This is an assignment for the PbP GM school.
Personal health comes first. No worries.
There's no need for Thurgar to get too close. Using a special technique, he uses the edge of his shield as leverage to wield his hammer, letting him keep some distance while doing some damage.
Page 18—When using the Shield Brace feat, treat the polearm or spear as a one-handed weapon. More specifically, when calculating the damage the weapon deals, it uses your Strength bonus instead of 1.5 times your Strength bonus, and it counts as a one- handed weapon when determining extra damage from the Power Attack feat. You may use Two- Weapon Fighting and other feats as if the polearm were a one handed weapon.
@GM_Colin: Lara wasn't reloading - she was bluffing by threatening to detonate her horn.
Retreive item still provoke, unfortunately.
|
One of the unfortunate things that happened was the high attack roll of the charging woman with the greatsword who hit Newt's flat-footed AC but would not have hit his normal AC.
My dilemma was that I did not want to be the aggressor, to attack first, as Pathfinders aren't supposed to be evil. Therefore, I tried to provoke them to strike first - or force them to show that they were bluffing.
I think I could have communicated better that Newt was very aware that his answer could provoke an attack, and that he was ready to deal with it. I was counting on his - for a first level character who cannot afford full plate yet - very high AC.
I'm not sure if the Pathfinder RAW combat system allows a character who is very aware that his words might start a fight to be ready for it (and therefore not be flat-footed).
Could I have had Newt ready an attack on an approaching enemy as a standard action to start initiative? He would have acted before the woman then and not be flat-footed anymore.
Alternatively, could he have started combat with a full defense action?
Communication is one of the things that's a bit more difficult in pbp - at a live table this situation might not have occured. In the future I will try to communicate my intentions more clearly and also ask here in discussion for mechanical options before opening my character's mouth. ;-)
PS:
Another unfortunate thing was the longbow crit with an above than average damage roll. But that's the Paizo dice bot for you...
One of the unfortunate things that happened was the high attack roll of the charging woman with the greatsword who hit Newt's flat-footed AC but would not have hit his normal AC.
My dilemma was that I did not want to be the aggressor, to attack first, as Pathfinders aren't supposed to be evil. Therefore, I tried to provoke them to strike first - or force them to show that they were bluffing.
I think I could have communicated better that Newt was very aware that his answer could provoke an attack, and that he was ready to deal with it. I was counting on his - for a first level character who cannot afford full plate yet - very high AC.
I'm not sure if the Pathfinder RAW combat system allows a character who is very aware that his words might start a fight to be ready for it (and therefore not be flat-footed).
Could I have had Newt ready an attack on an approaching enemy as a standard action to start initiative? He would have acted before the woman then and not be flat-footed anymore.
Alternatively, could he have started combat with a full defense action?Communication is one of the things that's a bit more difficult in pbp - at a live table this situation might not have occured. In the future I will try to communicate my intentions more clearly and also ask here in discussion for mechanical options before opening my character's mouth. ;-)
PS:
Another unfortunate thing was the longbow crit with an above than average damage roll. But that's the Paizo dice bot for you...
Readying an action before an initiative is never allowed, unless you're guaranteed a surprise round, in which the ready action become your surprise round's action. Action before the initiative defeats the purpose of initiative check itself, so unfortunately NO to many of your questions about Newt's action before initiative.
Pathfinder's combat is an abstraction, and a player or an character's awareness of potential foes doesn't guarentee their combat readiness. In the world of magic, it is possible to not react in time to enemy right in front of you, just like how it is possible to react to a sniping shot from unperceivable invisible foe 300ft away.
It is possible to resolve the encounter peacefully from the start, and any angry greatsword wielding people is a death theat to lv1 character due to how 2d6+ 1.5 STR damage will averaging to 13 damage for a 14 STR barbarian, hence the warning that I said after the narratives.
He did not say that he was readying an action, he said he was performing an action. And the rules for that action do not state anywhere they are only valid in combat.
What place in the rulebook or FAQ can you point to to justify your extraordinarily strict interpretation of actions at the start of combat? I have never seen any such rules in PF1 or seen any other GM try to argue there are any such rules.
A general principle that I want to point out here is that if there are two valid interpretations of the rules, you always go with the one that is to the benefit of the players.
On another issue, there was no reason for an AoO on Lara. She did not state she retrieved anything, and there is nothing in the rules to necessitate her retrieving anything, so she did not. In this case, there is no AoO. If this was not an GM school game and the character did something that you had a better argument triggered an AoO, you would need to warn the player about the AoO and give them a chance to change their actions.
Unless the scenario is written with the tactics including that a character attacks casters first, it is overly aggressive for any enemy to first go after the squishy caster. It might be what a smart enemy would do, but this is not about enemies being smart or how smart the GM is to devise clever tactics, it is about providing a game that everyone is able to enjoy. And most of our community does not enjoy such aggresive GM tactics.
(There are some people who enjoy 'hard mode games', and it's OK to offer them in our lodges, but they need to be clearly offered as such so that those who want more normal games are able to avoid them. For a GM school game, hard mode is not appropriate because people did not choose your game, it was assigned to them)
I think that this explains the biggest issues with the combat. It is also quite possible that the tactics in the scenario and the NPC codex where the stat blocks were were not being followed closely enough, but that's not the biggest problem here.
I do want to acknowledge that the dice roller also worsened things with some very lucky GM rolls. That would not have led to the current disaster if the other problems had not been present.
It is also not appropriate for the GM to bot a check to stabilize without waiting a lot longer, probably a week. Stabilize checks and will saves against spells that cause players to lose control of their characters are just too important, too high impact, and too likely for players to choose to use rerolls.
Moving forward with the scenario, the combat is now over, and none of the PCs are injured. You may take over narrating, GM Colin.
On another issue, there was no reason for an AoO on Lara. She did not state she retrieved anything, and there is nothing in the rules to necessitate her retrieving anything, so she did not. In this case, there is no AoO. If this was not an GM school game and the character did something that you had a better argument triggered an AoO, you would need to warn the player about the AoO and give them a chance to change their actions.
Lara her powder horn, pops the top open, and holds the flint of her pistol against it.
She did not used the word 'retrieve', but it's reasonable to assumed that the word grab means she is retreieving something. The reason why Pathfinder RPG do not use codify language for its rule similar to Magic: The Gathering is that we want to be able to use natural languages to narrate the game. Saying grabing an item/gear(Powder horn, found in her"Other Gear" section) does not qualify as a retrieve not only goes against that idea, it would also means that either people need to use the exact wording used in rule to convery their action or the GM need to constantly double-checking the characters' intention. Being able to creatively narrate one's action is one of the biggest perk of a Play-by-Post game, and I don't think we should deviate from that.
If this were happening in a VTT or in person setting, other players will often time remind the player of the immediate consequence of said action. Someone would just shouts out "It provokes AoO!", and the updated action could be quickly resoved. However, such 'sanity check(AoOs, covers, 5ft step, etc.)' will greatly disrupt the flow of a Play-by-Post game, which in our case is already quite slow. Unlike VTT and in-person games which needs to be finished within a 4~5 hour timeslot, the PbP rules recommendation of 1 post per day gives people plenty of times to think about their action. Such reminders are not mentioned or taught in the GM school discussion before the GM school game start, nor it is something that various PbP guide or GM guide requires. If the GM needs to constantly remind player of the consequence of their action and waits a few hours or a day to resolve, the game would be stretch to a longer time span, which I personally don't think it's something we should encourage in GM School.
On the other hand, the lack of foresight to the AoOs could also comes from inexperience player (which might be the case). I think it would be fair to retcon the AoO of Lara and let her choose some alternative action here.
He did not say that he was readying an action, he said he was performing an action. And the rules for that action do not state anywhere they are only valid in combat.
What place in the rulebook or FAQ can you point to to justify your extraordinarily strict interpretation of actions at the start of combat? I have never seen any such rules in PF1 or seen any other GM try to argue there are any such rules.
A general principle that I want to point out here is that if there are two valid interpretations of the rules, you always go with the one that is to the benefit of the players.
This is not "extraordinarily strict interpretation of action", allow me to explains:
Core Rulebook, pg.183 at Table 8-2, "Actions in Combat". That's where you will see "Ready" action. "Ready" itself is detailed on pg.203, which is within the section "Special Initiative Actions".
Core Rulebook pg.178 "How Combat Works":
1. When combat begins, all combatants roll initiative.
So in order for Newt to benefit from Action in Combat(Total Defense, Ready an attack) within the context of foreseeable and imminent combat, he must be in combat. And to enter combat, we roll initiative. Thus, nothing can take a readied action unless all combatants have rolled initiative. If you're attacking or being attacked, you're a combatant.
The key here is separating the fluff of "I'm ready to do something" from the actual special attack action of "I ready an action". The fluff of "being ready to do something" is just flavor in how you describe your character as being ready, but grants you nothing special - when combat begins, everyone rolls initiative and acts in that order.
The problems of allowing combat action before initiative will be much obvious if we substitute the action in example to a Fireball. When two sides are in a stand-down, would be fair to let the wizard(PC or enemy) to cast Fireball before initiative?
Another problem with allowing Ready action before combat is that it trivialize and bypass the Initiative check, since "Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action."
Let's say an enemy has mythic Improved Initiative and spent a mythic power to automatically get a 20 on the result of its initiative check for a initiative result of 32. A PC, no matter how low his initiative check is, if allowed to ready an action that triggers based on the enemy's action, will automatically act before the enemy and essentialy 'won' the initiative against this enemy, regardless of the PC's initiative result.
One more reason why Reading action before initiative is not allowed, is that in Pathfinder both PC and NPC follows the same set of rules for Combat and everything, saved the exception allowed by each's special abilities. If the PCs are allowed to ready an action before the initiative, the same could be said to the enemy, which in character has as many reason to be cautious or hostile as the PCs. If everyone ready before the initiative, we're essentially giving everyone a standard action before the combat officially start. With Fireball and charge with Pounce, a combat could ended before initiative check is rolled. The mechanics of Surprise Round, which gives combatant who has the advnatages of a surprise a Standard action before the normal combat begin, is designed to handle exactly that. I think it's not unreasonable to assumed that Pathfinders and Barbarian standing in broad day light talking do not constitute a surprise for either side.
Unless the scenario is written with the tactics including that a character attacks casters first, it is overly aggressive for any enemy to first go after the squishy caster. It might be what a smart enemy would do, but this is not about enemies being smart or how smart the GM is to devise clever tactics, it is about providing a game that everyone is able to enjoy. And most of our community does not enjoy such aggresive GM tactics.
The archer's tactics are During Combat: The Kellid warriors steer clear of anyone being attacked by the ragers, preferring to engage isolated targets., and the caster in the back rank satisfy this criteria, since she is not being engaged by the rager, and is isolated in the back without protection. An d8 arrow without strength modifier, Deadly Aim, or Point Blank Shot, average out to only 4.5 damage, and is highly unlikely to down any lv1 character. The dice are not in favor of the PC during the combat, which is very unfortunate. But since we're playing a d20 based game system where the result of the dice is part of determination of the outcome of most everything, we should ackowledge and respect the result of the dice roll.
Moving forward with the scenario, the combat is now over, and none of the PCs are injured. You may take over narrating, GM Colin.
I personally find your decision to unilaterally skip the remainder of the combat and rule that none of the PCs were injured after a series of unfortunate dice rolls for the players is extremly humiliating and troubling.
In a d20-based system, the dice are the ultimate arbiters of fate, and their unpredictability is what makes each game session unique and interesting. When you, as the overseer GM, disregard the results of the dice, it not only diminishes the integrity of the game but also sets a harmful precedent. The randomness of dice adds suspense and realism, forcing everyone to adapt and think creatively in response to unpredictable events. You are essentially nullify the essence of the game by ignoring these results. People need to feel that their choices and the dice rolls matter; otherwise, the game loses its sense of fairness and engagement.
Given the dangers characters face once they become Pathfinders, character death is a very real possibility and a necessary one to maintain a sense of risk and danger in the game. Allowing the characters to avoid negative consequences through such intervention creates a dangerous precedent. It eliminates the risk and challenge that are crucial for maintaining excitement and stakes in the game. Knowing that the GM will "save" them from undesirable outcomes will diminishing the strategic and immersive elements of gameplay.
Such ruling will also undermines the current GM's authority, regardless of the true intention. The GM's role is to guide the narrative, enforce the rules, and ensure that players enjoy their game by face meaningful challenges. It is very disrespectful and demoralizing to invalidating a GM's decisions and efforts, suggesting that their actions are meaningless. I urge you to reconsider your decision before it leads to more frustration and disengagement, and presents a compromising solution/narratives to everyone:
After the dwarf falls unconcious in one clean strike of the barbarian, the two surviving Pathfinders, Lara and Newt, realized that the Kellids has the upper hand now and violence won't be a good solution to the problem. The two decided to surrender, which halts the Kellid's onslaught. After some serious bluffing by Lara...
The kellids agrees to let them go as long as they surrender the silverdisk and the silver braclet that the Pathfinder found in their territory, allowing the Pathfinders to keep their personal belongings. The Pathfinders retreats to the covert Pathfinder Lodge in the nearby city Hajoth Hakados, where they heals up theit teammates. The team eventually returns to the River Kingdom to report Ulisha of their findings.
|
|
I just want to add a few things:
1) I have no problem to deduct charges from my CLW wand - PFS is a cooperative game.
2) If combat had continued normally (without intervention), Newt would have immediately surrendered to save his teammates from dying.
3) Question to GM_Colin: Why did they throw tanglefoot bags at Lara (light armor) and Newt (medium armor)? The only one wearing heavy armor is Thurgar. I just want to understand why you used this tactic.
4) Questions to GM_Colin and GM Redelia: Going back before the start of combat, instead of answering (and prvoking them), could Newt just charge the barbarian - and would that action start combat? If yes, would the charge happen in the surprise round? Or would combat start after his attack? Also, if yes, why cannot he take the full defense action instead of the charge?
Your answers will certainly help me (especially when I run games in the future), so thanks in advance.
3) Question to GM_Colin: Why did they throw tanglefoot bags at Lara (light armor) and Newt (medium armor)? The only one wearing heavy armor is Thurgar. I just want to understand why you used this tactic.
Lara: she is a range weapon user in the front line. Tanglefoot bag will weaken her accuracy(-2 attack, and -4 DEX) and potentially makes it so that she can't get herself out of reach for the rager easily.
Newt: He is really tough frontline and the tanglefoot bag can help the kellid hit him (decrease AC via -4 DEX).Samantha and Thurgar are in the back. The range increment penalties and soft cover from Newt and Lara make targetting backline with tanglefoot bag undesirable.
It's less about "hitting the foe with the lowest touch AC" but "weakening your foe while getting close".
4) Questions to GM_Colin and GM Redelia: Going back before the start of combat, instead of answering (and prvoking them), could Newt just charge the barbarian - and would that action start combat? If yes, would the charge happen in the surprise round? Or would combat start after his attack? Also, if yes, why cannot he take the full defense action instead of the charge?
In most of the game I played or run, initiative is rolled when any potential participant express the desire to do any combat action, or even movement in some rare circumstances. The reason why I say "desire" is because that the actual action would have to wait for the initiative rolls and be executed when participants are all in initiative orders.
There're two main reason that the charge/full defense before the initiative won't be allowed and won't be given a surprise round:
-Frist reason is the general principle of disallowing combat action before initiative roll, which I have elaborated in the previous reply to GM Redelia. If you can charge/full defense before the initiative, why can't they ready a tanglefoot to break your charge/attack you before you full defense? The initiative check is THE mechanism to determine who can act before who and sort out the action order in this case. If you want to act before others do, you need to have a better initiative than them, either through a good roll or higher initiative modifier(i.e. allocating more character building resource into initiative check).
-Second, I generally do not award surprise round simply because one side wants to initiate combat 'unprovoked'. This is something that will actually benefits the players more, since most of the time while the GM is speaking, the enemy initiate combats upon the PCs as PCs progressing into the unkown. If you encounters a hungry dire tiger on the road, it shouldn't have a surprise round and restricted charge-pounce bite-claw-claw-rake-rake at you just because it didn't talk to you before it start the attack. Awarding unprovoked attack by giving out surprise round will also encourage violence solution (you fight better if you don't even try to diplomacize at all) and player rush to yell "I charge!" which could be disruptive. Such surprise round might only happen if the opponent does not perceive you as a threat at all, which is clearly not the case here.
And I just want to point out that, even for some reason a GM mistakenly/purposely allows Total Defense before the initiative, it still won't help Newt because Total Defense gives you +4 dodge bonus and any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus(such as being flat-footed, commonly occurs when it's not your turn yet in the first round of combat) also denies you dodge bonuses.
|
|
3) Question to GM_Colin: Why did they throw tanglefoot bags at Lara (light armor) and Newt (medium armor)? The only one wearing heavy armor is Thurgar. I just want to understand why you used this tactic.
Lara: she is a range weapon user in the front line. Tanglefoot bag will weaken her accuracy(-2 attack, and -4 DEX) and potentially makes it so that she can't get herself out of reach for the rager easily.
Newt: He is really tough frontline and the tanglefoot bag can help the kellid hit him (decrease AC via -4 DEX).Samantha and Thurgar are in the back. The range increment penalties and soft cover from Newt and Lara make targetting backline with tanglefoot bag undesirable.
It's less about "hitting the foe with the lowest touch AC" but "weakening your foe while getting close".
Hm... I think that doesn't match the intended combat tactics of the Kellid warriors... or does it?
I'm confused. How does this work? Do the tactics that are written into the scenario completely overwrite the tactics in the NPC description (and the rest is left to the GM)? Or do they complement each other?During Combat: The Kellid warriors steer clear of anyone being attacked by the ragers, preferring to engage isolated targets.
Morale: As long as at least one rager still stands, the warriors fight to the death. Otherwise, they retreat when reduced to 6 or fewer hit points.
(Source: The Silverhex Chronicles PDF)
During Combat: The warrior snipes with arrows until her foes are close, then uses her sword. She hurls thunderstones at spellcasters, and tanglefoot bags at foes wearing heavy armor.
(Source: NPC Codex pg. 266)
---
Same goes for the Kellid ragers; the tactics you used do not match the written ones if both are taken into account:
During Combat: The Kellid ragers focus on the PC carrying the bracelet, refraining from using Power Attack until it becomes apparent that the PC is being shielded from their attacks.
Morale: Unwilling to face the shame of defeat, the ragers fight to the death.
(Source: The Silverhex Chronicles PDF)
During Combat: The barbarian favors her greatsword and Power Attack when fighting monsters, but uses her flail against weapon-using foes to make disarm and trip combat maneuvers.
(Source: Savage Mercenary (Pathfinder NPC Codex 10))
Newt is definitely a weapon-using foe (he was wielding both sword and shield), but the Kellid rager still used her greatsword.
Important note:
My intention here is NOT to criticize you, GM_Colin - I need to understand/learn how to do this correctly for my own tables in the future.
---
Addition: I just re-read the part about table variation in the GM Basics (on page 13 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide V 10.0):
(...) GMs may use other Pathfinder RPG sources to add flavor to the scenario, but may not change the mechanics of encounters. Specifically, the mechanics of an encounter are the creatures presented, the number of opponents in the encounter, and the information written into the stat blocks for those opponents. If an encounter is a trap, haunt, or skill check that needs to be achieved to bypass a situation then the listed DCs and results are not to be altered, as they are the mechanics of that encounter. Additionally, if an encounter already includes mechanical effects of terrain, weather, or hazards, please be aware that these things are also considered mechanics that may not be altered. Roleplaying Guild GMs cannot ban legal character options at public events. (...)
I'm still not sure how to handle two (potentially different) instructions of tactics for one creature... :-/
I plan their action based on the scenario's tactics, since it's more specific to the scenario and circumstances. Specific trump generals.
I plan their action based on the scenario's tactics, since it's more specific to the scenario and circumstances. Specific trump generals.
No, this is incorrect. You must follow both sets if it is in any way possible to do so.
This misunderstanding of the rules does explain some of what happened, though.
Any time the GM has not followed the tactics and it is not noticed so early that it is easy to retcon the fix, the standard solution is to skip the combat, so that is still what we are doing in this instance.
I will answer about other things later today, because there's a lot to answer.
One other thing I think is important to point out in general: the tactics are often sub-optimal, and this is on purpose. Scenario authors and editors often use sub-optimal tactics as a way to make the challenge level of a combat appropriate; the optimal tactics would often lead to the combat being more challenging than intended. This is a big part of why the rules emphasize that the tactics as written need to be followed unless the PCs do something to invalidate them. And the standard for invalidating the tactics is pretty high; it's not just a matter of the PCs doing something that makes the tactics not a good idea. For instance, if the tactics say that an enemy casts a spell but they can't get out of reach of a PC, they can't do something else to avoid the AoO; they can however cast defensively if the GM chooses.
It would be a good idea to skip this combat portion entirely then, since the barbarian are not allowed to do damage, and the archer has to deal with soft cover's +4 AC and the -4 to hit for shooting into melee without precise shot. I wasn't aware that this is the level of combat that is intended and being enjoy, and will keep that in mind next time. It's a good learning opportunity for us indeed.
That being said, this quest ends after you finish dealing with the kellid's interception. What's next?
Colin, what you're saying here doesn't make any sense. Of course the difficulty of combats that follows from the tactics in the scenarios and stat blocks is what is intended. Many scenarios include things like tactics that an enemy will spend the first round, or even several rounds, buffing before they attack. Following the assigned tactics is a requirement of running society games.
In this particular instance, the barbarian would be trying to interfere with the enemies for the first few rounds before trying to do damage. This is perfectly reasonable, and does not deserve comments about 'not being allowed to do damage.' And at this low level, of course everyone is going to take penalties for shooting into melee and things like that.
What's next is a wrap-up post from you after the combat before we move on to the next quest.
I personally find your decision to unilaterally skip the remainder of the combat and rule that none of the PCs were injured after a series of unfortunate dice rolls for the players is extremly humiliating and troubling.
In a d20-based system, the dice are the ultimate arbiters of fate, and their unpredictability is what makes each game session unique and interesting. When you, as the overseer GM, disregard the results of the dice, it not only diminishes the integrity of the game but also sets a harmful precedent. The randomness of dice adds suspense and realism, forcing everyone to adapt and think creatively in response to unpredictable events. You are essentially nullify the essence of the game by ignoring these results. People need to feel that their choices and the dice rolls matter; otherwise, the game loses its sense of fairness and engagement.
The combat was not following the rules, so yes, it got skipped. If it was just one error that way caught right away, it might have been possible to fix it and continue, but that was not the case here.
I don't think you understand the seriousness of what happened here. In previous similar cases, not only did that combat get skipped, but the GM was removed from that game and all of their other games that were from our lodges and banned from GMing and more games for a few months. Because this was GM school, I did not think the other parts were appropriate here.
The mess did not happen because of the dice. The mess happened because of rules errors you made, because you did not follow tactics, and because of a general attitude that we felt, even if you did not intend it, of being 'out to get' the PCs. The dice rolls did not help, but would not have led to three out of four characters unconscious.
Given the dangers characters face once they become Pathfinders, character death is a very real possibility and a necessary one to maintain a sense of risk and danger in the game. Allowing the characters to avoid negative consequences through such intervention creates a dangerous precedent. It eliminates the risk and challenge that are crucial for maintaining excitement and stakes in the game. Knowing that the GM will "save" them from undesirable outcomes will diminishing the strategic and immersive elements of gameplay.
Yes, death is a possibility, it is just a very rare one. I have 170 tables of GM credit, and have never permanently killed a character. At most once has a character needed magic to return from death at my table in a society game. And this is not just me. I have also never had one of my characters permanently killed, and only had to use breath of life or prestige to come back to life three times. I've looked over the list of characters of others who participate in our games often enough to know that very few have characters who have been marked at permanenly dead. It is true that one game out of five or so, a character will go unconscious, but only one. And when a character is killed, although there are no rules requiring it, every time I have seen it happen, the game stops for at least several days while everyone makes sure there were not any errors leading to the death. And either when it happens or at the end of the scenario, the other characters all get portrayed as mourning for their fallen companion. We do not take character death lightly in our community, and I find the way you seem to do so quite troubling.
Such ruling will also undermines the current GM's authority, regardless of the true intention. The GM's role is to guide the narrative, enforce the rules, and ensure that players enjoy their game by face meaningful challenges. It is very disrespectful and demoralizing to invalidating a GM's decisions and efforts, suggesting that their actions are meaningless. I urge you to reconsider your decision before it leads to more frustration and disengagement...
In this case, the GM was not following the rules, so not enforcing the rules. More disengagement is impossible here; we already disengaged completely because the combat was far too challenging to be of any fun or interest.
Colin, I realize it's possible that you enjoy very challenging, tactical combat. What you need to understand/accept it that most people do not. I believe you may even be part of a different community that has made combat like this seem normal to you. This was not normal, and not something that most people could enjoy playing.
On another issue, there was no reason for an AoO on Lara. She did not state she retrieved anything, and there is nothing in the rules to necessitate her retrieving anything, so she did not. In this case, there is no AoO. If this was not an GM school game and the character did something that you had a better argument triggered an AoO, you would need to warn the player about the AoO and give them a chance to change their actions.Lara her powder horn, pops the top open, and holds the flint of her pistol against it.She did not used the word 'retrieve', but it's reasonable to assumed that the word grab means she is retreieving something. The reason why Pathfinder RPG do not use codify language for its rule similar to Magic: The Gathering is that we want to be able to use natural languages to narrate the game. Saying grabing an item/gear(Powder horn, found in her"Other Gear" section) does not qualify as a retrieve not only goes against that idea, it would also means that either people need to use the exact wording used in rule to convery their action or the GM need to constantly double-checking the characters' intention. Being able to creatively narrate one's action is one of the biggest perk of a Play-by-Post game, and I don't think we should deviate from that.
Grab does not in any way imply the mechanical term retrieve. And the actual wording is that if you 'retrieve a stored item' it will trigger an AoO; you did not ask where Lara's item was, so you do not know if it was stored, or if she was grabbing something she had kept out. This really felt like you were looking for a way to hurt that character. If you really thought this might trigger an AoO, you could have asked where it was before she grabbed it, but the more sensible thing would be to just assume it was somewhere that would not trigger.
If this were happening in a VTT or in person setting, other players will often time remind the player of the immediate consequence of said action. Someone would just shouts out "It provokes AoO!", and the updated action could be quickly resoved. However, such 'sanity check(AoOs, covers, 5ft step, etc.)' will greatly disrupt the flow of a Play-by-Post game, which in our case is already quite slow. Unlike VTT and in-person games which needs to be finished within a 4~5 hour timeslot, the PbP rules recommendation of 1 post per day gives people plenty of times to think about their action. Such reminders are not mentioned or taught in the GM school discussion before the GM school game start, nor it is something that various PbP guide or GM guide requires. If the GM needs to constantly remind player of the consequence of their action and waits a few hours or a day to resolve, the game would be stretch to a longer time span, which I personally don't think it's something we should encourage in GM School.
On the other hand, the lack of foresight to the AoOs could also comes from inexperience player (which might be the case). I think it would be fair to retcon the AoO of Lara and let her choose some alternative action here.
No, you cannot sacrifice fairness to speed like that. And when you're using such a strange interpretation of the rules, even if a player pondered for a week, they would not have expected your interpretation.
3) Question to GM_Colin: Why did they throw tanglefoot bags at Lara (light armor) and Newt (medium armor)? The only one wearing heavy armor is Thurgar. I just want to understand why you used this tactic.
Lara: she is a range weapon user in the front line. Tanglefoot bag will weaken her accuracy(-2 attack, and -4 DEX) and potentially makes it so that she can't get herself out of reach for the rager easily.
Newt: He is really tough frontline and the tanglefoot bag can help the kellid hit him (decrease AC via -4 DEX).Samantha and Thurgar are in the back. The range increment penalties and soft cover from Newt and Lara make targetting backline with tanglefoot bag undesirable.
It's less about "hitting the foe with the lowest touch AC" but "weakening your foe while getting close".
As pointed out earlier, you have to follow the tactics, not change based on what you consider a smarter action.
4) Questions to GM_Colin and GM Redelia: Going back before the start of combat, instead of answering (and prvoking them), could Newt just charge the barbarian - and would that action start combat? If yes, would the charge happen in the surprise round? Or would combat start after his attack? Also, if yes, why cannot he take the full defense action instead of the charge?
In most of the game I played or run, initiative is rolled when any potential participant express the desire to do any combat action, or even movement in some rare circumstances. The reason why I say "desire" is because that the actual action would have to wait for the initiative rolls and be executed when participants are all in initiative orders.
There're two main reason that the charge/full defense before the initiative won't be allowed and won't be given a surprise round:
-Frist reason is the general principle of disallowing combat action before initiative roll, which I have elaborated in the previous reply to GM Redelia. If you can charge/full defense before the initiative, why can't they ready a tanglefoot to break your charge/attack you before you full defense? The initiative check is THE mechanism to determine who can act before who and sort out the action order in this case. If you want to act before others do, you need to have a better initiative than them, either through a good roll or higher initiative modifier(i.e. allocating more character building resource into initiative check).
-Second, I generally do not award surprise round simply because one side wants to initiate combat 'unprovoked'. This is something that will actually benefits the players more, since most of the time while the GM is speaking, the enemy initiate combats upon the PCs as PCs progressing into the unkown. If you encounters a hungry dire tiger on the road, it shouldn't have a surprise round and restricted charge-pounce bite-claw-claw-rake-rake at you just because it didn't talk to you before it start the attack. Awarding unprovoked attack by giving out surprise round will also encourage violence solution (you fight better if you don't even try to diplomacize at all) and player rush to yell "I charge!" which could be disruptive. Such surprise round might only happen if the opponent does not perceive you as a threat at all, which is clearly not the case here.
I'll answer this a lot more when I answer your above post, but the initiative roll is not the only factor in who acts before who. Just as one example, stealth and perception rolls can change what order people act based on a surprise round. Here, you are justifying how you think things work by giving your assumptions as to how things work, not from the rules.
GMs do not 'award' surprise rounds, the rules do that. Your entire second argument really doesn't make sense. Whether there is a surprise round or not is a matter of what the rulebook says, not of analogies or what consequences you think are better.
The first problems happened in this post.
First of all, it's never appropriate to throw around a word like 'cheat' in this sort of context. That did a lot to set up the combat as highly adversarial.
Second of all, there is no justification in the rules for not allowing elemental strike just before combat starts. It does not say that it only can be used during combat. It would go off, and last until Newt's first turn. This is not in any way 'cheating initiative', it is initiative working as intended.
I'm not sure if I agree with Colin that you can't ready an action before combat or not. His first argument with quotes from the core rulebook is a reasonable one, so I would certainly never tell a GM they must allow it. The later arguments are far less convincing, because they are based on his idea of how combat should work, rather than what the rulebooks say.
I've had to say some really hard, negative things in a slightly public way, so I think the more positive things I have to say should be in the same setting; that's only fair.
Colin, I believe you have the capacity to be the best hard mode GM I've ever seen. Tone it down a tiny bit and warn everyone what they're getting into, and those who like hard mode games could really enjoy it.
The reason I say your hard mode games could be so good is that you would tell the story well, with the hard combats interspersed. Most hard mode games that I've seen become mechanical and not about the story.
If I knew that it was a hard mode game and picked my character accordingly, I could enjoy playing at a hard mode game you run. If you are interested, when this quest series is over, I'd be happy to be a player at your table to mentor you in such a game.
Honestly, I wasn't aware that the NPC has additional tactics. That's totally on me. I'm glad that we're in GM school because I would hate to kill of characters due to errorous ruling. I agree with most thing you said, and I will pay extra care from now on on the monster's tactics. But the action before initiative thing just feels so wrong to me......
It's 20 days away from my 2 year anniversary of joining PFS, and I've played or GMed 259 games(not including ongoing PbP/PbD games) so far. I've never counter any GM that allows action, especially action that affect combat, before initiative roll. Let's use swift action for example. At first level it's relatively harmless, but later on it will lead to inquisitor being able to start combat with Judgement already active for +3/+4 and has swift action available for Bane in the first round, Paladin has Smite Evil active for massive increase in flat-foot AC from the Deflection bonus, or Warpriest/quicken spell shenanigan. A readied action is worse for the endless posibility of a standard action/move action. And don't forget that the enemy will benefit from the same ruling as well, and enemy include demons with at-will Greater Teleport or nastier stuff.
And the VC for Organized Play Online Stunt Monkey has clarified about this before in #gm_help_pfs_1e channel:
Ready is an action listed under Special Initiative Actions, which states;Here are ways to change when you act during combat by altering your place in the initiative order.This means that you need to be in initiative to do so, I suppose someone could insist they roll initiative at the start of the day but I suspect they would have poor luck with many GMs given the 'in combat' phrasing of the rule.
I can elaborate more on why action before initiatve shouldn't be allowed and how it can let an encounter goes out of control, but I don't think our GM school is the best place for heavy rule discussion like that. I would like to mark it as a "GM/table variation" and move forward.
Stunt Monkey isn't 'the VC for Organized Play Online,' he is one of two VCs for online. In fact, he's the VC for VTT games; Bigrin is the VC for PbP games. The Monkey is very wise, and I always think carefully if I disagree with him, but his advice (especially over 6 years ago!) is not binding here. Also, he is only talking about readying, which is different from simply taking actions.
I actually have no problem with any of the actions you list being done just before the start of combat. If you do, allowing some actions does not mean allowing all actions. As an example, you could say that if you are not in combat, you do not have an enemy or opponent, so only actions that do not refer to someone like that would be allowed. (your argument right now is actually the slippery slope logical fallacy; you are saying that if you allow a certain action, that means allowing all actions).
If you actually look at the place you quote, Stunt Monkey even says that in some scenarios, enemies are listed as readying an action before combat. To me, that is one of the strongest indications possible that PCs can do so. It's not something that GMs in society should be doing unless the scenario tells them to, but I believe players should be able to. I do admit that the ability to ready actions outside of combat is something where table variation should be expected.
However, for someone to use a swift action to buff just before combat, there is no such table variation. This should certainly be allowed, if there is no specific wording in the ability that implies otherwise.
I also want to make sure it's clear that what we're discussing is an action taken just before initiative is rolled. At any other time, there is absolutely no question actions are allowed that make sense not in combat; as an example, players can cast healing spells when they are not in combat!
(your argument right now is actually the slippery slope logical fallacy; you are saying that if you allow a certain action, that means allowing all actions)
The problem being that, since we have no explicit rule on what action is allow right before initiative, the GM has no rule to base on to limit any subset of action. Why is A allowed but not B? This is the kind of argument I would like to avoid on the table, thus why I prefer a unified approach/consistent ruling to it, either everything is allowed or nothing is allowed.
In hindsight though, elemental strike probably should be fine.
Can I quote you on this the next time a GM doesn't allow swift action before combat?