Fear the kobolds. Fear them.

Fear them?

Do you fear the avalanche? The lightning?

No, you accept them, struggle against them.

But fear them? Never.

And to add to this, the problem comes when players weaknesses aren't exposed.

I find this to be the case a lot, a PC is built to be excellent in situations but can't be perfect all the time. Environment, distance and sight, certain types of creatures, social situations, there's always some situation or event that even an optimal PC isn't perfect against. The biggest two problems I have with optimization is when only one or a couple of the PCs are optimizers, and the rest are not, or when an optimizer makes a character which completely overshadows a less optimal PC at what they are built to do. In both cases I think communication is the key, along with the golden rule of playing with friends or at least friendly acquaintances.

However, the OP was talking about PFS and organized play, which removes a lot of the options people have been giving for dealing with a power gamer. In an organized play scenario you can't simply add monsters, or make specific situations to challenge the optimized PC, or communicate with your PCs pre-game to have them work together instead of against each other. At a con game or FLGS society game you might have someone new come in with a modestly effective two weapon fighter built because they thought Valeros was cool (or even just a pre-gen), then someone sits down at the table with an optimized two handed fighter or barbarian that blows the two weapon fighter out of the water, or an archer build that wipes out enemies before the first guy can close, or a witch/wizard that can save or die everyone to oblivion and leaves the fighter doing throat slitting duty.

If this is someone's first experience with PFS and they find themselves completely useless in the game because of a single other optimized PC I would imagine that they might have a less than fantastic opinion on PFS, and maybe Pathfinder in general. Maybe you have a whole table with mostly new players and a duo who alone defeat everything in an adventure come sit there. That would be another case where I could see optimizing being really frustrating in Society play.

Ashiel wrote:

Fear the kobolds. Fear them.

Fear them?

Do you fear the avalanche? The lightning?

No, you accept them, struggle against them.

But fear them? Never.

My bad. That's a mistranslation from the Old Testament. Perhaps the word I was looking for is respect? :P

Bah. It takes seven of them to gnaw your kneecap off.

If this is someone's first experience with PFS and they find themselves completely useless in the game because of a single other optimized PC I would imagine that they might have a less than fantastic opinion on PFS, and maybe Pathfinder in general. Maybe you have a whole table with mostly new players and a duo who alone defeat everything in an adventure come sit there. That would be another...

Reading this thread -- and specifically how hamstrung PFS GMs are -- has certainly convinced me to never be a GM for PFS...

Er...hamstrung? I've never noticed...

Irontruth wrote:

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. In fact, you just said them again, several times, all of your own volition.

Even though these concepts aren't exclusive to each other, you continue to pit them against one another to talk about how optimizers are ruining the fun of non-optimizers.

Why are you the only one having trouble understanding my help?

I am not saying all optimizers ruin fun... that's your strawman. Try to separate that from what I am actually saying: "IF your optimizer's are ruining the fun, nerf is the best way to repair the damage." I am not the grand enemy of optimizer's I even date a munchkin.

And I've said it before, the best solution is to actually sit down as a group and figure out what the real problem is and discuss solutions. Your blanket solution would be a poor one if the non-optimizer is in the minority. I've even give actual examples from my own experiences of how I assist non-optimizers so they still control their character but aren't left behind.

I'm all for finding solutions for gaming groups. The go to method should be open and frank discussion. Not nerfing game stats. Nerfing might be necessary, but it shouldnt be presented as the first and only option.

My first advice was to encourage them to work together to share the lime light.

but if that fails...
(does my best impression of Penny's voice from Big Bang Theory)
"Get out your nerf bat and knock those suckers flat."

Trying to put words in my mouth, really? I never said you couldn't do both... but in both theory and practice the people who specialize in one side over the other are far more common. There may be exceptions especially in hard core groups, but in general this seems to hold true. Why do you struggle so much with this concept? People ARE going to specialize in the part of gaming they enjoy more.

Oh and Vestrial, I should clarify in case you don't know already that the definition of optimizer I use is purely the numbers/crunch side of the game. Role player being the fluff/story side. Power gaming is a type of optimizer that focuses on powerfully effective characters.

A good optimizer makes the numbers synergize effectively with each other.
A good role player makes the story elements synergize in a compelling way.
Different skills but certainly not exclusive of each other.
Every gamer learns a little of both. But most chose to specialize in the side that gives them the most satisfaction. Sometimes there are people who embrace both sides fully... but they are less common.

While some people seem to think you can instantly teach a poor optimizer to suddenly be effective. I think that is just a delusion. What they mean is they should take over the building of the poor optimizer's character to MAKE them effective. And that just isn't good. Now I have no issue if the poor optimizer asks for help but that help should ONLY go as far as was asked for.

Your entire argument is based on flawed premises which you assume given your limited experience. The rarity of players that are good at both RP and optimizing is an absolutely unknown (and likely unknowable) quantity to you. These boards to not reflect gaming as a whole, nor do your experiences. Stop making this claim.

It is also not necessary to teach someone how to optimize in order to help them with their character, nor is it necessary to 'take over' the build of their character. What I tend to do with non-optimizers is ask them what their concept is (In broad strokes-- what kind of person is their character. But also specifically what type of stuff do they want to be doing in combat). Then I offer some suggestions how to go about achieving that in an effective way.

It isn't fun to have someone telling you what you should do. So YES nerfing the power gamers in a mixed group IS the best solution. The ideal is to have challenges fun for everyone....

You contradict yourself. It's not fun to have someone telling you what you should do, unless they happen an optimizer. Apparently, optimizer feelings are irrelevant. You won't tell the RPers to boost their effectiveness, but you'll tell the optimizers to nerf their characters. This doesn't even make any sense. One group doesn't care about their mechanical effectiveness, the other does. So you nerf the latter instead of boosting the former? That is completely backward. 'Nerfing' players is only the right call if they are literally breaking the game. If they are just better at building characters, it's better to help the weaker players. Getting a boost always feels better than getting a nerf.

A real world example... Not long ago we started a short-term level 4 game to kill some time while the new GM prep'd her campaign. Our not-so-optimizy guy made a 2wf ranger becuase he likes the concept, heard they are generally decent at killing things, and thought it would be a good chance of pace. I built a goblin dervish magus because we had never seen one in action and I wanted to see what they could do. First session the magus absolutely decimated everything, and the ranger player felt rather useless. His mouth was literally agape at the damage I was putting out. Then I had a look at his sheet: Max dex, weapon finesse, no strength mod. (He didn't realize rangers ignored prereqs for 2wf). Ok, so I pointed that out, we shifted his stats a little bit, and voila, he no longer feels like a gimp. He's still doing less damage than the magus, but not by a ridiculous margin anymore, and everyone is happy. Following your guidelines I should have nerfed my own build down to even us out. Sorry, I find that notion to be patently absurd.

My first advice was to encourage them to work together to share the lime light.

but if that fails...
(does my best impression of Penny's voice from Big Bang Theory)
"Get out your nerf bat and knock those suckers flat."

Except that doesn't guarantee sharing the limelight. If you as the GM are allowing a player to hog the spotlight, the problem might actually be you, the GM. Relying on the nerfbat is a way to avoid looking at your own GMing style and how it could be improved.

There is the nerf bat and there is the cheese knife.

Two very different things.

"You can't have a 20 strength" is the nerf bat.

"No peasent railgun" is the cheese knife.

One is bad, one is an important GM tool.

Icyshadow wrote:

Good thing my whole current group is a healthy mix of the two.

Any ruining of fun is cancelled out by the actual fun of the game for us.

See Irontruth even Icyshadow gets it. It's all about having fun. If everyone is having fun then you must be doing it right. No need to fix anything here.

Please do not use my words as a "weapon" against the views of others.

I think you were both misunderstanding each other regarding this topic on some level.

Er...hamstrung? I've never noticed...

Judging from comments earlier in the thread, the GM isn't supposed to change anything in the module and isn't allowed to house rule. To me, that is hamstringing the GM.

In 2e with 2 lightinging arrows in a narrow hallways I dropped all but one of my high leveled PCs with 2 kolbold. After they said they could take the god of all kolbolds.

But if you play in society where RAW is law, I do not see the point of drawing a line the subjective to each person as "cheese". If you want to draw limits and make a balance game, do a home game.

If you think PFS should not be allowed to have 20 in thier stats, use item or calls abaility X, put dump stat, or whatever. Appeal to the organizers. Declaring certain people or thier builds as taboo wrecks the game. We do not have enough people to exclude them. Power gaming does nto wreck X's experience. Bad players do. Some bad players are power gamers, but some bad players are males/females. This is a game of fantasy. Let people have their fantasies without being the jerk that wants to exclude them because their fantasy is not what you want.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Er...hamstrung? I've never noticed...

Judging from comments earlier in the thread, the GM isn't supposed to change anything in the module and isn't allowed to house rule. To me, that is hamstringing the GM.

*shrugs* I find I still have plenty of room to move within the box.

But was that because they're more optimized at combat than the mooks around them or because they're higher level and/or have better stats?

It's because they have the power of Author Fiat. Their stats and power level auto-adjust to however the author wants them to do.

PFS is hamstrung. As a DM that wanted to Kill me before ever playign with me because I like 4e D&D as well. I said it is not me VS you. It is me vs you while you are limited by that mod. Granted he cheated thourghly by setting up traps that the other PC passed and hit me, and had the bearded devil infict diseases on me through the spear. I still won.

I have seen players with 0 level spells make hard fights easy. I have also have yet to TPK, but I have killed my fair and cause a table lose. With weak players in PFS it is easy to kill people. I almost TPKed because one guy wanted to solo the big bad guy instead of waking his friends that were put down with a sleep spell.

I DMed 5 modules and killed 3 players. So you are by no means helpless, but some players can make you so.

PFS is hamstrung. As a DM that wanted to Kill me before ever playign with me because I like 4e D&D as well. I said it is not me VS you. It is me vs you while you are limited by that mod. Granted he cheated thourghly by setting up traps that the other PC passed and hit me, and had the bearded devil infict diseases on me through the spear. I still won.

That GM should have also been removed as a GM for PFS. But that is a tale for another thread.

You have good and bad I was new and using a pre-gen and applying the credit to a level 2 I played once. I can deal with it cheating.

The sad part is that same GM told some people he wanted to kill the two summoners in our group(because he hated that class) and eventually did. I was not at the games these happened, but it did happen as he said it would.

Thats another reason I power build. So I can use the rules are their finest(or worest) and take the worst a DM can give.

There is the nerf bat and there is the cheese knife.

Two very different things.

"You can't have a 20 strength" is the nerf bat.

"No peasent railgun" is the cheese knife.

One is bad, one is an important GM tool.

The important GM tool is of course using the peasant railgun against your players, no?

power gaming kills verisimilitude for me.

i, the player, have a rule book with all these great and wonderful feats, abilities, weapons, de da, de da, de da......and i want to make the most awesome x y z race 2052.

so, i am race 2052, i have my stats, which i am apparently not born with, i can manipulate my intelligence, my wisdom, my strength, and, apparently, my charisma?

i grew up in a place, where all weapons and fighting styles, feats, magic spells, de da de da de da exist, so i can just pick whatever of those that tickles my fancy. I can learn x class, then turn around and learn y class, then turn around and learn z class, because....i want to mine this class feature, that feat, and this spell.

killed. dead. here lies verisimilitude, dead on arrival.

i feel that there should be some limit to what i can create, as a creature who exists in the world. the ninja who taught me ninjaing isn’t going to be very pleased with me when i go learn something else from some other master, if i can even find said master.

as far as power gaming magic items, to squeeze this or that point out of a build. how do i even know such an item exists? how do i know as a magic user, that spell 427 exists unless i have come across it in some tome, or some training, not every caster can know of every spell that exists in the world, and that i can make a magic item with it?

i do not power game becasue of these reasons, luckily, there is only one power gamer in my group, and he always brings good beer.

rule of gaming:

get together with friends
drink expensive beer,
role dice.

Well that is sad you let rueles kill your game that are there anyway.

Do you turn a blind eye someone quoting a rule and rules lawyering?

That is sad you let what is there wreck your game sometimes, but not others. So it is only ok to use the rules you think are ok?

If you wanna drink beer and roll dice with friends you can do that in veags as well.

I am sorry but I think your points are fallacious. As in embodying a fallacy.

My two cents: power gaming can make the game more fun for others. In my current game, I made a cleric, intending to be the healer and some item creation on the side. Originally, that was going to be all, but the encounters we had to deal with scaled up very quickly, and none of the other players adapted. One tank had a bunch of HP and no AC, the other tank had a huge AC but not enough HP for even one hit. All the spellcasters had the same line-up of damage spells, which is great until things have resistance, SR, or average saving throws. I had to figure out how to make my character capable of controlling the battlefield, provide better magic items for everyone, spot heal and group heal, and buff the party. If I hadn't made my character as powerful as I had, characters would be dying left and right, and no one would enjoy the sessions we play. So yes, powergaming has its place to keep the game fun.

power gaming kills verisimilitude for me.

i, the player, have a rule book with all these great and wonderful feats, abilities, weapons, de da, de da, de da......and i want to make the most awesome x y z race 2052.

so, i am race 2052, i have my stats, which i am apparently not born with, i can manipulate my intelligence, my wisdom, my strength, and, apparently, my charisma?

i grew up in a place, where all weapons and fighting styles, feats, magic spells, de da de da de da exist, so i can just pick whatever of those that tickles my fancy. I can learn x class, then turn around and learn y class, then turn around and learn z class, because....i want to mine this class feature, that feat, and this spell.

killed. dead. here lies verisimilitude, dead on arrival.

i feel that there should be some limit to what i can create, as a creature who exists in the world. the ninja who taught me ninjaing isn’t going to be very pleased with me when i go learn something else from some other master, if i can even find said master.

as far as power gaming magic items, to squeeze this or that point out of a build. how do i even know such an item exists? how do i know as a magic user, that spell 427 exists unless i have come across it in some tome, or some training, not every caster can know of every spell that exists in the world, and that i can make a magic item with it?

i do not power game becasue of these reasons, luckily, there is only one power gamer in my group, and he always brings good beer.

rule of gaming:

get together with friends
drink expensive beer,
role dice.

This is what GM's audits are for. To understand what the player is looking for with his character and help him find it in the game as much as possible. To okay and veto character options in the best possible way for both GM and player's fun. And this should happen before the character sees actual play.

If a GM is too lazy or self-centered to get interested in the main characters on which he will build his story, he deserves all the ass-kicking his NPCs will receive.

I recent was in a post debate over power gaming making PFS too easy.

I power game. I try to make the most powerfull character I can. I drip dry every rule and like the plate clean to do so.

Because I want to play something bigger and grandious than myself. I want to be heroic. A hero is something that is bigger than life. I want this to be exageratedily huge.

When you watch action movies you see the best soldier, the top pilot, the best scientist. The number 300th best police officer can be interesting, but but is not the type of anti-hero I like to play.

Then once I found every rules to give me every percent chance of being the best I delve into the character and develop a story for them. I develope a large back story and history with goals and desires.

I know I will draw more hate because of how I like to play and that is fine. You do not have to play with me. But keep this in mind. There are many many many of me playing the game. I am just waving the flag saying and admitting what I am. I have seen a 5 star GM critize me for it and then compliment someone else for it. Probably because I admit it and the other person did not. The sad part is that person they complimented brought this up to me and how they found it ironic.

Except in PFS, where you do. That's part of the point of the society, so that all tables have a uniform base-line. Of course, the reader could just not play with the Power-gamer. But it could therefore mean that the reader would not get a PFS game again.

ciretose wrote:

There is the nerf bat and there is the cheese knife.

Two very different things.

"You can't have a 20 strength" is the nerf bat.

"No peasent railgun" is the cheese knife.

One is bad, one is an important GM tool.

The important GM tool is of course using the peasant railgun against your players, no?

That is more of a lesson than a tool. The tool is "No." the lesson is "If you keep whining, I'll allow it and use it agaisn't you."

Getting into an arms race is kind of juvenile, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. If I want to get into a pissing match about the rules, I do it on the boards, not at my table :)

The only thing I hate about power gamers as a GM is that you have to gear your adventures around them. For example, if there is an elite player on an opposing football team, you have to change your defense to defend them.

I can't just build an adventure for the fun of it. More than likely the power gamer is going to just run through it like the other players aren't even there. So I always have to have that one or two opponents that are built to just deal with that one player. Which typiclally pisses them off because they know I am 'power GMing' against them specifically.

I have found it is a just a lose/lose situation.

Well that is sad you let rueles kill your game that are there anyway.

Do you turn a blind eye someone quoting a rule and rules lawyering?

That is sad you let what is there wreck your game sometimes, but not others. So it is only ok to use the rules you think are ok?

If you wanna drink beer and roll dice with friends you can do that in veags as well.

I am sorry but I think your points are fallacious. As in embodying a fallacy.

Yes, i suppose that i do have bad, wrong fun. but, we do have fun, and none of us have to spend too much time outside of game time gleaning every last point out of rules, that leaves time for work, school, wives, children, and the ocassional deployment.

Rules lawyering doesn't impress me either, by the way.

by the way, i said neither your way is wrong and that my way is right. just throwing out.

The only thing I hate about power gamers as a GM is that you have to gear your adventures around them. For example, if there is an elite player on an opposing football team, you have to change your defense to defend them.

I can't just build an adventure for the fun of it. More than likely the power gamer is going to just run through it like the other players aren't even there. So I always have to have that one or two opponents that are built to just deal with that one player. Which typiclally pisses them off because they know I am 'power GMing' against them specifically.

I have found it is a just a lose/lose situation.

Very true. I power game, so I know how that works; I've had characters that are untouchable and had my GM try to change rules/story to thwart me, and have NPCs acting on information they had no way of gaining. It was frustrating. Long story, we... "discussed" things. I always try to make sure everyone playing is able to enjoy having their character make meaningful contributions to combat. He keeps his hands off my character and asks that I keep the game balanced. So, my character is way powerful, but I reign it in so that I don't steal the spotlight.

Perhaps your player wouldn't be as willing to self-limit, but it's worth a shot to ask him to. Otherwise, don't feel bad throwing some overpowered baddies at him :P.

Very rarely does a GM actually need to change or overpower his games in response to a powergamer. More commonly, a GM really just needs to step back and look at his toolbox and why his adventures are getting rolled by the "power gamer".

Last year there was a GM who was concerned about his players being overpowered. The players? A fighter, a cleric in heavy armor, a paladin, and something else very fight-y. His adventures? Well he'd have them fight like an owlbear. Or some other thing of CR X that was generally large, stupid, and more or less perfectly matched to his PCs' strengths. No diversity, no tricky encounters, etc.

In my experiences, the same is true for the so-called power-gamer encounters. A GM panics and instead of learning more about the game tries to beef the numbers up. I will tell you now, and forever more, an arms race is never the answer, and in general simply diversifying your encounters is infinitely more effective.

The only thing I hate about power gamers as a GM is that you have to gear your adventures around them.

I find that nearly the exact opposite is true - you just keep running the game the way you like to set it up, and the power gamer starts aiming his power build lower and lower because "I can deal 50 damage a round" and I "I can deal 100 damage a round" are both functionally identical when nothing has more than 50 hit points.

Eventually, by way of being exposed to multiple campaigns in which personal diversity of ability is the only way for his character to do what he wants it to (totally own encounters) with any reliability, you turn that power gamer into a perfectly well-rounded gamer.

For example, if there is an elite player on an opposing football team, you have to change your defense to defend them.

That's a terrible analogue - in a table-top RPG, everyone at the table should be on the same team (meaning the GM should be designing encounters that are entertaining and meaningful to the players at the table, not to "beat" the players)

Finlanderboy wrote:

Well that is sad you let rueles kill your game that are there anyway.

Do you turn a blind eye someone quoting a rule and rules lawyering?

That is sad you let what is there wreck your game sometimes, but not others. So it is only ok to use the rules you think are ok?

If you wanna drink beer and roll dice with friends you can do that in veags as well.

I am sorry but I think your points are fallacious. As in embodying a fallacy.

Yes, i suppose that i do have bad, wrong fun. but, we do have fun, and none of us have to spend too much time outside of game time gleaning every last point out of rules, that leaves time for work, school, wives, children, and the ocassional deployment.

Rules lawyering doesn't impress me either, by the way.

by the way, i said neither your way is wrong and that my way is right. just throwing out.

I do not have an issue with how you have fun. But when you say some rules are ok and other are not it is self righteous.

When you lead your point with a word few of your readers understand when a simpler word would be just as effect it suggests you are appealing to thier ignorance by using a large word to prove your intelligence. You are not using it to make a logial point but a fallacy to make your point. Thats not good.

This issue you seem to have is people are not goood at roleplaying and incorporating the rules into their play. That is a valid point. But the fault is not power gaming, bur poor play.

My point is not about argueing every rule inside and out. It is about using every rule to make the most pwoerfull character possible.

My point is not about argueing every rule inside and out. It is about using every rule to make the most pwoerfull character possible.

I can think of some rules you haven't quite mastered.

It can be about the most powerful character and winning but all that results in

- at best is being a legend in your own lunchbox.

Its like playing a vidio game with all the cheats running or at 'beginner' difficulty.

Sure you IMAGINARY character did well, but at the expense of YOU, the real you. It only did so through cheating and rules abuse.

Some people have 5 wisdom and don't get that the characters their so proud of merely highlight their REAL inadequacies.

Personally I like to improve and fortify my inadequacies.

- at worst this style of play hampers the groups joy and so assures low level or short lived or broken groups (or all three).

Whats ironic is whan a DM makes every character as powerful as possible and every situation as inconvinient as possible... its players that chase power that are first to cry.

That is more of a lesson than a tool. The tool is "No." the lesson is "If you keep whining, I'll allow it and use it agaisn't you."

Getting into an arms race is kind of juvenile, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. If I want to get into a pissing match about the rules, I do it on the boards, not at my table :)

Fair enough.

Now sort of a tangential question to this, a friend of mine was talking about something to do with an Immovable Rod that would allow you to basically kill anything on activation?

You shove it in their mouth and it ignores the rotation of the Earth or summat and they get spun around at Mach 10 until you deactivate it and they take umptygazillion points of environmental damage?

Wondering if that is possible by RAW or if he was just making s!@~ up again.

ciretose wrote:

That is more of a lesson than a tool. The tool is "No." the lesson is "If you keep whining, I'll allow it and use it agaisn't you."

Getting into an arms race is kind of juvenile, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. If I want to get into a pissing match about the rules, I do it on the boards, not at my table :)

Fair enough.

Now sort of a tangential question to this, a friend of mine was talking about something to do with an Immovable Rod that would allow you to basically kill anything on activation?

You shove it in their mouth and it ignores the rotation of the Earth or summat and they get spun around at Mach 10 until you deactivate it and they take umptygazillion points of environmental damage?

Wondering if that is possible by RAW or if he was just making s$~* up again.

LOL!

He's making stuff (was that the word) up!

The Immovable Rod, when activated, is stationary with respect to the reference point of the planet. If it used the sun or the galactic centre or whatever as it's reference point, the first time it was activated it would fly off in a random, three dimensional vector at several thousand MPH. Not just when you put in a monster's mouth!

How will he get the monster to put it in his mouth? By telling the monster that it's a Havana cigar?

Tell your player, 'Nice try, but no cigar!'

It can be about the most powerful character and winning but all that results in

- at best is being a legend in your own lunchbox.

Its like playing a vidio game with all the cheats running or at 'beginner' difficulty.

Sure you IMAGINARY character did well, but at the expense of YOU, the real you. It only did so through cheating and rules abuse.

Some people have 5 wisdom and don't get that the characters their so proud of merely highlight their REAL inadequacies.

Personally I like to improve and fortify my inadequacies.

- at worst this style of play hampers the groups joy and so assures low level or short lived or broken groups (or all three).

Whats ironic is whan a DM makes every character as powerful as possible and every situation as inconvinient as possible... its players that chase power that are first to cry.

Funny thing is that I like to play a game on beginner sometimes because I want to just enjoy the story. So in essence I reduce the rollplaying for more roleplaying.

Not that there is anything wrong with your analogy, just pointing out that you could use it for both arguments.

Wondering if that is possible by RAW or if he was just making s&!$ up again.

It's someone trying to apply real world physics that may or may not apply to the game world.

Since there has been no mention of immovable rods disappearing as soon as they are activated, it is not RAW.

I power game. I try to make the most powerfull character I can. I drip dry every rule and like the plate clean to do so.

Because I want to play something bigger and grandious than myself. I want to be heroic. A hero is something that is bigger than life. I want this to be exageratedily huge.

Did anyone else notice that this conclusion doesn't flow from the premise. This is a justification for playing Pathfinder in general, not for powergaming specifically.

ciretose wrote:

That is more of a lesson than a tool. The tool is "No." the lesson is "If you keep whining, I'll allow it and use it agaisn't you."

Getting into an arms race is kind of juvenile, so I try to avoid it as much as possible. If I want to get into a pissing match about the rules, I do it on the boards, not at my table :)

Fair enough.

Now sort of a tangential question to this, a friend of mine was talking about something to do with an Immovable Rod that would allow you to basically kill anything on activation?

You shove it in their mouth and it ignores the rotation of the Earth or summat and they get spun around at Mach 10 until you deactivate it and they take umptygazillion points of environmental damage?

Wondering if that is possible by RAW or if he was just making s!#$ up again.

Worse than the rotation of the earth would be the fact the earth is constantly moving around the sun at high velocity.

And this is an example of common sense and RAW coming into conflict and common sense winning.

There isn't even any conflict. The rules say nothing about the rod zooming off as soon as it is activated, so it is not RAW.

There isn't even any conflict. The rules say nothing about the rod zooming off as soon as it is activated, so it is not RAW.

If it did, there would be a chance the person who used it gets his head knocked off. That would not be the most useful of items. Also, how can zooming rods be used as ladders (which it mentions in the rules as a use for immovable rods)?

There isn't even any conflict. The rules say nothing about the rod zooming off as soon as it is activated, so it is not RAW.

If it is immovable, by definition...RAW is handwaved when it makes no sense.

And that is fine.

What is annoying is when someone like this guys friend tries to pull this out in game, and is deadly serious this loophole should work.

The rules are approximations of the physics and logic of the universe.

The universe is defined by the GM.

When the two diverge, the rules are wrong.

And this is an example of common sense and RAW coming into conflict and common sense winning.

No, this is a case of someone failing to read the text, making a theoretical interpretation, mislabeling that interpretation as "RAW" despite being contradictory to it, and then someone else who is equally weak in rules adjudication believing that mislabeling and using it to justify their prejudice against "RAW".

Or in shorter terms, two people who couldn't RAW their way out of a paper bag giving rules a bad name.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

There isn't even any conflict. The rules say nothing about the rod zooming off as soon as it is activated, so it is not RAW.

If it is immovable, by definition...RAW is handwaved when it makes no sense.

And that is fine.

What is annoying is when someone like this guys friend tries to pull this out in game, and is deadly serious this loophole should work.

The rules are approximations of the physics and logic of the universe.

The universe is defined by the GM.

When the two diverge, the rules are wrong.

In a strict physics sense "immovable" makes no sense. Things can only be motionless in relation to a frame of reference and no specific frame of reference is invoked here. Relative to the Sun? Relative to the center of the galaxy? Relative to some hypothetical universal center? Relative to the moon? Relative to a swallow flying a couple of miles away? There is no reason to privilege anyone of those over another.

Given the rest of the text, it's obvious that the intended frame of reference is that of the world the wielder is on.

His interpretation makes no more sense than any other.

For all we know, the game world may NOT be hurling through space, and is actually immobile. So the rod would have no reason to do as suggested because the world is not moving around it.

ciretose wrote:

And this is an example of common sense and RAW coming into conflict and common sense winning.

No, this is a case of someone failing to read the text, making a theoretical interpretation, mislabeling that interpretation as "RAW" despite being contradictory to it, and then someone else who is equally weak in rules adjudication believing that mislabeling and using it to justify their prejudice against "RAW".

Or in shorter terms, two people who couldn't RAW their way out of a paper bag giving rules a bad name.

Kind of like someone reading "does not enable you to control the charmed person as if it were an automaton" but saying that person must follow all instructions (like an automaton) if they lose a charisma check.

RAW is still subject to interpretation. Immovable has a meaning, and the game is a context.

Convieniently selecting which one you like in a given situation is disengenuous

For all we know, the game world may NOT be hurling through space, and is actually immobile. So the rod would have no reason to do as suggested because the world is not moving around it.

But in most published settings, it is.

My point being if you want to try to manipulate interpretation, it can be done any number of ways.

If you play with reasonable people, by whatever you define as reasonable, your game will be fine.

Where the problem comes is when you bring that out to the rest of the world.

We have tons and tons of published setting, moduled and adventure path material to get an idea of the RAI. It seems clear enough that freelancers generally "get it".

So when something is outside of that, be it immovable rods, peasent railguns, or charming people with 7 charisma, it is probably someone trying to do something shady.

For all we know, the game world may NOT be hurling through space, and is actually immobile. So the rod would have no reason to do as suggested because the world is not moving around it.

Or the game world is actually the fixed center around which everything else moves? (Rovagugs prison?) It's not hurtling through space, space is hurtling around it.

Or you notice that the Immovable Rod does in fact move slowly in one direction. That's how scholars know the Turtle is actually moving.

@ciretose - That doesn't even make sense as a reply to me.

I don't think you actually try to understand what people say. I think you decide what two camps you think exist on a topic, and skim every post for a clue as to which camp they might fit into (in your mind, at least), and then respond as though their post were just a recitation of a pre-determined summary of that camp's M.O.

I think this because it seems like any time I or anyone else says something to you that you haven't already gone back and forth on 100 times before (whether that's new information for an existing viewpoint, or something that doesn't fit into either of your camps at all), you stop making sense and your replies start to sound like I just walked in on a conversation-in-progress that's not really connected to what you're allegedly replying to.