You're Doing It Wrong


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HWalsh wrote:
Wendy is forced to start on it tomorrow but buys all the supplies today. She has an int of 20 (+5), a Spellcraft of 5 ranks, and some masterwork tools (+2). She needs to hit a DC of 20 she can easily take 10 and do it in 3 days.

.. that there are no such thing as masterwork tools for Spellcraft.


REASONS!

I've actually played with this rule, now that I think about it.

Would not do again.

Had a 14th level rogue fall to his death off a castle roof cause he 'fumbled' a DC 10 jump check. (DnD, not Pathfinder).

Was not impressed. DM looked smug, I asked him to leave.


alexd1976 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Spell components. Eschew Materials is a feat, but every Wizard I have seen plays as if they got the feat for free...
There's an item called Spell Component Pouch, doing about the same thing. Granted, you need the item at hand (retreving material is part of the casting of the spell, afaik).

Which is great.

Or they could take the feat.

But I see people acting like they don't need to worry about spell components, even though the rules say they do.

No, the rules, which have been quoted to you repeatedly, actually say that unless you're casting spells with costly components or someone deprives you of your component pouch you do not, in fact, need to worry about material components.

What is it that wizards don't do that you think they should do?

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hell, anyone could escape, masterwork mithral manacles, 5% of the time.

Even if they were in a straight jacket, wrapped in Adamantine Chains, with a Superior Lock, with fetters, anyone, would be able to escape, within at least, a day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Casual Viking wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Spell components. Eschew Materials is a feat, but every Wizard I have seen plays as if they got the feat for free...
There's an item called Spell Component Pouch, doing about the same thing. Granted, you need the item at hand (retreving material is part of the casting of the spell, afaik).

Which is great.

Or they could take the feat.

But I see people acting like they don't need to worry about spell components, even though the rules say they do.

No, the rules, which have been quoted to you repeatedly, actually say that unless you're casting spells with costly components or someone deprives you of your component pouch you do not, in fact, need to worry about material components.

What is it that wizards don't do that you think they should do?

so you are one of them...

If you don't take Eschew Materials, you need to have a component pouch.

This isn't optional.

Eschew Materials is a feat for a reason.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Oh, and old man commoner, can hear a bow being strung, through a door, whilst asleep, 5% of the time.

Everyone, is secretly superhuman, or horrendously cursed, 5% of the time.


alexd1976 wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Spell components. Eschew Materials is a feat, but every Wizard I have seen plays as if they got the feat for free...
There's an item called Spell Component Pouch, doing about the same thing. Granted, you need the item at hand (retreving material is part of the casting of the spell, afaik).

Which is great.

Or they could take the feat.

But I see people acting like they don't need to worry about spell components, even though the rules say they do.

No, the rules, which have been quoted to you repeatedly, actually say that unless you're casting spells with costly components or someone deprives you of your component pouch you do not, in fact, need to worry about material components.

What is it that wizards don't do that you think they should do?

so you are one of them...

If you don't take Eschew Materials, you need to have a component pouch.

This isn't optional.

Eschew Materials is a feat for a reason.

Oh, ok, we agree then. I thought you were ranting about actions and free hands spent to draw material components and not specifically mentioning that you bought a miniature brass trumpet.


Casual Viking wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Casual Viking wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Spell components. Eschew Materials is a feat, but every Wizard I have seen plays as if they got the feat for free...
There's an item called Spell Component Pouch, doing about the same thing. Granted, you need the item at hand (retreving material is part of the casting of the spell, afaik).

Which is great.

Or they could take the feat.

But I see people acting like they don't need to worry about spell components, even though the rules say they do.

No, the rules, which have been quoted to you repeatedly, actually say that unless you're casting spells with costly components or someone deprives you of your component pouch you do not, in fact, need to worry about material components.

What is it that wizards don't do that you think they should do?

so you are one of them...

If you don't take Eschew Materials, you need to have a component pouch.

This isn't optional.

Eschew Materials is a feat for a reason.

Oh, ok, we agree then. I thought you were ranting about actions and free hands spent to draw material components and not specifically mentioning that you bought a miniature brass trumpet.

Nah, I understand wanting to limit casters, but I play by the rules (for the most part)-whipping out that 10,000gp gem (or brass trumpet, or whatever) isn't an action, it's part of casting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hell, how do you even handle things with varying degrees of success, and failure, with these natural success/failure rules?

I roll a natural 20 on Intimidate to Demoralize, and the enemy is what? Shaken forever?


Eryx_UK wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Eryx_UK wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Eryx_UK wrote:
leo1925 wrote:
The fact that many people believe (I don't know why) that a nat 1 on a skill check is auto fail (or worse) and that a nat 20 on a skill check is auto success.

My group has always done this, for all D20 rolls, as far back as 1st edition AD&D. It makes sense to us that no matter how skilled you can still screw things up, or you can be an novice but get that lucky break.

I imagine that many groups use this as a house rule rather than getting it wrong.

I will not play in a game with this houserule. No jumps to the moon.

I will not play in a game with critical failure either.

If a DM says that is the houserule, I stand up, and leave.

Every DM I play with now knows this. Put it away, or I won't play.

No, we don't have jumps to the moon. I believe the acrobatics rules do say you can't jump further than a certain distance anyway. Common sense still applies.
If common sense applies, then why is the Monk with +15 Acrobatics failing to jump over a 1 foot gap, 5% of the time?
Because with common sense I wouldn't roll to jump a 1 foot gap.

As blackbloodtroll said he would have to roll if he was in combat, because you can't take 10 during combat, so yes with that house rule you have the master acrobat fail 5% of the time.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hell, how do you even handle things with varying degrees of success, and failure, with these natural success/failure rules?

I roll a natural 20 on Intimidate to Demoralize, and the enemy is what? Shaken forever?

It just means that you are successful unless it's an opposed roll for some reason, and then it's a comparison of the totals. One of the times a 20 doesn't always achieve.

It's a set of house rules that we like. I appreciate that others won't.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Bobo the Village Idiot, is using some horse manure to disguise himself as the King.

He succeeds, 5% of the time.


leo1925 wrote:


As blackbloodtroll said he would have to roll if he was in combat, because you can't take 10 during combat, so yes with that house rule you have the master acrobat fail 5% of the time.

I just wouldn't ask for a roll to do a 1 foot jump/step even in combat. Common sense again.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Bobo the Village Idiot, is using some horse manure to disguise himself as the King.

He succeeds, 5% of the time.

You are forgetting common sense.


Why does the greatest stealth rogue with his +70 stealth fail to stealth past bob the rookie guard 5% of the time


Eryx_UK wrote:


You are forgetting common sense.

I am glad you agree critical hit/failure on a skill roll does not make any sense, because, as you say, common sense!


CWheezy wrote:
Why does the greatest stealth rogue with his +70 stealth fail to stealth past bob the rookie guard 5% of the time

Because regardless of how good you are you can always have a bad day or the winds of fate intercede.


CWheezy wrote:
Eryx_UK wrote:


You are forgetting common sense.

I am glad you agree critical hit/failure on a skill roll does not make any sense, because, as you say, common sense!

I know it won't appeal to everyone but it makes sense to myself and the people I play with. It works for us. I'm not saying you should use it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Aristocrat 1: "Oh dear, that large misshapen mentally challenged man covered in manure looks just like the king."

Aristocrat 2: "By jove! That is the King! I must be. The manure caked to his face is just as the King would look."


alexd1976 wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
One last point, by strictly laying wealth gain at the hands of the GM you essentially destroy player agency, no matter how well or poorly a character succeeds or fails it won't really matter because they can expect the same amount of reward as per their quixotic faith in the wbl guidelines.

WBL isn't a rule that the players can get upset about and expect to have it enforced.

It isn't a rule at all. It's a guideline.

It is something that a GM can refer to to give them an IDEA of roughly how much stuff people should have at a given level.

Some people have taken to using it as a rule (like xp), which is fine, but as printed...

Guideline. Not rule.

The GM is the ONLY person who decides how successful (or not successful) a party is. Players never get to run the game, that's the GMs job.

You can ignore the fact that the players having magic items is baked into the bestiary or not, but don't dismiss me just because you can't face the fact that monster AC scales with CR faster than full BAB scales with level. I can't present it more simply than that. If a fighter doesn't get his +X sword he will be worse at combat than a caster targeting saves. Period.

If that is the way you want to play, then by all means play your game with whatever house rules you want. Don't come into a RAW/RAI discussion claiming you are on the correct side of the line - especially with trite "OMG, this isn't WoW" arguments that make no sense and have no bearing on the discussion.

If you use starting cash at a given level, then WBL isn't being used as a guideline. If you player is better off dying to an encounter you stacked against them and coming back, then you are just not doing your job as GM well.


Hi, I think you do not understand how superhuman high level characters are.

For example, the same rogue could fall like, 10000 feet and be totally fine.

Or, he could jump on average, 80 feet with a running start

Such as ~triple this jump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aT-0XxCqV5E


@Eryx_UK
Ok so you have a house rule that isn't always working?

I can understand how that's a house rule you might like but please do two things:
a) don't assume that it's a rule of the game*
b) don't try to present it as a sensible rule

*i am not saying that you do but i have gotten in stupid arguments just because the other person didn't mention that he was using that house rule and we were just talking past each other


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Aristocrat 1: "Oh dear, that large misshapen mentally challenged man covered in manure looks just like the king."

Aristocrat 2: "By jove! That is the King! I must be. The manure caked to his face is just as the King would look."

Now you are just being silly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I'd be all for auto-succeed and auto-fail is we were using d100's. with d20's, however, these 'fringe' cases are likely to happen a few times a session.


Its your rule

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Peasant 1: "That Ogre there says he is the Princess."

Peasant 2: "Are you kidding? Of course it's the Princess. She is just having a bad hair day."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And let's not even consider the critical fumbles on attack rolls, that leads to the hilarious case where the full bab characters become more prone to accident the higher their level.


leo1925 wrote:

@Eryx_UK

Ok so you have a house rule that isn't always working?

I can understand how that's a house rule you might like but please do two things:
a) don't assume that it's a rule of the game*
b) don't try to present it as a sensible rule

*i am not saying that you do but i have gotten in stupid arguments just because the other person didn't mention that he was using that house rule and we were just talking past each other

Once again common sense. Not rocket science. I would not make someone roll to leap/step over a 1 foot hole in the floor. I would not let covering yourself in manure be acceptable to pretend to be the king. I don't force rolls for everything anyway, only when it is relevant.

A. I don't assume it is part of the game. It is just a house rule that has worked for us.

B. See my point above.

Anyway, lets get back to the real topic at hand, okay?


What about like, a 2 foot hole. Does a paragon of athletics who can jump 80 feet have to roll then? 3 feet? 4?

How big of a hole is too big for someone who can jump 80 feet


leo1925 wrote:
And let's not even consider the critical fumbles on attack rolls, that leads to the hilarious case where the full bab characters become more prone to accident the higher their level.

We don't use fumbles. Gave up on that back in the days of 2nd ed AD&D for that very reason.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Guard 1: "Did drunken Joe, the town drunk, just escape your grasp, and then jump over a 30ft chasm, whilst still tied up?"

Guard 2: "Yup. Then again, most of our prisoners do that, about 5% of the time."


hiiamtom wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Trimalchio wrote:
One last point, by strictly laying wealth gain at the hands of the GM you essentially destroy player agency, no matter how well or poorly a character succeeds or fails it won't really matter because they can expect the same amount of reward as per their quixotic faith in the wbl guidelines.

WBL isn't a rule that the players can get upset about and expect to have it enforced.

It isn't a rule at all. It's a guideline.

It is something that a GM can refer to to give them an IDEA of roughly how much stuff people should have at a given level.

Some people have taken to using it as a rule (like xp), which is fine, but as printed...

Guideline. Not rule.

The GM is the ONLY person who decides how successful (or not successful) a party is. Players never get to run the game, that's the GMs job.

You can ignore the fact that the players having magic items is baked into the bestiary or not, but don't dismiss me just because you can't face the fact that monster AC scales with CR faster than full BAB scales with level. I can't present it more simply than that. If a fighter doesn't get his +X sword he will be worse at combat than a caster targeting saves. Period.

If that is the way you want to play, then by all means play your game with whatever house rules you want. Don't come into a RAW/RAI discussion claiming you are on the correct side of the line - especially with trite "OMG, this isn't WoW" arguments that make no sense and have no bearing on the discussion.

If you use starting cash at a given level, then WBL isn't being used as a guideline. If you player is better off dying to an encounter you stacked against them and coming back, then you are just not doing your job as GM well.

In my games, people starting above level one use WBL.

If a player ever tried getting more money from a character that had leveled and didn't meet WBL guidelines, citing 'rules'... I would laugh at him.

Of course, this is rarely an issue in my games. I tend to run crazy adventures that result in roughly 2xWBL guidelines.

So my players rarely complain.

Don't assume I shortchange people please. I'm actually a very permissive and generous GM IRL, despite what my posts may imply.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Farmer 1: "Did Grandpa just jump on to that horse's back bareback, in less than three seconds?"

Farmer 2: "Yessiry. Usually takes him at least 20 tries though."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Escaping your grasp is an automatic success on at 20.


Guys come on, we don't need to point out the potential failings of using critical success/failure on skills...

You're just being mean now.

*Intimidate roll 1* ;)

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Blacksmith: "The King has commissioned me to craft a Suit of Adamantine Full-Plate for him. I have the materials, but I am not sure if I can do it. I will need to get better tools."

Blacksmith(returns): "Goodness. Who has finished the Armor? I have been gone but a week, and I took my tools with me."

Townsman: "Bobo, the Village Idiot, walked in, grabbed some rocks and sticks, and just, well, made it. Not too surprised. Most of the time he ruins it all, but he creates a masterpiece about 5% of the time."


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Blacksmith: "The King has commissioned me to craft a Suit of Adamantine Full-Plate for him. I have the materials, but I am not sure if I can do it. I will need to get better tools."

Blacksmith(returns): "Goodness. Who has finished the Armor? I have been gone but a week, and I took my tools with me."

Townsman: "Bobo, the Village Idiot, walked in, grabbed some rocks and sticks, and just, well, made it. Not too surprised. Most of the time he ruins it all, but he creates a masterpiece about 5% of the time."

Assuming materials are ruined on failed attempts, that would be one EXPENSIVE suit of armor.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Sorry, I have been through this too many times. I have many examples, for every single skill.

I mean that. When this came up before, I created as many hilariously horrible examples as I could, for every single skill.

I figure it should be well set in stone how much I despise such a houserule.

No hard feelings.

Each to their own.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Sorry, I have been through this too many times. I have many examples, for every single skill.

I mean that. When this came up before, I created as many hilariously horrible examples as I could, for every single skill.

I figure it should be well set in stone how much I despise such a houserule.

No hard feelings.

Each to their own.

If you create a google document or thread with examples of each, I will read each and every one.

Very funny. :D

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Hmm.

Now I want to create a thread to brainstorm more hilarious examples.

Dang it. I was just about to walk away from it too.

@Eryx_UK: Sorry man. This is just getting harder to resist. I won't put anything directly to you, but just please don't tell it's sensible. Still, you have fun your own way man. It's your game.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Ooh! I know where to draw the line at auto-failing skill checks! When the skill DC is greater than 1+the character's bonus, then a 1 fails! If rolling a 1 still exceeds the DC, then common sense says we shouldn't have rolled.

Otherwise you have Olympic swimmers failing to stay afloat in calm water 5% of the time while racing. You have engineers whose buildings fall down 5% of the time. You have drivers get into accidents 5% of the time - bet you passed more than 20 uncrashed cars a few times in your life.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hmm.

Now I want to create a thread to brainstorm more hilarious examples.

Dang it. I was just about to walk away from it too.

@Eryx_UK: Sorry man. This is just getting harder to resist. I won't put anything directly to you, but just please don't tell it's sensible. Still, you have fun your own way man. It's your game.

You've done a job of mocking that guy for doing the fails on a natural 1 thing...

Do you want me to start mocking you for how stupid it is for the possibility of NEVER being able to fail is?

"By jove! I've never seen an athlete trip in my entire life! Not once have I ever seen a ball player stumble, fall, or miss a simple catch! Not once!"

(Note: Happens all the time.)

"Impossible! No beginner has ever done a task better than a champion! Impossible! It's simply never been done! The beginner can't get lucky and make a nearly impossible shot way above his skill level! There's no such thing as " beginner's luck."

(Note: Happens all the time.)

Not having a *chance* to fail/succeed is as stupid as always having a *chance* which is why I personally steal and modify a rule from M&M on it.

On a natural 20 on a skill roll I add an additional 5 to the skill total.

On a natural 1 on a skill roll I take 5 from the skill total.

How does the uber athlete ever fail? The same way it happens in real life.

The sun catches their eyes. A bead of sweat gets in their eye. They sneeze at the moment of leap. They misjudge a distance. They yawn. They cough. There should never be anything you cannot fail at.


HWalsh wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hmm.

Now I want to create a thread to brainstorm more hilarious examples.

Dang it. I was just about to walk away from it too.

@Eryx_UK: Sorry man. This is just getting harder to resist. I won't put anything directly to you, but just please don't tell it's sensible. Still, you have fun your own way man. It's your game.

You've done a job of mocking that guy for doing the fails on a natural 1 thing...

Do you want me to start mocking you for how stupid it is for the possibility of NEVER being able to fail is?

"By jove! I've never seen an athlete trip in my entire life! Not once have I ever seen a ball player stumble, fall, or miss a simple catch! Not once!"

(Note: Happens all the time.)

"Impossible! No beginner has ever done a task better than a champion! Impossible! It's simply never been done! The beginner can't get lucky and make a nearly impossible shot way above his skill level! There's no such thing as " beginner's luck."

(Note: Happens all the time.)

Not having a *chance* to fail/succeed is as stupid as always having a *chance* which is why I personally steal and modify a rule from M&M on it.

On a natural 20 on a skill roll I add an additional 5 to the skill total.

On a natural 1 on a skill roll I take 5 from the skill total.

How does the uber athlete ever fail? The same way it happens in real life.

The sun catches their eyes. A bead of sweat gets in their eye. They sneeze at the moment of leap. They misjudge a distance. They yawn. They cough. There should never be anything you cannot fail at.

In real life, I agree with you.

In the context of a game where the people making skill checks are usually non-casters attempting to contribute to game content without magic...

Why not just kick them in the jibblies and point at them while laughing?

If you decide to introduce more non-caster nerfing rules, all the more power to you.


alexd1976 wrote:

In my games, people starting above level one use WBL.

If a player ever tried getting more money from a character that had leveled and didn't meet WBL guidelines, citing 'rules'... I would laugh at him.

Well you are wrong, so I'm glad you needed to butt into a conversation to point out how you feel entitled to mocking your players for wanting things are that built into the math of the game. I'm not even sure how this is a response to anything I said anyways because replying "You're wrong" over and over again does not in fact constitute a conversation. There are extremely valid reasons to pay attention to the detailed rules in a game that assumes you will build loot over time like you gain levels, and you have done nothing to refute that. Again, this is a thread dedicated to RAW/RAI and not just a thread about how you feel the game should be run.

And of course it isn't a problem if you run a game at 2x WBL. I try to stick around 110-120% because I feel it's always better to run over than under in terms of what players have at their disposal. Doesn't make it any less of a house rule.


I play with the nat 20/ 1 skill houserule, but only for things I honestly feel are possible will you ever succeed even then. You want to nat 20 an acrobatics to backflip off the back of your horse and land it without provoking an attack of opportunity? Sure. It's rule of cool. You want to nat 20 an acrobatics check to jump over a mountain and land on the head of a goblin a good four miles that way? Not a chance. It's not even remotely believable no matter how skilled or lucky you are.
It's a matter of just how fantastical you want your ability to be. Usually it's actually more along the lines of "you nat 20 your escape artist check, despite being very clearly untrained in that skill. You've been tied up very heavily, and shouldnt be able to escape at your level. However, because today is your lucky day, one of the knots is starting to slip, and a piece of rope on the other side is badly frayed. You can get a hand free and break that critical tie down, so you manage to escape."


hiiamtom wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

In my games, people starting above level one use WBL.

If a player ever tried getting more money from a character that had leveled and didn't meet WBL guidelines, citing 'rules'... I would laugh at him.

Well you are wrong, so I'm glad you needed to butt into a conversation to point out how you feel entitled to mocking your players for wanting things are that built into the math of the game. I'm not even sure how this is a response to anything I said anyways because replying "You're wrong" over and over again does not in fact constitute a conversation. There are extremely valid reasons to pay attention to the detailed rules in a game that assumes you will build loot over time like you gain levels, and you have done nothing to refute that. Again, this is a thread dedicated to RAW/RAI and not just a thread about how you feel the game should be run.

And of course it isn't a problem if you run a game at 2x WBL. I try to stick around 110-120% because I feel it's always better to run over than under in terms of what players have at their disposal. Doesn't make it any less of a house rule.

A) Didn't realize you were involved in a private conversation on this public thread. My apologies.

B) I'm 'wrong' about what, exactly? WBL isn't mandatory in any way whatsoever. The GM isn't obligated to hand out money unless he decides he wants to.

C) Apparently I'm saying "You're wrong" about something, I'm not really sure what, if you mean WBL, see B.

D) Using the guideline of WBL and defaulting to roughly 2xWBL isn't a house rule...

There is no discussion about adjusting wealth to match WBL if a given character exceeds or surpasses it, because it isn't a rule.

I would laugh at a player demanding more money citing WBL as a rule because it isn't a rule. I don't need to cite anything stating this, because it has never been discussed as BEING one.

I see it as being similar to the argument I often see on here:

"The book doesn't say I can't, so I must be able to."

Or in this case:

"I'm not as rich as I want to be, so I found something showing a higher number than I currently have."

Me laughing isn't mocking the player, it is a good natured reaction to an incorrect interpretation of written text in a section intended for GMs, not players.

"Low-fantasy games might award only half this value, while high-fantasy games might double the value."

Even if we work with the assumption that WBL is a hard and fast rule, flexibility is STILL built in to it, as the above sentence shows.

The description of WBL is littered with qualifier statements such as 'might' and 'assumed', so even if treated as a rule, it is of little value.

I use it as intended: a guide to approximate what the average adventurer would own at any given level.

If, as you say, it is RAW, then describe how you would adjudicate a character who spent their money on nothing other than consumable items they created themselves?

Where is the text in the rules discussing that?

"It is assumed that some of this treasure is consumed in the course of an adventure (such as potions and scrolls), and that some of the less useful items are sold for half value so more useful gear can be purchased."

That sentence contains exactly ZERO game mechanics. Other than mentioning the existence of potions and scrolls.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Hmm.

Now I want to create a thread to brainstorm more hilarious examples.

Dang it. I was just about to walk away from it too.

@Eryx_UK: Sorry man. This is just getting harder to resist. I won't put anything directly to you, but just please don't tell it's sensible. Still, you have fun your own way man. It's your game.

No worries. I got a chuckle out of some of them too.


@alexd976:
I know what the gamemastering section of the CRB says, and if you think Pathfinder is designed at all to be a low magic game that's your deal. Sure, they wrote that the game can provide higher or lower wealth, but the bestiary disagrees. It's also written in there that players should face a mixture of high reward NPC encounters and low reward monster encounters to balance around WBL, that no PC should have an individual item worth 50% of the WBL or more, and later supplements discuss methods to simplify WBL tracking and adjusting NPC WBL for encounter design. Everything ever written in the gamemastery section is built around "mights" and "maybes", but that doesn't make the entire thing just hand-wavey guidelines to be ignored.

And you are also positioning your arguments against it from the perspective of hating your players, which is a bad position to push. If your players as a group come to you and ask for larger rewards or adjustments to the game, you should listen and discuss (like adults) how to build a story and make it enjoyable for everyone. When your defense is "if a player pointed out that we were behind WBL, I would laugh at them" then how am I supposed to take your response as well intentioned?

As far as crafting and consumables go, you are the GM. You decide all future rewards and loot from encounters. If your players are carrying their WBL in scrolls they hand crafted, then they are carrying scrolls they hand crafted. It still has a value, and it's not hard to track that value. If they use those scrolls, then they need to use loot to build that stock back up or fill in the WBL gap with something else. I don't see the difficulty in adjusting a reward from a fight from 1000GP to 500GP or 1500GP when it is needed. You can just ignore everything your players own and do whatever you want, but if you do that why do you think a player asking for a better WBL adjustment is so out of line? You trust players to not be powergamers when it's on your terms, but asking for something is immediately trying to get away with something?

As far as game mechanics, why would monster AC outpace BAB is there was no assumption that WBL was maintained? Monster saves remain relatively in line with spellcasting, and they gain abilities that can onyl be dealt with by magic as levels go up. So why would you deny the people least able to adjust to these AC and monster ability changes the ability to adjust to AC and monster abilities? That is why WBL is not really a guideline and needs to be followed, or encounters need to be adjusted to compensate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:
Everything ever written in the gamemastery section is built around "mights" and "maybes", but that doesn't make the entire thing just hand-wavey guidelines to be ignored.

Guidelines aren't there to be ignored. They're there to guide you.

hiiamtom wrote:
As far as game mechanics, why would monster AC outpace BAB is there was no assumption that WBL was maintained?

That assumes that the PCs are fighting "CR-appropriate" monsters. CR is also a guideline. Maybe the PCs are fighting weaker monsters, or NPCs with no magic loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:

@alexd976:

I know what the gamemastering section of the CRB says, and if you think Pathfinder is designed at all to be a low magic game that's your deal. Sure, they wrote that the game can provide higher or lower wealth, but the bestiary disagrees. It's also written in there that players should face a mixture of high reward NPC encounters and low reward monster encounters to balance around WBL, that no PC should have an individual item worth 50% of the WBL or more, and later supplements discuss methods to simplify WBL tracking and adjusting NPC WBL for encounter design. Everything ever written in the gamemastery section is built around "mights" and "maybes", but that doesn't make the entire thing just hand-wavey guidelines to be ignored.

And you are also positioning your arguments against it from the perspective of hating your players, which is a bad position to push. If your players as a group come to you and ask for larger rewards or adjustments to the game, you should listen and discuss (like adults) how to build a story and make it enjoyable for everyone. When your defense is "if a player pointed out that we were behind WBL, I would laugh at them" then how am I supposed to take your response as well intentioned?

As far as crafting and consumables go, you are the GM. You decide all future rewards and loot from encounters. If your players are carrying their WBL in scrolls they hand crafted, then they are carrying scrolls they hand crafted. It still has a value, and it's not hard to track that value. If they use those scrolls, then they need to use loot to build that stock back up or fill in the WBL gap with something else. I don't see the difficulty in adjusting a reward from a fight from 1000GP to 500GP or 1500GP when it is needed. You can just ignore everything your players own and do whatever you want, but if you do that why do you think a player asking for a better WBL adjustment is so out of line? You trust players to not be powergamers when it's on your terms, but asking for something is...

Wow.

Just wow.

So many assumptions about my GMing style based on me using WBL correctly... interesting.

I'm not 'positioning my arguments' (I don't HAVE an argument to defend here, you are fabricating a conflict for your own enjoyment), nor do I 'hate my players'.

I haven't been telling you you are wrong, I have been stating that WBL isn't a hard rule.

By disagreeing with me, you have attempted to create conflict where there was none before.

I'm not sure of your motivations, but please stop trying to paint of picture of my GMing style based off of your own assumptions.

My group is very happy with how we play, I tend to run sandbox games that the PC party totally dominates. There are a few challenges, but for the most part they get what they want, as I run the game for THEIR benefit, as WELL AS my own.

It's not competitive, just like my contribution to this forum.

So dial back your aggression a bit and try to contribute to the conversation, rather than pick fights with random people, please.

101 to 150 of 266 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / You're Doing It Wrong All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.