Things to do that is not a full attack.

[blahpers]

Quote:

All I can say is I hope they enjoy destroying their loot.

That's extremely meta. Most people would do anything in their power to end a life-or-death combat quickly. Unless the problem element is a MacGuffin, only the greediest of murderhobos would stop themselves from removing the problem element from the equation as effectively as possible. If the belt is the biggest threat to the party, I sunder the belt and let the party rogue whine about it later.

[Karyouonigami]

blahpers wrote:

Quote:

All I can say is I hope they enjoy destroying their loot.

That's extremely meta. Most people would do anything in their power to end a life-or-death combat quickly. Unless the problem element is a MacGuffin, only the greediest of murderhobos would stop themselves from removing the problem element from the equation as effectively as possible. If the belt is the biggest threat to the party, I sunder the belt and let the party rogue whine about it later.

I agree, for that matter if it comes down to my choice to sunder the weapon of the bad guy that I really want or the party wizard maybe dying then the weapon goes away.

[Karyouonigami]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Just because I tell things how they are means I'm a bad GM who only thinks about winning? The mechanics are what they are; as a GM, I can choose to either follow those mechanics and expect the PCs to do the same, or make up my own rules and hope the PCs will still play my modified version of the game. By RAW, if Freedom of Movement is what it takes to automatically bypass subjects like Stand Still feat and Grapple, then so be it. And that's just assuming that enemies get the chance to do those.

I'd also be in the same shoes as the Wizard: If I'm some 20 Intelligence goober, I'm not going to sit there and let them win. They're PCs in a dangerous environment going up against the most deadliest threat the (game) world has ever faced; a spellcasting Wizard, who is protected by Martial mooks so Mr. Wizard can do the cool stuff without having the action economy spit in his face.

As a GM, I could just as easily make up some stupid crap for the wizard BBEG and get the same desired effect, because Rule 0. It's the same logic that backs the "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" argument, which you seem to think I would try to throw. But we're arguing by-the-book mechanics, which, as I've said, Wizards can easily obtain, because Wizards have access to every option possible. It's that simple, and the fact you're so opposed to it only tells me you have a problem with the mechanics, not with the people who simply use them to their advantage; which, guess what, both the GM and the PCs do. If anything, I'd be more restrictive of my NPCs than any PFS GM in terms of mechanics.

I'll point out that these same arguments I've made as a GM to NPC works both ways because of that distinction. These options are available to PCs too, and as I've said previously, the (N)PC is only shorting themselves by not covering that base, as there are characters and creatures who invest in those sorts of offenses, and do their damnedest to ensure their tactics work. It's not like PCs are the only ones who can Grapple or Sunder; but if you just want NPCs to pick their nose when they can't simply make attacks, then be my guest.

You think spending money or resources on a Ring of Freedom really the smartest way to spend WBL? All I stated was a potential means to bypass such subjects, and a method to make it common without granting them to the PCs; I believe that's all you asked of me, actually. There are better things to buy with the money that would go into that ring, and for cheaper. A Wizard who's optimized enough probably wouldn't need a Ring of Freedom, though if the situation calls for it, it's not difficult for them to get one...

if you optionize ALL NPCs then what is the point for the players? since they don't know what challenges you are going to put in there way so they have to try and cover all bases whereas your NPCs only have to worry about the players...

I am not trying to bash on you or your DMing, just pointing out another side to your point

[Darksol the Painbringer]

blahpers wrote:

Quote:

All I can say is I hope they enjoy destroying their loot.

That's extremely meta. Most people would do anything in their power to end a life-or-death combat quickly. Unless the problem element is a MacGuffin, only the greediest of murderhobos would stop themselves from removing the problem element from the equation as effectively as possible. If the belt is the biggest threat to the party, I sunder the belt and let the party rogue whine about it later.

I'm confused when you say "that's extremely meta." Whether the situation calls for "Life and Death" is irrelevant. If the PCs need to destroy an item to buy their character's lives, then that's their decision, and as a GM, I just roll with it. It's not like PFS, where the sundered gear can still be used, and the GM can't vary his adventures at all.

All I'm pointing out is that most people don't destroy items because those items usually end up as part of the PCs repertoire; anything that doesn't can be sold and the funds repurposed for more fitting equipment. If they gotta destroy their upcoming WBL (which, in the case of an Arcane Bond, wouldn't give them much money) to live, then let them. If they really exhausted all other attempts to circumvent the obstacle in their path, then it's a test of the PC's grit to either destroy the potentially useful item and live to fight another day, or die in hopes of getting such powerful artifacts. That's just the tradeoff of being an adventurer, or, as the properly coined slang term, "murderhobo." You throw your life on the line in hopes to get famous, powerful, rich, excitement, etc.

Some of the most classic examples of this stem from games like Soul Calibur, where champions, both good and evil, come from around the world in search of one of two (or both) swords, and each have different motives. Regarding their individual stories, a couple of them end up inadvertantly destroying the subjects they search for. Sure, they're alive, but they did all that work for absolutely nothing but pain and suffering. In terms of a story, that's an ironic tragedy. In terms of adventuring, it's just another day in the life.

[Darksol the Painbringer]

@ Karyouonigami: As a GM, the encounters should be engaging and challenging. If I got PCs who can just do what they do everyday (assuming it's selectively effective) against the Big Bads, then I might as well just throw a bunch of mooks at them for every encounter, since it will equate to the same effect.

Optimizing the Big Bads (and maybe some grunts) is what makes those encounters challenging to the players, and engaging in their mental (and in-game physical) faculties. It forces them to think on their feet, calculate their next moves carefully, and devise strategies to overcome the obstacles set before them.

Obviously, I don't need to be sending Dragons at them when they're 1st level, nor do I need to be constantly recycling Big Bad strategies (unless it's the same Big Bad, and even then you'd try and build upon whatever their existing strategies were), but it doesn't hurt to throw a grunt with a decent amount of power among the mooks to make them be cautious of their targets and their strengths, which allows them to devise strategies to open and expose any weaknesses to them.

As a PC, I try to create a fool-proof battle strategy to secure victory. I get the basic concept written down on paper, and then I look for mechanics to support and empower that concept. Being a Mobile Fighter at 10th level who has a self-buffed +23 to hit with +25 to damage per attack, not including a Haste attack (which I plan to get soon), having decent Saves, selective useful bonuses to my other defenses, a great Acrobatics to avoid AoOs, and the movement of a flying creature (I'll have 50 base movement speed by 15th level, increased to 80 via Haste, and doubled with a multi-use/day Quick Runner's Shirt) allows me to move across the battlefield and slaughter several enemies simultaneously without them hurting me.

And I still have room for out-of-combat utility, having 6 Skill Points/Level, a couple SLAs to get teammates out of tight spots, and more defensive augmentations later down the road. It's not too difficult to optimize a concept with all of the options available currently.

[blahpers]

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

blahpers wrote:

Quote:

All I can say is I hope they enjoy destroying their loot.

That's extremely meta. Most people would do anything in their power to end a life-or-death combat quickly. Unless the problem element is a MacGuffin, only the greediest of murderhobos would stop themselves from removing the problem element from the equation as effectively as possible. If the belt is the biggest threat to the party, I sunder the belt and let the party rogue whine about it later.

I'm confused when you say "that's extremely meta." Whether the situation calls for "Life and Death" is irrelevant. If the PCs need to destroy an item to buy their character's lives, then that's their decision, and as a GM, I just roll with it. It's not like PFS, where the sundered gear can still be used, and the GM can't vary his adventures at all.

All I'm pointing out is that most people don't destroy items because those items usually end up as part of the PCs repertoire; anything that doesn't can be sold and the funds repurposed for more fitting equipment. If they gotta destroy their upcoming WBL (which, in the case of an Arcane Bond, wouldn't give them much money) to live, then let them. If they really exhausted all other attempts to circumvent the obstacle in their path, then it's a test of the PC's grit to either destroy the potentially useful item and live to fight another day, or die in hopes of getting such powerful artifacts. That's just the tradeoff of being an adventurer, or, as the properly coined slang term, "murderhobo." You throw your life on the line in hopes to get famous, powerful, rich, excitement, etc.

Some of the most classic examples of this stem from games like Soul Calibur, where champions, both good and evil, come from around the world in search of one of two (or both) swords, and each have different motives. Regarding their individual stories, a couple of them end up inadvertantly destroying the subjects they search for. Sure, they're alive, but they did all that work for...

Maybe I wasn't terribly clear. A sane combatant don't exhaust all other options before sundering the belt. If sundering the belt maximizes their chances of survival, a sane combatant sunders the belt. If another action has a better chance of preserving the party, that's the action to take.

The class examples you're citing are MacGuffins--objects of narrative importance--and that changes the equation a bit. But if I'm the fighter in a party tasked with taking down the ogre necromancer plaguing the nearby city and the necromancer has a magic ring that shoots fireballs, I'm going to sunder the ring before I take down the ogre. Claiming the ring for myself is secondary--I want to survive first, protect my allies second, accomplish the mission third, and maybe gather some loot as a distant fourth.

[Insain Dragoon]

I thought that when you sunder an item you choose whether it's broken or destroyed? So technically wouldn't the loot be fine with a little elbow grease?

[blahpers]

Insain Dragoon wrote:

I thought that when you sunder an item you choose whether it's broken or destroyed? So technically wouldn't the loot be fine with a little elbow grease?

Not that I'm aware of, unless there's a feat for that. A broken belt or ring would still provide its magical effect in any case, so you'd have to destroy it to stop it. If the caster level is low enough, you might be able to find someone who can make whole on it, but for most items it'd be busted.