|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can easily envision a game in which there's a single task resolution system for everything (combat, diplomacy, swimming, whatever) that's quick and easy, and that depends on a very limited number of variables -- and it would probably be a fun game. It would certainly be easier to master.
It's called FATE
Couldn't resist....
|
He could have toned the snark down from 11 to 3 and still accomplished that.
I think you gave up the right to complain about other people being snarky when you delivered this little gem:
How exactly is that different from story hour, then -- or, at best, "Mother May I"? To me, that's not really a "game" as much as a storytelling exercise.
Play nice, kids.
For what it's worth, I actually agree with both your central points. You're not in opposition to ought but eachother's snark.
I think the drawing the line of complexity versus simplicity is a fine topic, worthy of both your opinions. No more cattiness please.
Your ideal system consists of DM fiat? How exactly is that different from story hour, then -- or, at best, "Mother May I"? To me, that's not really a "game" as much as a storytelling exercise. If that's what you're after, more power to you, but again, there's no reason in the world to use a complex system like Pathfinder as a base for that.I'll admit, I'm more a fan of DM fiat and Rules lite systems. Too many rules limits options. In 2E it seemed whenever I wanted to try something 'cool', A special attack, a fancy move, anything creative and heroic... the DM gave me a chance to try it.
I agree; in earlier systems (1e/2e), there was more latitude in what you could legitimately claim your character was doing, provided the DM let you. But the question remains: for people who prefer that, why not simply use either of those editions as a starting point, or use any of the many other "rules-lite" systems out there? To me, starting with a massively rules-heavy system like Pathfinder -- one that's built on the very 3.0 assumption that the rules should cover everything -- and then trying to somehow turn it into a rules-lite sustem, seems like a needlessly aggravating (and ultimately futile) endeavor. I can understand Kthulhu's position a lot better -- he just starts with a retro-clone (lighter-rules) system and is good to go.
I think the complexity in Pathfinder is mostly a good thing. On the other hand, I draw the line at CRB+APG for the most part, as the stuff in the Ultimate books isn't to my taste. Maybe a couple of Feats out of those books (I probably use some w/o knowing it thanks to the PRD).
The real issue on PF complexity is: know your abilities. The GM has the added burden of knowing EVERYBODY'S abilities. So it's really helpful for the players to be organised and knowledgeable with regard to their own stuff. As well as basic things like combat mechanics, etc.
Regular reviews (as a GM) of the capacities of the PCs is always a good idea.
Finally, regular discussion and agreement about how to apply mechanics and how everyone at the table perceives them -- the RAI of your particular game -- is as important as the RAW of the bookset you use.
A build-forward view is good: know ahead of time how you plan to advance your character, and make sure you've kept your GM "in the loop" on your evolving set of powers as much as you do your evolving in-game goals for RP.
If GM and PCs hammer out details out-of-game and a little ahead-of-time, things do get smoother than if adjudication crops up constantly because no-one planned their next level up until it happened...
Happy gaming!
I think the complexity in Pathfinder is mostly a good thing. On the other hand, I draw the line at CRB+APG for the most part, as the stuff in the Ultimate books isn't to my taste. Maybe a couple of Feats out of those books (I probably use some w/o knowing it thanks to the PRD).
The real issue on PF complexity is: know your abilities. The GM has the added burden of knowing EVERYBODY'S abilities. So it's really helpful for the players to be organised and knowledgeable with regard to their own stuff. As well as basic things like combat mechanics, etc.
Regular reviews (as a GM) of the capacities of the PCs is always a good idea.
Finally, regular discussion and agreement about how to apply mechanics and how everyone at the table perceives them -- the RAI of your particular game -- is as important as the RAW of the bookset you use.
A build-forward view is good: know ahead of time how you plan to advance your character, and make sure you've kept your GM "in the loop" on your evolving set of powers as much as you do your evolving in-game goals for RP.
If GM and PCs hammer out details out-of-game and a little ahead-of-time, things do get smoother than if adjudication crops up constantly because no-one planned their next level up until it happened...
Happy gaming!
The nice thing about E8 is, you can allow just about every option out there and it never gets past somewhat game-breaking.
As for the DM-fiat-vs-rules-for-everything this thread has become: I want rules for everything, but don't need anything more complex than an ability check to cover "everything." DM fiat can take up the rest, but as a DM I find that having a standardized rules system to base my fiat on is pretty cool too.
I agree; in earlier systems (1e/2e), there was more latitude in what you could legitimately claim your character was doing, provided the DM let you. But the question remains: for people who prefer that, why not simply use either of those editions as a starting point, or use any of the many other "rules-lite" systems out there? To me, starting with a massively rules-heavy system like Pathfinder -- one that's built on the very 3.0 assumption that the rules should cover everything -- and then trying to somehow turn it into a rules-lite sustem, seems like a needlessly aggravating (and ultimately futile) endeavor. I can understand Kthulhu's position a lot better -- he just starts with a retro-clone (lighter-rules) system and is good to go.
Well, speaking only for myself here... We HAVE played 2E for about 15 years or more. However, as with all systems, there were a lot of things 'wrong' about it, so we decided to give this a try about a year ago.
There are some things about this system I LOVE... (initiative, multiclassing, standard xp charts for everyone... etc. etc) .... and some things I really DON'T care for. (Attacks of Opportunity,Excessive Feat pre requisites, over reliance on the 'chess board')
We have fun with both systems, but with the utter disaster that happened to Faerun around 4th edition, that's not as much fun to play in anymore, and this game has support, specialized Minis, and a fun forum to chat on.
And most of all, ADVENTURE PATHS!!!! When we were 18, we could play all night long, 24 hours in character... Our DM could write 6 year long Epic Sagas for a campaign... Now between jobs, families, and other commitments, pre-fabs are more ideal for everyone.
2E has no support at all... and the lore of Forgotten Realms has been gutted beyond recognition... Soooooo System switch :)
|
|
The fun thing about a lighter system is that it's VERY easy to convert stuff. I'm pretty sure that with the Sword & Wizardry: Complete Rules, a copy of the Monster Book, and a copy of the Tome of Horrors, I could run a S&W version of any Pathfinder AP with practically all conversion done on-the-fly. Some things might not match up exactly (lots of monster substitutions, I'm sure), but the essence of the AP would still be there.
Actually the one example about disarming the potion is rules legal with nothing. you just will want improved disarm so you don't provoke an aoo on you aoo which is a bit confusing. Which if they are doing something like a potion with nothing in their hands they might not threaten you.
Actually the one example about disarming the potion is rules legal with nothing. you just will want improved disarm so you don't provoke an aoo on you aoo which is a bit confusing. Which if they are doing something like a potion with nothing in their hands they might not threaten you.
Using a whip with a bit of range, your pretty good against AOO anyway ^_^
Disarm may have been a bad example.
Improved Whip mastery: Weapon focus, Whip Mastery, BAB +5
You can also use a whip to grasp an unattended Small or Tiny object within your whip’s reach and pull that object into your square..... Further, you can use the whip to grasp onto an object within your whip’s reach, using 5 feet of your whip as if it were a grappling hook, allowing you to use the rest of your whip to swing on like a rope.
Greater Whip Mastery: Whip mastery, Improved Whip Mastery, Weapon Focus, BAB +8....
Lets you 'grapple' with a whip....
1st of all... I guess, 'mastery' doesn't REALLY mean MASTERY does it..
Secondly, my bard has to be level 7 and spend nearly ALL his feats just to swing from a ledge?!? 11th before he can 'grapple someone?!?!
These are the things that tropes are BUILT around... When I picked an archaelogist archtype or a zorro-esque bandit type... these are the tricks I EXPECT to try. Finding out they are 11th level feats was a serious fun-drainer...
These feats didn't need to exist. These rules didn't need to exist. Like Cranewings Gunslinger example, somethings don't need powers to be 'earned'.
Yeah, but Hitdice:
It isn't a question about the stuff from the Ultimate books breaking the game... I just really dislike a lot of what got published in them.
And I also enjoy mid-high level play, so E8 is not an acceptable solution, for me.
In short, my adherence to CRB/APG is not based on complexity issues, but stylistic ones.
XD
|
I agree; in earlier systems (1e/2e), there was more latitude in what you could legitimately claim your character was doing, provided the DM let you. But the question remains: for people who prefer that, why not simply use either of those editions as a starting point, or use any of the many other "rules-lite" systems out there? To me, starting with a massively rules-heavy system like Pathfinder -- one that's built on the very 3.0 assumption that the rules should cover everything -- and then trying to somehow turn it into a rules-lite sustem, seems like a needlessly aggravating (and ultimately futile) endeavor. I can understand Kthulhu's position a lot better -- he just starts with a retro-clone (lighter-rules) system and is good to go.Well, speaking only for myself here... We HAVE played 2E for about 15 years or more. However, as with all systems, there were a lot of things 'wrong' about it, so we decided to give this a try about a year ago.
There are some things about this system I LOVE... (initiative, multiclassing, standard xp charts for everyone... etc. etc) .... and some things I really DON'T care for. (Attacks of Opportunity,Excessive Feat pre requisites, over reliance on the 'chess board')
We have fun with both systems, but with the utter disaster that happened to Faerun around 4th edition, that's not as much fun to play in anymore, and this game has support, specialized Minis, and a fun forum to chat on.
And most of all, ADVENTURE PATHS!!!! When we were 18, we could play all night long, 24 hours in character... Our DM could write 6 year long Epic Sagas for a campaign... Now between jobs, families, and other commitments, pre-fabs are more ideal for everyone.
2E has no support at all... and the lore of Forgotten Realms has been gutted beyond recognition... Soooooo System switch :)
This is a pretty fair perspective. Add to that an inherent compulsion to tinker!
Pathfinder has a lot going for it, but Kirth is not entirely wrong - I would like to end up with something closer to 2nd Edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+ The thing is, almost every argument I hear against "retro" D&D (and similar games) seems to be based in a deep-seated and inherent distrust of the GM. I mean, I've had a GM or two that I wasn't perfectly happy with, but damn....if you have THAT MUCH inherent distrust of anyone that sits behind the screen, maybe roleplaying games aren't for you...even in rules-heavy games, if the GM wants to screw you over, he can.I agree, Kthulhu. The idea of GM fiat seems to scare some people, as if the rules somehow protect them from some kind of ravenous pack of starving GMs intent on devouring their fun.
The phrase "lack of consistency" is what is scary. Now some people don't care about that, but if I can jump a 40 foot chasm one day I expect to be able to do it later. The GM forgetting he allowed it kills immersion for me, and makes it hard to determine what your character can do. I also want to be able to play with any group, and know my character is basically going to work the same way. I know everyone has house rules, but I should not feel like I am playing the same game every time I sit at a different table. Most GM's that make bad rulings don't do so intentionally, but that does not make it any less aggravating. There are some GM's I trust, and some I don't. I know I have thought about some making changes that should not have been made. Unlike some GM's I have never had the "I am in charge so there is no discussion" attitude. These are the types that make it bad for the rest of us, especially when they are messing with things they should not be messing with due to lack of understanding of how things work, and/or the ability to adjust to the group.
|
if I can jump a 40 foot chasm one day I expect to be able to do it later. The GM forgetting he allowed it kills immersion for me
Everybody has a bad day...
But let me ask you, how does a GM that sets a DC for jumping said chasm at say 15 one session, then forgetting that he set it at 15 and sets it at say 20 the next session (under roughly the same circumstances as the first) any different than the GM that just makes a ruling and forgets?
The rules for setting DC's are not set in stone. It is up to the GM to set them at what he wants. How is this not GM Fiat?
if I can jump a 40 foot chasm one day I expect to be able to do it later. The GM forgetting he allowed it kills immersion for meEverybody has a bad day...
But let me ask you, how does a GM that sets a DC for jumping said chasm at say 15 one session, then forgetting that he set it at 15 and sets it at say 20 the next session (under roughly the same circumstances as the first) any different than the GM that just makes a ruling and forgets?
The rules for setting DC's are not set in stone. It is up to the GM to set them at what he wants. How is this not GM Fiat?
That was just as example. The main point was that GM's forgetting rulings is annoying, especially when the book has the issue covered already. Had they just followed the book it never would have been an issue. The chasm can be replaced with any other "on the spot" change.
if I can jump a 40 foot chasm one day I expect to be able to do it later. The GM forgetting he allowed it kills immersion for meEverybody has a bad day...
But let me ask you, how does a GM that sets a DC for jumping said chasm at say 15 one session, then forgetting that he set it at 15 and sets it at say 20 the next session (under roughly the same circumstances as the first) any different than the GM that just makes a ruling and forgets?
The rules for setting DC's are not set in stone. It is up to the GM to set them at what he wants. How is this not GM Fiat?
I'm sure someone is going to come in here whining in a second that there are hard and fast rules for setting jump distances. I'm going to interupt them and say that, that is obviously not your point.
It is basically the point I've been making forever - that if I get to pick how hard a monster is to fight by arbitrarily changing its stats, giving it levels and templates, or just picking a harder one, the rules literally make NO difference. If I don't like the way a game feels because you rules lawyered up and complained until the CR = APL +1 became easier, next time I'll just make the monster harder. Maybe I'll compound that by awarding less experience because I want a certain flow.
If I give a player a -4 and they whine until it gets taken away, I can just give the monster a +4. There. Fair.
So why cry and spoil the game?
Actually the whiner would have hopefully been smart enough to say that in the exact same situation the difficulty of any task should be the same. That is what I would have said if the jump DC was the actual issue anyway. :)
|
|
That was just as example... The chasm can be replaced with any other "on the spot" change.
Exactly, and my point remains the same. A GM sets the DC's, determines bonuses/penalties, etc. and does so arbitrarily (and thus, may forget previous rulings)...
Sure the book gives guidelines and examples, but that's just what they are; guidelines and examples and not hard fast rules. It is still up to the GM to decide what your character's actual chances of doing something are...
That was just as example... The chasm can be replaced with any other "on the spot" change.Exactly, and my point remains the same. A GM sets the DC's, determines bonuses/penalties, etc. and does so arbitrarily (and thus, may forget previous rulings)...
Sure the book gives guidelines and examples, but that's just what they are; guidelines and examples and not hard fast rules. It is still up to the GM to decide what your character's actual chances of doing something are...
I guess my point is still failing. I should not have used a skill example since modifiers tend to skew things, with rules. I was referring more to hard and fast situations that rely less on cirsumstancial modifiers where a GM, for whatever reason changes something, and then forgets it.
The book has rules. They are not guidelines. Rule 0 allows you to change the rules. That does not mean the printed words are not rules.
edit:Other than WBL, and the magic item creation rules, which are called out as guidelines the other rules are actually rules. As an example managers can often change or ignore certain rules. That does not mean what they are changing or ignoring was not a rule. It just means that due to his position he can alter things, and make new rules. The GM is the same way, except that he can change any rule he wants.
|
|
I was referring more to hard and fast situations that rely less on cirsumstancial modifiers where a GM, for whatever reason changes something, and then forgets it.
Such as??
I mean even a rules lite game such as 2nd edition has hard fast rules that when ignored by the DM can make players unhappy...
In most cases, DM Fiat happened when no such rule existed. And in the case of earlier editions of D&D, the execution of things that now fall under the use of skills were a big part. But even now with skills in the mix, DCs and bonuses/penalties still leave it to the GM to decide success or failure...
The book has rules. They are not guidelines.
I was referring to the lists of typical DCs as being guidelines and not a hard fast rules (in most cases)...
I was referring more to hard and fast situations that rely less on cirsumstancial modifiers where a GM, for whatever reason changes something, and then forgets it.Such as??
I mean even a rules lite game such as 2nd edition has hard fast rules that when ignored by the DM can make players unhappy...
In most cases, DM Fiat happened when no such rule existed. And in the case of earlier editions of D&D, the execution of things that now fall under the use of skills were a big part. But even now with skills in the mix, DCs and bonuses/penalties still leave it to the GM to decide success or failure...
The book has rules. They are not guidelines.I was referring to the lists of typical DCs as being guidelines and not a hard fast rules (in most cases)...
Given level based skill progression, the lists of typical DCs become a problem. If climbing to the dungeon entry is a challenge for a 15th level character with ranks in the skill, then a character with no ranks in the skill of equal level has much smaller chance of success. At level 18, that divide can't be overcome by natural 20 given an average str score.
This can work with an encounter tailored to individual players, but relies on handwavey DM fiat: Fred the Fighter has to roll on his climb skill to get to the ledge, but once he throws down a rope anyone without the skill can just, like, climb up there. This isn't really the thread for it, but this is why I'm hopeful about the bounded accuracy in D&D Next.
I was referring more to hard and fast situations that rely less on cirsumstancial modifiers where a GM, for whatever reason changes something, and then forgets it.Such as??
I mean even a rules lite game such as 2nd edition has hard fast rules that when ignored by the DM can make players unhappy...
In most cases, DM Fiat happened when no such rule existed. And in the case of earlier editions of D&D, the execution of things that now fall under the use of skills were a big part. But even now with skills in the mix, DCs and bonuses/penalties still leave it to the GM to decide success or failure...
Just to be clear here since I seem my point is still not getting across. The player is in the exact same situation, but still fails when he would have succeeded before or he succeeded when he would have failed in the previos session. As an example, the GM knows that if ____ X is allowed his 3 hours of hard work will be ruined by some clever idea or the GM knows that he if he does not arbitrarily say "you pass" the rest of the party will be in dire straight.
Later(most likely a couple of session) the same situations pops up, but it is not as important for whatever reason so the GM sticks to the book. The player is not wondering why the results were different.
Maybe I wanted to use a spell to do take out a support beam, but the GM said material X is too resistant to this spell for it to work.
Weeks later maybe myself or another player had mental lapse, and it works. Then I remember that it did not work before.
The book has rules. They are not guidelines.I was referring to the lists of typical DCs as being guidelines and not a hard fast rules (in most cases)...
If you mean skill DC's the GM can always chalk it up to circumstance modifiers, which is what is usually is.
If the GM wants the climb check to be 30 instead of 20 he can just say the wall is enchanted or some other macguffin to explain it, if the players investigate the wall, and want to know why it is so hard to climb. Maybe it resets automatically so dispelling it won't work. :)Skill DC's can almost always can always be boosted in some way.
|
|
Just to be clear here since I seem my point is still not getting across. The player is in the exact same situation, but still fails when he would have succeeded before or he succeeded when he would have failed in the previos session.
I get that, I do. You want consistency from session to session and game to game. But from my experience, I have yet to see a GM that remembers (or remembers where he wrote down) every single situational modifier/DC that has ever comes up in play...
YMMV...
And the sentence that I picked up on in your original post was:
I also want to be able to play with any group, and know my character is basically going to work the same way.
Perhaps I read too much into it, but I took that to mean you prefer codified rules over GM Fiat because it somehow allows you more perceived control over your character (and thus giving you the impression of consistency). To which I claim that is only an illusion of control and consistency because the GM still has total control over the modifiers...
That said however, if this was an incorrect assumption on my part, I apologize...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally with Kirth on the obstacle of over-simplification...
What I'd really like to see is a game where characters can actually role-play combat. That is to say, valid in-character decisions should never be locked off behind a feat — feats should enhance potential character actions, not enable them.
Much of the game's complexity issues owe to this. The constant refrain of "You can't do x action because you didn't choose y feat" really grates on me. Add to this the conditions and modifiers that overlap conceptually but not mechanically. I'd love for these to be collapsed down to a slightly more generic system.
Heck yeah.
M&M went withthe idea that certain actions were 'challenging' or 'stunts,' and that you could either attempt it at a -4 (or more) to the role), *or* take a feat to eliminate that penalty.
So you could attempt to 'fast stealth' but would get a penalty, unless you bought a feat to be extra good at 'fast stealth.'
Applying that to a combat action, you can turn 'improved trip' (tripping without provoking an AoO) into an action that *anyone* can attempt, by allowing them to take -4 to the attack roll to 'trip defensively' *or* to take the feat that allows them to trip without provoking automatically. Do the same with unarmed attacks (penalty to the roll to avoid provoking, allowing anyone to attempt Improved Unarmed Strike), disarm, spring attack (can attempt, just with a penalty), etc. could open up a ton of 'feats' to someone willing to risk the penalty.
Fighters, IMO, should also have always had an array of fancy weapon strikes that impose conditions, or even inflict small amounts of ability damage, like blindless/dazzled, nauseated/sickened, stunned/staggered, lamed, etc. preferably staged effects, so that, on a great hit, they inflict the larger condition, but on a less impressive hit, they still manage to impose the weaker condition (dazzled, sickened, etc.).
Spellcasters should not be the only ones that can impose 'debuff' conditions on targets, and it shouldn't be fenced off by critical hits and high level feats, like 'Bleeding Critical' or whatever. IMO, Fighters and Rogues should be particularly adept at such effects (some sort of bonus to 'attack stunt' options), with Barbarians, Monks, Paladins and Rangers also be able to make use of these options.
Just to be clear here since I seem my point is still not getting across. The player is in the exact same situation, but still fails when he would have succeeded before or he succeeded when he would have failed in the previos session.I get that, I do. You want consistency from session to session and game to game. But from my experience, I have yet to see a GM that remembers (or remembers where he wrote down) every single situational modifier/DC that has ever comes up in play...
YMMV...
And the sentence that I picked up on in your original post was:
I also want to be able to play with any group, and know my character is basically going to work the same way.Perhaps I read too much into it, but I took that to mean you prefer codified rules over GM Fiat because it somehow allows you more perceived control over your character (and thus giving you the impression of consistency). To which I claim that is only an illusion of control and consistency because the GM still has total control over the modifiers...
That said however, if this was an incorrect assumption on my part, I apologize...
I understand that every group has house rules, including my group. That means some things will change, but I don't want to have to rebuild the character or make it so different that I feel like I am playing a different character.
As to the first part the situation I am thinking of would not have modifiers so there would be no illusion. I guess I am also saying that if a GM is going to change something they should just change it. I don't something to work one way this week, and another way next week. That is when GM Fiat gets annoying. It is not that I have an issue with house rules or GM Fiat, but when it starts to feel like "just because" my immersion in the world starts to falter.
|
|
the situation I am thinking of would not have modifiers so there would be no illusion.
If one has a GM that takes grapple or turning undead for example (or any feat, or any skill for that matter) and changes the way they mechanically work from session to session, one is probably looking at a bad GM...
Unless you can give me a specific example of a situation you are thinking of in which a GM would change a hard fast rule via GM Fiat alone (and not just a house ruling) that would have no modifiers, and just be considered inconsistent at GMing as opposed to just plan poor at GMing, then yes, I'm afraid you've lost me as to your finer point (that is to say beyond the whole consistency thing)...
|
|
I'm totally with Kirth on the obstacle of over-simplification...
What I'd really like to see is a game where characters can actually role-play combat. That is to say, valid in-character decisions should never be locked off behind a feat — feats should enhance potential character actions, not enable them.
Much of the game's complexity issues owe to this. The constant refrain of "You can't do x action because you didn't choose y feat" really grates on me. Add to this the conditions and modifiers that overlap conceptually but not mechanically. I'd love for these to be collapsed down to a slightly more generic system.
Heck yeah.
M&M went withthe idea that certain actions were 'challenging' or 'stunts,' and that you could either attempt it at a -4 (or more) to the role), *or* take a feat to eliminate that penalty.
So you could attempt to 'fast stealth' but would get a penalty, unless you bought a feat to be extra good at 'fast stealth.'
Applying that to a combat action, you can turn 'improved trip' (tripping without provoking an AoO) into an action that *anyone* can attempt, by allowing them to take -4 to the attack roll to 'trip defensively' *or* to take the feat that allows them to trip without provoking automatically. Do the same with unarmed attacks (penalty to the roll to avoid provoking, allowing anyone to attempt Improved Unarmed Strike), disarm, spring attack (can attempt, just with a penalty), etc. could open up a ton of 'feats' to someone willing to risk the penalty.
Fighters, IMO, should also have always had an array of fancy weapon strikes that impose conditions, or even inflict small amounts of ability damage, like blindless/dazzled, nauseated/sickened, stunned/staggered, lamed, etc. preferably staged effects, so that, on a great hit, they inflict the larger condition, but on a less impressive hit, they still manage to impose the weaker condition (dazzled, sickened, etc.).
Well said! One thing that always bothered me about feats is the limitation of use. Why can't an untrained character attempt a Power Attack at a further penalty?
To the final point, I very much agree, with a couple of caveats. First that any such system should be simple to use at the table, and not get bogged down in calculations or meta-tactics.
Second, I actually think critical hits (at least, a natural 20) models the ability to take advantage of a situation to deadly effect quite nicely. It avoids the meta-gaming of point or use/day mechanics, while maintaining some balance as an otherwise passive ability. I would be more inclined to have a special random critical hit table, with the save DC calculated by 1/2 the attackers BAB + Str or Dex. Weapon Specialization would also add to the DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to be able to play with any group, and know my character is basically going to work the same way.Perhaps I read too much into it, but I took that to mean you prefer codified rules over GM Fiat because it somehow allows you more perceived control over your character (and thus giving you the impression of consistency). To which I claim that is only an illusion of control and consistency because the GM still has total control over the modifiers...
That said however, if this was an incorrect assumption on my part, I apologize...
I can understand wanting a 'consistency' and 'control' over your character... that could change based on house rules...
Granted... I have never taken a character and wandered from DM to DM... but I can understand that some people have.
If I planned out improved disarm, improved trip, mobility, and a couple of other Feats specifically to combat AoO.... and get to a game where the DM doesn't USE AoO's... I'd be annoyed. Granted i HATE AoO... but I'd want to adjust my character accordingly and ditch all the useless feats...
Codified rules are good. That's what having a 'System' is all about. It's just a debate on the AMOUNT of rules that are covered by that system ;)
the situation I am thinking of would not have modifiers so there would be no illusion.If one has a GM that takes grapple or turning undead for example (or any feat, or any skill for that matter) and changes the way they mechanically work from session to session, one is probably looking at a bad GM...
Unless you can give me a specific example of a situation you are thinking of in which a GM would change a hard fast rule via GM Fiat alone (and not just a house ruling) that would have no modifiers, and just be considered inconsistent at GMing as opposed to just plan poor at GMing, then yes, I'm afraid you've lost me as to your finer point (that is to say beyond the whole consistency thing)...
Can I use spell X to destroy that wooden beam. Yes. (insta-defeats the challenge)
Weeks later:same situation
GM:That won't work so try something else
PC:Why not? It worked before.
GM:Because that is the way it is.
I do agree that some feats should not be feats, and that some things that provoke such as some AoO's need not provoke.
Power Attack I like as a feat. Actually I like it as a bonus feat for full BAB characters. It would make the others pay to play if they have to spend a feat for it
As for CMB based attacks I think trying to grapple someone holding a sword should provoke, but disarming them should give you a penalty to the attack unless you have a feat that removes or reduces the penalty. If you have a strength score of X you should not have to make a strength check for certain things. Of course we might need a chart with examples of what people with certain ability scores can do without effort, but that is ok.
As an example if I have a strength of 24(giant level strength) I would not even bother with a roll for knocking a wooden door off of its hinges.
Some things just should not need rolls at all. For the purpose of this post, taking 10 is a roll. If something is at the edge of what your attributes can accomplish then rolling makes sense.
|
|
Can I use spell X to destroy that wooden beam. Yes. (insta-defeats the challenge)
Weeks later:same situation
GM:That won't work so try something else
PC:Why not? It worked before.
GM:Because that is the way it is.
But as "thejeff" stated a little upthread, that isn't being inconsistent, that is just plain bad GMing, and codified rules won't save you from that...
As I've said before, everybody forgets things. So in your example, a good GM would have have said either what "thejeff" suggested above, or something to the effect of "Oh you're absolutely right, I forgot, my bad. The wooden beam is destroyed by your spell!"
Now, if that same GM is constantly forgetting things of this nature, then I can see it ruining your immersion, but if it only happens once in a while, that's not inconsistent, that's human and should be overlooked IMHO...
But isn't that the purpose of the Take 10 rules?As an example if I have a strength of 24(giant level strength) I would not even bother with a roll for knocking a wooden door off of its hinges.
Some things just should not need rolls at all. For the purpose of this post, taking 10 is a roll. If something is at the edge of what your attributes can accomplish then rolling makes sense.
No it is not. The take 10 rules are for when you don't want to take a chance at failing something you think you can reasonably pass. What I am suggesting is not rolling at all. In short the task is so easy that you can just do it. As an example if troll and an old lady had an opposed strength roll the troll might lost. My idea would just have the troll win. He would not even have to roll dice.
You're either going to need a comprehensive list of cases where you don't need rolls for each level of every stat or you need to calculate it from known difficulties. Why not just piggy back off the existing DCs and Take 10 rules for this?
That is not true at all.
example:
10: pick up 50 pound backpack......
18: lift 300 pound over your head, kick heavy wooden door in
24: Lift 600 pounds over your heat, kick in steel door.
Now of course some GM judgement is needed, but a basic sample list would take care of it.
Can I use spell X to destroy that wooden beam. Yes. (insta-defeats the challenge)
Weeks later:same situation
GM:That won't work so try something else
PC:Why not? It worked before.
GM:Because that is the way it is.But as "thejeff" stated a little upthread, that isn't being inconsistent, that is just plain bad GMing, and codified rules won't save you from that...
As I've said before, everybody forgets things. So in your example, a good GM would have have said either what "thejeff" suggested above, or something to the effect of "Oh you're absolutely right, I forgot, my bad. The wooden beam is destroyed by your spell!"
Now, if that same GM is constantly forgetting things of this nature, then I can see it ruining your immersion, but if it only happens once in a while, that's not inconsistent, that's human and should be overlooked IMHO...
I never claimed it stopped all bad GM'ing. Even good GM's make bad calls at times, but the more codifying is used the easier it is to GM, and to have examples of that the game intends for us to do.
My above example was not about forgetting. It was just bad GM'ing, and some GM's hide behind the rules. By making their bad GM'ing more visible it either helps them get better or they can be replaced.I was also talking about constantly changing rules. One error is not going to make me not want someone to GM for me.
|
|
No it is not. The take 10 rules are for when you don't want to take a chance at failing something you think you can reasonably pass. What I am suggesting is not rolling at all. In short the task is so easy that you can just do it. As an example if troll and an old lady had an opposed strength roll the troll might lost. My idea would just have the troll win. He would not even have to roll dice.
I agree. For some things it just does not make sense to even roll because no amount of luck could EVER cause one to fail or at the other end, succeed at some thing...
SO why bother to roll for it?
|
|
I never claimed it stopped all bad GM'ing. Even good GM's make bad calls at times
In your original post that started our little tangent here, you were replying to what "Kthuluh" posted...
The idea of GM fiat seems to scare some people, as if the rules somehow protect them from some kind of ravenous pack of starving GMs intent on devouring their fun.
You posted:
The phrase "lack of consistency" is what is scary.
Further within that same post:
The GM forgetting he allowed it kills immersion for me, and makes it hard to determine what your character can do.
Everything I've posted up to this point has been based upon that original post of yours...
So when you say:
My above example was not about forgetting. It was just bad GM'ing, and some GM's hide behind the rules.
You must forgive my confusion...
No it is not. The take 10 rules are for when you don't want to take a chance at failing something you think you can reasonably pass. What I am suggesting is not rolling at all. In short the task is so easy that you can just do it. As an example if troll and an old lady had an opposed strength roll the troll might lost. My idea would just have the troll win. He would not even have to roll dice.I agree. For some things it just does not make sense to even roll because no amount of luck could EVER cause one to fail or at the other end, succeed at some thing...
SO why bother to roll for it?
My point exactly. :)
RAW answer-->The rules say roll. That old lady might get a nat 20, and the troll might roll a 1.
Without "the book" saying "don't make the troll roll", many people will insist on that roll. I used to be one of them. :)
|
|
but the more codifying is used the easier it is to GM, and to have examples of that the game intends for us to do.
I couldn't disagree more. I'm willing to PLAY pathfinder. I'm not willing to GM it. But I'd happily GM a BRP game, or S&W, or any of a dozen other systems that aren't drowning in their own rules.
|
|
I agree with thejeff about the opposed contests. In the specific example, though, the troll should probably be getting a +4 bonus for being Large. It's probably best in such cases to just assume that everyone is taking 10.
I tend to ask my players to write down their "take 10" numbers on every common skill. Unless the players ask for a roll, I just go with those numbers. I'm also not opposed to allowing "take 10" while threatened or distracted.