Hello all, here again to ask a question.
In my current Forgotten Realms game, I had a plan to introduce the Nether Scrolls. If you're unfamiliar with what they do, essentially they are set a 50 scrolls. Each scroll you study/read gives you a level in an arcane spell-casting class of a character's choosing.
I planned on introducing them in order to add flavor to my game (as the PC's are descendents of Netherese wizards, the people who found the scrolls). I'm aware how powerful they are and I'm fully capable of adjusting my encounters to match my PC's abilities.
I ran this by one of my player's and his reaction was what I expected, unfortunately, which was I was hosing his character by forcing classes on him that he did not want.
I understand his viewpoint. However, I often feel like players get too caught up in their class and power level in a Pathfinder game, instead of the character they are playing.
Recently, we have been playing a certain Pathfinder module that grants a +1 to WIS or CHA after a certain event. I am playing a fighter in that game and those ability scores were useless to me from a pure stats point of view. However, my character's wisdom went from a 10 to an 11, and I started to role-play her being a little bit more cautious (wiser).
I understand the point of the game is to have fun and all that, but I often feel like GM's nowadays (after reading a lot of posts on here) are being relegated to nothing more than referee's for monsters vs. players instead of storytellers. I wanted to tell my player to just suck it up and realize that he's playing a dwarf from the Sword Coast who loves to smith and is utterly loyal to his companions, not just a paladin.
Am I crazy? Am I making sense at all? This is really bothering me and I'm willing to listen to any and all advice on the matter.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs are not storytellers. The entire group are storytellers, telling a cooperative story.
The character is the one part of the game the player truly has any control over, and should be given as much as possible. Messing with someone's character is a very fast way to tick a player off, and rightfully so.
It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.
Your second to last sentence seems unrelated to the rest of your post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The activation of the scrolls is entirely voluntary. If a player doesn't like you "controlling" his character, tell him he doesn't have to read the scrolls.
And that GM as ref and nothing else feeling you have, it seems to be the common view around the forums here. It seems to me that there are people who believe that their character is THEIRS and it's the only thing they have complete control over in the game, which is fine. Unfortunately, many of those people also seem to be the type that feel they should be making the story as well.
You really ought to make decisions based on the way the entire group wants to play. Don't ditch what you think is a good plot hook just because one person doesn't like it, especially if 3 - 4 others do.
It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.
A character who has chosen not to read the scrolls would be many levels behind a character who does.
That being said, I entirely agree with your post but you'd need something in line to ensure the anti-magic guy isn't falling behind the guy with the same HD but more levels. I'd talk it over with the player and see what we can come up with; first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of anti-magic boon where instead of reading the scroll and becoming a better caster you read the scroll and become better at killing casters. Stuff like spell sunder and whatnot.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.A character who has chosen not to read the scrolls would be many levels behind a character who does.
This is a reason why, apropos of nothing, I think those items are really, really stupid.
It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.A character who has chosen not to read the scrolls would be many levels behind a character who does.
That being said, I entirely agree with your post but you'd need something in line to ensure the anti-magic guy isn't falling behind the guy with the same HD but more levels. I'd talk it over with the player and see what we can come up with; first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of anti-magic boon where instead of reading the scroll and becoming a better caster you read the scroll and become better at killing casters. Stuff like spell sunder and whatnot.
I would try something like this; I like the anti-caster idea. Some other possibilities might be as follows:
1) Give anyone who reads a scroll an effective increase in casting ability (as though through a casting-increasing prestige class), but no other benefits associated with the level (HD, saves, BAB, class features, etc.). Allow characters with no spell casting classes to choose a spell list and gain some minor spell casting.
2) As above, but allow non-casters to select an X/ day spell-like ability. This has the advantage of possibly affording the non-casters access to a few level-appropriate spells, rather than a bunch of low-level ones.
3) Keep the spell-like ability idea for non-casters, but offer casters the opportunity to learn an off-list spell. This has the benefit of maintaining some sort of parity, as no one will be gaining casting ability that far preponderates what is appropriate for character level.
4) Boring idea: make everyone effectively gestalt, with the second class required to be an arcane casting class; restrict the second class so that one can only level up in it by reading a scroll (and the scroll can't affect the primary class) and perhaps stipulating that one can't achieve a level in the secondary class that is more than, say, two less than one's primary class level. Adds utility and versatility, but won't make anyone TOO insanely powerful.
It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.A character who has chosen not to read the scrolls would be many levels behind a character who does.
That being said, I entirely agree with your post but you'd need something in line to ensure the anti-magic guy isn't falling behind the guy with the same HD but more levels. I'd talk it over with the player and see what we can come up with; first thing that comes to mind would be some sort of anti-magic boon where instead of reading the scroll and becoming a better caster you read the scroll and become better at killing casters. Stuff like spell sunder and whatnot.
I'm not saying your way is wrong and my way is right, but I personally wouldn't bother with doing something like this. If the guy doesn't want to use the scrolls, he doesn't have to. And if he doesn't want the GM messing with his character, he may not want anything anyway. There's no reason to give him something special just because the others in his party are gaining powers. Perhaps the other players have high Netherese ancestry while this guy has low Netherese ancestry. If you feel the need to keep things even, maybe make the dwarf have Phaerimm ancestry instead (they were subterranean).
Just a second opinion.
GMs are not storytellers. The entire group are storytellers, telling a cooperative story.
The character is the one part of the game the player truly has any control over, and should be given as much as possible. Messing with someone's character is a very fast way to tick a player off, and rightfully so.
It bears noting, though, that nothing forces him to read a scroll, so if he doesn't want it, he can leave it alone.
I disagree. The story belongs to the GM, and the players make changes as collaborators. A minor difference, but I think worth noting.
Your second to last sentence seems unrelated to the rest of your post.
You mean this?
Am I making sense at all?
I think you meant the next to last paragraph. :-)
Hello all, here again to ask a question.
In my current Forgotten Realms game, I had a plan to introduce the Nether Scrolls. If you're unfamiliar with what they do, essentially they are set a 50 scrolls. Each scroll you study/read gives you a level in an arcane spell-casting class of a character's choosing.
And for every set of 10, you got a special power, and if you read all 50, you learned to make artifacts.
I planned on introducing them in order to add flavor to my game (as the PC's are descendents of Netherese wizards, the people who found the scrolls). I'm aware how powerful they are and I'm fully capable of adjusting my encounters to match my PC's abilities.
I ran this by one of my player's and his reaction was what I expected, unfortunately, which was I was hosing his character by forcing classes on him that he did not want.
Tell him to retrain the extra class levels out. Only takes a little gold and time. :-)
I understand the point of the game is to have fun and all that, but I often feel like GM's nowadays (after reading a lot of posts on here) are being relegated to nothing more than referee's for monsters vs. players instead of storytellers. I wanted to tell my player to just suck it up and realize that he's playing a dwarf from the Sword Coast who loves to smith and is utterly loyal to his companions, not just a paladin.
Am I crazy? Am I making sense at all? This is really bothering me and I'm willing to listen to any and all advice on the matter.
This sais you are a story driven gamer and want story to be king. When it is battle oriented, then you get the referee and DPS calculations and so on. Some people like that better. Know your expectations, and your player's (or GM's) expectations, and try to match them. If you cannot, you get this disconnect.
/cevah
|
Disliking having levels in a class forced on you can be a reflection of playing a character.
For example, his paladin might distrust arcane magic, perhaps seeing it as a prideful trespass on divine domain, believing that power without moral limitation leads to temptation and evil, or having had personal bad experiences with arcanists. The character thus would deeply dislike being granted any kind of arcane power, even if it's totally free.
Alternatively, if the new arcane class levels slow down the progression of other classes in some way, even a paladin who likes arcane magic may feel that this represents a distraction from their chosen calling. I know an engineer who was annoyed by the required "arts credit" in his degree program for this reason.
And I do think that giving a large power boost to only part of the party - or worse, the whole party but one member - is unfair, even if it's part of a story. Neat story-related power treats are great but it's not fun to be left out. The more significant the treat, the more important it is to be even-handed. Would you think it fair for a GM to introduce a multi-session side quest for each character's backstory, but leave one PC out? Not without confirming with the player that they didn't mind missing out on that part of the game.
While some people do are only about the story or only about tactics/build, most PF gamers I've met care about both and being significantly behind other players in power can detract from enjoyment of the game, particularly if you get to the point where the underpowered player feels useless or as if their character's actions have no significance. I personally played a character whose main contribution to the end boss fight consisted of shopping for consumable items, and another who was left behind when the end boss and another party member ethereal jaunted away to have a several round one-on-one duel. Though this didn't spoil otherwise enjoyable games it certainly detracted from those encounters.
If your player is OK with just not using the scrolls, and feels he is still contributing to the game, then that's OK, but if not then figure something else out.
Recently, we have been playing a certain Pathfinder module that grants a +1 to WIS or CHA after a certain event. I am playing a fighter in that game and those ability scores were useless to me from a pure stats point of view. However, my character's wisdom went from a 10 to an 11, and I started to role-play her being a little bit more cautious (wiser).
Repeatedly, or only after one specific event? One stat boost once is not a huge power increase, so it's not that big a deal if some characters find it more useful than others.
Levels, plural, in a class is a big power boost.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, so he's turning down extra levels, and he's not playing his character? I'll admit I don't have all the context or all the sides of the story, but from the description given, it sounds like the player is playing a character, specifically a dwarven paladin the seems to not have an interest in arcane magic. I see it as reasonable that he has no interest in giving his character arcane casting, being more devoted to divine magic or whatever. Taking arcane classes would definitely shift the direction of his character, quite possibly in a direction he doesn't want his character to go. I'm not familiar with FR, nor the items mentioned in specific, but this is just my instinctual reading of the situation. I agree that he's not forced to read them, so I don't get what his big deal is, but not just because the player doesn't like the apparent path for his character, doesn't mean he's not playing it. I dunno, just my perspective.
|
This is actually happening in my long-running 3.5 campaign right now!
We just hit 17th level, and we have access to four of these scrolls and enough time to read them, if we want.
Nobody is forced to read them, so the accusation that you're forcing someone to take levels in classes they don't want is false.
In our 4 player/8 character group, the druid, cleric/warpriest, ranger and fighter chose not to read any; the wizard and the warlock read them all, and the rogue and multi-classed bard/fighter/dragon disciple read two each, IIRC.
Sometimes people are knob'eads. Nil illigitimati desperandum.
Hello all, here again to ask a question.
In my current Forgotten Realms game, I had a plan to introduce the Nether Scrolls. If you're unfamiliar with what they do, essentially they are set a 50 scrolls. Each scroll you study/read gives you a level in an arcane spell-casting class of a character's choosing.
I planned on introducing them in order to add flavor to my game (as the PC's are descendents of Netherese wizards, the people who found the scrolls). I'm aware how powerful they are and I'm fully capable of adjusting my encounters to match my PC's abilities.
I ran this by one of my player's and his reaction was what I expected, unfortunately, which was I was hosing his character by forcing classes on him that he did not want.
I understand his viewpoint. However, I often feel like players get too caught up in their class and power level in a Pathfinder game, instead of the character they are playing.
Recently, we have been playing a certain Pathfinder module that grants a +1 to WIS or CHA after a certain event. I am playing a fighter in that game and those ability scores were useless to me from a pure stats point of view. However, my character's wisdom went from a 10 to an 11, and I started to role-play her being a little bit more cautious (wiser).
I understand the point of the game is to have fun and all that, but I often feel like GM's nowadays (after reading a lot of posts on here) are being relegated to nothing more than referee's for monsters vs. players instead of storytellers. I wanted to tell my player to just suck it up and realize that he's playing a dwarf from the Sword Coast who loves to smith and is utterly loyal to his companions, not just a paladin.
Am I crazy? Am I making sense at all? This is really bothering me and I'm willing to listen to any and all advice on the matter.
You can't force them to RP or get involved in any way at all with the character, so if that is the point of this plan let it go. Those that RP will, and those that won't still won't do it.
edit: You should also not generalize. There is no "players .....". The correct way is "some players ...". Realise where your players are individually and go from there, and also accept that some never really get into their characters. That is just the way it is sometimes.
I think it is better that you give the player his own option about how to improve on his character. Just because the idea is good to one person, does not make it good to another person. As an example I offered the Mark of Death to a player in an Ebberon game that was running a necromancer, but he did not want it. Instead of pushing the issue I just let it go.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in RPGs and it comes from the idea that there is a "right" way to play your PC. A "right" feat chain, a "right" stat block and so on... It's difficult to eliminate this concept from your table, especially from young players. The solution here is to speak clearly at the beginning of the game with something like : "Guys, I don't want this to become a videogame, I promise you I won't try to kill you, using very strong stuff from the manuals, but you promise me to focus on your character instead of focusing on its mechanic"
Unfortunately this is an increasing trend in RPGs and it comes from the idea that there is a "right" way to play your PC. A "right" feat chain, a "right" stat block and so on... It's difficult to eliminate this concept from your table, especially from young players. The solution here is to speak clearly at the beginning of the game with something like : "Guys, I don't want this to become a videogame, I promise you I won't try to kill you, using very strong stuff from the manuals, but you promise me to focus on your character instead of focusing on its mechanic"
I tend to agree with this sentiment and have sympathy with the OP.
Also forcing something onto a player is a bad move.The exchange of complex feelings/ideas always falls apart when trying to explain in a few paragraphs...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what's stopping there from being 50 Scrolls of Martial Excellence/Divine Provenance or whatever fancy name you want to give them that grants levels in something that's not an arcane casting class?
Seems odd that an artifact like that would only have one aspect in any case. Maybe everyone who reads them sees them differently based on their proclivities.
The Arcane casting minded of them obviously might see powerful spell formulae and techniques.
The more martially oriented ones might see lost martial arts nobody's used in 1000 years.
The Divine caster types might see lost texts of their god, or hidden messages directly from him, powerful chants against evil, whatever.
Seems an easy way to keep a similar flavor while making everyone happy. They can each pick one that fits their character's personality (whether it's the same type of class or not).
Serves the same purpose in your campaign, really, while maintaining inter-party balance for those who don't want arcane casting.
|
I'm more along the lines if he doesn't want to read the scroll that's fine, but that's the neat thing they others got and he didn't want to partake so I guess he is behind a level or neat magics or whatever. If he doesn't want to read a scroll don't force him, but if he complains later about their free level or new powers or whatever just polite remind him he choose not to.
I look at it this way. He's the horse who was led to water, but he doesn't like its flavor or color and doesn't want to drink it. He cant complain about being thirsty if all the other horses decided the water you led them too was just fine.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more along the lines if he doesn't want to read the scroll that's fine, but that's the neat thing they others got and he didn't want to partake so I guess he is behind a level or neat magics or whatever. If he doesn't want to read a scroll don't force him, but if he complains later about their free level or new powers or whatever just polite remind him he choose not to.
I look at it this way. He's the horse who was led to water, but he doesn't like its flavor or color and doesn't want to drink it. He cant complain about being thirsty if all the other horses decided the water you led them too was just fine.
Not really a good analogy.
You're essentially punishing him for not wanting to change his character for the sake of your Maguffin.
It's like giving somebody a gift.
'Here have this Xbox game."
"But I don't like this kind of game. Would you mind if I traded it in for a different game?"
"Jesus man, don't be an ungrateful ass. Everybody else liked the game, why can't your tastes conform? Gimme that back. You don't want this specific gift, you don't get one at all."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm more along the lines if he doesn't want to read the scroll that's fine, but that's the neat thing they others got and he didn't want to partake so I guess he is behind a level or neat magics or whatever. If he doesn't want to read a scroll don't force him, but if he complains later about their free level or new powers or whatever just polite remind him he choose not to.
I look at it this way. He's the horse who was led to water, but he doesn't like its flavor or color and doesn't want to drink it. He cant complain about being thirsty if all the other horses decided the water you led them too was just fine.
Not really a good analogy.
You're essentially punishing him for not wanting to change his character for the sake of your Maguffin.
It's like giving somebody a gift.
'Here have this Xbox game."
"But I don't like this kind of game. Would you mind if I traded it in for a different game?"
"Jesus man, don't be an ungrateful ass. Everybody else liked the game, why can't your tastes conform? Gimme that back. You don't want this specific gift, you don't get one at all."
I see it more as... "Hey I just bought this game and we are all going to play it together and then that someone goes "I don't like this game, we should get a different one. Then gets upset cause you play the game with the others he doesn't like.
Im not punishing a single person. There was an item of treasure that has certain uses everyone could have used. He didn't like it. Doesn't want nothing to do with that treasure his loss.
Maybe if I put it this way, Our great granpa has us clean out his attic and we find out keepsakes from the 'great war' and he lets us keep them. But you decide you don't want some old knick nack so take nothing, then later complain you didn't get anything from the attic haul.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But it's not like that at all. It's not "pick something" it's "here's a specific thing".
And it's not something that fits every character. My Superstitious Barbarian is not going to be taking frickin' arcane caster levels. It doesn't make a lick of sense to do so.
Yet, by your logic, choosing not to do so because it would be contrary to my character means I deserve to get gypped?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see it more as... "Hey I just bought this game and we are all going to play it together and then that someone goes "I don't like this game, we should get a different one. Then gets upset cause you play the game with the others he doesn't like.
Im not punishing a single person. There was an item of treasure that has certain uses everyone could have used. He didn't like it. Doesn't want nothing to do with that treasure his loss.
Maybe if I put it this way, Our great granpa has us clean out his attic and we find out keepsakes from the 'great war' and he lets us keep them. But you decide you don't want some old knick nack so take nothing, then later complain you didn't get anything from the attic haul.
More like "So 2 days before we played Generic Racing Game 1, yesterday we played Generic Racing Game 2, but today we will be playing Barbie Adventures. What, you dont like Barbie Adventures? Then you are not playing. And tomorrow you have to play slowest car when we play the racing game."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what's stopping there from being 50 Scrolls of Martial Excellence/Divine Provenance or whatever fancy name you want to give them that grants levels in something that's not an arcane casting class?
Seems odd that an artifact like that would only have one aspect in any case. Maybe everyone who reads them sees them differently based on their proclivities.
The Arcane casting minded of them obviously might see powerful spell formulae and techniques.
The more martially oriented ones might see lost martial arts nobody's used in 1000 years.
The Divine caster types might see lost texts of their god, or hidden messages directly from him, powerful chants against evil, whatever.
Seems an easy way to keep a similar flavor while making everyone happy. They can each pick one that fits their character's personality (whether it's the same type of class or not).
Serves the same purpose in your campaign, really, while maintaining inter-party balance for those who don't want arcane casting.
Because the stuff being introduced is already an established part of FR lore.
I planned on introducing them in order to add flavor to my game (as the PC's are descendents of Netherese wizards, the people who found the scrolls). I'm aware how powerful they are and I'm fully capable of adjusting my encounters to match my PC's abilities.
The player already accepted part of his backstory. Everyone in the party is being offered the same item. One member of the party refuses to use said item. Why is it that something special now needs to be created just for him? Honestly, this whole "it wouldn't be fair" attitude just blows my mind.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I tend to dislike these things. If I wanted to play a wizard I'd have made a wizard. If I'm playing a paladin, gaining 5 wizard levels screws me over, because it takes much longer before I progress in the class I actually wanted to play. Meanwhile, I'll also be a sucky wizard, while the guy who actually made a wizard gets to be a great wizard.
On the other hand, saying "just don't read it" doesn't work that well either. If I stay a level 5 paladin while the party wizard goes from level 5 to 10, that's more than a little bit unbalanced. Suddenly I go from colleague to funny sidekick.
A +1 to an ability is no big deal, because it doesn't actually cost me anything. Levels in something I don't want does cost me something; it makes it much harder to get the levels I do want.
---
That said, the idea of a cache of ancient lore that teaches you phenomenal power is nice. Altering it so that there's a scroll for every class might strain the plausibility of the plot. This is often a problem with quests to find a spectacular treasure; it'd be ridiculous if every treasure was equally good for everyone.
But there options. Maybe the PC can trade one of the scrolls for something that helps him. These scrolls are MAJOR. You could trade them for things that mere money can't buy.
* You might be able to trade the scroll for exclusive martial training.
* You could study the scroll as a "know the enemy" manual, and gain some unusually powerful anti-magic feats instead of a caster level.
* Maybe a bored wizard has a powerful paladin sword he got somehow. He'd be interested in a trade for such a scroll.
* If you give to scroll to a caster allied with your faith, that caster can now afford to pause his own studies and focus on making something you need. Or you might even gain a powerful priest cohort.
The possibility of using the scroll to gain something else - through reverse engineering, or trade - might make this much more palatable.
After all, that's the point of trade: trade something I don't want all that much for something I want much more; and the other guy wants the thing I have more than the thing he already has.
The alternative rewards don't have to be 100% as good as the base reward, but 90% or so; and offer a choice of rewards he could pursue. If he comes up with another idea, try to work with that as well.
That way, you get to incorporate your flavorful dingus, without taking control of the PC. He's positively interacting with it - he wants to obtain it, just for a somewhat different purpose.
But it's not like that at all. It's not "pick something" it's "here's a specific thing".
And it's not something that fits every character. My Superstitious Barbarian is not going to be taking frickin' arcane caster levels. It doesn't make a lick of sense to do so.
Yet, by your logic, choosing not to do so because it would be contrary to my character means I deserve to get gypped?
Yes, that's right. Life isn't fair. Pathfinder isn't designed to be fair. Looks to me that the items being offered are not some McGuffin that everyone has to have or the plot doesn't work. They're an extra little something that the GM is offering to boost the power of the characters.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's right. Life isn't fair. Pathfinder isn't designed to be fair. Looks to me that the items being offered are not some McGuffin that everyone has to have or the plot doesn't work. They're an extra little something that the GM is offering to boost the power of the characters.But it's not like that at all. It's not "pick something" it's "here's a specific thing".
And it's not something that fits every character. My Superstitious Barbarian is not going to be taking frickin' arcane caster levels. It doesn't make a lick of sense to do so.
Yet, by your logic, choosing not to do so because it would be contrary to my character means I deserve to get gypped?
Gaining multiple levels is more than "a little something".
And I disagree about fairness. Pathfinder is meant to be fair, or at least fair enough. Where balance between PCs is meant to ensure everyone feels like a useful part of the group.
Balance between PCs is good for making the game fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's right. Life isn't fair. Pathfinder isn't designed to be fair. Looks to me that the items being offered are not some McGuffin that everyone has to have or the plot doesn't work. They're an extra little something that the GM is offering to boost the power of the characters.But it's not like that at all. It's not "pick something" it's "here's a specific thing".
And it's not something that fits every character. My Superstitious Barbarian is not going to be taking frickin' arcane caster levels. It doesn't make a lick of sense to do so.
Yet, by your logic, choosing not to do so because it would be contrary to my character means I deserve to get gypped?
Gaining multiple levels is more than "a little something".
And I disagree about fairness. Pathfinder is meant to be fair, or at least fair enough. Where balance between PCs is meant to ensure everyone feels like a useful part of the group.
Balance between PCs is good for making the game fun.
OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?
Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?
Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because he does not want arcane caster levels does not mean he is not playing his character. Any good player has a concept in mind when they create their character. Most concepts cannot be achieved at first level and take time to develop. When a GM forces you to take other things instead of what you planed your concept gets sidetracked and you are no longer playing the character you wanted. This is probably what the player is objecting to.
You may also be actually hosing his character by forcing arcane caster levels. His character may not even have the stats to become an arcane caster. If I were playing a dwarf ranger who had with a 10 INT and an 8 CHA and was told the entire party was going to get a free level of arcane caster I would feel ripped off. What do I get out of this? The ability to cast 3 cantrips and 3 uses of a weak ability based on one of my lowest stats. The wizard on the other hand just got a significant power increase.
The only way I can see this being fair is before the campaign started you informed the player that they had to play an arcane caster of some sort.
So it's not playing if you've plotted your characters feats and abilities? What have I been doig all these years!!! I thought I was playin pathfinder!! I've been doing it BADWRONGNOFUN this whole time!!!
Thank you for letting me know I must roll the d20 of feat selection I guess if my fighter gets spell focus I'd better just roll with it.
Edit:
I'm suddenly reminded of another thread about giving players what they want...where I read someone saying if their player wanted a greatsword with certain stuff they'd give them something they could use and then mentioned a scythe...yep my trained soldier will put away is sword for a farming tool that totally makes sense...
I'm more along the lines if he doesn't want to read the scroll that's fine, but that's the neat thing they others got and he didn't want to partake so I guess he is behind a level or neat magics or whatever. If he doesn't want to read a scroll don't force him, but if he complains later about their free level or new powers or whatever just polite remind him he choose not to.
I look at it this way. He's the horse who was led to water, but he doesn't like its flavor or color and doesn't want to drink it. He cant complain about being thirsty if all the other horses decided the water you led them too was just fine.
Not really a good analogy.
You're essentially punishing him for not wanting to change his character for the sake of your Maguffin.
It's like giving somebody a gift.
'Here have this Xbox game."
"But I don't like this kind of game. Would you mind if I traded it in for a different game?"
"Jesus man, don't be an ungrateful ass. Everybody else liked the game, why can't your tastes conform? Gimme that back. You don't want this specific gift, you don't get one at all."
I see it more as... "Hey I just bought this game and we are all going to play it together and then that someone goes "I don't like this game, we should get a different one. Then gets upset cause you play the game with the others he doesn't like.
Im not punishing a single person. There was an item of treasure that has certain uses everyone could have used. He didn't like it. Doesn't want nothing to do with that treasure his loss.
Maybe if I put it this way, Our great granpa has us clean out his attic and we find out keepsakes from the 'great war' and he lets us keep them. But you decide you don't want some old knick nack so take nothing, then later complain you didn't get anything from the attic haul.
Actually it is more like ordering a type of pizza that you KNOW someone does not like and then saying eat or be hungry. Why not just let them order the pizza they want. Not liking the pizza you like does not make it wrong, and before the "they did not pay for it" quote comes in--> The GM is not paying for that feat it is free so in this case it is like you are the owner of the restaurant.
Now let's take it further. If there is a wizard in the party he will benefit a lot more than the paladin will so even taking the class level there is still a disparity, so now some of the people who eat this pizza get 100 dollar bills while this person is getting a 5 dollar bill.Short version: If there is a way to do it so everyone benefits equally, and is happy, while costing you NOTHING there is NO reason, not do it.
So what's stopping there from being 50 Scrolls of Martial Excellence/Divine Provenance or whatever fancy name you want to give them that grants levels in something that's not an arcane casting class?
Seems odd that an artifact like that would only have one aspect in any case. Maybe everyone who reads them sees them differently based on their proclivities.
The Arcane casting minded of them obviously might see powerful spell formulae and techniques.
The more martially oriented ones might see lost martial arts nobody's used in 1000 years.
The Divine caster types might see lost texts of their god, or hidden messages directly from him, powerful chants against evil, whatever.
Seems an easy way to keep a similar flavor while making everyone happy. They can each pick one that fits their character's personality (whether it's the same type of class or not).
Serves the same purpose in your campaign, really, while maintaining inter-party balance for those who don't want arcane casting.
Because the stuff being introduced is already an established part of FR lore.
I planned on introducing them in order to add flavor to my game (as the PC's are descendents of Netherese wizards, the people who found the scrolls). I'm aware how powerful they are and I'm fully capable of adjusting my encounters to match my PC's abilities.The player already accepted part of his backstory. Everyone in the party is being offered the same item. One member of the party refuses to use said item. Why is it that something special now needs to be created just for him? Honestly, this whole "it wouldn't be fair" attitude just blows my mind.
Unless this info about the item was give UP FRONT it is not fair. Maybe he would have played a magus if he knew it was not just a background flavor. Otherwise having something that gives everyone special training to increase what they already have makes more sense. If this is fate, then maybe certain items are attuned to them. There are many ways this could have been done so that nobody was caught off guard. I would like for the GM to invite the player here.
The only way I can see this being fair is before the campaign started you informed the player that they had to play an arcane caster of some sort.
Or mentioned that later in the game that arcane casting would be something that would be heavy in the game, and the PCs would likely develop that direction.
I always play characters, not class. That is part of the reason I like 3.x/Pathfinder multi-classing. It may not be perfect, but it allows the character to change and grow - and I always have a basic "growth patern" in mind for my characters. And what they can do is an integral part of who they are - I wouldn't do something like this if it were not part of my character concept. And I would probably feel a little cheated if I fell behind the power curve as the game went on.
The GM controls the world, I control my character.
Heck, if the players are forced to take a class, they each should have the ability of drama editing to change the story or world once on the GM- just to keep the control issues even.
Yes, that's right. Life isn't fair. Pathfinder isn't designed to be fair. Looks to me that the items being offered are not some McGuffin that everyone has to have or the plot doesn't work. They're an extra little something that the GM is offering to boost the power of the characters.But it's not like that at all. It's not "pick something" it's "here's a specific thing".
And it's not something that fits every character. My Superstitious Barbarian is not going to be taking frickin' arcane caster levels. It doesn't make a lick of sense to do so.
Yet, by your logic, choosing not to do so because it would be contrary to my character means I deserve to get gypped?
So life not being fair means people should just shutup and accept everything? By that logic the GM should accept that the player does not like his item, and the GM NEVER said the plot item was essential to the story. He is doing for some sort of character development.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So it's not playing if you've plotted your characters feats and abilities? What have I been doig all these years!!! I thought I was playin pathfinder!! I've been doing it BADWRONGNOFUN this whole time!!!
Thank you for letting me know I must roll the d20 of feat selection I guess if my fighter gets spell focus I'd better just roll with it.
Edit:
I'm suddenly reminded of another thread about giving players what they want...where I read someone saying if their player wanted a greatsword with certain stuff they'd give them something they could use and then mentioned a scythe...yep my trained soldier will put away is sword for a farming tool that totally makes sense...
is this a reply to someone? If so, can you quote it? I didn't see anyone saying anyone was doing it wrong. I also didn't see anyone saying anything about randomizing your character.
Or are you just misinterpreting someone's post so you can blow it completely out of proportion?
OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?
Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.
It took me about 2 seconds to get the idea of letting people progress in their own class. It is not like the GM has to come up with a feat, spell, and so on just to even this out.
"ok, you have levels in _____"<---Done.
edit: and nobody has to go without getting something. See how easy that was.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, that's right. Life isn't fair.
Yeah - and part of the reason I play RPGs is escapism to avoid that very thing in real life. I wouldn't want it in my game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So life not being fair means people should just shutup and accept everything? By that logic the GM should accept that the player does not like his item, and the GM NEVER said the plot item was essential to the story. He is doing for some sort of character development.Yes, that's right. Life isn't fair. Pathfinder isn't designed to be fair. Looks to me that the items being offered are not some McGuffin that everyone has to have or the plot doesn't work. They're an extra little something that the GM is offering to boost the power of the characters.But it's not like that at all. It's not "pick something" it's "here's a specific thing".
And it's not something that fits every character. My Superstitious Barbarian is not going to be taking frickin' arcane caster levels. It doesn't make a lick of sense to do so.
Yet, by your logic, choosing not to do so because it would be contrary to my character means I deserve to get gypped?
So one guy not liking an item means the GM either has to create something special for one person or not add the items that the rest of the people might like? By that logic the GM shouldn't ever make a campaign until he has detailed the complete story to all players and obtained their unconditional buy-in.
OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?
Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.
It took me about 2 seconds to get the idea of letting people progress in their own class. It is not like the GM has to come up with a feat, spell, and so on just to even this out.
"ok, you have levels in _____"<---Done.
edit: and nobody has to go without getting something. See how easy that was.
And how does the GM give the player those levels. The other players have to hunt for some ancient relics to use, does this one guy get them by GM fiat?
What if the guy doesn't want the GM affecting his character at all? Is it the GM's job to make the guy take something just to keep up?
|
|
OK then, is it fair to the GM that now has to make up from scratch some kind of extra little nugget because one player doesn't like the already-established-in-lore item?
Is it fair to the rest of the players if the GM decides not to add in this potentially cool item because one guy doesn't like it?
Fairness is not a one-way street and should never be determined by the desires of one player.
Suppose it's your birthday and you're baking a cake, and you want to use nuts. But one player is allergic to nuts. The others like nuts.
Wouldn't the nice thing be to offer him something else, instead of excluding him from cake or sending him to the hospital?
Or is that unfair to you, because you put effort into baking a nut cake?
Fortunately I never said I wanted you to be impressed or intimidated...how does one intimidate someone without a physical body to intimidate with? The world shall never know.
I'm saying that a lot of people (GMs mostly) have this idea that players should be happy with whatever they allow them to find whether or not if that thing is actually useful for that character.
If you made a fighter whose father was also a fighter (they had a long line of fighter all the way back to his great great great..etc grandfather) who taught him how to fight perfectly with a greatsword wouldn't your feats be related to said weapon? Me personally I'm thinking probably but I could be crazy. I've also never had a character made obsolete by not having a specific item or a certain feat but it does make it easier on occasion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Established lore" arguments are bogus. It is not established that these characters will have access to these items at this time. Established lore is also so incredibly easy for GM's to change (without retconning) that it really holds no weight.
Oh, these are the nether scrolls. Due to the influence of *insert cosmic event* they can now grant levels in any class. Read them to get power if you want to.
Or the other way. Due to the influence of *insert cosmic event* they've lost a lot of power. They now grant a spell-like ability instead of a whole class level.
Or, if you don't want to change the object in any way, just give the paladin something similar in power. Some +10 armor of divinity or whatever.
Letting a character get a "little extra" is fine. Letting the wizard be 4 levels ahead of the paladin, just because the paladin player _DID_ play his character, turning down power that the paladin didn't want to deal with, is asking for huuuge problems.
If this had been stated upfront at the beginning of the campaign, the case would have been different, but right now, I'm completely in the "this was a very bad move by the GM" camp. And then complaining about the player not playing it's character? I can't even begin to comprehend how turning down massive power because your character doesn't want to deal with that sort of thing is "not playing a character".