Hi everyone, I'm new to pathfinder, after having played 3.5 for years. I've played a few games at cons before,which I really enjoyed, but a recent rules dispute has tainted my growing enthusiasm. We were nearing the end of a PFS module when it started. We used some unorthodox tactics and made some mistakes, so the fm decided one of the two bbegs would run, thus threatening two of the players faction quests. To catch up the players wanted to run down a twisting hallway using the run action. I said that you can only run in a straight line, and they said I was wrong. I insisted, they insisted. I asked them to look it up, both of them did and maintained that they were right, after reading it, claiming "it's not 3.5". The fm did not make a ruling. Defeated, I conceded, and the players ran across and all over the map, around corners at 120ft per turn to attempt to overtake the fleeing baddy and claim the faction objective. I refused to run around obstacles and instead opted for double moves. After the game I had forgotten my canteen, and had to return to the table to get it. Several players were lingering and I overheard them putting me down for confusing the game with 3.5. When I got home I looked it up in the red doc, and it said I was RIGHT! Am I crazy, or was everyone at the table blowing smoke up my butt? If you can sprint and make 90+ degree turns Wille-nillie, that seems like an unrealistic mechanics flaw.
On pg 188 of the Core Rulebook, Combat Actions Section under Full-Round Actions:
Run
You can run as a full-round action. If you do, you do not also get a 5-foot step. When you run, you can move up to four times your speed in a straight line (or three times your speed if you're in heavy armor). You lose any Dexterity bonus to AC unless you have the Run feat.
emphasis mine
I can't see how anyone could miss this. Not remember it, sure, but you all looked up the rule, it's right there. Failures all around. Double failure on those two idiots reveling in their ignorance. And Extra fail for the FM for not knowing a basic rule for to game he's supposed to be modding.
|
Don't let a couple of storm-weathered bulkheads like them get to you. From the sound of it they have likely been playing for so long themselves they cant tell the difference between editions, and are imprinting that on you. People are going to suck no matter where you go, or what hobby you are involved in. Just do what normal well adjusted people do, and let it go. Those two grognards are likely going to sit around for weeks talking about some noobie they met at a con making it out as if they were a couple of heros until one of their friends points out that they, in fact, were the ones who were factually incorrect. Then they will feel as foolish as they should have the moment they spoke ill of you in the first place.
It's like how you get cut off in traffic and yet somehow the guy has the nerve to show you his new pet bird when you nearly clip his rear bumper.
The person responsible for the event should have simply made a ruling (Be it right or wrong at the time it doesn't matter if it keeps the game running) and been done with it.
Good to know I'm not crazy. I'm no greenhorn an I was pretty certain, but outnumbered by "more experienced players."
I know the guy running the module should have ruled, but hew was new to dming and was stressed out already. Normally I'm not a rules lawyer, but this was a game changing folly, and I finally gave b/c i was disrupting the game. I'll let it go, and hopefully find a group that wants to play by the rules. I hope that they do figure out their mistake though, as running everywhere could really break the game.
The Rogue in a recent game was hard wired into 3.0, particularly the Tumble rules. As the game is transiting from 3.5 into PF, I had less a problem than some, particularly 2 players that had only run Rogues under 3.5. I cheat in my games and have a natural born, anal retentive, nitpicky jerk as my rules lawyer and left it all to him (Yes, he gets exp for that!). He has cut up his book, sheet protectored, 3 ring bindered and collated his book with a scary array of tabs and bookmarks. It has yet to take him longer than a minute to find the exact phrase we need. End of session, he gave our Rogue a list if rule changes to understand the differences.
Makes my life so much easier.
Carbon is right some people will insist the way they play is the right way, regardless of how clear you (or any other reasonable person) think the rule is. You shouldn't let it bother you.
In this case, you are correct.
Although, I do think the the rule is flawed in that you can only run in a perfectly straight line. I would prefer to see a rule similar to flying. Each 45 degree turn costs 5 feet of movement or somesuch. Then again that is a houserule, never appropriate for PFS.
The person responsible for the event should have simply made a ruling (Be it right or wrong at the time it doesn't matter if it keeps the game running) and been done with it.
The GM lost control--a cardinal sin in my book. I never mind a GM asking a knowledgable player for advise or ask a player to lookup a reference while he continues but it should ultimately be his decision as how the rule is adjudicated and he should be clear what is ruling is and why.
It is one of the difficulties of playing (and indeed running) in a shared 'living'-style campaign, you will enventually find one place where all the laws of nature that your character expects don't seem to apply.
I've run 'living'-style campaigns (including PFS), as GM you need to allow (occasional, brief) rule discussions, but in the end the GM needs to make a decision and move the game along.
As a player, you will have to expect to come across rulings you may not like or agree with. In this case, it seems that since the GM didn't stop the other players (you didn't say how the GM moved the BBEGs), that those were 'legal' moves and played accordingly. You didn't get into a long argument, so kudos to you, but you should have played accordingly (even though you knew better).
If both the BBEG and PCs were playing under the same rules there shouldn't have been substantial net advantage or disadvantage. In some cases it might help, some it might hurt.
One thing I learned (although I can't always follow) is to just go with what the GM decides and don't worry about it. I've put a lot of time into reading and understanding the rules, so I often need to take a deep breath. I usually don't get worked up unless the rule is very clear and it will permanently (and adversely) affect the character.