|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
N N 959 wrote:
But without that help, as a GM, I need to come up with a ruling at the table.
I have the rules to help me.
I have my version of common sense to help me.
I have my experience to help me.
I may have other players (or even the player in question) to help me.
I rarely just say, "no" at the table. I often try to find a way to let something happen by using the rules I do know. Wanna do something cool? Lets figure out how to make it happen. Quickly.
But if I have someone showing up at the table, and in the middle of a combat with several swarms that have Fire Resistance 10, suddenly say they are going to glue 3 alchemists flasks together to be able to thwart the resistance...
What would you do?
You'll note, that the rules precedence argument I was bringing up earlier in the thread, that NN 959 was trying to discredit aggressively, was my attempt at using rules precedence to be permissive.
I was trying to make a case, that a penalty, at the very least, would be required for trying to throw two flasks glued together.
So again, why try to discredit an opinion, that ultimately is trying to be permissive, but still stay true to the game rules being used?
N N 959 wrote:
There's no such book in Pathfinder, and so we can't use that in arguments regarding Pathfinder. If the Pathfinder Game Mastery Guide indicates similar statement, that's fine. But you can't reference a game system that we aren't even playing to support your argument about a game system we are playing.
And your comment about allowing something if the rules don't specifically prohibit it, doesn't really work well. Because you can make all sorts of ludicrous claims about "well the game doesn't say I can't do X so you have to allow it." And those are just that, ridiculous.
This is not an inclusive game. Its an exclusive game. The rules tell you what you can do, and how to do it. They do not cover every conceivable angle though. As a GM, you have to make a judgement about whether 1) you are going to allow something, 2) how you are going to allow something if the rules don't cover it, and 3) just how difficult such an action should be.
The rules don't say a horse can't climb a rope. But we all know its patently ridiculous, and as a GM I feel justified in disallowing that.
Does that mean its ridiculous to glue two flasks together? No. But there are no rules for doing this without the use of specific items created to, essentially, glue two flasks together.
But lets say I wanted to allow it anyways. I need to figure out how to allow it. Because just allowing it without some sort of cost (feat, item, monetary, etc.) is not being true to the game you are playing. The game does not allow a player to do whatever they want just because they thought it up. There needs to be some sort of cost for doing something the rules don't consider. Whether that's having to make a skill check, or buy some item, or take a feat when you reach the next odd level, or whatever.
In this case, as I proposed earlier, the cost would be a penalty to the throw or potentially the purchase of sovereign glue.
But my type of argument is the type you are going to receive at the table. Because a GM doesn't have time to research all the logic behind the rules set and the action the player wants to take, when they are sitting at the table trying to play the game. And it is not fair of the player to constantly make them do so.
The easiest response, in that case, is simply, "no."
I didn't say that, I tried to come up with some rules precedence. But rather than having a nice discussion about the rules, you attacked what I was trying to do, indicated I should just allow it, derided any GM who would say no (despite agreeing that most would), and so on.
So why did you attack my opinion so aggressively, when I was actually trying to present a rules argument that would lead to a permissive decision at the table?
EDIT: And for the record, I have never said I should be able to do whatever I want as a GM. That isn't how I GM either. Until you've sat at my table, I'd ask you to keep that kind of assertion to yourself.
I refer you to a very congenial discussion I had with Tabletop Giant regarding communicating with summoned creatures. We started with differing opinions, and through calm discussion and querying of eachother's opinions, came to what would have been a nice compromise should we have been at the same table.
Thanks Kjatan. I appreciate that you did not take my comment as insult. It was certainly not meant that way.
I think the key here, is players being able to regulate themselves.
I've had tables full of power gamers and min-maxers, and had a fantastic time. They wanted me to try and pull out all the stops and use my best tactical genius to thwart them. They wanted to play the game as a strategic war game. So I obliged them. At least one or two encounters became somewhat challenging for them. Fortunately I enjoy that sort of exchange as a player or GM as well.
I've also had tables full of new folk just trying to learn the game, and so I pull back and try and help them along. I let things be cinematic so they each get to shine for a moment and enjoy that their character did something somewhat epic.
So exploits only really become a problem, when the player doesn't know how to regulate themselves to everyone else at the table. If they constantly are dominating game play, and everyone else is getting bored and not having fun, that's a problem. And the easiest way to take care of that so that you don't take too much time during what may be a limited time slot, is to just say no.
Is it really a huge issue to glue two alchemists flasks together and get 2d6 damage? No, not really.
But I'm going to make a slippery slope argument here.
When does it stop? If I allow 2 flasks, should I allow 3? 4?
This goes for any number of exploits people think up. And whether its just a creative mind trying to come up with a creative way to do more, or malicious attempt to thwart the rules, the end result is the same.
The rules have been bypassed for more power, with no cost involved. And when you start allowing that to happen, it really can snowball out of control, quickly.
N N 959 wrote:
So your opinion that my first post wasn't "friendly" enough, excuses you treating me like a class A jerk? By trying to shred my opinions and credibility and essentially impugning my intelligence? Heck, you do this no matter what I say or how I post sometimes. If you disagree with what I say, for whatever philosophical reason, you attack.
And I'm not the only one you do this to.
And yeah, trying to get more power, without paying some sort of cost for it, is trying to get more for nothing. That isn't power gaming, that's trying to bypass the rules just to do more.
You shouldn't be able to just do whatever you want, as a player, just because you thought it up. You need to have some rules precedence to back you up. Failing that, expect table variation.
But to straight up attack any opinions that don't agree with your own, is not ok.
N N 959 wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you about this. You don't allow people to have a friendly discussion about things and I'm done with your bullying attacks upon my intelligence.
Its guys like you that chase folks who just want to find out what other people think and come to a compromise, away from the boards.
Until you experience it, I don't think you can really comment on it.
I've experienced extended RP that took way too long. Characters were getting into developing personal relationships with the NPCs and talking about their 3rd child and their friend Harry's great uncle's drinking problem, etc.
Someone mentioned above, "focused" RP. You need the players to stay on task. And roleplay with the NPCs for the reason they are there for. If you need to get NPCs on your side for something, then RP should be focused toward getting that done.
Once you have back and forth at least 3 or 4 times (and having a GM that really knows how to move the conversation forward with the appropriate RP cues is extremely important here) you should be able to have a fully engaged player, make a roll, finish off with a couple back and forth RP lines to sum up what happened with the roll, and move on to the next person.
This isn't a summary. Remember, we aren't writing a novel full of dialogue. Or acting in a Shakespearean play. Each dialogue exchange doesn't need to take 20 minutes to get a player fully engaged.
I'm curious though, in your experience, with RP, does each player take 20 or 30 minutes per RP exchange before the next player gets their turn?
If this is the case, I'd become extremely bored after waiting for 2 hours to get my turn to talk again.
Jack Brown wrote:
Pretty much this. I haven't had any of the really intense RP scenarios run over time. And that's because you can have tons of fun RP, without letting the RP dominate the time.
As Jack said, you can have a back and forth interaction between the NPC(s) and the PC(s) that lasts a couple minutes or even 5 to 10. Sometimes its a gut feeling. But when I feel that the time is right, and the gist of what the player is trying to accomplish has been set (i.e. I know what skill they are going for, and the fun of the interaction has been had) then I ask for the roll. Based on how (un)successful the roll is, then I add a little post roll RP in so that the player feels that their action had an impact.
This is hugely a GM thing. You can't be afraid to ask for the roll just because the players are having fun roleplaying. And the GM is in charge of keeping the pace of the game appropriate for the time you have to play.
Tabletop Giant wrote:
One thing to keep in mind, is that the rules set is designed for interpretation. And in general, its been that way since Gary Gygax originally published the game. As such, one home group will likely totally run these ambiguous things differently than another. As long as the GM and player(s) agree, and things stay consistent (unless the initial agreement revealed some flaw), then everything is working as intended as far as game design is concerned.
Where things break down, however, is when you try to apply a rules set like this, to an organized play campaign, where RAW is the rule. So you get ambiguities like "communicate" that a bit of compromise, common sense, and application of existing rules precedent will easily handle, but in PFS cause table variation, and thus causes issues with certain character builds.
But I certainly will support your attempt to get a clarification on "communicate" but its likely that you will only get that in the rules forum, and not in the PFS forum.
I don't know why I engage in these sorts of threads anymore, to be honest. All it does is aggravate when you get some players who demand that things should work the way they want it to work, and then get close to insulting your intelligence or motivations for even trying to help with an answer.
That being said, the entire crux of my argument in this discussion, is that you shouldn't be able to get something EXTRA above and beyond what the rules allow you to get, just because you "thought it up."
As a GM, I do my best to make fair rulings, and allow players to do cinematic things with their characters. And if it really matters for their survival and they are grasping at straws, I may allow them to do some hinky stuff as long as they have some specific skill rolls and such. I always like to allow them to try something.
But as a general course of action, to build your character around creating more "power" by just "thinking up stuff that should work" is not a fair to other players or the GM. The rules exist for a reason, and anything you try to do, should try to make use of some rule or other within the game. Rather than making up your own rules based on what is realistic in the real world.
So in this case, gluing or tying splash weapons together, as a general strategy for a character, isn't going to fly at my table. In very rare and specific circumstances, as a creative solution for a very specific issue, to help the players and characters feel heroic and to advance the plot of the scenario forward, I may make some exceptions.
But in general, you can't get more power, ability, or capability, without some cost above and beyond the built in cost for an ability, power, capability or item.
Slam me for that if you wish. But I'm tired of guys like NN 959 being extremely derisive toward me, when I'm trying to help "think" through the rules that may apply to a situation.
Think about that for a second. I'm being hammered and nearly attacked for trying to "help" someone with a rules question.
I don't appreciate it, and that's why you see a lot of folks stop posting on the boards because of that general attitude toward anything that might disagree with what want.
Tabletop Giant wrote:
There are literally no rules (except for the feat listed above) for doing this. So first, you should expect table variation.
As such, the magical relationship between Familiar and Spellcaster does not include any language that indicates that anyone else would automatically be able to tell that they had such a relationship. Any creature trying to figure it out, would likely need to make an Knowledge (arcana) check, and most summoned creatures that I know of, don't have that skill.
That being said, there is some precedence for a familiar being able to interact with the spells a spell-caster casts. Such as being able to deliver touch spells for the caster and the caster being able to cast personal spells upon the familiar. So there is definitely a magical link.
However, with the feat above, there isn't going to be a simple set of mechanics to communicate anything to a summoned creature without the language, unless you have that feat.
That being said, as a GM, I would be more than willing to have the spellcaster use Handle Animal to push summoned animal creatures to listen to your familiar. For non-animal creatures, like elementals or outsiders, that you do not have a common language with, they are likely sentient. As such, you should be able to summon them so they are facing you. Put up your hand vehemently in the universal, "STOP!" gesture. Have the creature make a sense motive check. Should be a fairly simple one. Then point at your familiar and start speaking. Then stop, let familiar translate. Continue.
The key take-away, I think, is that there should be some cost for doing this. Whether that is a wizard putting ranks into handle animal, taking the expanded pantomime feat, or having your familiar use its actions to translate, whatever... there should be a cost for doing something that the rules don't indicate is possible to do.
Tabletop Giant wrote:
I disagree with it all being able to happen via free actions. The familiar could easily ready to do this.
While speaking can be a free action, and you can do a few free actions off turn (including speaking), I feel that convincing the summoned creature of the validity of the translator, and relaying instructions is more than a free action is meant to handle, especially off turn.
Use the "pass hidden messages" option for bluff is how I'd rule it. Unfortunately that option requires the same language.
In this case, the spell compels the summoned creature to attack the nearest enemy. So, if you can't communicate with a free action what you want it to do, other than that, you are out of luck.
The passing hidden messages takes twice as long as normal communication. I'd rule this cou k do not be done in combat unless it was a very simple and/or short command.
I'd allow some simple gestures. But nothing super complex. And unless you can find a way to communicate for the creature to not attack right away, then translation won't work either unless a party member wants to ready an action to do so. Good luck with that.
N N 959 wrote:
This game is pretty granular as is. But many of the rules are set up as abstracts to get rid of a crazy and untenable level of granularity.
The weapon size rules are not very specific. When some weapons of similar weight are considered different size categories, using weight to calculate much of anything really doesn't work in context with the rules we have.
Enlarge person doubles the size of held weapons essentially making them for one step larger creature. A large longsword can be held in two hands by a medium sized creature. This type of doubling happens regardless of the physical metrics of the weapon (weight, length, density, material, etc.)
Thus the rules support my theorizing that tying two weapons together (effectively doubling it's size) increases the weapon size to the next category. This is regardless of the comparison between weapons in the same category having significantly different physical metrics.
A dart that is enlarged becomes a one-handed weapon when wielded by a medium creature. Regardless whether it is still the same size as a medium dagger.
Therefore, if you tie or glue two splash weapons together, they essentially change from a one-handed ranged weapon to a two-handed thrown weapon.
But the rules don't consider this type of loop hole for extra damage. In a home game, a GM has leeway to allow or disallow this, or create thier own common sense rules for how it should work. But there are no rules for how this should work. As such, in an absence of a rule in PFS, a GM has a choice to make up a rule on the spot, or RAW disallow it.
Certainly, the title of the thread is a bit of a flame bait. I'm glad nobody took it. This type of query is certainly not typically appropriate for public posting. Private conversations and shooting it up the ladder privately are the most appropriate ways to handle it.
When uncomfortable issues, like hygeine, are opened up to public, often the response will be humor to cover feeling uncomfortable. I have no issue with this.
But it's probably time to let this thread die. Question asked and answered.
Fhlangorn turns around with a broad smile, barely seen beneath his tangled, bushy beard.
Oh, hello. Are you travelling with Sgt Blue and I to the Fallen Fortress!
And then turning to glare at the other dwarf...
I'm Fhlangorn Spiritrock. And I'm certainly not drunk. Dowsing isn't an exact science you see.
Then brightening as he waggles his prodigious eyebrows, Fhlangorn waves everyone onward.
So I'll be helping out with any spiritual needs you might have, and if'n ya got a healing stick, I can help with that too. Bolka willing that is.
"No, it is not" is not a double negative.
That being said. Boons are meant for characters, not their class abilities.
However, if something negative happens to your class ability, you can't just handwave it away.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Can someone point me to what the heck he's talking about? Cause without actually reading it, I'm in the dark.
I hear ya, sometimes the decision between a saving throw and a skill check is decided by what has been done in the past. I agree, your PC sounds like this is thier area to excel. So I can learn, what books did you use to make your PC, this might help me in the future when deciding between a skill check or a saving throw.
I can't fault the GM for doing what he felt he had to, but likely I would have allowed specific to trump general. In other words, the dwarf would gave been able to Make the acrobatics check. Thoughts on this?