One of my players' PCs has a centipede for a familiar. He claims that it stays in his pocket whenever he's in combat, but I think that is a little silly. I realize the game doesn't explicitly SAY what familiars are doing, but in the case of a witch, when they are the explicit conduit of magical power, isn't it a little silly that the creature would be just sitting in the PC's pocket nibbling on a piece of bread? I feel like it would somehow be making its presence know, even if it's just crawling all over the PC's fingers. Mostly I just want to use the familiar for its balance purpose: a soft underbelly for the eventually omnipotent casters. I don't WANT to screw over my player, but I want taking out his familiar to be an option without resorting to Sleight of Hand or interdimensional Sleight of Hand or whatever.
Help?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Familiar satchel
Source Ultimate Equipment pg. 56 (Amazon)
Price 25 gp; Weight 6 lbs.
Category Adventuring Gear
Description
This armored case provides total cover to any Tiny or smaller creature contained within it. It includes air holes (which can be plugged with cork stoppers if you need to go underwater) and two receptacles for food and water.
Yes, you can target the familiar. Don't. Make it an actual plot point, needing a story if you really feel that you must do anything.
Sunder the spell component pouch if you want (it'll work once, then the player will buy two - or more), but not frequently.
If a player is using the familiar in combat, then it's fair to target them. If they aren't taking advantage of it, then don't penalise the character for keeping it safe.
Take a look at the threads about wand-wielding familiars and be thankful that your player is being reasonable.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless the familiar is actually doing stuff in combat it's both impractical and unreasonable for enemies to go out of their way to attack them.
If they've got a mauler familiar that's fighting alongside them, sure.
If they've got a bodyguard familiar that's knocking enemy swords aside, sure.
If they're using their familiar to deliver intensified shocking grasps, sure.
If the familiar's just sitting in the wizard's pocket giving him alertness and +3 on sleight of hand checks, pick another target.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nah. Smart witches/wizard keep their familiars hidden.
A familiar that starts doing things is asking to be killed.
Heck, there is even a specific item for this, familiar satchel.
It is good that you're mentioning your true motive though, which is you want to kill the casters familiar and screw them over.
You say that's not what you want, but that's what it sounds like. Especially for a witch. It's merely inconvenient to a wizard. But to a witch it's their spellbook.
Would you rip the backpack off your wizard and destroy his spellbook that he was keeping safe? Or penalize him because he didn't have it out in the middle of combat waving it around?
It's basically the same thing for a witch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My rule when GMing is that if the familiar is just applying standard bonuses (alertness feat, skill bonuses etc.) it won't be a target of the enemies.
If they are delivering touch spells, actively scouting or improved familiars using wands etc. then they are valid targets.
If it helps, a centipede familiar is an intelligent magical beast. They are certainly smart enough to duck-and-cover when things are going down.
In the case of a witch it is even more important to keep a familiar safe, and screwing with that shouldn't happen any more than screwing with a wizards spellbooks (which is to say rarely, if at all).
B-b-b-b-but... Misfortune + Cackle makes me sad!
B-b-b-b-but... Misfortune + Cackle makes me sad!
I almost never ask this, but I can't help it: Is this a deliberate troll?
Is the point of this threat that you literally want to destroy the witch's source of power because Misfortune + Cackle makes you sad?
I sure hope not.
To all the young/new/inexperienced GMs out there. It's almost always bad, very bad, to rob a PC of its core class abilities. Even for a short term. No player wants to come to the game to just sit around watching everybody else have fun. Even worse, nobody wants to sit there thinking "I could be having fun too but the GM screwed me. Just me. For personal reasons."
If a PC has an ability that that "makes you sad" then build some encounters that are immune to it, or able to overcome it, or simply able to get up close and personal and melee the offending witch into oblivion (unconsciousness can be a good teacher: time to invest in some serious defense instead of just debuff/cackling all day long).
Just a joke, DM_Blake.
I've taken your collective advice regarding the familiar into consideration. I had all that in mind, including the familiar satchel. I guess I'm surprised that with all the kvetching on these boards about the martial/caster disparity that there would be so much blowback on exploiting one of the built-in mechanical vulnerabilities of a powerful class. Weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not weird.
I'm all about trying to balance the classes a little better, making martials elevate a tier or two and making casters lose a tier or two.
But I'm never all about making a player sit at the table and watch everyone else play because I've removed his class features. Even when I dislike his class. Sure, sure, I'll do it once in a while. Sunder a spell pouch, steal the fighters enchanted and specialized weapon, or punish a cleric/paladin for betraying his god's wishes (though that one is usually brought about by the player, not me). I'll also provide quick and easy fixes so the player is not out of the game for long. For example, the next fight might have an enemy caster with a perfectly good spell pouch.
I might be willing to kill a witch's familiar in the final boss fight. After the fight, the players have downtime to divide loot, head to town, buy stuff, and replace a lost familiar, all before their next adventure. It costs the player nothing (because he can do all that downtime stuff without a familiar) but might put the fear into his character.
Just a joke, DM_Blake.
I'm glad to hear it. That wasn't obvious, and other people read these threads - it might have set some poor expectations in some newer GMs or players, which we have a lot of right now.
Welcome everybody!
(more for me to chomp, actually)
DM_Blake, I agree. I'd never have a mook do it in a random encounter. Obviously she would have to have time to recuperate after.
As others have said, it's especially damaging for a witch. In the interest of personal feelings and keeping players interesting in the game, targeting a familiar/spellbook should be rare, and there should be a good reason to do so.
It also helps if your players know that you aren't out to screw them by wasting their money destroying their spellbooks (or witch's familar). Little reminds at the start of campaigns like, "FYI, sundering/stealing items are free game tactics in my world, but as a GM I'll make sure that you are appropriately/evenly equipped for you levels and challenges you are intended to face." Or something similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "sunder the spell component pouch" does not make sense to me. It is such an incredibly meta-game maneuver. Consider if you were a random bandit mook and you and your buddies decide to rob some adventurers. You see the wizard pulling bat-guano from his pouch and decide to sunder it instead of trying to shank the little dress wearing artillery piece. These are some possible outcomes:
1. The wizard steps back and magic-missiles you to death.
2. Oops, knowing nothing about magic, you sundered his belt pouch. Sucks that you wasted an action.
3. Oh, he just has a second pouch. Sucks :(
4. Success, the wizard can't cast anything! Oops, he just picks up some of the spell components on the ground, provoking an AoO! its like you just attacked him last turn anyway... except you also provoked an AoO and got hit with a staff for your trouble cause you don't have improved sunder.
So why is this a great idea again? If you want to negate the wizards next action you could just grapple him instead.
Also. Sundering a spell component pouch causes an infinite amount of 99 silver components to flood out and destroy the world. Don't do it.
I don't see any reason why a typical "behind the scenes" familiar can't stay in a pocket or backpack much of the time. Honestly one of the easiest ways to "target" familiars is just to remember that they exist though. When an area spell or trap goes off be sure that the player remembers to account for what happens to the familiar.
Improved Evasion can help familiars survive being caught in a Fireball, but effects which don't offer Reflex saves can often be devastating. For instance, in a mid-level game one DM had a bunch of Derro spam Sound Burst at us. He was probably just hoping a few folks would roll nat 1 on the Fort save and be stunned, but 8d8 sonic damage is pretty brutal when you're just a little familiar.
|
|
I don't see any reason why a typical "behind the scenes" familiar can't stay in a pocket or backpack much of the time. Honestly one of the easiest ways to "target" familiars is just to remember that they exist though. When an area spell or trap goes off be sure that the player remembers to account for what happens to the familiar.
Improved Evasion can help familiars survive being caught in a Fireball, but effects which don't offer Reflex saves can often be devastating. For instance, in a mid-level game one DM had a bunch of Derro spam Sound Burst at us. He was probably just hoping a few folks would roll nat 1 on the Fort save and be stunned, but 8d8 sonic damage is pretty brutal when you're just a little familiar.
Huh, could have sworn Sound Burst was a burst spell, turns out it's a spread. You learn something everyday I guess.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole "sunder the spell component pouch" does not make sense to me. It is such an incredibly meta-game maneuver.
It might be metagamey in our world. You know, where hitting Ian McKellan with a sword is actually easier than hitting a small pouch on his belt. Where hitting Daniel Radcliffe with a sword kills him. Instantly. So there is no reason to hit a wizard's spell component pouch because it's easier and more successful to just hit the wizard.
But that is not true in Pathfinder, except maybe around 1st level. After a couple levels, it's hard to hit a wizard. He has some AC, more with spells like Mage Armor. Worse, he has so many HP that your first hit or maybe your first 5 hits or 10 hits are only scratches that not only fail to kill him, but don't even slow him down or incapacitate him. Meanwhile that cleric behind him is healing the damage you're doing. And meanwhile Ezren is nuking you with all his spells.
You lose.
But sunder that pouch, well, it pretty much works on the first hit every time. Most of his magic doesn't protect the pouch and the pouch isn't likely to be healed during the battle. Maybe he has another one, maybe not, but it seems to make good sense - after all, there are no 10th level pouches with 50 HP and a friendly healer.
Given that the "random bandit mook" can actually see EXACTLY where the wizard is getting that bat guano, so he won't sunder the wrong pouch, and given that he lives in the Pathfinder world and KNOWS that most wizards cannot be killed with one sword-stroke while most pouches can, then it doesn't seem metagamey not to.
In fact, the metagame move is to say "Gosh, it would be bad GMing for the random bandit mook to waste his time trying to chop through Ezren's HP when the smart thing to do is destroy his spell pouch, but I don't want poor Dave to sit around with no spells for the rest of the session, so I will have the bandit do the stupid thing instead."
When you think about it, THAT is the metagame problem, not the other way around.
Had my familiar die as Witch once, spent the rest of the campaign starting the day with a potion of Merge with Familiar.
DM_Blake, I agree. I'd never have a mook do it in a random encounter. Obviously she would have to have time to recuperate after.
Agreed, though I will say that in my opinion, in the case of any antagonist who has had time to study and research the party, killing a witch's familiar or otherwise working to swiftly separate the PC's from their power source(s) is totally fair game, and especially appropriate in the case of any villains that are supposed to be clever and resourceful.
Targeting a witches familiar is a particularly cruel move as it costs 500gp per level to replace.
The whole "sunder the spell component pouch" does not make sense to me. It is such an incredibly meta-game maneuver.It might be metagamey in our world. You know, where hitting Ian McKellan with a sword is actually easier than hitting a small pouch on his belt. Where hitting Daniel Radcliffe with a sword kills him. Instantly. So there is no reason to hit a wizard's spell component pouch because it's easier and more successful to just hit the wizard.
But that is not true in Pathfinder, except maybe around 1st level. After a couple levels, it's hard to hit a wizard. He has some AC, more with spells like Mage Armor. Worse, he has so many HP that your first hit or maybe your first 5 hits or 10 hits are only scratches that not only fail to kill him, but don't even slow him down or incapacitate him. Meanwhile that cleric behind him is healing the damage you're doing. And meanwhile Ezren is nuking you with all his spells.
You lose.
But sunder that pouch, well, it pretty much works on the first hit every time. Most of his magic doesn't protect the pouch and the pouch isn't likely to be healed during the battle. Maybe he has another one, maybe not, but it seems to make good sense - after all, there are no 10th level pouches with 50 HP and a friendly healer.
Given that the "random bandit mook" can actually see EXACTLY where the wizard is getting that bat guano, so he won't sunder the wrong pouch, and given that he lives in the Pathfinder world and KNOWS that most wizards cannot be killed with one sword-stroke while most pouches can, then it doesn't seem metagamey not to.
In fact, the metagame move is to say "Gosh, it would be bad GMing for the random bandit mook to waste his time trying to chop through Ezren's HP when the smart thing to do is destroy his spell pouch, but I don't want poor Dave to sit around with no spells for the rest of the session, so I will have the bandit do the stupid thing instead."
When you think about it, THAT is the metagame problem, not...
Umm someone has to start wearing at the HP of the wizard. Might as well be the mook. Also, you only answered one of the possible outcomes I listed.
I feel the real problem with this 'tactic' is that it works precisely once per DM. Once you show that the spell component pouch is not just flavor text, every wizard ever will just have 5. Its not like they are expensive. So the tactic is not clever. And since we can assume that in-universe said bandit was not the first person to think of this strategy, its probably common knowledge that wizards carry 5 pouches so sundering one is a terrible idea. Heck, maybe some enterprising spell-component pouch-maker makes a combo 5 pouch in 1 deal. He could sell it for 1gp and drive out all of his 1-pouch competition!
wait a second...
I work on the assumption that most people have never seen anyone use magic. Maybe the local priest can do some in a medium-sized town.
But it's very rare.
PC-level abilities are that much rarer.
I assume that even Albert Einstein or an Olympic gold medalist would be a 5th level character.
I play as if most 1st-level bandits will be surprised that the guy they're mugging can fire magic missiles at all, much less have the presence of mind to sunder or steal his pouch of blanched butt dust.
Hence my agreement above that a random mook isn't going to be taking out the witch's familiar (especially the centipede in the case of my witch at the start of this thread). The only person who's going to do that is someone familiar with arcane magic and someone who has been following the PCs' progress long enough to know their weak spots.
I work on the assumption that most people have never seen anyone use magic. Maybe the local priest can do some in a medium-sized town.
But it's very rare.
PC-level abilities are that much rarer.I assume that even Albert Einstein or an Olympic gold medalist would be a 5th level character.
I play as if most 1st-level bandits will be surprised that the guy they're mugging can fire magic missiles at all, much less have the presence of mind to sunder or steal his pouch of blanched butt dust.
Hence my agreement above that a random mook isn't going to be taking out the witch's familiar (especially the centipede in the case of my witch at the start of this thread). The only person who's going to do that is someone familiar with arcane magic and someone who has been following the PCs' progress long enough to know their weak spots.
I'm firmly in the "don't mess with the core abilities of pc's unless there's an extremely good reason to" camp. That said, whether or not common people know of, or have seen magic is going to be entirely dependent upon the world in which they live. In Faerun for instance, magic is nearly as common as drinkable water. Even the uneducated would have some idea as to what magic entails (though I'll concede even in Faerun the uneducated beggar probably doesn't know about pouches, etc.). Thing is though, a lot of your bandits will be somewhat familiar with magic in a relatively high magic world. After all, haven't you ever heard of a party being hired to protect a caravan . . . from bandits?
I work on the assumption that most people have never seen anyone use magic. Maybe the local priest can do some in a medium-sized town.
But it's very rare.
PC-level abilities are that much rarer.I assume that even Albert Einstein or an Olympic gold medalist would be a 5th level character.
I play as if most 1st-level bandits will be surprised that the guy they're mugging can fire magic missiles at all, much less have the presence of mind to sunder or steal his pouch of blanched butt dust.
Hence my agreement above that a random mook isn't going to be taking out the witch's familiar (especially the centipede in the case of my witch at the start of this thread). The only person who's going to do that is someone familiar with arcane magic and someone who has been following the PCs' progress long enough to know their weak spots.
No, this is not the basis of the Pathfinder game nor of Golarion.
First, it only takes a dozen fights or so to level up. Your average city watch member can hit second level in his first year on the job, assuming only ONE encounter per MONTH. I bet they see more action than that, though, so he's probably 2nd level by the end of three months and third level by the end of his first year, 4th level a year later, and 5th level a couple years after that. That's based on simple math of the Pathfinder system, plus an assumption that a watchman might get one bit of "action" (an encounter) per week.
It's hard to make the assumption that a cop on the job for 5 years is every bit as amazing as Albert Einstein. Al's mojo was more about having a 20 INT and then having a bunch of ranks in Knowledge (physics), etc. Probably more than 5 ranks, so probably more than 5th level, even accounting for his INT bonus.
Second, Golarion itself is full of low-mid level characters in common mundane positions. Even starting towns like Sandpoint (Rise of the Runelords) has:
I skipped several level 2 and 3 commoners to keep the list short.
This is a town of 1,240 people and while they have nobody in the double-digits, they have many ordinary boring NPCs and PCs higher than level 5, making such common people far, far more "normal" than a 5th level Albert Einstein.
There are also at least a dozen NPCs on that list who can cast spells, More, actually, meaning the total number of spellcasters in Sandpoint is higher than 1%. While 1% doesn't sound very high, it is way, way too high to assume that most of the citizens of Sandpoint have "never seen anyone use magic" - and this not even the medium town you mentioned.
So if a small starting town of 1,240 can have a score of people above level 5 (more awesome than your version of Einstein), then suddenly a level 5 Einstein is not very special at all. A virtual nobody, not even special by small town standards.
Finally, sure, you play it however you like, and in your home game if a level 5 character is as special as Einstein, go for it. But it's clearly not the model that Pathfinder or Golarion uses.
Something to be aware of is that you're teaching your players how to play.
If you start doing things like targeting a player's familiar or casting components, then your players are going to adapt and start using these tactics against you AND/OR argue shenanigans if gm controlled enemies aren't as easily suspectable.
You make a strong case, DM_Blake. Touché.
I only take issue with your math regarding how long it takes an NPC to level. It takes exactly as long as the DM says it does. Period. If the DM says a 50 year old palace guard is a level 2 character, then so be it. That soldier's timeline above is purely a tool you have fabricated for this argument. You would be hard-pressed to see anything resembling that kind of consistency in any published materials.
Beyond that, with the Sandpoint NPC examples, you've made it clear that I don't run the official version of Golarion, and I appreciate you pointing it out. An enhanced Perspective is always a good thing.
Since you raise good points, it might do wonders for the delivery of your strong information and effective rebuttals if you considered lowering the rhetorical tone of your answers. As it is, you kind of come across as a condescending bully, which I don't think is your intention.
As it is, you kind of come across as a condescending bully, which I don't think is your intention.
I don't think so, but then again, he's a tarrasque.
The whole "sunder the spell component pouch" does not make sense to me. It is such an incredibly meta-game maneuver.It might be metagamey in our world. You know, where hitting Ian McKellan with a sword is actually easier than hitting a small pouch on his belt. Where hitting Daniel Radcliffe with a sword kills him. Instantly. So there is no reason to hit a wizard's spell component pouch because it's easier and more successful to just hit the wizard.
But that is not true in Pathfinder, except maybe around 1st level. After a couple levels, it's hard to hit a wizard. He has some AC, more with spells like Mage Armor. Worse, he has so many HP that your first hit or maybe your first 5 hits or 10 hits are only scratches that not only fail to kill him, but don't even slow him down or incapacitate him. Meanwhile that cleric behind him is healing the damage you're doing. And meanwhile Ezren is nuking you with all his spells.
You lose.
But sunder that pouch, well, it pretty much works on the first hit every time. Most of his magic doesn't protect the pouch and the pouch isn't likely to be healed during the battle. Maybe he has another one, maybe not, but it seems to make good sense - after all, there are no 10th level pouches with 50 HP and a friendly healer.
Given that the "random bandit mook" can actually see EXACTLY where the wizard is getting that bat guano, so he won't sunder the wrong pouch, and given that he lives in the Pathfinder world and KNOWS that most wizards cannot be killed with one sword-stroke while most pouches can, then it doesn't seem metagamey not to.
In fact, the metagame move is to say "Gosh, it would be bad GMing for the random bandit mook to waste his time trying to chop through Ezren's HP when the smart thing to do is destroy his spell pouch, but I don't want poor Dave to sit around with no spells for the rest of the session, so I will have the bandit do the stupid thing instead."
When you think about it, THAT is the metagame problem, not...
I completly agree with this.
But also the logical course of actin would indeed be that the average adventuring wizard carries about 4 Component Pouches on his belt, and even has 1 safely tucked away in his backpack.
Since you raise good points, it might do wonders for the delivery of your strong information and effective rebuttals if you considered lowering the rhetorical tone of your answers. As it is, you kind of come across as a condescending bully, which I don't think is your intention.
Nope, wasn't my intention at all. The bully part. I can't help the condescension; even my wife and best friend call me a pedant. It's in my blood. I do quality assurance for a living so I'm professionally trained to find flaws and point them out. But I do try not to bully - maybe spending 40 hours a week walking on eggshells around primadonna engineers leaves me little compassion the rest of the week. Sorry if it came off that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do the enemies know the character in question is a witch? Hexes have no components and are not spellcraftable. Unless metagaming, one would never even know he was targetet by Misfortune. He misses more often than normal, but that could be any kind of magical protection or defensive training the enemy has.
There is no sign over the enemy that says "Lórëante Curuni. Elf witch 4. 30/30 HP"! Unless the NPCs were sent by a big bad who scried whether the person reads a book or plays with her bug friend in the morning (was the villain hoping he could peek while the witch was taking a bath?), "it's some kind of caster" is probably all they know.
From the NPCs point of view:
"The elf clad in green shoots two arrows at you. You are in pain, but can fight on. The guy in the shining armor runs towards your friend and seriously wounds him with a powerful swing of his big sword. The girl in the pretty clothes stand in the back and chuckles."
"Ah hah, that must be a witch! I make a called shot against the pocket in her pants where she is surely keeping her familiar. Even though it won't help me in this fight at all, at least I can screw her over!"
[spiler=twist ending]"Her pocket bursts open, spilling some backup strings for a lute. It's not a witch, it's a bard in ornated armor with "melodic chuckling" as her oral operformance. Because you wasted your turn, your party get's slaughtered".[/spoiler]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do the enemies know the character in question is a witch?Because she's made of wood?
Plus she turned me into a newt!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She weighs the same as a duck.
It's really sad. What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger is like the epitome of a hero saga or really almost any story ever. Yet Pathfinder makes [u]absolutely no effort[/u] to foster a style where it's okey to loose once in a while. But that's the 40 year old legacy the game carries around.
In Burning Wheel (or rather Mouse Guard), you need to fail checks to gain experience. And an adventure where you beat every challenge the GM throws at you without an effort turns really boring really fast. In Pathfinder, it's so important that the PCs succeed without having to find alternate routes or do anything to improve their odds that most skill checks offer a 'retry'.
Yes, I'm ranting, but I've got a point for you impureascetic. Even with Pathfinder working against you, it's possible to create an environment around your gaming table where it's fun to loose. First thing is to talk to your players about this. »I'm gonna screw with out sometimes, make it hard, take away your advantages. But I really am not out to get you and you'll always come out stronger in the end«. Then, really carefully, start introducing this policy in your game.
And, as have been stated in this thread, many class features are absolutely vital for the character to contribute and therefore, most likely, for the player to have fun. So if you ask yourself can the player still do stuff that's fun?. Taking away the spellbook when you have a few non-combat encounters might be a good idea. Hopefully, it makes the wizard player just the right amount of nervous while offering a chance for other tactics and members in the party to shine. Taking away the spellbook as the party assaults a dungeon is a sure way to dissatisfied players and a failed campaign.
@Bly: I completely understand your sentiment. I also agree that struggles and failures will, in the long run, enhance the game overall. Offering retries on skill check failures is something that can be annoying (depending on the particular check of course); however I think a lot of this comes from GMs and even adventure writers forgetting the "Rule of Three". i.e. if something absolutely must be accomplished in order to progress the story, then make sure there are at least three ways of accomplishing it. One of my favorite 3.x adventures (Forge of Fury) had a great example of this. The party has to infiltrate a stronghold and there were at least 3 (and I think 4) different ways in which they could get in, with varying degrees of difficulty for doing so.
On the bright side though, be glad it isn't 4ed D&D. Its almost impossible to make the party fail in that system given the Care Bear nature of the rules. As a GM you pretty much have to blatantly ignore the rules for encounter building in order to even remotely challenge the party after the first few levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs like OP are why my familiars stay hidden
why my Arcane Bonded items are locked down
and why there are copies of my spellbooks in different locations
If the familiar / companion stays a non-combatant we generally assume they are going out of their way to do so and are nearly always not subject to combat effects. Once we use our familiars/pets in combat they will be targeted like anything else.
I think that is a pretty fair way to play it.
|
You can see what other characters are wearing. If they have a pouch they pull wierd stuff out of while casting spells it is obvious. If they have multiple pouches visible maybe it is a wasted effort. Maybe it tells you somehing when she switches to a different pouch or pulls one out of a seemingly to small bag. Maybe breaking their stuff makes them more afraid than death. If you waste their action or more it is great.
When characters use magic there is an appropriate effect you can percieve. You might not know what it is but it should hint at it.
Anyway, attacking a bag hoping to hit something inside is a desparate action, likely to fail in killing a familiar even if there is one. But some things might enjoy doing it.
But sunder that pouch, well, it pretty much works on the first hit every time. Most of his magic doesn't protect the pouch and the pouch isn't likely to be healed during the battle. Maybe he has another one, maybe not, but it seems to make good sense - after all, there are no 10th level pouches with 50 HP and a friendly healer.
Given that the "random bandit mook" can actually see EXACTLY where the wizard is getting that bat guano, so he won't sunder the wrong pouch, and given that he lives in the Pathfinder world and KNOWS that most wizards cannot be killed with one sword-stroke while most pouches can, then it doesn't seem metagamey not to.
The problem with this theory is that if it is true, it wouldn't work.
If a random bandit is going be aware that this particular pouch is all it is going to take to stop the wizards spells, then equally the wizard will understand that and every wizard will have a second pouch, some back up components tucked away in other places etc. etc. If the tactic is obvious and common, then the countermeasures would be as well.
The spell component pouch is an abstraction meant to keep the flavor of material components without having to deal with the vast amount booking it would require without it. I certainly don't want to track how many ounces of bat guano I have. It should generally be treated as an abstraction, nothing more.
If a wizard is captured and stripped, sure he loses the material components, but otherwise leave the spell component pouch as a more or less 'undefined' thing that could be a pouch, several pouches, numerous pockets sown into robes or all of those things.
But sunder that pouchevery wizard will have a second pouch, some back up components tucked away in other places etc. etc. If the tactic is obvious and common, then the countermeasures would be as well.
Maybe.
Then it becomes a chess game.
If the bandit sees a wizard with a dozen roughly identical pouches all over his body, he will probably kill the man rather than sunder the pouch. If he only sees one such pouch, he may go for the pouch - if that wizard has spares in his backpack or on his mule or back home in his closet, well, at least the bandit makes the wizard waste actions and maybe provoke while he gets his backup pouch.
In other words, just like EVERY tactic, sometimes they are really useful, other times not so much.
My point was, if you are going to extrapolate behavior from the meta-rules of the simulation, then you can't stop at one step.
cue the hidden scrying orbs
We have covered this vivisectionist/beastmorph alchemist in spell component pouches and put both a robe and wizard hat on him
lets see what happens, will hilarity ensue?
@Bly: I completely understand your sentiment. I also agree that struggles and failures will, in the long run, enhance the game overall. Offering retries on skill check failures is something that can be annoying (depending on the particular check of course); however I think a lot of this comes from GMs and even adventure writers forgetting the "Rule of Three". i.e. if something absolutely must be accomplished in order to progress the story, then make sure there are at least three ways of accomplishing it. One of my favorite 3.x adventures (Forge of Fury) had a great example of this. The party has to infiltrate a stronghold and there were at least 3 (and I think 4) different ways in which they could get in, with varying degrees of difficulty for doing so.
Sure, rule of three is a good mindset. Combine it with an attitude of realising you can't as a GM foresee all solutions and thus prepare to improvise when your players come up with a fourth variant and you're pretty much set.
Problem with Pathfinders retry is that the first alternative will succeed. Not always, I'm exaggerating, but I have struggled with it as a GM. Set up a bolted, sturdy door in the player characters way. Give them a decent chance of opening in with a Str or Disable Device check. If they fail, let them think for a while and, if they struggle, hint at an alternative route. But nooooo... they can just retry that check 'til the door is open.
Yes, I know I can make things happen while they do that. But Pathfinder, unlike a modern game, won't help me with that.
On the bright side though, be glad it isn't 4ed D&D. Its almost impossible to make the party fail in that system given the Care Bear nature of the rules. As a GM you pretty much have to blatantly ignore the rules for encounter building in order to even remotely challenge the party after the first few levels.
I suppose you're right. I played a bit of 4e (mostly with the revised, small-format books which was much better), but was never gamemaster. It was al right with the board-game attitude we all brought to the table. Those series of skill checks where you were supposed to gather a set number of successes, what where those called? Most horrid piece of Tarzan's discarded underwear I've ever seen in a RPG. But for all its faults, I remember 4e being more honest with what it was trying to accomplice. Pathfinder, like so many traditional games, promises to do exactly everything great and only delivers in a very narrow type of play.
Hrrhm. I've ranted long enough now. Will do my best not to make a third post.
Problem with Pathfinders retry is that the first alternative will succeed. Not always, I'm exaggerating, but I have struggled with it as a GM. Set up a bolted, sturdy door in the player characters way. Give them a decent chance of opening in with a Str or Disable Device check. If they fail, let them think for a while and, if they struggle, hint at an alternative route. But nooooo... they can just retry that check 'til the door is open.
Yes, I know I can make things happen while they do that. But Pathfinder, unlike a modern game, won't help me with that.
I feel that the rule of three makes more sense when you have fuzzy tasks. Like 'find a clue,' 'capture this guy,' etc. Say you set up a door the PCs must get through. The door can be opened with a DC 15 strength, disable device, or knowledge (riddles) check. But no retries. Then what happens when The players fail the first 2 checks and have no riddle-master for the third? Do you all go home?
Retries are there to model reality. If you are a locksmith, failing at picking the lock does not mean you can't try again. If retries are an option then that challenge is not really a challenge. If you want your players to start thinking outside the box in a situation, add a penalty for retries. You can add a trap that delivers a shock to people that attempt to break the door or pick the lock. Suddenly you can't try forever.
Retries on disable device are pretty common in storytelling. Many heist movies have the safe cracker trying over and over again to open the safe, while the clock runs down.
Retries on strength checks are a little less cinematic, but it's not unheard of for a character in a story to try the same feat of strength multiple times until eventually it just works.
I had my tumor familiar turned to stone by a basilisk. Poor Quorratoma, the fleshy hedgehog, got turned to a statue.
As a GM, only target peoples familiars if they purposefully put in harms way (even then I try to avoid it).