Is this DM call fair?


Rules Questions

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

cranewings wrote:

No. It should be allowed. I always play with people who are their to RP, not jealously lord over other characters powers.

Lots of RPGs create unbalanced characters. Nightbane, for example, it is normal for a pc group to have a superstrong superdiminsional being wielding magic, sword, and skills working with an ex-government agent with no martial arts and basic shooting skills. It is because the players are their to RP, not play fair is fair. The fair is fair climate is mostly a d&d environment thing, and for me, one of its least attractive features.

D&D isn't my game, and while no Palladium game is exactly well-designed, I even like Nightbane (though, per the rules, you mostly have everyone having some sort of powers). That said, a certain degree of balance seems a reasonably good idea to strive for. I mean, nobody wants their game to become this.

But more importantly, if the rules make one character more powerful than another (or particularly if, as in Nightbane, you pick to be a less effective character type), that's one thing. When the GM arbitrarily starts empowering one PC over the others? That's a sign of profound badness best avoided.

cranewings wrote:
I think letting one player have something special, especially something as benign as skill ranks, is a good test to find out who the difficult people are at the table so you can ask them to leave. I'd have the OP out of my group so fast his head would spin.

So, you screw with people's heads to secretly test whether they're worthy to play with you?

And eject them for being upset that their character was being completely overshadowed in an entire area of play (which Knowledge skills really are)?

Then you're not the kind of GM I'd ever want to play under. And that first part makes you kind of a dick, too.

All assuming you're entirely serious, of course.


Wraith, I would agree with you if I thought there was a right way to play PF, but there isn't. I've played the RAW hack and slash experience and I've played the free form investigation and social game. I've played the house ruled supers game and the RAWish published campaign and what matters between them is as different as totally different RPGs.

If we are just arguing to argue by assuming that everything discussed is an otherwise RAW AP then you are right, but I think it is clear that that isn't what is going on here. The OPs GM probably doesn't give a crap about RAW.

I recently had a session with a party that had a first level PC and a 6th level PC, and they handled it fine. Whatever frailty is in the system, the gm giving a permanent skill bonus isn't going to hurt it.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
What if the player the OP is talking about starts lording his knowledge checks over the rest of the party?

Awesome. Adventuring with Brainy Smurf. Maybe the GM will let the other PCs take Awesome Blow and knock him onto his head when he gets lippy.


*looks at my avatar*

Hmm. Methinks I've found a flavor filter for this messageboard.


Deadman, if you think Nightbane is balanced you should look at between the shadows. Most of the characters are normal humans. I've probably run more Nightbane than any other game - and the game to me is rping the characters and coping with the horrible environment.

As far as being serious about screwing with people, not really.

When I gm for strangers at my college, I tell them when we meet that I run a simulation, don't care about the rules, don't care about their feelings on the rules, and throw RAW out the window. That complaining about other peoples characters or how I run the game, during the game, is unacceptable, and that they can expect me to make things up on the fly. I've had two people decide not to play, but that's fine, because I can do whatever I want without them and there are literally too many people anyway.


cranewings wrote:

Wraith, I would agree with you if I thought there was a right way to play PF, but there isn't. I've played the RAW hack and slash experience and I've played the free form investigation and social game. I've played the house ruled supers game and the RAWish published campaign and what matters between them is as different as totally different RPGs.

If we are just arguing to argue by assuming that everything discussed is an otherwise RAW AP then you are right, but I think it is clear that that isn't what is going on here. The OPs GM probably doesn't give a crap about RAW.

I recently had a session with a party that had a first level PC and a 6th level PC, and they handled it fine. Whatever frailty is in the system, the gm giving a permanent skill bonus isn't going to hurt it.

They handled it fine due to house rules or GM interference. At some point though the question has to be asked how much of a game can you change before it is the same game in name only.

Now if a GM is going to alter other parts of the game to make up for Rule X of course it work, but if rule X is changed/ignored and everything else stays the same it can bork things.

Yeah group playstyle is a factor also, which is why I used my knowledge skills scenario as an example.* If the GM does not reward a group for knowledge skills then it does not really matter, and in that case the OP has less to complain about.


Wraith, fair enough.


nighttree wrote:

A player in our group is multi-classing rogue and wizard.

The DM made the call that KN (any), means that for one skill point, he has one rank in ALL KN skills.

Now i know DM word is law at most tables....but this really seems unfair to the other players, who need to purchase ranks in KN skills individually.

What say you ?

I would describe this ruling as asinine.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Deadman, if you think Nightbane is balanced you should look at between the shadows. Most of the characters are normal humans. I've probably run more Nightbane than any other game - and the game to me is rping the characters and coping with the horrible environment.

Oh, I wasn't saying it was balanced at all. It's really not. Nor are many of the games I run and/or play in and of themselves.

cranewings wrote:
As far as being serious about screwing with people, not really.

Cool. Glad to hear it. :)

cranewings wrote:
When I gm for strangers at my college, I tell them when we meet that I run a simulation, don't care about the rules, don't care about their feelings on the rules, and throw RAW out the window. That complaining about other peoples characters or how I run the game, during the game, is unacceptable, and that they can expect me to make things up on the fly. I've had two people decide not to play, but that's fine, because I can do whatever I want without them and there are literally too many people anyway.

Well, I've actually done quite a bit of freeform games myself, but if you're doing that it seems to me you should just throw out the system as such entirely (or at least use a much less rules intensive one), and just have character descriptions and die rolls as appropriate, and avoid the illusion that you're playing something as rules-involved as D&D.


nighttree wrote:

A player in our group is multi-classing rogue and wizard.

The DM made the call that KN (any), means that for one skill point, he has one rank in ALL KN skills.

Now i know DM word is law at most tables....but this really seems unfair to the other players, who need to purchase ranks in KN skills individually.

What say you ?

If the DM thinks he has the correct interpretation of the rules, he's wrong. Nor is it fair.

Is it damaging the game? Probably not. So if you never get him to fix it, I wouldn't sweat it. Just rely on ol' Cliff Claven to spout on what he knows about monster weaknesses, at least you've got all monster types covered now.


blahpers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
What if the player the OP is talking about starts lording his knowledge checks over the rest of the party?
Awesome. Adventuring with Brainy Smurf. Maybe the GM will let the other PCs take Awesome Blow and knock him onto his head when he gets lippy.

You are one step away from adventuring with a kender sage!


Bill Dunn wrote:
nighttree wrote:

A player in our group is multi-classing rogue and wizard.

The DM made the call that KN (any), means that for one skill point, he has one rank in ALL KN skills.

Now i know DM word is law at most tables....but this really seems unfair to the other players, who need to purchase ranks in KN skills individually.

What say you ?

If the DM thinks he has the correct interpretation of the rules, he's wrong. Nor is it fair.

Is it damaging the game? Probably not. So if you never get him to fix it, I wouldn't sweat it. Just rely on ol' Cliff Claven to spout on what he knows about monster weaknesses, at least you've got all monster types covered now.

This is a good point. I would dump all knowledge skills and not even invest in them anymore. That frees up resources for me to use elsewhere. I don't just mean skill points, but I might dump intelligence a little to improve somewhere else. Of course this assumes the information was made available before the game began.

If it was not until later I would ask could I rework my character. If the answer was no he would die. I just would not make it obvious. It might take a few levels since I might have to RP my way into the death, but he would die.
This of course assumes I don't leave the group and stick around just to be stubborn. :)


I still find it funny that now even Knowledge rolls are 'limelight'.

Does the anyone at the table really care who chucked a D20 so the party gets all the info it needs? The party wins here.


Shifty wrote:

I still find it funny that now even Knowledge rolls are 'limelight'.

Does the anyone at the table really care who chucked a D20 so the party gets all the info it needs? The party wins here.

If that is mostly what your character does then yeah it can be limelight, and the other issue you have invested resources to do something and the GM is now allowing another player to do it with big discount.

If I spend resources to do something I expect to get the same thing another person spending the same resources would get. It is no different than someone investing a lot of effort into getting a high attack bonus, and the GM just telling another player you get a free +10 to hit just because.

Things like this are why I advocate for all house rules to be put forth at the beginning of the game.

edit:It also has a lot to do with consistency.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
nighttree wrote:

A player in our group is multi-classing rogue and wizard.

The DM made the call that KN (any), means that for one skill point, he has one rank in ALL KN skills.

Now i know DM word is law at most tables....but this really seems unfair to the other players, who need to purchase ranks in KN skills individually.

What say you ?

i'm curious where the knowledge (any) comes from. Wizard class lists only the class skills, knowledge (all), which means that all of the knowledge skills are class skills for the wizard.

they're still individual skills in the skills section, and as such need to be taken individually. A wizard doesn't get some special Versatile Performance with knowledge skills like a Bard.


Deadman, for GMs like myself, what is important is a fluid relationship between imagination and mechanics. I still like character creation. I'm just not afraid of tinkering with it.

The main thing that gets changed is how success is determined and when success is called into question. Stealth and perception, knowledge rolls, turn based movement, crafting, mic, and firearms all when played by the book create friction between the image of events and how they play out. As guidelines for fair way of running things, they are fine. It is their strict implementation that places a giant turd on my immersion.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
nighttree wrote:

A player in our group is multi-classing rogue and wizard.

The DM made the call that KN (any), means that for one skill point, he has one rank in ALL KN skills.

Now i know DM word is law at most tables....but this really seems unfair to the other players, who need to purchase ranks in KN skills individually.

What say you ?

i'm curious where the knowledge (any) comes from. Wizard class lists only the class skills, knowledge (all), which means that all of the knowledge skills are class skills for the wizard.

they're still individual skills in the skills section, and as such need to be taken individually. A wizard doesn't get some special Versatile Performance with knowledge skills like a Bard.

He does if the gm says he does.


DMs can make mistakes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
No. It should be allowed. I always play with people who are their to RP, not jealously lord over other characters powers.

Then why use a role playing GAME SYSTEM at all? Just do your joint storytelling and forget the rules system. Anyone who has been gaming any real amount of time knows that the system is just a means to an end, a set of tools to handle the "what if's" that may crop up in a story. If your group is that good, you don't need those tools. Just purely RP everything, even combat.

The point is not that there is some RP happening (since it is pretty obvious from the original post that this is NOT something that has been developed throught RP or story) it is that the group has chosen to use a system, agreed to that system and it's playstule and balance and now the ref has thrown that unspoken agreement out the window to just arbitrarily do something radically different.

If this was agreed before hand then there would be no issue. If he had said "Hey I will be doing some new rules stuff for this game, so if somehting odd seems to happen, bear with me, it will work out for good story in the end." then great. But that did not happen.

And if you don't think that skill ranks = power then your fooling yourself. The phrase "Knowledge is power" exists for a reason. Knowing EVERTHING about EVERYTHING actually detracts from a story since your always going to have that one character in the group who will pass every knowledge check. There will never be any ancient misteries to seek out because Joe the Omnibus will know everything.

Having a character shine is one thing. Having one character OUTSHINE the others, consistantly, either game STAT wise or RP wise is BAD. This rule interpretation is bad.


Gil, if you believe that you are just looking for something to complain about. If it matters that much that the gm didn't warn you that he has this minor rule you are just impossible to play with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whether Gilfalas is impossible to play with or not is irrelevant to his argument. Address his argument instead of insulting him.

Liberty's Edge

cranewings wrote:

Deadman, if you think Nightbane is balanced you should look at between the shadows. Most of the characters are normal humans. I've probably run more Nightbane than any other game - and the game to me is rping the characters and coping with the horrible environment.

As far as being serious about screwing with people, not really.

When I gm for strangers at my college, I tell them when we meet that I run a simulation, don't care about the rules, don't care about their feelings on the rules, and throw RAW out the window. That complaining about other peoples characters or how I run the game, during the game, is unacceptable, and that they can expect me to make things up on the fly. I've had two people decide not to play, but that's fine, because I can do whatever I want without them and there are literally too many people anyway.

I find this curious since you are posting in the RULES forum, since you care so little about them

Regarding the OP, the GM interpretation of the rules was wrong. What he is doing is a houserule


ImperatorK wrote:
Whether Gilfalas is impossible to play with or not is irrelevant to his argument. Address his argument instead of insulting him.

I'm not arguing that it is fair. I'm arguing that crying over fairness, especially over something so trivial, is stupid. I'm also saying that it is the gm's business to decide if someone has an extra ability and I am saying that if such a thing ruins your fun, you are an unfun person.


Gil insinuating that knowledge checks giving the story away is wrong, but everything else is on point.

As to it being a minor rule I covered that upthread. As an example failing(missing certain information) a knowledge check in my game get you killed if you don't know a monster has regen X and DR Y. I doubt that is a minor thing.

A character wasting skill points on X when he could use them for Y is also not a small thing. Those skill points could have got to acrobatics or swim, or spellcraft, or UMD. The list goes on. Failing a skill check or just not having a skill can get you killed so yeah I would say that skills matter.

RL examples:
A player in my game failed a few swim checks and drowned.
I have fallen far at low levels and almost died.
Low perception checks equal ambushed

I am sure there are other examples.


Shar Tahl wrote:
cranewings wrote:

Deadman, if you think Nightbane is balanced you should look at between the shadows. Most of the characters are normal humans. I've probably run more Nightbane than any other game - and the game to me is rping the characters and coping with the horrible environment.

As far as being serious about screwing with people, not really.

When I gm for strangers at my college, I tell them when we meet that I run a simulation, don't care about the rules, don't care about their feelings on the rules, and throw RAW out the window. That complaining about other peoples characters or how I run the game, during the game, is unacceptable, and that they can expect me to make things up on the fly. I've had two people decide not to play, but that's fine, because I can do whatever I want without them and there are literally too many people anyway.

I find this curious since you are posting in the RULES forum, since you care so little about them

Regarding the OP, the GM interpretation of the rules was wrong. What he is doing is a houserule

Oh, no doubt about that. But it's nothing to get bent out of shape over. At best, were I in his game, it might make me scrutinize his actions a bit more in the future. That could be a good or bad thing.


Well....I didn't expect to get home from work, and find this had generated so many heated comments.

For the record, the other players are not "whinning" about it.
It just makes our Magus and Witch, both of who are supposed to be rather intelligent work that much harder, with fewer resources.....is that a bit frustrating......YES.

BTW: We are playing Carrion Crown AP, so there is a fair number of KN rolls involved in the adventure.

The player of the Wizard/Rogue is new to gamming, so no, he didn't whine or manipulate the DM.
The DM is reasonably new to DM'ing as well.

I "think" all that happened, was a slip up interpreting rules while creating the character, that the DM does not want to go back on.

I think he probably even knows it's a slip up, as when the other players brought up that it was not correct, he rather bluntly said DM call....which is not his usual style, and we dropped it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
Gil, if you believe that you are just looking for something to complain about. If it matters that much that the gm didn't warn you that he has this minor rule you are just impossible to play with.

What I believe is that consistancy and fairness are the hallmarks of a good GM. I believe a GM taking into account what is fun for his group is important. What I believe is that if a GM has a certain vision for his game and does not communicate that adequately to his players at the start, that the players may be expecting X and getting Y and could be confused since they expected a certain way of playing and were blindsided by a different one, possibly even a radically different one.

In short, I expect fairness, consideration and consistancy from a GM, along with creativity and good storytelling.

Is that not what you would expect as well?

The only commonality between all the games discussed on this board is that they all start with the Pathfinder Core Rules and grow from there. So folks assume that the Core Rules are the standard unless otherwise informed. How those games differ and grow varies as much as the people who play the game, but as long as the groups who play have similar expectations of the WAY they play, then all is well in that group.

It is when those things are out of wack is when people like the OP come and ask questions of the community. He expected the game to be 'Core Rules' for lack of a better description but is getting 'suprising to me exeption rules' instead.

I am in no way saying a GM cannot do anything he wants in his game. I understand Rule 0 like everyone else. It is so basic I am suprised it even needs to be referenced. What I am saying is that a GM who uses some unusual non standard rules should let his players know that so they know what the hell they are doing when they play.

Dark Archive

Not to side track things but what do you guys think of making 4+IN per level the default vs. the current 2+IN in SP per level for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, etc?

In some ways I can see a newer DM wanting to give that low-level wizard or cleric some extra use to the group when their spells run low. I personally would like a wider base (not higher) of knowledge for low-level PCs.

I wouldn't do what the DM in the OP did, but I can see the reasoning of a newer DM and players wanting the lower level "caster types" come across as more knowledgeable than the mechanics currently allow. Although his reasoning could simply be a misreading of the rules and him being stubborn.

Carry on


3 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
Whether Gilfalas is impossible to play with or not is irrelevant to his argument. Address his argument instead of insulting him.
I'm not arguing that it is fair. I'm arguing that crying over fairness, especially over something so trivial, is stupid. I'm also saying that it is the gm's business to decide if someone has an extra ability and I am saying that if such a thing ruins your fun, you are an unfun person.

I would rather be stupid than let myself get treated unfairly.


For those who arent INT based its not bad but the standard wizard will have at least a 16 int at first level setting him at least 2 skills ahead of most fighters and clerics.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Not to side track things but what do you guys think of making 4+IN per level the default vs. the current 2+IN in SP per level for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, etc?

In some ways I can see a newer DM wanting to give that low-level wizard or cleric some extra use to the group when their spells run low. I personally would like a wider base (not higher) of knowledge for low-level PCs.

I wouldn't do what the DM in the OP did, but I can see the reasoning of a newer DM and players wanting the lower level "caster types" come across as more knowledgeable than the mechanics currently allow. Although his reasoning could simply be a misreading of the rules and him being stubborn.

Carry on

I think the fighter and cleric need a boost. The wizard will be ok since int is his primary stat anyway.


The DM is using the wrong definition of the word "any." He is mistakenly using the fourth one, where he should be using the first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:
I'm not arguing that it is fair. I'm arguing that crying over fairness, especially over something so trivial, is stupid.

I guess that is our difference in viewpoints. To me being fair is important. It is a good thing. There is no gradiation of magnitude where being fair isn't a good thing. Either from the trivial to the extremely important, being fair is important enough that it should be a constant.

Also, I think players love a good story suprise, but hate a rules suprise especially when that rule goes contrary to the rules they have already been playing by.

And yes I think that in a rules forum, there can be wrong answers to questions asked about the Pathfinder rules. How the skills work is pretty simple. The OP asked is his example was wrong in the rules as presented (which to me combines RAI and RAW). And yes that example was not the intent of the rules system.

That in no way says how you run your game is wrong or bad for your group. It is just not standard. And there is nothing wrong or bad in that either.


ImperatorK wrote:
cranewings wrote:
ImperatorK wrote:
Whether Gilfalas is impossible to play with or not is irrelevant to his argument. Address his argument instead of insulting him.
I'm not arguing that it is fair. I'm arguing that crying over fairness, especially over something so trivial, is stupid. I'm also saying that it is the gm's business to decide if someone has an extra ability and I am saying that if such a thing ruins your fun, you are an unfun person.
I would rather be stupid than let myself get treated unfairly.

Suit yourself (;

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Not to side track things but what do you guys think of making 4+IN per level the default vs. the current 2+IN in SP per level for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, etc?

Carry on

I think the fighter and cleric need a boost. The wizard will be ok since int is his primary stat anyway.

So 4+IN for Fighter, Cleric, Pally and Sorcerer?

Does this step on any other classes toe's in your opinion or would it be more of an "evening out"?

I'm just thinking about implementing this as a house rules change.

Again, sorry to the op for the sidetrack.


Come on we all know knowledges aren't even that useful


Auxmaulous wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Not to side track things but what do you guys think of making 4+IN per level the default vs. the current 2+IN in SP per level for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, etc?

Carry on

I think the fighter and cleric need a boost. The wizard will be ok since int is his primary stat anyway.

So 4+IN for Fighter, Cleric, Pally and Sorcerer?

Does this step on any other classes toe's in your opinion or would it be more of an "evening out"?

I'm just thinking about implementing this as a house rules change.

Again, sorry to the op for the sidetrack.

I give all classes +2 SP and I let rogues add half their rogue levels to 4 skills in place of the similar ability they have pertaining to traps.

Dark Archive

cranewings wrote:
I give all classes +2 SP and I let rogues add half their rogue levels to 4 skills in place of the similar ability they have pertaining to traps.

Do you mean +2 SP to whats in the book, or base 2 SP + IN mod for all classes with the exception of the Rogue?

I get the part about the Rogue having 4 fixed that scale with his level.


Auxmaulous wrote:
cranewings wrote:
I give all classes +2 SP and I let rogues add half their rogue levels to 4 skills in place of the similar ability they have pertaining to traps.

Do you mean +2 SP to whats in the book, or base 2 SP + IN mod for all classes with the exception of the Rogue?

I get the part about the Rogue having 4 fixed that scale with his level.

I add 2 to what's in the book. I have a lot of house rules though. For example, I added about 6 skills to the fighter class list.


blahpers wrote:
Alitan wrote:

Seriously, all this 'quit being jealous' garbage is garbage: the GM has made an odious houserule here, and the OP is, imo, entirely in the right to be a little bent out of shape by it. HOW many Knowledge skills are there? X-1 extra skill ranks for wizards? REALLY? And people are just telling him (or her) to suck it up?

Don't get me wrong; I love wizards. But giving them ALL knowledge skills at the cost of one rank is (a) wrong and (b) freakin' ridiculous.

Hmmmm....

...Nope, still don't see a problem. The GM didn't penalize the other PCs by giving one of them a boon.

Reread your post; you'll find that nowhere in there have you given a reason why this is "odious", "wrong", or "freakin' ridiculous". You simply asserted it.

Geez.

'Wrong' is spelled out by the RAW, didn't think it needed citation.

Knw/(any)=actual skill?=freakin' ridiculous. Again, fail to see need for citation.

Singular nature of this boon=odious. Admittedly an opinion.


Regardless of the GM's authority in the game, if the players find the house ruling to be unfair, then it probably is. Is it game breaking unfair? That's something the group needs to decide. However, the fact that everyone else brought it up in the group, it is probably unfair for the group.


this whole post makes me think of the reason why I stopped playing magic the gathering. XD

People read something in a way that is not otherwise intended for the card to mean, and so problems like this exist where somebody interprets the word in a weird way that is game breaking and powerful.

If it were me and I was playing in said group I personally would chime in about the incorrect interpretation. Why bother buying all these fairly pricey books if you don't want to read them XD.

*note that I do see the need sometimes to tell the book where to stick it and make a logic call*.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
Regardless of the GM's authority in the game, if the players find the house ruling to be unfair, then it probably is. Is it game breaking unfair? That's something the group needs to decide. However, the fact that everyone else brought it up in the group, it is probably unfair for the group.

I think it comes down to this:

If the GM looks at a class, says Know (any) or Know (all) means that you can put one skill rank into "Knowledge about everything" and get the bonus to all knowledge checks, then every character should be able to take ranks in that skill. After all, there aren't exclusive skills any more. No problem here, just a house rule.

If the GM does that, and only classes which have that on their class skill list can do so, but it's open to anyone who takes a level of that class, that's a different house rule, basically granting a new power.

If the GM says only the one player can do it, then it's unfair.


It isn't RAW, but if the DM gave this boon to any player at my table I would be excited... no more wasting precious skill points on knowledges! There are tons of other skills I would love to invest in that I don't have room for. In my head I equate it to a bard coming into the group at 10th lvl (any lvl above first really)... you have been investing ranks into knowledge, and suddenly there is someone who is better at it than you... it is just not that big of a deal... he can still roll poorly, or not be available in that moment to make a check, so your skills are still not wasted.


Auxmaulous wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:

Not to side track things but what do you guys think of making 4+IN per level the default vs. the current 2+IN in SP per level for the Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, etc?

Carry on

I think the fighter and cleric need a boost. The wizard will be ok since int is his primary stat anyway.

So 4+IN for Fighter, Cleric, Pally and Sorcerer?

Does this step on any other classes toe's in your opinion or would it be more of an "evening out"?

I'm just thinking about implementing this as a house rules change.

Again, sorry to the op for the sidetrack.

I think it is a good idea. I also give all the PC classes perceptions as a class skill. I never understood how commoners get it as a class skill, but the fighter does not, as an example. I just never thought 2 was enough.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
I think it is a good idea. I also give all the PC classes perceptions as a class skill. I never understood how commoners get it as a class skill, but the fighter does not, as an example. I just never thought 2 was enough.

Funny thing, prior to 3rd ed I had allowed every character a Perception score - it wasn't a rolled stat, the player just used his INT or WIS score as the base (their choice) and it became a secondary attribute score. EX: make a -3 Perception check: need to roll score (-3) or lower for success.

Yeah, I already added Perception to the Pally (root out evil, etc) but it would probably be a good idea to make the change across the board for all the classes.


Guess I'll add my two copper.

The problem with this is that if you (as the GM) add too many rules like this, you're ceasing to play Pathfinder. And if you add even more, you've stopped playing tabletop RPGs altogether, and are now just sitting around a table with a group of friends playing pretend. Nothing wrong with that. I enjoy pretend. Just don't call it Pathfinder, D&D, or any other RPG.

Another facet of this: Rule 0. I sort of have a problem with rule 0. "The GM is always right." Well, no. Not really. Or at the very least that shouldn't be rule 0. The Rule, the Most Important Rule of All should be to have fun. It is a game after all. So if the GM is doing something that gets in the way of this, then he's breaking the rules, and therefore wrong.

As to this specific instance? Not enough info. If the player is abusing it, rubbing it in the face of the other players, or making everything too easy for himself and/or the party, then it's not a good call. If it's not adding any problems, then it is an OK call. I definitely see how other knowledge-heavy players/characters would be jealous/upset, and if that happens then it would be the GMs duty to fix it. Preferably by admitting he made a dumb call and taking it back. Or by giving it, or some other bonus, to everyone.

EDIT: As to the Skill Point question? I'd say go with a modified version of what you guys are talking about. Add more skill points to the classes, but make them conditional. Wizard has to use them on knowledge, fighter has to use them on physical things, etc.

Dark Archive

DoctorYesNinja wrote:
EDIT: As to the Skill Point question? I'd say go with a modified version of what you guys are talking about. Add more skill points to the classes, but make them conditional. Wizard has to use them on knowledge, fighter has to use them on physical things, etc.

This, IMO is how it should have been in the first place. I never could get how IN was such a dominant factor in such skills as swim or climb. I understand that there is a knowledge base to all of these, but they are also very physical body training based activities. Skill distribution should have been based by class knowledge.

Example

Fighter - 4 point pool per level (plus STR mod) to be spent on X, Y and Z physical/combat related skills. Then an allotment of discretionary points to be spent on wherever they want.

Skill monkey classes would get more general points and more base areas.

Or something.

Scarab Sages

Is it just me, or is this a holdover from a previous version of the rules?
I may be remembering incorrectly, but didn't early editions/printings of D&D 3rd Edition use the terminology "Knowledge (all)" instead of "Knowledge(any)"? I believe there was some confusion along that vein, but it was addressed by the Sage Advice column in Dragon Magazine, and corrected in later editions.
Maybe this DM is just holding out on an old/outdated misconception of the rules?

In my personal opinion, it's wrong, and the rules should be the same for everyone. A GM should be fair and impartial, and the rules shouldn't be changed for individual classes. The only way to have a cohesive game is for everyone to play by the same rules.

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Is this DM call fair? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.