to armor bonuses)
+2 enhancement to shield bonuses (wrist slot)
+1 buckler of moderate fortification (+1 shield, for the crit resistance)
+2 deflection bonus (robe)
+2 enhancement to natural armor (neck slot)
+1 Dexterity
+8 armor from Inertial Armor (doesn't stack with the +1 armor from her robes)
10 base = 29
If I have a lot of time to buff, she can push her AC close to 40 (she can get a natural armor bonus which stacks with the amulet, and she can manifest force screen to get a +4 shield bonus (doesn't stack with the bonus from her buckler, but it does stack with enhancement bonuses to shield armor).
However doing so means using a lot of powers that aren't very long in duration and eats up a lot of juice, so I try to avoid doing so unless I'm going to be getting into the thick of things really badly. Instead I'll usually just pop force screen to bring her to AC 32 and then try to stand back and support our party's martials as supporting them tends to be far more mana-efficient.
its an offshoot comment centered around my level 10 no magic party.Not to mention problems like AC capping out at the low twenties (barring hyper-focused builds like a fighter who uses a tower shield while fighting defensively with combat expertise) in a magic-less campaign starts to become a real problem. Considering that according the bestiary the high attack on a CR 10 monster is +18, having your AC cap out at 20 is bad.Sorry to backtrack to this but AC capping out at the low twenties? Since when? The last two 10th level characters I had have around 33 AC after a round of buffs. My current lvl 5 dude has about 23-26 with plans to go higher at lvl 7. And I'm a player that likes to rely less on magical gear even when it's around. Do people really not care about AC? Do I build my characters weird?
To be fair other party members are around 20 AC but I thought that's because they are full casters and a barbarian.
I'm not exactly trying to challenge the statement I just feel like I missed something. By the time lvl 10 rolls around I don't feel safe with less than 30 AC.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Needless to say, when magic's in the mix I get ACs well above the low twenties. I was rather fond of my ridiculously tough Aegis/Soulknife/Metaforge in a campaign where we tried out DSP's psionics rules.
Needless to say, when magic's in the mix I get ACs well above the low twenties.
It's amazing what a CL 18 potion of shield of faith can do at lower levels. *snickers*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd actually be really interested in knowing what sort of conceptions they have about me or their theory of my games for my own curiosity. If anyone wants to share I'd love them to (I'm thick skinned so it won't bother me if it's far from rose-tinted). It would be interesting to know how I and as a result my games are imagined on these boards.
I would die. Often.
(Mostly to orcs. And goblins. ... and kobolds)
EDIT: And I'd probably enjoy it. What with the creepy mind-powers that you've got and all.
You missed the last piece I asked for Damian. What level were you guys?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.oh whoops sorry...
Final battle of the campaign we were level 10.That explains it. Five man party at level 10 vs CR 11, even without magic I could see them pulling off a win, especially if the Dragon didn't have home-field advantage.
When I hear 'Final Boss' is CR 11 I'm usually thinking the party is at-most level 8.
well if that campaign ever gets going again; I expect we will probably each end up with a magic item.
(I hope I get something to help bolster my saves a bit more since it will fit my character theme but I will adapt if not.
Yes! Player entitlement would be telling the GM he can't an evil chancellor in his campaign, because functionally those are equivalent. And I've never heard a player suggest that. I'll break down to make it simple.
GM controlling a player's choice in character = GM entitlement.
Player controlling GM's choice in world elements = Player entitlement.
It's pretty simple to understand this way. And I never hear players try and dictate what the GM can't have in their campaigns.
To be fair I'm one of the more avid pro-player GMs out there and even I have my limits. There are some campaigns where I just don't want to deal with having certain types of PCs. Also taking your argument to the logical conclusion sends up red flags in my mind, as it would seem that as long as you don't tell me what I can have as a GM in my campaign it would be totally fine for you to play a Pit Fiend or a Gelatinous Cube. >_>
Keep in mind that in my campaign setting I have over 20 playable races (including changelings and drider). I also thought refluffing the races/classes for the egyptian-themed game mentioned earlier in the thread was a great idea. In my current campaign one of the PCs is a vampire (using a significantly revised template for vampires that I use for my NPCs) tiefling wilder, a human paladin, a human sorceress, a *can't say because most of the PCs don't know in game and they may read this thread* multiclassed character, a human wizard, and a menagerie of party-tag-along NPCs that includes a goblin sorcerer, a human telepath, a human warrior/psion, a human vampire adept, and an orc barbarian/gunslinger/warrior.
That said, there are some players out there who just want to get the GM's goat. One such player who said he wanted to join one of my tabletop campaigns was presented with the character creation rules for my game, and a list of all the immediately accepted races and such, and he didn't even look at them. He opened up the monster manual and basically just started asking to play...
When I say character they want to play, that means a level appropriate character made with Paizo published Pathfinder material (or any 3rd Party stuff the GM has allowed). A player who demands to use 3rd party material or character that isn't level appropriate *is* being entitled. In fact, that's the first description I've seen of an entitled player in this thread.
Your Half Giant example is actually exactly how a GM should handle the scenario. "Ok, if you want to be an X, here's a background that fits." The PC in this case is being entitled, since he is being permitted to play the character he wants to.
The PC in the second example is also entitled, since trying to belong to an organization that does not exist in the world is the player telling the GM what world elements he should have.
So both those examples are player entitlement even if you take my argument to it's conclusion. That seems fairly obvious to me, but again this whole subject is incredibly straightforward from my perspective, which is making it difficult to explain, since to me the fact that both those players are being entitled under my explanation is obvious (though maybe only to me).
If you ever think it is GM vs player(s), you are doing it wrong (doesn't matter if you are a GM or a player).
If you ever think it is GM vs player(s), you are doing it wrong (doesn't matter if you are a GM or a player).
I can agree with this. Though keep in mind the GM is just another player as well. The problem really is that many GM's feel being the GM makes them in some way better or more important then the other players (which I think it the literal definition of entitlement) and that attitude is one that needs to die in a fire for the good of the hobby as a whole.
If you ever think it is GM vs player(s), you are doing it wrong (doesn't matter if you are a GM or a player).I can agree with this. Though keep in mind the GM is just another player as well. The problem really is that many GM's feel being the GM makes them in some way better or more important then the other players (which I think it the literal definition of entitlement) and that attitude is one that needs to die in a fire for the good of the hobby as a whole.
ah... but you forget one important detail there...
no gm... no game.so in that respect you are wrong.
The GM is not just another player.
If you ever think it is GM vs player(s), you are doing it wrong (doesn't matter if you are a GM or a player).I can agree with this. Though keep in mind the GM is just another player as well. The problem really is that many GM's feel being the GM makes them in some way better or more important then the other players (which I think it the literal definition of entitlement) and that attitude is one that needs to die in a fire for the good of the hobby as a whole.
Let me help you with the definition of entitlement from Merriam-Webster online:
en·ti·tle·ment
noun \-ˈtī-təl-mənt\: the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)
: a type of financial help provided by the government for members of a particular group
Player A expecting to be able to play any race/class combination that is in an official Paizo Pathfinder book, even after the GM has created a list of usable races and classes available for this campaign that may not include his, simply because we're using the Pathfinder rule system fits into the first definition. If Player A says he is allowed to play his race/class combo because it's in a Pathfinder book, we're playing Pathfinder, and he's made a back story that suits his character, but not necessarily the campaign setting, that's doubling down on it.
If Player A then also produces a list of items that he must have to remain a viable character, and insists that he get them at particular levels, then you've also jumped into the second definition.
The only thing I'm (pretty) sure we can avoid is running into the third definition.
Also, Players A, B, C, and D are entitled to think the GM is being unfair or a jerk and leave the game.
Also also, the GM is entitled to think the players are being too demanding and leave the game.
Also also also, the players are entitled to make endless demands of the GM which the GM is entitled to refuse.
No it is literally by definition correct. The GM is merely another player. His role is different but it grants him no additional authority or even "power".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, let's see...
Ah, here we go:
Game Master (GM): A Game Master is the person who adjudicates the rules and controls all of the elements of the story and world that the players explore. A GM's duty is to provide a fair and fun game.
If you ever think it is GM vs player(s), you are doing it wrong (doesn't matter if you are a GM or a player).I can agree with this. Though keep in mind the GM is just another player as well. The problem really is that many GM's feel being the GM makes them in some way better or more important then the other players (which I think it the literal definition of entitlement) and that attitude is one that needs to die in a fire for the good of the hobby as a whole.
Yes and no. The GM is a bit more than the other players, unless one of them would like to pick up the screen and do the job as well. Which, to be fair, few really want to do. So yes, the GM has a level of importance in the game -- without them, you are writing a novel alone.