| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
People like to discuss and debate things. Your doing it and I don't assume you have some overly strong emotions attached to defending balls.
We are probably way past the point of anything useful coming up and the thread has already been pruned once, so it may be time to go find some other minutae to debate.
Three times and it's not about balls. It's about stifling creativity and asking that the game be written to such exacting standards that they're handcuffing writers. We've had similar threads for spells like Approximate, feats like Underworld Connections or Pickpocket. It's the same argument and it boils down to "why can't this thing be exactly what I want?" sidestepping people who wrote the thing, use the thing, or just like it. Then there's a host of "this content shouldn't exist for x, y, and z reasons." And it's not like the posters are new people. It's the same ones. It's the same people arguing the same things every time. It's just that the topic isn't a fun cantrip, now it's a fun item.
Let people enjoy things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is there a problem with giving a cost, bulk, and handedness to an item that is almost entirely for flavor?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is there a problem with giving a cost, bulk, and handedness to an item that is almost entirely for flavor?
The problem with the ball is that the handedness means that it doesn't work for a significant amount of the flavor uses you might want it for: the listed ball can't be used for kick ball of fetch with a dog. If the answer is 'dm fiat', then listing game mechanics is a waste of space if it's expected the dm is going to ignore it to make it work: handedness just ends up being a hindrance to it's flavor IMO.
And for the whole section, IMO you could have fit several more flavor items in that space it you didn't include the mechanical format for the item [my personal opinion].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is there a problem with giving a cost, bulk, and handedness to an item that is almost entirely for flavor?The problem with the ball is that the handedness means that it doesn't work for a significant amount of the flavor uses you might want it for: the listed ball can't be used for kick ball of fetch with a dog. If the answer is 'dm fiat', then listing game mechanics is a waste of space if it's expected the dm is going to ignore it to make it work: handedness just ends up being a hindrance to it's flavor IMO.
And for the whole section, IMO you could have fit several more flavor items in that space it you didn't include the mechanical format for the item [my personal opinion].
Did all of these pages mean nothing?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is there a problem with giving a cost, bulk, and handedness to an item that is almost entirely for flavor?The problem with the ball is that the handedness means that it doesn't work for a significant amount of the flavor uses you might want it for: the listed ball can't be used for kick ball of fetch with a dog. If the answer is 'dm fiat', then listing game mechanics is a waste of space if it's expected the dm is going to ignore it to make it work: handedness just ends up being a hindrance to it's flavor IMO.
And for the whole section, IMO you could have fit several more flavor items in that space it you didn't include the mechanical format for the item [my personal opinion].
Please point out the rule that says you can’t kick a ball.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely don't know anybody who has such a weirdly prescriptive view of game mechanics that they would say "well, a kite requires 1 hand, so you can't hold the string in your teeth for a minute" or "a paint set requires 2 hands, so you can't just set your palette on a table next to your easel" or "blocks are held in 2 hands, so you cannot pick up two blocks with one hand".
Like the rules are a framework to enable a fun game for the players and the GM, not a complete accounting of the physics of the diagesis.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Doods… we’ve had 4 pages of arguing… over a ball. In a fantasy tabletop game.
I’m not being hyperbolic.
You're telling us we're having a meltdown because we are arguing about the importance of mechanics (or lack thereof) in certain items (the ball just so happens to be the prime part of the discussion). Something which, I might add, you are also a part of and adding to.
You're just as much a part of the problem as everyone else when you can do a simple thing of just not continue to participate in the thread. I really only hopped in because people kept miscontruing the point being made, which is that items primarily for fluff shouldn't have hardbaked mechanics into their entries when a fluff item is really more for the GM to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis, not the rules.
Yes, I say that because you’re letting a ball of all thing live rent free in your head and kick out all the roommates. A ball.
I’m not really, if I didn’t respond it wouldn’t remove the initial post, and you [general] would still be posting and the thread and silliness would continue even if I did nothing, so trying to paint yourself as the moral high ground and enlightened debater accomplishes nothing other than a base grab for moral superiority.
I didn’t start these arguments. Me being silent on the matter wouldn’t make everyone get along.
Behold the greatest of all itens from Grand Bazaar!
Paizo! Why do you do this things? Why put such useless item in gameplay so later after the core rule book. Is it just a joke? A bloat to complete some book blank space? Seriously please stop put useless things in the books this just keeps us from finding useful things.
I totally agree! While it's nice seeing it offset by the ample section on prosthetics and assistive items for the differently abled it would have been better if we got more animal companions or familiars, weapons, or anything else.
That said, if two pages of useless entries for toys is the price we had to pay for the Poppet ancestry, I'm more than okay with that!
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the toys section is useless. I think it's useful in the sense of "someone looking through an item table is going to see a kite is a thing, and have an idea for something to do with a kite that they might not have had otherwise."
They're basically prompts a la "figure out something to do with marbles".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely don't know anybody who has such a weirdly prescriptive view of game mechanics that they would say "well, a kite requires 1 hand, so you can't hold the string in your teeth for a minute" or "a paint set requires 2 hands, so you can't just set your palette on a table next to your easel" or "blocks are held in 2 hands, so you cannot pick up two blocks with one hand".
Then the game mechanics attached to it and the room they took up are meaningless aren't they? That would be the point I've been making. So if everyone think that no DM would ever say you couldn't kick a ball then the line with "Hands 1; Usage held in 1 hand;" is just filler: remove the mechanics you say don't matter and it goes to 1/2 the space [8 lines to 4]; multiply that by 13 'flavor' items and it's a pretty big chuck of space on what you guys keep saying 'no GM would ever go by' [even more if you just list items, cost and a brief description]...
I don't think the toys section is useless.
Not me either: personally I always loved the old 'Volo's guide to' books that gave out descriptions of shops and items they sell. It's cool to know how much things like bacon, cider and/or hookah cost but I don't need the game telling me how many hands it takes to use them. :P
Please point out the rule that says you can’t kick a ball.
Ball: "Hands 1; Usage held in 1 hand;"
Hands: "This lists how many hands it takes to use the item effectively."
Usage: "An item’s stat block includes a Usage entry that indicates whether a character must be holding or wearing the item in order to use it, or whether she instead must have it etched or affixed onto another item."
So a usage entry of the ball indicates a ball MUST be held in a hand in order to use it... :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So a usage entry of the ball indicates a ball MUST be held in a hand in order to use it... :P
Yes, and? Why does that stop me from kicking a ball, but not from kicking anything else in the game? I can kick a ruler without needing hands. I can whack anything with a stick.
This just seems like the most pedantic argument to have for the sake of arguing, with little care given to how this affects writers or design moving forward. Much like Bulk, it's in the game, you can't change it now, but you can sure stifle creativity when the next ball comes around.
I don't think the toys section is useless. I think it's useful in the sense of "someone looking through an item table is going to see a kite is a thing, and have an idea for something to do with a kite that they might not have had otherwise."
They're basically prompts a la "figure out something to do with marbles".
A very good point indeed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I genuinely don't know anybody who has such a weirdly prescriptive view of game mechanics that they would say "well, a kite requires 1 hand, so you can't hold the string in your teeth for a minute" or "a paint set requires 2 hands, so you can't just set your palette on a table next to your easel" or "blocks are held in 2 hands, so you cannot pick up two blocks with one hand".Then the game mechanics attached to it and the room they took up are meaningless aren't they? That would be the point I've been making. So if everyone think that no DM would ever say you couldn't kick a ball then the line with "Hands 1; Usage held in 1 hand;" is just filler: remove the mechanics you say don't matter and it goes to 1/2 the space [8 lines to 4]; multiply that by 13 'flavor' items and it's a pretty big chuck of space on what you guys keep saying 'no GM would ever go by' [even more if you just list items, cost and a brief description]...
Also have to note that, as has been said in the thread multiple times already, this isn't how page space works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need any hands to use an item ineffectively though. One could argue that "throwing a ball with your hands just works better than kicking it".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need any hands to use an item ineffectively though. One could argue that "throwing a ball with your hands just works better than kicking it".
For the Hands requirement you'd be correct but not for the Usage: that has a "must" in it.
Yes, and? Why does that stop me from kicking a ball, but not from kicking anything else in the game?
The Usage rule. You can't use it without holding it in a hand period. "An item’s stat block includes a Usage entry that indicates whether a character must be holding or wearing the item in order to use it": You'd have to be saying that kicking a ball isn't using one, and that IMO is MUCH more pedantic than reading the rules as they are literally spelled out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also have to note that, as has been said in the thread multiple times already, this isn't how page space works.
*shrug* All I know is that it took up more space that it should IMO. If that's not how t does work, IMO it should. Heck, I'd rather see another picture than mechanics that I'm being told don't matter and no one should pay attention to. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need any hands to use an item ineffectively though. One could argue that "throwing a ball with your hands just works better than kicking it".For the Hands requirement you'd be correct but not for the Usage: that has a "must" in it.
Yes, and? Why does that stop me from kicking a ball, but not from kicking anything else in the game?The Usage rule. You can't use it without holding it in a hand period. "An item’s stat block includes a Usage entry that indicates whether a character must be holding or wearing the item in order to use it": You'd have to be saying that kicking a ball isn't using one, and that IMO is MUCH more pedantic than reading the rules as they are literally spelled out.
I use a ball by throwing it. Anything else is just gravy.
Also have to note that, as has been said in the thread multiple times already, this isn't how page space works.*shrug* All I know is that it took up more space that it should IMO. If that's not how t does work, IMO it should. Heck, I'd rather see another picture than mechanics that I'm being told don't matter and no one should pay attention to. :P
Except that if you look at this thread, it's clear that they do matter to people. Usage in encounter mode is relevant, not so much in exploration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess the takeaway is "you cannot play soccer or fetch in a high stress and/or combat situation".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess the takeaway is "you cannot play soccer or fetch in a high stress and/or combat situation".
The obvious solution is a new archetype: Combat Sportsman
The standard I would suggest is: you can always effectively use an item fulfilling its usage requirements. In exploration mode or downtime mode you can also use the item basically any other way you care to describe.
Like if you want to practice swordfighting with your rapier held between your teeth, downtime is the time to do that.
Relevant =/= required
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like when you're in the realm of "things that are literally toys" everybody understands that you're in the realm of "things that are GM fiat, presumably just 'yes, and'ing the players".
Like the joke is pretty much "treating a toy like a useful item, and giving the mechanics."
You'll note that the description does not make the distinction between super bouncy balls, soccer balls, golf balls, rugby balls, tennis balls, billiards balls, rubber band balls, super happy fun balls, bowling balls, lacrosse balls, or volleyballs when those should all have different mechanics. If the players or the GM want to make the actual kind of ball matter, they can.
This is not "Fantasy Fantasy Sports" after all.
...Golarion sports joking aside, the main concern here is likely that, while it is a toy, a ball is also extremely useful for a creative adventurer. Spell target, distraction, projectile, message delivery system, animal handling implement, trap detector, hostage silencer, and a lot of other things. So, some people probably feel that having a specific rule defined for the ball's usage could place unwanted and unexpected limits on this creativity, in ways that its creator probably didn't anticipate because it's "just a toy".
Think about it like this: If "Marbles" was described as "You use marbles by placing them in a novelty Rube-Goldberg contraption and watching them roll down, or by playing one of these three childrens' games with them," would that disallow also using them by dumping the bag under your pursuers' feet (a la the actual description)? It's a more pedantic discussion than that (because really, I think most of us here on the forum tend to be pedantic about rules, at least when discussing them in a void here), but still the same basic idea underneath the pedantry.
So a usage entry of the ball indicates a ball MUST be held in a hand in order to use it... :PYes, and? Why does that stop me from kicking a ball, but not from kicking anything else in the game? I can kick a ruler without needing hands. I can whack anything with a stick.
Primarily because kicking a ball is an actual, intended use case. In the real world, we don't consider kicking a ruler to be using the ruler, but we do consider kicking a ball to be using the ball (in many cases, depending on the type of ball).
From that, the thread's primary observation is that if kicking the ball is considered to be using it, then the usage rules mean that you must kick the ball with one hand (and no feet). It's an observation of the weirdness of actually treating the game's rules as rules here, more than anything else.
using the object in a way it wasn't intended incurs a -2 penalty, in the same way as using a Longsword's pommel to Strike an enemy
...Wait, you get a penalty for mordhauing?
...Wait, you get a penalty for mordhauing?
Well, most sword stances are focused on being in a good position to hit people with the blade of the sword, which means they are less efficient for using to pommel strike, so a -2 penalty makes sense.
Heck, the main stance I was taught has the sword held horizontally above/behind your head, and is a very suboptimal position from which to pommel strike.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is possibly the silliest debate I've ever seen here.
Thanks for the laugh, all!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, but the first rule is rule 0. But what GM is going to say "no" to "I kick the ball back in the direction of the children who were kicking it around"?
One of the GM's responsibilities is to figure out stuff that's sensible but the rulebook doesn't tell you what to do (e.g. throwing a fireball at the couch.)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are no rules for licking a door. Nevertheless, I'm not going to say "no, you can't lick the door" if somebody really wanted to.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written, it is impossible to kick it. And using 2 hands has no effect.
As for what GM would say that - any PFS GM, the vast majority of GMs I've played with.
1) PFS is different by necessity, and we all know that.
2) If so you need to find more GMs that are willing to allow players to improvise, since that's half the game.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for what GM would say that - any PFS GM, the vast majority of GMs I've played with.
PFS GM here (it really isn't the elite club people seem to make it out to be, just volunteer at your LGS), what are you talking about?
"I'd like to kick the ball."
"Yeah, okay."
No GM I have ever met would ever say you can't kick a ball, this includes PFS GMs. Do you think we get dragged out back and shot if we miss a rule or - most damning of all - not play by a rule that a player thinks should be enforced at our table? (I had a very long screed on these very forums about me in PF1 because I didn't let a summoner use a wand to cast enlarge person on his eidolon.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
As written, it is impossible to kick it. And using 2 hands has no effect.
As for what GM would say that - any PFS GM, the vast majority of GMs I've played with.
Technically, there's no "breathe" action that players can take, which means everyone on Golarion should die of suffocation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for what GM would say that - any PFS GM, the vast majority of GMs I've played with.PFS GM here (it really isn't the elite club people seem to make it out to be, just volunteer at your LGS), what are you talking about?
"I'd like to kick the ball."
"Yeah, okay."
No GM I have ever met would ever say you can't kick a ball, this includes PFS GMs. Do you think we get dragged out back and shot if we miss a rule or - most damning of all - not play by a rule that a player thinks should be enforced at our table? (I had a very long screed on these very forums about me in PF1 because I didn't let a summoner use a wand to cast enlarge person on his eidolon.)
Also -- another PFS GM here -- I totally agree with Ruzza here. People for some reason assume that all PFS GMs are in a completely rigid rules strait jacket. But really, I go with the flow on the small stuff. If my players want to kick a ball or give it to their animal companion, I say, "Have fun!"
Hmm
PS Any bets on how long it will take to errata the ball?