| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I cant believe how long this thread is.
You are clearly too caught up in the minutiae of the game. Let it go man.
The GM is meant to 'spontaneously' make calls - the rules can't account for every situation possible. Thats why there is a GM. If you dont want sponteneity go play world of warcraft.
People may argue about what is or isnt possible in 3-6 seconds, reality vs playability or what rules explicitly detail vs interpretation, but the fact is someone needs to make the call. That someone is the GM.
If he makes a call you dont like, state your case. If he overrules you, accept it or quit group. As long as a call is consistant or 'house ruled' once the call is made its all good.
IMHO - if you described your equipment situation to me as a player in my group, I would have made it a full round action. I think you were lucky to get away with a standard action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That everything is bulky is merely an assumption on your part. A slender torch is still a torch, the block and tackle can be quite small when made of sturdy materials, trail rations can be quite compact depending on what food it is, etc.
I'm on your GMs side on this. If you chose not to get the weapon due to the time it took, too bad. But in no way could have changed the time to grab the item.
In your description of your gear, you didn't bother to type "Slender torches" or "super lightweight darkwood collapsible tent"(mine) you made no effort to dress up the gear then, but when you had to defend it, you dressed it up. Tents of any decent quality are super bulky, even when made with today's technology. Block and tackle wasn't specified as being especially small either. Even still, since you are going by the weight of items RAW, and DEFENDING the tents, torches etc...is your character carrying items of exceptional density? If you bought torches made of adamantium, they would by necessity cost more. It's a gross over stepping of player boundaries to suddenly change whats expected in the game world like that. Unfortunately, it is NOT an over stepping by the GM in arbitrating a situation like this, and the boards have pretty much spoken, the majority has ruled in favor of rule zero. Its not even a strong shift to realism, it went from a move to a standard action, a higher cost in action sure, but really is quite trivial timewise. If you consider holding a w.e. kind of pole arm you have, grabbing the axe and readying to strike, that limited time could have definitely cost your character the opportune striking moment the standard action attack represents.
But if the DM thinks that pulling a handaxe out of the bottom of a backpack that also happens to contain a tent and a suit of armour, then I don't think that's unreasaonble either.
More evidence showing that people aren't reading my posts.
There was no armor in the bag. I was wearing the only armor I possess.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've all made valid points, but one that bears repeating is what kind of precedent it sets when a GM does not look at a situation like this and make an adjustment that he deems is fair and reasonable.
That is that pretty soon everybody is pulling whatever out of wherever, regardless of where they stored it, or whether it is even on their equipment list or not. Your GM was put into one of those situations, and he did exactly as a surprisingly large number of us GMs here are saying we might have done.
We all want to like our players. I love my players; they are all good friends of mine, some I've known since Jr. High. But even those players weren't above magically and mysteriously pulling some handy and convenient bit of equipment out of their butts on some fantastically desperate occasion, causing eyebrows to go up around the table, and forcing us to deem that from now on, the GM (myself) has to know whatever quick-draw tool you have stored in whatever quick-draw place, or it doesn't exist. Or at the very least, it will take time to dig it out.
This sort of metagame retconning is not new to this edition. It's been around as long as the game has. Whether it be a spell suddenly appearing on a player's list, or a rogue insisting he was checking for traps after forgetting to tell his GM he was, or some item everybody knows was left in the wagon, that one player insists he "would have brought with him had he'd known he'd need it, so why can't he just say he has it?" to someone demanding that he never lets whatever he wants fall to the bottom of the backpack, and so should be able to just magically reach in and get it. It's all the same. If the GM has not been alerted to it, he must make a decision as to whether he'll allow it.
Some of us would have ruled in your favor, just to keep things moving. But plenty of us also know why your GM did what he did, and we do not disagree with him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though true, the GM has to start somewhere.
That "somewhere" is in the rule books
Start, yes. Finish, no.
I will never understand why GMs insist on spontaneous house rules. It's one thing to say "you're screwed because I don't like the rules," and quite another to say "I don't think I like that rule and may change it in future games."
Because DM's don't memorize every rule in the book and oddly enough the DM screen doesn't come with the bald head and wheel chair required to look into the future and see every decision players will make and try to rule on it in advance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to your list, you have 28 items in your backpack, in addition to the handaxe. I'm going to assume the handaxe is roughly the same size as a normal hatchet, which is not huge. According to your list, you also have a tent inside your backpack.
I recall in high school having a monstrously heavy backpack. It was easy to pull out what I was looking for, but I certainly did not have 29 items in it. I also recall that, when I got something new that I had to make room for, I had to rearrange things quickly to find a new place for the item. Just placing it on top would have left my backpack unbalanced, and caused the items to jostle around.
Something like a handaxe, presumably with an extremely sharp blade (as a weapon, it would have to be kept almost razor-sharp), would need special attention. This is exactly why most weapons are kept on a belt, or on the back, or some other place which is easy to reach quickly.
Your statement that you expected to be using the item quickly only causes me to think that it would have been better to tuck it into your belt, as most handaxes are shown in pictures depicting people carrying them.
As to the problem of your GM springing the ruling on you... that is the very nature of running a game. It sounds like an unusual situation came up, your GM made the best ruling that could be had with the knowledge on hand, and you disagreed with that ruling. Interpretation is part of this game, and is certainly allowable. However, it is the GM's right and responsibility to make calls like this, and to make them quickly, and move on. Players don't always like them, and battle can make tensions run high, but it is not fair to undermine someone's decision when they're forced to make a call on the fly. Your GM sounds like he did his job, however heavy-handed he may or may not have been in implementing his ruling.
One other thought: You said that this was an issue at character creation, but you had just picked up the handaxe very shortly before the issue occurred. It looks like you had been methodical about placing items on your person, but the specifics about this one item were overlooked. It sounds to me like you had been very thorough throughout the game. I notice that it wasn't an item that had been specifically named to a spot, but an item that was not accounted for. If you're this concerned about where things are, I suggest that you start a packing list for your backpack describing in what order things are stored away. Several times in this conversation, you have complained that people are trying to put too much realism into the argument, but you spent this much time justifying your complaint with realism. You are trying to use habit and physics to explain why you should be able to get to the item quickly, but when people point out alternate reasons why it would be difficult, you complain about too much realism.
My advice would be to just accept that you had a difference of opinion on something that was unclear, and to get over it. These things happen. I probably would have made the same call. 29 items in one backpack is pretty packed, especially when it includes a whole tent and two separate sets of block and tackle. I can't think of many backpacks which would hold those 3 things, plus so many others.
A standard action isn't completely unreasonable. I understand it can be frustrating to be so hobbled in the first round of combat, and it sounds like your GM was being a little tough on you with the battle, but one round without an attack is not the worst thing in the world. If I made an issue of every standard action I've lost to something like your situation, it would ruin the game for me. Instead, I just make a note to keep the situation in mind next time I'm preparing myself, and then I move on with my character.
If you have a total party wipe because one of round not spent attacking, then your GM wasn't running correctly. If your party made it through the combat alright, then it's just something you'll have to learn from, and move on. Don't let it stop you from enjoying playing. It is, after all, just a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have made a item storing sheet modelled on some computer games (item slots etc.)Maybe someone wants to use it.
- House rule alert -
|
Because if the GM says "sorry, getting a handaxe out of a backpack filled with 55lbs of gear including a tent is a standard action" it's like he would say "drop your pants and bend over, and no vaseline this time", duuuuuh.
The crux of this discussion is not said backpack, tent, or axe - it's if the player is accepting GM's ad hoc rulings that go outside of RAW. Ravingdork doesn't, and something tells me that convincing him otherwise might not be the best way to spend your free time.
I know Ravingdork is unpopular, and maybe I've missed something, but from what I gathered, it went something like this:
RD: I pull the axe out of my bag.
GM: It takes a standard action.
RD: Can I have my action back and do something else?
GM: No.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Ravingdork is unpopular, and maybe I've missed something, but from what I gathered, it went something like this:
RD: I pull the axe out of my bag.
GM: It takes a standard action.
RD: Can I have my action back and do something else?
GM: No.
From what I read Ravingdork needed the axe or the encounter was going to head south. Without the axe he would not have been able to attack the ghost and harm it, it was a matter of drawing and attacking in the same round versus drawing and then attacking in the next round. Unless I missed something too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what's a low level character doing with their only magic weapon tucked away in their backpack anyway?
I believe the item had some sort of curse on it and he never intended to use it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say that Ravingdork is unpopular. He's something of an acquired taste, and I find the more time I spend on the forums, the more I come to see the intent behind the post.
I would say that from the sound of the story, the dm made that ruling to slow the party down in finishing the bad guy off. Maybe they were supposed to lose, and wake up in a meat locker somewhere. Maybe the bbeg was going to gloat and wander off. Maybe the dm just wanted to push the party to the edge of their abilities.
Regardless, I think the real issue wasn't with a move action becoming a standard one so much as the feeling that the dm was actively changing rules to make things more difficult. Not a nice feeling at all.
There are situations where it's justified to change that move action into a standard action. However, with the weapon being a recent acquisition *and thus most likely on top of the pile* it just doesn't feel like a justified change as much as a purposeful one to delay the entrance of the weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't say that Ravingdork is unpopular. He's something of an acquired taste, and I find the more time I spend on the forums, the more I come to see the intent behind the post.
I would say that from the sound of the story, the dm made that ruling to slow the party down in finishing the bad guy off. Maybe they were supposed to lose, and wake up in a meat locker somewhere. Maybe the bbeg was going to gloat and wander off. Maybe the dm just wanted to push the party to the edge of their abilities.
Regardless, I think the real issue wasn't with a move action becoming a standard one so much as the feeling that the dm was actively changing rules to make things more difficult. Not a nice feeling at all.
There are situations where it's justified to change that move action into a standard action. However, with the weapon being a recent acquisition *and thus most likely on top of the pile* it just doesn't feel like a justified change as much as a purposeful one to delay the entrance of the weapon.
No, the GM has much better tools to give them a hard time; he doesn't need to mess with action economy. The players don't know that the ghost has 2000hp. Or whatever other hidden attribute can be manipulated.
Therefore I don't believe the GM did it because he wanted to give them a harder time. The GM made a reasonable ruling that is supported by rules.
I think the real problem here is that:
1. RavingDork is a rules-lawyer: things should work like they do in the book
2. The GM is a simulationist: things should approximately work like in real life
Both approaches can be valid - but since it's the GM's prerogative to determine how his game should play; he gets the benefit of the verdict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Ravingdork is unpopular...
Wait. What?
From what I read Ravingdork needed the axe or the encounter was going to head south. Without the axe he would not have been able to attack the ghost and harm it, it was a matter of drawing and attacking in the same round versus drawing and then attacking in the next round. Unless I missed something too.
This one is closer to actual events.
I suppose I could have asked the GM to keep my action and done something else, but what would have been the point? That would have meant yet another wasted round of doing nothing to help the party out (I was out of spells at this point). In the end I pulled out the axe as a standard action, 5-foot stepped into flanking, and attacked in the next round.
No, the GM has much better tools to give them a hard time; he doesn't need to mess with action economy. The players don't know that the ghost has 2000hp. Or whatever other hidden attribute can be manipulated.
I agree that there are better things to do than changing known rules (though I'm not a huge fan of stealth changes either).
If there's one thing I learned, it's that this particular GM likes to roll his monster's hit points rather than use those numbers published in the Bestiary or modules. Therefore, encounters may be easier or harder than intended, but are nevertheless fair.
Therefore I don't believe the GM did it because he wanted to give them a harder time. The GM made a reasonable ruling that is supported by rules.
Except it isn't supported by the rules anywhere. It was strictly house rule territory, which would have been fine if he hadn't sprung it on me.
I think the real problem here is that:
1. RavingDork is a rules-lawyer: things should work like they do in the book
2. The GM is a simulationist: things should approximately work like in real lifeBoth approaches can be valid - but since it's the GM's prerogative to determine how his game should play; he gets the benefit of the verdict.
Yep, that's pretty much the heart of it most likely.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that there are better things to do than changing known rules (though I'm not a huge fan of stealth changes either).
I have noticed, however, that you are happy to promote rule changes when they are in your favour. The ideas you propounded to use intimidate without the negative reaction in the "misuse of intimidate" thread almost demanded the GM change the RAW, and to do so in the middle of a session too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What surprises me is that some people have an issue with someone digging an axe from a bag in 3 seconds but i doubt they as a DM would rule that i can't.
A. Shoot 7 arrows in 6 seconds.
B. Reload a crossbow requiring a wench and fire it 6 times in 6 secs.
C. Hit something 9 times with two swords in that time.Edit: All numbers assume speed weapons subtract one for no magic 2 from the dual weilding.
Thing is, those things require class abilities and/or feats, and represent your character's superheroic expertise in those areas.
As soon as you take Expert Backpack Digging as a feat, I will agree with you.
Please, no Kender.
I have noticed, however, that you are happy to promote rule changes when they are in your favour. The ideas you propounded to use intimidate without the negative reaction in the "misuse of intimidate" thread almost demanded the GM change the RAW, and to do so in the middle of a session too.
To this day there remains nothing in the rules that says intimidation HAS to be violent in nature. That's all that thread was meant to be about. I can't help it if others blew it out of proportion and tried to put words in my mouth.
**vehemence**
This actually made me laugh. :)
What I'm trying to say here, Ravingdork, is that the GM made a call and NOT a house rule. This is an important distinction.
A very important and FUZZY distinction.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Except it isn't supported by the rules anywhere. It was strictly house rule territory, which would have been fine if he hadn't sprung it on me.This.
You are here trying to play the victim. The GM is a monster! He made a judgment call on the fly to my detriment! It was against RAW!
I don't know, while I disagree with much of what he said, I tend to agree that it's a bad idea to spring things on a player without warning. It's reasonable for a player to assume that getting items from storage is a move action, particularly if the player, and other players had done so in the past. While I tend to think the GMs ruling was right, it seems to me like terrible timing on his part.
The reason timing is *important* is because it changes behavior. Had he known retrieving the axe was a standard, he *might* have placed it in a more accessible place. Whether he would have or not is endlessly debatable but the fact is he didn't have the opportunity because there was an important communications gap.
I do tend to agree that arguing with the GM is a poor reaction, but when you are in a frustrating situation a lot of people forget about restraint.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Here's my question to Ravingdork:
Before the deadly encounter, your PC had decided to hold on to the cursed magical handaxe. Your PC put it in his pack. At that point, did you specifically alert the GM and explain that your PC would want to be able to grab it quickly?
If so, then your GM should have had a convrsation with you then.
RD: Putting the cursed weapon away in the backpack, but I want to draw it as a move action, and attack the same round.
GM: This is the backpack with all sorts of stuff? The one that weighs, like, 50 pounds?
RD: That would be the one.
GM: [makes ruling]
If you had such a conversation, and the GM was okay with it initially, but then reversed himelf when you were in battle, that's not cool.
If you had such a conversation, and the GM let you know that he didn't think your plan was plausible, then he was being consistent.
If you didn't think to have such a conversation, then the first time the GM would have gotten a chance to make his call was when you tried the stunt. Next time, don't wait until you're in trouble to see if your emergency back-up stunts actually work.
I removed some posts. Let's not make this personal.
