|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I ever find myself in one of your games, I'll be sure to have all of my characters get a basic Wayfinder with a lovely piece of spindle cut glass and magic aura cast on it. Wear it on my belt and hey, dispel away!
I figure it shouldn't be much of a knowledge check to know that some critters might be participating in Operation Dispel Wayfinder.
|
See? Using monster tactics gets players thinking, so it's a win-win.
While I find the spirit of what you are going for completely awesome, I do disagree with your exact implementation of the concept. Allow me to give a breakdown of what I think would be a somewhat more "in line with how it works for PCs use":
We have Novak Emberwhite, a 12th level human sorcerer of the elemental (fire) bloodline. By 12th level, I believe it is fair to judge that pretty much anyone of that degree of accomplishment is quite prolific, and thus should count as "common" for the check difficulty due to reputation. So our succubus corrupter hears mention of his name, and throws out her Knowledge (local) check, netting a result of 29. I believe she would know:
DC 17: Novak Emberwhite is a human practitioner of arcane magic who has journeyed quite extensively throughout Brevoy and the River Kingdoms. He is particularly famous for defeating the stone giant warlord Golgotha Crushbone in single combat at the battle of Thorn River. Novak is obsessed with fire magic, and employs it almost exclusively when casting damaging spells.
DC 22: Novak constantly employs magic making him capable of flight. Even when not engaged with enemies, his feet never fully touch the ground.
DC 27: Novak possesses a magical staff which has been said is capable of healing a creature touched of it of all wounds and afflictions, and even restoring life to the dead. (From here, a Knowledge (arcana) or possibly Spellcraft check would then be reasonable to determine "Ok, that is probably a staff of life".)
Key points:
1). I believe that items should only come up if they are particularly impressive or obvious in use. A sword licked with lightning leaves far more of an impression than a considerably less evident +5 courageous defending speed sword.
2). Even when what an item does is known, determining it's most likely identity should involve one of the aforementioned checks.
3). Typically, knowing things about "the build" in terms of mechanics makes a great deal more sense than knowing that items they happen to be carrying.
My 2 cents.
|
|
There was a scenario recently out which had the potential for a lot of items to be damaged/destroyed.
And read the raving reviews by players concerned about it.
Apparently forcing a player to pay a few hundred gold for a make whole after the scenario is worse than death. And yes, it's been stated on here that you can get a make whole cast by whatever caster level you need.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There was a scenario recently out which had the potential for a lot of items to be damaged/destroyed.And read the raving reviews by players concerned about it.
Apparently forcing a player to pay a few hundred gold for a make whole after the scenario is worse than death. And yes, it's been stated on here that you can get a make whole cast by whatever caster level you need.
I'd guess that a degree of the hate is based on not being aware of that possibility.
|
|
There was a scenario recently out which had the potential for a lot of items to be damaged/destroyed.And read the raving reviews by players concerned about it.
Apparently forcing a player to pay a few hundred gold for a make whole after the scenario is worse than death.
That is not the whole of it though. In a game such as Pathfinder, where your character's gear is directly related to his or her power level and advancement, breaking or removing that gear is often equated with stripping away a part of that character.
If the game were not as gear dependent as it is, it would not seem as bad, however, people generally react poorly when they feel like they are arbitrarily being made weaker and thus nullifying a portion of their accomplishments in order to make the story or scenario work.
Now sure, if people are careless and drop items willy nilly to maximize their action economy, then it is fair game. But otherwise I do my best not to remove or break items on players... partly because I think the mechanics are poor, but mostly because it is generally the opposite of fun for them and fun is ultimately what the game is played for.
Not to mention it just seems like a very adversarial style of play which is pretty much never a good idea.
|
|
That is not the whole of it though. In a game such as Pathfinder, where your character's gear is directly related to his or her power level and advancement, breaking or removing that gear is often equated with stripping away a part of that character.There was a scenario recently out which had the potential for a lot of items to be damaged/destroyed.And read the raving reviews by players concerned about it.
Apparently forcing a player to pay a few hundred gold for a make whole after the scenario is worse than death.
So is it worse than lasting conditions early in the scenario like ability damage/drain or negative levels? What about death? It reads like a player would rather have their PC die early in a scenario, pay the prestige or gold and live with 1 negative level all scenario instead of paying 2 PP for a make whole.
|
So is it worse than lasting conditions early in the scenario like ability damage/drain or negative levels? What about death? It reads like a player would rather have their PC die early in a scenario, pay the prestige or gold and live with 1 negative level all scenario instead of paying 2 PP for a make whole.
I think it's just an awareness issue. It doesn't happen enough for people to realize that it's not that expensive to get items repaired.
Does someone have a chart of repair cost by item CL?
As an aside, I hate negative levels.
|
|
So is it worse than lasting conditions early in the scenario like ability damage/drain or negative levels? What about death? It reads like a player would rather have their PC die early in a scenario, pay the prestige or gold and live with 1 negative level all scenario instead of paying 2 PP for a make whole.I think it's just an awareness issue. It doesn't happen enough for people to realize that it's not that expensive to get items repaired.
Does someone have a chart of repair cost by item CL?
As an aside, I hate negative levels.
Buying make whole via PP would be a moot point, since it would be at CL3. However, you can spend gold to get whatever caster level you want.
Price for make whole spell casting service is 10gp*2nd level spell*caster level needed...so 20gp*CL needed to fix. In general, it's double what the crafting CL of the item is IIRC.
|
|
To be fair I am not entirely sure the Guide is all that clear that you buy spellcasting services with whatever Caster Level you need to auto succeed.
If the Guide isn't, Mike has specifically stated that it is OK.
EDIT: HERE
|
|
So is it worse than lasting conditions early in the scenario like ability damage/drain or negative levels? What about death? It reads like a player would rather have their PC die early in a scenario, pay the prestige or gold and live with 1 negative level all scenario instead of paying 2 PP for a make whole.
Actually that depends entirely on the item in question. With the aforementioned archer, the loss of his bow is indeed much worse than a negative level. Also, people are generally opposed to the idea of paying "maintenance" costs on their permanent items, so it is really a matter of perception.
Of course death is always worse, but people get bitter when it seems like the loss of a key item seems designed to fast track the arrival of that (semi)permanent condition!
Also, as others have mentioned, not every system and option is known or fully understood by every player, less so by those who don't frequent the website, and when something happens you don't know can be fixed is when unpleasantness can set in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno. I've always been philosophical about exactly why I'm there as a GM. Am I really there to defeat the PCs in the best way possible with my resources at hand, given the strictures of how those resources can be used?
Or am I there to ensure they have the most enjoyable time possible at the table, regardless of whether I took an optimal path in defeating them?
I've never seen the point in doing un-fun things at the table, even if they would be 100% full-bore logical. Pathfinder, and especially PFS, is not a simulation, so any sort of "well, XYZ would do ABC in a real circumstance" falls flat for me.
That's why I'm not a huge rules stickler, and that's why I try my best to run a game that the players want to come back to rather than one that they walk away from going, "well, that sucked."
Circumstances vary. Of course any of the well-known killer modules is different - those serve a very different master, and players who themselves are ruining the fun of the table must also be dealt with.
But in short, I think the onus is on us as GMs to ensure the game is fun, for whatever definition of fun is most relevant for the given table.
|
|
Preparing to dispel magic on a wayfinder for the people that happen to have clear spindels in them I feel is cheating.
If you want to use that strategy fine, but I think it is cheating to look over their character and say hey you jsut bought this clear spindel? Well I will have th emonsters remeber that. Is cheating. I saw it in other forms. futre fights monsters avoidign the high AC monk because the first fight proved them unhittable. Monster adjusting tactics based on the powers of previous fights.
To me it is all the same.
|
|
Preparing to dispel magic on a wayfinder for the people that happen to have clear spindels in them I feel is cheating.
If you want to use that strategy fine, but I think it is cheating to look over their character and say hey you jsut bought this clear spindel? Well I will have th emonsters remeber that. Is cheating. I saw it in other forms. futre fights monsters avoidign the high AC monk because the first fight proved them unhittable. Monster adjusting tactics based on the powers of previous fights.
To me it is all the same.
I don't think anyone disagrees that when the NPCs have no way of knowing what a player's vulnerability is, they shouldn't immediately hone right in on it. For example, I wouldn't have anything sunder an archer's bow before he demonstrated what he could do with it, even if I as the GM know what can happen if he gets a full attack.
However, sometimes they DO have a chance of knowing something along those lines. In that, maybe we do disagree as to whether that chance is "reasonable".
|
|
Preparing to dispel magic on a wayfinder for the people that happen to have clear spindels in them I feel is cheating.
If you want to use that strategy fine, but I think it is cheating to look over their character and say hey you jsut bought this clear spindel? Well I will have th emonsters remeber that. Is cheating. I saw it in other forms. futre fights monsters avoidign the high AC monk because the first fight proved them unhittable. Monster adjusting tactics based on the powers of previous fights.
To me it is all the same.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Rewinding, you'll see that I had the succubus use K(local) to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders to block domination.
The party ranger's wayfinder was in evidence - it was the one of two wayfinders being used as light sources - so she tasked her babau to target it with dispel magic. She subsequently dominated the ranger.
I - as a GM - did not know that the character had a clear spindle slotted; I was dispelling "blind" myself. But of course, he did (it's a high probability in PFS), so it worked, both for the succubus and for me. I never review character sheets prior to play, because I run on an honor system.
To repeat: the succubus knew that Pathfinders often slot wayfinders thus, not that this specific Pathfinder does so.
I would say that a sufficiently-high K(local) could reveal specific information about specific people, but we're looking at well-above 15+CR. I'd call equipment as maybe 25-30 + CR, easily (per my Violetta example).
Things K(local) could reveal about Pathfinders: common equipment they tend to use, where the Grand Lodge is, where other known lodges are, names of key venture captains (pretty tough, that one), what their basic purview is, the fact that they secured certain high-profile items, and so on. I'd probably consider the identities of The Decemvirate as "impossible", or at least crazily high (after all, the information might be *somewhere*, like in the Library of the Lion).
|
|
stuff
IF a Dm blindly dispels a wayfinder and plans that tactic while prepping before he sees the PC. That is awesome. If you have a 50% to dispel someone's +1 grappling ioune stone and then try to dominate him that is great.
I am sorry I bad mouthed your idead. I see and hear DM coment about something they find about a PC and adjust the rest of the monster to that. As I mentioned above.
Now when I DMed hell knights feast and blackros matrimony. I looked over the PCs chronicles and had the guests ask them about what they did on certain adventures. But that was to make the game more entertaining and not used against the PCs.
|
Preparing to dispel magic on a wayfinder for the people that happen to have clear spindels in them I feel is cheating.
If you want to use that strategy fine, but I think it is cheating to look over their character and say hey you jsut bought this clear spindel? Well I will have th emonsters remeber that. Is cheating. I saw it in other forms. futre fights monsters avoidign the high AC monk because the first fight proved them unhittable. Monster adjusting tactics based on the powers of previous fights.
To me it is all the same.
I think you're misunderstanding me.
Rewinding, you'll see that I had the succubus use K(local) to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders to block domination.
The party ranger's wayfinder was in evidence - it was the one of two wayfinders being used as light sources - so she tasked her babau to target it with dispel magic. She subsequently dominated the ranger.
I - as a GM - did not know that the character had a clear spindle slotted; I was dispelling "blind" myself. But of course, he did (it's a high probability in PFS), so it worked, both for the succubus and for me. I never review character sheets prior to play, because I run on an honor system.
To repeat: the succubus knew that Pathfinders often slot wayfinders thus, not that this specific Pathfinder does so.
I would say that a sufficiently-high K(local) could reveal specific information about specific people, but we're looking at well-above 15+CR. I'd call equipment as maybe 25-30 + CR, easily (per my Violetta example).
Things K(local) could reveal about Pathfinders: common equipment they tend to use, where the Grand Lodge is, where other known lodges are, names of key venture captains (pretty tough, that one), what their basic purview is, the fact that they secured certain high-profile items, and so on. I'd probably consider the identities of The Decemvirate as "impossible", or at least crazily...
Only 1/8 of my PCs have the clear spindle. Is it more common in your local meta?
|
|
I should probably point out that a wayfinder that is providing a resonant power loses its light ability while it does so,Rewinding, you'll see that I had the succubus use K(local) to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders to block domination.
The party ranger's wayfinder was in evidence - it was the one of two wayfinders being used as light sources - so she tasked her babau to target it with dispel magic. She subsequently dominated the ranger.
THIS !!
I guess in at least in 50% of cases no dispel is needed as players forget that they only have either or. And I'm not aware of a two slot Wayfinder offering light as second slot.
But I guess a lot of the players will see it as jerk move by the GM if they dominate you in such a case.
|
You buy the spindel to keep your friends from dying from you.
Precisely. Which is why a tactic like this feels both like a jerk move to me AND against the PFS "run as written" rules. Its not as if the PCs being Pathfinders counts as invalidating the written tactics.
The goal of the game is to have fun. Most people really don't find it fun to have their carefully thought out defences invalidated so that they kill the party.
|
|
I recall a home game where my GM had decided to run us through the "dungeon of item attrition". Every single thing sundered, disolved, stole, broke, or rusted our gear... It was effectively the GMs way of saying he would like someone else to GM now. After that lesson, I use those abilities sparingly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The goal of the game is to have fun. Most people really don't find it fun to have their carefully thought out defences invalidated so that they kill the party.
I love those moments. When you have to scramble as everything falls apart and you need to think of clever plans to survive.
HARD MODE!
|
|
The goal of the game is to have fun. Most people really don't find it fun to have their carefully thought out defences invalidated so that they kill the party.I love those moments. When you have to scramble as everything falls apart and you need to think of clever plans to survive.
HARD MODE!
I have no problem when I choose hard mode. Maybe not even if I choose semi hard mode.
I have major issues with the GM deciding that he can impose hard mode on us. Especially without informing us.
|
|
The goal of the game is to have fun. Most people really don't find it fun to have their carefully thought out defences invalidated so that they kill the party.I love those moments. When you have to scramble as everything falls apart and you need to think of clever plans to survive.
HARD MODE!
I have no problem when I choose hard mode. Maybe not even if I choose semi hard mode.
I have major issues with the GM deciding that he can impose hard mode on us. Especially without informing us.
Well as a DM I think and strategize pretty heavy before the scenario about the tactics of the bad guys(well the intelligent ones). I try to develop a personality and tactics. Now using the written tactics I can make a game much harder then someone else.
At a con a Dm asked me for advice and what he planned on doing. I gave him a few tips and the fight changed dramatically.
I am sure people out there can make it even more difficult. I hear tales of Mr. Baird.
I give every table my best and most difficult. For tables that want it eaiser I tell them tactics and ideas that are not suing. Some tables do not need them because one or more players are smart enough to blow through it without my advice.
|
|
There was a scenario recently out which had the potential for a lot of items to be damaged/destroyed.And read the raving reviews by players concerned about it.
Apparently forcing a player to pay a few hundred gold for a make whole after the scenario is worse than death. And yes, it's been stated on here that you can get a make whole cast by whatever caster level you need.
Not every player knows about that.
Not every DM believes that when the player tells them.
|
|
The ye old 24/7 magic item emporiums are open to NPCs too.
....
assume NPCs operate under the same operational metagame considerations PCs do to make the game run smoothly.
Given the absolutely insanely bad ways many NPCs outfit themselves and act I think that it is fair to assume that NPCs operate under very different metagame considerations than do PCs.
Hyper intelligent wizards don't have backup spell component pouches, people buy leather or studded leather +1 instead of mithril chain shirts, Harsk uses a heavy crossbow, Kyra doesn't use a buckler, wraiths and/or shadows haven't destroyed entire nations etc etc etc.
|
|
I should probably point out that a wayfinder that is providing a resonant power loses its light ability while it does so,Rewinding, you'll see that I had the succubus use K(local) to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders to block domination.
The party ranger's wayfinder was in evidence - it was the one of two wayfinders being used as light sources - so she tasked her babau to target it with dispel magic. She subsequently dominated the ranger.
THIS !!
I guess in at least in 50% of cases no dispel is needed as players forget that they only have either or. And I'm not aware of a two slot Wayfinder offering light as second slot.
But I guess a lot of the players will see it as jerk move by the GM if they dominate you in such a case.
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, prevents you from owning two or more wayfinders. The only rule is that only one of the wayfinders can have slotted, resonant Ioun stones in it, or both of them don't work.
My PCs who have a wayfinder, will frequently, buy a second or more. It all started when one of my PCs, who had already bought a wayfinder, was gifted a second one for succeeding at a mission. So, the plain one has the stone in it, the fancy one still can cast light, and comes out for showing if I need to prove I am a Pathfinder.
And, usually, both of them live in one or more of my containers, not on obvious display. Too many missions where we have been told not to make ourselves known as Pathfinders, except in unusual circumstances.
By the way, on disarming, tripping or sundering that archer? First, you have to get close to him. If he is working appropriately, he is going to be fairly far away from you, presumably with meat shield(s) between your location and his.
And then, once you get up to him, you get to try and beat his CMD, which, for a fighter type, is full BAB, a good Strength, and a good Dexterity, not counting other bonuses that add to CMD, and the possibility of the FCB and/or items/feats that can also bump it up.
|
I think what people are questioning is whether you'd be using the same rationale if you didn't know out-of-character that the most likely such effect is "immunity to the main powers of the monster doing the dispelling".
If I'm a fire mage, my first priority is learning which enemies don't burn so good. If I'm an enchanter, I'm going to make sure to learn which types of enemies are immune to mind-affecting effects. Why should a succubus be any different? They've had an eternity to develop their tactics, why wouldn't they spend any time learning common counters to them?
|
Nothing, absolutely NOTHING, prevents you from owning two or more wayfinders. The only rule is that only one of the wayfinders can have slotted, resonant Ioun stones in it, or both of them don't work.You're absolutely correct, but we were talking about targeting a wayfinder with dispel magic to get rid of the resonant power, while it was apparently being used as a light source.
You can't use a Wayfinder's light while it has an Ioun Stone slotted in it anyways.