RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I keep finding myself in an awkward spot, every time I discover or explore content that I haven't used before (which happens regularly, since I'm not a 3.5 vet). I'd like to know how other PFS players handle the following dilemma:
Everyone knows that there are parts of the Pathfinder rules that aren't entirely clear. Sometimes it's an obscure interaction between two effects that don't often go together, sometimes it's ambiguous wording on how to resolve a given situation, or whatever. Sometimes, I ask about such a situation, and someone replies with a rule or FAQ that I simply didn't see at first, and the matter is solved right then and there.
I like those times.
Other times, people's opinions are split, or people just altogether aren't sure. There are as many potential answers as there are people reading the question, and the only thing anyone can seem to agree on is the course of action I should take:
"Consult with your GM."
But... I have multiple GMs. I only play in PFS (currently, at least). The guy who runs PFS at my local store of choice is usually my GM, but lately we've gotten enough regulars to consistently have two tables, and there are therefore a handful of other GMs I might be playing under any given week. Furthermore, I'm trying to get my wife to play, and she kind of likes the nicer building that another local store has, so I might go there some weeks, which means another assortment of GMs (some of whom I probably haven't even met yet).
So am I supposed to ask six different people whether or not I lose my scroll when I fail my caster level check but avoid a mishap? (Please don't discuss that here - that's just an example.)
Okay, suppose I ask six different GMs how they handle it. Maybe they all say the same thing - hooray! I can make decisions now! But what if, as is infinitely more likely, they're split? Do I buy an expensive scroll when I see that my GM that week is one of the ones who lets me keep it on a failure? If I do so and then don't use it anyway, what do I do when next week the same character is under a GM with a different ruling? Risk using it anyway and hope for the best? Don't use it, and essentially have a thousand gold less than I should for that scenario (i.e., maybe my other option for that gold was to put it toward a ring of protection)?
Do I just skip the hassle and avoid any and every topic that relies on GM discretion, thus severely limiting my character options?
What are other people's thoughts? Have you encountered this dilemma, and if so, how have you dealt with it?
I would pick one gm and use his opinion, but remember, when a different guy gm's his rule is law so i think that is a pretty crappy scenari.
do these guys talk to each other?
can you have a multiple gm meeting? and say "Ralph i pick you to be the head gm" and they agree to use his ruling when it comes up? i hope it doesnt come up often.
I do not play PFS so take this with your RDA of sodium but I would plan for and expect the worst possible ruling. That way you are not destroyed by a GM who sees things differently than you do but if the GM is sensible and they give a good ruling then you get more than you were expecting which is always nice.
You might also want to boil down the questions/rulings that you will need feedback on. You are more likely to get a positive answer to one or two issues than four or five.
What are the issues that you are looking at? Perhaps we can help you to refine your arguments increasing the likelyhood of a positive response. If the question is interesting enough there might even be an official response.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would pick one gm and use his opinion, but remember, when a different guy gm's his rule is law so i think that is a pretty crappy scenari.
do these guys talk to each other?
can you have a multiple gm meeting? and say "Ralph i pick you to be the head gm" and they agree to use his ruling when it comes up? i hope it doesnt come up often.
A multi-GM meeting would be awesome, if I wasn't coming up with these questions about 3 times a month. ;)
@Poor Wandering One: I seem to come up with these semi-regularly. And to be clear, the issues I'm thinking of aren't ones that are just in my mind - I start by coming to the Rules Questions forum and posting a thread. Sometimes it's conclusively resolved. But the issues at hand are the ones where the final result of a long thread over in Rules is simply, "Not everyone agrees, so ask your GM."
I mean, I could start asking the official Venture Captain of the area, but using him to (potentially) overrule others seems like a recipe for disaster, you know?
"Consult with your GM."
I would consult your Venture Captain, he is the GM of GMs usually. There is a list of the Captains per region in the new society guide.
If I have a strong and (IMO) reasonable opinion on the issue (like with the "do I lose a scroll if I make the Wis check?" question), I'll put forth my interpretation and be slightly disappointed by a contradictory ruling.
If I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the issue and there doesn't seem to be any consensus, I'll err on the side of being conservative.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who try something dubious with a character and then get ruled against, but YMMV.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
If I have a strong and (IMO) reasonable opinion on the issue (like with the "do I lose a scroll if I make the Wis check?" question), I'll put forth my interpretation and be slightly disappointed by a contradictory ruling.
If I honestly don't have a strong opinion on the issue and there doesn't seem to be any consensus, I'll err on the side of being conservative.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who try something dubious with a character and then get ruled against, but YMMV.
Well, it's not so much that I'm hoping to get away with any "dubious" tricks, but rather that something working or not working can be the difference between spending a few thousand gold on a "basic" thing (like higher AC/saves from a magic item) or making a sacrifice (by not getting that AC/save bonus, while still spending the gold) to get something else. If I encounter an unexpected ruling, then I'm both poorer and squishier than I would've been if I knew ahead of time what the ruling would be.
Or I might have an idea for a really fun character, then find out that his key premise doesn't work at certain tables and I'd therefore rather have those chronicle sheets for existing characters (who actually do what they're supposed to).
I'm not particularly attached to any one such idea, it's just a matter of foreknowledge: I'm okay with some of them not working, I just want to know which ones do so that I can spend my time/effort/chronicle sheets on those ideas/characters.
Well, it's not so much that I'm hoping to get away with any "dubious" tricks, but rather that something working or not working can be the difference between spending a few thousand gold on a "basic" thing (like higher AC/saves from a magic item) or making a sacrifice (by not getting that AC/save bonus, while still spending the gold) to get something else. If I encounter an unexpected ruling, then I'm both poorer and squishier than I would've been if I knew ahead of time what the ruling would be.
[..]
I'm not particularly attached to any one such idea, it's just a matter of foreknowledge: I'm okay with some of them not working, I just want to know which ones do so that I can spend my time/effort/chronicle sheets on those ideas/characters.
I'm not quite following you. If it's a genuinely unexpected ruling, then how could you have anticipated it? For you to get any foreknowledge, you have to have at least an inkling that someone might your interpretation fishy, right?
I just stay away from anything that I think has even the possibility of turning around and biting me in the butt. For instance, when the Adventurer's Armory came out, I thought the Heirloom Weapon trait might cause problems some day so I stayed away from it. On the other hand, when the odd interpretation of intelligent animals came out, I honestly had no idea beforehand that it was going to be a problem*, so all I could do was shrug and deal with it.
*As opposed to weapon-using animal companions which I did stay away from on "fishiness" grounds.
|
What are other people's thoughts? Have you encountered this dilemma, and if so, how have you dealt with it?
Yes, everyone deals with it. Everyone has dealt with it since the concept of organized play came about. There will be some things that you experience differently at different tables. Some groups might choose to identify a majority opinion. That sort of approach doesn't work in other groups. In any case, gage the degree to which you might experience variance and then select your feats, equipment, other rules resources, and actions appropriately.
For things that you know there is variance, ask ahead. In the case of the scroll example, if you know most GMs handle it one way, you might then choose to buy the scroll. But, if you are unwilling to lose the scroll if it fails, ask the GM at the specific table how he's gonna rule on it ahead of time.
In areas you don't know there is variance, or where all is consistent until TheNewGuy starts to GM, you need to learn to both be flexible when there is reasonable variance and find a reasonable way to get the guy up to speed in those situations where he is clearly wrong. In a worst case situation, don't play with the GM in question. These choices come down to a matter of persona choice, personality, etc.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@hogarth: Okay, I guess I didn't mean completely unexpected rulings. More like I know there's some debate, and if it were a home game I would simply ask the GM. But not being able to ask every GM, do I stay away from it? Do I play the odds and hope to land with the "right" GM(s) from week to week? Do I just do it anyway and prepare to argue if need be?
Perhaps another example would help: having only recently acquired the APG, I just found the cestus. I love it, largely for how awesome it would look to wield it as my primary (or even secondary) weapon. But then come the questions: can I wear a buckler on the same arm? Does the -2 to "precision-based tasks" apply to ranged attacks? Perhaps just to some ranged attacks, like bows, but not others like slings or thrown weapons? Does it apply to sneak attack in some way, or interact with a duelist's "precision" damage?
As you can see, there's no cheese goal here, and there's nothing fishy about wanting to fight with a cestus (or a pair of them, perhaps). But the answers to the above questions affect how I would implement the idea - whether or not I'd want heavier armor, whether to be a switch-hitter or neglect ranged attacks, what classes to choose, etc. If I think my assorted GMs will answer some of those questions one way, I might build a fighter with 18STR/12DEX and start buying expensive armor. Or if I expect other answers, I might make a switch-hitter ranger without quickdraw, planning to drop my bow and punch people when they get close. Or if I expect a different set of answers, I might go with a melee-only TWF-ing rogue. None of those choices is "questionable" or "fishy", yet if the one I pick ends up not matching even one GM's rulings and I find myself at that GM's table, then I'm in for a really rough scenario, risking my character and also being a liability for the other players.
A cestus seems like a really silly thing to avoid compared to the kind of examples you were giving, you know?
EDIT: Ninja'd.
|
You can't predict everything that could be a problem. You could believe you've taken plain vanilla class options and feats, and be using them in the most intuitive RAI way, but still get called on them.
If it's a one-off game, you can sort it out in the intervening week, but if you're at a con, and your PC gets pulled up in an early game, you've got an hour break till your next, it's a weekend, and there isn't a hope of getting a new FAQ thread answered by an official source, what do you do?
Do you bow out? Create a new PC? What if the other players were expecting your current PC, to make a legal table?
I've had two characters suffer from ambiguities and after struggling along for a while I eventually decided to retire them and start again, which made the following games a much more enjoyable experience. The last thing I need in my hobby is frustration - that's what the dayjob is for :-)
It has nothing to do with dubious rules, for example:
1) Do Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot work with Acid Splash? The feats refer to weapons, and its not a ray, so does the thrown globule of acid count as a weapon?
2) How about applying Bardic Song to Acid Splash and Ray of Frost? Are they treated the same, or different? Do the benefits apply to attacks, damage, both or neither?
3) Touch of Law domain power; do you roll and then treat the natural d20 roll as an 11 (if you choose), or just take 11 in the same way as taking a 10?
All of those are core PHB and I didn't expect issues with any of them...
|
I keep finding myself in an awkward spot, every time I discover or explore content that I haven't used before (which happens regularly, since I'm not a 3.5 vet). I'd like to know how other PFS players handle the following dilemma:
Everyone knows that there are parts of the Pathfinder rules that aren't entirely clear. Sometimes it's an obscure interaction between two effects that don't often go together, sometimes it's ambiguous wording on how to resolve a given situation, or whatever. Sometimes, I ask about such a situation, and someone replies with a rule or FAQ that I simply didn't see at first, and the matter is solved right then and there.
I like those times.
Other times, people's opinions are split, or people just altogether aren't sure. There are as many potential answers as there are people reading the question, and the only thing anyone can seem to agree on is the course of action I should take:
"Consult with your GM."
But... I have multiple GMs. I only play in PFS (currently, at least). The guy who runs PFS at my local store of choice is usually my GM, but lately we've gotten enough regulars to consistently have two tables, and there are therefore a handful of other GMs I might be playing under any given week. Furthermore, I'm trying to get my wife to play, and she kind of likes the nicer building that another local store has, so I might go there some weeks, which means another assortment of GMs (some of whom I probably haven't even met yet).
So am I supposed to ask six different people whether or not I lose my scroll when I fail my caster level check but avoid a mishap? (Please don't discuss that here - that's just an example.)
Okay, suppose I ask six different GMs how they handle it. Maybe they all say the same thing - hooray! I can make decisions now! But what if, as is infinitely more likely, they're split? Do I buy an expensive scroll when I see that my GM that week is one of the ones who lets me keep it on a failure? If I do so and then don't use it anyway, what...
The previous posters have made some excellent suggestions. In the case where there are several GM's who GM PFS in a store, there will most likely be one person who is the coordinator, and he is the one who decides what scenario is run when, and, in some cases, who GM's what, and who gets to play at which table. The coordinator is sometimes a Venture Captain. I would suggest consulting him.
When I have GMed PFS games at Game Theory in Raleigh NC, (Its been a year now since I have GMed there), If i had a rules question, I would first ask the GM at the table, then the coordinator for the night, or i would go to the Venture Captain with my question.
|
|
It's generally safe to assume a "conservative" reading of the rules. If you think something is overpowered, or gives you an clearly unintended ability (like unlimited healing with a level 1 wizard), then you should expect that even if it's rules-legal, you should operate under the assumption that once it's identified by the Paizo staff it'll get official errata or a campaign rule removing the option.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It's generally safe to assume a "conservative" reading of the rules. If you think something is overpowered, or gives you an clearly unintended ability (like unlimited healing with a level 1 wizard), then you should expect that even if it's rules-legal, you should operate under the assumption that once it's identified by the Paizo staff it'll get official errata or a campaign rule removing the option.
Right, because my given examples (like wanting to silver my 1d4 weapon) are clearly overpowered, rules-twisting cheese that's on par with infinite healing. Silly me.
Thanks for your willingness to assume the worst of me by default. I know that's probably the result of having had to deal with a lot of cheesemonkeys, but please, try not to just assume it of any random guy with a question, alright? Not everything that's ambiguous in the rules is dangerous enough to even GET eratta/FAQ treatment, so any advice for my actual situation would be helpful.
Right, because my given examples (like wanting to silver my 1d4 weapon) are clearly overpowered, rules-twisting cheese that's on par with infinite healing.
I didn't see anything about silvering a weapon; your examples were botching a scroll (which I think is relatively straightforward) and some questions about the cestus (I agree that "precision-based" is open to interpretation, but it's easy enough to err on the side of caution).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Right, because my given examples (like wanting to silver my 1d4 weapon) are clearly overpowered, rules-twisting cheese that's on par with infinite healing.I didn't see anything about silvering a weapon; your examples were botching a scroll (which I think is relatively straightforward) and some questions about the cestus (I agree that "precision-based" is open to interpretation, but it's easy enough to err on the side of caution).
Whoops, the silvering part was in my Rules Questions thread about the cestus. Thought I'd listed it here too. [Sorry Thorkull! :(] But even so, I would defy anyone to find something remotely cheesy or eratta-worthy in any of my questions, let alone something on par with infinite healing.
I guess I'm just irritated that when voicing a legitimate concern, people come in and lump me in with the munchkins by default, as though to imply that the rules are only unclear if you're trying to break them. Being dismissed and told to avoid something that I'm not doing anyway is something I find offensive.
Personally, I'm a fan of the suggestion made by Thraxital that you consult your regional Venture Captain.
I might go a step further, and (though this is a tedious suggestion), address the meta-issue of "multiple GMs with different rulings on non-munchkin rules questions of ambiguous resolution" with each of your GMs, to give them a heads up that this is an issue and that you're encountering the potential for with relative frequency, and asking for their help in reaching a resolution, perhaps suggesting involving the Venture Captain if it seems appropriate.
Chances are good that the various GMs will understand your dilemma and will be willing to do something to work out the issue, whether it involves the Venture Captain or not. If some GMs are totally unwilling to address the meta-issue, that should be something you can take directly to the Venture Captain (though the VC might tell you that such contrarian rulings are part of the situation and that the GMs are fully authorized to make them).
Or at least, that's my gut instinct. I've never participated in PFS play, though. <shrug>
|
|
Jiggy, I think that you over-reacted to Thorkull's post.
He was not accusing you of being cheesy, but referring to a rules interpretation that was actually raised on these boards a while ago.
Try going back and read it as a general answer, instead of a directed comment to you.
As an answer to your orignal question:
The best way to deal with rules issues is to take them to the rules forum and try to get them into the FAQ. The FAQ is a legitimate document that you can take to GMs to get a consistent ruling.
While you will still get variation on other issues, the vast majority of GMs will abide by the FAQ, or even clarifications by the rules designers.
Personally, I'm a fan of the suggestion made by Thraxital that you consult your regional Venture Captain.
Personally, that's probably my least favourite suggestion. Playing PFS shouldn't require you to be a talmudic scholar, studying interpretations of the good book all day and all night. It's much better to accept the possibility of table variation up front and keep that in mind when choosing the critical parts of your character, IMO. (And note -- I don't consider whether you can have a silver cestus or whether you lose a scroll on a botch to be particularly critical, but YMMV.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I play a summoner who has taken the Augent Sumoning feat. Does that work on an eidolon? Does that work on creatures summoned with the summon mosters spell-like class ability. Most GMs aren't aware of the issues. Among those who are, most say "no" to the firt and "yes" to the second.
But it's good to check ahead. I come to the table with two sets of statistics for the eidolon, and two sets for each summoned monster, so that I can play according to that table GM's rulings. And then I ask the GM before play begins.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, I think that you over-reacted to Thorkull's post.
He was not accusing you of being cheesy, but referring to a rules interpretation that was actually raised on these boards a while ago.
Try going back and read it as a general answer, instead of a directed comment to you.
I probably did overreact. It's a sore spot of mine when I ask a question that is usually asked by people with entirely different motives than mine, for someone to assume that those are my motives and respond accordingly, instead of taking my words at face value.
Even so, if you do go back and read his post "as a general answer", you'll find that he addresses exactly one conundrum: what to do if your plan is so overpowered that it might get FAQ'd later, even if it's technically legal at the moment. His answering that question implies a belief that it was the question I asked, hence why I took it as lumping me in with "the munchkins". Either he did believe I was trying to justify cheese (cheese at the same level as his referenced example), or he was posting in the wrong thread.
But yes, even though I still take that as a slight, I probably did overreact. Probably an innocent mistake, and I shouldn't have treated it as deliberate malice.
As an answer to your orignal question:
The best way to deal with rules issues is to take them to the rules forum and try to get them into the FAQ. The FAQ is a legitimate document that you can take to GMs to get a consistent ruling.
While you will still get variation on other issues, the vast majority of GMs will abide by the FAQ, or even clarifications by the rules designers.
Thanks for the thoughtful input. However, the focus of my inquiry is on issues that are "small" or "benign" enough that they're not likely to get the FAQ treatment.
Personally, I'm a fan of the suggestion made by Thraxital that you consult your regional Venture Captain.Personally, that's probably my least favourite suggestion. Playing PFS shouldn't require you to be a talmudic scholar, studying interpretations of the good book all day and all night. It's much better to accept the possibility of table variation up front and keep that in mind when choosing the critical parts of your character, IMO. (And note -- I don't consider whether you can have a silver cestus or whether you lose a scroll on a botch to be particularly critical, but YMMV.)
I agree that *playing* PFS should not require much in the way of scholarly undertakings. On the other hand, committing to *RUN* PFS games seems to implicitly entail the willingness to undertake research and collaboration.
This issue is an issue of personnel, almost exactly the same as the issue of a mechanic who can end up working under any of 5 different supervisors - Supervisor Bob wants the mechanic to always rack his tools first at the end of his shift, while Supervisor Ted tells the mechanic that he must first attend to cleaning up his work area. Both Supervisors are holding the mechanic to the rules that the work area must be clean and tools must be racked at the end of a mechanic's shift. The rules don't specify an order, and each supervisor interprets the rules differently. Now suppose that the mechanic hears about something new that might come in to be worked on, that has similar rules defining how it's dealt with, but the rules involve a decision that's entrusted to the mechanic, not his supervisor. The mechanic is best served by discussing the matter in general beforehand with his supervisors, and if necessary involving someone from the personnel office in the resolution, since he doesn't want *any* of his supervisors to downrate his performance. The mechanic could, according to the shop rules, decline to work on those new jobs, but if he does that he's less likely to be promoted to a higher pay grade, which he wants very much.
In the OP case, the OP is the mechanic, the GMs he plays under are his Supervisors, and the Venture Captain is the Personnel officer. The OP wants very much to have a lot of fun, and by avoiding these ambiguous cases he restricts the amount of fun he can have.
I would think that this scenario is best labeled as "interpersonal conflict resolution" rather than "scholarly research" but that's just me...
[Thorkull] was not accusing you of being cheesy, but referring to a rules interpretation that was actually raised on these boards a while ago.
Try going back and read it as a general answer, instead of a directed comment to you.
I understand what you mean, but if the answer that Thorskull posted was *not* directed at Jiggy, then his post was irrelevant to the thread. I can understand Jiggy's ire, since it seems reasonable to me to assume that, absent any other indications, a post is intended to be helpful, which entails being applicable.
Assuming that Thorskull's post *was* applicable, it seems impossible to me to reach any other conclusion than the one that Jiggy did. (Of course that says nothing about the reaction to that interpretation, about which I make no comment.)
Also, when providing insight into possible alternate interpretations of posts, one should be careful to avoid including supercilious remarks that imply that the interpretation one seeks to identify as potentially incorrect is actually incorrect. Such inclusion is itself potentially offensive.
|
Hello everybody. I am the VC for Jiggy's region. I have been out at Gen Con and only just had a chance to read this thread. I am also still mobile so a more detailed response may have to wait.
I am not in the business of understanding every rules nuance and corner case. I still regularly ask players on the radius of their spells and the DCs of their abilities. In other words, I too am a fallible human being with my own personal understanding of the rules.
That being said, as a rule, I will not backseat-GM. Everybody has a different understanding of the rules and differences in opinions will happen. Yes I get GMs conferring with me when I am present but I give advice only, not table rulings. I would suggest being ready for the possibility that this means some inconsistency; if it really bothers you have the GM contact me and we can talk, but chances are we will simply have a difference in opinion.
Now there is a caveat. I WILL back players that are having problems with GMs that are having problems with PFS specific rules. If it involves OP guidelines, please contact me if you are having issues.
In the OP case, the OP is the mechanic, the GMs he plays under are his Supervisors, and the Venture Captain is the Personnel officer. The OP wants very much to have a lot of fun, and by avoiding these ambiguous cases he restricts the amount of fun he can have.
I get what you're saying, and I would love to have total consistency between GMs. But my problem is that I've seen cases where Venture-Captains were factually incorrect in their comments before (nothing wrong with that -- to err is human), and I've seen cases where Venture-Captains disagreed with each other. What I absolutely don't want to see is a case where, for instance, if you play a PFS game in Ohio then using Stealth requires a move action but if you play a PFS game in Minnesota it doesn't.
As noted by Neil, rules clarifications belong in the FAQ. "Someone told me that the Venture-Captain said so" is worse than useless as a clarification, IMO. Of course, that means that some things will slip between the cracks; the FAQ system isn't perfect. My suggestion is to try to steer away from as many cracks as possible and hope for the best.
That being said, as a rule, I will not backseat-GM.
Amen.
|
|
Hey, Jiggy.
I'm sorry if you felt my response was assuming that you were attempting to cheese out your character, it most certainly was not. The last line of your post was asking how we had dealt with this dilema in the past, and that's what I was addressing not (as you requested) any specific examples in your post.
What I was trying to say was that, regardless of the scale or impact of the rules ambiguity, it's generally good to presume that the GM will not rule in your favor. Whether you're talking about losing a 50gp scroll to a flubbed roll or not being able to use a super-cheesy rules combo to get unlimited healing, just assume the GMs you sit with will rule in the least favorable way for you. If they don't rule against you, then you're ahead by 50gp or whatever. Over time, you'll get a feel for where GMs in general will draw the line.
Again, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of trying to come up with broken rules combos, as that was not my intent -- although I can certainly see why you could draw that conclusion from my original reply.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have been out at Gen Con and only just had a chance to read this thread.
Yeah, when I asked you to peek in, I totally forgot you were at GenCon (you lucky skunk!). Hope you had good time. :)
Now that there's been some discussion, let's see if I can condense/organize the relevant information thus far:
• Issue: there are some rule ambiguities which can affect character decisions and might be handled differently by different GMs from session to session. This can affect character decisions, such as what feats to choose or what gear to buy. (For instance, if a GM rules that a cestus hurts your ability to use a bow, you might not bother investing in Precise Shot or a high DEX score. Or if one GM rules that a cestus's metal parts can't be silvered, you have to decide whether to spend the gold on a separate weapon.) Having your character's abilities fluctuate based on what table you're at can be frustrating for a player.
• Solution #1: Avoid using any options that have any chance of multiple interpretations. So with the aforementioned example, simply never use a cestus in organized play. This seems like an undesirable solution.
• Solution #2: Get a consensus from all local GMs, or if there is disagreement, revert to solution #1. So with this example, ask every GM in the area how they would rule on silvering a cestus or whether it would affect archery, and hope they all say the same thing, all prior to even making the character. Potentially effective, but impractical.
• Solution #3: Get an area-wide ruling from the VC. For instance, ask Ryan about the cestus, and refer to his response if it comes up. This seems like a recipe for local strife.
• Solution #4: Try to get a FAQ from the developers. Unfortunately, whether or not you can silver a cestus seems like too small of a thing for them to bother with.
Did I miss anything?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Hey, Jiggy.
I'm sorry if you felt my response was assuming that you were attempting to cheese out your character, it most certainly was not. The last line of your post was asking how we had dealt with this dilema in the past, and that's what I was addressing not (as you requested) any specific examples in your post.
What I was trying to say was that, regardless of the scale or impact of the rules ambiguity, it's generally good to presume that the GM will not rule in your favor. Whether you're talking about losing a 50gp scroll to a flubbed roll or not being able to use a super-cheesy rules combo to get unlimited healing, just assume the GMs you sit with will rule in the least favorable way for you. If they don't rule against you, then you're ahead by 50gp or whatever. Over time, you'll get a feel for where GMs in general will draw the line.
Again, I'm sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of trying to come up with broken rules combos, as that was not my intent -- although I can certainly see why you could draw that conclusion from my original reply.
Sorry for my flip-out. I get what you're saying a bit more now, so let me reply to it with greater precision:
You say "assume it will be not be ruled in your favor". But what if I'm not invested in either ruling? Suppose I'm looking to make a character who likes the cestus. If the penalty to "precision-based" tasks applies to using a bow, then I might make a character with 18STR and 12-14DEX taking feats like Power Attack, and probably a class with heavy armor proficiency (like a fighter). If it's ruled to NOT interfere with archery, then I might go 16STR/16DEX and pick up Precise Shot ASAP (like a ranger).
Either way, getting the ruling "reversed" by a different GM costs me a bit: maybe I end up at a table where I could've been more versatile by taking Precise Shot because this GM doesn't apply the cestus penalty to archery, so I've paid that "cost" for nothing; or maybe I spend the feats/stat points on versatility only to have the GM of the week force a -2 on all my shots.
So which ruling was "not in my favor"? Which one do I "assume", as you suggest? Or do I just avoid using a cestus altogether? That's more what I'm getting at - not so much whether or not a GM will rule it "my way", but just wanting to know ahead of time so I can plan accordingly. Just like needing to know how many guests will be at a dinner - I don't really care, I just need to know how much pizza to buy and how many chairs to put out.
You say "assume it will be not be ruled in your favor". But what if I'm not invested in either ruling? Suppose I'm looking to make a character who likes the cestus. If the penalty to "precision-based" tasks applies to using a bow, then I might make a character with 18STR and 12-14DEX taking feats like Power Attack, and probably a class with heavy armor proficiency (like a fighter). If it's ruled to NOT interfere with archery, then I might go 16STR/16DEX and pick up Precise Shot ASAP (like a ranger).
Either way, getting the ruling "reversed" by a different GM costs me a bit: maybe I end up at a table where I could've been more versatile by taking Precise Shot because this GM doesn't apply the cestus penalty to archery, so I've paid that "cost" for nothing; or maybe I spend the feats/stat points on versatility only to have the GM of the week force a -2 on all my shots.
So which ruling was "not in my favor"? Which one do I "assume", as you suggest?
It seems pretty clear that assuming the penalty will be applied is more conservative than assuming the penalty will not be applied.
|
|
It seems pretty clear that assuming the penalty will be applied is more conservative than assuming the penalty will not be applied.
Exactly.
Conservative rulings:
The penalty does apply.
The target is not legal for that spell or ability.
The bonuses do not stack.
Liberal rulings:
The penalty does not apply.
The target is legal for that spell (or ability).
The bonuses do stack.
By conservative, I mean anything that is mechanically inferior for the character without considering other options.
In your example, it doesn't matter if you could do something else with those attribute points -- the question is whether or not the penalty for the cestus applies to using a bow, then to be safe you assume that a GM will rule that the penalty does apply.
The question of what your other character build options are isn't relevant to the rules question in that case.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ah, okay. Not what I thought of with the terms "conservative" or "in your favor" and so forth. That clears up your position a bit, thanks.
Next question, then: how does the "unfavorable" prediction apply when I'm considering the same conundrum from both my character's perspective ("Can I target monster X with that spell?") and from the monster's perspective ("Can monsters target me with that spell?"). Do I need to assume that I can't target them, but they can target me? (Or whatever other example you please.) How do I "assume the worst" on a global issue?
|
|
Next question, then: how does the "unfavorable" prediction apply when I'm considering the same conundrum from both my character's perspective ("Can I target monster X with that spell?") and from the monster's perspective ("Can monsters target me with that spell?"). Do I need to assume that I can't target them, but they can target me? (Or whatever other example you please.) How do I "assume the worst" on a global issue?
I don't think that kind of situation has come up much, but in the case of monsters I'd still be pessimistic from their point of view (so that you're applying the rules evenly for PCs and NPCs), but I'll warn you that there are GMs out there that seem to take it personally when you have something that negates their bad guy's super nifty special attack.
I know I threw spell targets in there, but it's kind of a red herring -- most (if not all) spells are pretty clear on the valid targets issue. There's really only one time that I know of that you might encounter that conundrum, and that's with polymorph spells.
When you have spells like beast shape, it's not specifically spelled out that I've been able to find if your type changes to match the shape you've assumed. If it does, then it makes you an invalid target for effects that only target humanoids (like charm person), but then opening you up for spells that target animals (like calm animals). That's kind of a tradeoff, so it doesn't really matter one way or another. It might be more of an issue with elemental body.
I just stay away from anything that I think has even the possibility of turning around and biting me in the butt.
Hence the reason I avoided taking Antagonize when I had the chance over thie past Gen Con weekend, despite it being a perfect fit for my character.
Hence the reason I avoided taking Antagonize when I had the chance over thie past Gen Con weekend, despite it being a perfect fit for my character.
I just stay away from anything that I think has even the possibility of turning around and biting me in the butt.
Yeah, I'm not going to touch that one with a masterwork feat-touching tool. :-)