|
Well I do appologize for calling you out for possibly being cheesy, I have had simular players riding Eidlons ect that really were just there to break the game.
You get me a youtube video of a horse, or dog with rider in full plate going up stairs and I will be impressed. I watched your video and mine and pointed out very specific things in both. In yours the rider has to crotch low to prevent his weight from being displaced and causing issues, and those are like 5 feet of stairs, not an entire flight of stairs.
|
A few things, I never said you could not go up the stairs with a mount. I said you need to make one hell of a ride check. There is armor penaltys in the book, so not sure why that is even being disputed, ride requires dex so it is subject to AC pen. That is why I mentioned Full plate and barding. Chapter 13 talks about check pen applied when ground is uneven for things like acrobatics ect. Realize the core and many older scenarios were made prior to APG being released. There are many factors to consider when going up stairs. Are they slippery? How steep are they? what is the clearance to the ceiling?Lastly, if you have a problem with your GM, be a man and talk to him about it. If that doesnt get resolved, talk to your VC.
Slippery? Sure, if applied to all the PCs as well.
Steepness is seldom, if ever, specified. And, again, you have to apply it to everyone equally, not just the mount.
Clearance to the ceiling? Are you being intentionally ridiculous, or do you seriously think a character who stands about 3' tall on his own feet, sitting on a 3-4' high animal, is going to have clearance issues anywhere a 6'9" tall Half-Orc is going to be able to get through?
And, on those "clearance" issues, it tells me that you are probably going to be having issues not only with mounted small characters, but with characters whose forte is archery/ranged combat.
And I am sure you have NO issues, at all, with tripping, disarming, and sundering builds. Much less with the Paladin's Smite ability totally negating the target's DR.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit being very negative about small cavaliers and medium mounts... and all pet classes anyhow. That's for starters. I don't, however, treat these characters unequally in games, though I do ask the player whether he/she thinks such a maneuver is possible.
Also I watched those videos of dogs climbing ladders, slightly tilted... sure, but what about a strictly vertical ladder? You see them in sewes for instance. Most groups I've gamemastered have lowered the dog down with ropes. Actually I've never seen someone try to have the dog climb a ladder.
And when it comes to the point of is the GM the boss or the rules, I've often heard the players advocating the GM to be higher on the ladder, mostly due to habit and, I dunno, courtesy? Diminishing GM's power gives a little too much room to people who are rules-lawyers and those kind of people can easily sour the session's mood. No first-hand experience, but still.
Finally I think the only reason there are so many halfling and gnome cavaliers is strictly because they can their mount everywhere. I'm actually happy most leave their dogs outside and don't bring their muddy feet to spoil all the carpets...
I hate pet classes. And I let my players know that, and I let my players play them regardless. It's still not my position to deny them that.
|
|
Being mounted is extremely powerful in 3.5/PFRPG. To expect to be able to be mounted all the time, or even the majority of the time, is asking a bit much.
Permit me to amend that: It's bloody handy in the Tier 1-2/3-4 game so long as no caster targets your mount with saving throw magic -- so stomp away! Leave hoofprints in the forehead of everything...what fun!
Tier 5+ ....a mount is a sack of meat that drops in one or two swats unless you've invested a bucketload of skill points in Ride and took Mounted Combat and Indomitable Mount, and are (naturally) in a class like cavalier which basically forfeits a half-dozen of those yummy feats/talents/spells/rage-powers which other classes are enjoying. At that point, your mount is basically just a very expensive and suboptimal way to own a pair of easily-destroyed Boots of Striding and Springing that GMs are always insisting you leave out on the curb.
So...yeah: there's a down-side.
You're trying to ride you mount up stairs? Ya that is a bit cheesy. Medium size cavs can't do that, you think you can just because your small? Your mount is still medium and with you on top that would be one hell of a ride check."One hell of a ride check" is something any halfway-decent cavalier ought to be able to do while dozing in the saddle -- to say nothing of a halfling one.
Also I watched those videos of dogs climbing ladders, slightly tilted... sure, but what about a strictly vertical ladder? You see them in sewers for instance. Most groups I've gamemastered have lowered the dog down with ropes. Actually I've never seen someone try to have the dog climb a ladder.My samurai has slid his horse down chutes. Sometimes a scroll of Grease was necessary at the top and a little CLW at the bottom. Eventually I'll have a wand of Reduce Animal.
There are many builds out there that are ridiculous, that no GM in a house game would allow, but the powers that be in PFS coddle them so GMs can not call them out for what they are.
We're talking about cavaliers, or barbarian/alchemists? :-P
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
There seems to be a little confusing of the issues here.
For the record there are in fact some stairs that a horse can and will climb. There are others that it could probably manage but would never attempt unless it's rider convinced it and there are some that it just can't manage regardless of a positive mental attitude! Also going up and down are not equally difficult, remember there are cross country races between men and horses and the men can run faster down hill.
What is at issue here is interpreting the rules to try and make medium feline and canine mounts equally restricted as an attempt to jury rig a perceived design flaw of PFRPG.
There is a reason why there is no spell called Horses Grace. I come back to the feeling I had earlier. If I reckon that I would not have been hassling a dog or cat Animal Companion in regards to terrain and movement I would have to seriously consider the legitmacy of introducing them for the same animal when a Gnome or Halfling is on board.
@Mike Schiedner: in principle, yes a dedicated riding PC like a cavalier should be able to make ride checks in her sleep. In practice at low levels she won't have ranks in place to counter tough DCs from a GM who is out to level the playing field between large and medium mounts.
BTW I should just declare that the only PC I have that is close to fitting the current debate is a gnome paladin who is half a dozen adventures away from even worrying about calling his mount.
|
|
What is at issue here is interpreting the rules to try and make medium feline and canine mounts equally restricted as an attempt to jury rig a perceived design flaw of PFRPG.
Not so much.
It's a fundamental disconnect about understanding opposing viewpoints.
Just because a GM cracks down on a small cavalier riding around indoors/underground, it doesn't mean he's taking it upon himself to rebalance the game. Now to be fair, as Mark pointed out not every halfling cavalier is played by a roleplaying-averse munchkin hell-bent on bending the game... so there's a happy medium where players and GMs of differing viewpoints on this issue should be able to find common ground.
It's been said again and again... if you don't like what the GM is doing you need to talk to him about it. Also as Mark pointed out, it's not gonna be resolved here. If you've sincerely got a problem with GMs not being fair the next step is to talk to your region's VC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are 100% correct. A PFS judge does not have the power to invent rules to correct imbalances he/she finds within the game.
He does, however, have the power to make judgement calls where there are no rules in place. As there are no rules explaining how mounts handle climbing stairs, ladders, and/or playground jungle gyms you are at the mercy of the DM to rule as he sees fit. In this case, I would not fault the DM for ruling that your mount has a good deal of difficulty climbing said stairs.
Actually the rules do cover this. If stairs are really steep or narrow or large stepped they are considered difficult terrain.
The core rule book does not change how mounted riding works when the mount is traversing difficult terrain.
StairsStairs are the most common means of traveling up and down within a dungeon. A character can move up or down stairs as part of their movement without penalty, but they cannot run on them. Increase the DC of any Acrobatics skill check made on stairs by 4. Some stairs are particularly steep and are treated as difficult terrain.
Each terrain type describes what skills and how movement is affected.
Difficult Terrain: Difficult terrain, such as heavy undergrowth, broken ground, or steep stairs, hampers movement. Each square of difficult terrain counts as 2 squares of movement. Each diagonal move into a difficult terrain square counts as 3 squares. You can't run or charge across difficult terrain.If you occupy squares with different kinds of terrain, you can move only as fast as the most difficult terrain you occupy will allow.
Flying and incorporeal creatures are not hampered by difficult terrain.
The ride skill does not have a modifier for difficult terrain.
Additionally, a mount would have an encumbrance level equal to the weight it carries, which includes the weight of the rider and all the rider's gear. If this takes the mount into medium or heavy encumbrance, they are affected as the encumbrance rules would affect them. They are slowed down.
The ride skill does not have a modifier for an encumbered mount.
Therefore, the rules clearly cover how stairs affect 4-legged animals (the same as any other creature that tries to use the stairs), and how they affect animals who are carrying a mount (the same as any other potentially encumbered creature that tries to use the stairs).
Therefore, it is clear, that if the table GM tries to create some ride check requirements, they are making it up on the spot, and in organized play that is a no-no.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I've gotten from this thread:
If you're a player, then saying "but the rules don't say I can't do X!" doesn't mean you can. You have to follow what is written.
If you're a GM, then saying "but the rules don't say I can't impose X penalty!" means you're doing your job as a GM. You don't have to follow what's written if what you'd rather do instead isn't explicitly forbidden.
Alright, good to know. I'll keep it in mind.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is at issue here is interpreting the rules to try and make medium feline and canine mounts equally restricted as an attempt to jury rig a perceived design flaw of PFRPG.
Not so much.
It's a fundamental disconnect about understanding opposing viewpoints.
Just because a GM cracks down on a small cavalier riding around indoors/underground, it doesn't mean he's taking it upon himself to rebalance the game. Now to be fair, as Mark pointed out not every halfling cavalier is played by a roleplaying-averse munchkin hell-bent on bending the game... so there's a happy medium where players and GMs of differing viewpoints on this issue should be able to find common ground.
It's been said again and again... if you don't like what the GM is doing you need to talk to him about it. Also as Mark pointed out, it's not gonna be resolved here. If you've sincerely got a problem with GMs not being fair the next step is to talk to your region's VC.
Sorry I don't get you... Someone "cracking down" on small cavaliers is in fact attempting to rebalance the game, an interpretation you back up when you go on to talk about munchkinism. It is because of the perceived Negative impact that the putative GM in this scenario is "cracking down".
Indeed when I put it to Kazaellian he confirmed he wanted riders of medium mounts to accept the same restrictions as large ones. Which is a well intentioned ad hoc rewrite of the rules which do differentiate between them both expressly and implicitly by the inference that, absent rules, we will apply simple common sense. It could be that the rules are wrong but as we all agree that's not the point here.
In a traditional gaming environment the GM speaks and the players listen and obey. If the GM wants to house rule, as I have, that NO!! donkeys cannot go down spiral staircases! then fine. The rules on this then apply consistantly in the campaign. In an OP set up like the PFS environment a cat rider should not have to gamble that a GM has made up their own special rules to "crack down" what they see as an exploitative build.
I also feel that a bare RAW approach as Andrew has eloquently shown would suggest that a clydesdale with a hundredweight of knight can traverse stairs bangs against the wall of common sense.
W
|
|
You get me a youtube video of a horse, or dog with rider in full plate going up stairs and I will be impressed.
Everyone in the history of anywhere, ever on every planet will be impressed. Let's be fair. In fact, I'm building full plate for my 6-year-old nephew so the world can experience this.
In other news, this is awesome.
|
|
Well I do appologize for calling you out for possibly being cheesy, I have had simular players riding Eidlons ect that really were just there to break the game.You get me a youtube video of a horse, or dog with rider in full plate going up stairs and I will be impressed. I watched your video and mine and pointed out very specific things in both. In yours the rider has to crotch low to prevent his weight from being displaced and causing issues, and those are like 5 feet of stairs, not an entire flight of stairs.
I understand the issues at play here, and this is my response, Nimon and other critics.
That is all.
|
|
If a GM in PFS is adding rules making it harder for a certain class to use its class features then the player after discussing it with the DM and not being able to work out an equitable comermise should go to the cordinator or venture capatin and tak to him about the problem.
IF a GM abuses his discretion by making u rules to hamper or take away a players class ability then the GM after be warned about doing this
by the Venture Captain or the Cordinator should be dissallowed from game mastering for that PFS group, because the GM is vioalting the rules himself by changing the senario which is not allowed in PFS.Until the Devs make a ruling about a mount going up or down stairs and errata it they should be allowed to with out penalty. Mounts and animal companions are all ready nerfed to much IMO. Note I have not played a class in PFS for this reason.
This doesn't sounds like a good long term solution for PFS. It's hard enough to find GM's (good or not) without deliberately antagonizing them because they don't agree with you. If you want to make the rules at the table, then suck it up and GM. If you want to play, then respect your GM's decisions.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This doesn't sounds like a good long term solution for PFS. It's hard enough to find GM's (good or not) without deliberately antagonizing them because they don't agree with you. If you want to make the rules at the table, then suck it up and GM. If you want to play, then respect your GM's decisions.
Perhaps I read Lou's post differently than you did, but it sounded to me like he was merely saying that you should talk to your VC if your GM is making up rules. Is this what you think is a bad idea for PFS?
Also, those last two sentences sound pretty confrontational. Especially the last one: "If you want to play, then respect your GM's decisions." So "my way or the highway", then?
And that's better for the long term health of PFS than discussing infractions with your VC?
Or did I misunderstand you somewhere?
|
|
Sorry I don't get you... Someone "cracking down" on small cavaliers is in fact attempting to rebalance the game, an interpretation you back up when you go on to talk about munchkinism...
Not so much...It's a fundamental disconnect about understanding opposing viewpoints.
That's exactly what I was saying... if someone is doing something you don't like it doesn't mean they're automatically doing it for the reason you imagine.
If in your view a GM is giving you a hard time about a medium sized mount indoors/underground, there is the possibility that he's doing so for a reason shy of attempting to rebalance the game. I'm pointing out that you're ignoring that possibility.
I then compared this to the faulty thinking that 'if one plays a halfling cavalier, he must be a munchkin out to break the game' as another example of the worst not necessarily being the case, since I was guilty of this myself, as is possible your GMs were.
If player and GM assume the worst in each others' intentions and fail to communicate, how can there be compromise? I've said it a bunch of times now, this'll be the last.
It's not the forumites you need to convince.. not just because it'll never happen (see my Sisyphus reference! :) but because the one you need to be talking to is your GM(s). They're the ones who've given you a sour experience in play, they're the only ones who can prevent it from happening in the future.
You get me a youtube video of a horse, or dog with rider in full plate going up stairs and I will be impressed.Everyone in the history of anywhere, ever on every planet will be impressed. Let's be fair. In fact, I'm building full plate for my 6-year-old nephew so the world can experience this.
In other news, this is awesome.
That is one of my favorite movies as a child. I almost broke my dogs back trying to impersonate Sir Dydimus.
|
|
Sorry Henry is a PbP alias, Anyways yes a Cavalier Should be able to make decent ride checks. Do you not want to be challenged? Most Rogues can do a Hell of a Disable Device check, a Ranger can do a Hell of a survival check. Pazio gives these classes all these abilities, then when a GM trys to give them a challenge, the players want to cry foul.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sorry Henry is a PbP alias, Anyways yes a Cavalier Should be able to make decent ride checks. Do you not want to be challenged? Most Rogues can do a Hell of a Disable Device check, a Ranger can do a Hell of a survival check. Pazio gives these classes all these abilities, then when a GM trys to give them a challenge, the players want to cry foul.
I wonder if perhaps you (and this thread in general, to an extent) is getting too hung up on whether or not a ride check might significant for a cavalier and missing that it was only an example of a behavioral trend of an unspecified GM making up rules to hinder things he didn't like.
Consider the given example of climbing stairs with a medium mount - note that it was said that this was outside of combat with (as I understood it) nothing else really going on. In that case, assuming he has at least 1 rank in Ride, an 18 DEX (likely for a halfling) and a -1 ACP (also likely for a high-DEX cavalier), he can Take 10 and get a 17 on the check at level 1. That's more than enough to accomplish significant Ride checks, like using your mount for cover or making it leap over obstacles (both are DC 15).
So yeah, imposing a Ride check (assuming the GM doesn't also artificially inflate the DC) wouldn't be a big deal.
But the complaint wasn't ever really about that in the first place. It was about how the GM(s) in question would find situation after situation after situation to impose made-up penalties (seriously, go back and read the middle paragraph in the OP; it's pretty bad) to just that one character (or type of character).
So the player comes onto the boards to ask what to do when GMs essentially pick on him and cheat, and how do the GMs on the boards respond? By chastising him for having the gall to question a GM's ruling, and picking out one specific example and arguing for its reasonableness.
What the crap, guys?
|
|
...But the complaint wasn't ever really about that in the first place. It was about how the GM(s) in question would find situation after situation after situation to impose made-up penalties (seriously, go back and read the middle paragraph in the OP; it's pretty bad) to just that one character (or type of character).So the player comes onto the boards to ask what to do when GMs essentially pick on him and cheat, and how do the GMs on the boards respond? By chastising him for having the gall to question a GM's ruling, and picking out one specific example and arguing for its reasonableness.
What the crap, guys?
Actually, the original post was a self-described rant where the word 'cheese' was first brought up. Not to deride it.. just saying it is what it is. Assuming he didn't exaggerate and the GMs did exactly what he said they did, and assuming they did it for the reasons he says they did, he's gotten his advice about what to do about it in the thread already.
Furthermore, perhaps I'm overinflating my ego, but I assume my responses are part of the origin of the 'what the crap' sentiment.
If so, I'll point out that my opinions were never voiced from the context of the GM side of the screen, but as a fellow player. A fellow Cavalier player, at that :)
Let's agree to disagree, shall we?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, perhaps I'm overinflating my ego, but I assume my responses are part of the origin of the 'what the crap' sentiment.
If so, I'll point out that my opinions were never voiced from the context of the GM side of the screen, but as a fellow player. A fellow Cavalier player, at that :)
Let's agree to disagree, shall we?
Um, no, it wasn't about you. It was the overall tone of the thread. Frankly, I hardly even notice who's saying what in a long-ish thread except for posters whose names I'm already familiar with (which doesn't include you, I'm afraid). So I don't even know where you in particular stand on the issue.
I don't even know what it is you want to agree to disagree about. But since apparently I wasn't clear, here's my point in a nutshell.
I come into this thread and see basically this:
OP: Argh! Some of my GMs seem like they're cheating/picking on me! What should I do?
Significant portion of the thread: What should you do? You should feel bad for contradicting your GM, that's what you should do!
Much smaller portion of the thread: Talk to your GM and/or VC.
|
|
After reading the OP and the first answers, I propose the following theory which is also backed by my own experience :
Because PFS GMs have far less authority than is common for a GM, mostly because they have no say on what is explicitely allowed by the PFS rules (especially parts of the Additional Resources which they feel is "broken"/open to abuse by players), and unless they know the player really well, they will tend to see any step in the gray areas of rules as an attempt by the player to abuse the system (ie, "cheese", powergame, munchkin...) and their knee-jerk reaction will be to crush it hard.
I would say that the best way to avoid this is to clarify the gray area beforehand and explain to the GM what you want to do with your character before the session starts so that he can make his "GM's call" with a calm mind and not in the middle of play. Note however that this clarification takes some time, which is already a rare resource in PFS.
Alternately, avoid all gray areas and "GM's calls" like hell.
|
|
I've read through the whole thread and I wasn't impressed. Can't we just all take a step back please for a moment.
Small characters riding animals are not always to avoid loopholes. My 8 year old daughter (just reached third level) is playing a gnome druid and can't wait to ride her animal. Her character choice was based on the artwork of the Dungeon Master screen and not because of cheese down the line.
Isn't the whole discussion about riding up and down stairs irrelevant. Please tell me the scenario in which there is a fight on a stairwell. I'm not aware of one. There are a few trapped stairs I remember and if you dislike mounted characters on stairs - well - you just got rider AND mount if the player insists on riding the stairs.
And for the player - see above. If you run into a GM who dislikes you riding up or down the stairs - just dismount. It's not worth a lengthy discussion.
What concerns me is that players should have a reasonable expectation with a valid character - and cavalier is one of them. Can't we just start with an attitude of trust that a player isn't trying to misuse rules and we try as GM to accomodate his concept.
And as player - be aware of issues with certain builds and be prepared to occasionally take a step back. Maybe your GM has a valid reason to disallow something.
In summary
Nerfing a concept as GM because you dislike it will drive players away.
As player accusing GM's that they are wrong will make them defensive - or worse - might drive them away as well.
Can't we just try not to do either and look for common ground.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
That's exactly what I was saying... if someone is doing something you don't like it doesn't mean they're automatically doing it for the reason you imagine.
I am not really using my imgaination, I am inferring from the posts here that there is a train of thought that feels that for reasons of game balance a GMS should find pretexts to penalise a legal build
If in your view a GM is giving you a hard time about a medium sized mount indoors/underground, there is the possibility that he's doing so for a reason shy of attempting to rebalance the game. I'm pointing out that you're ignoring that possibility.
Sorry, if I didn't make this clear but I am not ignoring that possibility at all. I don't remember saying that if someone disagrees with me that they are doing so for a specific reason.
What I did say is that some ppl here are expressing support for reigning in perceived cheesy gaming by "creative" interpretation of rules. I am also saying that if I began to start thinking of ways to diminish a build effectiveness by making new rulings on things that previously I would not have, then I am on the primrose path
I then compared this to the faulty thinking that 'if one plays a halfling cavalier, he must be a munchkin out to break the game' as another example of the worst not necessarily being the case, since I was guilty of this myself, as is possible your GMs were.
My point is that the intentions behind a decision are just as important as the decision itself in determining it's legitmacy. I guess my point is that the cheesiness or lack theof is not something a GM in OP should be factoring in their mechanical decisons for good or ill .
If player and GM assume the worst in each others' intentions and fail to communicate, how can there be compromise? I've said it a bunch of times now, this'll be the last.
It's not the forumites you need to convince.. not just because it'll never happen (see my Sisyphus reference! :) but because the one you need to be talking to is your GM(s). They're the ones who've given you a sour experience in play, they're the only ones who can prevent it from happening in the future.
As I mentioned I have had no bad experiences in PFS not on this matter and not anywhere other than a profound sense of envy at Thod's collection of Dwarven Forge goodies!
What lead me to post here is reading the position that it is within the available palette of an OP GM to make things tougher on a player using a percieved explotative build.
At risk of repeating myself, in normal play a GM can do exactly what I am saying she can't do in OP. Because when you have the same PC and X numbers of GMs consistancy trumps individual brilliance.
W
|
|
*replied to a bunch of stuff I wrote*
Somehow I ended up mixing up the 'you' with various forms of you meaning specifically the original poster, you meaning an indefinate hypothetical, and in once specific case you meaning heretic :) So please accept my apologies for making that seem like it was all directed at 'you heretic'.
Anyway, I'm sure neither of us is budging on our opinions and we've probably both said everything we should on the topic :)
|
|
Perhaps I read Lou's post differently than you did, but it sounded to me like he was merely saying that you should talk to your VC if your GM is making up rules. Is this what you think is a bad idea for PFS?
I read his post as saying, I'll talk to the DM and if I don't like his response, I'll contact the VC and see if I can't get him to step in and make the DM run things my way. Up to an including having the DM sanctioned by the VC for not groveling to the player.
I think that is a far cry from talking things out and I stand by my argument that antagonizing DM's and going up the PFS chain of command to force DM's to do your bidding is not good for the society in the long run.
I started reading this thread with the intention of responding to the OP. After trudging through the personal attacks, sarcasm, and picking away at select parts of the original argument, I just don't have the heart to enter this debate. It's a shame when the boards fall apart into arguing like this. While not everyone has been this way, and a few have even tried to be voices of reason, enough people are throwing out negative posts that it's just a real turn off. I didn't join these boards to watch people pick other people apart, just for describing something they feel is an issue.
I believe the OP gave a whole list of issues he was struggling to come to terms with. I don't remember the OP saying he had an issue with the GM personally, or was looking to browbeat the GM or get them slapped with a penalty of some sort. Actually, the OP didn't even ask how to stop this behavior. He accepted that the GM had the power to run the table, and instead asked if other players were experiencing similar hindrances on their characters. I understand connotation and context, but in reading the OP, he certainly does not come off as an unreasonable guy, like he's been portrayed in some responses.
If people still have the stomach for open and respectful debate, which is the lifeblood of community, I would like to see the OP addressed properly. That would include all of the issues stated, such as, "Ruling the medium sized dog / wolf / pony has to swim in knee high water, but lets the dwarf move along just fine."
Or, descend back into picking each other apart. Your choice.
|
|
Perhaps I read Lou's post differently than you did, but it sounded to me like he was merely saying that you should talk to your VC if your GM is making up rules. Is this what you think is a bad idea for PFS?I read his post as saying, I'll talk to the DM and if I don't like his response, I'll contact the VC and see if I can't get him to step in and make the DM run things my way. Up to an including having the DM sanctioned by the VC for not groveling to the player.
I think that is a far cry from talking things out and I stand by my argument that antagonizing DM's and going up the PFS chain of command to force DM's to do your bidding is not good for the society in the long run.
However if GM's are not following the rules of PFS (i.e. making their own rules up at their own whim, which is essentially what is being suggested for medium mounts) then the VC's need to know so that they can make sure that those GM's understand what is expected of them, and/or make sure that coordinators use those particular GM's very sparingly or not at all.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
As a side note, I love it when a player has notes or print outs of specific rules pertaining to their character if there are unusual things they may try in combat/in game. In the very least it keeps us from having to pull out our books to check.
THIS is more helpful to a GM than anything else that a player can do. As a frequent PFS GM, I admit, I tend toward "rules light"... the Core book is HUGE and memorization of the idiosyncratic of the rules can be miring, especially with only 4-5 hours of play. Add to that EVERY new book (Core, Campaign and Companion lines) and that becomes next to impossible to ask of anyone.
So, yes, knowing the mechanics of your character are good... there are a handful of Base Classes I have yet to play, so the mechanics for each of these is still kind of rough for me as a GM. Having a concise copy of your character's class and the rules you use for your character (feats, traits, etc.) is extremely helpful to both game speed and my back!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps I read Lou's post differently than you did, but it sounded to me like he was merely saying that you should talk to your VC if your GM is making up rules. Is this what you think is a bad idea for PFS?I read his post as saying, I'll talk to the DM and if I don't like his response, I'll contact the VC and see if I can't get him to step in and make the DM run things my way. Up to an including having the DM sanctioned by the VC for not groveling to the player.
I think that is a far cry from talking things out and I stand by my argument that antagonizing DM's and going up the PFS chain of command to force DM's to do your bidding is not good for the society in the long run.
I'm not sure how you got "groveling", "antagonizing" or "force DM's to do your bidding" out of the suggestion of talking to the GM and going to the VC if an equitable compromise isn't reached. He did suggest that if a GM abuses their power then the VC should deal with it, but that's very different from suggesting that failing to "grovel to the player" would actually constitute such an abuse.
Please, if you're going to quote someone and reply to them, try to stick to what that person is actually saying, instead of replying to what you're afraid someone might say.
|
|
Therefore, the rules clearly cover how stairs affect 4-legged animals (the same as any other creature that tries to use the stairs), and how they affect animals who are carrying a mount (the same as any other potentially encumbered creature that tries to use the stairs).
Therefore, it is clear, that if the table GM tries to create some ride check requirements, they are making it up on the spot, and in organized play that is a no-no.
Heh. in alot of the non-organized play games around here thats a no-no.
Yes yes yes, rule 0.
However, if the GM doesnt let the player in advance, of any likely rule 0 he puts in, people will cry foul. It's not gaming socially acceptable to change the rules mid-session. If the GM is going to make rulings to gimp your character, he better spell it out in advance, or talk to you between sessions. If he's gimping pre-campaign, he needs to let you know so you know to say "screw that then, time to make a different character." if youre getting gimped mid campaign he should be giving you the opportunity to swap whatever he's gimping out for something else. In the case of gimping small characters with mounts, when youre playing a cavalier, well, you should either be getting a free combat animal companion instead (perhaps a tiger), or he should let you rebuild as a fighter (except... that doesnt really work if you went with small, no does it). But that's just being fair. To do otherwise is just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Otherwise he's going to have disgruntled players, and people are liable to walk away from his table.
|
|
However, if the GM doesnt let the player in advance, of any likely rule 0 he puts in, people will cry foul. It's not gaming socially acceptable to change the rules mid-session. If the GM is going to make rulings to gimp your character, he better spell it out in advance, or talk to you between sessions. If he's gimping pre-campaign, he needs to let you know so you know to say "screw that then, time to make a different character." if youre getting gimped mid campaign he should be giving you the opportunity to swap whatever he's gimping out for something else. In the case of gimping small characters with mounts, when youre playing a cavalier, well, you should either be getting a free combat animal companion instead (perhaps a tiger), or he should let you rebuild as a fighter (except... that doesnt really work if you went with small, no does it). But that's just being fair. To do otherwise is just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. Otherwise he's going to have disgruntled players, and people are liable to walk away from his table.
This only really works in a Home Campaign.
In PFS organized play, you don't have the option of rebuilding on the spot. Which is why its a huge no-no for GM's of organized play to make up rules pre-game day, during the game, or after the game.
|
|
If a GM in PFS is adding rules making it harder for a certain class to use its class features then the player after discussing it with the DM and not being able to work out an equitable comermise should go to the cordinator or venture capatin and tak to him about the problem.
IF a GM abuses his discretion by making u rules to hamper or take away a players class ability then the GM after be warned about doing this
by the Venture Captain or the Cordinator should be dissallowed from game mastering for that PFS group, because the GM is vioalting the rules himself by changing the senario which is not allowed in PFS.Until the Devs make a ruling about a mount going up or down stairs and errata it they should be allowed to with out penalty. Mounts and animal companions are all ready nerfed to much IMO. Note I have not played a class in PFS for this reason.
This doesn't sounds like a good long term solution for PFS. It's hard enough to find GM's (good or not) without deliberately antagonizing them because they don't agree with you. If you want to make the rules at the table, then suck it up and GM. If you want to play, then respect your GM's decisions.
I'm gonna have to agree with Lou here. If you want to make the rules at the table, then you shouldn't be GMing PFS. If you're GMing PFS, you're supposed to be making adjudications when the rules DONT cover something. Not when they don't cover something TO YOUR SATISFACTION.
If you want to play in OP, odds are you want consistent rules across multiple GMs. Maybe you got sick of non OP rules making shit up out of nowhere. I dont think those are necessarily bad rules.
*Disclaimer* I dont GM by RAW in my home games. I also don't make up rules mid-session. Not too difficult to do. I come up with any houserules I have before the game, and present them to the players. as a word doc, or a pdf, or whatever.
If they dont like them, they're warned up front, and they can leave if they want.
The last thing anyone wants as a player is to suddenly be screwed because the GM changed the rules mid session or started throwing out ridiculous or wildly inconsistent DCs.
This only really works in a Home Campaign.
In PFS organized play, you don't have the option of rebuilding on the spot. Which is why its a huge no-no for GM's of organized play to make up rules pre-game day, during the game, or after the game.
I agree 100%. Thats why I opened with the statement that in PFS you shouldnt be changing the rules at all. But in a home game? There better be some up-front disclosure if youre going to go out of your way to gimp a character. (by out of your way I don't mean "more than you consider reasonable" I mean "more penalties than in RAW")
And with regard to printing rules sections: Printing sections that come alot for a character save alot of headaches. My houserule #1 for magic, summons, feats, and magic items, is that if you want to know how something about your character works, you should have it beside your character sheet. I'd suggest printing your class and race of d20pfsrd as well.
But then. I dont like players slowing down the game for 10 minutes while they try to pick a spell. It kills the fun for everyone else, and drags everyone away from the game. I go a step farther in saying that players get roughly 30 seconds to decide what theyre doing when it gets to their turn. If they havent started telling me by the end of the 30 seconds, They Miss Their Turn. (Again, not in OP, and I tell the players before they join the game)
Obviously, occasionally there are weird corner cases where you need to look stuff up. But if you know youre frequently going to be on a mount, you should print out Ride, Handle Animal, and in the case of guys who are aware theyll be picked on, the Rules for Difficult Terrain and Encumbrance. It saves alot of arguments and wasted time to say "here are the rules, printed from the book."
|
|
There are a few big drawbacks to public gaming - like at a convention - that some people seem to be forgetting. Some of this comes from PFS, and some of it not necessarily.
1. In Organized Play, there is no Rule 0. You can't change the rules because youre the GM.
And the next is a big drawback as a GM (IMO), but would be a nightmare to players otherwise.
2. You have no Veto Power. This would take some getting used to for GMs who are used to having lots of Veto Power. You don't get to decide what characters are acceptable or not in your game. You can't say "no evil" if the OP rules allow it. You can't say "No Summoners".
If you want a little bit of that Veto Power back, don't run convention games, so you don't have to implement the "Play Play Play" rules. If youre running a PFS game out of your house, you're free to invite who you want, and tell them: "And I won't be allowing summoners. Feel free to make whatever other class you like". They can take their (legal) characters to a convention later, and you dont have to play with summoners. (or whatever).
I've run a total of *ONE* PFS Game. The week before the APG Came out. it was alright. I made Pregens for the players, and it was tier 1. (The convention was an anything goes one-shot thing, and only one character took the time to build a legal PFS Character in advance.)
*Personally* /I/ won't allow Gunslingers in my games. I think the class is cludgy and badly designed, and I think the Firearm rules are terrible. In an OP setting, thats not my call. I'm stuck with it because the PFS Rules allow it. You know what IS my call? I can not run OP. Not run PFS. I don't go to many conventions anyways, so I just tell my players "we won't be doing PFS games, so you can't take your character to conventions."
I can allow any feats I want from Arcana Evolved, or 3.5, I can include more spells, I can use the Magic Item Compendium, etc. Or I can not. Its up to me.
If you don't like GMing PFS, you don't have to. But if you're GMing PFS, you have to do it by Rules As Written + Errata + PFS Provisions.
|
|
Kantoboy,
I think that part of the issue is that the small cavalier is pretty clearly a "workaround" build. Characters with Large mounts are often unable to use them in scenarios, so this has caused an unusually high number of gnome/halfling cavaliers... not something that is a usual fantasy trope, or written as particularly common in Golarion (to my knowledge). Because of this disconnect from the setting/pre-conceptions, many people (players as well as GMs) have varying levels of negative reaction to their use, rightly or wrongly.
My advice would be to try to incorporate some of the ideas from this thread when you encounter a GM who is resistant to your character. First, second, and third, speak reasonably with them about what their rulings are. If they tell you that your mount cannot do something, ask if a Ride or Handle Animal check is possible. Have a printout/bookmark pages of specific rules that apply to your character & mount, and show them to the GM if it is possible to do so without being confrontational or disrupting the flow of the session.
|
|
Kantoboy,
I think that part of the issue is that the small cavalier is pretty clearly a "workaround" build. Characters with Large mounts are often unable to use them in scenarios, so this has caused an unusually high number of gnome/halfling cavaliers... not something that is a usual fantasy trope, or written as particularly common in Golarion (to my knowledge). Because of this disconnect from the setting/pre-conceptions, many people (players as well as GMs) have varying levels of negative reaction to their use, rightly or wrongly.
My advice would be to try to incorporate some of the ideas from this thread when you encounter a GM who is resistant to your character. First, second, and third, speak reasonably with them about what their rulings are. If they tell you that your mount cannot do something, ask if a Ride or Handle Animal check is possible. Have a printout/bookmark pages of specific rules that apply to your character & mount, and show them to the GM if it is possible to do so without being confrontational or disrupting the flow of the session.
Sir Didymus from Labyrinth is clearly a staple fantasy trope. He's also what I think of whenever I hear of a Gnome/Halfling Cavalier.
Small Mounted Character isn't new. I remember it as a common build for paladins in 3.x who wanted to use their mount. (not in OP though)
Thats some decent advice otherwise though.
Also: Where are there PFS Games in Ontario? I have only seen the one that I ran around here. (and it was a one-off)
|
|
If you want a little bit of that Veto Power back, don't run convention games, so you don't have to implement the "Play Play Play" rules. If youre running a PFS game out of your house, you're free to invite who you want, and tell them: "And I won't be allowing summoners. Feel free to make whatever other class you like". They can take their (legal) characters to a convention later, and you dont have to play with summoners. (or whatever).
Thought I would ninja Dragnmoon here, and make sure you knnow that "Play, Play, Play" was removed from the Guide - mainly because of the type of misconception you are using here. PPP was the guidelines for when to allow replay, and not a carte blanche for players to bring in whatever they want.
|
|
Thought I would ninja Dragnmoon here, and make sure you knnow that "Play, Play, Play" was removed from the Guide - mainly because of the type of misconception you are using here. PPP was the guidelines for when to allow replay, and not a carte blanche for players to bring in whatever they want.
So... PFS GMs are now allowed to tell a player: "I dont care if its PFS Legal You cant play that character at my table"?
I mean, assuming the convention doesnt have anything to say against it?
|
|
Threadjack for Darkholme:
EDIT: Sorry, you are correct about GMs being obligated to allow anything from the Core or Additional Resources. I was just trying to point out that it had nothing to do with PPP. In the past, people tried to use PPP to break the rules, or force GMs into 7th players, or play out of Tier...
|
|
Sorry, you are correct about GMs being obligated to allow anything from the Core or Additional Resources. I was just trying to point out that it had nothing to do with PPP. In the past, people tried to use PPP to break the rules, or force GMs into 7th players, or play out of Tier...
Ah. Yeah. Thats what I thought. No worries.
Currently I dont even have time to run a private game. My game ended in June, and I dont plan on starting another until January.
However, I will definitely contact you if I'm interested in getting into Pathfinder Society Stuff again. I'm pretty sure there's still nothing London or Windsor, and there's Definitely nothing in Chatham.
|
|
Yeah. I know about StrDexCon. I'm one of the two founding members of WARP, and I was an Exec in the club last year when we planned and executed the first StrDexCon. There's lots of gaming in london (we added quite a bit to that when we started WARP), and a decent number of Pathfinder games, but I haven't heard of any PFS stuff here. The only Organized Play I've heard of is a 4e Encounters thing being hosted at one of the gaming stores.
There are also monthly 1-day Conventions at Western. Thats where I ran the one PFS Game that I did.
I haven't heard of anyone else running a PFS game at western yet though. Do you intend to branch out and offer some PFS Services for STRDEXCON?
[Edit] I believe there is HorrorCon for WARP at Western this weekend too, but its a small thing for university club members, its not a 3 day event like STRDEXCON.
If youre looking into STRDEXCON, one thing worth noting is that they book game slots in advance. If you don't sign up for the games, then its first come first served, and there may not be any open slots available.
|
|
Yessir. Drop me an email and I'll fill you in so we can stop deerailing Kantoboy's thread :)
Sent.
Now back on topic.
Changing the rules mid-session is bad! It confuses the players. Takes away any sense of consistency, makes the players doubt the rules because they never know when you're flat out going to ignore them, and can make the players feel like their choices don't matter, because you railroad physics into making the story progress how you want and punish players for making characters you don't like.
Its one of the most Irritating GM flaws I've ever encountered; right up there with (In a scifi game onboard a ship) ignoring the upgrades and defenses you spent all your earned wealth on as though they weren't there, and paying so little attention to a player's tactical positioning that it doesn't matter where you put yourself or what you're doing, any enemy can hit you from anywhere. ever. Like it's final fantasy.
/rant
And now: Back to our ongoing argument.
|
|
Kantoboy,
I think that part of the issue is that the small cavalier is pretty clearly a "workaround" build. Characters with Large mounts are often unable to use them in scenarios, so this has caused an unusually high number of gnome/halfling cavaliers... not something that is a usual fantasy trope, or written as particularly common in Golarion (to my knowledge). Because of this disconnect from the setting/pre-conceptions, many people (players as well as GMs) have varying levels of negative reaction to their use, rightly or wrongly.
My advice would be to try to incorporate some of the ideas from this thread when you encounter a GM who is resistant to your character. First, second, and third, speak reasonably with them about what their rulings are. If they tell you that your mount cannot do something, ask if a Ride or Handle Animal check is possible. Have a printout/bookmark pages of specific rules that apply to your character & mount, and show them to the GM if it is possible to do so without being confrontational or disrupting the flow of the session.
OK, so let's say it is a workaround build. Is that really a problem? Cavaliers are a class which can have a substantial part of their schtick denied to them if they're dungeon crawling - i.e., they have to leave their mount at home.
A cavalier with a Medium mount can function as intended during most scenarios. Now is that something which should be encouraged or discouraged?
I personally have no problem with Small cavaliers. I see fewer cavaliers than any other class as it is, so it's a nice change to have one at the table.
|
Venture-Captain, Ireland—Belfast
|
What I am curious about in both the specifics of this case and OP in general is where ppl feel the lines should be drawn.
Specifically
I hope we can all agree that a couple of millennia of real life experience shows that horses, donkeys etc are not practical indoors (unless those indoors are designed with them in mind) but cats and dogs are very suited to navigating human style interiors.
The rules I suspect assume we know this to be true and so don't make specific allowance for someone trying to ride their donkey down a spiral staircase. If Old Bill ain't getting into Moria then that sets a suitable precedent for me!
So does a strict literal reading of the rules actually restrict horses on staircases in anyway that they do not restrict people? If not and we apply a restriction on them becasue it seems clearly irrational are we doing something wrong.
If we then create obstacles to dogs etc because it seems wrong to allow small cavaliers free reign becasue of game balance is that different to stopping mules going into the tomb of horrors?
Generally
Where do we draw the line in OP when in theory Mike Brock is the only true GM and the rest of us are mere (platonic) shadows :-)
W