|
It's not just brassbaboon. I don't particularly care for ANY of the rulings I've seen so far in this thread.
I'm sure then you won't be offended if people really care little for how you would rule something, sheesh.
What many have been saying is that as GM they would allow you to do things not strictly codified in the rulebooks - how they would go about this isn't really any part of this discussion. Hell, if I as GM decide to give you a 30% chance of throwing a table 'because it seems right' then that is what you would have, conversely I may make something make a Reflex check or CMB or whatever. The POINT IS many people here as GM's won't tell you to pull your head in and choose from the Pazio sanctioned list of 'things you can do in a round' they'll entertain your ideas.
Speak about bite the hand that feeds,
S.
*happily munches on some popcorn*
Chandeliers can be big sometimes. Really big. Being under one might be more unavoidable than one would surmise. (Seems like you would use the standard falling object rules for this.)
It's not just brassbaboon. I don't particularly care for ANY of the rulings I've seen so far in this thread.
Most've what I've seen is just applying combat manuevers with a little thought involved. Where's the problem?
Well...THOSE rulings are fine... *rolls eyes* :P
|
|
I wonder if reading comprehension is no longer taught in our schools.
Understand?
Again, for the comprehension impaired.
Again. Understand?
Understand now?
Hmm. I'm sorry, but I wandered into this thread a little late, and I'm really trying to follow you.
Could you explain it all again?
Yeah, that GM is me, as I already explained when I reworked RD's silly attempts into something that would actually work.
You know, after a while they learn how to think these things through on their own.
Is it too late to re-title this thread "brassbaboon's Type A Pathfinder Game"?
To the OP
Don't take me wrong. I like D20, and Pathfinder, but feel that the game itself leads to too much arguments about everything when you can't refer to a specific paragraph in a published book. Not with everybody, but the way the rules are made, IMO, leads to this kind of dissension within the group. People don't like to be overshadowed by out of the box thinking when they spent hours crunching number for their one trick pony build to deal as much DPR as possible. And again, not everybody plays this way or that way but the ruleset does, in a way, encourage to cruch numbers. I'm as guilty as another, and it's a legit and fun way to play, by the way. Only, the two styles, let's call them the cruncher style and the improv style, are not, IMO, very well blended together within the Pathfinder ruleset.
You could alway try to introduce your group to a more "dynamic" ruleset, where those actions have been elegantly integrated in the core rules, like, for example, Warhammer Fantasy, third edition? You get things like this as a basic action for all characters:
Edit : I would have linked Legend Of Anglerre to the Paizo Store, but they only sell the companion and GM screen.
I'm thinking about this ruleset because, for me, it's the perfect blend of the cruncher style and the improv style. Every style will find a way to shine with this ruleset.
Or maybe go all the way over to a more narrative-driven game, like FATE? You could alway try to introduce your group to another game like Legends of Anglerre, and in exchange, restrict yourself and play an efficient cruncher DPR fighter in Pathfinder?
Always amusing when someone resorts to ranting and raving.
What? You can't accept it when I accept your arguments? Why do you want this to continue TOZ? I've conceded! It's done.
Tweezer = Dragon.
QED
|
|
Nope, nobody else in this thread has pointed out how absurd these are, and there aren't a hundred GM's guffawing into their sleeves at these antics.
A GM's job is take what the player says and parse it through their own GMing style, combine with rules (either book or house), and come up with a way the player can attempt things. RD's descriptions, to me at least, didn't read like commands to the GM. Just because RD says dragons have nose-hairs doesn't mean in my game they will - BUT it's the sentiment. If some loon whats to 'grapple' the head of a dragon under the delusion there will be nose-hairs to hang off, then I would at least look at relative STR's and masses etc. Is that cartoony, well no, watch any wildlife program where people wrestle crocodiles by wrapping themselves around the snout - lots of strength closing their jaws but not so much for opening. Dragon's are based on reptiles right?
GMing isn't about saying no, and isn't about having to take the players requests as statements of fact. So what a player says, like RD, and what actually transpires is GM territory. Looking at most of RD's original list I can see that combinations of RD and his targets getting damaged or otherwise inconvenienced which sounds like a good chance for the GM to get all descriptive...
S.
PS: I'm sure that RD's character from the first dragon attempt would know that 'Dragons don't have nose hair' (well in my games).
Asian Dragons do have nose hair... What do you know about this guy's game? ;-)
Stefan, that's what I've been saying all along. Not that RD can't "attempt" these things, in fact I have complimented him for being the type of payer who can dream up out-of-the-box things to spice up the game.
As I said, I'd love to have RD in one of my campaigns, whether I'm another player or a GM. He has great ideas, but some of them are so "out there" that I as a GM would (before my conversion to the "tweezer = dragon" rule) say "Hmmm.... I see what you are trying, let's see if we can make it work."
GMing isn't about saying "no" but in spite of the constant commentary on boards like this, it isn't about saying "yes" either. It's about making a fun experience. If a group wants to play "How to Tame Your Dragon" that's perfectly fine, even if the answer is "with tweezers." Spellcasters should be able to make up spells on the spot, because that would be more awesome. Groups of monsters can be nullified with a barstool, because that's awesome.
That's the bottom line. People like me who, PtC ("Prior to Conversion") expected things to make sense have no place in this game, after all, the game has floating eyeballs that shoot magic out of their eyestalks.
I feel liberated. Next game I play I'm going full RD on my GM and if he has the temerity to try to put limits on any of it, I will refer him to this thread and the great culmination of wisdom that has been posted here.
I'm gonna have so much fun now! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not how you win an argument, boy.
You sound like Jafar.
Call him street rat next.
Put him in an hourglass!
What? You can't accept it when I accept your arguments?When you accept my arguments instead of your own assumptions I will.
What are you talking about ToZ? I totally accept your arguments. I will from now on follow and routinely invoke the "Tweezer = Dragon" rule that has been put here. In fact I am "FAQing" this thread so that the game designers can put this in the RAW since it clearly is RAI.
I'm not a sore loser. In fact I'm a winner! I'm not even going to bother bringing my character sheet to the game.
"OK you took a hit from a lightning bolt and took 22 damage"
"What? I TOTALLY rolled with that, controlled the energy and fired it back at that silly wizard! Haven't you seen 'Avatar'!?" And what's more 'plausible' anyway Mr. fancy-pants GM, that your wizard can form energy out of THIN AIR, or that I can absorb and redirect it? After all the WIZARD is violating the Law of Conservation of Energy, my fighter is totally conforming to it. Plausibility WIN dude! Eat it! No damage for me!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Hair-Puller archetype? I so much want the Chandelier-Swinger bloodline!
|
I totally accept your arguments. I will from now on follow and routinely invoke the "Tweezer = Dragon" rule that has been put here.
These two statements are in direct conflict with each other. I begin to doubt your reading comprehension.
You should stop lumping everyone who disagrees with you into one camp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna need a bigger box of popcorn.
EDIT: Seriously though guys, leave brassbaboon alone. I've gone through his post history some 500-800 posts back and it seems that he has always been like this.
He's not attacking anyone in particular, it's just his "internet dialect."
Like a person who is really nice once you get to know them, but puts everyone off because they make a habit of swearing with every other word.
That... or he's a little kid with no 'net manners.
One of the two.
Whatever the case may be he's entitled to his opinions and playstyle preference just like you, me, and everyone else.
I'm not sure which 'rulings' you disagreed with Ravingdork, given that there have been so many.
I agree that most of the things you've attempted would require CMB checks or whatnot to pull them off.
I certainly don't think that making combat more cinematic is a bad idea. This Saturday, my evil fiendish apes threw rolling barrels at the PCs, ala Donkey Kong.
It seems to me Ravingdork that you should really try playing Exalted, in that game most of the things you wrote could very well be part of the attack (or rather the description of your attack) and you would get a benefit from doing an attack like that instead of just a regular attack.Man nobody should hate someone else so much that they suggest Exalted :(.
Why do you say that?
Me and my group have really enjoyed exalted for a little more than a year and a half. But we got a little tired of the system mastery it required and we decided to switch to PF and make the person's life who is usually GMing a little easier.PS i am talking about 2E exalted.
|
Yes tell us more about how unrealistic it is that the giant flying firebreathing mythical lizard might have nosehairs.*bubblepipe*
Yep, as I said. You guys are right. You're doing it right, not me, as you have been saying all along. Players who come up with nose hair pulling to stop dragon fire, or "yanking flying animals" out of the air with a grappling hook, or any of the other examples RD posted are to be celebrated, venerated even, as paragons of role playing magnificence.
Of course dragons have nose hairs! And they HATE to have them pulled, hate it so much that the mere THREAT of a nose-hair pulling is enough for them to refuse to use their most powerful single attack.
Again, you guys are right. Players don't need mechanics, don't need any level of verisimilitude whatsoever! After all, this is a game with fire-breathing flying lizards! How DARE I expect the world to follow any reasonable rules whatsoever!
Wizards can form dragon-muzzles out of thin air with a thought. After all that's what happens in the movies all the time! Who needs spells when the wizard can just say "I use my magical abilities to form a nose-hair thumbscrew and tame the dragon to force it to lay eggs for me!"
Totally legit! Anyone who dares to question this brilliance must be hunted down and kicked out of the game!
Because after all, it's all about the awesomeness, and what could possibly be more awesome than defeating the most fearsome beast in the known world with a pair of zirconium encrusted tweezers!!!
Unite all you role players! Throw off the shackles of silly "mechanics" or "rules" or anything that constrains a player! The limits have been set! One pair of tweezers equals one dead dragon!
The world is saved!
ROFL
Ok now that im off the floor. Yep I'm of the same opion. The two things that stand out most. One dragsons are repetiles and don't have nose hairs you can see. And if there huge or bigger you can't attempt to grapple. I try to grapple the dragons snout. It's a huge monster you fail. Two if your going to thow a table you need more then a CMB check. If your going to do it as a CMB check and your trying to affect more then one target. It should be at a -5 for every aditional target. Table is doing full damage to two difrent targets. It is not acting like a splash weapon where one target takes full damage and the secondary only takes splash damage. If it's a trip attempt they do not take damage. Thats just following the rules in place. Im not making any thing up. To get exta attacks you take a -5 so for every target effected by the attack is -5. Trip attacks don't deal damage so if your knocking them prone it dose not deal damage. If your doing damage it dose not knock them prone with out the feat. So unless you rolled a 20 and hade Triping Strike if you thow the table you do improvised weapon damage of 1D6. You do not knock them pron or do you even have a chance of knocking them pron. So yes you can throw the table. Will it knock them prone no! Will it do damage to them yes. Can it knock them prone if you have the feat yes. Do you have the feat? Do you have throw any thing no thats a -4 to hit. You are trying to hit two of them with the table thats a -5 to hit. So your total is -9 to hit roll it. Now if you have improvised weapon mastery. Its -5 to hit but your damage is 1D8.At no time did i make up any rules. I just followed what is writen in the book.
It seems to me Ravingdork that you should really try playing Exalted, in that game most of the things you wrote could very well be part of the attack (or rather the description of your attack) and you would get a benefit from doing an attack like that instead of just a regular attack.Man nobody should hate someone else so much that they suggest Exalted :(.
Why do you say that?
Me and my group have really enjoyed exalted for a little more than a year and a half. But we got a little tired of the system mastery it required and we decided to switch to PF and make the person's life who is usually GMing a little easier.PS i am talking about 2E exalted.
I've personally found Exalted to be an awesome setting with great ideas backed by abysmal mechanics. 2e for me quickly degenerates into mote counting as everyone fires off their perfect defenses.
Honestly I prefer just playing Weapon of the Gods and shoving it into Exalted's setting.
It seems to me Ravingdork that you should really try playing Exalted, in that game most of the things you wrote could very well be part of the attack (or rather the description of your attack) and you would get a benefit from doing an attack like that instead of just a regular attack.Man nobody should hate someone else so much that they suggest Exalted :(.
Why do you say that?
Me and my group have really enjoyed exalted for a little more than a year and a half. But we got a little tired of the system mastery it required and we decided to switch to PF and make the person's life who is usually GMing a little easier.PS i am talking about 2E exalted.
I've personally found Exalted to be an awesome setting with great ideas backed by abysmal mechanics. 2e for me quickly degenerates into mote counting as everyone fires off their perfect defenses.
Honestly I prefer just playing Weapon of the Gods and shoving it into Exalted's setting.
I don't know the game you are reffering to, can you give me a link or something?
Second yes it's true, that's what i said that my group's usual GM was getting really tired because of the exalted system, because we were trying to pull punches (both the players and the ST) but it comes a point that it's too difficult to gauge how much you must pull because it's very easy to turn a fight into either a cakewalk or a TPK.Anyway i had just offered an opinion, i know the goods and the bads of the exalted system as i (want to think i) know the PF's system good and bad. So yes the PF system doesn't allow as much freedom as Exalted's system allow but it's quite easier to play and i am glad we decided to start PF.
ROFL
Ok now that im off the floor. Yep I'm of the same opion. The two things that stand out most. One dragsons are repetiles and don't have nose hairs you can see. And if there huge or bigger you can't attempt to grapple. I try to grapple the dragons snout. It's a huge monster you fail. Two if your going to thow a table you need more then a CMB check. If your going to do it as a CMB check and your trying to affect more then one target. It should be at a -5 for every aditional target. Table is doing full damage to two difrent targets. It is not acting like a splash weapon where one target takes full damage and the secondary only takes splash damage. If it's a trip attempt they do not take damage. Thats just following the rules in place. Im not making any thing up. To get exta attacks you take a -5 so for every target effected by the attack is -5. Trip attacks don't deal damage so if your knocking them prone it dose not deal damage. If your doing damage it dose not knock them prone with out the feat. So unless you rolled a 20 and hade Triping Strike if you thow the table you do improvised weapon damage of 1D6. You do not knock them pron or do you even have a chance of knocking them pron. So yes you can throw the table. Will it knock them prone no! Will it do damage to them yes. Can it knock them prone if you have the feat yes. Do you have the feat? Do you have throw any thing no thats a -4 to hit. You are trying to hit two of them with the table thats a -5 to hit. So your total is -9 to hit roll it. Now if you have improvised weapon mastery. Its -5 to hit but your damage is 1D8.At no time did i make up any rules. I just followed what is writen in the book.
- Dragons are reptiles: Is that even written in the book anywhere? In ANY official Pathfinder book? I did a search for the word "reptile" in the dragon section of the PRD and all I found was the "charm reptiles" and "speak with reptiles" abilities of the black dragon. Cold-blooded doesn't make an appearance either. Therefore, dragons CAN have nose hairs (in certain campaigns) as they are mythical creatures and can have any minor feature players/GMs feel are appropriate.
- Grapple against huge creatures automatically fail: I challenge you to quote the rule. Unlike v3.5, it doesn't exist in Pathfinder. A halfling could indeed grapple a colossal great wyrm. My nosehair pull trick was at attempt at logically explaining such an action (if the dragon is dealing with pain from nose-hair pull attack(TM) than his actions become limited due to the grapple).
- Tripping multiple people applies -5 per person effected: No matter how you spin it, this is a house rule. Short of having cleave or whirlwind attack, there is no way to trip multiple people in the way you describe. You could use iteratives at a decreasing -5 incremental penalty, but that's different from saying -15 to a single check for trying to trip 3 guys). Additionally, a table is likely a two-handed improvised weapon, which would apply a -4 in its own right AND take a full round action to throw. Last I checked you can only trip in melee.
|
... Last I checked you can only trip in melee.
'Ah - what you need is a throwing shield, my friend!' 'I hear they're going to be all the rage this summer, thanks to a certain movie which is due out...'
Yes - the wonderous throwing shield: an exotic ranged weapon with the trip quality... just like the bolas...
So yeah, by RAW you can trip with ranged weapons, under the right circumstances.
Please consider my own dissertation on the evolution of dragons.
And guys, really ... it's easy to read in the wrong intonation into things we say on forums, especially as few of us are professional writers. So two things:
1) Always try and be polite - not everyone can hear the sarcastic or jocular tone in your voice, they can only read your words.
2) Don't assume that other people are or are not being offensive, give them the same benefit of the doubt you would want extended to yourself.
|
|
Dragons are reptiles. That's like something Karl Pilkington would say.
But I think the statement highlights the issue. Some people are looking to lay real-world physics -- real-world mechanics -- on top of fantasy plots and archetypes, while others are okay with playing a game in which story is more important and sometimes steps on the toes of realistic mechanics.
Everyone would be better off if this line were drawn more clearly and everyone knew which side they preferred.
|
|
(1) Stefan, that's what I've been saying all along.
(2) It's about making a fun experience. Spellcasters should be able to make up spells on the spot, because that would be more awesome. Groups of monsters can be nullified with a barstool, because that's awesome.
(3) That's the bottom line. People like me who, expected things to make sense have no place in this game, after all, the game has floating eyeballs that shoot magic out of their eyestalks.
(1) After re-reading all of the posts, it seems to me you have more issues with the way RD presented things rather than intention. For example you say "What chandelier?", when I read RD OP I was taking it as read that the GM had described a room with a chandelier. I would agree 110% that if RD had inserted the object into a room previously without one that RD was crossing the GM/Player line and being plain old silly.
(2) We have a 'fun' experience using a standardized set of rules (mostly), what you mention changes the standard, what RD mentioned required the GM to think within the context of the rules and where there weren't rules, make a GM judgement call. That's why we have the GM.
(3) Depending on what aspect you are looking at sense either will or won't be applicable in a fantasy setting.
Let's take armor and AC for an example. Once they remove the weapon to hit modifiers from 1e AD&D, AC is completely meaningless in a 'sense' context. Wear 60 lb of plate and you are harder to hit? Come on. What you are is harder to hurt. 1e AD&D weapon to hit modifiers better introduced 'sense' into AC by presenting modifiers that represented the better or worse chance of a weapon by-passing your armor and wounding you.
No sense in the latest version of AC at all, it's nothing more than a mathematical construct for game mechanic purposes.
Having said all that, I like my fantasy serious and gritty also, even my Pathfinder. Still I think Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e more suits how I see fantasy, but Pathfinder is a great 'high fantasy' game and more people play it around my neck of the woods.
Regards,
S.
Everyone would be better off if this line were drawn more clearly and everyone knew which side they preferred.
I perfer world consistency. Typically that means drawing on the real world when the rules aren't clear or not iterally consistent. I'm also perfectly fine with generic rules that describe the end result of an other wise complex real world action (read grappling).
As has been pointed out quite clearly we have two issues at work here.
1) There is a framework to help create "Combat Maneuvers" that go above and beyond simple attacks
2) Not all such actions have been explicitly written in the rules. Example (climbing a Giant, with your axes)
A Shadow of Colossus style situation comes to mind as one not doable by strictly following the rules as written (using the acronym RAW being to aggressive reading), but having rules that could be brought into play to adjudicate it. Not RAW but rules can be referenced to help adjudicate outcome.
A 3rd point is the balance of combat maneuvers. It's one thing to say I going to Trip everyone with this barrel "movie" style, it's another to adjudicte that effect against existing effects. Especially where damage is involved. To be "fair" this would require an overhaul of the combat maneuver system and add complexity to the game I'm sure people would object to.
Damaging combat maneuvers generally require 2 feats and an attack roll (attack of opportunity). An unfortunate read of the situation suggest to me that a 3rd or 4th feat be added to the mix for "area or ranged" combat maneuvers.
=====
Now I'm going to get into the "add more rules make it complex" suggestion. I think we can mostly agree that the Combat Manuver check is a simple roll mechanic that address many odd character vs character situations. However there are odd effects. For example a Giant can't Bull Rush a fighter and send him "flying" (with his club obsenstiby , maybe a kick) and have it it hurt. Even Greater Bull Rush does not allow that. Further the Fighter remains on his feet and never goes prone, or even technically travels through the air. Both conditions seem logical in an analogous "real world" situation and in source fantasy (books, tv, movies).
What is missing in Pathfinder are the guidelines to adjudicating all those results in one go. How can a Giant punt an annoying fighter like a football (either kind)? By RAW he can't unless he has a special creature ability. Many of Ravingdork's examples are of a similar nature. The pieces are there (damage as a AoO, trip, and bull rush rules) they just don't really interact without addiotnal outside adjudication.
This suggest to me a sub-system like Traps, Disease/Poison, and even Words of Power. A way to quickly take pieces of a complex action that itself may require several actions (puntting being standard action, an attack, and an AoO) and condens it to a single roll that is either DC itself or a addition to a DC. This could include the effects of Skills (see Climb plus Grapple for Shadow of Colossus).
This suggest to me a sub-system like Traps, Disease/Poison, and even Words of Power.
Perhaps we'll see it in Ultimate Combat? Oh god.. now that's sounding like a day one buy. I don't care if it costs me my firstborn. :P
This suggest to me a sub-system like Traps, Disease/Poison, and even Words of Power.Perhaps we'll see it in Ultimate Combat? Oh god.. now that's sounding like a day one buy. I don't care if it costs me my firstborn. :P
That is my hope as well, or at least a more robust take on current options.
I removed some posts and replies. Be adults, please.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"OMG LOOK a FRIGGIN' DRAGON!!"
"Do not worry, mon cherie [twirls mustache] I have +12 to nose hair pulling!"
Geez, I'm done with this.
/Frenchgrammarnazi ON
Actually, either your heroine is a mustached woman, a cynical-friendly guy, or has some gay tendancies if he says "mon chéri" to his pal. "Mon" is used for a masculine subject, either an object or someone.
Right expression : "ma chérie", which is used for a feminine person or object : "une table -> ma table", "un dé => mon putain de dé ne tombe que sur des 1 naturels".
Oh, and "é" in "chérie". "Mon chéri", "ma chérie". :3
Not being a jerk on the subject at all. :) Just for information, especially since I always did the exact same mistakes with das/der/die in german. I'm always surprised to see so much french expressions used with a classy-caricatural connotation in english, and most of them almost always with a Colossal-sized typo in-between.
/Frenchgrammarnazi OFF
Now to really mean to be a bit of a jerk, I understand why it is necessary to limit players who think they could do awesome things just by explaining how they try to do it. There are mechanisms to deal with, global balance of the game to keep, and no one to advantage ony because the guy wants to nail the heroine all the while throwing swords at devils and using a dragon nose-hair he just snatch bare-hand as a +2 Vorpal whip.
But the way you describe how you try to f#$$ from the beginning to the end with a good idea is a bit infuriating. Do your players pretty much need to do several natural 20 just to hope applying an amazing idea from times to times ? This is a fantasy game for gods sake, and it's not like the guy is trying to walk on lava, it's not "you die, no save" just because you want to try something cool, useful and really stylish. Plus, there are a lot of ways to backfire the ideas so that they partially work but penalize you as well :
- Wire to trip everyone ? Yay, it worked on two people ! You just happened to make these two people enter in a rage, like a barbarian. Doesn't last long, but adds +2 to attack and damage.
- Chandelier falling ? Schrapnel bursts to your close friends. Could inflict bleeding damage until a HEAL check is made to extract the glass, magical heal doesn't work because moving reopens the wounds.
- Trying to throw a table ? You just displaced a vertebra ! Staggered until two succesfull following full-rounds actions are made to Heal you.
Again, I understand that you do not want your game to be cartoonish. Hell, maybe I'm even promoting this kind of play because my table isn't big on takings risks others than using full-round attacks ! But for the sake of pleasure, I still think that sometimes a cinematic-and-useful action should not require a miracle to work. But after all, you're the DM in your game ! :)
|
|
No, it shouldn't require a miracle to work something awesome.
But the chance of success ought to depend on the appropriateness of the awesome thing in question. Rigging the bad guy's lair to explode is very appropriate for a demolitions expert in a Shadowrun game. Not so much in Pathfinder.
And every group has a different level of tolerance for the silly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, then again, I vehemently believe in rewarding my players for cool ideas or outside-the-box thinking, to the point of granting bonus feats, extra damage, extra class abilities, and all sorts of "game-breakers" that make things awesome.
+1
I tell mine that it is THEIR job to entertain ME!
This seemed to go along with other, more recent threads, so I'm bringing it back in the hopes that we can get even more advice on how to make a fighter interesting.
This is relevant to my interests. BTW Ravingdork, your antics in the original post would be a refreshing and well received addition to any table I play at, whether they work or not.
My fighter hogs basically all the glory with his glaive and kills pretty much everything. While it's awesome to be #1 its boring as hell. He is also absurdly good at tripping.
Mine wears one of those big foam novelty cowboy hats.
And he has a scar.
Myssssssteeeeeerious.