Things that just don’t make sense when following the rules.
In my time playing pathfinder just as when playing any other rpg I have found a few situations that just don’t make sense.
For example is there any real reason you cant throw more than one shurican in each hand, logically you could fit several of them in each hand but based on the rules you can only throw on per hand. Not really a big deal but it bothers me.
I have had a few other instances like this but I honestly cant think of them right now, what my real problem is when rules get in the way of realism, I understand the need to control how powerful some things are but honestly in the end when you cant do something just because the rules get in the way just ruins some gaming experiences for me.
Does any one else have examples of when the rules get in the way of something that logically you should be able to do.
|
...what my real problem is when rules get in the way of realism...
I usually start having a problem when my group begins arguing about how this-or-that rule isn't "realistic." It's hard to argue realism when you're playing an imagination game where you're an elf using magic to fight a dragon.
-Skeld
i can suspend disbelief on many things its when the rules tell me i cant do something is my problem of all the things you can do in this game its the simple things you cant do is what gets me.
You can make reasonable justification for just about any rule one way or the other, using mechanical terms or roleplaying.
Say that the reason you can't throw more than one shuriken per hand is that holding more at once puts off your throw and you can't put enough force behind it to project them accurately and damagingly.
For example is there any real reason you cant throw more than one shurican in each hand, logically you could fit several of them in each hand but based on the rules you can only throw on per hand. Not really a big deal but it bothers me.
You can't do this and actually hit with all of them. They're going to be released at slightly different times, which means different trajectories. Sorry, but it's NOT logical. Every time you see a ninja movie or anime or whatever do this, you'll note that the shuriken fan out into a cone-type effect.
In fact, shuriken aren't designed to deal damage at all. They're designed to provide a distraction, to make the target stop and protect his face or belly or other vital areas while the ninja gets away.
i don't want to get into a big discussion about shuricans not that i don't appreciate the explanations but the real reason for this post is about how the rules get in the way sometimes and how some arguments just feel like a rationalizations for the rules not the other way around.
In fact, shuriken aren't designed to deal damage at all. They're designed to provide a distraction, to make the target stop and protect his face or belly or other vital areas while the ninja gets away.
Yeah, tell that to poor Butters!
Yeah, tell that to poor Butters!
In fact, shuriken aren't designed to deal damage at all. They're designed to provide a distraction, to make the target stop and protect his face or belly or other vital areas while the ninja gets away.
hahaha good reference
When I saw the title of this thread I immediately thought of rules lawyering. Who cares how realistic throwing a fistful of shuriken is? If your DM agrees, go for it. Carve out a basic rule, post it here, let others critique it for balance and have fun.
Zo
|
Who says you can't throw a shuriken in each hand? The two-weapon fighting rules allow you to use thrown weapons, and even use shurikens as an example.
Take Bob Ninjawannabe, level 1 Human Fighter (I am aware a Monk may be more appropriate, Irori can suck it).
+1 BAB, 15 (+2) Dex, 16 (+3) Str. Just to demonstrate that it can be done with no feats, here is what his attack bonus would look like were he to throw shurikens.
One Shuriken: -1 attack (+1 BAB, +2 Dex, -4 proficiency)
Two Shurikens: -5/-9 attack (as above, -4/-8 penalties for TWF with a light offhand weapon)
The shurikens would do 1d2+3 damage each. Keep in mind that though Two Weapon Fighting and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Shuriken) would make things easier, anyone can use them without.
Now let's pretend Bob is a smart wannabe, and takes Weapon Focus (Shuriken), Two-Weapon Fighting, and Exotic Weapon Prof. (Shuriken). Now he has:
One Shuriken: +4 attack (+1 BAB, +2 Dex, +1 WF)
Two Shurikens: +2/+2 attack (as above, -2/-2 penalties for TWF with a light offhand weapon, but with the TWF feat)
Also, I assume Bob has both shurikens drawn at the start of his turn. If he did not, it would be a move action to get each shuriken out. If he replaces Weapon Focus with Quick Draw, or just takes it later on, then he can draw his shurikens as free actions and stop worrying about it.
The rules do not get in the way of fun. Only a lack of understanding and wisdom.
Thankfully, I hear your prayers.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
Who says you can't throw a shuriken in each hand?
That wasn't the statement. The statement was that you can't throw multiple shuriken from the same hand at the same time (multi-multi-shot for shuriken, basically).
EDIT: Also, you're wrong about the time it takes to throw shuriken. They're considered ammo, so it's a free action to draw one as part of a full attack.
i'm talking about more than one shurikan per hand.
|
|
Bah, prayers are getting read wrong. That's another few beings I need to smite.
Edited, Quick Draw not necessary. Use multiple attacks, TWF, whatever you like. Once you're throwing 4-5+ shurikens in one turn, who cares how you describe it?
Edit: Zurai is indeed correct, I overlooked shurikens being considered ammo for purposes of drawing as well. In that case, you don't even need Quick Draw. Throw as many as you have attacks and just say they're from one throw. Who cares that you roll one after another, there's a number of ways to describe your flavor.
Your God of Knowledge,
Nethys
I don't think the original poster actually wanted to gripe about shurikans but was merely using that as an example of an annoyance. I think the answer to the more general question is that you can choose to separate the intent of the rules and the spirit of the rules. The intent of the rules is to limit you to one shurikan/rnd to limit damage. We don't want you throwing dozens of d3 dmg objects and then adding +5 magic, +2 str, +2 spec, +2 this, +2 that because that becomes too powerful.
The spirit of the rule (one shurikan) is merely to support that intent. If you find the spirit remains adequate while describing the attack as a flurry of shurikans arcing in every direction and distracting the defender--that is great (and I think most people would agree). Don't get hung up on details that don't matter. Just don't ruin game balance for flavor either. You really don't want a world of muscle bound fighter's specializing in shurikans because in the DM's mind they should be able to throw three per hand per round all with full benefits.
i think this thread is going the wrong direction, my point is lost so lets forget about the shurkians and just look at it from a different perspective.
my real point is that i feel that sometimes rules get in the way, hasn't any one else had one of those moments where they ask but why cant i do it?
i think that there are a few rules out there that only exist for power purposes and have no real reason other than that and i think that that is a pore reason to make a rule.
i think that there are a few rules out there that only exist for power purposes and have no real reason other than that and i think that that is a pore reason to make a rule.
So wizards should be able to cast wish at first level? The only reason wish is a ninth level spell is for power reasons. And wizards should be able to cast an infinite number of spells per day -- after all, the only reason they're limited is for power reasons.
i think that there are a few rules out there that only exist for power purposes and have no real reason other than that and i think that that is a pore reason to make a rule.So wizards should be able to cast wish at first level? The only reason wish is a ninth level spell is for power reasons. And wizards should be able to cast an infinite number of spells per day -- after all, the only reason they're limited is for power reasons.
that is not quite what i meant, i think you understand what i really mean and i get your point. but do you really get my point?
it is really hard to make a point without any good examples but i cant think of any right now, but for the most part it is not based on what classes do but what characters try to do.
I would posit that if you don't have any actual examples, there's not actually a problem :)
That was why I went after the shuriken example, because it is not really an example of what you're trying to say. It's bad for two reasons: One, because you can throw a bunch of shuriken with one full attack and just say they were all at once, and Two, because it's not realistic or accurate to source materials to throw a bunch of shuriken simultaneously from the same hand and have them all hit.
In other words, I do not feel that there's really many cases at all of "rules getting in the way of fun", certainly less than in just about every other RPG system I've played in, except for the ones where the lack of rules got in the way of fun.
...what my real problem is when rules get in the way of realism...I usually start having a problem when my group begins arguing about how this-or-that rule isn't "realistic." It's hard to argue realism when you're playing an imagination game where you're an elf using magic to fight a dragon.
-Skeld
I usually start having a problem when someone pulls this cop-out crap.
So, how come you don't let everyone walk on the ceiling? Why do PCs have to eat to stay alive? Why can't you just use your "imagination magic" to slay the dragon with one spell? How come you can only move 30 feet in a move action? Etc.?????
It is called verisimilitude we all need it, we all want it, and we all use it. Different people take issue with different wacky things that break verisimilitude.
Saying, "it's all make believe anyway, who cares" is bull.
I read a thread a little while ago about how bows would lose their strength if they were strung all the time, or how a crossbow would probably fire on accident if you carry it around loaded, or how bowstrings would get burned up in a flame spell. Nobody plays like that, it wouldn't be fun.
Life is complicated. If the game had to account for everything in life you'd have to throw 3 or 4 physics books in between the sections for Race and Class. Houserule the parts that bug you but there's always going to be something that doesn't equate perfectly to reality...cuz it's not reality.
I agree with the previous poster about wanting some realism though. I DMed a game when I was a teenager once, 2nd edition. Daggers didn't make any sense to me. You ever tried to throw a knife? It's freakin' hard. I told them that daggers had a crazy small chance of hitting and gave them minuses for it. I never got to DM again :) Gotta find that point of balance I guess.
Rules should never get in the way of fun. I recommend always thinking of the rules as guidelines. They are there to create balance and attempt harmony for an equal gaming experience for all players. That being said, it is your gaming group, and your gaming world when you play it. No one from Paizo or WotC or anywhere else is goign to come smite you if you decide to change a rule. You, your DM, and your gaming group have the right to make the rules do whatever you want, just make sure you agree on it. The game is about your fun, NOT the rules :)
I hate when I fall in lava for six seconds and don't die. I just take 20d6 damage (Ave. 70). Or when I fall 200 feet out of the sky and land on solid stone (again ave. 70 damage).
Obviously, I'm joking around but there's a ton of rules that don't fit reality too well.
Now 20 people will explain to me why a PC can swim in lava for 30 seconds before dying.
|
|
I usually start having a problem when someone pulls this cop-out crap.
So, how come you don't let everyone walk on the ceiling? Why do PCs have to eat to stay alive? Why can't you just use your "imagination magic" to slay the dragon with one spell? How come you can only move 30 feet in a move action? Etc.?????
It is called verisimilitude we all need it, we all want it, and we all use it. Different people take issue with different wacky things that break verisimilitude.
Saying, "it's all make believe anyway, who cares" is bull.
Ok, so we don't agree. There's no reason to refer to anyone's opinion, or game, as "crap" because of it.
-Skeld
i was looking more for how other people have had this problem and in a way vent my frustrations.
There are a ton of threads about how the rules don't quite fit your game or don't quite make sense. People get all hung up and bent out of shape. Whatever happened to the age-old art of Dungeon Mastering? Let the DM make the call quickly and smoothly and then just roll on with the game. If the rules get in the way of your game, change them, alter them, throw them out. Get on with playing the blasted game.
while i still can not come up with any good examples of my frustrations but one thing i can say is that i am not talking about trying to be over powered or causing penalties to other players for purposes of realism.
I'm not talking about doing something beyond what a hero could do just some simple things.
Some things like the throw-item question really come down to balance in the rules. They don't want to make a whole set of combat rules for each weapon so they generalize them.
Can you throw multiples in each hand? Sure. But if you let PC's do it, and then start doing things like adding poison and all that to them.
If you want realism: Sure people can do it, but only with training. Oddly enough, you get that training also in D&D with iterative attacks. (if you so choose to say that you get 3 attacks a round and you use them in one throw, that's your business). Wanting to do that at 1st level though is a different matter.
The things that i sometimes find frustrating are ideas like:
"I want to jump this ledge, catch the chandelier, swing across the room and kick Bob the Builder in the forehead before rolling and coming to a perfect 10 point landing".
That will usually get a "no" instead of the Dm taking a moment to figure out the (relatively improbable) skill checks involved. Yes, it will take abit of wiggling in the rules but its definately a nice heroic thing to do.
Those are the kinds of issues that I find annoying.
When you are trying to get a mechanical advantage from "but that isn't real!" I find that annoying.
But when i want to Do something in the game world that the rules don't specicially allow for, its annoying to get told no.
(but I can't find "swinging from chandelier" in any of the skill descriptions!")
-S
Some things like the throw-item question really come down to balance in the rules. They don't want to make a whole set of combat rules for each weapon so they generalize them.
Can you throw multiples in each hand? Sure. But if you let PC's do it, and then start doing things like adding poison and all that to them.
If you want realism: Sure people can do it, but only with training. Oddly enough, you get that training also in D&D with iterative attacks. (if you so choose to say that you get 3 attacks a round and you use them in one throw, that's your business). Wanting to do that at 1st level though is a different matter.The things that i sometimes find frustrating are ideas like:
"I want to jump this ledge, catch the chandelier, swing across the room and kick Bob the Builder in the forehead before rolling and coming to a perfect 10 point landing".
That will usually get a "no" instead of the Dm taking a moment to figure out the (relatively improbable) skill checks involved. Yes, it will take abit of wiggling in the rules but its definately a nice heroic thing to do.Those are the kinds of issues that I find annoying.
When you are trying to get a mechanical advantage from "but that isn't real!" I find that annoying.
But when i want to Do something in the game world that the rules don't specicially allow for, its annoying to get told no.
(but I can't find "swinging from chandelier" in any of the skill descriptions!")-S
think of it as all a series of acrobatics checks followed by an attack roll.
Agree with Shuriken Nekogami.
I would point out that (while it is 3.5) the master thrower from complete warrior has a trick that allows you to throw multiple weapons with one hand in a single attack roll.
It's a component in many "gatling gun" throwing builds from the old 3.5 wotc CharOp forums (iirc) and would work fine to represent the PC's extra dedication to the arts of throwing stuff.
Carpjay, could you ask him if you could simply roll the first guys initiative and base the rest off of a -2 penalty on his roll? That way he gets his separate initiatives and you all get the chance to act in the order you want.
I hate when I fall in lava for six seconds and don't die. I just take 20d6 damage (Ave. 70).
What bothers me more about lava is that having Fire Resistance 1 completely negates all damage from environmental lava.
|
I hate when I fall in lava for six seconds and don't die. I just take 20d6 damage (Ave. 70). Or when I fall 200 feet out of the sky and land on solid stone (again ave. 70 damage).
Obviously, I'm joking around but there's a ton of rules that don't fit reality too well.
Now 20 people will explain to me why a PC can swim in lava for 30 seconds before dying.
More GMs need to use this free supplement. Comprehensive and well-researched. Workable with many systems.
Fire and Brimstone: A Comprehensive Guide to Lava, Magma, and Superheated Rock (OGL)
|
More GMs need to use this free supplement. Comprehensive and well-researched. Workable with many systems.
Fire and Brimstone: A Comprehensive Guide to Lava, Magma, and Superheated Rock (OGL)
And it's approved by some of the greatest names in the roleplaying industry, including Gary Gygax himself.
Hmmm...do you realize that today it's two years since we lost Gary today :(
Does any one else have examples of when the rules get in the way of something that logically you should be able to do.
one pretty repeated problem my group has is (again) an artifact of the turn-based action, and more specifically with individual initiatives. Our group likes teamwork, and it is annoying that RAW one can ready standard actions but not move actions. So, for example, my mage gets initiative and casts a spell but wants to wait and move with the group, who act later. Such a simple problem, but it requires a house rule.
or (hopefully), have I gotten this wrong?
My biggest one is Weapon Finesse. It's funny that a Rogue with 30 DEX and 10 STR can't hit the broad side of a barn with a dagger because he isn't strong. Or worse yet, I'm an Elven Wizard with 20+ DEX and can't deliver a touch spell to save my life because I'm not strong. Uhg!
We housed Weapon Finesse into a "free feat" a while back ago. It's only there to make the mechanics simple but allow for you to change them by buying a feat. It makes sense for a lot of things but definitely not here.
|
one pretty repeated problem my group has is (again) an artifact of the turn-based action, and more specifically with individual initiatives. Our group likes teamwork, and it is annoying that RAW one can ready standard actions but not move actions. So, for example, my mage gets initiative and casts a spell but wants to wait and move with the group, who act later. Such a simple problem, but it requires a house rule.or (hopefully), have I gotten this wrong?
In this case you might just have your mage use the "Delay Action" and go after his party goes so they can cast their spell and then move after the group.
"Readying an Action" is a Standard Action but that readied action itself can be anything from a free, move, or standard action.
In this case you might just have your mage use the "Delay Action" and go after his party goes so they can cast their spell and then move after the group.
"Readying an Action" is a Standard Action but that readied action itself can be anything from a free, move, or standard action.
thanks, yeah that is pretty well the way we interpreted the rules, it just seems overly restrictive to have to either not cast to get to move with everyone else, or to give up the initiative to do so...
ergo rules in the way of fun, so we house ruled that move actions can be delayed (as a move action rather than a standard).
In other words, your house rule to be able to ready/delay a move as well as a standard I think is already in the rules by way of being able to substitute a move in place of a standard (the way you do when moving twice in one round and foregoing your standard).
again, thanks. but that means 2 standard actions (1 to cast, 1 to delay the move), no?
it is a small point IMHO, which is why we didn't have a big argument about the houserule.
Does any one else have examples of when the rules get in the way of something that logically you should be able to do.
one pretty repeated problem my group has is (again) an artifact of the turn-based action, and more specifically with individual initiatives. Our group likes teamwork, and it is annoying that RAW one can ready standard actions but not move actions. So, for example, my mage gets initiative and casts a spell but wants to wait and move with the group, who act later. Such a simple problem, but it requires a house rule.
or (hopefully), have I gotten this wrong?
As alluded to generally by other posters, you can ready a move action. PF Core Rulebook pg 203 under READY, "Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
Unfortunately for your example, it takes a standard action to ready an action. So, you could perform a move action, and then ready another move, but you can't cast a spell (unless its swift) and then ready anything.
In other words, your house rule to be able to ready/delay a move as well as a standard I think is already in the rules by way of being able to substitute a move in place of a standard (the way you do when moving twice in one round and foregoing your standard).again, thanks. but that means 2 standard actions (1 to cast, 1 to delay the move), no?
it is a small point IMHO, which is why we didn't have a big argument about the houserule.
Sorry if my above post was redundant, but I see other possible confusion and I must post!
Delay does not take any action, you are simply not taking your action until you decide to later in the round. However, you cannot interrupt an action with your delayed action. Whatever happens that you want to respond to happens before your action.
Delay does not take any action, you are simply not taking your action until you decide to later in the round. However, you cannot interrupt an action with your delayed action. Whatever happens that you want to respond to happens before your action.
again, thanks to all. I think we all have the same understanding of the relevant rules. Hope the point wasn't lost - I find the rules interfere with the fun of teamwork in this case.
sometimes I miss the old system of the entire party taking initiative together. much easier to keep track of and easier to work as a group.
|
|
Well, sure, I can come up with a couple:
Chasing an enemy while in combat. They move. Then other people do stuff. Then you move. So, if your enemy activated a trap, they're affected, but you're safe 60 feet away. This is a result of the turn-based nature of combat. However, if it were "real," your PC would be right behind the other guy and would be affected by the trap.
Another combat thing--without a feat, you can't run by and hit something. Or shoot a hand crossbow. So you couldn't play hockey, or soccer. You'd have to walk 30 feet, then kick the ball. You couldn't ever run up to it and kick. And you think soccer is low-scoring already!
How about, you can't make a turn when you're running full speed, but you could run full speed this round, then next round run full speed in exactly the opposite direction? You instantly change direction--but you can only do it between your turns, not during. And, yes, I know it can be explained as you were slowing down your first turn to prepare to turn around, but then if you weren't slowing down, why couldn't you run farther?
Someone's mentioned the falling rules. A normal 10th level fighter can fall from orbit and survive, according to the rules.
Hey, taking Rapid Reload means a 16th level fighter can fire a crossbow 4 times (5 with Rapid Shot) in 6 seconds. That's a bit beyond heroic.
And, umm, halflings have a -2 strength, which means they can have a strength of 16? So a 38 pound biped can carry a load of 170 pounds? That, my friends, is fantasy. And I love it. All hail Conan the Halfling!
Note, I'm not complaining about any of the above. I love Pathfinder and we roll with some of the rules blips because no set of rules (aside from reality) can cover every situation. And I wouldn't even want to think about how to run a real-time combat!
it's why Gamers is so hilarious. It makes fun of this stuff. A 6'6" barbarian breaks his back trying to pull open a gate, because he rolled a 1, but an elf with a 6 strength tears it off like he's a 1000 pound gorilla, because he rolled a 20.
I want to try and jump over the empire state building....if I roll a 20 I have to make it! It's in the rules!
it's why Gamers is so hilarious. It makes fun of this stuff. A 6'6" barbarian breaks his back trying to pull open a gate, because he rolled a 1, but an elf with a 6 strength tears it off like he's a 1000 pound gorilla, because he rolled a 20.
I want to try and jump over the empire state building....if I roll a 20 I have to make it! It's in the rules!
Um no it is not. The only things that auto succeed on a 20 and auto fail on a 1 are attack rolls and save throws.
Skill checks and ability checks are not automatically successful on a 20 and do not automatically fail on a roll of a 1.