Hence this thread: Would such a thing upset you if your GM did that?
Nope, it would not upset me in the slightest. So the fight lasts for a few more rounds. Oh well. I love a good fight and I especially love an entertaining one. Usually when GMs have enemies acting on the same initiative it's because they are mooks. If the enemies are acting on the same initiative, most of the GMs I know have the enemies move all at once then roll to hit. I think a lot of players expect this because they just want to get back around to their turn.
Unless he's using us for a sounding board before inflicting this on his hapless players.
Would that be a bad thing if it were so?
Based soley on the title of the thread I have to say Yes, yes he or she can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
No, I wouldn't. I'd probably be kicking myself for not asking the DM if we could simulate our simultaneous withdrawal and thus not had a problem with one PC being left behind because of the artifact of the turn order.
But then, I don't view RPGs as board games. They are games that are fluid and flexible in their rules, based on DM arbitration, because they are fundamentally simulations of fantasy action literature. The rules exist to provide structure to actions and guidelines for adjudication of the success of actions proposed by the players, but when that structure gets in the way of reasonable narrative - it should be put into a shape that supports the narrative.
|
Yes he can.
Why?
Its the privilege she has to offset the enormous amount of work and effort that has to be put into designing and running a campaign world. A player is only concerned about the immediate needs of their character. The GM has to worry about all the players' needs AND the story that they are experiencing.
So not only should it be allowed it should be accepted and expected as a tool of the GM if it adds in the enjoyment of all.
Like all tools though it needs to be used only for the right job.
In this example that was given in the OP the best explanation is as stated that they are an 'elite' force who have worked together for many years to the point of being a well oiled machine. Rare. Memorable. Everything that you'd want as a player of a GM in an encounter.
Do the players wish their characters to do this as well?
Sure - tell them that they all have to give up the adventuring life, sign up to an army, work in a few years of campaigning, follow that up with a few years of banditry and eventually they can pick up the same feat. I'd say maybe 5-8 years out of campaign time should do it.
In the mean time assuming that they don't get killed in battle the overall campaign events will progress and probably find the campaign world ending due to the actions of those opponents who the players were going to thwart before they got side tracked into trying to get a feat ...
If slavish adhesion to rules is the definition of having fun, then go and play Star Fleet Battles, or Risk or Monopoly.
A player is always entitled to voice their opinion about a rule or ruling but they should never have the belief that they can dictate what can and cant be done by the GM, which I believe is really the point that is trying to be made in the OP.
As an aside I have found many times in posts on these boards (or at least it SEEMS like it) that players are often complaining that the GM makes the NPCs do something that the PCs cant do, and that somehow its not fair.
IF it is a blatant misuse that causes a party wipe for the GMs sadistic satisfaction or its the GMPCs favorite tactic that the party cannot ever do (ie makes the players feel like they are only the supporting cast for the GMPCs main billing), then you can always vote with your feet and refuse to play in that GMs game.
But more often that not if you forget the meta gaming aspects of dotting the 'i' and crossing the 't' and allowing said elite bandit group to perform this maneuver then you have found a memorable encounter.
But regardless it is the GMs responsibility to set things up for everyone to enjoy and this means the GM as well. If they have to pull a fudge in order to help the villain to escape for a later encounter then fine. If they have the villain neutralise the party to the point of total PC annihilation then not so good.
If the game requires cast iron rules interpretations in order to be 'fun' - contracts that force the GM to be unable to progress the adventure, then the player is not suited to this game. As mentioned before a GM-less game medium may be more appropriate for 'fun'.
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...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
Retreat: Yes, you can't interrupt, that's why I stated that he cannot attack anymore. He can however take his move, ready on the last guy (let's call him Bob) completing his move, then move on his own - in the case of the retreat.
In the case of FO moving into position for attack, he will move, ready on "Bob" being in position, then attack. Or, as I wrote, if that is not possible, complete the move which may trigger the readied action of another guy.This is absolutely legitimate within the rules. And no, I would not complain about my DM using that. Only if - as another poster wrote it - suddenly ALL opponents, e.g. trolls and bulettes, start using that kind of tactic (and suddenly all have sneak attack ;-)) because then it would start to smell fishy :-P
Yea. My apologies RD. Your original post wasnt at all clear that they all moved at exactly the same time and interrupted each others turn.
I agree with wraithstrike, in that the game world should work the same for everyone, so if your PCs can't do this, NPCs don't either.
That being said, its certainly possible to do this by having the first person move and readying a standard action to move again, effectively splitting his turn while the rest of his buddies fall back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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. :(
Imagine that today, I meet an old friend and says "Imagine you are on an internet fomrum, and someone starts his post with the word "imagine", could you tell, only by this word, if the following text is the description a real situation or a make believe?"
My friend would be well advised to say no.
You can, and often use "imagine" to ask other persons to picture in their mind a real situation in order for them to better understand what really happennded.
In the words "Imagine" or "picture this", there his nothing intrinsic in their meanings that automatically relate the pictured thing/event to a pure fantasy or a real event.
So, please, be more clear. Even people with good reading skill are having difficulties understanding if you are saying something about a real event or a make believe because you assume a word possess a fixed meaning when if fact it does not and does not help the reader to grasp the distinction you think it should.
I think its fine that the GM alouds to take turns simultaneosuly as long as he alouds the PCs to do it too. There are already presedents in the rules for these, mounted combat and familiars.
Humbly,
Yawar
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been of the mind that a good GM fudges small things here and there to make a fun game...and that a GREAT GM doesn't fudge at all and can still make a fun game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always been of the mind that a good GM fudges small things here and there to make a fun game...and that a GREAT GM doesn't fudge at all and can still make a fun game.
Great GM's sound a lot like "good" video games based on strict implementations of a game's ruleset. Such a game I have yet to play :P
Yes he can.
Why?
Its the privilege she has to offset the enormous amount of work and effort that has to be put into designing and running a campaign world. A player is only concerned about the immediate needs of their character. The GM has to worry about all the players' needs AND the story that they are experiencing.
So not only should it be allowed it should be accepted and expected as a tool of the GM if it adds in the enjoyment of all.
Like all tools though it needs to be used only for the right job.In this example that was given in the OP the best explanation is as stated that they are an 'elite' force who have worked together for many years to the point of being a well oiled machine. Rare. Memorable. Everything that you'd want as a player of a GM in an encounter.
Do the players wish their characters to do this as well?
Sure - tell them that they all have to give up the adventuring life, sign up to an army, work in a few years of campaigning, follow that up with a few years of banditry and eventually they can pick up the same feat. I'd say maybe 5-8 years out of campaign time should do it.
In the mean time assuming that they don't get killed in battle the overall campaign events will progress and probably find the campaign world ending due to the actions of those opponents who the players were going to thwart before they got side tracked into trying to get a feat ...If slavish adhesion to rules is the definition of having fun, then go and play Star Fleet Battles, or Risk or Monopoly.
A player is always entitled to voice their opinion about a rule or ruling but they should never have the belief that they can dictate what can and cant be done by the GM, which I believe is really the point that is trying to be made in the OP.
As an aside I have found many times in posts on these boards (or at least it SEEMS like it) that players are often complaining that the GM makes the NPCs do something that the PCs cant do, and that somehow its not fair.
IF it is a blatant misuse that causes a...
Basically this. We only differ in that if the group doesn't like what the GM is doing then that is a problem. A player or 2? Just STFU.
| 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.
It is even better when the GM and provide exciting and fun scenarios, and be consistent with the rules, without frustrating players because they think he is a cheater.
If fudging the rules annoys the players then maybe the players are not all that excited, and the GM has not done his job.
How many pcs died?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.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.
Better question-->How many players left the table upset, when they would have left happy had he followed the rules?
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?
No, I wouldn't. I'd probably be kicking myself for not asking the DM if we could simulate our simultaneous withdrawal and thus not had a problem with one PC being left behind because of the artifact of the turn order.
But then, I don't view RPGs as board games. They are games that are fluid and flexible in their rules, based on DM arbitration, because they are fundamentally simulations of fantasy action literature. The rules exist to provide structure to actions and guidelines for adjudication of the success of actions proposed by the players, but when that structure gets in the way of reasonable narrative - it should be put into a shape that supports the narrative.
Rules and narrative contradicting as an excuse, is no better than the stormwind fallacy. They can support each other.
Rules and narrative contradicting as an excuse, is no better than the stormwind fallacy. They can support each other.
No, I wouldn't. I'd probably be kicking myself for not asking the DM if we could simulate our simultaneous withdrawal and thus not had a problem with one PC being left behind because of the artifact of the turn order.
But then, I don't view RPGs as board games. They are games that are fluid and flexible in their rules, based on DM arbitration, because they are fundamentally simulations of fantasy action literature. The rules exist to provide structure to actions and guidelines for adjudication of the success of actions proposed by the players, but when that structure gets in the way of reasonable narrative - it should be put into a shape that supports the narrative.
And in that you are wrong. They may be able to support each other, but they may also be in conflict. I have no qualms in putting the narrative before the rules when that occurs.
Yes he can.
Why?
Its the privilege she has to offset the enormous amount of work and effort that has to be put into designing and running a campaign world.
That is an excuse. The work is not all that enourmous, and yes I am a GM. I also don't need to break rules intentionally. Not all GM's design campaign world, and even so if you can't run it with consistency then maybe stepping away from the GM chair is an option until you get the world in order, or you can find time to run the game without cheating due to lack of prep time.
A player is only concerned about the immediate needs of their character. The GM has to worry about all the players' needs AND the story that they are experiencing.
False. Most players also look at the campaign world. If he was worrying about the story, and the enjoyment of the players he would have to decide if is this an issue for the group. From there he makes his decision, but to just make a decision without thinking ahead is a sign of a bad GM.
So not only should it be allowed it should be accepted and expected as a tool of the GM if it adds in the enjoyment of all.
Like all tools though it needs to be used only for the right job.
"If it adds to the enjoyment" is the key here. In short if the group plays loose with rules, and is narrative based more so than other groups then yes, but if not then no.
In this example that was given in the OP the best explanation is as stated that they are an 'elite' force who have worked together for many years to the point of being a well oiled machine. Rare. Memorable. Everything that you'd want as a player of a GM in an encounter.
It has to be memorable in a good way, or it won't be wanted/desired.
Do the players wish their characters to do this as well?
Sure - tell them that they all have to give up the adventuring life, sign up to an army, work in a few years of campaigning, follow that up with a few years of banditry and eventually they can pick up the same feat. I'd say maybe 5-8 years out of campaign time should do it.
In the mean time assuming that they don't get killed in battle the overall campaign events will progress and probably find the campaign world ending due to the actions of those opponents who the players were going to thwart before they got side tracked into trying to get a feat ...
Or you could not let the NPC's break the rules or let the PC's do it also. 5-8 years. Feats are gained with levels. Surely that does not take 5-8 years in game time for most GM's. At best you are just on the "GM can do what he wants" bandwagon. Taking sides blindly is never a good thing.
If slavish adhesion to rules is the definition of having fun, then go and play Star Fleet Battles, or Risk or Monopoly.
If inconsistency, and random ignoring of the rules is fun then why have rules. Just play Mother May I with the GM.
A player is always entitled to voice their opinion about a rule or ruling but they should never have the belief that they can dictate what can and cant be done by the GM, which I believe is really the point that is trying to be made in the OP.
No that was not his point. I did explain in an earlier post that the word should was better. Of course the GM can do it, that is without question.
As an aside I have found many times in posts on these boards (or at least it SEEMS like it) that players are often complaining that the GM makes the NPCs do something that the PCs cant do, and that somehow its not fair.
IF it is a blatant misuse that causes a party wipe for the GMs sadistic satisfaction or its the GMPCs favorite tactic that the party cannot ever do (ie makes the players feel like they are only the supporting cast for the GMPCs main billing), then you can always vote with your feet and refuse to play in that GMs game.
I agree
Not really. It all comes down to much a GM much change/ignore the rules to make decent game or try, or if the GM is gifted enough to make the mechanics and story work together.
But more often that not if you forget the meta gaming aspects of dotting the 'i' and crossing the 't' and allowing said elite bandit group to perform this maneuver then you have found a memorable encounter.
But regardless it is the GMs responsibility to set things up for everyone to enjoy and this means the GM as well. If they have to pull a fudge in order to help the villain to escape for a later encounter then fine. If they have the villain neutralise the party to the point of total PC annihilation then not so good.
Fudging and giving a feat random extra abilities are related, but not in the same ballpark .
If the game requires cast iron rules interpretations in order to be 'fun' - contracts that force the GM to be unable to progress the adventure, then the player is not suited to this game. As mentioned before a GM-less game medium may be more appropriate for 'fun'.
Why would the rules prevent the story of a decent GM. The guys at Paizo make them work, and so do I. I can only suggest the GM learn to work within the rules instead of around them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm the DM, and the monsters can do whatever the heck I say they can do. What on Earth is "fudging" or "cheating" if I'm the DM, in terms of putting monsters together? If I wanted to kill all the PCs using things that are directly RAW and were within the XP budget, that'd be the most trivial thing in the world. I don't have to "cheat" or "fudge" to do that. D&D is inherently wildly asymmetrical, not only in the sense that the sides are playing with completely different pieces, but because one of the sides isn't even trying to win, he's trying to make things fun for everyone by providing a challenge. Can PCs spend all day damaging gear by touching it with their antennae? Can PCs split into two smaller PCs when they're hit? No. No they cannot. There are no character options that allow these things. Enforcing arbitrary symmetry at random in some places makes no sense to me at all.
If my goal is to make encounters fun and memorable for the PCs, it doesn't matter one bit whether the monsters can do things that the PCs can't, because that's already the game default. Did I for some reason decide it'd be cool to have an encounter where enemies move in unison? Cool, slap "Bandit Coordinated Movement (Ex)" onto the monster sheets and I'm done. All Bandit Coordinated Movement does is allow multiple creatures that have it to move on the same initiative and stagger any parts of any of their actions in between each other. Can players get Bandit Coordinated Movement? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.
Really, there's only a few things in the OP that I'd object to in the slightest. First, I think that it's better to just create a new ability if you want the bandits to be able to do that, rather than making really dubious use of an existing player option. Second, it seems a little wasteful to waste a striking and slightly transgressive gimmick like simultaneous movement on something like a pack of bandits, rather than something cool like a psychically linked hive mind or something. (I'm also not sure that communicating what the gimmick is is worth the relatively minor tactical interest it brings. If I did do it, I'd probably use it on psychically-linked twin opponents, since "two" is the number of figures I can literally move around the mat at the same time. In fact, I think I will do this.)
A group of rogue enemies that all have escape routes is probably interesting enough without the added gimmick, though. I'd also, in any circumstance, as the DM, try to make it clear by the action description what's going on and how the PCs can stop it: that the bandits are covering for each other. "He doesn't provoke? Why? It's a mystery!" is silly and stupid. With an appropriate knowledge check, I'd very clearly spell out the nature of their tactic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Breaking it down into parts.
A) Can the GM give all the NPCs the same teamwork feat?
Yes. This is the whole purpose of teamwork feats, in my opinion, they are like feats that only monsters can qualify for (Final Constrict). They are way more powerful and useful for NPCs than PCs generally. They're there for GMs to use. Yes player's can get some use to, but the primary use to me for teamwork feats is for NPCs.
B) Can the GM have them all move on the same initiative, in such a way as to maximize the use of the teamwork feat.
Yes. The PCs do this all the time, holding action so someone can buff them before they attack. No reason why the NPCs would not be able to do the same thing.
C) Can the GM have someone perform a half-move, hold action, let another NPC do a half-move, hold action, lather rinse repeat and then use all the held half-moves?
Yes. The PCs can do this as well. It's no different than the cleric doing a half-move and holding while he waits for the wounded monk to acrobatics over to him for a heal. Or the rogue moving up to an NPC and holding or readying his standard attack to attack when someone moves into flank with him.
D) Can the GM move grunt A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces?
No, that's a clear violation of the rules. The PCs cannot do this, NPCs cannot do this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM...
( •_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
...can do anything the GM wants.
I'm the DM, and the monsters can do whatever the heck I say they can do.
Is there a point to this? That is obvious.
If my goal is to make encounters fun and memorable for the PCs, it doesn't matter one bit whether the monsters can do things that the PCs can't, because that's already the game default.
It is not the default without special abilities. I can't even believe I had to explain that.
Did I for some reason decide it'd be cool to have an encounter where enemies move in unison? Cool, slap "Bandit Coordinated Movement (Ex)" onto the monster sheets and I'm done. All Bandit Coordinated Movement does is allow multiple creatures that have it to move on the same initiative and stagger any parts of any of their actions in between each other. Can players get Bandit Coordinated Movement? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.
Actually the correct answer is that it might matter. It depends on the group.
My point has been made. I am on to other threads.
I'm the DM, and the monsters can do whatever the heck I say they can do. What on Earth is "fudging" or "cheating" if I'm the DM, in terms of putting monsters together? If I wanted to kill all the PCs using things that are directly RAW and were within the XP budget, that'd be the most trivial thing in the world. I don't have to "cheat" or "fudge" to do that. D&D is inherently wildly asymmetrical, not only in the sense that the sides are playing with completely different pieces, but because one of the sides isn't even trying to win, he's trying to make things fun for everyone by providing a challenge. Can PCs spend all day damaging gear by touching it with their antennae? Can PCs split into two smaller PCs when they're hit? No. No they cannot. There are no character options that allow these things. Enforcing arbitrary symmetry at random in some places makes no sense to me at all.
If my goal is to make encounters fun and memorable for the PCs, it doesn't matter one bit whether the monsters can do things that the PCs can't, because that's already the game default. Did I for some reason decide it'd be cool to have an encounter where enemies move in unison? Cool, slap "Bandit Coordinated Movement (Ex)" onto the monster sheets and I'm done. All Bandit Coordinated Movement does is allow multiple creatures that have it to move on the same initiative and stagger any parts of any of their actions in between each other. Can players get Bandit Coordinated Movement? Nope. Does it matter? Nope.
Really, there's only a few things in the OP that I'd object to in the slightest. First, I think that it's better to just create a new ability if you want the bandits to be able to do that, rather than making really dubious use of an existing player option. Second, it seems a little wasteful to waste a striking and slightly transgressive gimmick like simultaneous movement on something like a pack of bandits, rather than something cool like a psychically linked hive mind or something. (I'm also not sure that...
If the GM wants to use monster abilities exclusive to monsters, then that's fine. Its expected that such abilities are often the exclusive domain of monsters.
If the GM wants to make up new rules to do something he feels should be doable, then that's fine. Everyone expects that there are aspects the game fails to cover adequately.
However, if the GM decides to make use of existing abilities that have clearly defined rules (especially those the player characters can utilize), he better damn well follow the rules that govern them! To do otherwise is a disservice to his players and, to many, is nothing short of outright cheating.
And yes, a GM CAN cheat. All he needs do is break the social contract that says he is to follow the same rules of the same game as his players (insofar as where they exist).
If the GM wants to use monster abilities exclusive to monsters, then that's fine. Its expected that such abilities are often the exclusive domain of monsters.
If the GM wants to make up new rules to do something he feels should be doable, then that's fine. Everyone expects that there are aspects the game fails to cover adequately.
However, if the GM decides to make use of existing abilities that have clearly defined rules (especially those the player characters can utilize), he better damn well follow the rules that govern them! To do otherwise is a disservice to his players and, to many, is nothing short of outright cheating.
And yes, a GM CAN cheat. All he needs do is break the social contract that says he is to follow the same rules of the same game as his players (insofar as where they exist).
What is the difference between a feat I made up, an undefined "magic power", or "Because I said do"? It all comes out the same.
As for this "social contract" there's no such thing. As a GM I am providing a service (the story) and the players are consuming it. If they don't like it they can complain and maybe I'll adjust or maybe I won't and they can shut up or leave.
It's a personal preference thing. The most important thing to me is the story and futzing with the rules for the sake of it is ok in my games.
"Friendly attitudes" like that are why such a GM won't have many players for long, Slade. You're absolutely right about one thing: players are free to pick their GMs.
I don't know many people who choose to play with GMs who change the rules/make them up for very long. There has to be a common basis for everyone involved in the game. Without it, everyone's just playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians.
"Friendly attitudes" like that are why such a GM won't have many players for long, Slade. You're absolutely right about one thing: players are free to pick their GMs.
I don't know many people who choose to play with GMs who change the rules/make them up for very long. There has to be a common basis for everyone involved in the game. Without it, everyone's just playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians.
Why wouldn't a GM with this attitude keep players? The main point is to create fun for everyone involved. If a GM notices his players are bored fighting a bunch of wolves, maybe those last 3 have a breath weapon, 30ft cone. Why? Who cares?
It's important to note that it's not the GM vs the players. In a situation like that, yes, there needs to be set rules. But at my table we're in it together, even the guy telling the story.
Sometimes RAW might win out, other times, rule of cool takes it. Not having the option though is incredibly dull and rigid IMO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't justify why such a wide group of folks would have all taken that feat.
I could buy a crack team of specially trained operatives, and I could buy some creche-bourne alien types, but just a random bunch of bandits?
That's just odd.
To the player it may seem to be just a random bunch of bandits, but the bandits sure don't feel that way. They are individuals with hopes and aspirations. They probably have been working the streets for their entire lives, and learned a few things along the way. With a teamwork feat amongst all of them it seems apparent that they learned that working together is the only way to survive this cruel cruel material plane...
And then along came a crazed bunch of sociopaths clothed head to toe in magical gear and killing instruments.
I can't justify why such a wide group of folks would have all taken that feat.
I could buy a crack team of specially trained operatives, and I could buy some creche-bourne alien types, but just a random bunch of bandits?
That's just odd.
Is it any more odd than the group of random heroes who all know the exact same language that the Oracle -just happens- to speak every time combat starts? I wouldn't think so.
Besides, there is definitely a way to get all of those bandits out of a particular PC's way just using the feat as written. Maybe not 30' out of his way...but out of his way nonetheless. I'm imagining this scenario was being used to prevent full attacks from the warrior, for instance. But just moving them out of threatened range is simple, and no, not one of them will need an acro check to do it. There is the whole case of 'at the same time', but it seems more a roleplay descriptive, not a ruling. It's like describing combat, and you say 'His sword flails out, knocking you off-balance for a moment before you quickly recover'. It's done to help the imagination, not to say 'OH HEY LOOK, I JUST CHEATED AND NOW YOU'VE GOT A -1 BECAUSE STAGGERED!'
ATTENTION RAVINGDORK!!! DID THIS HAPPEN?
move grunt A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces?
If not, then he broke no rules.
Having had a few players believe that I was, well, not following the rules in the past, when I was (I can be devious and find out of the box setups quite easily), I have a suggestion.
Ask the GM to explain to you how the NPC bandits used the feat, as you would like to understand how it works.
He may have followed all the rules, worked out where they were going to end up and simply moved the figurines, which seemed to be bending the rules or cheating to you.
ATTENTION RAVINGDORK!!! DID THIS HAPPEN?
If not, then he broke no rules.
move grunt A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces, then A 3 spaces, then B 3 spaces?
If all that movement is in the same round, than it is most certainly illegal. It is not traditionally possible to splice up your movement into fours segments like that. With double move and/or readied actions you can break it into two parts, but not four.
But for the sake of the discussion, assume you witnessed the GM sweep his hand across the board moving the minis simultaneously until the group was adjacent to the PCs. Only then does he do some fine tuning (picking up pieces that fell over in the sweep, re-aligning them to the grid, placing them into flanking, etc.).
Having had a few players believe that I was, well, not following the rules in the past, when I was (I can be devious and find out of the box setups quite easily), I have a suggestion.
Ask the GM to explain to you how the NPC bandits used the feat, as you would like to understand how it works.
He may have followed all the rules, worked out where they were going to end up and simply moved the figurines, which seemed to be bending the rules or cheating to you.
I have done exactly this, and in a polite and friendly manner as well.
It seems I've done it too often though, as no one likes it when I question the GM anymore.
I have done exactly this, and in a polite and friendly manner as well.
It seems I've done it too often though, as no one likes it when I question the GM anymore.
Is there any way for you to ask those questions after the gaming session?
I am assuming that the opposition to you asking questions has to do with the interruption of the flow of the game.
Is there any way for you to ask those questions after the gaming session?
I am assuming that the opposition to you asking questions has to do with the interruption of the flow of the game.
Initially that was the case, but I stopped doing that some time ago. Now I wait till the end of the game to speak with the GM.
The problem is though, everyone considers the game to be over, and I don't have half the attention from the GM or anyone else that I would have if it were brought up during the game. As a result, my questions aren't discussed/answered to any worthwhile degree.
I also forget the question by the time the game ends, sometimes. That is, until it becomes a problem again later--at which point I lose any credibility as everyone wonders why I'm bringing it up now and not the first time.
]To the player it may seem to be just a random bunch of bandits, but the bandits sure don't feel that way.Now it's a crack team of bandits that have worked together since childhood- and they've been in so many combat situations that this is the feat that they all have (versus, say, improved ability to sneak around and steal things)?
This is sketch. It can be justified, but I'd say it's sketchy as hell. If I wanted to run an encounter like this, I'd use one of the many story explanations as to why they actually work together and have this- "just a bunch of bandits" doesn't seem logical.
My point was:
"Don't question the GM, unless you are really into having him come up with a detailed backstory for every feat/archetype/spell/skill point the NPC's have."
But for the sake of the discussion, assume you witnessed the GM sweep his hand across the board moving the minis simultaneously until the group was adjacent to the PCs. Only then does he do some fine tuning (picking up pieces that fell over in the sweep, re-aligning them to the grid, placing them into flanking, etc.).
I feel like this may have been his dramatic way of showing what was happening even if it was an abstraction of the abstraction of combat. He may have actually been following the rules on paper, but giving a display for the board. But maybe he wasn't. And if it were me and I wanted to show how coordinated the team was, it would have been better to show how they moved with a leader, and then in groups, and had guy who always held up the rear, than having a mass charge. So that makes it seem odd, and atleast a little fishy.