|
I've asked a rules question here and all that was agreed upon until the thread died and drifted down into the archives is that one would expect table variation based on that GM's opinion.
When that happens, in general, is there a guidline for a PFS GM?
Specifically, in this case, what with all the future Dhampirs PFS is going to be seeing in OP due to the BBB boon.. some are bound to be in a position to be Laid Upon by Paladins (the healy way, not the carnal way). Heck, some Dhampirs may want to BE paladins.
If we can't get a Pathfinder-wide ruling, can we get a PFS OP ruling? Or must we settle for variation from table to table, as a GM opines?
|
|
I generally avoid the ambiguous corners of the rules because you never know how a GM is going to rule. Sort of use at your own risk. Particularly when 9 out of 10 people in the thread you quote disagree with you.
Well, you never know what's going to come up. One needn't be playing a dhamphir paladin to have the potential for interaction between dhamphirs and lay on hands. Or even a Paladin deciding he wants to heal an undead NPC... granted that's pretty unlikely a scenario.. but you never know.
One of the end boss encounters is a zombie with class levels.. who is specifically described to the GM as having the capacity to treat amicably with PCs, should the PCs be of such a mind. She'll even stop fighting and beg for her (un)life should she be close to defeat in the likely event she's attacked. A paladin in this adventure could certainly be in a position to believe that the rest of the party should stop killing her (even if only temporarily), maybe even believe he needs to throw her a heal if the rest of the party is willfully ignoring the paladin's pleas.
I feel it's worth bringing up again in this forum because RAI vs RAW is appropriate for the general rules forum.. but in PFS a GM doesn't get to say 'well I believe RAI is this, and that'll trump RAW'...
|
|
I generally avoid the ambiguous corners of the rules because you never know how a GM is going to rule. Sort of use at your own risk. Particularly when 9 out of 10 people in the thread you quote disagree with you.Well, you never know what's going to come up. One needn't be playing a dhamphir paladin to have the potential for interaction between dhamphirs and lay on hands. Or even a Paladin deciding he wants to heal an undead NPC... granted that's pretty unlikely a scenario.. but you never know.
I feel it's worth bringing up again in this forum because RAI vs RAW is appropriate for the general rules forum.. but in PFS a GM doesn't get to say 'well I believe RAI is this, and that'll trump RAW'...
A PFS GM gets to say what the RAW is interpreted as being for gameplay. Part of any interpretation should take possible intent into it, as a way to get to the meaning of any statement.
|
|
A PFS GM gets to say what the RAW is interpreted as being for gameplay. Part of any interpretation should take possible intent into it, as a way to get to the meaning of any statement.
Well I'll go out on a limb (one can read the thread for themselves) but the RAW in this isn't in any dispute.. the discussion was about whether a seperate RAI view should or should not trump the RAW... which again I'll go out on that limb and be pretty sure about a PFS GM not having the authority to do...
A PFS Gm can't decide he thinks a Scizore does too much damage with a d10 and 'RAI' the damge down to a D8 or even a D6.. I don't see any difference in this?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you're trying to get someone to "admit" that your way is RAW so that when a GM rules otherwise in a game you can say "that's RAI, but you have to go with RAW".
The advice I've been given (with less ambiguous subjects than yours) is to always assume that a GM will rule unfavorably, and plan accordingly.
As for the Lay on Hands question...
Unfortunately, you can't assume that. "Positive energy" is not a "type" (ala bonus types, such as morale, circumstance, dodge, etc - where omission of a type means there is no type), nor is it a "descriptor" (such as fire, where if it's missing from a spell then it's not a fire spell). Those are things where lacking specification actually represents lacking that quality. But to my knowledge there's no precedent for that logic applying to everything.
So rather than the absence of the term representing the absence of the quality, it makes just as much (if not more) sense to interpret the absence of the term as merely a lack of specification.
|
|
A GM can't look at a table with listed values, and change the results that is in an easy to read grid, no. That's a fairly straight forward case of RAW and intent.
That is completely different from the argument thread about channel energy/lay on hands and how they react to dhampirs. Or, how illusions will work, can you take 10/20 on a skill at that time, or any other rule that can have varied interpretations. If there is something open to interpretation on a rule as to how it will apply in a specific situation, then yes the GM, PFS or otherwise, will get to say how the rule works there in their game.
While you may have created this post to deal with LoH again, your original question was about GM authority and rulings in mid-game. Jiggy's advice is great, but if you do decide to go ahead and delve into the gray area of the rules, this is what I've been lead to believe. (Someone correct me with proof if I'm wrong, please.)
If there is clear answer in the PFS Guidebook, Core Rulebook, Field Guide, or Bestiary (aka the Core Assumption), then that is the rule used.
If there is a clear answer in a legal resource, such as the Advanced Players Guide or Orcs of Golarion, which hasn't been excluded in the FAQ, it is the player's responsibility to bring the book or a print out of the PDF and that is the rule used.
If there is not a clear answer in the Core Assumption and the player doesn't have the additional resource or there is no clear answer that the player can find, the GM adjudicates how play proceeds. What the GM says is what goes. If a player has a problem with the ruling, they can contact the Venture Captain (though that probably won't get them anywhere). Alternately, they can post on these forums in hopes that M&M will see and offer an opinion, possibly adding to the FAQ to make it official PFS RAW.
Hope this helps.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look at it this way, by avoiding 'ambiguous' parts of the rules you make rules arguments at the PFS tables less common. This makes the game a more pleasant experience for you, your GM, and your fellow players. Clearly you know this is something a lot of GMs disagree with you on so either you are going to be frustrated, or you are going to argue rules with a lot of GMs.
Rules arguments kill fun at the table, steering around them you are doing everyone a favor.
Beyond that, maybe Mark or Michael will bless you with a PFS campaign ruling, but I find it unlikely because they (rightfully IMO) tend to stay out of game rules related issues.
|
|
I've asked a rules question here and all that was agreed upon until the thread died and drifted down into the archives is that one would expect table variation based on that GM's opinion.
When that happens, in general, is there a guidline for a PFS GM?
Specifically, in this case, what with all the future Dhampirs PFS is going to be seeing in OP due to the BBB boon.. some are bound to be in a position to be Laid Upon by Paladins (the healy way, not the carnal way). Heck, some Dhampirs may want to BE paladins.If we can't get a Pathfinder-wide ruling, can we get a PFS OP ruling? Or must we settle for variation from table to table, as a GM opines?
Ok honestly your not going to get an answer for a general question like this. PSOP in general has to depend on it's GMs. Not even the NFL gets all of the referees on the same page every Sunday. They can try, but it's just not going to happen %100.
The best you can do is get your answer in the general RPG message boards and hope that they add it to a FAQ. Once that is in place, then you can point it out to your GM, but PSOP isn't going to be able to make a rule about this, and it's not something we look to do.
|
|
I've asked a rules question here and all that was agreed upon until the thread died and drifted down into the archives is that one would expect table variation based on that GM's opinion.
When that happens, in general, is there a guidline for a PFS GM?
Specifically, in this case, what with all the future Dhampirs PFS is going to be seeing in OP due to the BBB boon.. some are bound to be in a position to be Laid Upon by Paladins (the healy way, not the carnal way). Heck, some Dhampirs may want to BE paladins.If we can't get a Pathfinder-wide ruling, can we get a PFS OP ruling? Or must we settle for variation from table to table, as a GM opines?
I don't see the logic in the original argument (or rather I feel that it is not properly applied).
Lay on Hands heals HP damage (and can do more with Mercies). If one does no further reading about LoH, then one could make the argument that it should function regardless of a creature's energy affinity (positive or negative). However, as LoH does specifically harm the most prevalent type of creatures with negative energy affinity (undead, and dhampirs react to positive/negative energy as though undead), one cannot default to assume that it can be used to both harm and heal beings with such a condition. Moreover, as LoH actually powers the Paladin's ability to Channel Positive Energy, it is much more likely than not that the premise of the ability is rooted in positive energy (with extra divine benefits to suit the class). As it is negative energy that heals creatures with negative energy affinity, and Good characters cannot use (channel) negative energy, it again seems unfounded that the Paladin is healing (HP damage) to the dhampir with LoH. As the dhampir is treated as undead for the effects of 'healing' (and has "undead resistance"), I cannot see the logical step to allow them to benefit from the 'energy' from a Good character.
I understand the wish to have someone in authority tell you that the rules are a certain way (no doubt with a preference toward your interpretation). However, I believe in this case that you are letting your desire to gain a benefit.
|
|
Thanks for the thoughts guys.
I did a bad enough job of keeping this thread from being just another LoH rules thread, I'll refrain from responding to any of the 'I don't see its..' here.
I'd be (more than) happy to go into that in the other thread.. for this thread I think the answer we all can live with for now is 'always assume the GM will not see it your way.'
Look at it this way, by avoiding 'ambiguous' parts of the rules you make rules arguments at the PFS tables less common. This makes the game a more pleasant experience for you, your GM, and your fellow players. Clearly you know this is something a lot of GMs disagree with you on so either you are going to be frustrated, or you are going to argue rules with a lot of GMs.
Rules arguments kill fun at the table, steering around them you are doing everyone a favor.
I totally agree with arguments killing the fun, but I have to disagree with the idea that you should avoid ambiguous rules just for the sake of keeping things fun.
If there is a build that I think is fun but uses a rule that could cause a problem, I don't see the logic in sacrificing my fun for the sake of the table. There is a middle step that a responsible person can take to play such a character without being a burden: submission.
1. Don't base the character solely on the grey rule. Have something else you can do in case the GM shoots you down.
2. If a GM challenges your rule, immediately drop it. Don't argue, don't question. Just go with the GM's lead.
If you prevent any argument and compromise with the GMs, you will have fun playing your character and the table will have fun as well.
|
A PFS GM gets to say what the RAW is interpreted as being for gameplay. Part of any interpretation should take possible intent into it, as a way to get to the meaning of any statement.Well I'll go out on a limb (one can read the thread for themselves) but the RAW in this isn't in any dispute.. the discussion was about whether a seperate RAI view should or should not trump the RAW... which again I'll go out on that limb and be pretty sure about a PFS GM not having the authority to do...
A PFS Gm can't decide he thinks a Scizore does too much damage with a d10 and 'RAI' the damge down to a D8 or even a D6.. I don't see any difference in this?
What you just described is not analogous to what you are intending to say.
There is no difference between RAW and RAI when you are looking at hard numbers like which die to roll. If a GM is changing a rule like this, then they are cheating.
|
|
What you just described is not analogous to what you are intending to say.There is no difference between RAW and RAI when you are looking at hard numbers like which die to roll. If a GM is changing a rule like this, then they are cheating.
The scizore is just another example to try to keep this from being solely about LoH. In PFS if you don't agree with what's written, you don't get to change it.. that's for home games.
We agree that changing something so blantant as the damage die is obviously cheating.. I just am saying that I equate this completely (if on a more obvious level) with not liking the wording of LoH and inserting one's own verbage or entire rules to come up with a justification for making it positive energy.
Yes sometimes the rules are just clearly in the wrong and you can compare real world common sense to say RAI > RAW (wood being technically immune to damage from (nonmagical) fire being an excellent example) But who are you or who am I to presume that the way a magical effect with no real world comparison is 'wrongly' described in the RAW text? If it's clear.. it's played as is... or at least I'm saying it should be.
2. If a GM challenges your rule, immediately drop it. Don't argue, don't question. Just go with the GM's lead..I have met few players that drop it once a GM makes a rule.
I would have to agree. I count myself in the minority on this. I think it takes some experience GMing to give a player respect for what a GM has to go through.
|
I'm trying to answer the OP question. Let's start with the generic part.
What solutions are there to solve grey areas in the rules apart of table variation based on individual GM interpretations?
The short answer is none.
It is laudable to strife for perfect unambiguous rules. But in the end this is an ideal you will never achieve. Governments with larger budgets as Paizo try to write unambiguous laws for real life - and still fail. This is why you have judges and lawyers - to interpret them.
The long answer - Paizo and PFS try
The Pathfinder ruleset has (in my mind) cleared up a lot of ambiguity from earlier rules. Having these boards, encouraging open discussion, listening and taking part helps a lot. So does beta-testing of novel rules.
Unfortunately offering novel options (new base classes, new races) opens up new opportunities to introduce novel grey areas.
As GMs and players we can highlight issues here on the boards and help improving the overall ruleset. But sometimes we need to take a step back from a specific problem and look at it from a wider angle. How many players and situations are effected. What are benefits in changing a rule and clarifying it. What are the costs in respect of resources, time, making a rule longer and more complex or to introduce other issues with a change.
So what can we do to keep the fun of gaming?
As a player start with the assumption that Paizo, PFS and your GM tries to write or interpret a rule in the best way for everyone and never to screw over your individual built. Rulings will not always be in your favor. But long term you are likely to more often benefit from a wrong ruling as to be penalized. So try to be more relaxed in accepting different opinions.
As a GM start with the assumption a player interprets a rule in a certain way because he believes that is the right way and not because he tries to munchkin or rules lawyers a loophole. And assume a player did read a certain rule in more detail as he might have been asked by other GMs before and as it concerns his build. He probably spend more time researching a grey area - so be relaxed and listen to a player. He might be right - so take this into consideration when you make a ruling.
In the end we want fun and a great experience for all players and the GM. Keep this in mind - and if you are really unhappy - try to find a compromise during the game and sit together afterwards when you have more time, when no other players are affected and when you might be less emotional about a ruling.
|
|
What you just described is not analogous to what you are intending to say.There is no difference between RAW and RAI when you are looking at hard numbers like which die to roll. If a GM is changing a rule like this, then they are cheating.
The scizore is just another example to try to keep this from being solely about LoH. In PFS if you don't agree with what's written, you don't get to change it.. that's for home games.
We agree that changing something so blantant as the damage die is obviously cheating.. I just am saying that I equate this completely (if on a more obvious level) with not liking the wording of LoH and inserting one's own verbage or entire rules to come up with a justification for making it positive energy.
Yes sometimes the rules are just clearly in the wrong and you can compare real world common sense to say RAI > RAW (wood being technically immune to damage from (nonmagical) fire being an excellent example) But who are you or who am I to presume that the way a magical effect with no real world comparison is 'wrongly' described in the RAW text? If it's clear.. it's played as is... or at least I'm saying it should be.
I don't think that the two comments are analogous though.
It isn't changing a hard coded stat from the game into something else that you prefer.
Does it take some extrapolation to say LoH is positive energy. Yes, because it doesn't explicitly say that it is.
However, it is very easily interpreted that way, and probably should be.
It works exactly like Channel with regards to how it affects living and undead creatures and Paladins receive their powers from LG deities.
Why is it always these fringe cases that make people jump up and want some sort of "official" ruling. The RAW are clear enough, and in my mind, you'd find yourself lucky to sit at a table where a GM would not have your Dhampir affected by LoH as though hit by positive energy.
|
|
Part 2 - the LoH vs Negative Energy Affinity debate
I followed the whole discussion. I can see reasons in favor of having LoH untyped but more reasons in disfavor.
Making LoH untyped takes away a lot of potential from a paladin to effect haunts.
On the surprise round in which a haunt manifests, positive energy applied to the haunt (via channeled energy, cure spells, and the like) can damage the haunt's hit points (a haunt never gains a Will save to lessen the damage done by such effects, and attacks that require a successful attack roll to work must strike AC 10 in order to affect the haunt and not merely the physical structure it inhabits). Unless the haunt has an unusual weakness, no other form of attack can reduce its hit points.
Being the GM in the Haunting of Harrowstone I would assume an outcry from Paladin players if you allow healing of Damphirs in favor of hurting haunts via LoH.
And here is another reason to be careful to treat LoH differently RAI to a Cure light wounds. LoH is neither a spell nor a Heal check > 15. So purely according to follow RAW LoH is not stopping bleeding.
Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn. Bleeding can be stopped by a DC 15 Heal check or through the application of any spell that cures hit point damage (even if the bleed is ability damage). Some bleed effects cause ability damage or even ability drain. Bleed effects do not stack with each other unless they deal different kinds of damage. When two or more bleed effects deal the same kind of damage, take the worse effect. In this case, ability drain is worse than ability damage.
I would expect a lot of grief if I let die a character who is bleeding to death because I tell the Paladin his LoH would not stop it according to RAW. And rereading it - RAW neither would channel stop bleeding as it isn't a spell either.
So please keep issues like these in mind when RAW is invoked. As shown with the examples above - a GM likely more often makes a decision in favor of players using RAI or at least Rule as interpreted by that specific GM as following slavishly RAW.
Yes - as GM in my game I interpolate that LoH is positive energy. But I also interpolate that it should work against haunts and to stop bleeding.
Interpreting the rules is my job as GM. And all I ask of my players is to trust me in my rulings. They are not always as they like. They are not always correct. But I do them with the best intention.
|
|
Ambiguous rules? Talk about the synthesist. It's probably the hardest thing ever in the OP environment.
Firstly it's allowed and it's a whole archetype that reeks of ambiguous things. A GM can't say "you can't play that", yet there are numerous problems that the player and GM will encounter. Should the player collect opinions from GMs on paper and make notions based on them? Actually, I'd want to know; I plan on playing with a synthesist.
|
|
Lay on Hands:
I already voiced my opinion on the subject on the relevant thread; I think the dhampir should be able to heal itself regardless of positive or negative energy. Ripping the class from its landmark ability would be unfair to the character.
Or Dhampir's just don't do well as Paladins and take a bit of a hit if they choose that path...
|
I've been quiet on this issue so far as I was not committed to either position and wanted to add some of your feedback to my decision process. So, in lieu of an official ruling, he goes.
I will be treating Lay on Hands as positive energy. IMHO, it seems, using the simplest of "eye" tests, to be the intention of the designers. The strongest argument stems from the fact that two LOH can be used to Channel Positive Energy. To me, it makes sense that if two combined are positive, then individually they are positive as well. Just not infused with enough energy to burst, hence the requirement for two of them.
I understand that the official RAW does not necessarily support that position and by the strictest of interpretations, there is no reason to call LOH positive energy. However, I tend to err on the side of "common sense" as JJ or SKR would say.
That means yes, at my table, a Dhampir Paladin would not be able to heal itself. I'm okay with that. The more races, classes, creatures, rules, etc. that are released the more chances that extreme builds will be available that will have some wonky combinations. It's the nature of the game we play. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that every new rule will mesh perfectly with all the Core rules. Not every race is suitable for every class. Some just won't work.
Now if you have a great character concept that works as a Dhampir Paladin, perhaps the 'evil guy going for redemption' thing, that's cool. I encourage everyone to play what interests you. Just be aware that you be slightly hindered in that you will lose out on one the pally's schticks; and that's okay.
I think the moral of the story is that in extreme border cases where it is clear that the rules are unclear, unless you are prepared for some table variation from GM to GM, don't play that character. It's not fair to the GM to be forced to rule on an unclear rule and then get upset when the decision is not what you want. My adage applies, "Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD."
Of course, as a GM, you are free to make your own interpretation...until we get an official FAQ on the issue.
|
|
...until we get an official FAQ on the issue.
That's really what I'm hoping for here. Its larger than just LoH.. to me it's a question of whether healing is 'fu ruled' to be positive energy if the rules neglect to include the positive energy description. There's way more ways to heal out there that neglect to include positive energy in the rule text than just LoH.. Celestial Sorcerer Bloodline ability, Oracle of Life Energy Body, Goodberries, etc.
This issue can come up way more often than just with a LoH targetting a Dhamphir. One example off the top of my head is a cleric of the undeath domain giving a PC target the domain ability 'switcheroo'. How can the rest of the party heal that victim now? Anything that doesn't say 'positive energy' (LoH, etc) or only things that say negative energy (inflict, channel negative, and I guess that's about it)
|
|
...until we get an official FAQ on the issue.That's really what I'm hoping for here. Its larger than just LoH.. to me it's a question of whether healing is 'fu ruled' to be positive energy if the rules neglect to include the positive energy description. There's way more ways to heal out there that neglect to include positive energy in the rule text than just LoH.. Celestial Sorcerer Bloodline ability, Oracle of Life Energy Body, Goodberries, etc.
This issue can come up way more often than just with a LoH targetting a Dhamphir. One example off the top of my head is a cleric of the undeath domain giving a PC target the domain ability 'switcheroo'. How can the rest of the party heal that victim now? Anything that doesn't say 'positive energy' (LoH, etc) or only things that say negative energy (inflict, channel negative, and I guess that's about it)
A FAQ may be necessary, but not for PFS. I think a FAQ answer for the PFRPG is more appropriate.
|
|
A FAQ may be necessary, but not for PFS. I think a FAQ answer for the PFRPG is more appropriate.
Which brings us full circle to my OP.. the sister thread in the rules forum hasn't spawned a FAQ (and indeed may never do so).
So what do we do in PFS OP where 4 GMs will read a rule such as this example 5 different ways? :D
|
|
A FAQ may be necessary, but not for PFS. I think a FAQ answer for the PFRPG is more appropriate.Which brings us full circle to my OP.. the sister thread in the rules forum hasn't spawned a FAQ (and indeed may never do so).
So what do we do in PFS OP where 4 GMs will read a rule such as this examples 5 different ways? :D
Then you expect table variation and approach playing that character accordingly.
|
|
Then you expect table variation and approach playing that character accordingly.
A FAQ may be necessary, but not for PFS. I think a FAQ answer for the PFRPG is more appropriate.Which brings us full circle to my OP.. the sister thread in the rules forum hasn't spawned a FAQ (and indeed may never do so).
So what do we do in PFS OP where 4 GMs will read a rule such as this examples 5 different ways? :D
If you want to bypass the Dhampir's inherent weakness for positive energy (i.e. can't be healed by most clerics in PFS) then Monk is the way to go, not Paladin.
If you choose a fringe case, as has been explained above, expect table variation.
Mike Brock will choose to approach this as a FAQ answer as he wishes, but were it my choice, I'd leave it as is until a FAQ answer happened for the PFRPG.
|
|
So what do we do in PFS OP where 4 GMs will read a rule such as this examples 5 different ways? :D
Mike/Mark are unlikely to respond to this as it carries with it an impact to the core and there could be conflict in the future if/when one of the designers comments.
There are a number of semi-ambiguous rules that fall to the GM to adjudicate. The designers have commented on this phenomenon on more than one occasion indicating that they want some of that in the game rules. Remember that PFS is just a small portion of the overall PFRPG game.
Unfortunately, this results in PFS having some situations where, by design, it is left to the GM to decide how to adjudicate a rule at their table. The best advice I/we can give is to avoid those area if you are not prepared to receive a ruling that could nerf your character. Living on the edge of the rules carries some risk that you need to be aware of and avoid if necessary. YMMV
|
|
Mike Brock will choose to approach this as a FAQ answer as he wishes, but were it my choice, I'd leave it as is until a FAQ answer happened for the PFRPG.
Oh no doubt.
My concern is that we're setting the bar a little low to just wash ones hands of it and say "it can't be solved unless someone else solves it".
PFS OP is supposed to be as homogenous as possible.. hence the GM not being allowed to houserule, make meaningful changes to an adventure, PCs not being allowed to reskin, etc.
Then we have 'Expect table variation'. As practical an answer as that is, it flies in the face of what PFS OP is about. Surely there's something that can be done, and I just thought a thread to discuss it might actually help get somewhere, I've seen M&M give alot of consideration to these forums. Who knows, maybe they'll even work something out behind the scenes and help prod the devs into making a RPG-wide FAQ.
But barring that, since I know that's not their job, what sort of suggestions can I offer? It's hard to codify, but I know as a GM had someone brought a Dhamphir Paladin or Orace of Life I wouldn't go 'My RAI is gonna trump your RAW because..' Heck even if I thought all healing is positive energy unless specified as negative (which I don't) I still would let a player play RAW.. who's going to have fun making a rules argument about it, no matter who wins in the end? Even if the player does the right thing and politely drops the issue after the GM voices his contrary interpretation of the rules, how much fun is that player going to have? Some will put it behind them completely (perhaps shrugging and saying 'oh well, shoulda saw it coming'), but the pessimism in me says that the vast majority of players would instead be put out by the experience.
*shrug* if the player is being legal, what's the damage? If one can't bear to have one's vision of 'how things SHOULD work' corrected from time to time, especially by a player at a table, what business does one have even being a GM in PFS OP?
|
|
Based on the responses in the other forum it appears that if you want a consensus from the playing base (or at least those who roam the boards) it exists. The vast majority are saying it is positive energy in nature and therefore would not heal a Dhampir.
From what I can tell that is not your position, but as you said, "If one can't bear to have one's vision of 'how things SHOULD work' corrected from time to time, especially by a player at a table, what business does one have even being a GM in PFS OP?"
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but without a designer/developer ruling leading to an FAQ post, you are left with GM fiat. If we want to call this a democracy and vote, the issue is largely settled.
|
|
If one can't bear to have one's vision of 'how things SHOULD work' corrected from time to time, especially by a player at a table, what business does one have even...
This argument goes both ways - it also applies to players who need to listen to a GM and accept if that GM corrects the players vision 'how things SHOULD work'.
The most heated discussions in the rule sections are when a poster doesn't accept to change his view point. It is irrelevant if that poster started as GM or player.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Deusvult. You claim to be looking for a "ruling" or "answer" to a rules question. You say you're leery of "table variance" and you want things cleared up. But then you go and say things like this:
...I wouldn't go 'My RAI is gonna trump your RAW because..'
.....
I still would let a player play RAW..
.....
*shrug* if the player is being legal, what's the damage?
You clearly already believe that you are not only correct, but unquestionably so. You're treating your view as "RAW" and everyone else's as "RAI". It's clear from those last several sentences that you're not looking for clarification; you're looking for someone to say you're right.
You do not believe there is a question - that's clear from your underlying assumptions. You have already concluded that you know the real answer. You are not open to the possibility that you might be wrong, because you don't believe your view to even be an "interpretation" in the first place. You ask what business anyone has being a GM if they're not open to being corrected, yet you show no such openness yourself. That is hypocrisy.
As has been said, expect table variation on this issue. And in the meantime, you might try opening up to the idea that your views are just as interpretive as everyone else's. You are not objective, and that's okay. You just won't get very far as long as you're unable to acknowledge that.
EDIT: Ninja'd. Glad to know I'm not the only one who saw the "everyone else needs to be open to correction, but not me" thing.
|
|
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but without a designer/developer ruling leading to an FAQ post, you are left with GM fiat. If we want to call this a democracy and vote, the issue is largely settled.
I agree with most of what you've said.
I disagree that a GM gets to fiat something that is contradictory to RAW.
Just saying, ya know? Not everyone knows all the rules. IMO a PFS GM needs to be more openminded than in a home game.. there a GM can just go 'talk to the hand, I don't like how paizo wrote that.. I know what they meant better than their own writers and this is how it's gonna be at my table.' Even if still technically legal in PFS OP, it's exceedingly bad form and sets a terrible example.
Sure, 'giving players the benefit of the doubt if interpretations differ' can be exploited or taken too far. THAT is the sort of line a GM should be drawing.. is the integrity of the rules being protected by saying a paladin can't heal a Dhamphir? Is it better for everyone to say a Dhampir Oracle with the Energy Body burns himself while healing his mates?
Do those need to be lumped in with people trying to justify, for example, moving and full attacking in the same round? Sometimes it is appropriate to just play the 'GM fiat' card in the interest of nipping (in your opinion) a pointless argument in the bud, or especially in PFS OP to save time. But that doesn't mean that you should be closed minded to players who may well know something you don't, and in those cases especially you should listen and learn.
Again, just saying. IMO.
|
|
Deusvult. You claim to be looking for a "ruling" or "answer" to a rules question. You say you're leery of "table variance" and you want things cleared up. But then you go and say things like this..
Well not to sound too much like I've got a chip on my shoulder, but yes I am absolutely sure I'm right (about the positive energy question). You're very welcome to try to prove me wrong in the rules forum thread, I'll be happy to see you there :) I'm happy to stress I'm not the only one who agrees with RAW, no matter how other people in this thread have characterized it as 'most everyone is in agreement against you.'
And I'm 'being a douche' in this thread so that I DON'T have to be one at a gaming table. Apologies to anyone offended, but I'd rather offend faceless forumites than good 'real' people at a face to face table who came for a game, instead of chiming in on a rules discussion on teh internets.
Sure, should I make a Dhamphir paladin and bring it to a table, and the GM says 'talk to the hand', I WOULD shut up and color. I'm making a fuss here (and the rules forum) because this IS the appropriate place for the fuss, not at the table.
|
|
Ok why is this a question, the rule is very simple, LoH is Positive Energy thus it damages creatures with negative energy affinity. Dhampir have negative energy affinity...fairly self explanitory. If you want to play a Dhampir Paladin thne have at it, just know you are probably going to kill yourself, or at least be terribly ineffective. If you are a Dhampir and your party does have channel positive abilities, let them know or do your best to be out of the area when they let loose.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
*shrug* if the player is being legal, what's the damage? If one can't bear to have one's vision of 'how things SHOULD work' corrected from time to time, especially by a player at a table, what business does one have even...
Because it screws up the game being played at the time, not just for the GM who volunteered to do something so you could have a good time, but for the other 5 players at the table.
Playing something that you know many GMs disagree with you on KNOWING you are going to be 'correcting their vision..." strikes me as being incredibly selfish. You are putting your issue above the enjoyment of the group as a whole, making the whole of OP a less pleasant experience.
|
|
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but without a designer/developer ruling leading to an FAQ post, you are left with GM fiat. If we want to call this a democracy and vote, the issue is largely settled.I agree with most of what you've said.
I disagree that a GM gets to fiat something that is contradictory to RAW.
Just saying, ya know? Not everyone knows all the rules. IMO a PFS GM needs to be more openminded than in a home game.. there a GM can just go 'talk to the hand, I don't like how paizo wrote that.. I know what they meant better than their own writers and this is how it's gonna be at my table.' Even if still technically legal in PFS OP, it's exceedingly bad form and sets a terrible example.
Sure, 'giving players the benefit of the doubt if interpretations differ' can be exploited or taken too far. THAT is the sort of line a GM should be drawing.. is the integrity of the rules being protected by saying a paladin can't heal a Dhamphir? Is it better for everyone to say a Dhampir Oracle with the Energy Body burns himself while healing his mates?
Do those need to be lumped in with people trying to justify, for example, moving and full attacking in the same round? Sometimes it is appropriate to just play the 'GM fiat' card in the interest of nipping (in your opinion) a pointless argument in the bud, or especially in PFS OP to save time. But that doesn't mean that you should be closed minded to players who may well know something you don't, and in those cases especially you should listen and learn.
Again, just saying. IMO.
Great Iomedae fella…
You’ve received the same answer from almost everyone in both of your threads regarding this. As Jiggy pointed out, you seem to feel that your interpretation is the correct one, regardless of what everyone else is saying.
To answer your question: Yes, saying Lay on Hands affects a Dhampir as though hit by positive energy, is keeping the integrity of the rules.
Why you may ask? Well, while I’m sure you are not a culprit, there are many players who would choose to bypass the Dhampir’s innate weakness by choosing a class that was perhaps not as specific as it needed to be to accommodate a non-evil character with an innate evilness about them to be a Paladin. This is power gaming and cheesy optimization at its core.
So while you aren’t guilty of doing this, because your reasons for creating this character are about cool concept and angst-ridden roleplay, that isn’t always going to be the case with other players. As such, when fringe cases arrive like this, it is, IMHO, more important to adhere to the RAW/I for the weaknesses of the race, than the strengths of the class.
|
|
Bringing the discussion back to the original topic, I think an important items was missed. The focus has been on the Lay on Hands ability and it should be on the appropriate undead trait and Negative Energy Affinity.
RAW, under undead traits it says:
Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence
score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such
as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast
healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s
Intelligence score.
Negative Energy Affinity says:
Negative Energy Affinity (Ex) The creature alive, but
reacts to positive and negative energy as if it were undead—
positive energy harms it, negative energy heals it. Format:
negative energy affinity; Location: Defensive Abilities.
If you go RAW rather than RAI, LoH is untyped and specifically not negative energy, would that not mean that it would not work on undead or a creature with NEA anyway? You might be able to argue that it would not hurt, as it is not typed as positive, but it would not heal either. Thus there if no reason to specify positive energy for LoH as only negative energy works in the situation originally specified.
It is a fact of life that some builds are sub-optimal. If you are not prepared to deal with that kind of challenge, I would suggest not playing that build.
|
|
Lots of stuff
I tend to steer away from the Rules Forums because there is just too much flaming and rarely does an issue get solved outside of the "you do it your way and I'll do it mine."
Speaking only for myself, I consider myself to be well versed on the Core rules, not to the extend that I can quote it from memory or reference page numbers, but knowledgeable just the same.
With that, I have read and re-read the passages of issue and as I said before, if you take the absolute strictest reading, you can come to the conclusion that you have...Lay on Hands is an untyped, descriptor-less, non-energy type power.
However, in many cases, taking the strictest reading of RAW does not make sense and we have come to accept that there are many times where we must try to interpret the language and follow what the RAI seem to be. For many of us, this is one of those cases. It is not that we are unaware of RAW, it's that the RAW is not clear.
Conventional Wisdom seems to indicate when you compare LoH with other similar spells, skills, powers, etc. that it functions like positive energy. It even feeds Channel Positive Energy with nothing but itself as a source.
As such, most of us, yes that is 'most' not 'all', have decided that until there is an "official" ruling, we are treating it like Positive Energy. If you choose to consider that as a house rule or making up rules despite RAW, you can, but the idea that RAW clarifies this position is what is at the heart of the discussion.
In the end, what is being said here is just going in circles. You are convinced that you are right. And that is fine. The rest of us are convinced we are correct as well, regardless if we agree with you or otherwise.
As I said before, the only thing that we can all agree on, at this point, is it is up to the table GM to determine the answer to this dilemma and therefore, if you chose to play such a character, be prepared to get different interpretations.
I recommend that you consult your GM before the game starts to find out their opinion on the subject. Take a minute or two to plead your case, but if it doesn't go your way, there are two choices...accept it and play or move on to another table.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'd like to address the original, original topic: ambiguity in PFS play.
1) There will be vague rules. Even if we were to nail down all the rules in the Core Rulebook, somebody is going to find a feat from one of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting books that resonates oddly with a class from one of the hardbacks or a spell from a Chronicles book, or, in this case, a race from a boon.
Even if Mike and Mark took matters into their own hands and announced a ruling for PFS -- which would then drive the ruling throughout the game system -- thee would be another after it, and another, and countless more. Deusvult says "PFS OP is supposed to be as homogenous as possible". Yes, but no more so.
If you find someone who wants an organized play game with no ambiguous rules, direct them to a chess league.
2) Ambiguity is dealt with through GM consensus. I attend a convention and play a game where Bob GMs, and I see how he rules on a situation. I play at my local game day and see how Thea handles a picky rules thing. I post a question on the GMs boards asking for advice about how to handle something, and get 257 opinions.
All of which inform my decisions when I'm the one making the call as a table GM. As I attend conventions in Michigan and Nebraska and Colorado and Indiana, I learn about regional decisions and influence any GMs who sit at my table.