Getting what you want.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 1,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I noticed a trend when it comes to theorycrafting in preparation to play a character or advice given for character creation.

It is generally assumed that you will have certain equipment or that your best equipment will be the type of equipment you specialize in.

For example, if you're planning to play a monk, it's assumed that you'll eventually get an Amulet of Mighty fist. If you're a fighter, you're assumed to get a Gloves of Dueling or that you're definitely going to get you are going to be using a greatsword from lvl 1-20.

Now enhancement bonuses and minor crafting are a given but does anyone else see it as odd that nobody really assumes that loot is going to be very random and/or what you want to buy isn't available? I guess you could craft what you want but the need for stuff is usually relegated to the people who are the worst at it, so if you want it you have to spend some feats to do that rather than doing anything else you could be doing.

Do most GMs just hand out what their players want out of loot/shops? Fighters get 4 tiers of weapon training, does 2-4 ever even get used?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, it depends where the campaign is going to be. A campaign set far from civilization, or with only the tiniest settlements around isn't going to have great access to the supplies that anybody wants, and you're more likely to have to work with what you find in such a case.

In a big metropolis (or once you've got the resources to teleport to a big metropolis for shopping), yeah, you can expect to buy basically whatever you want, short of outright artifacts.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

-Get s$@~ty random loot.

-Go to city.

-Sell s#*$ty random loot.

-Buy stuff you want.

Simple as that.

In a sufficiently large city anything is readily available. By the time only a Metropolis can suit your needs, someone in the party should have Teleport.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

just like your other thread, OP
to each their own


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I hope that my DM gives me what I want. I'm a player; I'm not really entitled to anything my DM doesn't give me. My DM is lord and god; all that he says and gives is all I'll ever need to survive in his hurtful world. I exist purely by his grace. I like to bring him pizza on game night, stroke his ego a bit and hope for a magic greatsword since I specialized in that. If he instead graces me with a magic dagger instead I must have not worshipped him correctly and therefore he is angry; I must appease him by spending loot and downtime to re-train my feat to specialize in daggers instead.

...

Except that in PF, they're now called "GM" and players can make their own stuff if we let them. In PFS, they can buy their own stuff. Players don't have to live at the whim of the person running the game; they have ownership over their own builds. That includes the gear. To paraphrase Highlander: "Players cannot DIE McCloud; accept it."

But as Monty says with his big hat on: to each their own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, I see this mainly as a matter of convenience. In most campaigns you will eventually have access to a place that can buy or sell magic. Thus that magic mace that your rogue finds is not really a mace but a certain amount of gold that needs to be traded for a magic rapier.

In order to "skip the middle man" many GM's eventually alter the treasure to fit the PC's. This is mainly a save time thing. If a party loves haggling and making due with random magic items (and some do) then a GM can let them find the random stuff.


Yeah, this has always been something that made me wary of specialization and things like exotic weapon feats.

Greatswords, longswords, daggers, bows, spears, and other such common martial and simple weapons? Sure, those will be common enough that it is believable people enhance them, and then they die horribly and add to a dragon's hoard. But a flying blade build? That might be a bit odd that you keep on finding better and better magical versions of those as you go on your journeys.

But it is something that is part of the basic concessions between players and GM. If the GM allows the player to make such a build, devote a ton of his feats to it, and then proceeds to make it impossible to find anything more than a masterwork version of the item, all without any warning at the beginning? That is a jerk move. A GM gains their role because they agree to allow players to play the character that are allowed in at the table.

If they allow some rather unlikely weapon builds, then providing a basic market or magical blacksmith is a given. Now, this is not to say that they should be given free reign, and be allowed to make whatever keen-vorpal-brilliant energy-furious-courageous-autowin-whosewhatitis they want. But a service that provides basic +1's that make builds at least vaguely feasible are almost a necessity.

If they really, really want that one special magical property, and no one in the party has the crafting feat, then why not make a quest out of it? A quest to either find an existing weapon of a famous fallen hero/villain, or to find some reclusive mountain blacksmith/special material needed by the current blacksmith seems somewhat reasonable. Make it something they have to earn, and even barter with other party members for. That will make it all the sweeter when they actually gain the item they worked so hard to obtain.


So how bad is it if the GM randomizes loot and magic shop items? (Its assumed that this information is known at session zero.)


Malwing wrote:
So how bad is it if the GM randomizes loot and magic shop items? (Its assumed that this information is known at session zero.)

Once you hit 9th level and teleport/planeshift become available depending on casting class, it becomes completely meaningless as you will be able to locate what you need in a reasonably short time for the most part.


Malwing wrote:
So how bad is it if the GM randomizes loot and magic shop items? (Its assumed that this information is known at session zero.)

Again, it depends on the builds. If the main melee combatants are a barbarian and a paladin, then they might not mind too must as long as there are nice heavy things to twohand. Fighters might be miffed though, since they rely on specialized feats like...weapon specialization... to keep up their damage.

Still, you could get along well by simply randomizing most of the loot, and intentionally throwing in that +2 keen scimitar the magus has been hinting at everytime he offered to buy pizzas.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

A table rule that my friend plays with is that magic is transferable from like items. So a +1 keen dagger can have the keen property transferred to my +1 cold iron falchion at 20% of the cost of the enchant.


I rely on crafting. In my games, you will either:

a) need a crafter in the party
b) make friends with a crafter (or several) which can be a quest all in itself

Completely randomized loot drops are deeply unpleasant; I've used some random loot generators, but only for "treasure" (gems/art items) because for the most part those things give horribly unbalanced mixes of stuff. In the end, if nobody in the party is able to/wants to use an item found, it is going to be sold and replaced with something useful.

Then again, I rarely leave magic items in the open, other than ones that EVERYONE can find useful (like gloves of first aid). In my current game, the players are soldiers, so they are getting equiped by the clergy of their dwarven city.


Rynjin wrote:
In a sufficiently large city anything is readily available.

Unless the GM says no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Malwing wrote:
So how bad is it if the GM randomizes loot and magic shop items? (Its assumed that this information is known at session zero.)
Once you hit 9th level and teleport/planeshift become available depending on casting class, it becomes completely meaningless as you will be able to locate what you need in a reasonably short time for the most part.

As others have said, to each their own. The group I play with weekly doesn't play this way.


Well the shops aren't garunteed to have what you want and past a certain caster level wouldn't be available at all, but having crafter NPCs is the nor for my games. Its how I introduce third party weapon properties (along with ancient books and whatnot.) So it might be a non problem.

Although I still find it odd for players to not have a plan for items they need. This was brought up when I was asked what my character wanted in terms of magical equipment and my plans for my character had already handled that. I hate relying on random items so tend to plan assuming that I don't get items I want.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My setting has no large cities, or large towns for that matter, no magic shops, and most will be semi-random magic item finds...its up to the players to find uses for them..I long ago stopped being Santa with players giving me a list of items they want.

But I do tend to make unique items that may incorporate a few abilities together, and will place some items somewhat intended for specific characters..but no entitled wish-lists.


Making necessary items unobtainable limits options, and even creates trap options if you don't make it very clear beforehand. That Beastmorph Alchemist is going to be rather upset if it proves impossible to obtain an AoMF.

GM's should work with players to ensure that the players can get their necessary items (not necessarily "desired" items; I'm talking about things that make a build that's bad/average great, not things that make a great build better) within a reasonable time frame. If you randomize things you're limiting your players to making characters that can be reasonably strong with only the equipment they have at level 1. Narrowing options is generally not a good idea.


Malwing wrote:

I noticed a trend when it comes to theorycrafting in preparation to play a character or advice given for character creation.

It is generally assumed that you will have certain equipment or that your best equipment will be the type of equipment you specialize in.

For example, if you're planning to play a monk, it's assumed that you'll eventually get an Amulet of Mighty fist.

And if someone is a fighter, they're expecting a magic weapon. That's the way the game was designed. If the DM didn't like that, they should run another game (or at least check out some inherent bonus system, but I don't think that works well for D&D 3e/PF).

Quote:
If you're a fighter, you're assumed to get a Gloves of Dueling or that you're definitely going to get you are going to be using a greatsword from lvl 1-20.

Common magic items should always be available. Gloves of Dueling might not be, but even then, the DM should only restrict the item if it's creating a broken combo. (In fact, if it's breaking something, the item should be banned, and the player told this as early as possible.)

Quote:
Now enhancement bonuses and minor crafting are a given

:)

Quote:
but does anyone else see it as odd that nobody really assumes that loot is going to be very random and/or what you want to buy isn't available? I guess you could craft what you want but the need for stuff is usually relegated to the people who are the worst at it, so if you want it you have to spend some feats to do that rather than doing anything else you could be doing.

I'm a little confused by the second part of that sentence.

Many charop posts suggest that anything is available, and that's not always the case. I would expect DMs to allow any sort of common item though.

Quote:
Fighters get 4 tiers of weapon training, does 2-4 ever even get used?

I think you mean if a fighter might use a dagger rather than their primary weapon. Only if the situation calls for it. The math prevents a fighter from owning a bunch of magic weapons, so they'll lavish their gold on their primary and leave their dagger masterwork at best. (That really sucks if you're invited to a party and have to leave your main weapon in a box. At that point the fighter will probably remain outside.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapons are not unobtainable just more random than "you will definitely get X item at Y level" or "this shop of this size city is garunteed to have a specific magic item"


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If item collection is truly randomized, then there are enough items in Pathfinder that poor rolls can indeed eliminate a necessary item from the game entirely. If you're selecting items with a desire to create a "randomized feel", then what you're really doing is deliberately avoiding the items that your players need because... well, I'm sure it's not intentionally malicious but your players may feel like you're spiting them for making certain characters.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
If item collection is truly randomized, then there are enough items in Pathfinder that poor rolls can indeed eliminate a necessary item from the game entirely. If you're selecting items with a desire to create a "randomized feel", then what you're really doing is deliberately avoiding the items that your players need because... well, I'm sure it's not intentionally malicious but your players may feel like you're spiting them for making certain characters.

You use the words necessary and needed, not everyone plays that way. Not every group plays GM vs players. Not every group has players that come to the table with a full 1-20 build with which they must have certain items by certain levels or the GM hates them. Not everyone plays the way you play, and that's not a bad thing.


Simon Legrande wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If item collection is truly randomized, then there are enough items in Pathfinder that poor rolls can indeed eliminate a necessary item from the game entirely. If you're selecting items with a desire to create a "randomized feel", then what you're really doing is deliberately avoiding the items that your players need because... well, I'm sure it's not intentionally malicious but your players may feel like you're spiting them for making certain characters.
You use the words necessary and needed, not everyone plays that way. Not every group plays GM vs players. Not every group has players that come to the table with a full 1-20 build with which they must have certain items by certain levels or the GM hates them. Not everyone plays the way you play, and that's not a bad thing.

Sort of the point of this thread was to know how often people don't play like this. I ALWAYS build characters assuming "required" loot is unreliably accessible, but most of the forum treats certain equipment as mandatory and whatever you build is severely gimped due to not getting what it "needs". Personally I think Crafting and artisan NPCs are enough but I guess the real questions are exactly how essential are commonly quoted items? Do I even bother with books full of items and properties? What happens when I are pre-populate a dungeon? Do I just insert common staple equipment or just leave money around so they can buy whatever they want?


You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.


Malwing wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If item collection is truly randomized, then there are enough items in Pathfinder that poor rolls can indeed eliminate a necessary item from the game entirely. If you're selecting items with a desire to create a "randomized feel", then what you're really doing is deliberately avoiding the items that your players need because... well, I'm sure it's not intentionally malicious but your players may feel like you're spiting them for making certain characters.
You use the words necessary and needed, not everyone plays that way. Not every group plays GM vs players. Not every group has players that come to the table with a full 1-20 build with which they must have certain items by certain levels or the GM hates them. Not everyone plays the way you play, and that's not a bad thing.
Sort of the point of this thread was to know how often people don't play like this. I ALWAYS build characters assuming "required" loot is unreliably accessible, but most of the forum treats certain equipment as mandatory and whatever you build is severely gimped due to not getting what it "needs". Personally I think Crafting and artisan NPCs are enough but I guess the real questions are exactly how essential are commonly quoted items? Do I even bother with books full of items and properties? What happens when I are pre-populate a dungeon? Do I just insert common staple equipment or just leave money around so they can buy whatever they want?

Do whatever you wish.

If the players do not want the items you provide they will sell them off. You can provide neat items but you cannot make the players use them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
Simon Legrande wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
If item collection is truly randomized, then there are enough items in Pathfinder that poor rolls can indeed eliminate a necessary item from the game entirely. If you're selecting items with a desire to create a "randomized feel", then what you're really doing is deliberately avoiding the items that your players need because... well, I'm sure it's not intentionally malicious but your players may feel like you're spiting them for making certain characters.
You use the words necessary and needed, not everyone plays that way. Not every group plays GM vs players. Not every group has players that come to the table with a full 1-20 build with which they must have certain items by certain levels or the GM hates them. Not everyone plays the way you play, and that's not a bad thing.
Sort of the point of this thread was to know how often people don't play like this. I ALWAYS build characters assuming "required" loot is unreliably accessible, but most of the forum treats certain equipment as mandatory and whatever you build is severely gimped due to not getting what it "needs". Personally I think Crafting and artisan NPCs are enough but I guess the real questions are exactly how essential are commonly quoted items? Do I even bother with books full of items and properties? What happens when I are pre-populate a dungeon? Do I just insert common staple equipment or just leave money around so they can buy whatever they want?

That's because a large number of people that post on these forums believe that the game belongs to the players and they are entitled to whatever they need to make their character be the best. Again, there's nothing wrong with playing that way. It's just not the way everyone does it, some groups like a more organic story where the characters grow with the story not where the story has to bend to fit the characters.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.

I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

I agree, which is why i find so many of the "optimized" builds posted on these forums so laughable...take away 2 or 3 of thief toys, and they turn to absolute useless rubbish.

The two or three times I have posted builds, they have been "naked" builds...no magical equipment whatsoever, and only the builds most necessary equipment in mundane versions.

Another thing I find amusing is the "must-have" items that I've never seen in actual play.

Me, I'm kinda old school. A magic store in one of my games will have a bags of holding, haversacks, bunch of cure x wounds potions (possibly even a potion of Heal), maybe one or two low enhancement bonus weapons, and occasionally an old dude that might offer to attempt to create something specialized for you if you pay him enough gold AND you quest for the dozen or so exotic materials that he needs to make it (or just wants for his own reasons). Dude might be a con man or he might be legit. Its a lot safer to just tell me what you want, and it might appear as loot within a few sessions. Maybe. Probably at least something close to it, at least.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Simon Legrande wrote:
That's because a large number of people that post on these forums believe that the game belongs to the players and they are entitled to whatever they need to make their character be the best. Again, there's nothing wrong with playing that way. It's just not the way everyone does it, some groups like a more organic story where the characters grow with the story not where the story has to bend to fit the characters.

Then who does the game belong to? I'm firmly of the opinion that the game belongs to both GM and player, so giving the player something that will make their time more fun is generally for the best. It's not 'bending over backwards' to make sure the Barb has a Courageous weapon. Nor is it to make sure the Wizard has Pearls of Power. Although it seems the old school of gaming has so much more of a rigid belief of what the players deserve.

Kthulhu wrote:

I agree, which is why i find so many of the "optimized" builds posted on these forums so laughable...take away 2 or 3 of thief toys, and they turn to absolute useless rubbish.

The two or three times I have posted builds, they have been "naked" builds...no magical equipment whatsoever, and only the builds most necessary equipment in mundane versions.

Another thing I find amusing is the "must-have" items that I've never seen in actual play.

Me, I'm kinda old school. A magic store in one of my games will have a bags of holding, haversacks, bunch of cure x wounds potions (possibly even a potion of Heal), maybe one or two low enhancement bonus weapons, and occasionally an old dude that might offer to attempt to create something specialized for you if you pay him enough gold AND you quest for the dozen or so exotic materials that he needs to make it (or just wants for his own reasons). Dude might be a con man or he might be legit. Its a lot safer to just tell me what you want, and it might appear as loot within a few sessions. Maybe. Probably at least something close to it, at least.

I feel like a lot of old school GMs want to make things more special than they actually are. I know a friend who does the same thing, but the basic rules of the game defy this. CWI opens up the entire library of wondrous items, meaning only weapons and armor are vital (and rings...why are rings special?)

I don't see the problem with seeing an item in a book and saying "I could make a build around that!" and hoping for it to be in the game. Let your GM know, tell them "I need this item please, can you put it somewhere in the game?" It can be at the end of some quest for dragon's scales and lich dust, but the game needs to be fun for both the players and the GM.

Some people like running a "You got a +1 sword, you'll be good for the next 20 levels" or "I rolled a Trident of Fish Command, and you're GOING to find a way to use it since no one is stupid enough to buy it", but that's not the default assumption of the system.


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.

I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

That's similar to saying that all strength based fighters are bad builds because they rely on the existence of Power Attack.

Enchanted items are just as firmly planted in the game as feats. I LIKE the items that you look at, you see an off-the-wall ability or just something that isn't a +2 to X stat, and think "ooh, ooh! I could build around that". It encourages creativity and a greater variety of playstyles than you would be able to get if you were limited only to the things your GM has no say in you taking.

Of course, technically a GM could ban Power Attack if he really wanted to. I think he'd have difficulty finding enough players for a table, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As GM, I will tweak the treasure my players come across from AP's so that they are relevant to the players. if the adventure says it's a + 2 ax but no one plays a character that uses that weapon, I will change it to a sword or something else relevant. I will also boost treasure if I think the party is a bit underpowered for their level or if I know they will need certain items to deal with certain threats/problems.

I don't necessarily believe in filling out a players shopping list. Lower level stuff is available depending on city size, but again none of my games have gone to a high enough level where PCs were purchasing really powerful items, so I haven't really thought out availability. Although I really feel powerful items should really be a result of a quest or found after defeating a powerful enemy/exploring an ancient ruin. I don't really like the flavor associated with a character strolling into any old store and picking up some sort of super powerful magic item or weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

I agree, which is why i find so many of the "optimized" builds posted on these forums so laughable...take away 2 or 3 of thief toys, and they turn to absolute useless rubbish.

The two or three times I have posted builds, they have been "naked" builds...no magical equipment whatsoever, and only the builds most necessary equipment in mundane versions.

Another thing I find amusing is the "must-have" items that I've never seen in actual play.

Me, I'm kinda old school. A magic store in one of my games will have a bags of holding, haversacks, bunch of cure x wounds potions (possibly even a potion of Heal), maybe one or two low enhancement bonus weapons, and occasionally an old dude that might offer to attempt to create something specialized for you if you pay him enough gold AND you quest for the dozen or so exotic materials that he needs to make it (or just wants for his own reasons). Dude might be a con man or he might be legit. Its a lot safer to just tell me what you want, and it might appear as loot within a few sessions. Maybe. Probably at least something close to it, at least.

Wow... if we assume unreliable items... every martial is suddenly even less viable! Quick casters to the Craft Wondrous Item!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.

I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

That's similar to saying that all strength based fighters are bad builds because they rely on the existence of Power Attack.

Enchanted items are just as firmly planted in the game as feats. I LIKE the items that you look at, you see an off-the-wall ability or just something that isn't a +2 to X stat, and think "ooh, ooh! I could build around that". It encourages creativity and a greater variety of playstyles than you would be able to get if you were limited only to the things your GM has no say in you taking.

Of course, technically a GM could ban Power Attack if he really wanted to. I think he'd have difficulty finding enough players for a table, though.

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it?
That is the very definition of entitlement.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it?
That is the very definition of entitlement.

Did he say he felt like he deserved the item?

No?

Then it's not the definition of entitlement.

I really wish people would actually think about the real definitions of words before they start using them as buzzwords to mean "Doing something I don't like/differently than I do".


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

You don't need a 20 level build to have certain items that are necessary for your character to do the things s/he's supposed to do. Any Finesse fighter is a liability to the group until they get dex-to-damage in some manner; if you're not using a Scimitar, that means using an Agile enchantment. The later you get one, the more time you spend being a drain in combat, being focused on martial abilities without having the stats to be martial.

I do recognize and accept that not everyone approaches the game in my way. That's fine; if your character can survive with with whatever crap you find lying on the ground then feel free to do so. I don't think a GM should listen to a full list of items a player wants, but there are builds that are completely unworkable without certain items. It's a very small list, but they do exist and if you're not going to provide them to a player who wants to build around its existence then you should at least tell them so they can come up with a concept that will function in your game.

I would have to say if a build cannot be viable with out item x... then its not a very good build.

That's similar to saying that all strength based fighters are bad builds because they rely on the existence of Power Attack.

Enchanted items are just as firmly planted in the game as feats. I LIKE the items that you look at, you see an off-the-wall ability or just something that isn't a +2 to X stat, and think "ooh, ooh! I could build around that". It encourages creativity and a greater variety of playstyles than you would be able to get if you were limited only to the things your GM has no say in you taking.

Of course, technically a GM could ban Power Attack if he really wanted to. I think he'd have difficulty finding enough players for a table, though.

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies...

Craft Wondrous Item is a feat... so ya this argument is... untenable.

Shadow Lodge

Anzyr wrote:
Wow... if we assume unreliable items... every martial is suddenly even less viable! Quick casters to the Craft Wondrous Item!

Oh, I give good stuff, have no doubt. But it will mostly come in the form of loot, assuming you can take it from the murderous bastard who will use it against you.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it?
That is the very definition of entitlement.

Did he say he felt like he deserved the item?

No?

Then it's not the definition of entitlement.

I really wish people would actually think about the real definitions of words before they start using them as buzzwords to mean "Doing something I don't like/differently than I do".

If he based a build around it, its really hard to make an argument with any vague semblance of integriry that he doesn't feel entitled to it.


Items like the Agile Enhancement really don't fulfill their role if the character is not built around it.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

No more than he feels entitled to be able to take Power Attack or Toughness or learn Fireball or Fly.

If I come to your house for pizza night and expect there to be pizza, I'm not feeling "entitled" to pizza. I'm just expecting it to be there because pizza night implies pizza.

Much like Pathfinder implies "The things that are in Pathfinder", among which are classes, races, spells, and Feats.

Some certain toppings might not be on the table (options banned/restricted), but I certainly expect there to be pizza (the majority of Pathfinder) there.

I'm just saying that unless someone tells me Jimmy's allergic to sausage beforehand, telling me I'm entitled because I try to "build a pizza around" Italian sausage is a bit of a dick move.


Anzyr wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it...
Craft Wondrous Item is a feat... so ya this argument is... untenable.

Let me see if I understand your counter argument correctly...

You expect a magic using member of the party to waste a precious feat slot on a Craft Feat?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it...
Craft Wondrous Item is a feat... so ya this argument is... untenable.

Let me see if I understand your counter argument correctly...

You expect a magic using member of the party to waste a precious feat slot on a Craft Feat?

"Waste."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a game where the GM is playing the 'Nobody's going to sell you what you want, take what I give you and like it, pawns!' card, Magic Item Creation feats end up becoming the most powerful feats in the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it...
Craft Wondrous Item is a feat... so ya this argument is... untenable.

Let me see if I understand your counter argument correctly...

You expect a magic using member of the party to waste a precious feat slot on a Craft Feat?

*Sigh*

From an optimization standpoint, Craft Wondrous Item is probably the second strongest feat in the game right behind Leadership. Considering acaster can turn Craft Wondrous Item into "Double (or more) your Wealth By Level and always have exactly what you need." I would say that yes... your argument is completely, irredeemably, flawed.


Rynjin wrote:

No more than he feels entitled to be able to take Power Attack or Toughness or learn Fireball or Fly.

If I come to your house for pizza night and expect there to be pizza, I'm not feeling "entitled" to pizza. I'm just expecting it to be there because pizza night implies pizza.

Much like Pathfinder implies "The things that are in Pathfinder", among which are classes, races, spells, and Feats.

Some certain toppings might not be on the table (options banned/restricted), but I certainly expect there to be pizza (the majority of Pathfinder) there.

And in the current discussion it is...

But as you put it...
If you come to Pizza night and expect anchovies and pineapple just because you think it would be good. And then proceed to argue "but its a pizza!"
That is entitlement.


Anzyr wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:

False premise.

Items are a part of the game true enough...
But, expecting a specific item just because you happened to think of build that relies on it...
Craft Wondrous Item is a feat... so ya this argument is... untenable.

Let me see if I understand your counter argument correctly...

You expect a magic using member of the party to waste a precious feat slot on a Craft Feat?

*Sigh*

From an optimization standpoint, Craft Wondrous Item is probably the second strongest feat in the game right behind Leadership. Considering acaster can turn Craft Wondrous Item into "Double (or more) your Wealth By Level and always have exactly what you need." I would say that yes... your argument is completely, irredeemably, flawed.

It is statements like this that make bannings of the Creation Feats and Leadership such common House Rules.


Damian Magecraft wrote:

And in the current discussion it is...

But as you put it...
If you come to Pizza night and expect anchovies and pineapple just because you think it would be good. And then proceed to argue "but its a pizza!"
That is entitlement.

Thankfully, nobody said anything of the sort.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


If I come to your house for pizza night and expect there to be pizza, I'm not feeling "entitled" to pizza. I'm just expecting it to be there because pizza night implies pizza.

Much like Pathfinder implies "The things that are in Pathfinder", among which are classes, races, spells, and Feats.

What if I invite you over for dinner? Is pizza implied? No.

Personally, if RPGs were as rote and by-the-numbers as you seem to be suggesting they should be, I wouldn't be a fan of the hobby.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:


What if I invite you over for dinner? Is pizza implied? No.

You're just changing the analogy to suit your whim.

Within the same context, if you invited me over for dinner and I expected there to be food, am I now entitled?

No. Which is the context we were discussing.

If I come to a potluck with potato salad, you are not entitled (this is the correct usage, by the way, not the way people around here seem to think it should be used) to be mad at me because your wife is allergic to mayonnaise unless you said something about not bringing mayonnaise related products to the dinner.

Kthulhu wrote:
Personally, if RPGs were as rote and by-the-numbers as you seem to be suggesting they should be, I wouldn't be a fan of the hobby.

"Rote and by the numbers" how?

Are you seriously suggesting that magic item availability makes up the entirety of the game to you?

Personally I'm a fan because I get to pretend I can cast magic and not look like a crazy person, but if you personally derive your enjoyment solely from the way magic items are (or are not) obtained, more power to you I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, myself and many of the people I play with have always preferred making the items we want, rather than buying them. For me, at least, I feel that the item is personalized and really mine since I made it myself with my own two hands. As a GM, I follow the Core rules for item generation, but I also throw in some items that may be of interest to the players. If there is a certain item a player wants, they can either have it crafted at the nearest smith, or they'll probably find it on one of their adventures.


Assuming you are using Golarion as a setting, Paizo has pretty much allowed items to become a part of builds with how "Magic-o-Mart" they've made it. Roll a dWhatever and if its a big city its already there. I don't recall the CRB saying anything about magic availability, just tables for when you find something. There's stuff in the GG probably but a lot of that stuff is mroe advice than set in stone.

This is why when you post an ad for a game you let people know if its low magic or high magic. If they show up they'll likely assume Golarion and assume they get the normal kid in a candy store treatment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:

Assuming you are using Golarion as a setting, Paizo has pretty much allowed items to become a part of builds with how "Magic-o-Mart" they've made it. Roll a dWhatever and if its a big city its already there. I don't recall the CRB saying anything about magic availability, just tables for when you find something. There's stuff in the GG probably but a lot of that stuff is mroe advice than set in stone.

This is why when you post an ad for a game you let people know if its low magic or high magic. If they show up they'll likely assume Golarion and assume they get the normal kid in a candy store treatment.

It's been this way since 3.0 and honestly is the best direction for the game. Let's look at popular settings. Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Golarion. Guess what all those things have in common? Magic Item pinatas was the correct answer. You'll note that all Dark Sun got was part of a Dragon Magazine.

So yes, expecting you'll be able to get appropriate magic items is an assumption and for a very good reason. It's fun and it helps maintain the narrative of the story. Can you imagine how jarring the various fantasy novels would be if the characters kept finding magic wands when their a Fighter and Giant Axe's when their a Wizard?

1 to 50 of 1,018 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Getting what you want. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.