|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It will really come down to the type of campaign the GM is running and how accessible needed items are. If the GM is not giving out the items the players need either as treasure or, being able to purchase that can be a big problem. If the GM is providing the equipment the players need through normal channels crafting is necessary. If the game is using the ABP rules that is going to greatly reduce for crafting.
There is a big difference between "the item the players want" and "the items the characters need".
Some player will want a +1 holy katana while playing a Viking-themed game because it has a better critical than a +3 bastard sword, but what the character need is a good magical weapon in which he is proficient.
So, as I see it, the characters should have access to what they need, be it through crafting, loot, or the market. Giving access to what they want isn't so mandatory, as something that is unbalancing or simply inappropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of this discussion comes down to playstyle.
As I've already stated I've houseruled a whole bunch of changes that make crafting low power one shot items quite possible but more powerful permanent items are mostly from a previous age. I also largely discourage mundane crafting by making it expensive in terms of skill points and do not provide the downtime for it.
At the same time I don't really care about WBL. There are no branches of the 'Ye Olde Magick Shoppe' department store chain to be found. The characters magic items are largely limited to what I hand out in treasure and if they want something specific they are going to have to buy me a beer roleplay either convincing one of the few capable craftsmen capable of making such an item and getting in line behind the royal families who are also after such an item or find someone who already has one and convince them to part with it.
Edit: But not everybody's playstyle is the same. I like the politics and world building side of the game. Others just like the power-ups and endless combat encounters with GP being a high score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player has a build that requires a specific weapon I consider having a magic version of that weapon a need not a want, especially if the build involves feats or class abilities. I want my players to be able to play their character concept and will work with them to make sure they can. I optimize the NPC’s the players go up against so not allowing the players the same advantage is unfair. Handing out a +3 bastard sword to the samurai specialized in the katana and telling him to be satisfied is a dick move.
I prefer to have the focus of the game be on role playing and the characters instead of treasure. By allowing the players access to what they want within reason I keep the focus on the characters instead of treasure. I want to run an adventure movie, not an infomercial. How many fantasy novels focus on characters creating items?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a player has a build that depends on a magic weapon that they don't know will eventuate is being foolhardy, if not foolish. If a player has a build that depends upon them acquiring the Emporer's prized katana then they have a plot hook.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having a build that relies on a specific unique magic weapon that is not a class feature is foolish. Having a build that relies on a specific type of weapon is fine. With feats like weapon focus and weapon specialization a character should be able to find a suitable weapon with minimal difficulty.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If thats true, the spell should mention that you can't take 10 on craft checks. I suppose its another problem with the fabricate spell. I'll rule that you can take 10 on craft checks when using fabricate.You should be able to take 10 when using fabricate to craft items with high degrees of craftsmanship.You are casting a spell, so you are distracted from crafting. You can't take 10 (barring specific abilities that allow you to do that while distracted).
It is not a rule of the spell, it is a rule of taking 10.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.
You need to concentrate while casting, so you are distracted it you take other actions while doing so.
Concentration
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player has a build that requires a specific weapon I consider having a magic version of that weapon a need not a want, especially if the build involves feats or class abilities. I want my players to be able to play their character concept and will work with them to make sure they can. I optimize the NPC’s the players go up against so not allowing the players the same advantage is unfair. Handing out a +3 bastard sword to the samurai specialized in the katana and telling him to be satisfied is a dick move.
I prefer to have the focus of the game be on role playing and the characters instead of treasure. By allowing the players access to what they want within reason I keep the focus on the characters instead of treasure. I want to run an adventure movie, not an infomercial. How many fantasy novels focus on characters creating items?
Making a samurai in a Viking setting and pretending to be treated as it was normal in that setting is a dick move.
And it isn't role-playing it is roll-play where what matter is getting more power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, with feats like weapon focus and other things players might want I would consider it bad GMing to not drop weapons of the type the player wants.
However, I do consider it necessary to drop specific magic weapons or weapons with specific special abilities for players, only enhancement bonuses being dropped of that weapon type are "mandatory". Or at least the ability to buy them.
Now I don't restrict access to what players can really buy aside form WBL anyways, but if I were inclined to do so I wouldn't be dropping agile kukris all the time just to make dex based martial builds happy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, with feats like weapon focus and other things players might want I would consider it bad GMing to not drop weapons of the type the player wants.
So, if the setting has bastard swords and not katanas as it is a Viking setting, someone taking a weapon proficiency in something that is totally outside of the setting "acquires" the right to get that kind of item?
Again, to me, it seems a dick move, like the player that makes a paladin in a pirate game and pretends that the other player should follow his rules of conduct or the player that makes a follower of Hatur when all other characters are lawfully good and the campaign is meant to be about being good and heroic champions of the gods.
Players taking hostage of the game and asking all other players to follow their whims.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, with feats like weapon focus and other things players might want I would consider it bad GMing to not drop weapons of the type the player wants.So, if the setting has bastard swords and not katanas as it is a Viking setting, someone taking a weapon proficiency in something that is totally outside of the setting "acquires" the right to get that kind of item?
Again, to me, it seems a dick move, like the player that makes a paladin in a pirate game and pretends that the other player should follow his rules of conduct or the player that makes a follower of Hatur when all other characters are lawfully good and the campaign is meant to be about being good and heroic champions of the gods.
Players taking hostage of the game and asking all other players to follow their whims.
Sorry, I guess I'm assuming the player makes their character in such a way that provides some sort of reasoning as to why the character even knows what a katana is.
Like perhaps their character is from an in setting Japan equivalent and ended up in the in setting Scandinavian lands.
Also I feel this is very different from the other examples you gave.
Throwing in a paladin in a pirate campaign and expecting everyone else who signed up to be pirates (not known for good or generosity) is impacting the ability of the other players to play their characters the way they wanted. Same for a player creating a CE character in a party of lawful good characters. The character would be disruptive to the group, and if not for the fact that it's a player character, the other characters probably wouldn't even consider traveling with the PC in question. Those are legitimate examples of how a player can try to hold the game hostage and force other people to play on their terms and vision.
Saying that your character comes from a far away land and uses katanas while a bit unlikely, doesn't impact other players ability to run their characters the way they envisioned. It's really only asking the GM to either drop other katanas (which seems as unlikely as the character showing up in the first place) or for the ability of the character to befriend a smith who can help them upgrade and keep their favorite weapon relevant.
Like I understand if your running a certain kind of setting that you want to have "only" viking stuff in the setting, so aside from the katana the character presumably would start with, they shouldn't expect to find others as loot. That's fine as long as your willing to work with them to have ways to upgrade their starting katana to keep pace.
I don't think that request is in any way unreasonable, while the other examples are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I said I use the APB rules so the need to drop a specific weapon is not as important. It only really matters for weapons with abilities other than straight enchantment bonuses. Even if I were not using them I would still make sure the character got some sort of magic katana. I would not be changing everything, but I would make sure there is something there for him. Probably be found is a treasure hoard or for sale in a town so it does not impact the rest of the game.
Almost all characters need access to specific things, or they are at a huge disadvantage. A wizard without access to spells beside those they get from leveling up is at a huge disadvantage. How many people would want to play a wizard if they only had 4 spells known of every spell level beyond first? Is the wizard taking the game hostage because I have to put in scrolls and spell books for him in a setting where sorcerers are the normal arcane caster?
Playing a paladin is a pirate campaign is a dick move because it is creating a conflict between the players that cannot really be resolved. A fundamental conflict between a character and the rest of the party that cannot be resolved without altering one or more characters is a completely different than a character needing something that will not affect the rest of the party. The wizard needs a spell book to even function, should I not allow wizard because of that?
How is wanting to play a samurai instead of a paladin roll-playing? The paladin in probably going to be more powerful especially in a game that focuses on fighting evil. Players should be allowed to play what they want as long as it does not conflict with other characters and can function in the campaign.
There are types of game I don’t enjoy running and will not run them, but other than that I want my players to have fun and enjoy themselves. That is more important than anything else in the game. If a player has a concept they want to play, and it does not conflict with the game I want to play I will work with the player to make the concept work. For example, I don’t enjoy running evil game, so I don’t allow evil characters. If the player wants to play a samurai in a Viking setting, I will work with the player to fit the character into the game. I am not going to change the setting but will figure why the character is in the setting.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I guess I'm assuming the player makes their character in such a way that provides some sort of reasoning as to why the character even knows what a katana is.
Like perhaps their character is from an in setting Japan equivalent and ended up in the in setting Scandinavian lands
Pathfinder assumes such anachronisms are ordinary. Many of the core weapons are also historically from different cultures and times, all thrown together into a fantasy soup. I don’t see why a katana should necessarily be treated any differently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I'm getting: the only reason to ban/restrict crafting is to benefit the GM. Maybe it's a "playstyle" that the GM gets to decide whatever items the PCs are worthy of having; maybe they're trying to protect game balance or force PCs to accept McGuffin quests they have planned so that the plot stays on their track. Maybe the GM just doesn't enjoy Downtime scenes/scenarios or doesn't want to detour their plots for lengthy crafting times. Whatever the case, the only real reason to remove the crafting is b/c the GM doesn't like it.
Fine. This isn't MY cup of tea but at least most of respondents in this thread say that they tell their players these things up front. Chell's post in this thread however brings up the concern I have; when GM's run games based mostly on their own whims vs those of their players, there is the temptation to derail previously established crafting capabilities for the sake of the GM and nothing more.
That is... frustrating.
Tbh, I find the compulsion for a GM to ban crafting or certain items to take away from the PC's experience. There are some items that are absolute campaign wreckers though, so I understand why GM's would ban things like Deck of Many Things and other similar items. But if it's not a "campaign-wrecker", it should be available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there are absolutely certain tactics and items that have an outsized effect on game play where it can be frustrating for a GM to deal with.
A classic was someone with sneak attack picking up the Saltspray ring and a Goz mask (or similar ability to see through fog) to give the concealment, a great defensive buff, and allow them to ranged sneak attack without a lot of hoops.
It is very effective, with rogues being able to get full sneak attack damage virtually all the time with a constant 50% miss chance for attacks targeting them. It's a lot more effective than such low price items should enable, and while not "campaign wrecking" definitely enables a style of play on behalf of that character that borders on too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I'm getting: the only reason to ban/restrict crafting is to benefit the GM.
Yup, same reason the GM bans anything overpowered or overcomplicated - because they don't like having the extra workload of rebalancing the campaign around you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I'm getting: the only reason to ban/restrict crafting is to benefit the GM.Yup, same reason the GM bans anything overpowered or overcomplicated - because they don't like having the extra workload of rebalancing the campaign around you.
Ehhh, there is an additional reason beyond GM benefit, which can be to help balancing between different PCs.
However, it's entirely possible to have "average" PCs and "overpowered" PCs even if all you allowed was the CRB of PF1 and allowed no crafting.
In fact it tends to be the case that martial characters only allowed the CRB were pretty tame while wizards had all they needed to break things in that one book.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying that your character comes from a far away land and uses katanas while a bit unlikely, doesn't impact other players ability to run their characters the way they envisioned. It's really only asking the GM to either drop other katanas (which seems as unlikely as the character showing up in the first place) or for the ability of the character to befriend a smith who can help them upgrade and keep their favorite weapon relevant.
Like I understand if your running a certain kind of setting that you want to have "only" viking stuff in the setting, so aside from the katana the character presumably would start with, they shouldn't expect to find others as loot. That's fine as long as your willing to work with them to have ways to upgrade their starting katana to keep pace.
While I would be mostly against a samurai in a Viking setting, if the player was capable to convince me of his idea I would have no problem with the character upgrading the enchantment on his katana or finding someone capable to do that.
I would be against him pretending to find katanas and wakizashis in the loot.There are types of game I don’t enjoy running and will not run them, but other than that I want my players to have fun and enjoy themselves. That is more important than anything else in the game. If a player has a concept they want to play, and it does not conflict with the game I want to play I will work with the player to make the concept work. For example, I don’t enjoy running evil game, so I don’t allow evil characters. If the player wants to play a samurai in a Viking setting, I will work with the player to fit the character into the game. I am not going to change the setting but will figure why the character is in the setting.
If the GM needs to go to lengths to justify why the character is in the setting and to adapt the setting so that he gets his toys, the character is taking the game hostage.
He is trying to have the game revolve around him.With most of my players being interested in history and setting consistency, forcing the introduction of anachronistic and out-of-setting stuff do impact other people's play and fun.
Forcing the setting in a way that is very divergent from its intended theme impact, as a minimum, the GM fun, and the GM is a player.
I generally propose several campaign themes before starting and the players select the one they think seems more interesting.
So, if the setting selected was Vikings, a player saying "I wanted samurai, I will make a samurai, I should get samurai stuff and samurai-appropriate adventures." is disrupting other people's fun.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interestingly the only time I ban crafting is when I don't think it would be a very satisfying experience for the players. If the campaign doesn't have a home base, regular downtime and opportunites for the crafting to shine, I'll be up front with the players that I'm discouraging the choice due to the adventure path or narrative not making space and rewarding those choices.
Interestingly if I'm going to discourage crafting like this, I'll also discourage base Magus, Wizard and Witch. The campaign likely won't have enough downtime for spell research and the players will feel deeply frustrated they can't be rewarded for picking a versatile spell caster.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason a samurai cannot participate in any adventure in a Viking setting. There is also no reason they cannot use western armor. About the only thing they may need is a specific weapon due to weapon expertise. This is really not that different than a fighter or other martial class. A swashbuckler or fighter is also going to need a specific weapon. Most combat focused classes are going to need specific weapons. Is the warpriest of Sarenrae taking the game hostage because they need a scimitar? How about the archer who needs a composite bow with a STR rating that matches the character?
If all I need to do is to make sure there is a katana or two that the character can acquire that is not taking the game hostage. This is less intrusive and has less impact on other party members than most characters. Having a paladin in the party is going to have more impact than that. Does that mean I need to ban paladins in a Viking setting? What about wizards or alchemists needing access to spells and wanting downtime to write scrolls or create potions? I guess that means no alchemists or wizards. This is going to end up restricting classes to a select few.
I enjoy working with my players to create an interesting campaign where everyone can have fun. Working with a player to figure out how to work his character into the game is part of the fun. I would rather spend time coming up with a background for a unique character than have a character with a generic background. If all the characters don’t require any thought as why they are adventuring that is boring ruins the fun for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player I find the crafting aspect of the game one of the most boring parts. At our table there is never enough time in game to cover everyone’s crafting requirements so at the end of each session all the players sit around for half an hour arguing about what the crafting priorities should be. Our sessions are typically 3-4 hours total, so 30 minutes doing what seems like administrative work feels like a drag.
I would rather:
A) Make crafting exciting, make magic items dangerous to make, require side quests, and have interesting flaws.
Or
B) Just dispense with crafting and make magic items cheaper to buy and more available.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what I'm getting: the only reason to ban/restrict crafting is to benefit the GM.
I strongly disagree. The players benefit from a challenging and flavorful campaign. The players benefit from me being able to quickely add PCs if they did something I didn't (or couldn't have) prepared for, without having to carefully read through a bunch of stat blocks for monsters with a CR significantly higher than the party, to see if they have one-shot abilities. The other players benefit when they can progress with the campaign at a logically pace without having to wait for the PC of the guy who loves his crafting.
Quite frankly, I find the implications of some posters here that banning crafting is some selfish thing for the GM to do outright insulting. I truly believe that I can make the campaign I'm GMing more enjoyable for the players by banning crafting, how the f&!@ is that "to benefit the GM"?
1 item can take, like, 16 days of Downtime. I handwave most of the narration but the PCs still have to deal with the any consequence of hanging around the city for 16 days. If they go off adventuring, the item is still being crafted in 2 hour increments but that's just delaying things further.
My issue is that feats the players select are supposed to have a benefit. If I offset crafting with less loot, or make the game so fast-paced that they can only craft an item every five levels, I'm basically robbing my players of a benefit they paid for.
Thing is, I don't think item crafting is what enables it or acts as the impetus. Players willing to negatively disrupt gameplay with these behaviors are going to do them whether or not they are making magic items.
I'm GMing for players comperatively new to P&P RPG, but with 20ish years of experience in games like D2 and WoW. My players don't optimize their characters to "win the game", break the campaign, or show off, but rather because it's simply natural to them.
I myself have pretty much broken a campaign with my character purely by accident. My Summoner had Craft Wondrous Items, and I outright stopped using the feat because our party was already too strong. Sure, the GM could have done more adjusting the AP, but playing is supposed to be fun for the GM, too, and who am I to demand from him to put in that extra work after he gets home form his job?
Personally, I like crafting because it allows me to make stuff that normally will not be found in the game.
One of the first items I made in Carrion crown was a pair of fingerless gloves for a character that was a Changeling and had a strong complex about her non-human features. Based on Alter Self they had a limited polymorph effect that allowed her to change her claws to normal fingernails and slightly alter her features. The net effect was giving her a +10 to disguise herself as a human while losing the claw attack. There was no bonus to disguising as a different person.
This is interesting, because I have the exact same motivation.. for banning crafting feats. As a GM, I like giving my players exactly the kind of stuff you describe, and I don't want them be able to craft something that's mechanically better but less flavorful. I prefer if m players don't have to chose between flavorful magic items and mechanical benefit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all I need to do is to make sure there is a katana or two that the character can acquire that is not taking the game hostage.
If you chose to play a samuria in a viking setting, and insist on usign a katana, and demand to find katanas as loot knowing that it's absolutely not setting appropriate... yes, that's exactly "taking the game hostage". It's your duty as a player to build a character that functions in the group and in the campaign.
Maybe you play with people who don't give a f*$# about immersion and flavorfulness. No judgement, but it doesn't apply to everyone. The people I play with would ask "where does it come from" if I drop a katana in a viking themed game's loot.
Does that mean I need to ban paladins in a Viking setting?
Possibly yes. I am actually currently GMing a campaign where the PCs are vikings in medieval Scotland, and I deliberately asked for neutral (on the good-evil axis) characters. Good-Evil-alignment in Pathfinder is absolute, not relative, which means you can't be a paragon of Good if your goal is to go to another country and plunder it with force of arms.
What about wizards or alchemists needing access to spells and wanting downtime to write scrolls or create potions? I guess that means no alchemists or wizards.
If you can't manage to play a Wizard without scrolls, or an Alchemist without potions, that's your problem. I'm a GM, not a kindergartener.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With most of my players being interested in history and setting consistency, forcing the introduction of anachronistic and out-of-setting stuff do impact other people's play and fun.
I guess the issue I have with this statement is that Golarion setting baseline (which I understand you may not use, or at least for this fantasy viking campaign you wouldn't but it does establish a baseline expectation) is full on anachronisms and lacks historicity.
So may personal baseline is that it's just the way things are. I understand others wont have the same baseline, and that if you're playing in a custom setting rather than Golarion it's good to establish what the baseline is. But the game system itself establishes a baseline.
Like, when the player brings the character to the table they should talk about what kind of character it is and that should clue you into the expectations. At some point they will/should probably mention using a katana in your Session 0, and at that point as a GM you should tell them "Hey sorry, our setting isn't going to have that. You'll have to plan on something else". If you don't do that before the game starts, and then don't make efforts to provide them a means to play the character in a reasonable fashion then you as the GM are at fault, not the player.
I don't think it's taking the game hostage though, once the character is in play, to expect to receive upgrades to the weapon they want to use. Whether it's somehow magically finding other katanas in places they shouldn't be, or working with a smith to craft a new one, or upgrade their current.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, with feats like weapon focus and other things players might want I would consider it bad GMing to not drop weapons of the type the player wants.So, if the setting has bastard swords and not katanas as it is a Viking setting, someone taking a weapon proficiency in something that is totally outside of the setting "acquires" the right to get that kind of item?
Again, to me, it seems a dick move, like the player that makes a paladin in a pirate game and pretends that the other player should follow his rules of conduct or the player that makes a follower of Hatur when all other characters are lawfully good and the campaign is meant to be about being good and heroic champions of the gods.
Players taking hostage of the game and asking all other players to follow their whims.
In Pathfinder, there's a Viking style village on a regular trade route to the Asian type settlements, Jade Regent AP actually has ninjas in the Viking settlement for you to encounter, and most wield wakizashi's or katanas. In fact, you pick up a named katana in the AP. so yeah, a katana wielding character in a Viking village is EXTREMELY plausible.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But only in Golarion, not in this theoretical Viking only fantasy setting
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh, I find the compulsion for a GM to ban crafting or certain items to take away from the PC's experience. There are some items that are absolute campaign wreckers though, so I understand why GM's would ban things like Deck of Many Things and other similar items. But if it's not a "campaign-wrecker", it should be available.Here's what I'm getting: the only reason to ban/restrict crafting is to benefit the GM. Maybe it's a "playstyle" that the GM gets to decide whatever items the PCs are worthy of having; maybe they're trying to protect game balance or force PCs to accept McGuffin quests they have planned so that the plot stays on their track. Maybe the GM just doesn't enjoy Downtime scenes/scenarios or doesn't want to detour their plots for lengthy crafting times. Whatever the case, the only real reason to remove the crafting is b/c the GM doesn't like it.
Fine. This isn't MY cup of tea but at least most of respondents in this thread say that they tell their players these things up front. Chell's post in this thread however brings up the concern I have; when GM's run games based mostly on their own whims vs those of their players, there is the temptation to derail previously established crafting capabilities for the sake of the GM and nothing more.
That is... frustrating.
Here's my thing R to the K: unless my players are absolute total noobs, they likely know some items like the Deck of Many Things are campaign-wreckers. If they still want them... its' EVERYONE'S campaign to wreck, including theirs. If the players are nihilists or shenanigan-types that just want to see the campaign world burn, let 'em.
There is NO story I've ever written for any of my home games that is so sacred and sacrosanct that it should be considered completely immune from player devastation. Period. Now again, as HR upthread says, this type of playstyle isn't for everyone and I don't expect everyone to get on board with me. At the end of the day...
Personally, I don't ban things very often, if at all. I even play with all 3pp content so that the PC's can achieve exactly what they want with their character. If a PC is still not happy with the available content, then we start custom-creating items/feats/classes/archetypes, whatever you want. And yeah, if they get super powerful for their level, then that's when I just scale up the encounters. Combat Manager is a godsend for this style of play because as the GM you can choose a level 8 mook and then add templates, HD, and beef up their CR to 21 in less than 30 seconds. Just add water and presto, you've got an encounter.
The Deck of Many Things isn't banned at my table, but I might disallow the PC's to get one until certain milestones in a campaign are met though. That way if they want to wreck the campaign, at least I got what I needed.
Whenever I GM, we play in my homebrew world, and I'm very much of the philosophy of "build something so that way you can destroy it". The world is a sandbox and everything in it are just sand castles waiting to be destroyed; I encourage my PC's to destroy my world on purpose, so honestly the Deck of Many Things hasn't ever *needed* to come into play to sate the PC's desire to destroy stuff or introduce chaos to the world. My PC's have even destroyed/dislodged entire continents, and I even helped them plan how to do it :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The big question here would be what do you consider a campaign wrecker?
Do you consider things that do not fit in the setting (or at least the GM's current plan for the game) but would not be mechanically a problem to be campaign-wreckers?
Honestly that is entirely up to the GM as to what they would consider a "campaign wrecker". Personally, I would consider a Deck of Many Things as THE ultimate campaign wrecker, but as far as other items, it would be a case-by-case basis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are creating a homebrew Viking setting that keeps true to the time period, you should ban everything that is not appropriate. That would include most heavy armor and many weapons. That means no crossbows (which were invented in China), or Rapiers. Historically Vikings used one handed swords and shields. The hand and a half and two-handed sword appeared later because of the advances in armor. Heavier weapons were needed to penetrate the stronger armors that were developed. That kind of limits a Viking setting to axes, spears, long swords, short swords and bows. The bastard sword and two-handed sword should also not exist.
The whole samurai argument is beside the point. My original point was that if a character has feats and class abilities tied to a specific weapon the GM should make appropriate weapons available to the character. A better example would be if a fighter is specialized in a spear and the GM does not allow him to acquire a magic spear that is a dick move.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DL, I apologize for the words I chose and the implications of selfishness. I can try to justify it or explain it away but I won't. I hurt your feelings, made you feel insulted and I apologize.
It's all good, no hurt feelings. I didn't take it as a personal insult. My post wasn't meant for my own sake, but rather for everyone who bans/limits crafting (or something else) in a genuine attempt at making the game more enjoyable for the players.
I'll send you a PM, too, but rest assured that I don't harbor any ill feelings towards you!
i'd only point out that a character can't craft the deck of many things as it's an minor artifact.
but a close 2nd is crafting the silent aviary
- which truthfully did break the game in my case. but it was coupled with 10 levels of Harrower and the fortunate trait. allowing for a best out of 4 draw each day.
If you are creating a homebrew Viking setting that keeps true to the time period, you should ban everything that is not appropriate. That would include most heavy armor and many weapons. That means no crossbows (which were invented in China), or Rapiers. Historically Vikings used one handed swords and shields. The hand and a half and two-handed sword appeared later because of the advances in armor. Heavier weapons were needed to penetrate the stronger armors that were developed. That kind of limits a Viking setting to axes, spears, long swords, short swords and bows. The bastard sword and two-handed sword should also not exist.
The whole samurai argument is beside the point. My original point was that if a character has feats and class abilities tied to a specific weapon the GM should make appropriate weapons available to the character. A better example would be if a fighter is specialized in a spear and the GM does not allow him to acquire a magic spear that is a dick move.
I was thinking about this tangent discussion we had as well, and came to a similar conclusion though I wouldn't say ban. But similar to how PF2 implements common, uncommon, and rare items I would ask a GM who is going to greatly curate the kinds of weapons, armor, and items generally available in their custom setting to provide some sort of documentation on what is and isn't accepted, prior to even engaging players for the game. That way going into it, they can know "hey, katanas are rare so I shouldn't plan on being able to get them".
That was the original intention of the common, uncommon, rare tags though they have also been used to some extent as power gates, as some uncommon/rare items are more powerful but that isn't the real purpose of those tags.
I meant I wasn't ready to quite call it a house rule yet. It seems dumb to me that a spell about crafting won't let you take 10 on the crafting check.If thats true, the spell should mention that you can't take 10 on craft checks. I suppose its another problem with the fabricate spell. I'll rule that you can take 10 on craft checks when using fabricate.You should be able to take 10 when using fabricate to craft items with high degrees of craftsmanship.You are casting a spell, so you are distracted from crafting. You can't take 10 (barring specific abilities that allow you to do that while distracted).It is not a rule of the spell, it is a rule of taking 10.
Taking 10: When your character is not in immediate danger or distracted, you may choose to take 10.You need to concentrate while casting, so you are distracted it you take other actions while doing so.
Concentration
To cast a spell, you must concentrate. If something interrupts your concentration while you’re casting, you must make a concentration check or lose the spell.
I agree. I've never been in a campaign where this was the rule. We've always been able to use Take 10 on the crafting check. This might be a case of RAW vs RAI. As always, tables may vary.
|
|
It seems that the problem is that some people assume that "I'm gonna run a Viking game" means "I am going to play a game in the Mammoth Lord lands of Golarion" while others get "I am going to GM a Viking setting in a homebrew game".
So, depending on the meaning, expectations vary.
In my example, I was speaking of the latter.
In the latter, you can find crossbows (Romans and Charlemagne French had them), cataphracts if you go to Bisanzio (or equivalent land), Arabs, steppe nomads, and even native Americans if you sail to the west.
Besides Japan being on the other side of the world, katanas are in their infancy during the last part of the Viking age and non-existent in the initial phase.
I was thinking about this tangent discussion we had as well, and came to a similar conclusion though I wouldn't say ban. But similar to how PF2 implements common, uncommon, and rare items I would ask a GM who is going to greatly curate the kinds of weapons, armor, and items generally available in their custom setting to provide some sort of documentation on what is and isn't accepted, prior to even engaging players for the game. That way going into it, they can know "hey, katanas are rare so I shouldn't plan on being able to get them".
I always found this reasoning rather puzzling since if the GM says "I'm gonna run a Viking game" I assume I'll be a Viking* of some flavor. I would not immediately say "I wanna play a samurai!" At most I would ask the GM what sort of things are available. Rarity as a mechanic is for the most part entirely unnecessary because it should be friggin' obvious what is available by just looking at the setting or asking the GM.
One would think so, but in my experience I've always had that one player (generally the same exact person every campaign) that always tries to push the boundary/limit. They would typically come up with a contrived backstory to shoehorn them in, even though it didn't really make sense IMO. Thankfully we were always playing in Golarion so while the choices were far fetched, none were impossible. Just a long long way from home.
I always found this reasoning rather puzzling since if the GM says "I'm gonna run a Viking game" I assume I'll be a Viking* of some flavor. I would not immediately say "I wanna play a samurai!" At most I would ask the GM what sort of things are available. Rarity as a mechanic is for the most part entirely unnecessary because it should be friggin' obvious what is available by just looking at the setting or asking the GM.
Have you ever watched The 13th Warrior? Playing someone outside the culture is a common enough fantasy/fiction trope. It was also played for laughs in Erik the Viking. And those are just some specifically Viking examples.
Yeah, ultimately I lean towards letting players play whatever they're inspired to play, as long as mechanically it's not problematic we can probably came up with a reason (even if tenuous) why or how whatever weird combination they've imagined.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I always found this reasoning rather puzzling since if the GM says "I'm gonna run a Viking game" I assume I'll be a Viking* of some flavor. I would not immediately say "I wanna play a samurai!" At most I would ask the GM what sort of things are available. Rarity as a mechanic is for the most part entirely unnecessary because it should be friggin' obvious what is available by just looking at the setting or asking the GM.Have you ever watched The 13th Warrior? Playing someone outside the culture is a common enough fantasy/fiction trope. It was also played for laughs in Erik the Viking. And those are just some specifically Viking examples.
Do you mean the Arab guy sent as an ambassador to the Rus in what is modern Ukraine? Do you know that there were regular trade routes between them? That the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Emperor was made of Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons?
There is a big difference between what has probably happened a few times (an Arab traveling to Scandinavia) and a samurai with an XIII-century or later katana traveling to X-century Scandinavia.| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always found this reasoning rather puzzling since if the GM says "I'm gonna run a Viking game" I assume I'll be a Viking* of some flavor. I would not immediately say "I wanna play a samurai!" At most I would ask the GM what sort of things are available. Rarity as a mechanic is for the most part entirely unnecessary because it should be friggin' obvious what is available by just looking at the setting or asking the GM.Have you ever watched The 13th Warrior? Playing someone outside the culture is a common enough fantasy/fiction trope. It was also played for laughs in Erik the Viking. And those are just some specifically Viking examples.Do you mean the Arab guy sent as an ambassador to the Rus in what is modern Ukraine? Do you know that there were regular trade routes between them? That the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Emperor was made of Norsemen and Anglo-Saxons?
There is a big difference between what has probably happened a few times (an Arab traveling to Scandinavia) and a samurai with an XIII-century or later katana traveling to X-century Scandinavia.
Just gotta say… you really might want to double check your historical data… the traditional Katana became popularized in the late 12th century but did exist for a couple centuries prior. Before that though the Tachi was the predominant sword in Japan dating back to the end of the 7th century. At a glance, most people can’t tell the difference between a Tachi and a Katana as well, they are stylistically the same… the only real differences being that Tachi have slightly longer blades with a more pronounced curve. Given how similar the two swords are and the fact that Pathfinder doesn’t have a weapon entry for Tachi,the two swords would likely have identical statistics. So if you want historical accuracy prior to the late 12th century, simply rename Katana to Tachi for any setting between the 7th and 12th century.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In most Fantasy historical accuracy is nonexistent. In the movie Excalibur they were wearing 13th century armor. That type of armor did not appear until about 700 years later. Most gamming settings have a chaotic mix of cultures and technologies. You often end up with a character from a 5th century background fighting alongside someone from the renaissance era. Full plate seems to be available in just about any game as are late weapons. So, what happened in our world is not really all that relevant.
The only thing that matters in a homebrew setting is what cultures the GM makes available. If the GM’s setting includes Samurai or they are willing to let them be played that is all that counts. For anyone but the GM to say you should not play a Viking in the game is presumptuous. Arguing that that the Katana did not exist, or the culture is from the opposite side of the world is usurping the GM’s role. If you want to ban a class in your own game that is fine, but you should not presume that it is not appropriate in someone else’s game.