Destroying, stealing, and sundering PC items


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
1/5

What are the rules on this for society?

I thought I saw something about it being against society to do this and CDG without it being written into the tactics/abilities of the monsters.

Sovereign Court 2/5

CDG is definitely a no-no unless it's specifically called out in the tactics.

Item destruction is uncommon, but there are a couple of scenarios where it's specifically called out. I have yet to see a disarm called out in tactics.

There aren't any rules against using those maneuvers as far as I'm aware, but it can easily get into "being a jerk" territory because gear is expensive and people don't like it when you mess with their stuff. Especially martial types and their weapons.

That being said, make whole is always available at any caster level and its really not that expensive, and disarm is not really too bad unless you have the enemy run away with the disarmed gear.

I'd save them for hard mode scenarios or when the enemy would probably resort to those sorts of tactics, or if the enemy has taken feats to be proficient in these maneuvers. For instance, demons would definitely disarm someone and run off with the weapon, you know, for reasons.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Acedio wrote:

CDG is definitely a no-no unless it's specifically called out in the tactics.

Item destruction is uncommon, but there are a couple of scenarios where it's specifically called out. I have yet to see a disarm called out in tactics.

There aren't any rules against using those maneuvers as far as I'm aware, but it can easily get into "being a jerk" territory because gear is expensive and people don't like it when you mess with their stuff. Especially martial types and their weapons.

That being said, make whole is always available at any caster level and its really not that expensive, and disarm is not really too bad unless you have the enemy run away with the disarmed gear.

I'd save them for hard mode scenarios or when the enemy would probably resort to those sorts of tactics. Like demons. Demons would definitely disarm someone and run off with the weapon.

Just remember that while item destruction can be cheap to overcome, item loss can quickly become more of a detriment than death itself.

Sovereign Court 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Just remember that while item destruction can be cheap to overcome, item loss can quickly become more of a detriment than death itself.

This is good advice. I had an archer that I almost retired because he got into a situation where he lost his bow which he had invested almost all of his wealth in.

I think the best advice that I can give is to use these maneuvers sparingly, use them to temporarily disable the PCs but avoid permanently crippling them by actually stealing their stuff (unless they ask for it (like playing hard mode)).

EDIT: I think for instance stealing someone's weapon is funny/legit/awesome/fairgame/creative/interesting so long as they eventually get it back.

1/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Acedio wrote:

CDG is definitely a no-no unless it's specifically called out in the tactics.

Item destruction is uncommon, but there are a couple of scenarios where it's specifically called out. I have yet to see a disarm called out in tactics.

There aren't any rules against using those maneuvers as far as I'm aware, but it can easily get into "being a jerk" territory because gear is expensive and people don't like it when you mess with their stuff. Especially martial types and their weapons.

That being said, make whole is always available at any caster level and its really not that expensive, and disarm is not really too bad unless you have the enemy run away with the disarmed gear.

I'd save them for hard mode scenarios or when the enemy would probably resort to those sorts of tactics. Like demons. Demons would definitely disarm someone and run off with the weapon.

Just remember that while item destruction can be cheap to overcome, item loss can quickly become more of a detriment than death itself.

I mean can't you pay prestige for locate object?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Undone wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Acedio wrote:

CDG is definitely a no-no unless it's specifically called out in the tactics.

Item destruction is uncommon, but there are a couple of scenarios where it's specifically called out. I have yet to see a disarm called out in tactics.

There aren't any rules against using those maneuvers as far as I'm aware, but it can easily get into "being a jerk" territory because gear is expensive and people don't like it when you mess with their stuff. Especially martial types and their weapons.

That being said, make whole is always available at any caster level and its really not that expensive, and disarm is not really too bad unless you have the enemy run away with the disarmed gear.

I'd save them for hard mode scenarios or when the enemy would probably resort to those sorts of tactics. Like demons. Demons would definitely disarm someone and run off with the weapon.

Just remember that while item destruction can be cheap to overcome, item loss can quickly become more of a detriment than death itself.
I mean can't you pay prestige for locate object?

First, Locate Object isn't a legal choice for a prestige purchase. Second, there's no recovery mechanic for items in PFS, so even if you purchased Locate Object with gold, there's no mechanic for going there and getting the item back.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

*evil laugh*

Sovereign Court 2/5

There were talks about it some time ago, but unless I'm mistaken no ruling was made.

Honestly, still think we should allow it.

EDIT: For this specific circumstance

John Compton wrote:
I am much more open to the recovery of involuntarily stolen property, as that's a situation in which the player had considerably less control—potentially silly tactical choices aside. However, something seems a little strange about it only taking 5 PP to recover that 20,000 gp item the original poster mentioned from a CR ~14 creature. I suppose it's no different than recovering a body from such a creature in that calculation, though.

EDIT 2: Who knows, maybe this will be in the new version of the guide.


Locate object has a limited range anyway. So unless you already know where the object is it wont help much.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

All too often I see PCs drop a held item (usually a wand) in favor of action economy, with the intention that they'll pick it up after the fight is over.

But then they run from the fight.

Sometimes, it's no big deal. If the opponent wasn't intelligent, the item will most likely be there when the PCs return.

But sometimes it won't.

Sundered items can be repaired. Lost items cannot. Just keep in mind that's always a possibility when your tactics are to free action drop rather than move action stow.

Silver Crusade 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

All too often I see PCs drop a held item (usually a wand) in favor of action economy, with the intention that they'll pick it up after the fight is over.

But then they run from the fight.

Sometimes, it's no big deal. If the opponent wasn't intelligent, the item will most likely be there when the PCs return.

But sometimes it won't.

Sundered items can be repaired. Lost items cannot. Just keep in mind that's always a possibility when your tactics are to free action drop rather than move action stow.

*smiles at my 30gp cold iron longsword with greater magic weapon running*

Silver Crusade 4/5

The real question is why an enemy would ever target the PC's equipment instead of just trying to kill them. There are some enemies who will, but they should be few and far between. Most go for damage, or some form of battlefield control. Disarming might be a tactic, but destroying the weapons is usually inefficient in a fight.

Sovereign Court 2/5

Fromper wrote:
The real question is why an enemy would ever target the PC's equipment instead of just trying to kill them. There are some enemies who will, but they should be few and far between. Most go for damage, or some form of battlefield control. Disarming might be a tactic, but destroying the weapons is usually inefficient in a fight.

Trying to destroy a weapon is often not a great idea, I agree, but trying to sunder armor is somewhat viable.

Disarming is good in the cases where there's DR involved and only one PC can reliably do any meaningful damage, someone has this weapon that's just wrecking everybody, or maybe a PC has a metamagic rod.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The (very) few times I've found it worthwhile to try and disarm a PC, it's been against an archer. Disarm his cocky ass and watch him try to struggle by with his featless backup sword. ;)

4/5

Yesterday I had a group of NPCs leave the downed party members alive (one fled), taking their gear. Seemed like a cheap alternative to killing all those level 1s.

In another scenario I ruled that the creature followed the tactics it explicitly employed against some NPCs it had gotten earlier. This meant that the players were left wisdom damaged down to 1 and charmed subsequently. I ruled that 5 prestige would recover them and subsequently the wisdom damage would heal and the charm would wear off.

At higher level I'd agree that it'd be preferable to simply die rather than lose all your items. The first one was an introductory scenario and the second one was a low level module.

Disarming is almost never written into a scenario, but when people provoke confident their AC will protect them, foes can target CMD instead. Grapples and disarms are two of the best. In another scenario I disarmed a gunslinger's firearm after he crit for ~50 damage at low level to the creatures mate. If my mate just got skewered by something I didn't understand I'd try to get rid of it.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
The real question is why an enemy would ever target the PC's equipment instead of just trying to kill them. There are some enemies who will, but they should be few and far between. Most go for damage, or some form of battlefield control. Disarming might be a tactic, but destroying the weapons is usually inefficient in a fight.

The big exception to this would be an archer - a strong/damaging enemy can usually sunder a bow in one round, and for all practical purposes that character is now ineffective. De facto dead.

In fact, it would be crazy for a capable enemy to not sunder a bow, since, for various reasons (archers can always make full attacks, etc) archer tend to be the big damage guy. Sunder his bow and now you can focus on some other things.

As a GM, if I have a good archer in the party and a sunder-capable enemy, I'll probably always sunder the bow on round two ("ow, that hurt!").

I'll agree that actually taking a character's weapon and leaving with it is pretty uncool, unless the player has simply been brazenly careless: sundering is an attack against a character, but stealing is an attack against a player - you've basically destroyed his use of that character and/or his time investment in the character's development. It's worse than death, because once death is "cleared", the character is fully operational; not so for item loss.

CDG, in my view, is fine if it's tactically sound. I usually make my intent obvious, since (for me as a GM) part of it's tactical value is the threat of it - it may prompt other party members to change their actions that round (to rescue their ally). It's what a bad guy does!

(As an aside, I'll note that my PFS archer - a ranger 11 - has invested in both the impervious enchantment AND a fortifying stone for his +1 holy bow, so it's pretty durable: hardness 14 and 50 hit points, and even higher if subject to GMW. Highly recommended treatments for any archer, and only 3500gp!)

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
CDG is definitely a no-no unless it's specifically called out in the tactics

I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic. Most would agree that targeting an unconscious or incapacitated target while there are still viable ones trying to kill you is generally illogical, if not vindictive.

In many cases, the printed tactics either don't apply or they cease to be viable based on player's actions. Tactics are a dynamic part of the game and a GM is empowered to examine the current state of affairs in the game and determine if and when a deviation from the tactics is warranted.
There are a few creatures who's use of CDG would certainly make sense. Shadows and wraiths create spawn almost immediately when they slay a target. Being intelligent, they would take advantage of this ability if the situation presents itself.

Sovereign Court 5/5

Fromper wrote:
The real question is why an enemy would ever target the PC's equipment instead of just trying to kill them. There are some enemies who will, but they should be few and far between. Most go for damage, or some form of battlefield control. Disarming might be a tactic, but destroying the weapons is usually inefficient in a fight.

An intelligent opponent, given the opportunity, can easily find sundering the archer's bow a much more attractive option than just doing damage AND enduring successive full attacks from said archer.

For LoLz, you might interpret the rules so that the bowstring is considered a separate object from the bowstaff.

Sovereign Court 2/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic.

Hm, I had always thought that Mike Brock specifically said to not do it unless it was listed in tactics. I could totally be wrong.

The best I could find along those lines was this.

Mike Brock wrote:
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change.

I mean, seems to suggest to me that CDG should not be used unless called upon, but this isn't exactly the best post for that ruling.

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are so many offhand "rulings" that it threatens to transform any GM into HAL9000.

For my part, if it's not in the PFS Guide or the FAQ, it's not a ruling. Documentation matters.

3/5

Fromper wrote:
The real question is why an enemy would ever target the PC's equipment instead of just trying to kill them. There are some enemies who will, but they should be few and far between. Most go for damage, or some form of battlefield control. Disarming might be a tactic, but destroying the weapons is usually inefficient in a fight.

I was Dming a demon that was owning the group because no one could bypass the dr. Someone pulled out a holy arrow to use as a dagger and critted with it.

The demon then tried to sunder that thing that hurt it so much.

I agree it is rare, but there are times when it is stupid not to.

4/5 5/55/55/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis

So, is there any way to recover when a character in PFS gets too far below the WBL values?

Seems to me a lot of the problems could be resolved by allowing a way out of that trap. Do poorly, get punished twice since you now will have less useful toys than those who did well. That character never recovers, although future characters may learn the lesson.

I really don't think Day Job rolls are going to be enough to do it either... :)

Silver Crusade 2/5

David Haller wrote:
Fromper wrote:
The real question is why an enemy would ever target the PC's equipment instead of just trying to kill them. There are some enemies who will, but they should be few and far between. Most go for damage, or some form of battlefield control. Disarming might be a tactic, but destroying the weapons is usually inefficient in a fight.

The big exception to this would be an archer - a strong/damaging enemy can usually sunder a bow in one round, and for all practical purposes that character is now ineffective. De facto dead.

In fact, it would be crazy for a capable enemy to not sunder a bow, since, for various reasons (archers can always make full attacks, etc) archer tend to be the big damage guy. Sunder his bow and now you can focus on some other things.

As a GM, if I have a good archer in the party and a sunder-capable enemy, I'll probably always sunder the bow on round two ("ow, that hurt!").

I'll agree that actually taking a character's weapon and leaving with it is pretty uncool, unless the player has simply been brazenly careless: sundering is an attack against a character, but stealing is an attack against a player - you've basically destroyed his use of that character and/or his time investment in the character's development. It's worse than death, because once death is "cleared", the character is fully operational; not so for item loss.

CDG, in my view, is fine if it's tactically sound. I usually make my intent obvious, since (for me as a GM) part of it's tactical value is the threat of it - it may prompt other party members to change their actions that round (to rescue their ally). It's what a bad guy does!

(As an aside, I'll note that my PFS archer - a ranger 11 - has invested in both the impervious enchantment AND a fortifying stone for his +1 holy bow, so it's pretty durable: hardness 14 and 50 hit points, and even higher if subject to GMW. Highly recommended treatments for any archer, and only 3500gp!)

This is why my archer is going to get a glove of storing for when he is not acting. Of course, my archer is not good by optimized standards anyway. And he's a ranger with no pet: clearly not good.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Haller wrote:

There are so many offhand "rulings" that it threatens to transform any GM into HAL9000.

For my part, if it's not in the PFS Guide or the FAQ, it's not a ruling. Documentation matters.

From the Guide:

Quote:
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications or rulings.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

BretI wrote:

So, is there any way to recover when a character in PFS gets too far below the WBL values?

Seems to me a lot of the problems could be resolved by allowing a way out of that trap. Do poorly, get punished twice since you now will have less useful toys than those who did well. That character never recovers, although future characters may learn the lesson.

I really don't think Day Job rolls are going to be enough to do it either... :)

GM credit can work to alleviate the problem. Depending on level and how much behind you are a small number of sessions can bring you back to moderately close to WBL. Or at least close enough that you are still a viable character.

4/5 ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Acedio wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic.

Hm, I had always thought that Mike Brock specifically said to not do it unless it was listed in tactics. I could totally be wrong.

The best I could find along those lines was this.

Mike Brock wrote:
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change.
I mean, seems to suggest to me that CDG should not be used unless called upon, but this isn't exactly the best post for that ruling.

If you continue on that thread he clarifies his position Here

tl;dr The clarified statement is don't CDG unless tactically appropriate to do so, not don't CDG unless explicitly called out.

Sovereign Court 2/5

Pirate Rob wrote:

If you continue on that thread he clarifies his position Here

tl;dr The clarified statement is don't CDG unless tactically appropriate to do so, not don't CDG unless explicitly called out.

Thank you!

Dark Archive 4/5

David Haller wrote:


(As an aside, I'll note that my PFS archer - a ranger 11 - has invested in both the impervious enchantment AND a fortifying stone for his +1 holy bow, so it's pretty durable: hardness 14 and 50 hit points, and even higher if subject to GMW. Highly recommended treatments for any archer, and only 3500gp!)

Of course you can always lead off with targeted dispel magic on the bow from 1 NPC to make it a mundane bow for 1d4 rounds followed by a sunder against the now weaker bow (impervious would stop working fortifying stone is a separate item so it would still be working and GMW would still function if it was running).

If you try hard enough you can sunder anything, however only in very specific cases (such a single weapon PC's) is sunder actually a viable tactic, if the PC possesses only 1 weapon then go ahead with the sunder, most PC's will have at least 1 backup weapon of the same type (usually a +1 version of their favored weapon) and a few backup weapons of other types (usually mwk).

3/5

Caderyn wrote:
David Haller wrote:


(As an aside, I'll note that my PFS archer - a ranger 11 - has invested in both the impervious enchantment AND a fortifying stone for his +1 holy bow, so it's pretty durable: hardness 14 and 50 hit points, and even higher if subject to GMW. Highly recommended treatments for any archer, and only 3500gp!)

Of course you can always lead off with targeted dispel magic on the bow from 1 NPC to make it a mundane bow for 1d4 rounds followed by a sunder against the now weaker bow (impervious would stop working fortifying stone is a separate item so it would still be working and GMW would still function if it was running).

If you try hard enough you can sunder anything, however only in very specific cases (such a single weapon PC's) is sunder actually a viable tactic, if the PC possesses only 1 weapon then go ahead with the sunder, most PC's will have at least 1 backup weapon of the same type (usually a +1 version of their favored weapon) and a few backup weapons of other types (usually mwk).

Yes, there's always a way - I've used the dispel/sunder combo as a GM myself (as well as a dispel/shatter combo), but that at least requires more set-up (and, ideally, a hidden babau demon whose roll is to dispel magic each round. Ahem...) One can certainly mitigate the likelihood of sundering. And my aforementioned ranger has three backup bows (a +1 bane human bow, a +1 seeking bow, and a masterwork bow) - just in case.

(On the topic of dispel magic and NPCs - it might be noted that succubi, with their +15 knowledge (local), are very likely to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders for protection from domination and the like. It's certainly worth instructing their babau henchmen to dispel those wayfinders *just in case*; it's a nice set up for subverting party cohesion!)

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

David Haller wrote:


Yes, there's always a way - I've used the dispel/sunder combo as a GM myself (as well as a dispel/shatter combo), but that at least requires more set-up (and, ideally, a hidden babau demon whose roll is to dispel magic each round. Ahem...) One can certainly mitigate the likelihood of sundering. And my aforementioned ranger has three backup bows (a +1 bane human bow, a +1 seeking bow, and a masterwork bow) - just in case.

(On the topic of dispel magic and NPCs - it might be noted that succubi, with their +15 knowledge (local), are very likely to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders for protection from domination and the like. It's certainly worth instructing their babau henchmen to dispel those wayfinders *just in case*; it's a nice set up for subverting party cohesion!)

I think tactics like that have (for PFS) passed the "don't be a jerk" line unless the players have agreed to hard mode. It very much feels like you're going out of the way to nullify all the preparations the player has made.

One of the goals of PFS is to provide a roughly equal experience across tables. Doing things like that, when not called for in tactics, is going to provide a lot harder experience than at most tables

3/5

I think someone using dispel magic on a wayfinder to nullify the clear spindel is DM metagaming. To me that is cheating. I do not read the modules or use my creature knowledge. The NPCs should not automatically know what my characters items and stats are.

3/5

pauljathome wrote:

I think tactics like that have (for PFS) passed the "don't be a jerk" line unless the players have agreed to hard mode. It very much feels like you're going out of the way to nullify all the preparations the player has made.

One of the goals of PFS is to provide a roughly equal experience across tables. Doing things like that, when not called for in tactics, is going to provide a lot harder experience than at most tables

Well, I play with pretty experienced gamers, for the most part, and I'm known as a fairly hardball GM, so yes, there's kind of a tacit acceptance of hard mode. You are certainly right that "don't be a jerk" is relative to the gaming culture of a particular group or locale.

Finlanderboy wrote:

I think someone using dispel magic on a wayfinder to nullify the clear spindel is DM metagaming. To me that is cheating. I do not read the modules or use my creature knowledge. The NPCs should not automatically know what my characters items and stats are.

I have to strongly disagree here; if a monster has knowledge (local) of a very high level, why would they be unable to use it? Players don't read the scenarios, no, but they can make knowledge checks which give them a "heads-up" at the outset of combat. A monster with pretty high k:local (like glabrezu and succubi), rolling 25+, might certainly be aware of some common practices of a fairly huge and world-renowned organization like the Pathfinder society. A dominator, in particular, having an affinity for gossip and spycraft - like a succubus - would be remiss to not know that (i) pathfinders carry a magic compass which (ii) can be slotted with ioun stones and (iii) many Pathfinders slot a clear spindle to nullify domination from evil sources.

For what it's worth, the players at the time thought it was a cool idea (they'd never had a GM do it), and I explained it was only possibly because they were legendary folks anyway (11th level - per the spell Legend Lore, 11th level characters are getting "noticed"!) Of course, dominating the archer ranger with favored enemy: human was pretty harrowing, but it was a good, memorable encounter.

A monster with bluff can feint, a monster with acrobatics can tumble, and a monster with knowledge skills can know things. Full use of the stat block.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

David Haller wrote:


if a monster has knowledge (local) of a very high level, why would they be unable to use it?

One huge problem with this is that knowledge DCs are very, very undefined. Is it a DC 15 or DC 30 knowledge check? There is going to be a very strong tendency (likely unconscious) for the GM to set the DC to where he wants it to be so that the NPCs succeed or fail as he desires. Which is pretty much the opposite of giving players a consistent experience.

Don't get me wrong. In a home game I think a lot of these things are fine. But I don't feel that PFS is the right venue for them.

Sovereign Court 5/5

David Haller wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

I think tactics like that have (for PFS) passed the "don't be a jerk" line unless the players have agreed to hard mode. It very much feels like you're going out of the way to nullify all the preparations the player has made.

One of the goals of PFS is to provide a roughly equal experience across tables. Doing things like that, when not called for in tactics, is going to provide a lot harder experience than at most tables

Well, I play with pretty experienced gamers, for the most part, and I'm known as a fairly hardball GM, so yes, there's kind of a tacit acceptance of hard mode. You are certainly right that "don't be a jerk" is relative to the gaming culture of a particular group or locale.

Finlanderboy wrote:

I think someone using dispel magic on a wayfinder to nullify the clear spindel is DM metagaming. To me that is cheating. I do not read the modules or use my creature knowledge. The NPCs should not automatically know what my characters items and stats are.

I have to strongly disagree here; if a monster has knowledge (local) of a very high level, why would they be unable to use it? Players don't read the scenarios, no, but they can make knowledge checks which give them a "heads-up" at the outset of combat. A monster with pretty high k:local (like glabrezu and succubi), rolling 25+, might certainly be aware of some common practices of a fairly huge and world-renowned organization like the Pathfinder society. A dominator, in particular, having an affinity for gossip and spycraft - like a succubus - would be remiss to not know that (i) pathfinders carry a magic compass which (ii) can be slotted with ioun stones and (iii) many Pathfinders slot a clear spindle to nullify domination from evil sources.

For what it's worth, the players at the time thought it was a cool idea (they'd never had a GM do it), and I explained it was only possibly because they were legendary folks anyway (11th level - per the spell Legend Lore, 11th level...

I agree with David.

The common tactics of Pathfinder field agents can be a Known Thing in Golarion. It's within the bounds of feasibility to occasionally have an NPC "correctly guess" that putting Dispel Magic on a Wayfinder is a good idea. Maybe more than occasionally if it's an NPC very familiar with Pathfinder tactics, such as the Aspis Consortium agents.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

pauljathome wrote:
One huge problem with this is that knowledge DCs are very, very undefined.

That is certainly true, but guess what, if the GM is gonna "cheat" setting the DC too low so the creature can more easily succeed, they are gonna cheat in other areas as well. Perhaps they ignore the tactics or some other RAW. A "good" GM is able to fairly use the RAW and the creature's stat block appropriately. I also agree with David. If you can make knowledge checks vs. the creatures/NPCs, then the GM can do the same. Thanks for the ideas David :-D

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Bob Jonquet wrote:
pauljathome wrote:
One huge problem with this is that knowledge DCs are very, very undefined.
That is certainly true, but guess what, if the GM is gonna "cheat" setting the DC too low so the creature can more easily succeed, they are gonna cheat in other areas as well. Perhaps they ignore the tactics or some other RAW. A "good" GM is able to fairly use the RAW and the creature's stat block appropriately. I also agree with David. If you can make knowledge checks vs. the creatures/NPCs, then the GM can do the same. Thanks for the ideas David :-D

I most definitely did NOT say "cheat".

What is the appropriate DC for somebody to notice that the characters are Pathfinders? What is the DC to notice they have a Wayfinder with a slotted Ioun Stone?

I'm betting that there is nothing approximating consensus on that.

And I also claim that this is very likely NOT running tactics as written.

Liberty's Edge 2/5 *

There was a scenario recently out which had the potential for a lot of items to be damaged/destroyed.

5/5 *****

David Haller wrote:
A monster with bluff can feint, a monster with acrobatics can tumble, and a monster with knowledge skills can know things. Full use of the stat block.

Sure although understanding the resonant properties of a clear spindle ioun stone inside a wayfinder seems far more like it would require Knowledge: Arcana than Local. Local might tell you something about the nature of the society and its membership but I don't see it giving specific information on rather unusual magical items.

Then they also need to see them to be able to target them. Do people normally carry powerful and expensive magic items in plain sight? They work just as well sitting inside your pack or beneath your armour.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Acedio wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
I do not recall this being a hard rule. It is certainly accepted, and logic dictates, that it should rarely occur, but it is a legal, and occasionally, valid tactic.

Hm, I had always thought that Mike Brock specifically said to not do it unless it was listed in tactics. I could totally be wrong.

The best I could find along those lines was this.

Mike Brock wrote:
Mark and I discussed this. The scenarios are to be GMed as written. This isn't a grey area. I'm more concerned with a GM who thinks he can adequately adjust a scenario to better challenge the party and then kills PCs because extra creatures were added, or harder DCs were assigned to traps, or a coup de grace not written in the tactics, or any number of other circumstances a GM could change.
I mean, seems to suggest to me that CDG should not be used unless called upon, but this isn't exactly the best post for that ruling.

Look further in the same thread. Mike clarifies. It doesn't have to be called out in tactics, but Mike expects GMs to use good and fair judgment when doing so.

5/5 *****

Andrew Christian wrote:
I mean, seems to suggest to me that CDG should not be used unless called upon, but this isn't exactly the best post for that ruling.

He says this later in the same thread in response to Jiggy:

Quote:
I'm pretty confident that what MBrock meant by "not in the tactics" is if the tactics don't warrant a CdG. I think seeing it instead as a decree that CdG is banned unless called out by name is reading something into MBrock's post that isn't there.
Quote:
It is this. Thanks for clarifying what I initially should have typed.

So you can CdG where it makes sense to do so.

Look further in the same thread. Mike clarifies. It doesn't have to be called out in tactics, but Mike expects GMs to use good and fair judgment when doing so.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

I can't remember I ever sundered a weapon - but equipment isn't immun to loss depending on situation and stupidity of player.

I had one head scratching fight when the enemy transformed and tried to fly away. This was on a river boat and the next action of the barbarian - I throw my MW (melee) weapon after it.

There was no way that it couldn't land in a mucky, deep river. He never saw that weapon again. To rub salt into the wound - he missed and the enemy got away.

In a different situation I gave warning when the group was attacked by some Black Puddings. 'Your choice to drop weapon (free action) or store it - but it will be on the ground, unattended where the black pudding likely will be next.'

Dark Archive

David Haller wrote:
Caderyn wrote:
David Haller wrote:


(As an aside, I'll note that my PFS archer - a ranger 11 - has invested in both the impervious enchantment AND a fortifying stone for his +1 holy bow, so it's pretty durable: hardness 14 and 50 hit points, and even higher if subject to GMW. Highly recommended treatments for any archer, and only 3500gp!)

Of course you can always lead off with targeted dispel magic on the bow from 1 NPC to make it a mundane bow for 1d4 rounds followed by a sunder against the now weaker bow (impervious would stop working fortifying stone is a separate item so it would still be working and GMW would still function if it was running).

If you try hard enough you can sunder anything, however only in very specific cases (such a single weapon PC's) is sunder actually a viable tactic, if the PC possesses only 1 weapon then go ahead with the sunder, most PC's will have at least 1 backup weapon of the same type (usually a +1 version of their favored weapon) and a few backup weapons of other types (usually mwk).

Yes, there's always a way - I've used the dispel/sunder combo as a GM myself (as well as a dispel/shatter combo), but that at least requires more set-up (and, ideally, a hidden babau demon whose roll is to dispel magic each round. Ahem...) One can certainly mitigate the likelihood of sundering. And my aforementioned ranger has three backup bows (a +1 bane human bow, a +1 seeking bow, and a masterwork bow) - just in case.

(On the topic of dispel magic and NPCs - it might be noted that succubi, with their +15 knowledge (local), are very likely to be aware that Pathfinders often slot a clear spindle in their wayfinders for protection from domination and the like. It's certainly worth instructing their babau henchmen to dispel those wayfinders *just in case*; it's a nice set up for subverting party cohesion!)

I thought that Wayfinder/Ioun stone interaction was a closely guarded Pathfinder secret.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Haller wrote:
I have to strongly disagree here; if a monster has knowledge (local) of a very high level, why would they be unable to use it? Players don't read the scenarios, no, but they can make knowledge checks which give them a "heads-up" at the outset of combat. A monster with pretty high k:local (like glabrezu and succubi), rolling 25+, might certainly be aware of some common practices of a fairly huge and world-renowned organization like the Pathfinder society. A dominator, in particular, having an affinity for gossip and spycraft - like a succubus - would be remiss to not know that (i) pathfinders carry a magic compass which (ii) can be slotted with ioun stones and (iii) many Pathfinders slot a clear spindle to nullify domination from evil sources.

Okay, so if I'm at your table I can roll a single Kn(local) check to know what magic items the much-more-famous-than-me BBEG uses and what they do? Cool!

3/5

Victor Zajic wrote:


I thought that Wayfinder/Ioun stone interaction was a closely guarded Pathfinder secret.

That's why it would be considered "rare" knowledge, based on CR+15. I'd add 5 to that to "answer a question", so probably, at a minimum, CR+20.

Still, that's in the neighborhood of DC 30, achievable by monsters with a K(local) north of +15.

5/5 *****

David Haller wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:


I thought that Wayfinder/Ioun stone interaction was a closely guarded Pathfinder secret.

That's why it would be considered "rare" knowledge, based on CR+15. I'd add 5 to that to "answer a question", so probably, at a minimum, CR+20.

Still, that's in the neighborhood of DC 30, achievable by monsters with a K(local) north of +15.

Sure, that might tell you that Ioun Stones might be slotted into a wayfinder for additional effect but it isn't going to tell you what they do unless you have Knowledge: Arcana. And it still doesn't help you target anything you cannot see.

3/5

Jiggy wrote:


Okay, so if I'm at your table I can roll a single Kn(local) check to know what magic items the much-more-famous-than-me Krune uses and what they do? Cool!

Well, an ironic feature of knowledge checks, since they're based on CR, is that the more powerful a monster is, the less famous it becomes.

The tarrasque, for example, should it be seen marauding through the countryside, would likely require a DC 40 knowledge check even to recognize (CR + 15 since it's unique).

"What is THAT?" "Dunno, Clem... I ain't got the foggiest notion."

So Krune, assuming CR 20 (I'm being lazy and not looking it up) would require a DC 35 simply to know who he is, and then progressively (in +5 bumps) harder as we try to know things about him.

I should point out that few monsters (or NPCs) have even a single rank of K(local) - usually it's those tasked with manipulating or subverting people, like succubi and glabrezu ("demons of treachery" devoted to knowing what you might want or value, and using it to corrupt you), so it's unlikely to come up very often.

My basic rule for setting a DC is going to be character level plus 15 to identify (so a DC 33 to say "oh, that's Violetta, a powerful enchantress allied with the Pathfinder society"), and then progressively higher to know she wears a scarab of protection, or commonly uses quickened true strike before casting telekinesis, or probably can't be seen with true seeing ("use echolocation instead!"), or whatever.

Once a Pathfinder is identified, though, there are certain assumptions which are "fair", like the all wear cloaks of resistance, many carry wayfinders with slotted ioun stones, nearly al higher-level ones wear stat-bump items, and so on.

"Know thy enemy" can (and should!) work both ways.

3/5

andreww wrote:
David Haller wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:


I thought that Wayfinder/Ioun stone interaction was a closely guarded Pathfinder secret.

That's why it would be considered "rare" knowledge, based on CR+15. I'd add 5 to that to "answer a question", so probably, at a minimum, CR+20.

Still, that's in the neighborhood of DC 30, achievable by monsters with a K(local) north of +15.

Sure, that might tell you that Ioun Stones might be slotted into a wayfinder for additional effect but it isn't going to tell you what they do unless you have Knowledge: Arcana. And it still doesn't help you target anything you cannot see.

True, but I might not care that much about particulars - I know it's a thing, so I want to shut it down.

If I identify a nabasu demon, and I know (from check +5) that it has spell-like abilities, I don't need to know what those are to decide to fortify my saves with a Judgement, or try to blind it so it can't target, or whatever.

"I've heard Pathfinders often have devious effects arising from their wayfinders... hmmm. I think I'll dispel it, just in case."

5/5 *****

As opposed to the effects from all of the other types of magical items they carry? Seems very metagamey to me.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Haller wrote:
"I've heard Pathfinders often have devious effects arising from their wayfinders... hmmm. I think I'll dispel it, just in case."

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".

4/5 *

Bob Jonquet wrote:
I also agree with David. If you can make knowledge checks vs. the creatures/NPCs, then the GM can do the same. Thanks for the ideas David :-D

+1

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Destroying, stealing, and sundering PC items All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.