thundercade's page

Here is what I do:

If the party isn't in a hurry, or much of one, then I usually just have them notice the trap - or something odd that may lead to them discovering the trap. This leads to the party handling it much like an encounter. It also allows for particularly vicious traps, since they usually won't actually go off on someone, but adds to the drama.

If the party is in combat, or running from something on the clock, then they have a passing chance to see it using perception, most times with a penalty unless they have trapsense or trapfinding of some sort.

I do that, because in the end, doing it any other way just results in ridiculousness.

With that, I either encourage Rogues to take archetypes that trade out the trap abilities, or put more traps in the game that they find. And, I let that bonus onto anything that deals with a trap or potential one.

I've played table-top games for so long, if I have to go through one more dungeon where we do the obligatory "scanning" step every 30 feet and in front of every door, I'm going to lose my mind.

I've gone as far as never really having the group search anything (by way of a perceptions check, I mean). This alleviates the paranoia that sets in after realizing something was missed once. And, it's usually because the party just forgot to say "we search the room". You can say what you want about tough love, that's just a downer on the whole table.

My advice would be to have an algorithm to how the black dragon will fight. E.g. he starts by doing this, then does this, then attacks a person if they do this, then lands if they do this. This does a few things:
1) This takes away your need to decide between being "nice" and being "mean" every single round.
2) If done right, the players may notice a pattern and attempt to use it to engineer a win.
3) It gives you an opportunity and excuse to put some character into the dragon and the fight. Having a BBEG just do the same thing every turn is boring. They're supposed to be maniacal villains.

Also, just find a way to make sure the party preps with buff spells. If they don't, just tell them flat out "Hey, you guys realize this is a dragon, and your characters know that only turning everything up to 11 are going to win this."

Also - as suggested above, give the dragon a severe disability, either through the environment or just make something up like an injured wing or whatever.

The rules themselves are written in a contradictory way. The wording is that the readied action occurs before the triggering action. Well, how is action B responding to action A if action B is occurring before it? The rules already dictate that things occur in a paradoxical way.

The reasoning that the attacker had "started his swing" prior to the readied action going off is dubious. If "started his swing" is in any way regarded as part of an action, then you're already breaking how the rules dictate the order of actions occurring. If "started his swing" is not regarded as part of or starting an action, then the action hasn't happened at all yet. And if it hasn't happened, then it hasn't happened, and any prior movement has seen no reason yet to be truncated and stopped.

With this, then, there is the question of what happens to the triggering action that is sitting out there, waiting to happen, after the readied action. Well - the only wording giving guidance to this is that the player "..continues with his actions." So, as long as whatever happens next can be considered "continuing his actions", then it's legal. Anything beyond that is for the GM to decide what qualifies as doing that.

The intended actions simply cannot happen the way it was originally thought out due to new circumstances. You may interpret "attacking player B" as "attacking the square that player B is standing in" - but nothing is requiring you to do this. "Attacking player B" can mean just that "making a melee attack against player B". If you no longer can do that - absolutely nothing in the rules gives direct guidance or conclusion to what happens next. As long as what happens isn't directly violating any rules, then it's legal.

If you say the player loses their action - fine, perfectly reasonable. If you say the player can do something different - fine, perfectly reasonable. Both ways are legal.

For the first one, you're telling someone they must now take (or lose) an action, that they haven't taken yet (per the wording of the rules) that they no longer want to (or can't) take because otherwise a time continuity issue will arise that you don't like. The rules don't dictate that you solve that issue, but you don't like it, so the player must continue with their unwanted action.

For the second, it doesn't matter that letting the player do something different might imply a bunch of things you don't like or consider absurd (i.e. the grabbing for a potion 5 times or whatever). It doesn't matter if you consider what's going on to be a "take-back". None of that is prevented from happening in the rules - and nothing in the rules dictates an absolute path of resolution when faced with a triggering action that cannot happen anymore.

"yeah, but if you can change your mind, then the readied person could go back and change their mind, and then, and then and then..."
Yes, that could happen. But many of you are forgetting something - the possibility of an absurdity does not change what's written in the rules. All it means is that you've found an absurdity. There's nothing magical about identifying an absurdity that allows you to then say "This must not be RAW then."

And the same goes for when time continuity is lost. It doesn't matter that you can't identify something in the timeline for the readied character to be physically responding to. Identifying that doesn't add or remove language to the written rules. It just means you need to then decide as a GM what to do about it, if anything. Remember - at the point where the readied action goes off, that player is already responding to something that hasn't happened yet. Even if you insist the resulting triggering action be carried out in the closest way possible to the intended triggering action, that paradoxical response that you don't like has still already happened because the rules said that it did. Any attempt to claim that any part of the triggering action actually occurred prior to the readied action is breaking the written rule that dictates the order - no matter how much sense it doesn't make to you. If you get through it by saying that the readied action just needs to 'complete' before the triggering action, that's fine, but that's something you're making up to make yourself feel better about the time issue - it's not mandatory that that is how it's playing out.

Let me give you all an example of how the rules as written screw with time in an unforgivable way:

Player A has a reach weapon and high dex, and combat reflexes (note, the example stands even without this, but this stuff helps the point a little)

Player A casts a spell on her turn. Then, throughout the remainder of the round, 5 mutated goblins run at her in a rage. The reach cleric build gets to shine, and with her high dex, takes 5 attacks of opportunity, killing 4 outright, and putting the 5th unconscious.
During the next round, she casts another spell, then notices the unconscious goblin's wounds are healing.
Maybe their mutation is fast healing them, who knows, but I better finish him off, she thinks. But Player A stands there, unable to attack the unconscious goblin even once - even though, he is, by definition, much more vulnerable and defenseless than the next goblin that charges her - who she now, all of a sudden, can attack with no problem at all.
Why? - because attacks of opportunity make no sense at all. They constantly insert unaccounted for time into the round and it makes no sense at all.

Identification of a time paradox, timeline issue, or timing absurdity to make a ruling that something should or can happen a certain way makes sense - but using that identification to claim that it must not be allowed to happen in another certain way, is entirely different and it's a ridiculous claim in light of much of the rest of the game. Finding some way for a ruling to create a bad situation (a subjective claim, btw) doesn't make it wrong or illegal. So, in a discussion about what the rules currently state, it has no power.

Changing one's mind isn't against the rules - no matter how much it turns your stomach to think of it happening. It may be an axiom of how many people play any kind of table top game, and it makes sense why it would be, but it isn't in the Pathfinder rules. There is no concept of "declaring" an action you're taking on your turn in the general context of combat. It is used for specific abilities, but only when the rules are explaining exactly how a particular ability plays out. And, the rules are usually really good about pointing out things that a player cannot take-back or undo.

If you reason that the triggering action is lost, or swings at air, or whatever - that's perfectly fine. But NOT ruling it that way is NOT illegal just because you don't like what it might imply. Two different ways to play something out can both be legal.

With that, if they do FAQ this, it will definitely be in favor of the attacker losing his action. The devs always always side with those that will lose their minds if anything were to ever be left up to the GM at the table.

I agree with DM Bu-LA-kay that the "trusted friend" and "convince" are the governing words in the description, and it's what I always focus on when explaining it to anyone with a RAWrd-on about it.

If it is something that you couldn't convince a trusted friend to do, there isn't a chance of getting the charmed person to do it. Just because you can come up with some theoretical scene in which you somehow talk a friend into murdering a family member, doesn't automatically make it something a GM needs to accept is possible with this spell. Its up to the GM what can be convinced just like it would be if you were talking to an actual friend NPC.

We're talking about things like "help me break into this house" or "trip that guard when he comes by". Anything he wouldnt normally do. Not anything he would never do. There are times when "anything" has implied boundaries and many people choose not to recognize them for this spell.

Also, if we are going to insist on absolute literal meanings, it says nothing obviously harmful. It doesn't say harmful to who. I realize that many people will choose to interpret that as referring only to the charmed person, but thats not what it says. Killing someone is harmful. So the spell specifically prohibits killing (or even hitting) another person.

So either way here, your new magical buddy isn't killing his wife.

If you do keep this player in the group, just remember - you don't have to indulge his desired actions. Nor do you need to win an argument if he protests. I always want player's decisions to work - but if someone is clearly breaking the social contract of "please don't mess up the game for everyone" - whether they are aware of it or not - then you can just say no and move on to the next player.
But, don't say no, then wait for that trouble player to agree. He won't. You have to just move on, making it clear that he is not in control. It's not about a GM power trip, it's just facilitation. It can always be awkward when doing this - but it's better in the end. If the player complains (and sometimes rightfully so) that you are cutting him off and not listening, then just explain why, what it's doing to the game, and that it is one of the few things that takes priority over giving the player total freedom. Again, you're telling, not asking. If he doesn't agree, then he's done.

I've always been surprised that Stat rolling is still hanging around as a tradition from the old days of table top RPGs - even to the point where rule books are reluctant to just come right out and say "Look, don't roll them, just do point buy and have a happy game."

IMHO, die rolling is for the round-to-round, day-to-day play out of the adventure. It's not for determining character defining attributes that impact everything the PC does, every single round for 15+ levels of a campaign.

If you're one of those GMs that "thinks it's a good challenge for the player" or "let the dice fall where they may and the players need to deal with it" - then you're doing a very mean thing and you don't realize it.

As the GM, you're not their parents, and you're not their coach - it's not your job to give them personal challenges and try to teach them life lessons (even if you could argue that they need one). Acting so is incredibly offensive to someone who is supposed to be your friend.

I haven't done this for all social encounters, but I have done this for discussions at big plot points or for the talk with the BBEG prior to fighting him (the outcome has the chance of giving a slight combat bonus or whatever). I've used rules similar to the chase rules - I think they're in the GameMastery Guide, right?

Basically, your PC is "chasing" the NPC through checkpoints in the conversation and needs to catch him. So in the example of you-tie-up-the-last-living-bandit and question him (the "chase-ee" begins one point ahead, and sorry in advance for the bad dialogue):

"I ask him which direction the other camp is"
"Ok, make an intimidate or survival check" (the bandit is making a sense motive or maybe a bluff check, the PC fails his check, and the bandit makes his, now the bandit is two points ahead)
"That doesn't seem to shake him. He smiles and tell you he doesn't know but if you need directions to yer mom's house he'd be happy to tell you ;)"
"I put my knife to his throat and say "How about now?""
"Alright, make a Bluff check - he'll be making an opposed sense motive check" (The PC makes his check against the bandit, the DM decides that was intimidating enough for two points, now the PC and the bandit are even and the bandit gives in)
"He looks scared now and says "Ok, let me live and I'll take you there."

But, you can of course make it much more lively than that.

I like this because it's already set up to deal with an exchange between two people and it's really easy to adjust based on anything you want - starting attitude, likelihood of the person even talking to you in the first place, noise in the room, rumors already around town, etc can all affect the DC of checks and the "length" of the conversation.

This is a good way to involve several different skills into a conversation (e.g. the Knowledge skills) but you'll need to give the players sort of a guide on how to do it since they'll want to be able to play to their strengths. The whole idea is to allow the PCs to prepare and use some kind of - however simple - tactics when in the encounter.

This makes be think of the Professor X / Magneto conflict. They ultimately want something very similar (kind of) to happen in the world or with a similar population, but simply don't agree on how it's done or who get's hurt along the way. There is a sadness to it, because so much effort is spent fighting each other. Paladin tries to stop the Anti-Paladin. The Anti-Paladin doesn't want to hurt the Pally but want to accomplish her goals with or without her. Anti-pally will use force against her sister if it's necessary to do so.

I'd say work it into a story like that. Hard part is, this is more for a pair that doesn't need to be (and probably shouldn't be) together all the time.

It could be about race, or people with magical abilities. They could each start out under the same god, but the anti-pally eventually works with a a rogue faction of the faith that follows a different god to accomplish [whatever] their own way.

I wouldn't let the hard rules on paladins/anit-paladins get in the way here. If the story is good, just play it out however you need to.

thundercade wrote:

...

3. This is the hardest - but try harder to not care about the combat and tactics. I guess another way to say it is: If you want to have fun, think of something fun, then have your character do it. Don't just play the game and see if you end up having fun. Develop your character's character.
...

Wow. I understand what you are saying. However, most of the groups I've seen or been a part of for the past few years need the exact opposite advice.

They spend a fair amount of time complaining about how hard the combats are as written in the AP's. Most GM's I've talked to have to re-write the encounters as much tougher just to give the PC's a challenge.
I've tried to nudge them along with suggestions and examples but they mostly insist on doing 'stupid crap cause it is in-character'

Yeah, that's a good point. Careful who you give this advice too. Us 2nd edition players all had a group with someone who insisted on being a Kender and took it wuHAAAYYY too far. Always a group killer.

As for the ghost that's already there - you could try this:
When the party sees it again, RP it out so that the ghost now reacts differently to them because they haven't been "scared away" from the first encounter (even though, ironically, they actually were). Now the ghost isn't as set on destroying them, but following them? Of course, you have to watch out - when it's obvious that you're holding back on a creatures abilities due to previous trouble, it can seem patronizing or insulting.

I can understand why there is no errata issued to change this to the 3.5 rule. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but hear me out on the argument. Here's how I see it (forgive the drawn out explanation, I think it helps):

1) SKR Method:

The SKR method is based on a ruling that deals specifically with this situation in which something needs to be done.

Bugleyman brings up a good point, that SKR's method would then naturally extend to the facing abstraction and others, and now what do we do about that? But, nothing is really making you extend it to the other abstractions in the game. The only reason any of this is an issue is because you (players and GMs) generally agree that this specific abstraction (the AoOs and reach) crosses a certain intangible threshold and we need to do something about it.

2) 3.5 Exception Rule Method

The 3.5 solution changes the rules of the game, now treating a distance of 15 as 10 feet if it's diagonal, when holding a reach weapon. I think it's this that Paizo may not really like - because it affects other aspects of the game in a way you really cannot choose to ignore.

Just as an example, With RAW, a spell caster standing on that second diagonal, can cast a spell with a 15ft cone and hit the NPC holding the reach weapon. The NPC with reach cannot take an AoO on that caster, and cannot attack that caster without moving to re-position and bring the caster within 10ft. This is how it's supposed to work - the caster's 15ft effect should extend to and hit the NPC, the NPC's reach weapon of 10ft should not threaten the caster. And the reason is because they are 15ft apart.

Using the 3.5 exception rule is perfectly reasonable, and I don't think many would argue with that. The example given earlier with all the tripping is a good one. BUT, you're now changing the way that the caster example is affected by a reach weapon. This caster situation described here is now reversed (i.e. he will provoke, and can be attacked) because of a rule that was changed only to make a completely different grid anomaly issue easier to deal with. It effectively shifts the problem to another situation that maybe you never run into but others do. Now, instead of the reach AoO situation needing a ruling since it doesn't make sense, you have a spell-range AoO situation that doesn't make sense.

And it's likely most GMs may not care. Yeah, if you run into the reach weapon thing 99 times vs. the caster range thing 1 out of 100 - of course you're going to want to house the 3.5 rule, I probably would.

But my point here is - the SKR method, while technically ignoring the RAW, since under RAW there is no provoking that can happen, doesn't force you into any other changes as you are not bound by any external force to accept either all or no grid abstraction anomalies. The 3.5 method, while making this much easier, necessarily alters other situations in the game since reach weapons are now better under the new RAW. (And, if any of those situations cause yet another anomaly crossing that intangible threshold, you'll now be in the same place you started even though you've changed the RAW.)

Again - not an argument against the 3.5 rule, just a shot at explaining what might be going on in the minds of those that help make the rules.