So after reading a thread in which monkey grip was called cheese, it occurred to me that people seem to have lost the idea of what that word means. For those unfamiliar, monkey grip is a 3.x feat that allows you to use two handed weapons one handed, at a -2 penalty to accuracy. This reults in almost all cases in a dps loss, even before figuring in the feat opportunity cost, and is pretty much solely for flavor. Even in the face of that, it was called cheese.
It seems like any time there is an option that lets you do something you couldn't before, it's called cheesy. Guns, for example, hit touch ac, but a well built gunslinger is no match for a well built archer in terms of dpr, yet they're constantly banned and called cheese. Why is a new ability always cheese? Doesn't cheese mean game breaking, not game expanding?
It's a very old problem: each group will settle into a comfort zone, and anything beyond that is likely to be met with a knee-jerk reaction of being cheese / cheap / OP / the plague threatening the hobby.
1e Unearthed Arcana was cheese.
2e splatbooks were cheese. (To be fair, Psionics was so poorly written that it WAS cheese.)
2e PO was cheese.
3.0 Core was cheese (stupid bag o rats Whirlwind Cleaving.) 3.0 splatbooks were cheese.
3.5 cleaned it up, then added new cheese.
PF Core is cheese. PF non-Core is cheese. PF 3pp. is cheese.
Guns, no matter how saddled with drawbacks and viability-crushing costs, will always be cheese.
Sometimes, it actually is overpowered; sometimes, it's just situationally or theoretically cheesy (such as, say, Pun Pun or the omniscifier); more often than not, though, it's just the perception of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, for the actual meat of your question: The answer is Theorycrafting. People read the rules, plug in a few variables, and if they get a number greater than whatever they deem is "fair", go running for the hills. This gets a lot of attention because of the Optimization crowd: people who deliberately try to max out 1-3 numbers for their character(s). Usually sometime later, people put it into practice, and find that it may not be as broken as it seems when the old Random Number God comes into play.
It probably bears mentioning that what you're talking about is poorly executed theorycrafting. Any theorcrafter with a lick of common sense knows that you need to account for things like accuracy as well as raw damage numbers. You don't do any damage if you don't hit. Plus most folks know that raw DPR is not the be-all end-all of any character's effectiveness (though certainly relevant if you're playing a damage-dealer).
With that caveat, I think you're right. A lot of abilities that get labeled as "Cheese" happen because the people doing the labeling aren't all that well-informed on how the game works. I recall one 3.5 game where one of the players decided to try out a Dragonfire Adept, which the DM's girlfriend immediately denounced as cheese because it could use its breath attack an unlimited number of times per day. Never mind that at level nine the breath weapon only did 4d6 damage (Reflex Save for Half) in a fifteen foot cone. The fact that it had no daily limit made it the most OP thing ever, to her mind. Even though this was in a group where the fifteen minute adventure day was firmly in place.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
New stuff is often labelled as cheese by one of my GMs.
The reason is kind of sad, the poor dude love to create his own little world. Anything that does not fit his world is awful, thus most of the time he ban any new books that does not fit his world. It's really sad because he label everything that does not fit his narrative as cheesy.Mutation Warrior fighter archetype? Cheesy!
Bomb focused Alchemist build? Cheesy!
Using adamantine arrows heads to cut a steel wire? Cheesy!
Gunslingers? Cheesy!
Archer paladin build? Cheesy!
Summoner using summons? CHEESY!Being a total s%~#ty GM with 0 creativity and copying over and over stuff from final fantasy into his games: Not cheesy
Refusing to play any other game and to be a player every now and then to leave anyone else the chance to be a GM: Totally not cheesy
Creating about 60 pages worth of house-rules but refusing any other stuff besides from core at the table: Not cheesyUsually people that call everything cheesy are close minded control freak that want to impose their vision on everything. If you want so much control on a interactive storytelling combat sim table top game. Maybe you should just write a book and let people that wanna play play.
Or, your DM has invented a world.
The world has strict rules that he's comfortable and familiar with.
You want to adventure in his world, you play by his rules. If you don't want to adventure there, all well and good.
His world does not need to exist to cater to your latest zany character idea. Your character has to fit into his world.
So, if you don't like it, don't play in his world. That's all there is to it.
But then, don't expect him to GM your zany character. Maybe He'll just turn the Screen over to you, and you can find out how much fun it is to try and cater to every zany character concept your players have.
Or maybe you'll invent a world where some things are possible and some things are not, and work from there.
It's how DM's do things, man.
==Aelryinth
Stuff about different things being 'immersion breaking' for different people.You know, I acknowledge you have a right to your opinion on this matter, but I disagree with all of my being.
More than a right to not have their immersion broken, people have a right to have fun and effective options. And if those options bruise somebody else's verisimilitude, so be it. Especially since Captain Archmage gets a free g++&+%n pass, apparently?
When 90% of this argument ends up being "Well, Bob the Fighter can't do <THING> because <THING> is not something a person can do!" I'd like to mention that nobody can survive an unprotected free fall...
Monkey Grip is neither particularly effective or powerful. Seriously, you could let Bob the Fighter grow two extra arms and let him use Large Double Axes with each hand. It wouldn't help a whole hell of a lot against Captain Archmage (at mid to high levels). It'd be cheesy as hell though.
You want a more powerful Fighter? I'm all for it. You want a Fighter with a strong Will save, improved movement speed, and extra skill points? Personally, I'd like that. You want a Fighter who sprint 15', swing his sword, and snuff out a Fireball (as an Immediate action with some sort of resource)? I'm all for that too actually. That sounds fun. You want a Fighter that can float in midair because a Wizard can float in midair? A little less so.
|
I already have a Fighter that can float in midair. He's called the Aegis and he's the most fun non-Initiating martial class in PF.
Monkey Grip was the example, but it's not really a good example. If I had things my way, Powerful Build would be a thing characters would be able to access without having to dip into 3pp stuff (Aegis says "hi" again) and various other fun options like that, too.
I stand by my argument that "it hurts my verisimilitude" is a really silly argument when dudes make giant pits in the ground filled with acid hurts mine. But since it's a spell in the CRB, I'm expected to deal with it, but any attempts to let the fighter have a nice thing is met with cries of CHEESE!
It's not like the Fighter wielding a larger weapon is going to make everyone else feel useless. But dropping every enemy you were supposed to fight, on the first turn of said fight, into a horrific pit of acid that they will struggle to escape can.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some thread titles rely so heavily upon in-jokes, gaming slang and references that, interpreted out-of-context, they are nothing short of amazing.
This is one of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kraken Throttle is an amazing and excellent feat, and the kind of thing all martial feats should aspire to, if you ignore the developer intent.
Correct me if I'm wrong (and i'm no weapons expert) but things like monkey-grip may be considered cheesy, unrealistic, and/or nearly impossible, because of how these weapons were used, an the context in which they were developments. Sorry if this has already been discussed.
The first reason this idea of swinging around a big sword (in a stereotypically barbaric manner), especially with one hand, is that barbarians didn't really have access to big swords the way we think they did, in part because they were both expensive, not developed yet, and required a lot of skill, even two-handed.
lets start with the classical greek hoplite. You have a spear, shield, and sword (spartan from 300) and may even have a cuirass, helmet and greaves if you're lucky. Basically the idea was being really fast, but also having the option of becoming tank-like by forming a phalanx. Theire small shortswords were good enough because there were plenty of weak points. Note, that other than the spartans an the great nobles of the other city states, there weren't really any professional soldiers.
The romans are next, but lets first look at the classical north european barbarians. They were mostly hunter/gathering and farming groups that really didn't have the time to focus on fighting. mostly just strong men with weapons. basically zero professional soldiers.
this logic continues with the early and even post marian romans, where they mostly relied on a big shield and their buddies to stay alive, while adding small improvements, like banded mail, which was actually quite protective and flexible. Also the romans had the first consistently professional soldiers which was a big booster.
In the aftermath of the romans, the Dark/middle ages occurred, which was basically where the only innovations were in how to kill each other better. Which resulted in better crafted armor as well as heavier/bigger/stronger/more covering armor. Since wearing full plate eventually became a thing, it became especially hard to kill people with little short swords and spears, so they used big frikken swords (also made possible by recent metal working innovations). At this point the classic knights were being more important with the feudal system where the peasants worked and the knights and nobles managed/trained for hours a day/fought. This meant that one, bigger swords and heavier armor became a little more practical, because there were professional soldiers who hat the time and equipment to train every day, getting same kind of precision that a less experienced soldier could be delivered with a shortsword could be delivered with longswords and great swords (i know those aren't the proper names), while still being able to cut past the armor.
In conclusion, people are right to call things like this cheesy is because wielding it one handed defeats the purpose: the entire point of having a big sword is to make the most out of two hands and improved weapon crafting techniques in order to cut through superior armor.
also, weilding something that is designed to be difficult to wield but still powerful two-handed would make sense to be quite difficult to wield one handed, even if the goal wasn't to cut through armor
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is cheesy?
"I don't like it and think you shouldn't do it but I can't make you stop, so instead I'll attempt to shame you into not doing it by insulting it, in this case by calling it cheesy."
Summarizing the last page of the thread:
"Here are things I don't like and don't want you to do but since I can't actually stop you I'll try to shame you into not doing it by insulting it, in this case by calling it cheesy."
Thread has gotten pretty cheesy...
to clarify if my comment is in anyway offensive, I don't actually have a problem playing with cheesy or unrealistic mechanics in a fantasy game, which I've considerred doing multiple times, and since apparently magic is realistic, other things should be as well. Just explaining why a realist might find it cheesy in a non-fantasy world.
Velveeta is not cheese :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, if the martial is cheesy and the mage is wining about it...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
to clarify if my comment is in anyway offensive, I don't actually have a problem playing with cheesy or unrealistic mechanics in a fantasy game, which I've considerred doing multiple times, and since apparently magic is realistic, other things should be as well. Just explaining why a realist might find it cheesy in a non-fantasy world.
But Pathfinder isn't run using a non fantasy world. The presumption of realism in any sense in a setting where physics and cause-effect relationships are suspended and ignored at completely arbitrary junctions both with and without the involvement of magic is so outrageous as to be laughable, for all the reasons presented and more, to the point where it boils down simply to -
"So wait, you want realism, but only where you want realism, but you don't want it where you don't want it, right? Okay, I think I get it."
or more aptly,
"Fantasy can only exist as I personally see it, and rules of realism can only be broken within my personal comfort zone!!!"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"So wait, you want realism, but only where you want realism, but you don't want it where you don't want it, right? Okay, I think I get it."or more aptly,
"Fantasy can only exist as I personally see it, and rules of realism can only be broken within my personal comfort zone!!!"
or less satirically -
"Generally real-world physics applies except where magical powers specifically break them." (not weighing in - I just figure that side should be spoken for with less snark)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.
That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.
I do believe thats what i said. Im just saying that Its perfectly fine to play them in a fantasy world where apparently magic is exists (that was the point of my second comment). And the reasons I stated in my first example proved why realists would find it cheesy*. I, even though I like playing fantastical characters. For example, I would consider my character concept of a titan mauler barbarian dual wielding glaives (for all those penalties) to be completely legal, and fun in the fantasy sort of way, and would even love it for the good warm cheesiness
*edit: not that I agree with getting overly worked up about the cheesiness of a weird mechanic
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't imagine heroes in a world whose very nature, and thus its physics, are tied to something like magic not being supernatural. I find the idea of a totally mundane(in the real world sense) person even existing in such a place breaks my suspension of disbelief. How does a species like that survive in that environment without some extremely heavy handed intervention? And really, who would put themselves out constantly to keep these terribly adapted creatures from extinction?
Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.
Well yeah, this is called a Barbarian. I do think there's a place for Charles Atlas superpowers in the Ex department, though. Being able to jump up high enough in the air, grapple a flying mage, and then come back down using the mage's head as a safety pillow is firmly within the realms of "entirely possible given real world physics and sufficient amounts of awesome".
Charles Atlas never caused an earthquake with a hammer. Heroes are known t'do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Muscle magic my friends. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and here i have monkey grip happen without penalty if the character has high enough strength... i even made a whole big thing on people wanting to wield larger than normal weapons.
However, in addition to this new rule, there is also a change to strength. Characters with over 25 strength can wield weapons as one step lower, if your strength is over 30 you can wield a weapon as 2 steps lower. This does not stack with other effects that also affect wieldability of weapons. This also allows you to wield a tower shield as if it were a normal shield (removing the limitation on attacking and the -2 to hit, cap on dex bonus, armor check penalty becomes -2, however it can still be used to create a wall), and an Great-Shield can likewise be lowered to tower shield and then normal-shield.
Great-Shields have the following penalties: -4 to hit while wielding a Great-Shield, and cannot shield bash.
I can't imagine heroes in a world whose very nature, and thus its physics, are tied to something like magic not being supernatural. I find the idea of a totally mundane(in the real world sense) person even existing in such a place breaks my suspension of disbelief. How does a species like that survive in that environment without some extremely heavy handed intervention? And really, who would put themselves out constantly to keep these terribly adapted creatures from extinction?
humans and other mundanes even still seem to ave the supernatural ability to attract the attention of gods, even if it is just from mass worship.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"So wait, you want realism, but only where you want realism, but you don't want it where you don't want it, right? Okay, I think I get it."or more aptly,
"Fantasy can only exist as I personally see it, and rules of realism can only be broken within my personal comfort zone!!!"
or less satirically -
"Generally real-world physics applies except where magical powers specifically break them." (not weighing in - I just figure that side should be spoken for with less snark)
Except there are tons of (ex) abilities and non magical monsters that grab reality by the collar, headbutt it, and curb stomp it to oblivion. The dragon being prototypical as an energy breathing multi ton creature that can fly faster than an eagle...or the troll you can chop into bits and will regrow if left alone...or the sentient plants not created by an awakening spell...or the giant insects somehow not crushed by the weight of their own exoskeleton...
Reality in fantasy is arbitrary. You can't point to magic and use that as an excuse and say "well anything non magical should otherwise make sense." Not as long as I can pull out a bestiary, point to dozens of creatures that make zero sense by any laws of nature, physics, or even probability, and say "that's not magic, that's not magic, that's not magic..."
You can't ignore that mythology, Western or otherwise, is quite different than anime because anime is contemporary while mythology is celebrated but not modernly relevant.
Of course, I only say this because I'm vehemently anti-anime and unweeaboo. And not for any good reason. Mostly just because.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't ignore that mythology, Western or otherwise, is quite different than anime because anime is contemporary while mythology is celebrated but not modernly relevant.
Of course, I only say this because I'm vehemently anti-anime and unweeaboo. And not for any good reason. Mostly just because.
Yeah, I've never understood why some people think larger-than-life characters with superhuman abilities (who weren't spellcasters) is something that never existed before anime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I see human-sized creatures with enourmous weapons, I think of the Epic of Gilgamesh:
Unto the craftsmen: the mould (?) did the workmen prepare, and the axes
Monstrous they cast: (yea), the celts did they cast, each (weighing) three talents;
Glaives, (too,) monstrous they cast, with hilts each (weighing) two talents,
35.Blades, thirty manas to each, corresponding to fit them: [the inlay(?)],
Gold thirty manas (each) sword: (so) were Gilgamish 1, Enkidu laden
Each with ten talents.a Babylonian talent was 30.3 kilograms (67 lb)Those ancient Sumerians were obviously weeaboo anime fanboys!
Also the irish. The Lúin of Celtchar: "The man in the centre had a great lance, with fifty rivets through it, and its shaft would be a load for a team of oxen." Used by heroes like Celtchar mac Uthechar, Dubthach, Mac Cécht and Fedlimid. Anime fanboys one and all straight from the Ulster Cycle of early Irish literature...
You can't ignore that mythology, Western or otherwise, is quite different than anime because anime is contemporary while mythology is celebrated but not modernly relevant.
Of course, I only say this because I'm vehemently anti-anime and unweeaboo. And not for any good reason. Mostly just because.
So you be totally fine is someone emulated a mythological hero with an oversized weapon but someone emulating an anime hero doing the same you're vehemently against?
Some people put forth the idea that using large weapons is something that's mainly an anime thing. The fact is you'll find them in the myth of most areas of the world if you look a bit. So it's as much mythical as anime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I think the more "absurd" martial powers should be considered Supernatural abilities. It's pretty easy to houserule, too.
That said, dual-wielding greataxes? Not really that much more absurd than a human being able to get a 30 Strength, or survive a fall into laval, or [arrow-related gripe]. Heroes are heroes. Choose your battles. Save your overthinking for the "I can split a mountain with my sword!" or "I can cause earthquakes with my hammer!" abilities.
odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.
why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR
why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.
Yes I'm mad.
Whenever I see human-sized creatures with enourmous weapons, I think of the Epic of Gilgamesh:
Unto the craftsmen: the mould (?) did the workmen prepare, and the axes
Monstrous they cast: (yea), the celts did they cast, each (weighing) three talents;
Glaives, (too,) monstrous they cast, with hilts each (weighing) two talents,
35.Blades, thirty manas to each, corresponding to fit them: [the inlay(?)],
Gold thirty manas (each) sword: (so) were Gilgamish 1, Enkidu laden
Each with ten talents.a Babylonian talent was 30.3 kilograms (67 lb)Those ancient Sumerians were obviously weeaboo anime fanboys!Also the irish. The Lúin of Celtchar: "The man in the centre had a great lance, with fifty rivets through it, and its shaft would be a load for a team of oxen." Used by heroes like Celtchar mac Uthechar, Dubthach, Mac Cécht and Fedlimid. Anime fanboys one and all straight from the Ulster Cycle of early Irish literature...
You can't ignore that mythology, Western or otherwise, is quite different than anime because anime is contemporary while mythology is celebrated but not modernly relevant.
Of course, I only say this because I'm vehemently anti-anime and unweeaboo. And not for any good reason. Mostly just because.
So you be totally fine is someone emulated a mythological hero with an oversized weapon but someone emulating an anime hero doing the same you're vehemently against?
Some people put forth the idea that using large weapons is something that's mainly an anime thing. The fact is you'll find them in the myth of most areas of the world if you look a bit. So it's as much mythical as anime.
Not at all. What I do believe is that if someone wants to play a character with a huge sword wielded in one-hand, it is more likely anime- or JPRG-inspired than anything else. And I don't have any problem with that. I've played games with characters based on X-Men, Disney characters, anime characters, and real-life individuals. At the same time. I had no problems with it. Didn't mean to come off in a bashing way, but I've seen a lot of the Western-mythology-rainbowsword stuff lately and finally decided to weigh in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paul Bunyan = Anime.
No, anime would be if Paul Bunyan were 5'4 (6' adjusting for hair), wielding an axe sized for someone sixty-three axe-handles high (with his feet on the ground and his head in the sky!)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paul Bunyan = Anime.No, anime would be if Paul Bunyan were 5'4 (6' adjusting for hair), wielding an axe sized for someone sixty-three axe-handles high (with his feet on the ground and his head in the sky!)
How about Pecos Bill? His lasso is big enough to catch a twister! ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about Pecos Bill? His lasso is big enough to catch a twister! ;)Paul Bunyan = Anime.No, anime would be if Paul Bunyan were 5'4 (6' adjusting for hair), wielding an axe sized for someone sixty-three axe-handles high (with his feet on the ground and his head in the sky!)
Clarification: there's nothing special about the lasso, it's just that Pecos Bill is using it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
New stuff is often labelled as cheese by one of my GMs.
The reason is kind of sad, the poor dude love to create his own little world. Anything that does not fit his world is awful, thus most of the time he ban any new books that does not fit his world. It's really sad because he label everything that does not fit his narrative as cheesy.Mutation Warrior fighter archetype? Cheesy!
Bomb focused Alchemist build? Cheesy!
Using adamantine arrows heads to cut a steel wire? Cheesy!
Gunslingers? Cheesy!
Archer paladin build? Cheesy!
Summoner using summons? CHEESY!Being a total s%~#ty GM with 0 creativity and copying over and over stuff from final fantasy into his games: Not cheesy
Refusing to play any other game and to be a player every now and then to leave anyone else the chance to be a GM: Totally not cheesy
Creating about 60 pages worth of house-rules but refusing any other stuff besides from core at the table: Not cheesyUsually people that call everything cheesy are close minded control freak that want to impose their vision on everything. If you want so much control on a interactive storytelling combat sim table top game. Maybe you should just write a book and let people that wanna play play.
Or, your DM has invented a world.
The world has strict rules that he's comfortable and familiar with.
You want to adventure in his world, you play by his rules. If you don't want to adventure there, all well and good.
His world does not need to exist to cater to your latest zany character idea. Your character has to fit into his world.
So, if you don't like it, don't play in his world. That's all there is to it.
But then, don't expect him to GM your zany character. Maybe He'll just turn the Screen over to you, and you can find out how much fun it is to try and cater to every zany character concept your players have.Or maybe you'll invent a world where some things are possible and some things are not, and work from there.
It's how DM's do things, man....
If I didn't let my players declare things about my world when I was GMing, my games would not have been nearly as awesome. Hell, the only reason the dwarven religion in my game existed was because it was important to my dwarven cleric PC's background. There was also a character who wanted to be a Bounty Hunter/Bureaucrat in the service of a benevolent empire, so bam! Now there's a section of Imperial bureaucracy dedicated to bounty hunting. Both were awesome ways for me to introduce plot hooks to the party.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that your blanket statement doesn't apply to me, so I disagree.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
or less satirically -
"Generally real-world physics applies except where magical powers specifically break them." (not weighing in - I just figure that side should be spoken for with less snark)
That's not the case, though.
A dragon's flight is represented as nonmagical, but isn't actually doable by real-world physics with their wingspan and body size.
Kind of the same deal with giant bugs: represented as nonmagical, but not possible in reality.
Same goes for having 200HP, diving headfirst off a 500ft cliff into an antimagic zone, and getting up and walking away.
The list goes on and on and on. So no, the position is NOT "real-world physics apply until magic changes things". It truly is, as was said before, "real-world physics can only be ignored in certain places but not others, based entirely on what I'm used to/comfortable with".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Velveeta is not cheese :-)
Who are you to contradict a superior officer? It is cheese if I say it is, I don't care if is ninety seven percent oil and shredded newspapers with yellow food coloring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
or less satirically -
"Generally real-world physics applies except where magical powers specifically break them." (not weighing in - I just figure that side should be spoken for with less snark)
That's not the case, though.
A dragon's flight is represented as nonmagical, but isn't actually doable by real-world physics with their wingspan and body size.
Kind of the same deal with giant bugs: represented as nonmagical, but not possible in reality.
Same goes for having 200HP, diving headfirst off a 500ft cliff into an antimagic zone, and getting up and walking away.
The list goes on and on and on. So no, the position is NOT "real-world physics apply until magic changes things". It truly is, as was said before, "real-world physics can only be ignored in certain places but not others, based entirely on what I'm used to/comfortable with".
Which is, by the way, a completely valid position.
We're emulating genre fantasy here. Whatever breaks your sense of disbelief and drags you out of it is bad for you. That's an argument for using different subsets of the rules, not for keeping things out of the system. What bothers me shouldn't affect what you have available, unless we're playing together.
Well said thejeff and Jiggy. +1
Clarification: there's nothing special about the lasso, it's just that Pecos Bill is using it.How about Pecos Bill? His lasso is big enough to catch a twister! ;)Paul Bunyan = Anime.No, anime would be if Paul Bunyan were 5'4 (6' adjusting for hair), wielding an axe sized for someone sixty-three axe-handles high (with his feet on the ground and his head in the sky!)
Partially true, but nothing was ever said about his having an ability to extend rope. With the average US twister being 500' across, That'd have to be a HUGE lasso. Even if Pecos Bill did it all himself, it's still someone with an oversized weapon. ;)
well, don't forget he could RIDE the twister, too!
==Aelryinth
well, don't forget he could RIDE the twister, too!
==Aelryinth
Actually, there was something special about the lasso. It was a rattlesnake named Shake.
I don't know if that makes it an oversized weapon, but I suspect most people objecting to Monkey Grip would also object to a feat letting you use rattlesnakes as lassos.
Not if they are a druid.
Ropes turning into snakes is kind of thing in movies.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
or less satirically -
"Generally real-world physics applies except where magical powers specifically break them." (not weighing in - I just figure that side should be spoken for with less snark)
That's not the case, though.
A dragon's flight is represented as nonmagical, but isn't actually doable by real-world physics with their wingspan and body size.
Kind of the same deal with giant bugs: represented as nonmagical, but not possible in reality.
Same goes for having 200HP, diving headfirst off a 500ft cliff into an antimagic zone, and getting up and walking away.
The list goes on and on and on. So no, the position is NOT "real-world physics apply until magic changes things". It truly is, as was said before, "real-world physics can only be ignored in certain places but not others, based entirely on what I'm used to/comfortable with".
Which is, by the way, a completely valid position.
We're emulating genre fantasy here. Whatever breaks your sense of disbelief and drags you out of it is bad for you. That's an argument for using different subsets of the rules, not for keeping things out of the system. What bothers me shouldn't affect what you have available, unless we're playing together.
Except it does affect what we have available, because the "realism" restrictions on martials are why martials don't have tools.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But since axes don't remind him of a type of entertainment he doesn't care for, they get a pass.
It's not about "I don't like it when characters can do X" (such as use improbably large weapons).
It's about "This particular mental image reminds me of something I don't like" (such as a certain type of large weapon setup reminding someone of anime).
It only looks inconsistent when using incorrect labels: label it as "I don't like using improbably large/heavy weapons/styles" and you get inconsistencies like swords being regarded differently than axes. Label it instead as "I don't like things that remind me of other things I don't like", and you see that a giant sword could remind a person of anime while an unlikely axe-wielding style isn't a prominent trope of any particular thing (other than D&D), so there's no conflict/contradiction.
Self-awareness: it benefits everyone. :)
Frankly, I've thought most of the double weapons were silly since they were first introduced.
Yeah. If you are going to have double weapons then you need to have sword-chucks.
Paul Bunyan = Anime.
More correct than you know. :D