| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mat Thomason suggested this thread. I thought it sounded like a great idea.
What are some instances where your GM ruled against you, but you came to appreciate he was totally right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*blinks at thread title* I roll to disbelieve.
:D
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That the witch's cackle has to be used in the same round as whatever 1-round hex you're cackling with to extend it, effectively as a full round action for both hexes, rather than cackling in the next round (since the original hex ends at the beginning of the turn).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A GM I use to game with said that "Aura of Justice" could not grant the additional bonuses on evil outsiders, undead, and evil dragons. Moreover, it only lasted for a number of rounds equal to the other player's Charisma modifier. I was a bit miffed, and I did use it a little too often... I was new to the game, and I did in hindsight kind of abuse it. It didn't help that we fought against those three types seemingly back to back either. I do think it sounds fair now, considering it one-shot-killed two different bosses.
As a new GM I'm very open to mature discussion about how rules I didn't know about are interpreted.
One of the things I was wrong on was how flanking works with multiple parties operated. I thought that only your team mates could be used as a flanking buddy but the rules say that any person hostile to the target can be used as a flanker.
This has never happened, as I am always right and have never been wrong. *sagenod*
In all honesty, I can't really think of something the DM said that got me miffed and later found out what he said was true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't think of one. Usually when I get annoyed at a ruling it's because it makes no sense to me PLUS disagrees with what the rules say.
Or has to do with alignment. I swear if alignment disappeared from this game so would 90% of all the frustrations I've experienced in it.
|
I asked my GM whether he would allow the benefits of pheromone arrows for ranged attacks (RAW legit). He said no. I dropped the idea of my archer Ranger getting Scent.
I was open to a negative answer beforehand though ;-)
I swear if alignment disappeared from this game so would 90% of all the frustrations I've experienced in it.
Have the GM clearly delineate what the alignment components mean to him before character creation, just as he would any houserule, and discuss it with him as much as needed (once again just like a houserule) and your frustration should vanish into thin air.
Mat Thomason suggested this thread. I thought it sounded like a great idea.
What are some instances where your GM ruled against you, but you came to appreciate he was totally right?
This has yet to happen, since I'm the resident Rules Lawyer as well as the current DM at our table.
When I have been the player, I've usually been the one correcting the DM when he goes against RAW or RAI.
In my own case it's because either I'm the GM or when one of the newer players is GMing they're pretty frequently tapping me for advice/suggestions/rules clarifications.
I guess I'm not sure if this thread is where the DM ruled against my character (causing them mechanical harm), or ruled against me as a player (disagreed with my interpretation).
The only time I was upset with being killed as a character was when I begged my DM to let me make a tiefling character, and he didn't want to. After he finally allowed me to do so (and the other player to make an aasimar), our characters were beset by a team of characters using perfect team tactics and immediately killed. I thought it was a waste of all of our time. I would have preferred just never being allowed to play one at all. Writing up a first level tiefling didn't scratch my itch, and engendered more resentment than denying me the opportunity ever could have.
As for mechanical disagreements, I'm the DM mostly these days, so I'm not really suited for that aspect. If I run into any, I'll bring them up, but my position for DMs (as a DM and player) is to make your expectations clear, let the DM make a given ruling immediately, and evaluate the ruling after the session is done, as a group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new drive this subforum has for cheery, humble posts about satisfied gamers kinda makes me think of the internet's drive for cheery, cute episodes about friendly ponies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Happens to me all the time. It is easy to think an ability with the same name works the same as it did in 3.5e... frequently I am surprised by all the little changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Happens to me all the time. It is easy to think an ability with the same name works the same as it did in 3.5e... frequently I am surprised by all the little changes.
This has been a big problem of mine. I really wish PF would've just changed the names of things that were getting such drastic overhauls, such as Power Attack and Cleave. As different as they work now, they needed new names.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given the reverse compatibility claim, anything Paizo wanted to overhaul had to keep the same name it had in 3.x. Otherwise, you'd have players double dipping by taking 3.x-power attack AND Paizo-power attack.This has been a big problem of mine. I really wish PF would've just changed the names of things that were getting such drastic overhauls, such as Power Attack and Cleave. As different as they work now, they needed new names.Happens to me all the time. It is easy to think an ability with the same name works the same as it did in 3.5e... frequently I am surprised by all the little changes.
So? If someone wants that much redundancy, let them have it. PF's Power Attack is statistically better, but I liked having the control over exactly how much BAB I was giving up for exactly how much more damage. I can see those two versions working together in a build decently; it just gives the player more control over their attack numbers.
Same with Cleave; I wouldn't have a problem mixing them both. Feats are a precious commodity, so if someone wants to dedicate that many to something like that, I wouldn't mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I too prefer power attack with throttle control.
I don't disagree with your preference. However, I see why Paizo, as a company, would want their design of Power Attack to be the default. Therefore, when claiming to be a new system, with reverse compatibility, they need to keep the same names. That way, by default, anything with 3.5 PA gets the Paizo-expected Paizo PA when converted.
People who want to keep throttle control can then add back 3.5 PA under a new name without disrupting Paizo's design intent for implementation of reverse compatibility of PA.
What you said, in reverse.
Paizo, since adding changes to the existing Power Attack, should have added an updated name; Improved/Greater/Gorbonzo Bean Power Attack, Brute Swing, or something. It makes no sense to me at all to give the new thing the old name, and attempt to go back and retroactively change the old name, which they can't do anyway, short of collecting everyone's 3.5 PHB's and scribbling out the name in the feat chapter by hand.
Sorry, slow work day.
*looks at thread title*
Yeah, I'm gonna quit derailing now. This is all subjective opinion anyway, nothing will actually change from it.
What are some instances where your GM ruled against you, but you came to appreciate he was totally right?
I'm *sure* it happened before, probably several times, but we moved on and I can't remember the original issue.
It seems that our mind (well, my mind at any case) remember moments were we felt wronged much better than the ones where we were humbled.
On a somewhat related note, replace "DM" with "spouse" in the thread's title and the answer is: absolutely, it happens on a weekly basis!
I'm *sure* it happened before, probably several times, but we moved on and I can't remember the original issue.
It seems that our mind (well, my mind at any case) remember moments were we felt wronged much better than the ones where we were humbled.
That was kinda the point really :) To illustrate that it's not all the doom and gloom the boards might make it look sometimes, just because every post seems to be about how GM X or player Y messed up - plus it's always the other person's fault when something went wrong... ;)
On a somewhat related note, replace "DM" with "spouse" in the thread's title and the answer is: absolutely, it happens on a weekly basis!
ROFL!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My GM is my spouse, and vice versa.The GM of your games, your life, or both? ;)
Yes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's times like these I'm glad to be single.
Well, I always am, but it's times like these I enjoy it more.
Yes.My GM is my spouse, and vice versa.The GM of your games, your life, or both? ;)
Oh jeez. You can't even go to a game for a break, or complain about the game when you get home? Damn :)
(and only kidding. I'd love for that to be the case, personally. Would solve so many problems.)
That's what my non-romantically involved gaming friends are for. ;)
EDIT: ... unless the forums just went and took this off into euphemism territory. (I am not good at spotting those and this only just now occurred to me, 15 min after posting this.) In which case, pass.
|
Hmm, most recently, they fact that a character killed by horrid wilting needs a resurrection instead of a raise dead. Before that, well, I've been GMing more than playing so it's a little hazy.
Ouch. I did not realize that either, but it makes a certain scenario that much worse. Guess I'm glad that I didn't get around to killing my players with that ability (they died to other stuff first).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh jeez. You can't even go to a game for a break, or complain about the game when you get home? Damn :)
(and only kidding. I'd love for that to be the case, personally. Would solve so many problems.)
As a guy who met his future wife because of gaming I can tell the complaining doesn't stop - it just gets a *lot* more fun when we reach 'consensus' ;-)