|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a 'is it legal question.' Its more of a rant against an oddity that is becoming more and more common in our local area PFS game(s).
I call it the 'I have one of those' character builds.
Last week I was running a game where a 3rd level fighter was utilizing six (that's right...six) two-handed weapons in a bizarre 'max it out' style of build.
So here is the list for your amusement: Greatsword (8 lbs), Guisarme (12 lbs), Heavy Flail (10 lbs), Lucerne Hammer (12 lbs), Halberd (12 lbs) and a Sarissa (12 lbs).
That's right and he was decked out in an Masterwork Agile Breastplate with armor spikes. Just in armor and weapons, the character was pushing 96 pounds...
Being a professional historian (yes, really) and a prudent GM, I asked- how does your character carry all that stuff? His answer was simple, " I have an 18 strength and a Masterwork Backpack!"
I said, "No, how does your character actually 'carry' all that stuff?" The players answer made me chuckle, "In my backpack or strapped over my shoulder." I said that's great but just from a game mechanics point of view don't you think this is RIDICULOUS? He said, "Nope." He added, "I can get to it all really quick... I have Quick Draw, so I just drop them as I go and pull out another one if I need to." I just shook my head and said, "Ok, let's get back to the game." The player responded, "It's TOTALLY legal and I have several characters who do it."
Oh Pathfinder... sometimes you give me a headache...
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, the whole setting is completely ahistorical so Im not sure why bringing up the fact that your a historian means anything. In fact carying 96 pounds of equipment like that is weirdly feasible especially with the mix of ahistorical technology Golarion has.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder encourages golf bags for fighters until you can ignore all material and alignment DR. Even then, if the character doesn't take Versatile Weapon, they still need to somehow account for the 3 basic damage types (B/S/P) in a way that allows them to select specific options. For some characters, the answer is "I do enough damage to not care about DR." That, however, has its limitations, as well.
Ultimately, Pathfinder punishes the ill-prepared and, even if it's ridiculous in appearance, there has to be some sort of accommodation for the oddities of the system. The easy answer is carrying capacity, which works as an acceptable substitute most of the time.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically... I guess having a detailed understanding of how various ancient and medieval weapons were carried and deployed on a historical battlefield has 'skewed' my opinion.
If you call something a Sarissa and give a pseudo-historical description of it in various rulebooks and/or supplements (and the same goes for other weapons) then its not completely ahistorical. There is a specific point of reference with an actual historical item(s). But thanks for the dismissive nature of your comment anyway.
My problem isn't so much with carrying 96 pounds (with super-human strength and all), but more with weapons that have lengths of 6, 8, 10 and 15 feet carried in multiples and being 'quick drawn.' The sarissa being 'listed' as 15 feet does take into account the shortest known version of the weapon (Early Macedonian period of the mid 4th century BCE), but 'strapping up' various polearms does seem rather ridiculous.
Like I said, this wasn't about rules or 'if you can.' It was about how practical it would be if Pathfinder wasn't a 'fantasy' campaign setting- which just happens to incorporate all kinds of actual historical stuff (like weapons and armor)- of which we have ancient and modern examples of and points of reference for.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why for home games we developed a "carrying system" which breaks out the character's physical body into "slots" to assist with carrying. Overfill your slots and you become encumbered, even without armor.
But to Serisan's point - Pathfinder rewards those that come prepared. This whole thing you're mentioning is immensely stupid as a simulationist, except when it's not as a gamist.
I have a write-up if you're ever interested (PM me if so).
|
|
@Serisan... I understand the 'Golf-Bag' but my comment was more on just how things 'look' rather than how they actually work from a game mechanics point of view.
I guess 'carry capacity' is the simplest way to deal with the issue, it just has few holes in it IMHO. But like I said, its more about pointing out how ridiculous looking it is rather than wanting to redesign the whole Pathfinder Core Rules from the ground up.
It's a game... I get that... But at times it does give me a headache...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a 'is it legal question.' Its more of a rant against an oddity that is becoming more and more common in our local area PFS game(s).
I call it the 'I have one of those' character builds.
Last week I was running a game where a 3rd level fighter was utilizing six (that's right...six) two-handed weapons in a bizarre 'max it out' style of build.
So here is the list for your amusement: Greatsword (8 lbs), Guisarme (12 lbs), Heavy Flail (10 lbs), Lucerne Hammer (12 lbs), Halberd (12 lbs) and a Sarissa (12 lbs).
That's right and he was decked out in an Masterwork Agile Breastplate with armor spikes. Just in armor and weapons, the character was pushing 96 pounds...
Being a professional historian (yes, really) and a prudent GM, I asked- how does your character carry all that stuff? His answer was simple, " I have an 18 strength and a Masterwork Backpack!"
I said, "No, how does your character actually 'carry' all that stuff?" The players answer made me chuckle, "In my backpack or strapped over my shoulder." I said that's great but just from a game mechanics point of view don't you think this is RIDICULOUS? He said, "Nope." He added, "I can get to it all really quick... I have Quick Draw, so I just drop them as I go and pull out another one if I need to." I just shook my head and said, "Ok, let's get back to the game." The player responded, "It's TOTALLY legal and I have several characters who do it."
Oh Pathfinder... sometimes you give me a headache...
It's a game, one that doesn't realistically replicate much of anything. So I would suggest you just learn to adjust your expectations.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your argument isn't helped by the fact that Wayne Reynolds is the default artist for the iconics, who is famous for overdesigning his characters until they look like they're wearing a Velcro suit and were rolled through a random equipment drawer. Seriously, if you tried to faithfully cosplay most of these characters, you'd collapse. What is Mavaro carrying with him, for example? And Valeros is carrying so many straps and buckles at least half his weight must be leather alone. And I count at least 11 daggers on Merisiel's body. And how many layers of fur is Aowyn wearing, anyway?
Point is, Carrying capacity and method of carrying isn't realistic, and isn't intended to be. Technically a character could carry 100 daggers on him and still not be encumbered. Drawing a weapon in a fight and remembering which weapon is where shouldn't be an issue and only needlessly complicates things. Yes, most of my characters are carrying 5+ weapons with them, and they always know where their preferred weapon is. That's just to make the game flow better:
GM: "The Ogre is heading right your way."
Player: "I'm reaching for my greatsword."
GM: "Where are you reaching? Left hip, right hip, scabbard over your left shoulder, or your right?"
Player: "Crap, which scabbard was my greatsword in, again? I forgot to note it down."
GM: "Well, roll a d4."
Player: "1."
GM: "Okay, you draw your dagger."
Player: "Why the hell should I draw a dagger if I'm facing off against an Ogre?"
|
I must admit that I have a character that is guilty of this. He is dwarf Ranger/Stalwart Defender. He has a Greataxe, Warhammer, and (just recently added) dwarven Longaxe.
Realizing it was a little odd to have to many two-handed weapons on such a small character, he does keep the longaxe on his animal companion, Runt the Second (a boar).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, if you tried to faithfully cosplay most of these characters, you'd collapse.
I feel like if you were out of shape because they aren't really that absurdly dressed. Hell I think at one point I was dressing more and more like the iconic characters just in the process of playing PFS. Its not that bad.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to admit, I do myself want to be able to visualize how I'm carrying all the stuff. I remember back during 1e, I had a fighter who was decked out with a whole bunch of different weapons. I specified where each one was -- which was across his back, which at the left side, which the right, etc.
I don't think Wayne Reynold's drawings are comparable to a guy carrying six two-handed weapons. The latter is impossible to visualize, at least in a way you might really be able to use all that stuff. The WAR drawings show (usually minus the full backpack or haversack) how Pathfinder characters might carry a more measured amount of gear -- still quite decked out, but not quite as absurd as what the OP is talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall an incident where a player specified he was carrying his 10 ft pole strapped vertically to his back. 20 minutes later, he charged through a doorway at full speed. The GM had him trip with no save, before the ambush started.
That said, I do agree with the abstraction bit. Just let it go. Don't think too hard about the mechanics.
Two hips, two shoulders and bandolier for small items. Anyone who has been hiking knows that carrying three 15ft poles with blades on the end would make you look like an idiot. I get the strong impression that it's the type of weapons that the OP disapproves of, not the weight.
My solution in those situations is for NPCs to point and laugh at such characters. Nobody takes him seriously and nicknames get banded about that reflect on the whole party. The same works the other way round - NPCs stare in awe at characters that look suitably heroic. Then there's circumstance penalties to moving silently at inopportune times and numerous moments where the character can't get through the door. 10ft high ceilings and 6'5" doors become obstacles to our walking tripod.
You may not be able to stop the guy playing with his 98lbs of kitchenware but you can certainly make him pay for it and have a little fun at the same time. You did warn him after all!
For those who return to the tired old cliche of 'but fireballs' you have to remember that many players/DMs see internal consistency and logic to be essential to maintaining immersive gameplay.
I can sympathize with the sentiment of the original post, and it's one of the reasons I'm so relieved to game with the group that I do.
I don't agree that we could compare the acceptance of a hero carrying a dozen pole-arms to the acceptance that there are fire-breathing dragons. If the dragon swooped down in a charge using five lances (because tail), then I could see the comparison, and I'd say it was equally silly.
We don't play a simulationist game, but we do go for a relatively cinematic look. So, for instance, we had a fighter with two swords crisscrossed on his back, and two more on his hips. It looked cool. It may have been a suicide effort in an actual swordfight, no one in my group really knows or cares, but each of his swords had a "home." That's the bar that our group has, and it's admittedly pretty low.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that bar is sort of where I like things to be. I like to be able to justify it in a heroic and cinematic way.
(Not like in, say, Quake 3, where multiple scantily clad characters could pull one of seven weapons, including a rocket launcher as big as themselves, out of... well, really, just by reaching down.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
For those who return to the tired old cliche of 'but fireballs' you have to remember that many players/DMs see internal consistency and logic to be essential to maintaining immersive gameplay.
Yeah fireball is a perfect example of how 3rd edition did away with the obnoxious and quite frankly inane internal logic and balancing mechanics of prior editions. Of course the developers didn't replace it with anything but still they recognized that the style of logic was pretty bad.
|
Venture-Agent, Texas—Houston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dont' make up new rules to counter a perceived problem.
Got to agree. The real problem is the terrible 3.5 DR system (kept in PF for compatibility reasons) that requires a golf bag full of weapons for the fighter to just stay relevant.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I kinda dig the idea of a golf bag in theory, but not in practice. You would expect a hunter of exotic monsters to be carrying specialized weapons. However, in PF WBL and feat specialization pushes you to pick a single favorite weapon and enchant it hard enough to go through any DR.
A flexible ABP system could do that very differently. If your attack bonuses are less dependent on specific weapons and weapon types it's more okay to carry specialty weapons for specialty enemies.
---
The "realism" question that I encounter most in practice is the question: can you have a crossbow or sling pre-loaded before drawing it?
|
|
Dont' make up new rules to counter a perceived problem.
Fundamentally disagree.
If your statement had been "Don't make up new rules in PFS to counter a perceived problem", I'd be all with you; but that's not what you wrote.
You can't make up new rules in PFS, but to the many of us that completely understand the fact you can carry a golf bag is within the rules but think this is so egregious that it breaks verisimilitude in a world where magic items exist to manage this issue, new rules in a home game is the solution.
The game you play today wouldn't exist if somebody weren't making up new rules to counter perceived problems.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Dont' make up new rules to counter a perceived problem.Fundamentally disagree.
If your statement had been "Don't make up new rules in PFS to counter a perceived problem", I'd be all with you; but that's not what you wrote.
You can't make up new rules in PFS, but to the many of us that completely understand the fact you can carry a golf bag is within the rules but think this is so egregious that it breaks verisimilitude in a world where magic items exist to manage this issue, new rules in a home game is the solution.
The game you play today wouldn't exist if somebody weren't making up new rules to counter perceived problems.
Except as I pointed out earlier the original designers 3E did away with that sort of logic as a game design mechanic because it wasn't fun. As I said magic had an atrocious logic to it that they just did away because it was bad.
|
It bothers me more there's no official hyperspace storage for melee weapons like the efficient quiver for bows or the endless bandolier for guns.
A Scabbard of Many Blades both soothes your savaged mind and gives your player the advantage of not having to drop his weapon. Granted, it's only for four weapons, but that's still a very handy way to carry things.
|
|
As someone who once upon a time tried to enforce logic like this in games he GM'd (outside of PFS of course), all I can say is its not worth it.
Yeah, as a simulationist these kinds of things come off as inherently ridiculous. Its natural to want your world to make sense and be somewhat logically consistent. You could try to enforce players tracking the stowed locations of all of their weapons and polearms and the like. My own experience is that players find this level of realism to be a drag on the game.
Its extra bookkeeping, it limits the versatility of characters who rely on inherently not very versatile roles (ie. martial/melee types), and it opens all sorts of fiddly questions and concerns for your players (can I fit through this doorway, etc).
The game accepts a certain amount of abstraction in many areas for the sake of playability and flow. Carrying capacity and gear is one of them.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dont' make up new rules to counter a perceived problem.Fundamentally disagree.
If your statement had been "Don't make up new rules in PFS to counter a perceived problem", I'd be all with you; but that's not what you wrote.
You can't make up new rules in PFS, but to the many of us that completely understand the fact you can carry a golf bag is within the rules but think this is so egregious that it breaks verisimilitude in a world where magic items exist to manage this issue, new rules in a home game is the solution.
The game you play today wouldn't exist if somebody weren't making up new rules to counter perceived problems.
This thread is currently in the PFS section of this board, thus my quick answer was in this context.
Of, course the thread (aside from the OP mentioning his PFS group) is really not specific to PFS so it does not have to be here.
Outside if organized play you are correct and encouraged to tinker with the rules to suit your playstyle... if I ever try WotR again, I already have pages of changes I would need to make.
However, since I have heard way too many second-hand stories of GMs who "took liberties", I am a little bit sensitive on the subject.
|
|
From what I hear from people who shoot bows in their free time, carrying them around strung all the time isn't good either. So the "wear and tear" is something I'll just ignore.
It's the "won't the arrow/slingstone fall out" bit that gets people bothered.
An arrow is a free action to knock, doesn't need to be in the bow.
A crossbow has a mechanism for holding the bolt on there pretty securely. Not baby in a craddle secure, but close enough for state work.
A sling can be wrapped around the rock, I mean the entire point of the pouch is that it holds the rock while you're whirling it around in a circle , and you can wrap the string around the other side. Arguably it would be faster to take it out loaded, let the rock straighten the sling out than to try to untangle it unweighted. (Both would take far longer than a move action or as part of a movebut hey, people want to get on with killing things)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
From what I hear from people who shoot bows in their free time, carrying them around strung all the time isn't good either. So the "wear and tear" is something I'll just ignore.
It's the "won't the arrow/slingstone fall out" bit that gets people bothered.
An arrow is a free action to knock, doesn't need to be in the bow.
A crossbow has a mechanism for holding the bolt on there pretty securely. Not baby in a craddle secure, but close enough for state work.
A sling can be wrapped around the rock, I mean the entire point of the pouch is that it holds the rock while you're whirling it around in a circle , and you can wrap the string around the other side. Arguably it would be faster to take it out loaded, let the rock straighten the sling out than to try to untangle it unweighted. (Both would take far longer than a move action or as part of a movebut hey, people want to get on with killing things)
These are good points. And they're poor weapons anyway. I suppose I can be more lenient in this as GM.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Scientist here. If I start making "logic" based arguments for games I will quickly sap the fun out of them. I'm reminded of a saying it is easier to wear shoes then to carpet the whole world.
I don't want to dismiss your problem but if you are like me you will see 100 of these issues a game. For me I just determined physics and physiology are different here some one with a pick made of the right metal can go through feet of stone a minute without fatigue so they also have preternatural coordination that lets them swap weapons and carry them without problems. Or make everything a folding version in your head cannon. You can also make a head cannon for really well developed sheaths that aid this combat style.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a head cannon, why would you need any other weapons?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I call it the 'I have one of those' character builds.
Oh, you mean a properly prepared L3 martial character who is ready for various DRs and has tactically compensated for having reach weapon?
It's not 'one of those' characters, it's player who understands the PF system, his role and how to be effective in combat. I would be very happy to have one of 'those' at my table.
At L3, a Wizard is carving out extradimensional spaces (Create Pit), conjuring creatures from other planes of existence (Summon Monster 2), or permanently removing your senses (Blindness/Deafness).
It's pretty silly to get all out of sorts about stowing weapons.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Melee martials have enough problems. I don't think they need another.
If it really bothers you, my advice is to make up consistent rules for it, discuss with your players ahead of time, and consider taking other steps to mitigate problems like DR. You should also consider avoiding sunder or other effects that damage weapons.
Springing such rules on players as a surprise is... not always taken well by the players.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why? Why such a reaction to the use of spells in public?
because i can tell when the guy with a knife is using it to stab my kidney or cut his cheese sandwhich. I have no idea if the caster is cleaning their laundry or about to unleash a mushroom cloud that will level four city blocks. even after the spell is cast i don't know if he has clean underwear or just made the town guard his mind slave.