Maul of the Titans - as GM, can I forbid this from my table?


GM Discussion

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Maul of the Titans
Aura strong evocation; CL 15th; Slot —; Price 25,305 gp; Weight 160 lbs.

Description
This mallet is 8 feet long. If used as a weapon, it is the equivalent of a +3 greatclub and deals triple damage against inanimate objects. The wielder must have a Strength of at least 18 to wield it properly. Otherwise, she takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.

Construction Requirements
Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, clenched fist; Cost 12,805 gp

---

From what I could research myself, I'm unable to come to any firm answers as to how the Maul of the Titans is used with feats like Greater Sunder and doing outrageous triple damage to both the object being sundered and its wielder. Honestly, playing at a table with a character who could do just that (practically one-shoting everyone he encoutered) was bad enough . . . I have a really hard time as a GM feeling comfortable with a player at my table who can do this. Personally I think it's overpowered and takes away from the challenge of PFS as a whole for the rest of the players.

---

TL;DR: So, I'm not entirely trying to start a thread to discuss the merits of the Maul of the Titans (what it can and cannot do) but simply asking if I as GM have the right to ban it from my tables?


For good and for ill, an individual GM can not decide to ban something that has been allowed. If a player is being disruptive and ruining other people's fun, then you can talk to them, preferably with a VO.

The Exchange 4/5

interesting combo. talking is good. let him have his fun for awhile, for boredom shall quickly kick in. if not, than ask him to stop killing everything so you can kill some.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ban the player from your table. Solves all of my problems with the fun sponges that PFS attracts.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's really amazing for encounters vs. Martial NPCs, but it won't fare any better than a +3 club against a dragon.

Arguably, you could say damage doesn't triple against the wearer. Example: Maul wielder does 30 damage against a suit of armor, which becomes 90. The armor's hardness+HP=45, so 45 would go through. This damage isn't against an inanimate object though, so it should be divided by 3 to do 15 instead.

Kind of a gray area.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a PFS player, but being banned because my character can do triple damage do to a feat and an item sounds wrong. I know it's not an exact comparison, but would you ban Spirited Charge + Lance characters?

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, you can't simply ban a player for scrapping up the impressive amount of coin to get an item for a sunder monster.

I appreciate that it is nasty scenario breaking item.. but you know what.. there are ways to break it. if he is seen sundering everything in sight, the NPCs will do pile him, sunder/disarm him.. keep him running back and forth.

Some tactical flexibility is allowed.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Arguably, held or worn items are not considered inanimate for combat purposes. Only unattended objects could be considered inanimate for this purpose.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

Andrew Christian wrote:
Arguably, held or worn items are not considered inanimate for combat purposes. Only unattended objects could be considered inanimate for this purpose.

That is something I forgot.. goes from god mode to 'The Slayer of doors'.. Good one Andrew

The Exchange 4/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Arguably, held or worn items are not considered inanimate for combat purposes. Only unattended objects could be considered inanimate for this purpose.

Thank you. that totally went over my head. so many rules there be.

Grand Lodge

I appreciate the answers I'm getting so far. And just to reiterate, I mean to ban the Wondrous Item more so than the actual player. Though, I realize that if a player has built his entire character around his weapon (which could be a mistake) this would be difficult thing to ask as it might as well be saying the same thing as banning the character from my table... This is not necessarily what I'm trying to say at all. What I am saying is I think the item itself is OP and I would rather not have it during a session that I am running.

Now if we could agree on the dividing the damage by 3 when it comes to the wielder (which I myself have considered) then Sunder Monster away! But if the player is going to argue with me about this ruling, then I'd rather not play with him... I'm not trying to be butt hurt over something that appears to be broken to me, I'm just trying to keep a balanced and fun game for everyone.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just tell him he doesn't get triple damage against attended items. That solves it right t here.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Just tell him he doesn't get triple damage against attended items. That solves it right t here.

I do not like this answer. Because it can be inanimate and attended. They are not mutually exclusive. The Sword is not animated, and thus even when held is inanimate.

Creating rules and changing definitions of words to fix a broken build I feel is a poor way to handle it. I think it is safer to say the times 3 is not applied to the wielder.

Personally I do not see it as such a bad item. As mentioned above it only smokes creatures wearing armor, and so monsters do not care. The combination is very potent though.

Have you tried speaking with the guy? This solves 90% of player problems I find.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Just tell him he doesn't get triple damage against attended items. That solves it right t here.

I do not like this answer. Because it can be inanimate and attended. They are not mutually exclusive. The Sword is not animated, and thus even when held is inanimate.

Creating rules and changing definitions of words to fix a broken build I feel is a poor way to handle it. I think it is safer to say the times 3 is not applied to the wielder.

Personally I do not see it as such a bad item. As mentioned above it only smokes creatures wearing armor, and so monsters do not care. The combination is very potent though.

Have you tried speaking with the guy? This solves 90% of player problems I find.

Stop assuming that because we understand rules differently that I'm just making stuff up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Just tell him he doesn't get triple damage against attended items. That solves it right t here.

I do not like this answer. Because it can be inanimate and attended. They are not mutually exclusive. The Sword is not animated, and thus even when held is inanimate.

Creating rules and changing definitions of words to fix a broken build I feel is a poor way to handle it. I think it is safer to say the times 3 is not applied to the wielder.

Personally I do not see it as such a bad item. As mentioned above it only smokes creatures wearing armor, and so monsters do not care. The combination is very potent though.

Have you tried speaking with the guy? This solves 90% of player problems I find.

Stop assuming that because we understand rules differently that I'm just making stuff up.

I am sorry if you take offense to what I stated, but I stand by it.

I never said you made things up. I am stating you redefine words to fit how you want things to work. I understand you do this in an attempt to make the game more entertaining for everyone involved. I believe you have the best intentions, but I do not agree with your methods personally.

If my logic is wrong please correct me.

The Exchange

ITT: April Fools Gone Wrong

4/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

4 people marked this as a favorite.

This doesn't seem like an April Fools joke, more a rules misunderstanding.

No, you can't ban an item at a PFS table. Additional Resources defines what items are allowed.

As for the Maul in combination with Greater Sunder, I do not think it works like that.

Smashing an Object, CRB pg. 173 wrote:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Chapter 8). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object’s AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Note how the above differentiates between a weapon, shield, or an object? Reading further, they make a point of how the object is assumed to be immobile.

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

The Exchange

BretI wrote:

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

They are all clearly inanimate objects. The next section on breaking items refers to them as objects and then provides the Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.

To OP, I think you are overreacting to the situation. No you can not ban him for a legal option at a public table. If you are running a private game do whatever you like.

This thread not being an April fools joke makes me a little sad.. the guy was hitting only enemies wielding weapons and armor for some more damage after investing 25,000 gold into it... who cares honestly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

People seem to be confusing the words "inanimate" and "unattended". Swords and armor are still inanimate objects.

A Construct, however, is not.

Plus I'm not seeing the issue RE: "one-shotting people". One-shotting their equipment, certainly. But the triple damage is versus inanimate objects. People are not inanimate. Triple damage need not apply.

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andrew Christian wrote:
Arguably, held or worn items are not considered inanimate for combat purposes. Only unattended objects could be considered inanimate for this purpose.

Uh... what?

I'm curious in what your argument is behind that. I'm not coming up with anything to support that.

(My argument - as far as I'm aware there's no special Pathfinder meaning of the word inanimate, and the word by default means "not living or not showing signs of life". For most weapons/armor, grabbing them doesn't mean they start showing signs of life. And let's be honest, in most cases, you don't want them too.)

There's certainly an argument that you "untriple" the spillover damage from Greater Sunder - it's certainly what I would do. But yeah, if there's some damning piece of evidence that I'm missing here as to why this doesn't work on sunder attempts, then I'd be really interested in hearing it.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Arguably, held or worn items are not considered inanimate for combat purposes. Only unattended objects could be considered inanimate for this purpose.

No, this is nonsense. You're trying to change the meanings of words so the logical outcome would then coincide with your desires. You can't expect people to accept that as a fair ruling. 2 + 2 != 5, even if that would make your budget balanced. You might like the result, but if the way you got there is blatantly wrong then it won't be accepted.

A golem is an animate object. An intelligent item is (probably) an animate object. An ordinary object does not start moving on its own or gain a soul, just from being attended.

---

That said, it is a rather weird combo, and makes me wonder if it should work. It looks like an oddity that Greater Sunder did not anticipate.

I'd probably run it that I untriple the overflow damage that Greater Sunder generates; triple damage against objects but not people.

So if the guy is sundering a longsword (hardness 10, hp 5) and rolls 25 damage, we first multiply by 3 (75), apply that to the sword and compute overflow (60) and then untriple to see how much he does to the wielder (20).

Equivalently, and perhaps easier, you look at how much damage is needed to destroy the weapon, divide by three, and subtract that from the damage before overflow. So 25 - ((10 + 5) / 3) = 20.

This way you're not banning anything or anyone, not introducing indefensible rules, not breaking the power curve entirely, and the player still gets a real benefit out of the item. He comes out 10 damage higher than with a normal weapon.

Compared to an adamantine weapon, it only gets interesting against magic armor, which tends to have obscene HP values.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd follow the rules as written.

1) check their chronicle sheets. They need at least 40 fame to purchase the Maul of the Titans.

2) check their inventory sheet. 25,305 is a lot to spend on one item, but not unheard of. If they've spent that much on one item, and they're not seekers, they probably have some other area of weakness. Might this be visible to their enemies? Is the fighter just have leather armor?

3) the first item they sunder and destroy, (or the second if your a nice GM and want to bend the rules), tell the party you're crossing the item off the chronicle sheet they are earning and reducing the gold value for that item. (actually 1/6 the gold value I think).

4) when the bad guys see him one hit, the rest of the opponents will take notice and act appropriately. Greese the Maul, entangle you, Slow you, etc.

5) watch the horror on the PC's party faces when the fighter with the Maul fails his Wis save, is now commanded/possessed/etc and starts sundering their equipment! Just like when the machine-gun archer turns his bow on the party. The only difference is that the archers have seen that happen before and should be prepared for it.

6) remind the player about the "don't be a jerk" rule.

Also you could look at secondary effects of striking an object. Does it cause the roof/ceiling to become unstable?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:


3) the first item they sunder and destroy, (or the second if your a nice GM and want to bend the rules), tell the party you're crossing the item off the chronicle sheet they are earning and reducing the gold value for that item. (actually 1/6 the gold value I think).

On what grounds?

You may reduce gold if they fail to solve an encounter usually. Not because you feel like it.
You don't cross off potions the enemy drank, you don't reduce the charges of wand the enemy used, you don't cross off the items of an enemy you threw off a cliff.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swiftbrook wrote:

I'd follow the rules as written.

1) check their chronicle sheets. They need at least 40 fame to purchase the Maul of the Titans.

2) check their inventory sheet. 25,305 is a lot to spend on one item, but not unheard of. If they've spent that much on one item, and they're not seekers, they probably have some other area of weakness. Might this be visible to their enemies? Is the fighter just have leather armor?

3) the first item they sunder and destroy, (or the second if your a nice GM and want to bend the rules), tell the party you're crossing the item off the chronicle sheet they are earning and reducing the gold value for that item. (actually 1/6 the gold value I think).

4) when the bad guys see him one hit, the rest of the opponents will take notice and act appropriately. Greese the Maul, entangle you, Slow you, etc.

5) watch the horror on the PC's party faces when the fighter with the Maul fails his Wis save, is now commanded/possessed/etc and starts sundering their equipment! Just like when the machine-gun archer turns his bow on the party. The only difference is that the archers have seen that happen before and should be prepared for it.

6) remind the player about the "don't be a jerk" rule.

Also you could look at secondary effects of striking an object. Does it cause the roof/ceiling to become unstable?

1 + 2) You risk alienating your players if you only check things you don't like after the game has started. You should check sheets before play. Audits should come before the game starts. But that is just friendly advice.

3) This is not in PFS rules. In fact, it is opposite of the rules.
"If during a scenario you find the +1 frost longsword from the example above and decide to use it until the end of the adventure, but then you
get disarmed or it gets sundered, you are still able to buy that item off the Chronicle sheet at the end of the scenario. While this system isn’t entirely realistic, it removes an incredible time sink from the play process (processing gear) and helps keep the scenario on track, on time, and moving quickly."
Sundered items, or consumed consumables, do not cost the players anything. Unless it is the players own equipment.

4) Yup, totally legit... unless it goes against their in-scenario tactics, which you may not change except under very certain circumstances.

5) Once again, if its in the tactics, totally legit.

6) This. This is the best one. But, also... remember that if ONLY the GM thinks the player is being a jerk and the rest of the table is happy... then it is the GM who should read this rule to himself.

7) Yup, if it is in the scenario or makes sense. But don't be too punishing if it doesn't exist in the scenario.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

Ragoz wrote:
BretI wrote:

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

They are all clearly inanimate objects. The next section on breaking items refers to them as objects and then provides the Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.

Alright, I went back and looked at the tables and text there as well.

It refers to breaking items. Table 7-12 gives values for Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points. Table 7-14 talks of Object Hardness and Hit Points but does not include any armor, weapons, or shields in the list. Table 7-13 calls out values for different substances.

Inanimate Objects has a rules definition that is different than common usage. Based on my reading of the sections of the rules given, my conclusion is that shields and weapons are not inanimate objects. I believe armor also would not be, but that isn't as clearly spelled out.

If you disagree, please quote rules supporting your position.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
BretI wrote:

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

They are all clearly inanimate objects. The next section on breaking items refers to them as objects and then provides the Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.

Alright, I went back and looked at the tables and text there as well.

It refers to breaking items. Table 7-12 gives values for Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points. Table 7-14 talks of Object Hardness and Hit Points but does not include any armor, weapons, or shields in the list. Table 7-13 calls out values for different substances.

Inanimate Objects has a rules definition that is different than common usage. Based on my reading of the sections of the rules given, my conclusion is that shields and weapons are not inanimate objects. I believe armor also would not be, but that isn't as clearly spelled out.

If you disagree, please quote rules supporting your position.

"An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon."

Thus, if you attempt to sunder armor on an NPC... you go against their stats not the object. Thus disagreeing with this definition... thus is not inanimate.
The animating feature of armor... is the one wearing the armor.

Thus, you are correct, worn armor is not inanimate. But non-worn armor is. Also, if a creature can not move for any reason and has a dex of 0... then the armor they wear should probably be considered inanimate.

3/5

Blackbot wrote:
Swiftbrook wrote:


3) the first item they sunder and destroy, (or the second if your a nice GM and want to bend the rules), tell the party you're crossing the item off the chronicle sheet they are earning and reducing the gold value for that item. (actually 1/6 the gold value I think).

On what grounds?

You may reduce gold if they fail to solve an encounter usually. Not because you feel like it.
You don't cross off potions the enemy drank, you don't reduce the charges of wand the enemy used, you don't cross off the items of an enemy you threw off a cliff.

I looked it up. I stand corrected. This happened to me once. Good thing in never came up when I was GMing.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Arguably, held or worn items are not considered inanimate for combat purposes. Only unattended objects could be considered inanimate for this purpose.

No, this is nonsense. You're trying to change the meanings of words so the logical outcome would then coincide with your desires. You can't expect people to accept that as a fair ruling. 2 + 2 != 5, even if that would make your budget balanced. You might like the result, but if the way you got there is blatantly wrong then it won't be accepted.

A golem is an animate object. An intelligent item is (probably) an animate object. An ordinary object does not start moving on its own or gain a soul, just from being attended.

---

That said, it is a rather weird combo, and makes me wonder if it should work. It looks like an oddity that Greater Sunder did not anticipate.

I'd probably run it that I untriple the overflow damage that Greater Sunder generates; triple damage against objects but not people.

So if the guy is sundering a longsword (hardness 10, hp 5) and rolls 25 damage, we first multiply by 3 (75), apply that to the sword and compute overflow (60) and then untriple to see how much he does to the wielder (20).

Equivalently, and perhaps easier, you look at how much damage is needed to destroy the weapon, divide by three, and subtract that from the damage before overflow. So 25 - ((10 + 5) / 3) = 20.

This way you're not banning anything or anyone, not introducing indefensible rules, not breaking the power curve entirely, and the player still gets a real benefit out of the item. He comes out 10 damage higher than with a normal weapon.

Compared to an adamantine weapon, it only gets interesting against magic armor, which tends to have obscene HP values.

Ok, so twice now people have implied that I'm being disingenuous or outright maliciously interpreting the rules. I fricken said with my first word, "arguably," which implies uncertainty with the claim.

I'm not twisting words to mean what I want them to mean. Please stop indicating such.

I fired a comment from the hip based on probably a faulty memory of a definition. I can do more research on it later and see if I can find the precedence I thought I remembered for my comment.

Meanwhile, I'm tired of being accused of essentially cheating to get an outcome I like.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BretI wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
BretI wrote:

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

They are all clearly inanimate objects. The next section on breaking items refers to them as objects and then provides the Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.

Alright, I went back and looked at the tables and text there as well.

It refers to breaking items. Table 7-12 gives values for Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points. Table 7-14 talks of Object Hardness and Hit Points but does not include any armor, weapons, or shields in the list. Table 7-13 calls out values for different substances.

Inanimate Objects has a rules definition that is different than common usage. Based on my reading of the sections of the rules given, my conclusion is that shields and weapons are not inanimate objects. I believe armor also would not be, but that isn't as clearly spelled out.

If you disagree, please quote rules supporting your position.

This was my conclusion too, but was being accused of just making stuff up.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
BretI wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
BretI wrote:

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

They are all clearly inanimate objects. The next section on breaking items refers to them as objects and then provides the Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.

Alright, I went back and looked at the tables and text there as well.

It refers to breaking items. Table 7-12 gives values for Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points. Table 7-14 talks of Object Hardness and Hit Points but does not include any armor, weapons, or shields in the list. Table 7-13 calls out values for different substances.

Inanimate Objects has a rules definition that is different than common usage. Based on my reading of the sections of the rules given, my conclusion is that shields and weapons are not inanimate objects. I believe armor also would not be, but that isn't as clearly spelled out.

If you disagree, please quote rules supporting your position.

"An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon."

Thus, if you attempt to sunder armor on an NPC... you go against their stats not the object. Thus disagreeing with this definition... thus is not inanimate.
The animating feature of armor... is the one wearing the armor.

Thus, you are correct, worn armor is not inanimate. But non-worn armor is. Also, if a creature can not move for any reason and has a dex of 0... then the armor they wear should probably be considered inanimate.

Again, more support for my premise that I was being accused of maliciously modifying rules to arrive at.

The Exchange

BretI wrote:
Ragoz wrote:
BretI wrote:

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

Greater Sunder is limited to a weapon, shield, or suit of armor. You can not use this feat to sunder a table that someone is standing on and do the remaining damage to the person.

They are all clearly inanimate objects. The next section on breaking items refers to them as objects and then provides the Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points.

Alright, I went back and looked at the tables and text there as well.

It refers to breaking items. Table 7-12 gives values for Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points. Table 7-14 talks of Object Hardness and Hit Points but does not include any armor, weapons, or shields in the list. Table 7-13 calls out values for different substances.

Inanimate Objects has a rules definition that is different than common usage. Based on my reading of the sections of the rules given, my conclusion is that shields and weapons are not inanimate objects. I believe armor also would not be, but that isn't as clearly spelled out.

If you disagree, please quote rules supporting your position.

Breaking Items wrote:
Since hardness doesn't affect an object's break DC, this value depends more on the construction of the item than on the material the item is made of.

Clearly refers to them as objects in the breaking item section as I said. I'm not sure how this get overlooked if you went to the section I referenced and checked for the word object.

In fact the only reason for the difference you pointed out in the Smashing an Object section you quoted is not because they aren't all objects it is because one is being wielded and has to use the wielder's CMD so that you don't hit the object on anything but a Nat 1.

I think this is a bit ridiculous to have to debate what an inanimate object is to be honest. Unless they gain sentience, are a construct, require knowledge arcana checks, have a CR, and require players to have a moral quandary over selling their magic items into slavery I feel like most people know what an inanimate object really is.

I also again greatly dislike the entire premise of the thread which isn't about the rules interaction so much as "I dislike something so can I ban the player?" If this was a rules question it be in the rules forum.

Again even dealing damage with this sunder build being at full power I don't think it is even that strong. I was toying with a monk build for society the other day so I could have a non-magical character again. The build did 8 attacks for about 40 damage per attack. I said to myself "Man damage is boring and I don't do anything else" and scrapped it. The point being dealing damage is just a mundane thing martial characters do and it really doesn't change how the game is played even a little bit.

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Core Rulebook, pg 174 wrote:
Saving Throws: Nonmagical, unattended items never make saving throws. They are considered to have failed their saving throws, so they are always fully affected by spells and other attacks that allow saving throws to resist or negate. An item attended by a character (being grasped, touched, or worn) makes saving throws as the character (that is, using the character’s saving throw bonus).

Here is what the Core Rulebook defines as attended items. The Saving Throws for Items sections talks about the fact that even though items have saves, the fact that they're being attended means that the person doing the attending can use some of their stats for defense as opposed to the default inanimate object stats. This is exactly what sunder is doing. Sunder is replacing the AC of the item being attacked with the CMD of the person who is doing with the attending.

Lorewalker wrote:

"An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (–5 penalty to AC), but also an additional –2 penalty to its AC. Furthermore, if you take a full-round action to line up a shot, you get an automatic hit with a melee weapon and a +5 bonus on attack rolls with a ranged weapon."

Thus, if you attempt to sunder armor on an NPC... you go against their stats not the object. Thus disagreeing with this definition... thus is not inanimate.
The animating feature of armor... is the one wearing the armor.

No, the armor still has a really low AC thanks to be an inanimate object, but it being attended is what's causing you to need to sunder it.

BretI wrote:

As for the Maul in combination with Greater Sunder, I do not think it works like that.

Smashing an Object, CRB pg. 173 wrote:
Smashing a weapon or shield with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon is accomplished with the sunder combat maneuver (see Chapter 8). Smashing an object is like sundering a weapon or shield, except that your combat maneuver check is opposed by the object’s AC. Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.

Note how the above differentiates between a weapon, shield, or an object? Reading further, they make a point of how the object is assumed to be immobile.

The maul doesn't work on shields or weapons because they are not inanimate objects by the Pathfinder definition. I do not believe that Armor would count either.

According to what you are saying, weapons and shields are not even objects. Not just inanimate objects, but not objects to begin with. See how the text differentiates between a weapon, shield or an object? This is clearly absurd. Of course their objects – they’re not creatures. The text serves as a reminder that those objects will more often than not use the sunder rules and also to direct the player towards there for how attacking attended objects works.

BretI wrote:


It refers to breaking items. Table 7-12 gives values for Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points. Table 7-14 talks of Object Hardness and Hit Points but does not include any armor, weapons, or shields in the list. Table 7-13 calls out values for different substances.

Inanimate Objects has a rules definition that is different than common usage. Based on my reading of the sections of the rules given, my conclusion is that shields and weapons are not inanimate objects. I believe armor also would not be, but that isn't as clearly spelled out.

If you disagree, please quote rules supporting your position.

This is another argument that armor/weapons/shields are not considered objects, not that they aren’t considered inanimate objects.

And then, trying to claim that items and objects are different things is pretty hard when the sunder combat maneuver description refers to the object you’re sundering as both. They’re clearly just chosen which one makes the sentence sound better to make the rules easier to read so we don’t end up with MtG’s unreadable rulebook.

Sunder description, CRB PG 201, bolding mine wrote:

You can attempt to sunder an item held or worn by your opponent as part of an attack action in place of a melee attack. If you do not have the Improved Sunder feat, or a similar ability, attempting to sunder an item provokes an attack of opportunity from the target of your maneuver.

If your attack is successful, you deal damage to the item normally. Damage that exceeds the object’s Hardness is subtracted from its hit points. If an object has equal to or less than half its total hit points remaining, it gains the broken condition (see Appendix 2). If the damage you deal would reduce the object to less than 0 hit points, you can choose to destroy it. If you do not choose to destroy it, the object is left with only 1 hit point and the broken condition.

Whenever the sentence would refer to the target as something that the defender is holding, they use “item” as in “held item”. Whenever they refer to the target’s stats, they use “object” since all the rules use object when referring to hardness/hp and the like.

TL;DR: You’re reading too far into stuff that’s there to make the CRB easier to read.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Andrew Christian wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
(stuff)

Ok, so twice now people have implied that I'm being disingenuous or outright maliciously interpreting the rules. I fricken said with my first word, "arguably," which implies uncertainty with the claim.

I'm not twisting words to mean what I want them to mean. Please stop indicating such.

I fired a comment from the hip based on probably a faulty memory of a definition. I can do more research on it later and see if I can find the precedence I thought I remembered for my comment.

Meanwhile, I'm tired of being accused of essentially cheating to get an outcome I like.

I didn't mean to dispute your good intentions, but I strongly disagreed with the method you proposed to achieve them.

EDIT: you proposed equating two fundamentally different things, as a basis for blocking the disruptive behaviour.

The problem with that is that the player would look at that argument and probably decide that you're being unreasonable and unfair.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
The problem with that is that the player would look at that argument and probably decide that you're being unreasonable and unfair.

As the OP's question regarding banning the player has long since been answered, and I can not really contribute to the rhetoric about the mechanics concerned, I was just going to see where this thread went. This statement can easily be reversed; the player is likewise being unreasonable and unfair, and has been for quite a while.

I did some digging, as I'm new to PFS play, and found this thread, where general consensus is you gain, on average, 1.5 fame for each xp.

As Swiftbrook pointed out:

Swiftbrook wrote:
1) check their chronicle sheets. They need at least 40 fame to purchase the Maul of the Titans

Following the formula, 40 Fame results in about a 9th level character, which is pretty high for PFS play (as I understand, anyway). It also seems highly unlikely that this is the only PFS character of said player; it may be their -1, but they probably also have a -10, or better. Point is, they're PFS-committed; they've been playing for a while, and should have a solid grasp of not only the game's rules, but Society play as well.

Swiftbrook's point #2:

Swiftbrook wrote:
2) check their inventory sheet. 25,305 is a lot to spend on one item, but not unheard of. If they've spent that much on one item, and they're not seekers, they probably have some other area of weakness. Might this be visible to their enemies? Is the fighter just have leather armor?

As a player, if I sit down to a table with my, let's say 7th level PC, expecting a challenging but feasible game, and the fourth member of our party has severely crippled himself by hoarding money for some wonky venture he's still six scenarios from implementing, that takes away from my fun; we have a needlessly handicapped party for the sake of one person, one idea, and one item. We might very well die, and there go actual months of investment on my part, of both time, energy, and emotional connection with my prized character. If this happens, and I find out the other player has willingly chosen to remain poor and unequipped (and rather unhelpful) for 20+ games because of some kooky plan, I'm going to be angry, because from my perspective, that other player is being unreasonable and unfair, and quite frankly a jerk. We're all supposed to have fun at the table, not just one of us.

The entire premise, IMO, violates Swiftbrook's sixth point:

Swiftbrook wrote:
6) remind the player about the "don't be a jerk" rule.

If the PC is a GM-Blob, that's one thing, and I'd be more likely to return to the game following the theoretical events from above, because the GM's rather earned the right to be a bit goofy; I still might be a bit resentful that they didn't just wait until they gathered a couple more sheets and actually made use of their character. However, I also feel like if it is indeed a GM-Blob, they should understand the appropriate time and place for silly ideas, which should (again, should) mean they would be mature and reasonable enough to say, "Okay, sure GM NotMe, I'll play a different character this time, and run my Sundermonster at another table, with a GM who gets it."

If the PC is not a GM-Blob, then the player has been rather jerky, unreasonable, and unfair to whomever has had the displeasure of playing at their table for many, many sessions with their undergeared, underprepared character. And while I agree that, in the event that it does happen (or has, depending on how theoretical this OP was), there should be some clear-cut answer to how to handle it, the mechanic itself is really less of a problem than the circumstances that led to it happening in the first place.

PFS is a family game, true, but from what I've experienced, most of the players range from mid-20s to early 40s in age. We're supposed to all be adults at that point, spending countless hours and hard-earned cash to enjoy our hobby. Plotting and scheming ways to be "the best," even if it is only against the ambiguous inanimate objects, is a rather juvenile attitude, detracting from everyone else's enjoyment of the game in favor of your own humorous desires.

Summation of my ramblings: If you want to do something goofy, like Greater Sunder with a Maul of the Titans, earn it with GM credit, and play with a group you know will be doing similar levels of ridiculousness and also find it fun. "Cooperate" is one of the tenants of the Pathfinder Society, after all.


Yeah...that ^ pretty much says that the way they're having fun is wrong, which isn't the correct response here.

There are plenty of other ways for this character to be useful, even if he didn't spend a single gold piece on all but the basic gold pieces.

1. He's a Bladebound Magus, which gets a free (advancing) magic weapon as part of his class, and uses spells to make up for the gear he doesn't have.
2. He's a Bloodrager/Barbarian that gets claws/spells when he rages, and just beats the crap out of things like that. Doesn't need much in terms of items to be useful. (Notice I said "useful", not "optimized".
3. Tengu/Tiefling/Half-Orc/etc. Natural Combat style ranger that uses his companion and natural weapons to fight.
4. Druid/summoner/etc. with a companion and summons.

All of these are perfectly legal, and can be quite useful even without the proper gear.
Outright stating that saving your money for a completely legal and cool item with a neat effect and then spending several feats (Power Attack/Improved and Greater Sunder) to pull this off is hurting the enjoyment of the table is ridiculous.
Do you say that every wizard/cleric that takes Spell Focus (Conjuration), Augment Summoning, and Sacred Summons (for the cleric) is eying the fun of the table simply because they bring more bodies into the game? Some might if it gets obnoxious, but most would not.

An expenditure of resources to specialize in a certain combat strategy is common, and often mandatory, in Pathfinder, and just because this build is more specific/focused than yours doesn't mean that they're playing the game wrong.

"Cooperate" is, in fact, part of the PFS motto, and cooperation between two players with different styles of play should be expected at the table as long as neither player is being too disruptive.
And, frankly, this trick isn't even close to the most disruptive build I've seen (grandfathered First World Summoner at a recent con wins that award. 1d4+a metric crap ton of Stirges as a standard action? Yeah, everything died, and my poor hydrokineticist didn't do much beyond putting the fires in a library out).


Andrew Christian wrote:
Ok, so twice now people have implied that I'm being disingenuous or outright maliciously interpreting the rules.

I hope you are not assuming I am calling you malicious or disingenuous. I made a very obvious effort to point out you were not. In fact I directly inferred you were attempting to be utilitarian.

I tried to give you a logical reason as a player why your ruling would upset me. Better you hear it now when someone trying to be your friend tells you than a stranger that makes a poor assumption.


bigrig107 wrote:
Yeah...that ^ pretty much says that the way they're having fun is wrong, which isn't the correct response here.

You bring up a plethora of valid points that I tend to agree with. You also allowed me to realize the inherent assumption I made, which was that the player had chosen the combo in question as their single source of viability. I'm sure you could come up with a build that would remain useful and keep that goal as its focus, but the examples you gave were more of the "I'm going to do cool things with that item, but it isn't the sole base of my character," over my reasoning of "My character's sole usefulness stems from acquiring this item."

The entire line of discussion has, at its core, revolved around a player being disruptive to the group from using the Maul; that is what led me to my assumption. I did state that it was important for us to understand exactly how this interaction works, if the player acquires it in a way that hasn't effected the play of others.

Also, as you said, it's not the most disruptive build you've seen. It is, however, the most disruptive I've seen. I'm glad you enlightened me on ways to make it viable without hindering everyone else; I didn't immediately recognize the way to do this.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bigrig07 - I agree with pretty much everything you just said. However, I've played a few times with folks with 9th level characters that have 37k unspent (75% or so of their overall wealth) because 'I don't really need anything.'

These are the same people who then whine to me halfway through the mission that my Cleric 'should be healing them' rather than doing whatever I have deemed more useful to the party. PC wealth vs. NPC wealth is one of the big reasons NPCs have a CR-1 adjustment (As in, an NPC 5th level rogue is CR 4, not 5). Spending almost none of your gp essentially raises the APL of the party more than it should, putting everyone in danger.

Now, saving for a little while is a bit different. Sometimes you want some super fancy bling. I just think going for 0 gp spent for more than four sequential scenarios is when you're starting to drag down overall party efficacy unduly most of the time. That means if you want the maul, saving from level 5 all the way until 9 is going to really pain both you and the party. However, saving from 9 to 10.1 nets the same amount of gold (roughly) without really being much a burden.

Just my 2 cp.

EDIT: To the original question of this thread, I'll re-iterate what I said above (and seems to be a well regarded suggestion): untriple the spillover damage. It makes the build strategy remain effective/competitive without overbalancing everything completely. Basically, this says that your maul wielder gets to have fun doing his thing, and everyone else will still get to do their thing and be effective too.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

To the OP:

Unfortunately, in PFS, the table GM does not have the right to ban any equipment that is legal in PFS, and that includes most of the stuff from the CRB, where the Maul comes from.

However, it really doesn't do much damage against anything that isn't inanimate, and you should, definitely, untriple the damage, due to the way the item is written.

1d10+3+(1.5*Str mod)+(1.5*PA)

A few things, besides Swiftbrook's list, that you might want to remind the player about:
It weighs 160 pounds. PFS uses encumbrance rules. All by itself, unless the PC's Strength is at least 22, it will move them to medium encumbrance.

Add in armor weight, along with whatever else they are carrying, and they could easily be in heavy encumbrance.

And the encumbrance from gear, just like medium or heavy armors, puts in a Max Dex and ACP penalty, if his armor isn't already doing so.

Equally, since it is a wondrous item, rather than a named specific magic weapon, there is no upgrade path to reach it, and no upgrades can be done on it. I am not sure it can be the target of a Greater Magic Weapon spell, for example; nor the target of a Magus's Arcane Pool enhancement ability. It cannot be made out of any special materials, so one of the true Sunder specialists preferences is unavailable. It is amazing what the "ignore hardness if it is less than 20" does for a lot of Sunder targets, when using adamantine.

An equivalent weapon, assuming greatsword (metal, so can be adamantine, unlike the greatclud which is usually wood) would cost:
50 gp greatsword
3000 gp Adamantine (includes masterwork cost)
+3 enhancement 18,000 gp
So 21,050 gp for 2d6+3++ in a weapon that can be difficult to sunder itself, since the magic means it has a hardness too high for Adamantine to ignore... And this can be bought early, as a plain Adamantine greatsword, and slowly enhanced, as budget and Fame permit.

In either case, though, criticals need not apply, other than as automatic hits. Objects cannot be critted.

On the Fame needed: Ignore the 1.5, it is possible to get 6/level, with work and dedication, so 40/2 = 20 XP = 8th level, which has an expected Wealth by Level of 33,000 gp. Painful for the budget at this level, as that means that AC is probably going to be fairly low at this point, since Dex is probably going to be capped from encumbrance, and heavy armors are fairly expensive. It may also impact his saves, since his funds for armor, rings, amulet, etc. also affect his budget for that cloak of resistance or similar... Especially if he spent anything for a belt or headband ability enhancer...

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

20 XP is the last XP of Level 7, as 21 makes you level 8.

0/ 3/ 6/ 9/12/15/18/21 (Min XP)
1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8 (Level)

Other then that and a couple of minor things, Mr. Weil is spot on.

~

There is room for variation on whether it would be a weapon...

We have this from the description "If used as a weapon, it is the equivalent of a +3 greatclub..."

We also have the Construction Requirements "Craft Wondrous Item, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, clenched fist; Cost 12,805 gp"

The Description says it = +3 greatclub with additional rules.

The Construction Requirements show it is both a Wondrous Item, and an Arms/Armor.

But, barring an official ruling, this is solidly a YMMV item.

Also, there are cheaper and arguably better alternatives. Mr. Weil posted a nice example...


Thomas Graham wrote:

So, you can't simply ban a player for scrapping up the impressive amount of coin to get an item for a sunder monster.

Judges keep in mind that the player also has to have the Fame for purchasing an item unless it's on a Chronicle, or the automatic resources list.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

That has been referenced a few times up thread...

Is it bad that this thread is making me want to run a Sunder build?

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Tempest_Knight wrote:

That has been referenced a few times up thread...

Is it bad that this thread is making me want to run a Sunder build?

You can have a devastatingly effective sunder build with an ordinary mithral weapon, Greater Sunder, Spell Sunder and a Cord of Stubborn Resolve. It's extremely effective.

Given how much cheaper that is to implement that the Maul, it's probably far more optimal. You save a lot of money which can be spent on other necessities, and also important, you get to enjoy it from a lower level.

Grand Lodge

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Tempest_Knight wrote:

That has been referenced a few times up thread...

Is it bad that this thread is making me want to run a Sunder build?

You can have a devastatingly effective sunder build with an ordinary mithral weapon, Greater Sunder, Spell Sunder and a Cord of Stubborn Resolve. It's extremely effective.

Given how much cheaper that is to implement that the Maul, it's probably far more optimal. You save a lot of money which can be spent on other necessities, and also important, you get to enjoy it from a lower level.

Due to your comment, I now have some gleeful theory-crafting to do with my Steelbreaker Brawler. I think I'll stick with my weapon instead of the Maul though. Too much malarkey.

Encumbrance is a thing, but it luckily isn't too tough to overcome. If the player has any good way of getting enlarge person consistently (potions) even if that just takes them to 20 STR they'll have a 266 lb. light load. Add in a MW backpack and it jumps to 306.
The only trouble is, you'll basically NEED to enlarge for EVERY combat.

Wait, better idea. Ant Haul. A wand of ant haul is usable by pretty much every caster in the game, triples carrying capacity for two hours, and costs 2 PP. Holy crap, I need to buy that for my steelbreaker brawler too. He could carry...he could carry everything.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

Tempest_Knight wrote:

That has been referenced a few times up thread...

Is it bad that this thread is making me want to run a Sunder build?

Not really, although, other than which way you go for it, there are a couple of things to have available.

A copy of the section form the CRB/PRD covering basic object, weapon, and armor hardness and hit points, for easy reference. Nothing slows the game down more than having to search that up every time you want to Sunder something.

And the agreement of the rest of the table as to using Sunder as an option, since it makes whatever was Sundered unusable for the rest of the game in most cases.

One build I have seen for a Sunder monster was a simple Lore Warden Fighter using an adamantine greatsword. Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Greater Sunder, simple enhancement bonuses, rather than special ability enhancements, but that was partly due to an older copy of the CRB.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Jacksonville aka Kyrie Ebonblade,

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Thomas Graham wrote:

So, you can't simply ban a player for scrapping up the impressive amount of coin to get an item for a sunder monster.

Judges keep in mind that the player also has to have the Fame for purchasing an item unless it's on a Chronicle, or the automatic resources list.

I know.. there are some players I HATE coming to a table because they totally destroy play.. doing things like 'Well I'lll attack the guy in back and ignore the five rows of mooks in front of him cause they can't hit/hurt/react in time to him me'.

All I can do as a GM and VO is .. ask them to consider others and go from there.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

kinevon,

Definitely going to have to look in to the Lore Warden idea...

I generally like to have printouts of the wonky and/or little used rules that a character I play uses/abuses so I can have them for my own quick reference and a spare for the GM if they need/want it.

Also, thanks for that other bit... I need to make a note to check with the party about which bits on the Baddie they don't want me to break...

I probably wouldn't have thought of that until after breaking something that gets others annoyed about...

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Æroden wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
The problem with that is that the player would look at that argument and probably decide that you're being unreasonable and unfair.

As the OP's question regarding banning the player has long since been answered, and I can not really contribute to the rhetoric about the mechanics concerned, I was just going to see where this thread went. This statement can easily be reversed; the player is likewise being unreasonable and unfair, and has been for quite a while.

I did some digging, as I'm new to PFS play, and found this thread, where general consensus is you gain, on average, 1.5 fame for each xp.

As Swiftbrook pointed out:

Swiftbrook wrote:
1) check their chronicle sheets. They need at least 40 fame to purchase the Maul of the Titans

The 1.5 PP figure is theoretical; my personal average is 1.8 and I'm closer to 1.9 on characters that have never played a module. It's getting together the money, not the fame, that's the bottleneck for this build.

I don't really see why having a high-level character necessarily means that you have many other characters; some people always play the same PC.

I'm hesitant to say someone is being unreasonable and unfair while using a perfectly legal build, but let's examine the arguments.

Æroden wrote:

Swiftbrook's point #2:

Swiftbrook wrote:
2) check their inventory sheet. 25,305 is a lot to spend on one item, but not unheard of. If they've spent that much on one item, and they're not seekers, they probably have some other area of weakness. Might this be visible to their enemies? Is the fighter just have leather armor?
As a player, if I sit down to a table with my, let's say 7th level PC, expecting a challenging but feasible game, and the fourth member of our party has severely crippled himself by hoarding money for some wonky venture he's still six scenarios from implementing, that takes away from my fun; we have a needlessly handicapped party for the sake of one person, one idea, and one item. We might very well die, and there go actual months of investment on my part, of both time, energy, and emotional connection with my prized character. If this happens, and I find out the other player has willingly chosen to remain poor and unequipped (and rather unhelpful) for 20+ games because of some kooky plan, I'm going to be angry, because from my perspective, that other player is being unreasonable and unfair, and quite frankly a jerk. We're all supposed to have fun at the table, not just one of us.

And what if the player got his Maul without being a lump of dead weight?


  • The underlying build to make this work - focus on 2H weaponry - is quite strong even without perfect gear. Especially at low and middle levels, when just being (for example) an Invulnerable Rager barbarian can be enough to kill half the enemies with a single hit, with just an ordinary cold iron earthbreaker or such. And he's already stocking up on Sunder feats, so he could be disabling enemies that rely on a weapon/spell component pouch/holy symbol to pose a threat.
  • Maybe there's a significant chunk of GM credit involved?
  • An adventure at the 8-9 tier of a 5-9 scenario pays somewhat over 5000gp, so you need just 5 of those to afford the Maul. So you'd be playing with a character with 7th-level gear in a 9th-level adventure; that really isn't all that bad. If he has a strong build, he'll be fine.

Æroden wrote:


The entire premise, IMO, violates Swiftbrook's sixth point:

Swiftbrook wrote:


6) remind the player about the "don't be a jerk" rule.

If the PC is a GM-Blob, that's one thing, and I'd be more likely to return to the game following the theoretical events from above, because the GM's rather earned the right to be a bit goofy; I still might be a bit resentful that they didn't just wait until they gathered a couple more sheets and actually made use of their character. However, I also feel like if it is indeed a GM-Blob, they should understand the appropriate time and place for silly ideas, which should (again, should) mean they would be mature and reasonable enough to say, "Okay, sure GM NotMe, I'll play a different character this time, and run my Sundermonster at another table, with a GM who gets it."

If the PC is not a GM-Blob, then the player has been rather jerky, unreasonable, and unfair to whomever has had the displeasure of playing at their table for many, many sessions with their undergeared, underprepared character. And while I agree that, in the event that it does happen (or has, depending on how theoretical this OP was), there should be some clear-cut answer to how to handle it, the mechanic itself is really less of a problem than the circumstances that led to it happening in the first place.

5 sessions. Lagging behind 5 sessions in gear purchases.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Too much to quote.

Yeah, the poster right below me helped me realize that I'd fallen quite short of builds where this would be viable; my immediate assumption was of a fighter with a steel greatsword and split mail from his initial 150, never spending another cent until he got his Maul. I've seen enough encounters to know that PFS has a tendency to love DR, and that fellow has no way of getting through it on his own, aside from slugging away 1-2 HPs that actually get through. Your build example was a bit better, and I appreciate it, but I've already admitted to assuming more than was given.

And true, having a high level doesn't necessarily mean you have multiples, but at least from the semi-local group I follow on Facebook, PFS groups don't tend to run scenarios in an order that will take a player straight through; most of the time, this group seems to run 3-5 tier, and a player with only one character would find themselves leveled out of range, with nothing to do. This may not be typical of all, but I've gone back and counted; if I made the trip every weekend, I would have at least 3 PCs by now, since otherwise, my single character wouldn't be able to participate, and I'd have driven over an hour for nothing.

Your clarification on fame makes my point a bit more solid though; if I'm rushing the Maul, I'm waiting on Fame more than GP, meaning I'm not buying gear to 7th and then getting just 5 scenarios, I'm not spending a thing, so once I hit that 40 fame mark, I can buy my fancy club.

As I mentioned in my latter two posts, my reasoning was behind a character who has been disruptive the entire time in order to get the Maul. If they've done so in another way, where they've remained viable and useful, then why are they suddenly disrupting the scenario with the item they've worked for? Did their personality suddenly switch once they got the Maul? Probably not; they've either been disruptive the whole time, or they'll use the Maul in the same helpful manner they've played all along.

The division method of determining damage has been pretty well received; there isn't anything inherently disruptive about the Maul once the mechanics of combat are set, and the GM can readily determine what to do. The player who has been cooperative, built to function without the one item, and merely wants a smashin' mallet will still continue to be so. The player who has hindered everyone else to get to that point is the one likely to smash everything in sight and cause problems. Paizo included the item in their books, and organized play. It isn't so bad as to destroy everything, and it's been around since the CRB; certainly someone has used it by now, and didn't cause such widespread chaos as to have it removed. The entire thread is a non-issue if the player is not being disruptive, and again, if they are, it's likely they have been in several other ways before that point.

Shadow Lodge 1/5 5/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

Most people who would be considering a Titan Maul build probably have enough experience in PFS to have a good idea of the average Gold pay out of each sub-tier...

They would then be able to figure out the Fame threshold where they actually need to start hoarding Gold... It is not a matter of 'spend nothing other than the starting gold, then but Maul.'

~

And, yes, like basically everything, it is not the Item/Option/etc that is disruptive, it is the Player.

A Disruptive Player is going to be Disruptive no matter what options are given...

Play a demo game with me playing Lem... we tend to get so far off track we can't find our way back... Though I would like to think I an more of a Catalyst than an Instigator. I multiply the crazy, not start the crazy... I think...

{That does not represent my usual play style}

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Maul of the Titans - as GM, can I forbid this from my table? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.