Thank you nosig and Big Norse Wolf. The druid was playing a pack lord, so we'll see more critters.
FWIW, the pack lord druid archetype is not legal for PFS play.
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
The RAW allows the invention of such a trick -- where's the issue?Never ever leave behind something on a character sheet/chronicle sheet that you couldn't reasonably presume would be honored by most/all other GMs around the world.
Does this mean you wouldn't honor the "Poop on Command" trick that one of my St. Louis players wanted listed on his Chronicle? He used it as a "push" the whole session to great (comedic) effect, and asked if he could teach it to his Animal Companion as a permanent trick. I set a DC of 25; one natural 20 later, I felt compelled to sign off on it on his Chronicle.
I know the "Expect Table Variances" line gets thrown around a lot (usually by me!), but I would also expect that a GM would take into consideration a GM signing off on something on a Chronicle also.
That's not entirely true. You can set your pet to attack and move into flank yourself after. It's better economy of action.True, but if you have a move 20 and the pet has 50 you might get all flanked up THIS round, to full attack NEXT round, rather than have to spend a couple moving into place.
I'd also suggest that if we are going to break tricks down into 'subtricks' (ie Flanking is a subtrick of attack) and that each and every single decision the pet can make now 'has to be a separate trick', then pets are going to need a lot more trick slots.
Oh I totally agree...I don't think flanking should be a trick at all, it's really just an attack where you decide position...not even a maneuver.
That being said if a dm forced me to treat it as such, I would simply flank with my AC rather than the other way around.
|
|
The RAW allows the invention of such a trick -- where's the issue?Never ever leave behind something on a character sheet/chronicle sheet that you couldn't reasonably presume would be honored by most/all other GMs around the world.Does this mean you wouldn't honor the "Poop on Command" trick that one of my St. Louis players wanted listed on his Chronicle? He used it as a "push" the whole session to great (comedic) effect, and asked if he could teach it to his Animal Companion as a permanent trick. I set a DC of 25; one natural 20 later, I felt compelled to sign off on it on his Chronicle.
I know the "Expect Table Variances" line gets thrown around a lot (usually by me!), but I would also expect that a GM would take into consideration a GM signing off on something on a Chronicle also.
That would be great, and if a GM signs off on something on a chronicle, and the rules support the signing, then yeah...
But if my interpretation of the rules does not support what that GM signed off on, then I can't consider it.
|
That being said if a dm forced me to treat it as such, I would simply flank with my AC rather than the other way around.
Whereas I would rather hold up gameplay and insist the GM did his/her job rather than impart punitive measures on the basis of personal bias and taste.
The trick says 'attack'. Conversations about whther the animal would or would not flank are inappropriate on the basis that this isn't covered by RAW. Things need to be clear cut and the rules simply state the player can command the animal to attack, and by extension the player gets to run with how that plays out.
There is already another 'animal nature' trick in play and that is the extra trick required to get the animal to attack unnatural etc. If the intent is to insist there needs to be a 'tactical' trick that gives animals the sense to flank, fight defensively etc etc then by all means I think we could have a discussion on it, but until thats RAW, inisisting it be done is out of order.
What if my Animal has the Teamwork Feat Precise Strike but no Flank 'trick'? Creates a problem then because the animal apparently doesn't know the trick to get in place first to use its Feat - or do we now grant the animal a free trick? Of thats the case we could then aplpy the same free trick argument to various Feats.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I don't think flanking should be a trick at all, it's really just an attack where you decide position.
Well, that's rather the point, isn't it?
None of the other tricks are that specific. You get to say "Attack!", or optionally "Attack that guy!". Saying "Attack him from that position" is getting into the fringe areas.
|
|
Indeed the other tricks remain very very broad indeed, and are not limited to a set of 'most basic only' applications, so why call Attack out for special treatment? - especially when we already know there's a raft of creatures that fight as flankers by default.
On the same point, does that suggest that a GM cannot also play the mobs the party encounters in an intelligent way, and that they are restricted or should be limited to only taking the most direct path forward and attacking?
What's good for the goose..
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
As I said - it's getting well into the fringe areas.
Some companion animals do attack tactically. Others do not. But in the absence of an explicit rule saying which animals are in which group, and under which conditions, it's at best a GM decision. In my home game I'd almost certainly allow a wolf to flank, especially if it's master had given it the INT 3 boost to allow better master/companion communication.
In PFS, though, I'm not quite so sure. I'm not prepared to accept the position that anything not explicitly prohibited by RAW is permitted. Nor do I find the analogy with NPCs convincing; a GM can run other groups encountered more intelligently than a bunch of animals because that's appropriate. Many of the encounters are with creatures intelligent enough to have a spoken language, so it's entirely reasonable to assume they will act more intelligently than creatures with only animal intelligence.
One other point: anyone who tries to hold up game play at my table for arguing about interpretation of the rules will be asked to wait until after the game; if they persist they will be asked to leave the table. If you think I've made a wrong call you're free to take it up with the event organiser, but once I've made a ruling that's almost always going to be the end of the discussion. I'll take corrections if there's an explicit rule covering the situation that I didn't know about, but if it's a judgement call then that's my call to make. I'll debate rules here in the forums, or at the table after the game, but not during play.
|
|
Sorry if I wasn't clearer earlier, I did mean to infer 'bestial' monsters generally as opposed to humanoids etc.
That said, an AC is also bordering on intelligent animal status, it even has a Link to its Human Companion which would provide insight as to what the HC wanted.
Personally my jury is out on what animals would/wouldn't, but given that so much of this game is an abstraction, it seems a bit out of keeping to insist on hyper-realism when it comes to handling an animal and being ultra-specific, especially when the Handle Animal tricks are otherwise so broad.
I think we could really micro-detail Handle Animal and its assosciated tricks, but thats a rules bloat that I'd have to ask if was absolutely ncessary to redress a real game imbalance, or whether the cure was worse than any percieved problem. Especially as PFS characters would be stuck with now redundantly skilled pets and no remedy to fix them.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm glad this is being discussed here - if I ever do have to handle the situation in a game, at least it won't be a snap decision.
I think I'd take into consideration the intelligence of the companion (INT 3 is enough to speak a language), the level of the master (after all, a 5th-level wizard can communicate freely with his familiar), the feats the companion has (your example of Precise Strike would definitely count heavily here), etc.
As you say, this could be excessively detailed; flanking a single opponent is one thing. But what if the companion has to make a choice between multiple opponents? How about if it has multiple flanking partners to choose from? And let's not even get into whether it will move through threatened squares to set up a flank, or possibly even try to move through an occupied square.
With an appropriate animal I'd probably lean towards allowing a flank. Most of the time it won't make too much difference - even with flanking, animal companions aren't going to be major damage dealers. If the owner relies on the companion to provide a flank then he'll probably have made the extra effort to teach the animal how it should act.
|
|
Taking this one step further,
My Kombat Koala (Normally a sleepy marsupial dwelling in a tree) is my chosen AC.
It has an Int of 2. And hangs around in trees, usually drunk on the alkali in the native Eucalypt tree it tends to inhabit (ok so just to be clear, I am deliberately picking a non flanker).
Whilst I build teh KK, I give it the Attack Trick, and the Precise Strike Feat.
The Precise Strike Feat relies on a flanking and is a Teamwork Feat.
So...without having a separate 'Flank' trick, could my animal use this Feat, and if the answer is yes, does the Feat give my animal the flank trick as a free trick?
As there is no current Flank trick, how would PS work with a GM who determines that the KK doesnt understand how to flank and must run in straight lines?
|
|
But what if the companion has to make a choice between multiple opponents?
The attack trick lets you select a specific opponent to go after. Other than that it probably swings at the person who ticked it off the most.
Shifty: I think sleepy the koala needs an int of 3 before he can get the teamwork feats, or any feats not already on his list.
|
|
everyone, try this.
go back and read some of the AC posts, and replace "Attack Trick" with "perform trick". now replace "Flank" with "Shake Hands", and "Not Flank" with "Play dead".
Cool, and next time your AC goes to attack, I will ask 'with what?', and when it attacks with its bite it will now only be able to attack with its bite from here on out, as you didn't take another trick for it to be able to use its claws or trip.
Getting down to granular levels really wont solve this debate.
EITHER we keep a simple system and just roll with it, or we get really granular, but it we get really granular then expect a lot more posts bemoaning how much an AC now slows down play for the rest of the table as it now takes longer for the Handler to take his turn.
Simple and abstract > Granular.
Other than flanking, what other issues are causing concern?
How much of a gamebreaking concern is flanking?
|
|
Oh Nosig you and I would no doubt be in violent agreemt that Richard players and GM's alike abound, and we'd be able to share no end of "There was this player right,.." stories :)
I think the rukles could use clarification, and I don't think they are particularly well written. To me they seem to work ok enough as is
Your fetch example is quite valid, and I guess it comes down to having some plausible and credible rationale on behalf of the player. Did the BBEG the AC already has the scent of recently handle the book? If so then great...otherwise...
The player could have carried out the 'Down' command for his pet and cahieved that result, and maybe its those clarifications that need to be made: At what point does an Attack command 'stop'? Is the animal trained to pull the Bad Guy down, or does it put in an extra killing blow in combat?
That said, the above could rapidly spiral out of control and become a massive pile of work, or we could just leave it 'as is' and not get too caught up in it as it wont manifestly improve gameplay and will just be an added disincentive to both play a class, or let other play it (For example one of our home GM's outright wont allow Summoners).
I'd prefer to be less prescriptive and just let peoples sense of good taste not take them too far into Meta territory :)
|
|
everyone, try this.
go back and read some of the AC posts, and replace "Attack Trick" with "perform trick". now replace "Flank" with "Shake Hands", and "Not Flank" with "Play dead".
Cool, and next time your AC goes to attack, I will ask 'with what?', and when it attacks with its bite it will now only be able to attack with its bite from here on out, as you didn't take another trick for it to be able to use its claws or trip.
Getting down to granular levels really wont solve this debate.
EITHER we keep a simple system and just roll with it, or we get really granular, but it we get really granular then expect a lot more posts bemoaning how much an AC now slows down play for the rest of the table as it now takes longer for the Handler to take his turn.
Simple and abstract > Granular.
Other than flanking, what other issues are causing concern?
How much of a gamebreaking concern is flanking?
Sigh. Shifty, if the judge is going to be a Richard, he's going to be a Richard.
Yes, when a spell caster gives a command "attack" to his AC and the Judge says "well, your AC runs around behind the monster, herding it against you so that your PC can get a flank - and the Monster attacks you. By the way? are you armed?" This is an example of the Judge being a Richard.
When the ranger says "Attack" and the Judge says "Your AC moves to here and attacks defensively" blocking the ranger from flanking and providing the monster with cover vs. any other PC... this is a Judge being a Richard.My point was that the best person to know HOW the AC is trained, to know what the ACs tricks do is the player. BUT, we do need some realism too. If a PC commands the AC "Fetch" so that it goes upstairs into the second room the party searched, and gets the volume "Donkey thru Goose" from the set on the shelf (whichever shelf it is on), this is pushing it a bit.
If a Guard dog is trained to attack a monster, and block it's approach to the handler, it is trained...
Just because a GM disagrees with you on how to interpret an ambiguous rule, does not make them a jerk.
|
|
The GM disagreeing isn't a conditional factor making them a jerk, but being a jerk might be a conditional factor in them disagreeing with you :)
But having a different interpretation of an ambiguous rule, and ruling at the table based on their interpretation or understanding of the rule, in and of itself, is not being a jerk.
And yet Nosig has implied on more than one thread, that if a GM wants to interpret things that aren't in agreement with his interpretation, that they are a jerk.
|
|
But having a different interpretation of an ambiguous rule, and ruling at the table based on their interpretation or understanding of the rule, in and of itself, is not being a jerk.
No, but come on. NO ONE else is interpreting the handle animal rules the way you are. I think that should be a clue that you've gone off into left field here and well past the realm of interpretation. Its neigh impossible for someone to read the raw and show up at your table with an animal companion that can use their feats.
|
|
The GM disagreeing isn't a conditional factor making them a jerk, but being a jerk might be a conditional factor in them disagreeing with you :)But having a different interpretation of an ambiguous rule, and ruling at the table based on their interpretation or understanding of the rule, in and of itself, is not being a jerk.
And yet Nosig has implied on more than one thread, that if a GM wants to interpret things that aren't in agreement with his interpretation, that they are a jerk.
Sorry andrew - I can see I have offended you in some way.
If you could be so kind as to give examples of times I have stated that someone is a jerk for "interpreting things that aren't in agreement with my interpretation" I will address them here. Implied or stated.
Your "aside" conversation with Shifty about GM's being Richards, was directly a result of your and my conversation about our differences in interpretation of the Handle Animal rule.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm playing a ranger in our weekly game (my first Pathfinder group). He's actually Ranger 5/Wizard 1, and recently got an AC. At next level he'll be taking "Boon Companion", which will make Spot (a snow leopard) a lot more versatile, not to mention better equipped to survive encounters. It's going to be a while before he's fully trained, though.
I've played a druid with an animal companion in D&D4e/encounters. That's not quite the same; I found that the optimal strategy there was to simply let the animal handle the combat, as it could do significantly more damage than I could. That's not the case in Pathfinder, so I'm still working on strategy.
One thing that will definitely factor in, though, is that a leopard gets a free trip opportunity if it hits with the main (bite) attack. If I've got the numbers right it will have a CMB of +12, so it has a reasonable chance of success.
|
|
But having a different interpretation of an ambiguous rule, and ruling at the table based on their interpretation or understanding of the rule, in and of itself, is not being a jerk.No, but come on. NO ONE else is interpreting the handle animal rules the way you are. I think that should be a clue that you've gone off into left field here and well past the realm of interpretation. Its neigh impossible for someone to read the raw and show up at your table with an animal companion that can use their feats.
I'm not the only one arguing this particular stance.
And if someone has a 3 INT AC, and they've taken a feat, then of course the AC will make full use of the feat. A feat is greater than a trick, and as such, they would be assumed to know how to make full use of the feat.
However, if they have a 2 Int, and the only way for the master to get them to attack is the Attack Trick, then flanking is not part of that depending on of course circumstances or the creature in general (i.e. wolf vs. boar).
You can continue to take everything I say as a black and white statement and hyperbolize it to death if you want.
But the fact of the matter is, RAW in PFS indicate you cannot create new things that don't already exist. So you cannot create a new flanking trick.
If as a GM you want to allow your players to use their animal companions as if they are tactical geniuses, that is of course your choice.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
But the fact of the matter is, RAW in PFS indicate you cannot create new things that don't already exist. So you cannot create a new flanking trick.
Andrew, with all respect, we create new things in PFS all the time. My summoner's eidolon is pretty quirky. The rules allow for her, but she's a collection of feats, evolutions, and skills that probably didn't exist beforehand. The rules, as written, also allow for, explicitly, tricks that aren't on the list. It's not supposed to be exclusive.
Could you provide, perhaps, another situation where the rulebook says in black and white that its giving a non-exhaustive list of examples, but the campaign director has ruled that those examples are the only ones permitted in Pathfinder Society?
If as a GM you want to allow your players to use their animal companions as if they are tactical geniuses, that is of course your choice.
Perhaps there is middle ground?
|
|
You can continue to take everything I say as a black and white statement and hyperbolize it to death if you want.
If as a GM you want to allow your players to use their animal companions as if they are tactical geniuses, that is of course your choice
Aren't you doing what you're accusing me of there? "Bite someone on the ass when they're not looking" is hardly tactical genius. Even if some players don't know how/aren't paying attention enough to do it its pretty obvious to all of the characters involved.
You wanted a trick for the animal to use step up. Since that trick does not exist, you're requiring a dc 25 check, which is is pretty much disallowing it completely at the lower levels. Especially since you would have had to make up a free action trick for it to work. There is NO way to take the raw and reach your conclussion: there is too big of a gap between "other tricks are possible" and "you must have other tricks for feats and strategic manuevers"
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If I were running my ranger in PFS I'd probably want to put a "Flank" trick on my AC's character sheet (with an INT of 3 he's capable of learning 12 tricks, so I can probably afford a slot for that). But he's definitely a combat-ready build (Attack/Attack Any Target/Come/Defend/Down/Guard/Stay for combat-oriented tricks, and Fetch/Heel/Seek/Track to fill up 11 of those 12 slots), with Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers to make the best use of his Dex bonus, and Combat Reflexes and Step Up to really annoy opponents :-)
|
@JohnF: You might want to recheck the AC rules, your first AC, when you initially gain it, comes fully trained. The training rules are for when you will need a replacement AC.
Int 3 gives it 9 tricks, 3 per Int point. Now, 12 is possible, if it gets 3 bonus tricks from your PC's effective Druid level.
@Andrew Christian: Is there an exhaustive list, somewhere in a Pathfinder source, of which ACs/Familiars/Summoned creatures/purchased animals can naturally flank?
Also, just FYI, there are definitely places in the RAW for PFS where the players are allowed, if not required to create things that are not in the standard rules.
Arcane Bonded items for Wizards & Bards
Alchemical items for Alchemists
Poisons for poison users
Black Blades for Bladebound Magi
@Chris Mortika: I suspect he is thinking of things like:
Ranger ACs, Paladin Mounts, and Magic Item Enhancements
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re AC's and flanking.
Based on how I've read 'wolf pack' tactics, wouldn't an animal trained to attack/flank only flank if there's someone else to attack the target?
For example:
Wolf wins initiative over druid. Wolf attacks directly (I'm assuming the wolf was told to attack previously.)
On druid's action, druid moves alongside wolf.
Next round wolf moves to flank (possibly drawing AoO) because now it has a flanking buddy.
I guess my thing is are animals smart enough to set up flanking for someone who hasn't acted yet, or are they just going to take advantage of flanking opportunities when they open up?
It's not quite, "Fetch the stick" vs "Fetch the book we need from upstairs on the shelf with all the other books"
Since there's no facing in Pathfinder, telling the wolf to 'get behind' the target is mechanically difficult.
|
|
But the fact of the matter is, RAW in PFS indicate you cannot create new things that don't already exist. So you cannot create a new flanking trick.Andrew, with all respect, we create new things in PFS all the time. My summoner's eidolon is pretty quirky. The rules allow for her, but she's a collection of feats, evolutions, and skills that probably didn't exist beforehand. The rules, as written, also allow for, explicitly, tricks that aren't on the list. It's not supposed to be exclusive.
Could you provide, perhaps, another situation where the rulebook says in black and white that its giving a non-exhaustive list of examples, but the campaign director has ruled that those examples are the only ones permitted in Pathfinder Society?
I've already given those examples 3 times. Those examples appear in the FAQ.
No Item creation.
No different mounts for Paladins/Cavaliers or AC's for Rangers (unless Archetypes allow) despite the list being non-exhaustive in the CRB.
There was another, but I don't remember what it was, its upthread somewhere.
There are mechanics for how to build an eidolon, and it is a class feature that isn't disallowed.
There are mechanics for what masterwork tools grant and how much they cost.
With a Trick, you are essentially saying a player can create their own thing that doesn't exist, and create their own mechanics for how that trick works. I'm curious what precedent you think would allow this?
If as a GM you want to allow your players to use their animal companions as if they are tactical geniuses, that is of course your choice.Perhaps there is middle ground?
Sure, and frankly I believe that I'm providing that middle ground. If it makes sense for the animal (pack hunter), it will probably choose to flank if able. If the AC has a feat that requires flanking, and it has a 3 Int to get that feat, then it will most likely try to flank to make use of said feat.
Otherwise, if you want your AC to do more than just run up and attack the creature in most direct way, you will need to push it.
|
|
You can continue to take everything I say as a black and white statement and hyperbolize it to death if you want.
If as a GM you want to allow your players to use their animal companions as if they are tactical geniuses, that is of course your choice
Aren't you doing what you're accusing me of there? "Bite someone on the ass when they're not looking" is hardly tactical genius. Even if some players don't know how/aren't paying attention enough to do it its pretty obvious to all of the characters involved.
You wanted a trick for the animal to use step up. Since that trick does not exist, you're requiring a dc 25 check, which is is pretty much disallowing it completely at the lower levels. Especially since you would have had to make up a free action trick for it to work. There is NO way to take the raw and reach your conclussion: there is too big of a gap between "other tricks are possible" and "you must have other tricks for feats and strategic manuevers"
You must not read my entire posts.
I have said numerous times, that if the AC has a feat because of an Int 3, it should be allowed to make full use of the feat.
This is a different situation than a standard Int 2 AC.
|
|
@JohnF: You might want to recheck the AC rules, your first AC, when you initially gain it, comes fully trained. The training rules are for when you will need a replacement AC.
Int 3 gives it 9 tricks, 3 per Int point. Now, 12 is possible, if it gets 3 bonus tricks from your PC's effective Druid level.
@Andrew Christian: Is there an exhaustive list, somewhere in a Pathfinder source, of which ACs/Familiars/Summoned creatures/purchased animals can naturally flank?
Also, just FYI, there are definitely places in the RAW for PFS where the players are allowed, if not required to create things that are not in the standard rules.
Arcane Bonded items for Wizards & Bards
Alchemical items for Alchemists
Poisons for poison users
Black Blades for Bladebound Magi@Chris Mortika: I suspect he is thinking of things like:
Ranger ACs, Paladin Mounts, and Magic Item Enhancements
There is not an exhaustive list of flanker animals. There isn't a list. It is up to GM discretion.
All those things you listed that allow for creation are exceptions to the rules that are explicitly allowed by the rules. They also come with mechanics for how they work, how much they cost, and mechanics for how to do the creation. You basically have a list of choices, and you add those choices to your thing. You do not have the option to create something brand new that doesn't have rules within the CRB.
Creating a new Trick is creating something new that doesn't have mechanics or rules within the CRB.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So would any AC with an Int above 2 be able to flank and use tactics, or would you reserve that for only those ACs who have a feat which references flanking?
To me saying that only certain ACs can flank without XYZ investment of character resources, while locial, is a little too close to "I am going to correct this perceived imbalance by DM fiat" which is just bad DMing and certainly not ok in PFS.
|
|
Re AC's and flanking.
Based on how I've read 'wolf pack' tactics, wouldn't an animal trained to attack/flank only flank if there's someone else to attack the target?
For example:
Wolf wins initiative over druid. Wolf attacks directly (I'm assuming the wolf was told to attack previously.)
On druid's action, druid moves alongside wolf.
Next round wolf moves to flank (possibly drawing AoO) because now it has a flanking buddy.I guess my thing is are animals smart enough to set up flanking for someone who hasn't acted yet, or are they just going to take advantage of flanking opportunities when they open up?
It's not quite, "Fetch the stick" vs "Fetch the book we need from upstairs on the shelf with all the other books"
Since there's no facing in Pathfinder, telling the wolf to 'get behind' the target is mechanically difficult.
Exactly!
|
|
And that works along my earlier point:
Insisting on granular tactics in a game so abstracted as to remove matters such as facing seems a but...trite.
Not insisting on granular tactics.
Simply saying that an animal is not smart enough to use tactics (unless it is in their nature--pack hunter--up to GM discretion) at all.
If commanded to do something, it will use the most direct methods to do so.
Unless the AC has an Int 3 and a feat that gives it a new tactic. Consider the feat a trick the AC can choose to use on its own if you want.
|
|
So would any AC with an Int above 2 be able to flank and use tactics, or would you reserve that for only those ACs who have a feat which references flanking?
To me saying that only certain ACs can flank without XYZ investment of character resources, while locial, is a little too close to "I am going to correct this perceived imbalance by DM fiat" which is just bad DMing and certainly not ok in PFS.
I don't believe I'm correcting a perceived imbalance by DM fiat.
I'm interpreting the rules the best I'm able. Both RAW and PFS house rules.
And then I'm being nice by allowing certain tactics (pack hunters) where it makes sense. If a player can make a quick convincing argument why it would make sense for their animal to perform a particular tactic, then I'd probably allow it.
If you allocate resources (feat) to gain a particular type of tactic, then yeah, you can use that feat to its best facility with your AC.
|
|
I also have a bone to pick here.
Just because my opinion differs from yours...
Can we please dispense with calling folks bad GMs because they choose to use their own opinion and interpretation of ambiguous rules?
I got the V-L spot partially because so far most people (can't please everyone) that I GM for enjoy their time. My job is to make sure players enjoy their time. So telling me that I'm a bad GM because you disagree with my interpretation of an ambiguous rule and enforcement of my interpretation is insulting.
|
|
I apologize. I am sure that many players enjoy your games, I do disagree with a lot of things that you say about the rules and DMing though, VL status nonwithstanding.
To me saying that only certain ACs can flank without XYZ investment of character resources, while logical, is a little too close to "I am going to correct this perceived imbalance by DM fiat" which is contrary to my philosophy of DMing and certainly not ok in PFS.
|
|
I apologize. I am sure that many players enjoy your games, I do disagree with a lot of things that you say about the rules and DMing though, VL status nonwithstanding.
To me saying that only certain ACs can flank without XYZ investment of character resources, while logical, is a little too close to "I am going to correct this perceived imbalance by DM fiat" which is contrary to my philosophy of DMing and certainly not ok in PFS.
I don't require that you agree with me. Just that you respect that we BOTH have the right to disagree with one another on ambiguous interpretations without either of us being badwrong.