Re rolling a reroll

[The Fox]

Thanks for that clarification Andrew. :)

[TimD]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Not so. Just because one happens after, it doesn't change that you "must" use the reroll.

PC rolls Will save, see's a 4 on the die.

PC elects to use their Improved Iron Will feat, rolls a 19.
NPC Oracle uses Misfortune on the die with the 19, causing a 6 on the die.

If the MUST is sacrosanct, which MUST is kept, the 19 which MUST be kept or the 6 which MUST be kept?

Improved Iron Will Text:

Improved Iron Will

Your clarity of thought allows you to resist mental attacks.

Prerequisites: Iron Will.

Benefit: Once per day, you may reroll a Will save. You must decide to use this ability before the results are revealed. You must take the second roll, even if it is worse.

Misfortune Text:

Misfortune (Ex): At 1st level, as an immediate action, you can force a creature within 30 feet to reroll any one d20 roll that it has just made before the results of the roll are revealed. The creature must take the result of the reroll, even if it's worse than the original roll. Once a creature has suffered from your misfortune, it cannot be the target of this revelation again for 1 day.

-TimD

[JohnF]

What happened to the guideline that the rules are intended to be interpreted with a modicum of common sense, and that GMs aren't supposed to be adversarial?

Personally I don't think there's any real justification for reading the rules as saying that the results of the reroll are the second die, and that's it; nothing else can modify it under any circumstances. But even if I considered that to be a plausible interpretation of the rules, I wouldn't consider it to be the only interpretation; the point of view put forward here by others (that the 'must' just says that once you decide to reroll the first roll is gone; you don't get to pick whichever result you prefer) is also consistent with the rules as written.

In that kind of situation I'll generally go with the interpretation that's more player-friendly.

And, in any case, is it really game-breaking to let the player decide to expend multiple reroll options, most of which are once-per-session, on a single check, rather than saying they MUST be used on different checks?

[Victor Zajic]

Andrew Christian wrote:

At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.

Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.

This is a textbook example of a "personal imposition", if there is confusion about why people are calling you on this.

This isn't an issue of table variation. The word "Must" only modifies what it says in the rules. Which is that you have to keep the second roll, instead of being able to choose the first roll is you wanted to. Absolutely nothing forbids another rule from modifying the results of the second roll, including but not limited using another reroll to change the final value of the second roll. If the second roll is modified in some way, I'm still forced to keep the final results of that roll.

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue. The word 'must' doesn't mean what you are saying that it means.

If I 'must' run quickly, that doesn't preclude me from running quickly with my eyes closed.

If I 'must' eat scrambled eggs for breakfast, if I eat scrambled eggs with salt and pepper I am not breaking the rule.

Addition words would be required to make the rules mean "what you rolled on the second roll, plus the modifiers on the first roll, and nothing else". Those words are not present. Adding that meaning to the rules is changing them, not interpreting them differently.

[Curaigh]

I too remember a once-per-check rule, but I can't find it so it might be a holdover from Eberron & action points.

In the case of the original post: I see a specific vs. general call here. The shirt free roll must be used and it determines the success or failure of the save.
However the Battle Cry only kicks in on a specific result of a specific action: a failed save.

GM: roll a fortitude save.
Player 1: I got a 5, I am going to use my shirt free reroll. Dang, a 6, well I have to use it. That's a total of ten on the Fort save.
GM: You do not beat the DC so you fail your Fortitude save.
Player 2: You failed a Fort save while under the effects of my battle cry, you may reroll that failed save by ending its effect.

In this case the shirt free reroll was used, it just didn't work. The fact that the used roll failed instead of succeeded doesn't imply the result wasn't used (Damanta pointed this out above).

Two abilities that a allow a reroll before the result is known could not be used by my interpretation. Well unless one didn't say it 'must' be used and the other did, so long as the 'must use' ability was second. At which point I would probably tell the player to move on and quite delaying the game. :)

[dwayne germaine]

Victor Zajic wrote:

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue.

The fact that we are having this conversation tells me differently, as does the fact that I have seen another GM rule the same thing.

I don't really see this as a big deal anyways, the only time I ever saw it come up, someone asked if another re-roll could be used and the GM said no. I had assumed that was the way it worked myself, so I didn't even think about it. Re-rolls are pretty rare around my area, most games I GM the only one taken is my own folio re-roll that I give out to the players for the game so in a way it wouldn't bother me at all if it got FAQed and I turned out to be wrong.

What is starting to really rub me the wrong way though, is the insistance of people like yourself that your reading of this rule is the only one with any validity, and the implication that some people are making that anyone who disagrees with your side is somehow anti-player and is house-ruling etc... I don't know if that's from some genuine fear that this is going to ruin games for people, or from some deep seated need to have their opinion validated by making everyone agree with it.

[Andrew Christian]

Victor Zajic wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.

Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.

This is a textbook example of a "personal imposition", if there is confusion about why people are calling you on this.

This isn't an issue of table variation. The word "Must" only modifies what it says in the rules. Which is that you have to keep the second roll, instead of being able to choose the first roll is you wanted to. Absolutely nothing forbids another rule from modifying the results of the second roll, including but not limited using another reroll to change the final value of the second roll. If the second roll is modified in some way, I'm still forced to keep the final results of that roll.

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue. The word 'must' doesn't mean what you are saying that it means.

If I 'must' run quickly, that doesn't preclude me from running quickly with my eyes closed.

If I 'must' eat scrambled eggs for breakfast, if I eat scrambled eggs with salt and pepper I am not breaking the rule.

Addition words would be required to make the rules mean "what you rolled on the second roll, plus the modifiers on the first roll, and nothing else". Those words are not present. Adding that meaning to the rules is changing them, not interpreting them differently.

Ill reiterate. I have no personal feelings here. I honestly believe that the word must is meaningful. As always specific circumstances and wording of specific abilities may mitigate that on a situational basis.

[TriOmegaZero]

I find the 'must' to refer to the original roll being no longer valid once the reroll is used. It does not prohibit further rerolls. The existence of abilities that allow you to take the better of two rolls leads me to this conclusion.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

TimD wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Not so. Just because one happens after, it doesn't change that you "must" use the reroll.

PC rolls Will save, see's a 4 on the die.

PC elects to use their Improved Iron Will feat, rolls a 19.
NPC Oracle uses Misfortune on the die with the 19, causing a 6 on the die.

If the MUST is sacrosanct, which MUST is kept, the 19 which MUST be kept or the 6 which MUST be kept?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

-TimD

Ok, so for your example if the gm allows multiple "must" rerolls, would you then allow the player to use a shirt reroll to reroll the misfortune roll?

[Medrig Bjorvar]

chris manning wrote:

If a player is under the effects of Battle Cry and has to make a save

and chooses to take their folio/shirt reroll BEFORE the result is announced (and fails that save), can they then use battle cry to get ANOTHER reroll?

Battle Cry wrote:

If an ally is under the effect of this feat and fails a saving throw, she can choose to end the battle cry's effect on her to reroll the failed save. The ally must take the result of the reroll, even if it's lower. Each ally can use this effect only once per use of this feat.

Free Rerolls wrote:

a player wearing any of the shirts listed below during a Pathfinder Society event may reroll one d20 roll during the course of that scenario. This reroll must happen before the original result is determined and the player must use the reroll result, even if it is lower.

Looking for Help Setting up my character

I really need help setting up my character please can someone help me I am lost

[BigNorseWolf]

Medrig:

Chuckle.. No problem. What are you trying to do and what is the insane computer doing?

[Acedio]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Ok, so for your example if the gm allows multiple "must" rerolls, would you then allow the player to use a shirt reroll to reroll the misfortune roll?

Absolutely.

[A Dead Horse]

nosig wrote:

and people wonder why I just want to Take 10

OW. Do be a good chap and knock it off, would you? I rather don't like beatings...

As for the subject at hand, I agree with Andy Christian and the others on that side of the discussion.

[Victor Zajic]

dwayne germaine wrote:

Victor Zajic wrote:

This isn't a divisive issue that the rules don't cover well, with expected table variation. The rules as written are crystal clear on this issue.

The fact that we are having this conversation tells me differently, as does the fact that I have seen another GM rule the same thing.

I don't really see this as a big deal anyways, the only time I ever saw it come up, someone asked if another re-roll could be used and the GM said no. I had assumed that was the way it worked myself, so I didn't even think about it. Re-rolls are pretty rare around my area, most games I GM the only one taken is my own folio re-roll that I give out to the players for the game so in a way it wouldn't bother me at all if it got FAQed and I turned out to be wrong.

What is starting to really rub me the wrong way though, is the insistance of people like yourself that your reading of this rule is the only one with any validity, and the implication that some people are making that anyone who disagrees with your side is somehow anti-player and is house-ruling etc... I don't know if that's from some genuine fear that this is going to ruin games for people, or from some deep seated need to have their opinion validated by making everyone agree with it.

If I was a table where a judge made that call, I would remind him that pathfinder doesn't have a rule against reroll, and then go by whatever the judge ruled. I would probably attempt to have a conversation with the judge after the event was over. I recently learned that I was incorrect in my understanding of the need to threaten your opponent when aiding an ally's defense, in this exact process. We're all human and we make mistakes.

And most the time I would agree with you. The rules are not really written in a fashion provides clarity the vast majority of the time. And trying to demonize the opposition is a dishonest way to argue.

This is not one of those cases. The word 'must' has been defined, in English, many times by various sources. Not one of those definitions even hints at the idea that absolutely no variations are acceptable in the desired outcome. No one has provided a single example of the use of the word in a fashion that even implies such usage of the word, and I'm scratching my head to come up with one.

What you are saying that the word 'must' means is factually incorrect. You are giving a meaning to the word that is objectively false. This is not an interpretation of the word means. This not an issue of interpretation. You are saying a word means one thing, and it does not mean that thing. Anyone's feeling on the matter do not change what is true and what is not. This is not a vote, or a popularity contest. To put it in binary terms

'Must' does not equal 'Must Only'

Saying 'Must' equals 'Must Only', in this exact chase, is housing ruling. You are adding meaning to a rule that does not exist in the words used to create the rule we are talking about. It's not because I disagree with you that makes it a house ruling. The rules are not unclear in what they are saying, in this situation.

In this specific circumstance, modification of the dice result is inherently implied. You don't take the die result, and only the die result, you have to apply mathematical modifiers to determine the end result of said roll. But re-rolling is a valid way to modify a dice-result, a way in which the first reroll was already doing. Just because it isn't a plus of a minus doesn't mean it isn't a valid way, in the rules, to change the result of a dice roll. You always 'must' keep the result of your first roll, unless something gives you the ability to change that. Rules that allow rerolls do that exactly.

Andrew Christian wrote.(I apologize for not knowing the correct way to format this)
"Ill reiterate. I have no personal feelings here. I honestly believe that the word must is meaningful. As always specific circumstances and wording of specific abilities may mitigate that on a situational basis."

I agree with you. The word "must" is meaningful. It just doesn't mean what you are saying, and the wording of specific abilities that grant you reroll, just as the rule that says you add your strength modifier to melee attack rolls, explicitly can interact with the rule and its use of the word 'must'.

And again, I'll reiterate. Why are you saying you have no personal feeling here when you posted personal feeling on the matter in this very thread? You have already expressed your stake in this disagreement. It is too late to claim objectivity.

It's possible that I am incorrect on this issue, that there is definition of the word "must" that matches how you are using the word. Or that there is a rule in Pathfinder about rerolling rerolls. I've playing in a lot of games that have those rules. I am unable to find that rule for pathfinder. As a 5 star GM, people look to your example when you answer questions about how the rules work. I have made very specific points, one of which is very plainly stating that this isn't an issue where it could mean one thing or another thing. If you have an opposing view, it is your responsibility, that you assumed when you answered the original question, to actually give an answer to people who disagree with you. This is the only reason I am singling you out on this issue. It's not an attack to request that you defend the argument you have given, one which others are using to make decisions at their tables based upon.

I say 'Must' does not equal 'Must Only' under any definition. I also say that this case by its very nature assumes modification to the reroll result, specifically using the result of a reroll to change the results of a roll in the first place. Do you have answers for these two points?

[Andrew Christian]

Victor,

You are pushing personal feelings onto my statements. Why not look at the order of statements before you start impressing feelings upon me that I do not own?

Could it be, that my subsequent statements you are claiming mean I have a personal stake in this, simply be me trying to argue the point? Simply be me trying to add more justification to what I had previously said?

As I said, my initial reaction before I posted was to say, "sure, go for it." But before I posted, I read and re-read the abilities and determined that the word "Must" is meaningful beyond just that single paradigm (the relation between the initial roll and the re-roll).

As far as how the word itself is defined and how the game rules work...

In many cases the rules do not include "extraneous words" because of word count issues. This causes plenty of ambiguity and confusion on how the rules should be interpreted.

So please lets not try to assume that just because the word "must" isn't used in context in such a way that there is a zero percent chance of it being misinterpreted, that therefore it means exactly what you think it means. This is actually circular logic on your part.

In this case, I feel that the word "must" is more meaningful than the absence of qualifying words. You feel the opposite. That's fine.

Table Variation.

I'm ok with that. I would not argue with a GM that allowed multiple rerolls on the same roll. I do not happen to be a GM that would allow a player to choose to do that.

As for other situations where a reroll could be imposed upon the character, I would lean toward any nefarious impositions being allowable simply by the nature of them being nefarious. And negatively impacting things like this often override the rules of absolutes when it pertains to character actions. As for another character choosing to grant a subsequent reroll, that I'd have to give extra thought. But because it is an imposed reroll, rather than a chosen action by that character, I would be initially inclined to allow it.

Now please, your insistence that I'm making this decision based on some personal like or dislike, is really starting to frustrate me. You are calling into question my integrity in being able to make an impartial ruling on this. I have no feelings one way or another, and should any official clarification from the design team tell me I'm wrong, I'd likely shrug my shoulders and be happy that one more instance of table variation was removed from the game.

So stop trying to make this personal, and lets just discuss the merits of the relationship between the abilities.

[heretic]

I have always ruled much along the same lines as Andrew C.

I suspect the original intention was that you must accept the reroll rather than have a choice between it and the original. I'd go so far as to guess it was written without any thought on other ways to reroll. However the way it was written is an imperative.

I think though that if they had thought about it they might have decided to make the shirt reroll a sacrosanct last ditch effort.

I have been swayed by the idea that an ability that kicks in once a save has formally been failed might be an exception to the reroll that must be made before that but I am not sure.

W

[David_Bross]

These sorts of things being clarified only leads to upset people, so it is probably best it is left alone, and when needed GM adjudication or VO rulings enforced on individual tables.

Personaly I've had two VOs tell me that the correct course of action was to allow a second reroll, that avoided a death. I asked different people about the following sequence:

Phantasmal Killer (PC in question had not IDed spell), rolls poorly on will save, fails. Fortitude save rolled, (Player realizes spell in question), rolls low and chooses to folio reroll, again rolls very low. PC informed of outcome (Death) and brings up a magical item they have. That second reroll keeps the PC alive.

I think we're all happier letting a death be avoided at our tables than not, although we can all acknowledge this is not letting the dice decide.

We've had previous discussions on this forum about that and I was firmly of the camp of this being a feature, and not a bug, in PFS.

[Jason Wu]

I was at a table where an NPC caster tried to make a defensive casting roll to teleport away from large threatening fellows.

The PCs expended no less than three different immediate action re-roll abilities to prevent it. Man, they were pissed off at that caster.

The GM allowed it. Because it was hilarious.

There are other reasons to rule one way or another, and not all of them are based on mechanics or logic.

:)

-j

[TimD]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

TimD wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

Not so. Just because one happens after, it doesn't change that you "must" use the reroll.

PC rolls Will save, see's a 4 on the die.

PC elects to use their Improved Iron Will feat, rolls a 19.
NPC Oracle uses Misfortune on the die with the 19, causing a 6 on the die.

If the MUST is sacrosanct, which MUST is kept, the 19 which MUST be kept or the 6 which MUST be kept?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

-TimD

Ok, so for your example if the gm allows multiple "must" rerolls, would you then allow the player to use a shirt reroll to reroll the misfortune roll?

I'm not sure what you mean by "allowing" multiple "must" rerolls...

None of the abilities I've seen counter or prohibit each others' activation, nor should they, otherwise we end up with weird areas where we have MtG-style "timing" issues with interrupts, which is well beyond the scope of the system we currently have.

My issue is with the determination that "must" is over-riding and I illustrated it with an example where multiple "must use" can intersect.

... and yes, if they bought a shirt/folio/etc. to get a reroll, I'd be happy to let them use it.

-TimD