Search Posts
The needless snark is unnecessary just because you don't agree with my reading of the rules. Your opinion of what the rule says. Not what the rule actually says.
Of course, if you're not using those optional rules a lot of the "Well you're cutting into my profitable downtime by making me craft" arguments go away. True. Just wanted to point that out since its a optional system. It doesn't stop the point of the crafter using their downtime or craft time while adventuring for themselves only. You get 8 hours of crafting in a day if you do nothing else or 4 hours while adventuring. Assuming you even have that time in the day. If the crafter is doing nothing else. Then sure they should craft for the others in the group. That's a good thing to do. But if they have a set of goals to reach and a crafting list (Pearls of Power, Headband, etc) and the other members of the group demand that the crafter make for everyone when they only have time for their own projects...it becomes unfair. At that point its not ridiculous to ask for a small percentage in tips (15 to 20 percent) of the item. Because now the crafter is stuck making for everyone and missing out on the entire reason they got the feat in the first place (to make stuff for themselves). All players have access to crafting feats or have the option of purchasing certain items in a large enough town. A player getting a crafting feat doesn't automatically mean that everyone else gets to benefit from it. If they are short on time the other players can get a crafting feat as well...
Ultimate Campaign is optional rules anyway. "Campaign Systems This chapter presents a variety of small tweaks for your campaign, each one focused on giving life to moments and depth to activities in your game. You can use these systems individually or mix and match them together to taste."
Okay lets use your sound logic. At 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 17th, and 19th level. Every single class gets a feat which can be used on any feat. Seems like everyone gets crafting feats for free!!!! Yah!
You keep saying "free". Yet i don't think it means what you think it means.
First off. Lol. I'm sure in a contrived scenario a wizard would need help from a fighter. Secondly that's a false equivalence. I'm not sure how letting another player die in combat is the same as... "I'm busy with my own crafting so I'll stop what I'm doing. If you give me an incentive.(Incentive being paying me for the object at a heavy discount...I'm such a fiend) Otherwise you have to go purchase it from the market, the same way you would have had to if i didn't have a crafting feat."
Literally any class can take crafting feats. If i take crafting feats and spend my downtime making myself stuff. No one else has any right to assume I'll spend my downtime making them stuff. Everyone can get crafting feats.
It will be really funny when your wizard gets trounced by a monster the fighter didn't manage to kill before it got to him because he didn't have enough Strength Sure. Because me playing a Wizard i really need that Fighter...lol Also some of you just don't seem to get it. If I'm playing a Wizard who can craft magic items. I can spend all of my feats on crafting and still contribute just as much as anyone else in the party during an adventure. I don't need to share my crafting downtime with anyone else to contribute equally. I usually do when I'm not working on my own projects. But I'll be damned if I'm going to invest in crafting and have to spend my time making shit for everyone else for nothing over making my own stuff. People that have played with me either pay what i ask or they go find it else where or they wait till I'm not making my own items. So if they want it sooner they pay more than the base cost...such a f*+%ing crime. How dare i provide a unique service at a heavily discounted price to them...
When i play a caster with crafting feats here is how it goes. Fighter: "Hey Wizard could you make me a Belt of Strength(+2)? Wizard: "Sure that will cost you 3,000 Gold. Fighter: "That's a ripoff. I'm not paying you an extra 1,000 gold. Wizard: "Okay fine. I'll spend my downtime making myself items with my crafting feat. I really want a Headband so maybe if i get time later I'll make your belt...unless I'm making something else." Fighter: "What about my Belt?" Wizard: "Go buy one for 4,000 Gold in the market or make it yourself." Fighter: "..." You see if i invest in a crafting feat. I'm planning on investing my downtime, which could be very limited base on the adventure to make the items i want with it. So my items take priority. I usually offer a small discount to stop working on my items to work on someone else's item. I mean there are plenty of entitled players floating around. So when i encounter one of them who get pissy at me wanting to benefit from my investment. I just tell them to go to the market or learn to make it themselves if they want to b*~$@.
Cast a Quickened Spell:
You can cast a quickened spell (see the Quicken Spell feat), or any spell whose casting time is designated as a free or swift action, as a swift action. Only one such spell can be cast in any round, and such spells don't count toward your normal limit of one spell per round. Casting a spell as a swift action doesn't incur an attack of opportunity. Cast a Spell:
Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn. As far as i can tell using a Swift Action to cast a spell wouldn't provoke. But using a Ranged attack still does.
The base system of Pathfinder doesn't assume any rolls are made in secret unless otherwise mentioned. RAW the only rolls that should be made in secret are: -Disable Device
Though with picking a lock it isn't really needed since the player can just take 10 or take 20. -Disguise
-Linguistics (Create or Detect Forgeries and Decipher Writing)
"Both the Linguistics check and (if necessary) the Wisdom check are made secretly by the GM, so that you can't tell whether the conclusion you draw is true or false." -Trap Spotter (Rogue Talent)
-Augury
-Psychic Reading
Those are a few examples i found searching around, there could be more. Basically the skill, ability, spell will mention explicitly when the roll is made in secret. Anything else is a Houserule.
This is a great example of why cheating as a GM is bad idea.
Indeed, as if the fudging crowd were just as ideological. The only time anyone has been called a cheat or a liar is when the GM is actually doing so. If the group is okay with Fudge then it's not a lie or a cheating thing. If the group isn't okay with it and the GM does it in secret they are cheating and did lie. It's not that hard to grasp. The same is true for players. If a player is secretly altering die rolls they are cheating and lying. Why this basic fact of gameplay offends some boggles my mind. If my GM lies to my face about how the game is being run and fudges stuff they are literally lying and cheating.
My favorite part of this thread is how is like 3, maybe 4 dudes arguing but rotating through a bunch of aliases to make it seem like they've got a lot more support at first. Super trustworthy behavior. You are such a b+%#+.
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules. No. Pathfinder is different than Pathfinder with House Rules. If I tell my players we are playing Pathfinder. But Initiative is filled with a D10, All HP is double per level, they get 4 traits to start, and everyone starts with a bonus feat that is much different than Pathfinder.
The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.
** spoiler omitted **Could someone link or tell me where to find this Rule 0 in Pathfinder. I could only find the "Most Important Rule' bit.So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder? Nope. It was an honest question. I wanted to make sure i was talking about the same thing since that's all i could find.
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder? Could someone link or tell me where to find this Rule 0 in Pathfinder. I could only find the "Most Important Rule' bit.
I far as i care they are interchangeable words. I don't see Fudging/Cheating as a bad thing. So long as the GM and players agree on it before hand.
So CHEATING...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?Yes. Isn't that Rule 0? "The Most Important Rule The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."
So REDACTED...i meant FUDGING is a base rule in the game of Pathfinder?
Yeah basically your GM sucks and frequently cheats to preserve their "Sacred and holy plot" that is clearly so good nothing not even logic can derail it. What a joke.
I never even mentioned Pathfinder. I mentioned a dictionary. Fudging:
": to exceed the proper bounds or limits of something <feel that the author has fudged a little on the … rules for crime fiction — Newsweek>; also : cheat <fudging on an exam>" Those of the faint of heart might not want to look into the spoiler. Fair warning. And as I've said Fudging is based on the preferences of the GM AND THE GROUP. If everyone knows the GM is using a house rule (Fudging). Then no problem. If the GM doesn't mentions it, and hides their dirty little secret from the group, then it's cheating. Fudging isn't a bad thing. It's a perfectly acceptable house rule to use as a GM. It's only an issue when a GM decides they know better and assume players are okay with it; hiding their cheating from the group. What i said only applies to GMs who don't know a players preference. I've played with people (very briefly) who GM like this. It's dishonest and cheating. If your group is ok with it THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. So If after reading all of that your still butt-hurt then maybe...just maybe your cheating.
Yeah, i will given the second line in my quoted post.Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it. I assume your talking about "Many GMs cheat, and it's a reflection of their poor character and/or GMing abilities." GMs cheating is a thing and it's bad because they are supposed to be trusted to run a game fairly. So yeah GMs that cheat are kinda shitty. Hell you just posted a whole story about how your GM cheated. "During that time they confessed to me that they were pretty sure another player was lying about his dice rolls so his policy was to simply halve the damage he dealt." Like really. Instead of just talking about it the GM goes for the passive-aggressive cheating? Great the game was super fun. Doesn't stop him from being a cheater.
Here's an alternative perspective. You min-maxed a character who was obviously already a 9 level caster toward the most feast or famine combat strategy, and the one most likely to lead to an anticlimactic showdown with any story arc villain and leave the other pc's very little to do themselves. The gm started fudging so that the other players had something to do, and the players heckled you out of the party because your character succeeding made the game unfun for everyone else at the table. They didn't bother simply talking to you about it because you give the impression you'd react like the second line over it. You say stuff like that and your going to act all offended because i pointed out Fudging is defined as Cheating in the dictionary. Wow.
So, and I know I'm going way off topic here, we are gonna just keep using an inflammatory term for no reason other than to beat people over the head with it? I mean that is what it seems like here that until everyone agrees with your definition we are gonna keep on. We can do this with a lot of other threads as well I mean optimization is really just a nice word for being a munchkin, or a powergamer.And thats basically my beef and a big part of why I'm using absolutist language. When you have two ways of referring to a thing, one has a perjorative connotation, and the other doesn't, the only reason to choose the perjorative is to start a fight. Hiding behind being technically correct doesn't mean it isn't trolling for a reaction You can think I'm trolling all you like. I'm not hiding behind being technically correct. I am correct in my usage of the words. I even went out of my way to state that Fudging isn't badwrongfun. That is determined by each group as to their own play style.
His perspective is different, not wrong. The arbiter of what is wrong or right is the collective of players that abide by whatever social contract is agreed upon beforehand and during play.But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords. The only fact I've stated is that Fudging and Cheating are the same thing. Which they are... I guess it's hard to understand or something. Fudging is defined as Cheating. Fact. Fudging is good or bad in a RPG game?
I don't think less of GMs who Fudge. I think less of GMs who Fudge and don't tell there players before hand.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords. Nope sorry my perspective isn't wrong. That's exactly how rules work. If the GM tells me we are playing Pathfinder Core Rules with no house rules and then later changes rules on the fly or fudges dice rolls they are cheating. Based on how defensive your getting I'm going to assume you cheat as a GM without telling your players. Why else would you act like this.
Just because you can't handle that people dont see it as the same thing at all doesn't mean you get to bomb in and use deliberately perjorative language to troll threads either. Yet what you can count on is a half dozen people who are guaranteed to drop into any thread where fudging is brought up, or open vs closed gm rolling and liberally spread the term cheating around as though there's a winner or loser in the game. I don't care if people see it that way. The definition of "Fudging" includes...shock gasp...cheating! If a GM doesn't follow the rules...yes that's cheating. (I'll make sure to use the sugar coated term to not hurt your snowflake sensibilities.)
If my GM tells me and my group they will be "Fudging" dice rolls etc. It's not an issue. It is no longer cheating the rules, since we all agreed to it. Fudging is a house rule. It is not assumed in the base rules. So if a GM doesn't mention the house rules and then uses them in secret...then yep they are cheating.
But they are not the same. By definition, a GM does not cheat. You may have issues with how they implement rules and mechanics, but the rules are a guide for GM's not their overlords. How about you take GMs off your pedestal for a moment. If a GM mentions to a group that they will fudge/cheat dice rolls etc before the game. Then it's fine. No issues everyone is happy. If a GM doesn't do that they are cheating. Plain and Simple. If a GM uses house rules and tells the players before the game. Then cool everyone is on the same page. No issues. If a GM doesn't tell players about house rules they are cheating. It's really not that hard.
And choosing a perjorative term and arguing intensely about it in threads where the less perjorative is used is basically trolling at this point. No one is making you post here. If you can't handle the truth just back out and hide the thread. Just because you can't handle that Cheating and Fudging are interchangeable words doesn't mean you get to call people trolls.
Cheating is a thing you do to "win" Fudging is a thing you do to keep a game on track. So if i was playing in a game and "Fudged" my saving throw after seeing a natural 1 come up i wouldn't be cheating? Since I would just be "keeping the game on track". Is that correct?
You're still not seeing the delegitimizing aspect of what you're saying. If it's fine then then stop calling it cheating. Stop calling it sugar coating the term. All of that's just a passive-aggressive way of being pejorative.Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that. No it's not. It's a way of understanding words and their meaning. Look up "Fudging" and look up "Cheating". In my early days as a GM i "Cheated"/"Fudged" and the players where aware. It's not a bad thing.
Well, maybe there's one and only one road between city A and city B and you design and ambush to occur on that road, assuming the players would take it, but the players decide to take a boat, or hire a wizard to teleport them there, or summon monsters to create a tunnel through the earth, or something else. Are you going to have the ambushing party never show up for the remainder of the story? They might show up later if they find out where the players went. I usually have the NPCs make use of gathering information of the players if they haven't attempted subterfuge or covering their movements or make use of divination depending on the resources said NPCs had. I tend to follow the same rules i enforce on my players for my NPCs. Even if they find the players it's a different encounter now. Instead of an ambush on the road that the players avoided. It might later become a hastily attempted ambush in the city, which changes portions of the old encounter. The players avoided the ambush on the road, so now later in the city they might have an easier time escaping or getting help from the watch etc. or maybe the NPCs can't find the players if they have taken action to cover their movement (leaving the city at night under cloak of darkness, disguises, magic used to prevent divination etc.).
Of course you're saying it's badwrongfun. Relentlessly using negative terms like cheating to describe it does exactly that. No i haven't. I've actually said quite the opposite. If you'd stop getting overly defensive about your house rule, maybe you would see that. I'm sorry i don't see a reason to sugar coat what "Fudging" is. If you "Fudge" a die roll your cheating what actually happened. Get over it. Is it a bad practice to use in a game? No. It's a fine and acceptable use of a house rule in a group of players who know that's the style of game being played. "Fudging" or "Cheating" is just as acceptable as not doing that in a game. Neither is superior to the other in terms of play style choices.
Honestly in 20+ years of GMing, I've never had this slip. I feel that fundamentally part of GMing in any of these sorts of games is maintaining that illusion of choice from time to time. After all, if you've prepared something cool or interesting, you're going to figure out a way to run it somehow aren't you?Nope. If the party avoids it, the party avoids it. No. That just seems like poor writing in that case. (Having an important clue hinging on random choice.) Otherwise why even pretend they can avoid it? If a GM is going to ambush the players no matter if they go left or right on a trail why even give the option?
My question for the pro-changing dice is, why are you fighting so hard to defend your position? What part of changing dice is so important to you that you'd do it knowing the party wouldn't like it? Why does it seem that you feel it is required?I could ask the same question to you guys. Why do you defend yours so vigorously? It's because it's the way we play and we aren't going to put up with a lot of BS badwrongfunism inherent in calling it cheating, agency destroying, subversive, or wrong. 1. No one has said its badwrongfun. 2. Fudging is just a nice way of saying Cheating. So whatever. 3. Agency Destroying. It is a little since it does negate some player choice and actions. 4. Subversive. No one is claiming "Fudge" GMs are trying to overthrow a government. 5. Wrong. No one has said it's wrong in general. Only wrong when the GM doesn't tell the players they are doing it. Even with all that said. Fudging is a fine house rule for a group as long as the group knows it works that way; the same can be said of any house rule. If "Fudging" isn't a big deal then I don't why a GM would keep it secret from the players.
For example, rogue PC tries to tumble past a triceratops skeleton to get to a better tactical position but fails to beat the CMD. I roll the AoO and score a crit threat. The PC has a good plan but those dice have not only hosed it, they'll probably kill the PC because a crit from a triceratops skeleton is no small thing. There's no need for the penalty for blowing the roll to be quite so bad so I can fudge. I can ignore the threat and just make it a basic hit or I can roll the crit and "forget" to add some of the damage modifiers and make it survivable. The results are and have been still variable based on dice, but I can edit them by ignoring certain ranges of results. Would the same hold true for a fighter not trained in acrobatics in full plate, since it was a "good plan"? I mean i get what your saying but that might not have been a good example, since it's literally an opposed roll (Acrobatics versus CMD). In the same thought process would you "fudge" for a player who took up a flanking position, a good plan, and still rolls poorly?
The reason players are distrustful of fudging is because largely fudging is perceived as being about neither about "avoiding metagaming" or "to increase player's fun" but rather GM wanting to control the narrative. Yeah. At a certain point why even use dice? Why not skip the middle-man in this case the dice. I've seen plenty of game systems that require little to no dice rolls. My favorite for it is FATE, it basically a game with "Fudging" built into the rules system. To me a game system like Pathfinder doesn't make sense for "Fudging" when games like FATE or other games like it exist.
I'm honestly more concerned with things like "not giving players extra information on opposed stealth v. perception or bluff v. sense motive checks" than "being able to get away with changing a die roll." Well i mean by the rules most of those types of checks are supposed to be made in secret. Like Disguise and Disable Device. Even when i GM i let my players know that even though most rolls i make are in the open a few are rolled behind the screen. (Ex. Stealth, Bluff, etc.) on my end for NPCs so i don't let on anything that they shouldn't know in-game.
I'm not being disingenuous. I only claimed that they are the same thing. Which is a fact. I really don't know how you could read as me being inflammatory. I even said I'm not telling others how to play the game and said various play styles are fine. Not once have I said "Fudging" is wrong to do in a game where everyone agrees to it. Not once. My personal play style is no "Fudging" when i GM and i make it clear to GMs i play with to not "Fudge" on my behalf, even if they are doing it for others. But it's just my personal preference, it doesn't make my way superior in anyway. I promise I'm not judging others for their preferred play style. Now with that out of the way. I mainly just find it interesting that most people feel better using the term "Fudging" and get worked up over it being called "Cheating"; when they are the same thing by definition. You can call it whatever you like it's the same result, the same action, "a rose by another other name" type thing. The only time I ever have an issue with a GM is if they don't make it clear they will be doing it. The base game doesn't assume GMs will be "Fudging" things. Doing so is a houserule and players deserve to know how the game is being run. I've played with GMs who upfront mentioned it. Not an issue i can alter my play style accordingly. I don't feel the need to min/max and certain options aren't worth it if i know a GM is "Fudging". I've also played with GMs who when asked about house rules, say they don't use them. To only find out as the game is being played i was lied to, which is annoying. I've built a character based on the base rules-set and find out that I'm not playing that rule-set, I'm playing their version of the rule-set. The play style has never irked me. GMs who lie and cheat irk me. But like I've said you can "Fudge" as a house rule and it doesn't have to be badwrongfun. The moment the GM is disingenuous about how they run is when it's a problem.
Cheating is never "fine". Cheating is a loaded word. It has an inexorable negative context. Cheating is bad, that's inherent to it's usage. If something is fine, then it can't be cheating and you should come up with another non-loaded word. Oh do you mean like "Fudging"??? Which is the same damn thing. That's like being offended because someone called me on being a Liar and I respond with i prefer the term "exaggerate". Liar is a loaded word.
Fudging is literally by definition cheating. Using the term "Fudging" seems to make it an easier pill to swallow i suppose for some. Does that make it a bad thing? Not necessarily. As long as the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating happening then it's fine. Different play styles are fine. I'm certainly not telling you how to play. But Fudging = Cheating. That's just a fact of the dictionary.
If the GM rolls an attack and the dice says 3 and the "fudge" it to be a 17 that is in fact cheating. The same way if i as a player roll a 1 and "Fudge" it and claim it was a 20 is cheating. GMs are fully capable of cheating. Fudging = Cheating It's part of the definition of Fudging. Now if the group playing is okay with Fudging/Cheating then that's fine. It is by no means an incorrect play style.
And to some groups, referring to a GM's fudging as cheating is blatantly insulting.To some groups chronic cheating is a problem. Fudging is literally defined as cheating. So yeah... People use the term "Fudging" to candy coat what they are doing. If the group is fine with that happening then whatever. But lets at least be honest with whats being done.
I disagree with the premise that "chronic" fudging is even a problem. To some groups chronic cheating is a problem.
You can't Coup De Grace a stunned target. They have to be Helpless. You would need the feat linked above to do that.
Mine wasn't that bad. :) Arken only fell because of Profane Wishcraft and she had plenty of ways to try to avoid that fate. Just missed the Sense Motive and the player was focused on saving her relationship. She ended up being de-powered for 1 session of game play before Atonement happened; since she didn't wilingly do anything. It wasn't a forced situation and while i tried to get her to fall that was only because that's how lilitu demons work. It was also the only time she fell in 20 levels and 10 mythic tiers of game.
"Burn (Ex): At 1st level, a kineticist can overexert herself to channel more power than normal, pushing past the limit of what is safe for her body by accepting burn. Some of her wild talents allow her to accept burn in exchange for a greater effect, while others require her to accept a certain amount of burn to use that talent at all. For each point of burn she accepts, a kineticist takes 1 point of nonlethal damage per character level. This damage can’t be healed by any means other than getting a full night’s rest, which removes all burn and associated nonlethal damage. Nonlethal damage from burn can’t be reduced or redirected, and a kineticist incapable of taking nonlethal damage can’t accept burn. A kineticist can accept only 1 point of burn per round. This limit rises to 2 points of burn at 6th level, and rises by 1 additional point every 3 levels thereafter. A kineticist can’t choose to accept burn if it would put her total number of points of burn higher than 3 + her Constitution modifier (though she can be forced to accept more burn from a source outside her control). A kineticist who has accepted burn never benefits from abilities that allow her to ignore or alter the effects she receives from nonlethal damage."
Because that is what we call in the business a 'dick move'. It's not a "dick move" to use a Sunder combat maneuver.
|
