Cristiano Marcelino de Paula's page

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Its a my condiment.

Ketchup or mustard?

Oh or pickle relish?
Mayonnaise (unless its miracle whip.... ewwww)

Or my favorite honey mustard.... or barbeque sauce

Pepper is better, pepper in characters life. xD

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Dr Grecko wrote:

I'll give you an example of one of our games.. I was not the DM for this.. We attacked and nearly killed a green dragon.. He got up and started to fly away, to live to fight another day. I, a wizard, grabbed my monk friend and dimension doored onto the back of the dragon.

I of course fell to the ground immediately as I was stunned after the D-Door, but I lived. Our monk grappled the dragon and proceeded to kill it from it's back... It was one hell of a scene, and 100% RAW. At no time did we lose immersion by following the rules.

The rules are there, the immersion is there. No need to change the rules when immersion is all about how you describe things.

That's what I like, that kind of scene that the rules do not provide.

And I just mute some details for the sake of plot, this is very important.

Except, the rules do provide for the scene. I gave them to you right there.

I'm going to bow out of this thread. I'm getting the impression that you are ignoring what has been pointed out to you so that you can continue to insinuate that people who follow the rules are bad GM's.

Whether this is on purpose or not, I'll never know. But I get the impression that english is not your main language, so it could just be mis-communication.

Again you are free to change the rules how you see fit. That is GM's prerogative. It doesn't make you any better or worse a GM than anyone else.

Good day, Sir.

Correct, I speak Spanish and Portuguese, sorry if my english is intermediate.

Uma boa tarde pra você rapaz. xD

I come from the storyteller school, and I tasted for my group that D&D/Pathfinder is not a robotic system as storyteller players think.
Unfortunately it was this prejudice that drove me away from D&D for so long, this is an amazing system and I follow 98% of the rules.

I'll give you an example of one of our games.. I was not the DM for this.. We attacked and nearly killed a green dragon.. He got up and started to fly away, to live to fight another day. I, a wizard, grabbed my monk friend and dimension doored onto the back of the dragon.

I of course fell to the ground immediately as I was stunned after the D-Door, but I lived. Our monk grappled the dragon and proceeded to kill it from it's back... It was one hell of a scene, and 100% RAW. At no time did we lose immersion by following the rules.

The rules are there, the immersion is there. No need to change the rules when immersion is all about how you describe things.

That's what I like, that kind of scene that the rules do not provide.

And I just mute some details for the sake of plot, this is very important.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Dr Grecko wrote:

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules

And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.

but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)

I am GM by 14 years, and there are people who think the own character like in a third person game (it is absurd but I met a few), others just get lost on the board and think they are playing chess, seeing the battle from the same perspective.

If the master does not engage such people will never come to immersion and not see the possibilities excluding move and attack.

You seem to be under the impression that people who follow the rules can not have immersion. This is patently false.

Typically, those who can not get soaking after playing sometimes do not play anymore.

Therefore never consider the possibility of jumping on the back of a dragon who does not give in World of Warcraft.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Its a my condiment.
coherence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ;>>>>>>>>>>>> rules

And as a GM, you're entitled to make any house rules you wish... or "condiments" as you put it.

but you are in the wrong place to say coherence >>> rules ;)

I am GM by 14 years, and there are people who think the own character like in a third person game (it is absurd but I met a few), others just get lost on the board and think they are playing chess, seeing the battle from the same perspective.

If the DM does not engage such people will never come to immersion and not see the possibilities excluding move and attack.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.

Nice, but i will use the Eridan checks solution.

It's simple and solid rule.

Really? I was sure you were above such things as "rules".

Use almost 98% of the rules, if I modify the system in mecanics or feats i can throw all bestiaries by the window because will be unbalanced.

Here's a link to a House Rule that does exactly this thing.

Nice, but i will use the Eridan checks solution.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are still ignoring what is being said.

We know dang well what immersion is.

No one, is saying to not describe a scene.

You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.

Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.

For coherence would be thrown back, in my opinion the opposite leaves everything robotic.

Others DMs do whatever want.

Except now you're adding effects to fireball that are not in the rules. To explain what you feel is an explosion worthy of pushing people back.

I wont even get into the fact that fireball specifically states that the explosion creates almost no pressure, invalidating the explosive pushback.

What you need to do is describe the effect for what it is, not create additional effects for cinematic purposes. Make the description fit the rule, not the rule fit the description.

This is your mistake, u are thinking in a fireball spell, I already had in mind a fireball thrown by a catapult attacking a castle.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are still ignoring what is being said.

We know dang well what immersion is.

No one, is saying to not describe a scene.

You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.

Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.

For coherence would be thrown back, in my opinion the opposite leaves everything robotic.

Others DMs do whatever want.

Except now you're adding effects to fireball that are not in the rules. To explain what you feel is an explosion worthy of pushing people back.

Its a my condiment.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.

P1 - Ok, I attack.
DM - You try to hit his chest but the horrendous blocks your hammer, holding up your arm and pushing. And Now?
P1 - Ok, I attack again.
DM - U hit, roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3.
DM - Okay, now you hit him in arm locked of before, the Ogre screams. A sound seems to have hurt the bone of his arm, but did not break. Who's next in the initiative?

I couldn't help but notice you didn't have them roll to hit ;p

Still, that omission aside what you described is about what 90% of seasoned veterans do, and notice it has nothing to do about the rules. The rules say roll to hit and roll damage, how you describe it is up to you.

I do things a bit differently than you however, I have them roll all attacks and damage first, and then I dive into the description of the attack sequence. It saves precious time that way.

You came on a rules forum, and, to paraphrase, proceeded to say people who follow the rules are bad DM's. Expect the reaction you got from people.

This whole discussion began when some said climb on top as the Dragon is on the cover of the book is absurd, was entered when the concept of description and immersion contradicting robotic game of who sniffed to maneuver against the Dragon.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.

P1 - Ok, I attack.
DM - You try to hit his chest but the horrendous blocks your hammer, holding up your arm and pushing. And Now?
P1 - Ok, I attack again.
DM - U hit, roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3.
DM - Okay, now you hit him in arm locked of before, the Ogre screams. A sound seems to have hurt the bone of his arm, but did not break. Who's next in the initiative?

I couldn't help but notice you didn't have them roll to hit ;p

Read again my friend, the rolls are there.

You are still ignoring what is being said.

We know dang well what immersion is.

No one, is saying to not describe a scene.

You just don't have to bend the rules to do so.

Is this my condiment based on coherence, exemple: a powerful fireball explodes violently, I see no reason to let everyone in the same place.

Others DMs do whatever want.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

DM - Roll your first attack.

P1 - Ok.
DM - U missed. Roll the second attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U hit. Roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3
Ok - Ok, next player.
P2 - It's me.

Do not be that DM.
Focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.

Could you describe for me how you do the sequence above?

DM - You are quicker to get in the battle, if you want to attack the Ogre you can reach it.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

DM - Roll your first attack.

P1 - Ok.
DM - U missed. Roll the second attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U hit. Roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3
Ok - Ok, next player.
P2 - It's me.

Do not be that DM.
Focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.

The cinematic visual fluff in a fight, which i'm sure a lot of GMs might excitedly describe (I know i do) has absolutely nothing to do with the rules regarding how to jump/climb/vault onto, stay on, and attack(be it sneak or regular) a dragon.

The question is this: the more descriptive you are more the players feel encouraged to do different things that often do not have in the rules.

This is called immersion.

DM - Roll your first attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U missed. Roll the second attack.
P1 - Ok.
DM - U hit. Roll the damage.
P1 - 8 + 3
Ok - Ok, next player.
P2 - It's me.

Do not be that DM.
Focus to the description of what happens before moving on to the next action.

You still outright mocked those who were capable of making cinematic combat, without rules breaking, or bending.

In fact, you implied that cinematic combat was impossible with it.

You must really love that horse.

,

Yes, dont need rules breaking.
This is just a condiment, each DM has his.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

To make cinematic scenes is necessary focus to the description of what happens, and not just say que you took 11 damage for example.

SOMETIMES a few extra effects like throwing players in the air by the big impact (explosions, gargantuan creatures attacks, storms, etc).
No makes sense the affected characters stay where they were after the devastating attack.

This is cinematic combat guys, is simple and because of the immersion the player may rather want to climb into a dragon or make other uncommon manouver.

Cinematic combat is still all left up to the imagination of the players and DM invovled. Any modifiers or effects from from coming up with a grand display of how you're doing whatever it is your doing.. is entirely GM Fiat, and has nothing to do with the actual rules.

I've had players jump onto, and off of bar counters.. running jumps attacks, I recently had a Brawler charge a Tatzlwyrm from horseback, and jump off it to land a flying grapple.

Any bonuses or penalties given to those were entirely made up by me on the fly, based off of altered combat rules.

You're wanting to argue your merit for what would be a houserule on a RAW messageboard.

You exaggerate, I said that these effects are SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES (read as exceptions to the climax of the adventure).

This is the rule corner of this board. This is a place where you make rule questions and expect rule answers.

Yes, I've had several rules responses that resolve the maneuver.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

I'm sure even the most conservative DM (squares and damage only) were thoughtful after read this topic.

You keep insisting that those who stick to the rules all play dull boring games, without anything cinematic, or interesting happens.

That is false, and rude.

This implies that your tendency to break, or bend the rules, makes you a better player, who has more fun, and is just better at gaming.

From here, you are sitting on a high horse, and mocking those who don't play the way you do.

Why?

Well, that's because it is exactly what you are doing.

Take a moment, get off the horse, and remember that just because someone is not having fun the way you do, doesn't make it wrong.

To make cinematic scenes is necessary focus to the description of what happens, and not just say que you took 11 damage for example.

SOMETIMES a few extra effects like throwing players in the air by the big impact (explosions, gargantuan creatures attacks, storms, etc).
No makes sense the affected characters stay where they were after the devastating attack.

This is cinematic combat guys, is simple and because of the immersion the player may rather want to climb into a dragon or make other uncommon manouver.

I'm sure even the most conservative DM (squares and damage only) was thoughtful after read this topic.

The dragon was just an example, thanks for the suggestions guys now I can solve this maneuver against any other larger creature. Thanks again.

Thanks Eridan, i agree, Legolas vs oliphant is quite exaggerated, just made reference so they can visualize the scene.

Well, you can house rule anything. If you are here in the Rules forum, asking about rules, you can be expected to be given the rules.

I'm not looking for more rules, I'm looking for solutions / suggestions to the situation.

I'm pretty sure that rogue isn't standing on that dragon, and a dramatic painting doesn't equal rules. You have your own idea of what's happening in that painting, but the rules don't support it. If it's working for your game, run with it. RAW says no.

Not all situations are encompassed in the rules, sometimes improvise to keep the game at a good pace.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Its a RPG guys, not a board static game.

To be really honest Pathfinder is not great at depicting cinematic combat when the rules are followed exactly. There is always GM fiat, but if you prefer a loose cinematic style a less deterministic system might fit your style better.

Correct, I try to respect all the rules, and make checks that make sense in context.

I'm pretty sure that rogue isn't standing on that dragon, and a dramatic painting doesn't equal rules. You have your own idea of what's happening in that painting, but the rules don't support it. If it's working for your game, run with it. RAW says no.

Everything can be recreated, is this RPG.

Cristiano Marcelino DePaula

AKA: Came onto a rules forum looking for rules, then reverted to personal attacks when he got them.

Ok, I apologize.

I'm with Brf, if you're sharing a space, you are grappling. The dragon is flat-footed to your allies, but not you.

Nope, u can be balancing standing on top of the Dragon, without grappling.

http://tinypic.com/r/2s8iy9s/8

Name: Brf
A.K.A: "Plastered on the rules"

Coherence must come before anything, including rules.

There is a very specific rule for having flanking.

You draw a line from the center of your square to the center of your teammate's square.
If that line passes through opposite sides of your opponent, then you have flanking, otherwise you do not. You cannot possibly draw a line through opposite sides if you are on your target's back.

RLY???

Damn life, u saved the topic. #not.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

Fraust wrote:

So it's ok to use the rules to say you gain sneak attack but not ok to use the rules that state you don't actually get sneak attack? Yeah, think I'd rather play under the guy that's going to consistantly apply the rules.

In the flanking rules = sneak attack enabled.

So if you are on the dragons back and its standing on the ground and there is someone in front of it then you could. . . but if its in flight there wouldn't be any way to flank it.

Yes, with a party are in the ground fighting him.

Its a RPG guys, not a board static game.

Look a Rogue flanking in top Great Wyrm Red Dragon in Mythic Adventures Pathfinder Book.

http://tinypic.com/r/2s8iy9s/8

What I'm seeing is that many do not like the game get out of sameness, so creating difficult things to hinder this maneuver.

Ever notice that it is not broken, it is actually extremely difficult to be done.

So it's ok to use the rules to say you gain sneak attack but not ok to use the rules that state you don't actually get sneak attack? Yeah, think I'd rather play under the guy that's going to consistantly apply the rules.

In the flanking rules = sneak attack enabled.

It doesn't need to be against the Dragons CMD necessarily. . . depending on the size of the dragon I'd say just select the appropriate CR for the Acrobatics check to get on-- maybe against CMD or opposed against his Flight check if he tries to shake you off.

Huge CR 30, Gargantuan CR 25, Colossal CR 20?

Other good idea.

Brf should be a boring DM. -_-'
The rules handcuffed him.

PF does not have facing. The dragon is not "looking" any direction in particular.

And with this move you will be the exact opposite he looks, and you be impossible to ignore a Fighter or Barbarian in front cutting him off.

Since PF does not have facing, and you are sharing the dragon's space, I doubt if you can say you are flanking the dragon from its back. You would have to be on the other side of it from your party members.

You have never played D&D or Pathfinder imagining cinematic actions?

Since PF does not have facing, and you are sharing the dragon's space, I doubt if you can say you are flanking the dragon from its back. You would have to be on the other side of it from your party members.

Consistent flank should be the exact opposite side of where the dragon is looking, if u are behind your head then it is acceptable if your friends are in front him.

RPG is not chess board like you are visualizing in your mind, it u adapting the rules to the situation and not the other.

Cristiano Marcelino de Paula wrote:

As a rogue u have the advantage of giving sneak attack at every turn.

I am not sure what you are basing that on. The dragon is certainly aware of you being there, and if the dragon did not want you there he could always twist his head around and bite you, or breath on you.

Sneak attacks can be made while flanking, not only flat-footed, and behind the head of a Dragon is the best place to flank when you're fighting in group.

And the Acrobatics check vs Dragon's Strength ability for not fall?

The intent is not Ride but to attack the Dragon (like Legolas and Oliphant).

CMB vs CMD to grapple, maybe. Not acrobatics vs CMD. If you're successfully grappling, you wouldn't fall, even in the air.

[/b]

I accept Acrobatics vs CMD, it's a moving, tumbling to climb.

I would allow it with a CMB vs CMD check, but there wouldn't be much mechanical benefit to doing so (other than sharing the dragon's square and possibly moving with the dragon if you can make the Acrobatics/Ride checks to maintain your balance).

As a rogue u have the advantage of giving sneak attack at every turn.

And how do not fall?