Imagine that your party is in a fight with a number of brigands (scout/thug rogues). Said brigands dance around you and your party getting into flanking, falling back to a more strategic position, and otherwise making good use of their mobility. At no point during the fight do the brigands provoke attacks of opportunity for moving, even though they are not bothering to tumble.
Later, the GM tells you that it was because of there Escape Route teamwork feat. Since they all moved on the same initiative, they were all able to protect one another by from attacks of opportunity by moving in strategic formation.
Would you feel cheated somehow? Would you think that, somewhere, the GM broke or overlooked a rule? Or would you be like "cool, maybe we should try that some time?"
I'm curious to know.
The question is: Why wouldn't you be encountering it a lot, karkon? It's only one feat without any prerequisites. One feat that practically negates movement related AoO's when the GM plays that way--something that PCs can't do even with delayed actions, I might add. Most monsters and NPCs can easily spare one feat for such a huge advantage.
|
The question is: Why wouldn't you be encountering it a lot, karkon? It's only one feat without any prerequisites. One feat that practically negates movement related AoO's when the GM plays that way--something that PCs can't do even with delayed actions, I might add. Most monsters and NPCs can easily spare one feat for such a huge advantage.
Dodge + Mobility + Spring Attack = No AoO.
Why not? If a feat is available then it is available. I will admit that some feats or better for one party or the other, but that does not mean they should be restricted to one side.
I think you should have phrased your thread title as "Should the GM do this?". I would still say yes, but the thread does seem like one where a player is telling a GM how to run a game if it is reworded.
As for encountering it all the time, I don't think NPC's will should always have the best availible builds. That pretty much means you have a world of cookie cutter NPC's. In this case all the NPC's work together so it would not be an issue for me.
PS:If the GM is not rules-savvy I would be looking it up after the game though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After reading your other thread I noticed you said they moved at the exact same time. That is a no-no. Moving on the same initiative yes, but turns still must be taken, just as if they were being ran by different people.
Prerequisite: none
Benefit: An ally who also has this feat provokes no attacks of opportunity for moving through squares adjacent to you or within your space.
That does not allow them to move at the exact same time. I can see some large monster(s) using them to jack some PC's up. I would have given it a pre-req though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question is: Why wouldn't you be encountering it a lot, karkon? It's only one feat without any prerequisites. One feat that practically negates movement related AoO's when the GM plays that way--something that PCs can't do even with delayed actions, I might add. Most monsters and NPCs can easily spare one feat for such a huge advantage.
For my two cp, I would say that encounter is totally fair and actually a neat thing for a band of brigands to have (a well trained cohesive team of pros rather than clumsy oafs).
As for the question of why not, I'd agree its a more of a tacit social thing (the same reason why a GM doesn't send hordes of incorporeal creatures after a party when they have no means to defend themselves competently). However, NPCs would only take the feat if they were part of a reasonably well trained unit (i.e. a group of crack thieves, elite brigands). So sure it could come up every once and a while (and dependant on the campaign) but not too commonly. There's no reason for the dumb cave-dwelling trolls who eat rabbits and hit things with rocks to have it for instance.
The rules don't allow for multiple characters to move simultaneously. So, no, the GM was being cheap. Call him on it.
I think that last sentence is what RD was referring to. They share the same turn, which is different than sharing the same initiative.
Can the GM do this?
The GM can do whatever they want. See rule 0.
Should the GM do this? occasionally. They aren't required to tell you what feat was being used, that seems polite of them to do so.
That being said, there's no reason you and your party cannot do the same. Delay till the same initiative, and if the DM has an issue with it, tell him where you learned the tactic.
Yes you can and I didn't even read the OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As i said in the other thread, there is no rule/feat/whatever that allows people to take their turns together, play on the same initiative sure but each one has to take his entire turn before the other starts to take his.
To all of you who don't bother to say that the DM can do whatever he wants just because:
If the DM uses any house rules he should say it to the players beforehand and not spring them to them, otherwise what's the point of having rules in the first place? let's just all gather around the DM and hear him reciting a story or even better reading a book (because a book has a better chance of having a good story than the one the DM thought).
Yes you can and I didn't even read the OP.
You might want to. The OP's thread title does not match opening thread. The question he asked is more a matter of should, and in another thread an illegal action is noted.
I am fine with, and do, having GMs make all the same "Type" of enemies act on the same initiative, however you flavor it (they all delay until the last, whatever).
BUT
I would still require (and expect) that each resolves its ENTIRE turn at a time. No they all move, then they all attack... "hey look! All nine are flanking you!"
+1
Even if they all act on the same initiative, each turn is discrete, thus the feat would allow most of them to leave witouth provoking, but the last one would provoke.
123
4O5
678
1 leaves, covered by 2 and 4 (and 3 or 6, depending of the route)
2 leaves, covered by 3 (etc)
3 leaves, covered by 5 (etc)
.
.
4 is left alone, and provoke, if no one stayed close enough (meaning at most 2 squares from O) to provide the escape route.
I'ts still a very good tactic if the last one to leave tumble away, or have feats to evade AoO, or if they just arrange for switching the last one leaving each time, distributing evenly every AoO.
So, even if the GM did an error by moving them together, I doubt it would have changed a lot damagewise.
|
Can the GM do this?
The GM can do whatever they want. See rule 0.
Should the GM do this? occasionally. They aren't required to tell you what feat was being used, that seems polite of them to do so.
I think that pretty much says it in a nutshell. It is the GM's job to create new and interesting encounters that challenge players and get you moving. That being said he shouldn't do it every time it would be like sicking an army of ghosts on a first level party who isn't prepared for it or making all the crocs that attack your group suddenly have combat expertise or weapon finesse without some explanation for why they can do that. In this instance I would say that he is both within the rules as gm and the spirit of the encounter with the brigands being this well organized unit of co op specialist who work together to take down foes similar to a wolf pack or pride of lions. Now he did that with mindless shambling corpses or something then I would have issue as a player. Would also say if your GM's perceptive he'll give you a chance to come back at them maybe hit them separately or catch them in their camp in the night. Also if they start giving you trouble he'll hopefully figure out it might be a bit much and pull back on you guys before it becomes a real issue. In the end let whole thing is be a learning experience for everyone rather then a point of contention, when you get to town find the name of the bandit crew or knowledge (local) em' and begin to plan how you'll bring em to justice! If you're lucky you'll get to watch your GM flip as he now has this heated game of cops & robbers between these bandits and the heroes they shouldn't have picked on! ^-^
Should the GM do this? It all depends on how the game has been going and how he justifies it. Did they all ready an action to be triggered off of a PC's action? If so I think they may actually be able to all move on the player's round and as such the feat should come into play.
Should the GM do this in the more general sense of "is the GM playing fair?" That's harder. Do you have a bunch of players with Combat Expertise, do you routinely use attacks of opportunity optimized characters to trip, disarm and otherwise incapacitate enemies? If so perhaps the GM feels he has to resort to drastic measures to challenge you.
I think that pretty much says it in a nutshell. It is the GM's job to create new and interesting encounters that challenge players and get you moving. That being said he shouldn't do it every time it would be like sicking an army of ghosts on a first level party who isn't prepared for it or making all the crocs that attack your group suddenly have combat expertise or weapon finesse without some explanation for why they can do that. In this instance I would say that he is both within the rules as gm and the spirit of the encounter with the brigands being this well organized unit of co op specialist who work together to take down foes similar to a wolf pack or pride of lions. Now he did that with mindless shambling corpses or something then I would have issue as a player. Would also say if your GM's perceptive he'll give you a chance to come back at them maybe hit them separately or catch them in their camp in the night. Also if they start giving you trouble he'll hopefully figure out it might be a bit much and pull back on you guys before it becomes a real issue. In the end let whole thing is be a learning experience for everyone rather then a point of contention, when you get to town find the name of the bandit crew or knowledge (local) em' and begin to plan how you'll bring em to justice! If you're lucky you'll get to watch your GM flip as he now has this heated game of cops & robbers between these bandits and the heroes they shouldn't have picked on! ^-^
So it's your opinion that the GM should cheat? Changing the rules to suit him, doing things that the players could never hope to do (of which the OP is one example)?
RD you did post this in two seperate post. I don't think everyone got all of it, and the nature of your question made it sound like you were restricting GM authority.
PS:Personally the allowing everyone to share one turn is cheating in my book.
I would present the example again.
Asking that the GM play by the same rules the players are playing by is hardly "restricting GM authority." Except for house rules agreed upon at the beginning of a campaign, it is assumed that everyone is playing the same game, with the same rules.
Which example are you referring to, Wraithstrike? There's a perfectly good one in the OP.
I don't think everyone read the other post(from the other thread) where you said all the bad guys went at the same time, and some even assumed you just meant the same initiative.
I am fine with, and do, having GMs make all the same "Type" of enemies act on the same initiative, however you flavor it (they all delay until the last, whatever).
BUT
I would still require (and expect) that each resolves its ENTIRE turn at a time. No they all move, then they all attack... "hey look! All nine are flanking you!"
I think they were thinking it was the first paragraph.
----------------------------------------------------The below statement was in the other thread, but it was not in this one. I almost missed it myself.
To my knowledge, there are no rules anywhere that allow people to act at exactly the same time. However, many GMs practice moving groups of enemies simultaneously in order to simplify the GMing process.
edit:I am mostly reposting it so they can see your issue with the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Asking that the GM play by the same rules the players are playing by is hardly "restricting GM authority." Except for house rules agreed upon at the beginning of a campaign, it is assumed that everyone is playing the same game, with the same rules.
This doesn't hold true in my game, nor just about any game I play in. The GM creates the rules. If the players don't like that, they are free to leave the game or comment on them. I don't think players should play in games thay are not having fun with, and houserule/rule interpretation/whatever is not relevant.
If I'm understanding the situation, I would assume the GM made a mistake about everyone acting at once. The one encounter isn't enough to get me complaining though, but it seems to have got you going. Talk to your GM if it bugs you. What does it matter what I/anyone here think? Life isn't democratic man.
So it's your opinion that the GM should cheat? Changing the rules to suit him, doing things that the players could never hope to do (of which the OP is one example)?
Let's not jump to conclusion about the GM motives. I bet it's an honest mistake.
And one with minor consequences, I should add. It only denied a very small amout of AoO as most of them would not have occured anyway even in the case the rules were applied correctly.
And something that can be corrected between games with a little amout of communication.
I can't speak for RD, but for me it is an issue of consistency. Fantasyland works however it works, but it should always work that way.
I can't speak for RD, but for me it is an issue of consistency. Fantasyland works however it works, but it should always work that way.
+1
If group A (the Bandits) can do this but group B (the party) can't, with no actual reason other than ...because, you have a problem.
Ravingdork,
You are on here second-guessing your GM every week, sometimes more often. You don't seem to like anything he does, and you seem to question nearly every decision, or at least you question something about every session.
I am not sure we can really help you with what I suspect the real issue is. But it seems like you really should GM your own game. I have a hard time feeling you will be happy otherwise.
Just throwin' that out there.
I'd say that if the bandit group had a special reason for it (former special forces group that went renegade, etc) then it's fine. If it happened all the time with all sorts of enemies, I'd probably engage with my fellow players in a democratic process and let the GM know it's a bit annoying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say sure they can. Not really cheating though, since the GM is sort of the rule maker/enforcer.
Yes and no. It's true that GMs are the enforcers of the rules, but they don't make them. The game developers do. Those are the rules that the players are going to be most familiar with. Sure the GM is free to share his own rules, provided they are brought up well in advance and the players approve of them, but that's not the same thing. He's also free to make rulings in cases that aren't already covered by rules. Again, not the same.
There is an unwritten "default contract" in which the players of ANY game will all follow the same rule set. A game without rules, or a game where everyone is playing by different rules, in no game at all.
Ravingdork,
You are on here second-guessing your GM every week, sometimes more often. You don't seem to like anything he does, and you seem to question nearly every decision, or at least you question something about every session.
I am not sure we can really help you with what I suspect the real issue is. But it seems like you really should GM your own game. I have a hard time feeling you will be happy otherwise.
Just throwin' that out there.
You are aware that many of my posts are theoretical in nature, aren't you? I only rarely complain about something my GM has actually done (about once a month or so I would guess).
Take this thread for example. I never once stated my GM had, had the described encounter, nor that I had ever partaken in such an encounter. Instead, I asked the reader (you) to imagine such a scenario. I then asked for people's thoughts and opinions on it, had it happened to them.
You should be careful with your assumptions. They can trick you into believing in things that aren't there.
You are aware that many of my posts are theoretical in nature, aren't you? I only rarely complain about something my GM has actually done (about once a month or so I would guess).
Take this thread for example. I never once stated my GM had, had the described encounter, nor that I had ever partaken in such an encounter. Instead, I asked the reader (you) to imagine such a scenario. I then asked for people's thoughts and opinions on it, had it happened to them.
You should be careful with your assumptions. They can trick you into believing in things that aren't there.
Maybe it could be made more clear from your side, as I believe it's a common mistake on these boards to misread you that way.
That being said, the discussion is interresting. But you should really provide more information about these tough experiments of yours.
Like, is the GM cheating, or is it an honest mistake?
I thought I had posted about your theoretical post. I guess I forgot to post it.
OTOH:You really should be clear about which post are real and which ones are not. I am just beginning to figure them out myself. :)
It's easy: If I say "[something] happened in our game" or "my GM did [something]" then it actually happened. It saddens me to see reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. Makes me feel old. :(
I don't believe I've ever tried to deliberately mislead anyone on these forums.
As per whether or not the GM is breaking the rules, that is what is being discussed.
He did have everyone moving and acting simultaneously (thereby making it easier to make ideal use of the NPC's positioning and teamwork feats). The question is this: Would that upset you? Would you consider it cheating?
I'm on the fence personally. I think it is something of a GM cheat (as the rules don't seem to allow simultaneous action), but at the same time, this is exactly the kind of thing I might do as a GM.
There are situations where simultaneous movement if perfectly fine, if the group is properly trained for it, such as a drill team or synchronized swimmers or a line of archers matching each other move for move when told to "ready, aim, fire". Now, since your example requires every single person performing it to have the same feat, I can see it as happening, with the feat representing the training needed to synchronize movement, but not by any average gang of thugs/rogues.
Like others have said, something like this had better be rare, or maybe even a once-only encounter, or the GM would be taking it too far. This is one of the things I really do not care for with the teamwork feats where there is not a listed limit on how many characters/enemies can have and use them together.
There are situations where simultaneous movement if perfectly fine, if the group is properly trained for it, such as a drill team or synchronized swimmers or a line of archers matching each other move for move when told to "ready, aim, fire". Now, since your example requires every single person performing it to have the same feat, I can see it as happening, with the feat representing the training needed to synchronize movement, but not by any average gang of thugs/rogues.
Like others have said, something like this had better be rare, or maybe even a once-only encounter, or the GM would be taking it too far. This is one of the things I really do not care for with the teamwork feats where there is not a listed limit on how many characters/enemies can have and use them together.
But how might you handle it if your players tried this? Most GMs would say no. They would have to ready actions or delay actions which, in the end, has a completely different outcome than the true simultaneity I described the GM doing.
Many people assume any post is of a real game/situation. In short it is assumed to be true unless someone says it is not.
on topic: Yeah I would think it was cheating unless the PC's can do it also. When the players come asking "why can't I do that", the following is not the right answer--> "because you are not the GM".
Even if you use nicer wording it does not go over well.
PS:We will assume there are no artifacts or mcguffins in play with regard to the above paragraph.
Well, the player characters should be able to do this also, so long as they have the feat. Also, this specific feat is for running away, not for attacking, so if the GM let them attack as well, then he was breaking the rules. And however someone wants to fluff the description, all the enemies with this feat are doing while they retreat from the party is moving in such a way that each is watching the other's blind spots so that an AoO cannot occur. So now that this feat exists, without it, no matter how carefully worded a retreat may be, for either PCs or enemies, there is always that chance of getting in a shot of some kind as an AoO.
Many people assume any post is of a real game/situation. In short it is assumed to be true unless someone says it is not.
Even when I include language such as "Imagine that [random scenario]" and specifically reference the reader rather than myself or my group?
No. I did describe it as not being a real game of mine. I used the appropriate language to convey exactly what I wanted. It's peoples' reading comprehension and assumptive natures that are at fault, not me.
Welcome to the internet, where everything moves so fast that no one can be bothered to do anything but talk past one another.
Well, the player characters should be able to do this also, so long as they have the feat. Also, this specific feat is for running away, not for attacking, so if the GM let them attack as well, then he was breaking the rules. And however someone wants to fluff the description, all the enemies with this feat are doing while they retreat from the party is moving in such a way that each is watching the other's blind spots so that an AoO cannot occur. So now that this feat exists, without it, no matter how carefully worded a retreat may be, for either PCs or enemies, there is always that chance of getting in a shot of some kind as an AoO.
Actually, this feat is excellent for attacking. If you have an ally who is adjacent to a creature with reach, his 3x3 threatened spaces leaves a corridor in which you can get in to melee against the creature without provoking.
Now imagine two characters with these feats moving simultaneously, always adjacent to one another. They would be totally immune to movement related AoO's! Such creatures could, if done in unison, charge a line of pikemen with impunity.
This is not altogether possible under the normal rules. Due to the initiative order, someone is going to lose out on the feat's benefit at some point.
Sounds legit.
I had a dragon fight I ran once (Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple) who had taken Lunge. In dragon form, the person attacking it tumbled just far enough away that he'd be out of range, then I Lunged the next round. He cried foul. I offered to show him the NPC's character sheet after the combat to show that I wasn't just cheating him.
Many people assume any post is of a real game/situation. In short it is assumed to be true unless someone says it is not.Even when I include language such as "Imagine that [random scenario]" and specifically reference the reader rather than myself or my group?
Yes. I remember one post where you said it was not real, and they still did not believe you.
Now that I think about it they just give you a hard time anyway.
after reading only the title: yes
after reading the rest: yes, he can still do it, I would feel a little bit cheated, but that's alright, as long as he doesn't do this for every encounter, but a well organized group could easily profit from those feats. I mean, it's like if you fight a group of golems, they are all immune to magic, but there it's alright because in plainly in the books?
It made the encounter more challenging and more fun, didn't it?
What if the feat does not work that way for the players?
I think that was the issue--NPC's doing things PC's can't without a reason other than the GM said so*
*Please no hyperbole or semantics on that one. I am sure you get where I am coming from.
Sounds legit.
I had a dragon fight I ran once (Barbarian/Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple) who had taken Lunge. In dragon form, the person attacking it tumbled just far enough away that he'd be out of range, then I Lunged the next round. He cried foul. I offered to show him the NPC's character sheet after the combat to show that I wasn't just cheating him.
Alright. Imagine this:
You and your party has the Escape Route teamwork feat. You and your buds are ganging up on a large monster with reach, but things are not going well, and you sound the retreat. Everyone gets out without provoking except you, because you retreated last and there was no one left to cover you. This happened due to the nature of turn-based combat. Not even delaying until everyone is on the same initiative count helps you get around this.
Now let's say you are fighting a quartet of enemies who also have this feat. Realizing the fight is lost, they all fallback with none of them provoking from you (because they are all moving at the same time, rather than taking individual turns).
You wouldn't feel cheated by your GM in the slightest?
after reading only the title: yes
after reading the rest: yes, he can still do it, I would feel a little bit cheated, but that's alright, as long as he doesn't do this for every encounter, but a well organized group could easily profit from those feats. I mean, it's like if you fight a group of golems, they are all immune to magic, but there it's alright because in plainly in the books?It made the encounter more challenging and more fun, didn't it?
You didn't read the entire thread did you?
The enemies were sharing their turns? How does that teamwork feat allows them that?The problem isn't that the enemies had all that particular feat, it was that they shared their turns.
First of all let me say I had not looked at that feat before. It is pure gold, and I will try to use it with my next character (campaign starting up soon). And when I DM, I *will* give it to some bad guys. That'll be interesting >:-D
About moving "at the same time": The posts I have seen so far do not make it really clear if
1. your DM just meant that it was that way effectively
2. your opponents gained a truly unfair advantage from it
3. were just played highly efficiently in a turn-based order.
Let me first say that no, moving at the exact same time is not allowed in my book, the rules do not support it. This works for players and NPCs/monsters.
About #3, presuming same initiative (which would not be impossible, they could even delay): This could work this way: First opponent (FO) gets close enough to not be threatened by you, the others move past him through his threatened area into flanking position or such, ready on him moving again (he has an action left), FO moves into flanking. FO cannot attack anymore, he spent his two move actions. But the others' ready actions kick in, they all attack with flanking.
Retreat would be similar by iteratively moving away: FO does 5 foot step, the others move through his threatened area and do not provoke. The last of them goes just far enough away to keep FO in his threatened area, waits, then FO moves without provoking.
There, with just one (depending on the terrain two) not taking attacks - or risking AoO just for himself to get into good position - all others could move without harm. Add Gang-Up to this soup and it gets truly nasty, but entirely within the rules :-P
Regardless of if it was correct in your situation, it's a great idea. I like it :-D
First of all let me say I had not looked at that feat before. It is pure gold, and I will try to use it with my next character (campaign starting up soon). And when I DM, I *will* give it to some bad guys. That'll be interesting >:-D
About moving "at the same time": The posts I have seen so far do not make it really clear if
1. your DM just meant that it was that way effectively
2. your opponents gained a truly unfair advantage from it
3. were just played highly efficiently in a turn-based order.
Let me first say that no, moving at the exact same time is not allowed in my book, the rules do not support it. This works for players and NPCs/monsters.About #3, presuming same initiative (which would not be impossible, they could even delay): This could work this way: First opponent (FO) gets close enough to not be threatened by you, the others move past him through his threatened area into flanking position or such, ready on him moving again (he has an action left), FO moves into flanking. FO cannot attack anymore, he spent his two move actions. But the others' ready actions kick in, they all attack with flanking.
Retreat would be similar by iteratively moving away: FO does 5 foot step, the others move through his threatened area and do not provoke. The last of them goes just far enough away to keep FO in his threatened area, waits, then FO moves without provoking.
There, with just one (depending on the terrain two) not taking attacks - or risking AoO just for himself to get into good position - all others could move without harm. Add Gang-Up to this soup and it gets truly nasty, but entirely within the rules :-PRegardless of if it was correct in your situation, it's a great idea. I like it :-D
How is the FO going twice? Shouldn't he finish up the totality of his actions before ANY of his compatriots get to move? To my knowledge you can't interrupt someone else unless you prepare an action or use an immediate action. The latter is unavailable in the example and the former has an action economy cost to it.
Via clever use of prepared actions, a group of smart players could somewhat emulate what you describe, but that has its own action costs built into it (namely in that one player doesn't get to attack).
If the GM is having the NPCs act with true simultaneity, however, then they lose no actions whatsoever and can all move and make an attack in concert (which they will all get free flanking bonuses since they are swinging at the same time). This DOES speed things up, and I understand why many GMs do it, but it IS unfair to the players.
Hence this thread: Would such a thing upset you if your GM did that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is the GMs job to provide exciting and different scenarios and to challenge the party. It sounds like he did his job.
It is the player's job to enjoy what the DM provides and not get their knickers in a twist if he fudges the rules to do that.
Like I said, it sounds like the DM did his job.
I don't mind the occasional GM fudge when nobody knows the relevant rule, or when there IS NO relevant rule. However, when he is fudging the rules to give his NPCs an unfair advantage, it makes me wonder why we are rolling dice at all. Might as well just sit down and listen to the GM give his story hour since this is an indicator that everything will always go his way anyways.