There are two things that I commonly come across in games that are not announced as house rules, but instead misunderstood as part of the core rules. Both things irritate me as they are plainly stated in the book.
The first is the assumption that the presence of light somehow counters darkvision. Another character lighting a torch should not effectively make my character's darkvision worse then their lowlight, unless it is related to colors somehow.
"The presence of light does not spoil darkvision."
The second is when an attack of opportunity is given to anything and everything entering an adjacent spot. I understand moving through a threatened square or out of a threatened square more then an AoO, but simply moving up to a monster without reach DOES NOT DO THIS. See the picture in the link for reference.
As the title says, what misconceptions make you want to scream?
Board posters who come on and say 'I think rule A, which says Gurgnots get a +2 when they Sturvot' means that they get a +2 when the Shuvont as well, and there's nothing in the rules that contridict that. Which is true, because there's nothing in the rules that say it works that way. And when you tell them that, they throw a temper tantrum and tell you to show in the rules where it says it doesn't work like that.
GMs who add in things for 'reality' that are counter to RAW.
Players who min/max their characters into gimped unrealistic misfits that would never be able to survive in the real world. And then get pissy when you put them in a situation that their self imposed weaknesses cause them giant problems.
"The presence of light does not spoil darkvision."
This is a big one. It doesn't make darkvision ineffective but it does make it not work within the lit area, under the ability it says see with no light source at all. You can't see into an area that has light in its entirety as if it were darkvision, that defies what the ability says it does.
that statement references beyond the light source, like when your party holds a torch and you see further past the light once it ends.
I admit it is a little fuzzy writing but that's how it worked in 3.5 and while yes this is pathfinder and it is different, I somehow doubt they changed darkvision, though possible.
Player's who think that seeing an illusion means you have "interacted" with it an insist they now get a saving throw.
inevitably in every game I run I get someone who thinks Bracer of Armor stacks with Armor, and then get upset when I tell them they don't.
I had one player try to wear multiple suits of armor to increase their AC. They were pretty disappointed when I told them it wouldn't stack.
The misconception that basic algebraic mathematics provide a sufficient tool with which one can effectively analyze the Pathfinder rule set.
Zo
Players who min/max their characters into gimped unrealistic misfits that would never be able to survive in the real world. And then get pissy when you put them in a situation that their self imposed weaknesses cause them giant problems.
and on the flip-side, players who DON'T min/max their characters finding themselves unable to fight this monsters/do that skill check because the DM had to change up the ACs and DCs to provide a challenge for the gimps.
People who use Haste to give themselves more free actions, move actions and attack actions than is feasibly possible in a 6 second time frame, and then get annoyed when you go back and show them that the spell has set limits on what you can and cannot do.
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.
What aggravating misconceptions about rules make you want to scream?
That they matter more than civility or having fun.
What aggravating misconceptions about rules make you want to scream?That they matter more than civility or having fun.
+1
when some abilities, feats, items, etc. state that they don't stack but other abilities that don't stack don't state they don't stack.
either all abilities that don't stack should say so or non should say so beyond the rule listing of said abilities.
and on the flip-side, players who DON'T min/max their characters finding themselves unable to fight this monsters/do that skill check because the DM had to change up the ACs and DCs to provide a challenge for the gimps.
I'll give you that one. People who self gimp their character to the point of being unsurvivable also. Basically, anyone that goes to extremes in character creation, either min/maxing or max/minning. :)
"The presence of light does not spoil darkvision."
This is a big one. It doesn't make darkvision ineffective but it does make it not work within the lit area, under the ability it says see with no light source at all. You can't see into an area that has light in its entirety as if it were darkvision, that defies what the ability says it does.
that statement references beyond the light source, like when your party holds a torch and you see further past the light once it ends.
I admit it is a little fuzzy writing but that's how it worked in 3.5 and while yes this is pathfinder and it is different, I somehow doubt they changed darkvision, though possible.
EDIT: Quote didn't copy; reposted...
If the light source is 20 feet of normal light plus another 20 feet of dim light and you have 60 feet of darkvision, then there is continuous sight out to 60 feet regardless. There should not be a penalty within the middle 20 feet for dim lighting though as it does not spoil it. Not being able to see colors might factor in cutting the red wire vs blue, but otherwise you should see your foe regardless of being dim colors or black and white... right?
I'll give you that one. People who self gimp their character to the point of being unsurvivable also. Basically, anyone that goes to extremes in character creation, either min/maxing or max/minning. :)
and on the flip-side, players who DON'T min/max their characters finding themselves unable to fight this monsters/do that skill check because the DM had to change up the ACs and DCs to provide a challenge for the gimps.
Yeah, the guy with 5 wisdom that gets ate by a grue? Saw that one coming. Same with the guy with all 12s. :)
If the light source is 20 feet of normal light plus another 20 feet of dim light and you have 60 feet of darkvision, then there is continuous sight out to 60 feet regardless. There should not be a penalty within the middle 20 feet for dim lighting though as it does not spoil it. Not being able to see colors might factor in cutting the red wire vs blue, but otherwise you should see your foe regardless of being dim colors or black and white... right?
Correct. Normal vision supersedes darkvision when it is better than darkvision. Darkvision takes over whenever normal vision is impaired from darkness.
There are quite a few people that think 'dim light' means 'no darkvsion'. That's not correct. It means the darkvision kicks in to counter the light penalties. Basically, your body automatically uses whichever version of vision is best for you at any given distance and time.
The Dm is right...It in the book look it up. The DM has final say. There isn't a b$$$$y PC rule. Wealth by level, is a suggestion not a right.
|
Whenever a carefully planned character, envisioned from 1st up to 20th level, fails to deliver anything useful for his comrades during its first eight levels of play, then comes crashing into harsh reality as soon as its player realizes the campaign he's playing in does not automatically grant item X at level Y, enemy Z at range W, situation K every J turns/hours.
That's the moment when I, the resident DM, have to gently lecture the player who has ignored campaign overviews, hints and direct clue-by-four straight from the start, and afterward endure a tantrum 'cause a giant-hunting half-celestial halfling does not perform as planned in an urban campaign focused on politics and aberrations/undead.
Obviously related, the aforementioned math-only approach to the game.
People who base balance and how the rules should work- not on the rules themselves but on some label the designers chose to give it and what that label means in the real world.. Since the real world item/thing can't/shouldn't be able to do that then the ingame thing shouldn't either... even if the rules contradict it.
-S
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.
+1
People who base balance and how the rules should work- not on the rules themselves but on some label the designers chose to give it and what that label means in the real world.. Since the real world item/thing can't/shouldn't be able to do that then the ingame thing shouldn't either... even if the rules contradict it.
-S
if you dont mind could you give an example please
Most aggravating misconception:
That the rules cover everything and must be applied literally as written no matter how ridiculous the situation, no room for DM-interpretation.
EDIT: Quote didn't copy; reposted...If the light source is 20 feet of normal light plus another 20 feet of dim light and you have 60 feet of darkvision, then there is continuous sight out to 60 feet regardless. There should not be a penalty within the middle 20 feet for dim lighting though as it does not spoil it. Not being able to see colors might factor in cutting the red wire vs blue, but otherwise you should see your foe regardless of being dim colors or black and white... right?
hmmm I am not sure?
I would rule... maybe? haha
that is a good question, it doesn't really state one way or the other.
I could see it both ways honestly.
Maybe because the creature gets darkvision (usually because the race is accustomed to darkness like dwarves, orcs, undead) is because it dwells in pitch black places commonly.
One could argue they are not accustomed to intermediary light I guess though it seems a stab in the dark.
I am not sure....
does anyone know?
Those who don't understand the take-10 and take-20 rules, and/or confuse them with one another.
The fact that the rules forum takes so much space on this website :)
Thought this more of a discussion, but I guess it could be rule questions... flagged myself. :) Really I was just looking to make a venting thread... no worries.
Shadow spells...
I just hate them. lol
Ultradan
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
EDIT: Quote didn't copy; reposted...If the light source is 20 feet of normal light plus another 20 feet of dim light and you have 60 feet of darkvision, then there is continuous sight out to 60 feet regardless. There should not be a penalty within the middle 20 feet for dim lighting though as it does not spoil it. Not being able to see colors might factor in cutting the red wire vs blue, but otherwise you should see your foe regardless of being dim colors or black and white... right?
hmmm I am not sure?
I would rule... maybe? haha
that is a good question, it doesn't really state one way or the other.
I could see it both ways honestly.
Maybe because the creature gets darkvision (usually because the race is accustomed to darkness like dwarves, orcs, undead) is because it dwells in pitch black places commonly.
One could argue they are not accustomed to intermediary light I guess though it seems a stab in the dark.
I am not sure....
does anyone know?
If you only look at the darkvision entry, I can see how there might be confusion.
But if you check the lighting section?
PRD, Vision and Light[/url]]
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness.
You see darkvision negates concealment from dim light.
If you only look at the darkvision entry, I can see how there might be confusion.
But if you check the lighting section?
You see darkvision negates concealment from dim light.PRD, Vision and Light[/url]]
In an area of dim light, a character can see somewhat. Creatures within this area have concealment (20% miss chance in combat) from those without darkvision or the ability to see in darkness.
Thank you sir.
I hate rules hunting
-Taking a 5-foot step and moving.
-Two 20s in a row is an instant kill
Those who don't understand the take-10 and take-20 rules, and/or confuse them with one another.
+1
I hate having to explain to people multiple times that you can't take 20 on that jump check.
-Two 20s in a row is an instant kill
That was an variant rule featured in the DMG (3.X), not an official rule. Even then, you needed to hit the creature to confirm the instant kill after rolling two 20s in a row.
This is a bad rule for players, because it will likely turns against them (they might get killed by a lucky kobold). As a GM I rolled 2 "instant kills" against my PCs in only a few game sessions, but I house-ruled that "instant kills" only do damage x 5. It's way more forgiving that way. :)
Those who don't understand the take-10 and take-20 rules, and/or confuse them with one another.+1
I hate having to explain to people multiple times that you can't take 20 on that jump check.
Or that take-10 doesn't take any longer than a normal d20 roll.
- That Spring Attack and Vital Strike (or most any other outlawed mobility combo) would somehow be broken if allowed to work together.
Board posters who come on and say 'I think rule A, which says Gurgnots get a +2 when they Sturvot' means that they get a +2 when the Shuvont as well, and there's nothing in the rules that contridict that. Which is true, because there's nothing in the rules that say it works that way. And when you tell them that, they throw a temper tantrum and tell you to show in the rules where it says it doesn't work like that.
GMs who add in things for 'reality' that are counter to RAW.
Players who min/max their characters into gimped unrealistic misfits that would never be able to survive in the real world. And then get pissy when you put them in a situation that their self imposed weaknesses cause them giant problems.
No wonder we get along so well!
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.+1
+2
Those who don't understand the take-10 and take-20 rules, and/or confuse them with one another.
+1
The fact that the rules forum takes so much space on this website :)Thought this more of a discussion, but I guess it could be rule questions... flagged myself. :) Really I was just looking to make a venting thread... no worries.
Rules Questions is for just that: A question about how a rule works, or what rule to use in a given situation. A discussion about rules belongs elsewhere.
Those who don't understand the take-10 and take-20 rules, and/or confuse them with one another.
...and those that don't realise that skills don't auto-fail on a 1 (except UMD) or auto-succeed on a 20.
...and those that don't realise that skills don't auto-fail on a 1 (except UMD) or auto-succeed on a 20.
A nat-1 doesn't automatically fail a UMD check either. But it does have a special affect if it is a failure:
Try Again: Yes, but if you ever roll a natural 1 while attempting to activate an item and you fail, then you can't try to activate that item again for 24 hours.
Players without the appropriate feats or requesits for a game effect that try to weasel their way into a given effect through fast talking and building a consensus on the player end of the table.
*Such As*
[Player A] "I switch to my mace and charge the moon cow"
[Me] "Did you end up taking Quick Draw afterall?"
[Player A] "No, why?"
[Me] "Well you're level 1 cleric so you can't draw a weapon for free as part of movement yet. So you can drop your crossbow on the ground, pull out your mace and take an attack on anything within a 5ft step...but charging or other such shenanigans are going to have to wait till next round"
[Player B] "Well that's dumb, you let me do it last round."
[Me] "You're a fighter Tony...and have a +1 base attack bonus"
[Player B] "What does my attack bonus have to do with it?"
[Me] "Guys we seriously had this same talk last month?"
[Player A] "So...can I charge? Or..."
[Me] "No Andy"
[Player B] "Still think it's messed up, but whatever, is it my turn yet?"
[Me] *drinks tea and goes to an inner happy place*
Game concepts that have proven problematic (off the top of my head):
* Light and darkness
* Taking 10/20 rules (particularly with things like Perception)
* The stealth skill
* Figments
* The silence spell (I've seen this spell cause all kinds of headaches)
See no b*!%$y player rule. This is a good time to enact the "Get a Stick Rule."
The stealth skill
Stealth makes me want to scream, but that's mostly because of the actual rules, not any misconceptions about them. :-/
The stealth skillStealth makes me want to scream, but that's mostly because of the actual rules, not any misconceptions about them. :-/
"I have a high stealth skill, therefore you can't find me." Then you have to explain cover and concealment, to glazed over eyes. . .
Oh. . .
* Cover and concealment
-When someone doesn't realize that quick draw only allows you to draw weapons as a free action not scrolls and potions.
-When players go to purchase magic items and and they honestly expect the shop keep to accept over 500 pounds of coins dumped out of a bag of holding. As if the merchant is so dumb as to inflate the local market enough to jeopardize his own business and put his community into a recession. (not really a misconception of rules as a misconception of what a stable economy is. Can't really blame players though, since that's how it works by the RAW. The RAW for the D&D economy are pretty dumb.)
-That perception checks take a penalty for distance, even when you are making an opposed roll against someone sneaking around (not that this helps since the current rules for sneaking are about as useful as a kobold grappler).
-That dimension door doesn't allow you to take another action after you cast the spell. If effectively ends your turn.
- The light spoiling darkvision thing is an old 2.0 rule. you probably have some grey beards in your group.
- it doesn't say thats not how it works and i need it to work like that so thats how it works.
-there is not 100% evidence so we'll play epistemological nihilist and deny all evidence.
-The rules aren't fubared, the dm can overrule them!
min maxing means gimping your ability to roleplay!
Role playing means delibrately gimping yourself!
I'm still surprised that vision and lighting are so contentious- AD&D infravision? now that was something that caused problems for decades.
The Stealth / Perception rules are definitely problematic especially when you incorporate the rather draconian RAW distance penalties.
Concealment/Cover rules seem to give people fits especially in combination with the aforementioned stealth/perception rules. That and I really dislike static miss percentages instead of negatives to hit.
Craft rules have so many issues that make them a total mess. They work great if you are a common craftsman working in the Silver Piece economy but considering virtually every player moves beyond the SP economy roughly 5 minutes into their first adventure a more robust and flexible craft system that allows people to craft items as necessary without needing fabricate spells would be a nice concession to gamism.
I sign myself also under "didn't read the rules or did but didn't made smallest bit of effort to understand them".
Example: Some time after 3.0 was published (around 2002 to be precise) I Gm'd session for friends who claimed they know the new D&D rules. I admit that they created mostly maxed and tough character. Apparently they knew the rules.
And then when the combat started and I requested inititive check... They all took 1d10 and rolled...
Me: Why did you used d10?!
They look on me very confused and say: Initiative is rolled with d10 in (A)D&D games.
Which is horryfing as they are three otherwise very intelligent people who had problem with grasping that intiative check is Dexterity check and they should forget anything about AD&D 2nd edition.