|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 35 people marked this as a favorite. |
There has been a lot of debate and discussion about rules and how to read them and such lately...let me give my unrequested advice that has lead my group and everyone I've played with to happy outcomes when they are deciding if an option is or is not allowed.
This honestly isn't meant as an attack at anyone, but more of a friendly guideline to follow that I believe will help you get along with your fellow players and GMs.
1. Just because it is not specifically forbidden, doesn't mean it is allowed. The book can't cover every possible idea you can come up with, that is why you picked a GM for the group, to adjudicate those grey areas.
2. If an option seems to good to be true, it probably is. If you can't find a trade off, there is a good chance it was an unintended use, and probably an exploint. There is no secret best possible option intentionally written into the game. A game with only one best option is a game that sucks. The intention was to have all options have pluses and minuses. If you think you found an option that has no minuses, you are probably wrong.
3. If you think an option has a trade off, show the math. Sometimes options seem like exploits, but when you actually break it down they are fine. But yelling that someone is dumb and can't read the rules isn't going to help you win friends and influence people. If the math shows you are right, feel great. If the math says you are wrong, deal with it.
4. If the Devs say you are wrong, 99 times out of 100 you are wrong. If the Development teams says you are wrong, 100 times out of 100 you are wrong. Thank them and if you don't like it house rule it.
5. Because some guy on some forum on the internet said it was ok doesn't mean it is ok, unless that guy on that forum is the GM for the PbP or whatever you are running. Citing guy on the internet is like citing Wikipedia. Quite often correct, but very far from always, particularly in anything controversial.
6. Ask yourself "What do I think the Devs were trying to do here?" This is a bigger question that what is the intent of the rule, and gets to what is the context of this rule in the broader format of the game. If I read it this way, does that impact other areas of the game?
7. Looking for ways around restrictions is a very quick way to find yourself on the wrong side of a reading. Restrictions are intentional barriers to force difficult choices, not something "system mastery" allows you to ignore. Trade offs are what the game is based on, not something to avoid.
8. Ask the group before you show up with your "discovery". Get approval off table, not at table.
9. If something seems broken to you, it probably seems 10 times more broken to everyone else. And if it is broken...well...the defintion of broken is...broken. So don't do it. It's broken. I can assure you the people who wrote the book didn't intend for anything in it to be broken in the same way the person who build your car didn't intend for things to be broken. A man walked into a Doctors office and said "Doctor, it hurts when I do this". Doctor said, Don't do that.
Same thing with things that are broken.
10. If you find yourself angry because someone won't allow you to do something they think will make the game less fun, take a step back and realize that you are now telling someone they have to do something they don't want to do, that they think will make the game less fun, because you want to do it and refuse to explore other choices that you could also do which would be fun for both you and the person you are yelling at.
What does that make you in that situation?
That's it. Those are my tips. I've got several groups, a lot of friends, a wonderful wife (who tells me she loves me in real life and hates me on the internet...) and everything is coming up Milhouse for me after following the above advice.
Take it or leave it. :)
I suppose someone thinks your suggestions should be added to the official rules. :P
|
|
Well, you did ask a question at the end... maybe the indavidual frequently asks themselves, "What does that make me in this situation?"
As for me, I tend to look at the rules this way. If a particular rule can be read more that one way... I go with the one that isn't silly. Simple, and works for me.
This works too, although telling someone how they read the rules is silly is something I've been told to stop doing :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the ability doesn't work at all, it comes with an exemption from the rule that prevents it from working.
Example: Ferocious Summons; summoned creatures can function below 0 HP. Doesn't work because summoned creatures vanish at 0 HP. Actually works, because the devs ruled as above.
|
|
If the ability doesn't work at all, it comes with an exemption from the rule that prevents it from working.
Example: Ferocious Summons; summoned creatures can function below 0 HP. Doesn't work because summoned creatures vanish at 0 HP. Actually works, because the devs ruled as above.
Yup, specific overrules general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Discern between specific rules and general rules. Common error is reading specific rule as a general rule. Another error is trying to override specific rule with general rule.
Good stuff Ciretose. Posts like these make the boards worth reading.
|
|
6. Ask yourself "What do I think the Devs were trying to do here?" This is a bigger question that what is the intent of the rule, and gets to what is the context of this rule in the broader format of the game. If I read it this way, does that impact other areas of the game?Are you really serious about this?
Yes.
Why would you not ask this question when reading a rule?
|
|
Discern between specific rules and general rules. Common error is reading specific rule as a general rule. Another error is trying to override specific rule with general rule.
This goes back to trying to determine intent, particularly in specific rules. There is almost always a trade off of some sort when you are granted an exception to the general rule.
One thing I would add is that spells and special abilities do only what they say they do, no more and no less.So very much this...
You know, 99 out of 100 times I would agree with you here, but this goes against your previous statement just a single post ago:
This goes back to trying to determine intent, particularly in specific rules.
There is no mechanic that allows for lighting a grease spell on fire, yet every game I've ever played in allowed you to do so, even after I inform them that it's not actually in the rules to do so.
Some times, common sense and the "rule of cool" trump specifics.
6. Ask yourself "What do I think the Devs were trying to do here?" This is a bigger question that what is the intent of the rule, and gets to what is the context of this rule in the broader format of the game. If I read it this way, does that impact other areas of the game?Are you really serious about this?Yes.
Why would you not ask this question when reading a rule?
Because Titan Mauler.
Seriously, we even know the author's intent, but it was ruled to be false.|
|
6. Ask yourself "What do I think the Devs were trying to do here?" This is a bigger question that what is the intent of the rule, and gets to what is the context of this rule in the broader format of the game. If I read it this way, does that impact other areas of the game?Are you really serious about this?Yes.
Why would you not ask this question when reading a rule?
Because Titan Mauler.
Seriously, we even know the author's intent, but it was ruled to be false.
You mean the class that has a special exception for use of two-handed weapons as one handed weapons at a -2 penalty? Meaning normally you can't use a Two-handed weapon in one hand, but here is a special exception with a substantial trade off?
That Titan Mauler?
Take that thread jack to the other thread please...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Dr Grecko - For house rules.
Not for rules.
EDIT: Also, where is the intent for the grease spell to be flammable?
No, for ANY rule, house or otherwise. You can't (to paraphrase) say intent trumps specific in one breath and then say specific trumps intent in the next, without someone calling you out on it. If you're flexible enough a GM to say, for (poor) examples, the grease spell can be set on fire. Don't be surprised when I turn around and ask if ray of frost can freeze water.
While I prefer the RAW, All I truly ask of my GM is consistency.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But no where in the spell or in the intent of the spell does it imply grease is flammable.
Further, considering how powerful grease already is as a spell it's level, why would you think it was developer intent to make it flammable.
If you add things that aren't there, you aren't looking at intent. You are wishing.
Common sense, huh?
But did you know that the grease from the grease spell is actually green Jello slime, much like was dumped on kids on the classic 80s show "You Can't Do That on Television" when the kids said, "I don't know?" If you did, you'd understand why it's not flammable. :)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because common sense would suggest that a flammable substance (grease) is actually flammable. Just like common sense would suggest that dead characters can't take actions.
Household grease is flammable, but that doesn't mean all grease is flammable.
Someday I'll get the spell renamed to slippery goo and solve this question forever...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grease spell was flammable in previous game editions.
Citation for this, please, because I'm not seeing it in the 1E, 2E, or 3E PH.
Because common sense would suggest that a flammable substance (grease) is actually flammable. Just like common sense would suggest that dead characters can't take actions.Household grease is flammable, but that doesn't mean all grease is flammable.
Someday I'll get the spell renamed to slippery goo and solve this question forever...
The last time this question came up, after much investigation we found out that the beginner's box said that it's non-flammable grease.
So, that settled that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1E: Unearthed Arcana (I don't have a non-shrinkwrapped copy at the office that I can check)
2E: PH (doesn't say it's flammable)
3E: PH (ditto)
3.5: PH (ditto)
PF: Core Rulebook (ditto)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The last time this question came up, after much investigation we found out that the beginner's box said that it's non-flammable grease.
Yes, because I wrote the text of that spell for the Beginner Box. :)
|
1st edition Unearth Arcana page 52.
Grease (Evocation)
Level: 1
Range: 1”
Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: Special
Area of Effect: 1 sq. ff. per level of caster
ExplanationlDescription: A grease spell creates an area covered by a
slippery substance of a fatty, greasy nature. Any creature stepping
upon this area will have to save versus petrification or slip, skid, and
fall. Of course, if a creature is aware of the area, it can possibly be
avoided. The spell can also be used to cause a greasy coating on
some surface other than that underfoot - a rope, ladder rungs,
weapon handle, etc. Lone material objects wilt always be subject to
such a spell use, but if the magic is cast upon an object being wielded
or employed by a creature, the creature must fail a saving throw versus
spell for the grease spell to be effective. A single saving throw will
negate the effects. The material component of the spell is a bit of pork
rind, butter, or other greasy material.
So the spell hasnt change much at all....
Maybe people were mistaking the spell directly above grease..
Firewater (Alteration)
Level: 1
Range: 1“
Duration: 1 round
Area of Effect: 1 pint of water per level of caster
ExplanationlDescription: By means of this spell, the magic-user
changes a volume of water to a volatile, flammable substance similar
to alcohol and likewise lighter than water. If this substance is exposed
to flame, fire, or even a spark, it will burst into flames and burn with a hot fire. Each creature subject to firewater flame will suffer 2-12 hit points of damage. The firewater created will evaporate and be useless within 1 round, even if it is securely contained and sealed, so it must be utilized (ignited) within 10 segments of its creation. The material components of this spell are a few grains of sugar and a raisin.
Not sure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or just people houseruled it to be flammable so often that they now think it was an official rule.
That seems quite likely.
I do agree with Shadowcatx on spells. Let them do what they do - no more, no less. Even I'm guilty of summons just "knowing" what their master wants.
|
There is something to be said about making sure you read the description for things rather then just reading it's name or the short list description and then immediately jumping to conclusions about all the rest of the information.
"Well it's called X" isn't really the best argument without other supporting information.
A very sensible collection of guidelines, ciretose.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Try setting some room temperature grease on fire. It's not like kerosine. It's not even like lamp oil. It's hard to light.
People think "OMG grease, it's a grease fire, it's flammable!" but that's grease in a hot pan that's near or above the flash point of the grease. Actual kitchen grease isn't that easy to catch on fire.
Go ahead, soften some butter. Leave it out on a warm day. When it's all liquid and gross, use a fireplace lighter and try to light it. It really doesn't want to burn on its own, even though butter is flammable enough that you can make a candle out of it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I assumed y'all were goblins.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally, having the things I write get subjected and taken apart by professional technical writers on a fairly regular basis gives me a much stronger appreciation for the types of ambiguity and potential meanings that can be interjected depending on word choice and how things are written. It also gives me an appreciation that it is possible to write things in a non-legalistic, straightforward manner, while still reducing/eliminating ambiguity and also keeping things concise. Kudos to Paizo in managing to do some of this in the Beginner's Box set, but kvetches as this approach doesn't seem to carry over too much into the other products.So, to all the designers out there, please be careful and think of other ways your words can be interpreted when writing new material. What may seem obvious to you may not seem so obvious to others. Especially so with the inherited Gordian Knot that is the various systems, subsystems, exceptions, and contradictions of the core rules.
You might not realize it, but many technical writers have a cadre of technical editors looking over their shoulders. I've worked several places where there was at least one editor for every 10 writers. Sometimes, if we're lucky, there's one guy on the editorial team who's main job is just managing the terminology--making sure all the writers are in sync with each other and with the rest of the company. Often, this involves digging back into past product versions and seeing how different terms were used previously, and sometimes it means looking over recent patents, court rulings, and legal guidelines to make sure we're not accidently using terms that could get us in trouble. It almost always involves working with translators to make sure the chosen words can actually be translated into other languages. And that just for the terminology guy!
A lot of technical writers learn to get by on their own, but wow, if you've ever worked with a good technical editor, you really understand how freakin' hard that whole side of the business is. I've worked on both ends of the spectrum, so I have a lot of empathy for technical writers who have to work without a net.
Based on the general situation Paizo is dealing with--multiple authors, long product history, multiple rules versions, and the "creative and fun" requirement--I'd probably compare it to dancing on a tightrope and balancing a tray of flaming oil on your head while a bear and a lion swipe at your feet. :-)
Based on the general situation Paizo is dealing with--multiple authors, long product history, multiple rules versions, and the "creative and fun" requirement--I'd probably compare it to dancing on a tightrope and balancing a tray of flaming oil on your head while a bear and a lion swipe at your feet. :-)
Actually it might be non-flammable variety boiling oil. Not that it would help much for the burns.
Try setting some room temperature grease on fire. It's not like kerosine. It's not even like lamp oil. It's hard to light.
People think "OMG grease, it's a grease fire, it's flammable!" but that's grease in a hot pan that's near or above the flash point of the grease. Actual kitchen grease isn't that easy to catch on fire.
Go ahead, soften some butter. Leave it out on a warm day. When it's all liquid and gross, use a fireplace lighter and try to light it. It really doesn't want to burn on its own, even though butter is flammable enough that you can make a candle out of it.
Right. Even oil isn’t that easy to set on fire. Take some lampoil, pour it on the driveway. Set it on fire. Try again, and again. Stuff like that doesn’t burn like gasoline, it burns with a wick.
So altho I disagree with Sean about PC’s clothing to be so easily flammable as to burst into flame after a six second application of a fireball- if it was soaked in grease first, then sure. (PC’s appear to wear a lot of leather. Historically they’d also wear Wool, then linen).
I’d also add to Ciretose excellent list “If you think that by the placement of a comma or the definition of a word that a spell, ability, whatever suddenly became way more powerful than any others in it’s class, you’re likely misreading it, no matter what you think the “RULES OF ENGLISH” “clearly” say.