So you wasted an entire post stating I'm wrong? I'm wrong. Whoopee. I don't expect to be right all of the time. Adding on to what others have said doesn't really accomplish much other than to waste posts. Like I'm doing now.As the GM you can ignore whatever you bloody well please.This has already been established.
You were arguing that a lich's SR not working against his cleric cohort's Harm spell was RAW.
When it was clearly shown that you were wrong, you refused to admit you were wrong but instead changed to a Rule 0 argument.
The existence of Rule 0 doesn't make your previous interpretation of RAW any less wrong.
The point of the post was to point out that you got mad and trying to invoke rule 0. Had you been more civil like most of us are when are proven wrong, and just manned up the following post would not be necessary. Instead you got upset, and then you got called out about how you handled the situation.
As the GM you can ignore whatever you bloody well please. I've seen this used both in my favor as a player and against me as a player, on several occasions. So, if it's unseemly to you as a GM, ignore it, only the most.... rule-abiding of GMs will stick to this, and those also tend to be the worst story-tellers.Which is countermanded by...
The terms “object” and “harmless” mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by such spells without forcing the caster to make a caster level check.You cannot use an example simile to counter this explicit rule that all spells must overcome SR.
The logic in this phrase doesn't hold up. Story telling and rule abiding are two separate areas. A DM can follow every rule and never house rule and weave an excellent story or rule 0 90% of the time and even play completely free form but have a terrible story to tell.
Also, a DM doing what they please is great, it doesn't change the fact that the rules say SR affects every spell. House ruling that, like most everybody on this thread does(including me), doesn't change the fact that the rules say SR applies to beneficial spells as well.
|
The logic in this phrase doesn't hold up. Story telling and rule abiding are two separate areas. A DM can follow every rule and never house rule and weave an excellent story or rule 0 90% of the time and even play completely free form but have a terrible story to tell.
Also, a DM doing what they please is great, it doesn't change the fact that the rules say SR affects every spell. House ruling that, like most everybody on this thread does(including me), doesn't change the fact that the rules say SR applies to beneficial spells as well.
... You've clearly never experienced a GM who goes hog-wild before have you? House rules, house rules everywhere. The reason hardcore rule-abiding GMs tend to be bad storytellers is because of several possible, possibly related, reasons.
A) They are new and don't want to deviate from the written rules any.B) They are unimaginative sticks in the mud. This keeps them from doing anything with unseemly rules, or from telling decent stories.
C) They are lazy, don't want to do any real work, so they use the RAW, and also tell lousy stories.
This is a trend I've noticed, nothing more. I've met precisely 1 free-form GM, I knew he was bad at story-telling before I joined his game, but I joined his game anyway, because he was my friend. This doesn't mean all of them are, it just means that he is. I've still met far more people who are all about the rules, who are also horrible story tellers, than any other type of GM.
I realized I was wrong, which is why I went from "This is how the rules are written" to "Well, a GM can still do anything he wants to with the rules.", I wasn't angry. Even when Avalon rubbed it in my face, though I was annoyed, and feeling petty enough to respond in an immature manner.
|
You've clearly never experienced a GM who goes hog-wild before have you? House rules, house rules everywhere. The reason hardcore rule-abiding GMs tend to be bad storytellers is because of several possible, possibly related, reasons.
A) They are new and don't want to deviate from the written rules any.
B) They are unimaginative sticks in the mud. This keeps them from doing anything with unseemly rules, or from telling decent stories.
C) They are lazy, don't want to do any real work, so they use the RAW, and also tell lousy stories.This is a trend I've noticed, nothing more. I've met precisely 1 free-form GM, I knew he was bad at story-telling before I joined his game, but I joined his game anyway, because he was my friend. This doesn't mean all of them are, it just means that he is. I've still met far more people who are all about the rules, who are also horrible story tellers, than any other type of GM.
I realized I was wrong, which is why I went from "This is how the rules are written" to "Well, a GM can still do anything he wants to with the rules.", I wasn't angry. Even when Avalon rubbed it in my face, though I was annoyed, and feeling petty enough to respond in an immature manner.
Masochism is fun for some, but you have to realize that you represent a rather small group.
A witch's healing hex is a supernatural ability (which don't bother with SR) that duplicates the effects of a spell (which does allow for SR).
So, does the witch need to make a check to bypass the monk's SR or not?
A witch's healing hex is a supernatural ability (which don't bother with SR) that duplicates the effects of a spell (which does allow for SR).
So, does the witch need to make a check to bypass the monk's SR or not?
You already know that SU's don't care about SR. It either is an SU or it is not. Having the same capabilities does not lead to the same limitations as a spell.
I think you doing one of your hypothetical questions again, but I don't see what point it would serve here.
In case you are serious-->The rules don't say SU's that copy spells are subject to SR. They say SU's are not subject to SR.
:)<--To show that I am not being grouchy.
... You've clearly never experienced a GM who goes hog-wild before have you? House rules, house rules everywhere.The logic in this phrase doesn't hold up. Story telling and rule abiding are two separate areas. A DM can follow every rule and never house rule and weave an excellent story or rule 0 90% of the time and even play completely free form but have a terrible story to tell.
Also, a DM doing what they please is great, it doesn't change the fact that the rules say SR affects every spell. House ruling that, like most everybody on this thread does(including me), doesn't change the fact that the rules say SR applies to beneficial spells as well.
I don't understand this part of your post. I said that a GM who goes crazy with house rules or runs the whole thing free form is just as likely to be a good or bad storyteller as the GM who doesn't deviate once from the rules because story and rules are two completely different things. It's just like how someone can be the most optimized player and have an interesting character full of depth and story or be a very weak optimizer with the character Bob the fighter, story and rules are two separate measurements.
The reason hardcore rule-abiding GMs tend to be bad storytellers is because of several possible, possibly related, reasons.
A) They are new and don't want to deviate from the written rules any.
B) They are unimaginative sticks in the mud. This keeps them from doing anything with unseemly rules, or from telling decent stories.
C) They are lazy, don't want to do any real work, so they use the RAW, and also tell lousy stories.
I don't dispute your experiences, if you had said that GMs you've played with who stuck to the rules were bad storytellers than you are 100% right. However, these blanket statements here don't justify your view of why GMs who stick to the rules are bad players for multiple reasons. Imagine if I had inverted this, it makes just as little sense to say:
"The reason why GMs who don't stick to the rules tend to be bad storytellers is due to several possibly related reasons.A) They are new and don't know the written rules very well.
B) They are unimaginative sticks in the mud. This keeps them from doing anything by the rules that doesn't match what they picture in their heads, or from telling decent stories.
C) They are lazy, don't want to do any real work, so they never learn the RAW, and also tell lousy stories."
Again, I am not saying your experience with GMs who stick to the rules is wrong, but I believe the internet would be a smoother place if people would not extrapolate general principles that aren't backed up by logic from a few personal experiences, and also if people didn't falsely correlate things that have no interaction.
You already know that SU's don't care about SR. It either is an SU or it is not. Having the same capabilities does not lead to the same limitations as a spell.A witch's healing hex is a supernatural ability (which don't bother with SR) that duplicates the effects of a spell (which does allow for SR).
So, does the witch need to make a check to bypass the monk's SR or not?
Following that logic, does that mean that all those class abilities that mimic dimension door don't actually end your turn when you use them? :P
Actuallyt i follow the rules in the book cause
1. i have a level of trust in the publishers,
2. If i have players that have played before and are new to my game where all on the same page
3. if my players and i are haveing a disagreement as opposed to PROCLAIM I AM DM i can just cite the rule (kind of like you know i have a nuke but i don't have to cosntantly threathen you with it)
Now i do have some houserules but i prefer not to more to keep track of and let players know what ive changed. (because we don't make up house rules mid game that gets you lynched)
The my opinion of rule 0
Now then as for the OP topic I don't think its that big of a deal after all isn't it made that healing should be done after combat its pathfinders whole Proactive combat as opposed to reactive combat. ofcourse i would still suggest the monk to hold on to some potions.
Following that logic, does that mean that all those class abilities that mimic dimension door don't actually end your turn when you use them? :P
So long as they don't state they function like dimension door.
There is a difference between a supernatural ability which has a specific bypass on spell resistance and dimension door which specifically states you don't get to act after using it.
The Supernatural entry actually states that sometimes it mimics spells but in such cases they still follow the rules for a supernatural ability unless specifically stated otherwise.
|
|
Masochism is fun for some, but you have to realize that you represent a rather small group.
I represent a significantly larger group than you think, I've traveled to several states, talked with people from all across the world about GM shenanigans, via the internet, and this is the conclusion I've come to. Though it wasn't masochism as much as intense boredom, typically the free-style GM runs a fairly good game, until something in his head snaps, and that's when things turn terrible. Which the terrible things are what are remembered most (except that time one of the players, who was playing the role of interrogator, burst into the room and screamed "Who are you and what do you want with me?!", that was hysterical), because that's how the human brain works. We all knew this going in, but we did it anyway.
While I haven't personally met free-form GMs or that many rules-fanatics, I have heard horror story after horror story about them. Now it's not an absolute, not by any stretch of the imagination, but the average follows what I said in the earlier post.
|
Masochism is fun for some, but you have to realize that you represent a rather small group.I represent a significantly larger group than you think, I've traveled to several states, talked with people from all across the world about GM shenanigans, via the internet, and this is the conclusion I've come to. Though it wasn't masochism as much as intense boredom, typically the free-style GM runs a fairly good game, until something in his head snaps, and that's when things turn terrible. Which the terrible things are what are remembered most (except that time one of the players, who was playing the role of interrogator, burst into the room and screamed "Who are you and what do you want with me?!", that was hysterical), because that's how the human brain works. We all knew this going in, but we did it anyway.
While I haven't personally met free-form GMs or that many rules-fanatics, I have heard horror story after horror story about them. Now it's not an absolute, not by any stretch of the imagination, but the average follows what I said in the earlier post.
Please come down off your pulpit.
I have played coast to coast in Canada. I have been on several internet forums.
My XP personally and through discussions with people are as wise spread as yours yet do not end in the same conclusions.
RAW DMs and heavy house rule DMs can be both bad storytellers, and both can be great ones.
Being one does not exclude being the other
Besides, it isn't very strange that "DM horror stories" are told about DMs who were, in fact, bad DMs. Those who were good DMs tend not to have horror stories related about them. So, if you base your conclusions on the horror stories, it's not strange that you see trends that don't really exist.
Personally, I tend to stick to the written rules, for a variety of reasons. I resent the insinuation that because I do that I'm likely to be a poor storyteller.
|
|
Please come down off your pulpit.
I have played coast to coast in Canada. I have been on several internet forums.
My XP personally and through discussions with people are as wise spread as yours yet do not end in the same conclusions.
RAW DMs and heavy house rule DMs can be both bad storytellers, and both can be great ones.
Being one does not exclude being the other
I wish I had a pulpit. You aren't reading what I wrote, not entirely. I said that GM quality and type weren't always, exclusively, exactly in specific patterns, but that they did have common patterns. I said that very specifically. I'm trying very hard to be civil, but you are outright ignoring what I've said.
Following that logic, does that mean that all those class abilities that mimic dimension door don't actually end your turn when you use them? :PYou already know that SU's don't care about SR. It either is an SU or it is not. Having the same capabilities does not lead to the same limitations as a spell.A witch's healing hex is a supernatural ability (which don't bother with SR) that duplicates the effects of a spell (which does allow for SR).
So, does the witch need to make a check to bypass the monk's SR or not?
Not even close to the same logic. By capabilities I meant things in the spells description that tell you how it works. I am sure you know that. Don't argue semantics argue the point.
Unless you have a reason for this line of questioning I won't be responding. This seems to be another one of your RAW diatribes. You really are stuck on RAW too much even though it(your example) fails in this case. Do you want the book to be written in legalese? I can guarantee you that if the rewrite the entire book someone can find some sort of logic that allows for a misreading. It is just human nature.
PS:I said a spell(entire class of spells), not a specific spell.
|
|
Groups that just run successfully without drama generally don't provide any fuel for discussion.
+1
It's the same reason you don't hear about the nice things people do in the news. If I print 'Gwen Stefani and Gavin Rossdale still happily married' no one buys my paper, but 'Arnie and wife separate!' brings in the revenue.
|
|
I wish I had a pulpit. You aren't reading what I wrote, not entirely. I said that GM quality and type weren't always, exclusively, exactly in specific patterns, but that they did have common patterns. I said that very specifically. I'm trying very hard to be civil, but you are outright ignoring what I've said.Please come down off your pulpit.
I have played coast to coast in Canada. I have been on several internet forums.
My XP personally and through discussions with people are as wise spread as yours yet do not end in the same conclusions.
RAW DMs and heavy house rule DMs can be both bad storytellers, and both can be great ones.
Being one does not exclude being the other
Here is a sampling of your posts on this page alone.
"The reason hardcore rule-abiding GMs tend to be bad storytellers is because of several possible, possibly related, reasons."
"I've met precisely 1 free-form GM, I knew he was bad at story-telling before I joined his game, but I joined his game anyway, because he was my friend. This doesn't mean all of them are, it just means that he is. I've still met far more people who are all about the rules, who are also horrible story tellers, than any other type of GM.."
"I represent a significantly larger group than you think,..."
"...but the average follows what I said in the earlier post"
You give reasons why RAW DMs are bad...
State that you have only met 1 Free Form DM and he was bad, but not all of those types are bad becasue the RAW Dms are by far more numerous in there horribilosity...
We need to listen to you because you are speaking for a large group, larger than we can imagine...
The average is that RAW DMs are bad while FF DMs are not...
I read what you wrote...I just do not agree with it...and I am being civil. I have not cursed you out or made inappropriate remarks to you.
|
When judging PFS, I'm more heavily into RAW, but not religously so, because you need to adapt to the fact that a lot of, perhaps most PFS tables aren't going to conform to theorycrafting ideals based on gaming the RAW.
Happily, PFS doesn't go to 13 and we don't have to deal with this particular issue there.