Could be worse, I had a person who tried to use a spell based solely on the name of the spell (didn't even read the short description). Of course this was the same person that thought it was effect to keep spamming acid splashes at level 10, maybe against a golem and you got nothing else, but come on.I don't even understand how you could do this. How do you know range? Casting time? Duration? The idea is boggling.Basically, you just skim the spell description, get the gist of it, and then assume it works as you would like without troubling yourself with the "insignificant details".
I used to game with a guy who was infamous for this.
Ha! I had a rules lawyer DM argue that I couldn't use Expeditious Retreat to do anything other than run away from combat. And then later argue that I shouldn't be able to use Zen Archery (3.5 feat) on anything other than arrows because only they were archery.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Players who read the description of a feat on the feat table and never bother to read the actual mechanics of the feat.
I had a player who did this with his spells...
I think that would be a lot of fun, honestly, but a lot of work for the GM. Players begin with the simple, one-sentence understanding of their powers, and a list of material components they'll need. They spend time figuring out things like casting time and range and details of spell effects.
It would need to be in a new game system where the players couldn't necessarily rely on previous knowledge.
|
I don't even understand how you could do this. How do you know range? Casting time? Duration? The idea is boggling.
'I'm casting Fireball. How many of those guys can I hit?'
'I'm casting Bull's Strength. Let me know when it wears off.'
'Do I have time to get off a Feather Fall?'
It's that DM Fiat thing I hear about around here so much. :)
People who argue that exotic weapons like the totem spear are to good.
That's a misconception? Because it sounds more like an annoyance.
'I'm casting Fireball. How many of those guys can I hit?'
'I'm casting Bull's Strength. Let me know when it wears off.'
'Do I have time to get off a Feather Fall?'
None of these would sound particularly unusual at my table.
1) Some GMs don't like using maps, so area spells really are adjudicated by GM fiat.2) Common when using buffs outside of combat, where we all agree to fudge spell duration a fair bit because time itself is abstracted.
3) More likely to be "I want to respond with Feather Fall," but effectively yeah. We expect the GM to decide whether that's reasonable or not under the circumstances. Most of the time with FF we would expect "yes".
I removed some posts. Putting words in each others' mouths isn't cool. Please stop doing it.
I removed more of these that I missed yesterday.
I removed a personal insult.
1) Some GMs don't like using maps, so area spells really are adjudicated by GM fiat.Kirth runs like that, and I've done it myself from time to time. It has its pros and cons.
Personally I hate hate HATE it, because it eliminates a lot of the fun of combat for me, which involves clever use of positioning and environment.
But you play the games you have access to.
1) Some GMs don't like using maps, so area spells really are adjudicated by GM fiat.Kirth runs like that, and I've done it myself from time to time. It has its pros and cons.
Ironically both being the same exact thing, but from different sides of the DM screen.
|
|
Personally I hate hate HATE it, because it eliminates a lot of the fun of combat for me, which involves clever use of positioning and environment.
But you play the games you have access to.
Works remarkably well when you want to get the combat over with so you can get back to roleplaying the story. :)
Works remarkably well when you want to get the combat over with so you can get back to roleplaying the story. :)Personally I hate hate HATE it, because it eliminates a lot of the fun of combat for me, which involves clever use of positioning and environment.
But you play the games you have access to.
Running 3.x combat without a map does not speed things up in my experience. If anything it does the opposite, having to constantly ask the GM how many enemies are close to which ally and "is that the one that hit me last time?" and all of that silliness.
But if you're talking about just wanting to hand-wave a tedious combat or a foregone conclusion, certainly you don't need to introduce a map if you're not going to roll initiative, attack, cast spells, etc. IOW, not having a map for your combat is fine when you're not actually having combat in the first place.
I'm certainly not. That druid with his winter wolf was no foregone conclusion, nor the ranger dealing 20 points of damage with his crossbow. But the lack of a map didn't slow us down either.
If you hand-wave a number of rules, sure, playing without a map works.
I'm certainly not. That druid with his winter wolf was no foregone conclusion, nor the ranger dealing 20 points of damage with his crossbow. But the lack of a map didn't slow us down either.
I'm glad that it's worked well for you; in fact I'd be interested to try a game with a group that DOES do it well.
Again, my frustration with the lack of a map, is the inability to get creative regarding positioning. I would liken it to how I sometimes feel when I'm playing an Interactive Fiction game, feeling like I have to sit there and try things and being told "You can't do that", "That's not allowed" over and over again. Sometimes it's felt like that in mapless combats. If you just drew me a map I'd know who was close enough, how far I needed to go, what position to put myself in relative to my allies, etc.*sigh* Good to vent about these things.
|
|
If you hand-wave a number of rules, sure, playing without a map works.
Other than counting squares and AoOs I am not sure what you mean.
Avalon, I agree on that. Kirth is pretty easygoing about letting us try what we want, so that helps.
At some point I'm going to convert the combat measurements from feet to zones. In-melee, close, near, and far or something like that. I kind of did that with one barroom brawl where you were either in melee or you weren't.
|
Personally I hate hate HATE it, because it eliminates a lot of the fun of combat for me, which involves clever use of positioning and environment. But you play the games you have access to.
You know.. many of us who started playing in the late 70's / early 80's would use the exact same argument AGAINST using miniatures... There was a time when I did!!!
Nowadays, I'm happy to roll out a battlemat and use miniatures and I even adapt them for use in games that really didn't intend them (Shadowrun, for example... well... before 4e, anyway... not too familiar with the 4e rules so maybe they use minis).
My DM sometimes uses mats or doesn't depends on if he has time during the week to draw them out. If he doesn't have a map, movement doesnt provoke, when we do, it does. Simple.
I'm glad that it's worked well for you; in fact I'd be interested to try a game with a group that DOES do it well.
Again, my frustration with the lack of a map, is the inability to get creative regarding positioning. I would liken it to how I sometimes feel when I'm playing an Interactive Fiction game, feeling like I have to sit there and try things and being told "You can't do that", "That's not allowed" over and over again. Sometimes it's felt like that in mapless combats. If you just drew me a map I'd know who was close enough, how far I needed to go, what position to put myself in relative to my allies, etc.
I keep a map in my head; I'll sketch things on paper if it gets confusing, but mostly tactical maneuvering is speeded up a bit because instead of announcing your movement and then moving your doll to reflect it, you just announce your movement.
Note that I do this for random combats in which the battlefield is more or less consistent, or at least easily visualized -- not for every combat ever. I pre-prepare big grid maps if I'm planning a fight in an area with bottlenecks and/or spots of rough terrain, etc., so that everything is clear (TOZ -- like the fight with the dire corbies and the wall of fire).
|
|
Again, my frustration with the lack of a map, is the inability to get creative regarding positioning. I would liken it to how I sometimes feel when I'm playing an Interactive Fiction game, feeling like I have to sit there and try things and being told "You can't do that", "That's not allowed" over and over again. Sometimes it's felt like that in mapless combats. If you just drew me a map I'd know who was close enough, how far I needed to go, what position to put myself in relative to my allies, etc.
Having played without maps and minis for as long as I did and exclusively with minis since D&D3.0 was published (sporadically before that), I can say that both work really well but you're far more at the GM's mercy if you aren't using miniatures. That's honestly not a bad thing if you have a good GM. You don't want to try it with someone who isn't a good improviser or, worse, someone adversarial.
With a GM who is going to couch his responses to the players' inquiries ("Can I block them?", "How many can I catch in a fireball?", etc.) in a way to enhance the story and not to throw extra hurdles at the party, you can have a lot of fun, too.
Moving minis and such on a board is great. Its a lot of fun... but the best combat scenes in books or movies are more fluid than they seem to get portrayed on a battlemat and the chaos of battle is hard to portray on what amounts to a nicely presented overhead view. But... its not easy to keep track of everything if you're not using a map and minis.
but mostly tactical maneuvering is speeded up a bit because instead of announcing your movement and then moving your doll to reflect it, you just announce your movement.
Inconceivably, you could just move your character without announcing it. Because that is what you are doing, you don't have to say what you are doing because you are doing it. Unless you do something special.
[With a GM who is going to couch his responses to the players' inquiries ("Can I block them?", "How many can I catch in a fireball?", etc.) in a way to enhance the story and not to throw extra hurdles at the party, you can have a lot of fun, too.
I like this approach not so much for "story" reasons, but because it allows melee guys access to abilities they need to do their jobs that aren't reflected in the rules -- it's one of those auto-corrections we were discussing in another thread. For example, instead of calling movement each turn, I'll allow a fighter to say "I'm blocking for Andostre's wizard," and mentally assume that that character's movement is being spent as needed to keep between the wizard and incoming chargers. This sort of thing impossible using a strict Pathfinder turn-based movement and grid, which is kind of a shame, because it makes fighter bodyguards a lot more valuable if they can be assumed to be able to do their jobs.
Who says you can't make AoO's without a map?
PC: "I run past the orc to get the injured wizard a potion."
GM: "Okay, the orc makes an AoO against you as you dash by."
dollMiniature.
Action figure!
Saying Augment Summoning works on the Eidolen, because you summon it.
People that... don't read or even understand the basic principles of a class. Example: Paladin that ran away from an owlbear to leave three party members behind. That were the squishy members. That one, all the people that could handle the owlbear's blows. Ran away.
People that say a monster is different than what it says in the book. Thus wrong apparently.
Tons of things already posted. Like people not reading.. At all. ANything. In this game, where the main thing done requires reading.
Or people, that ask me a question, when the book in their lap contains the answer.
People that have new idea what an index is, how it is used, or where it is.
Sorry.. Got a bit ragey.. >.> But come on.. There are two things in a book that tells you where things are. Table of contents, and index. It isn't that hard.
Graphic representation.Action figure!dollMiniature.
Humanoid Polymer Approximation.
EDIT: or Humanoid Pewter Approximation.
Saying Augment Summoning works on the Eidolen, because you summon it.
To be fair, this is the fault of calling the class a Summoner, which it certainly isn't. It's a Thaumaturgist.
Humanoid Polymer Approximation.Graphic representation.Action figure!dollMiniature.
Little plastic thingy with the axe.
At some point I'm going to convert the combat measurements from feet to zones. In-melee, close, near, and far or something like that. I kind of did that with one barroom brawl where you were either in melee or you weren't.
This is Burning Wheel's melee combat system -- relative positioning between you and the enemy, with an opposed check to get closer or farther away.
I've really been wanting to give this system a try.
Little plastic thingy with the axe.Humanoid Polymer Approximation.Graphic representation.Action figure!dollMiniature.
Fantastic pewter effigy.
To be fair, this is the fault of calling the class a Summoner, which it certainly isn't. It's a Thaumaturgist.
Oh really?
I think that might be a connotation you picked up from an RPG. Neither the dictionary definition nor the Latin and Greek etymologies support that.
To be fair, this is the fault of calling the class a Summoner, which it certainly isn't. It's a Thaumaturgist.Oh really?
I think that might be a connotation you picked up from an RPG. Neither the dictionary definition nor the Latin and Greek etymologies support that.
I am referring to the 3.5 PrC.
I am referring to the 3.5 PrC.To be fair, this is the fault of calling the class a Summoner, which it certainly isn't. It's a Thaumaturgist.Oh really?
I think that might be a connotation you picked up from an RPG. Neither the dictionary definition nor the Latin and Greek etymologies support that.
Well, that makes complete sense then.
The real problemhere is that there's no BMX based prestige class.