The jet 200 ft. monster ability


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So our gm attacked us with Grindylows the last session.

He used the jet ability to charge, and would jump over pcs then attack.

The jet ability sounds more like a withdrawal ability not a charge ability.

So is he using it correctly?


SRD wrote:

Jet (Ex)

The creature can swim backward as a full-round action at the listed speed. It must move in a straight line while jetting, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity when it does so.

Format: jet (200 ft.); Location: Speed.

Jet is a full round action of it's own and cannot be combined with maneuvers like charge. Jumping over is certainly not swimming in a straight line either.


What Glutton said.

It's basically an uber Withdraw. Also, I thought Jet was something you could only do in the water... Paizo might have changed that, though.


Seeing as you have to be swimming to use the ability, you can only use it in an area that the swim skill is used... So water, acid, lava, etc.

As far as charging while using a full-round action, well, your DM needs to reread the rules on available actions in a round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This was a monster in a campaign that a GM ran that happened to have an ability that allows it to charge with a speed of 200 ft.

I don't see the problem.
A GM is free to use the monsters he sees fit for a given encounter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
cranewings wrote:

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.

Good thing I don't play with you then. To say you don't care at all what your players think about how something works. Well I sure hope you don't randomly start deciding that rage won't work cause you don't think their character was angry enough yet...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Havoc, players run their characters by the book in my game. That is there job. My job is to run everything else how I want. I'm gentle with changing pc abilities because I don't want to jar them, but cry-face players who try to do the gms job for him, them I will walk over and think nothing of it.


havoc xiii wrote:
cranewings wrote:

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.

Good thing I don't play with you then. To say you don't care at all what your players think about how something works. Well I sure hope you don't randomly start deciding that rage won't work cause you don't think their character was angry enough yet...

I agree with crane 90%. I do believe DM's must improvise and create unique encounters. At the same time we defer to the rules and see what they say.

@havoc, the rage analogy is silly.


cranewings wrote:
Havoc, players run their characters by the book in my game. That is there job. My job is to run everything else how I want. I'm gentle with changing pc abilities because I don't want to jar them, but cry-face players who try to do the gms job for him, them I will walk over and think nothing of it.

I don't think there is anything wrong with questioning the GM on occasion. I'm assuming your human I could be wrong but for now lets go with I'm right therefore you could make a mistake. Obviously I don't think everything the Gm does should be called into question, but if I thought the GM had misread something I'd ask about it.

Also I misunderstood what you meant by not caring and do apologize.

Aretas wrote:
@havoc, the rage analogy is silly.

That was part of my point. I'm glad you realized that. ;)

Half of what I say is in jest, the other half should he taken deadly serious. >_<

Contributor

Ignoring that jet can't be combined with charge that way, if the creatures are making a charge, why aren't they forced to stop as soon as they are in a square that can attack their target?

Charge: You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can't charge. If any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can't charge.

You can't use a normal charge to move PAST them and attack. These grindylows are breaking the charge rule (and the "how many actions you can take in a round" rule).


So a character can move this fast, "The creature can swim backward as a full-round action at the listed speed. It must move in a straight line while jetting, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity when it does so."

So it swims backwards? It can travel a certain distance but if it gets to an enemy it can't just run into them? It can't make the backwards direction towards the enemy by turning around?

Seriously, there are reasons why GM fiat is necessary when running a game based on the Big Book of Thoughts about Creatures, because "Grindylows Jetting Backwards" is a half baked idea. It is a great little idea. I can picture it, but the tangled knot of turn based moves make it immersion breaking and silly. I applaud the GM for turning the idea of jet into something that makes sense.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it swims backwards. The ability is modeled after the real-world ability that squids have to jet AWAY from threats.

Yes, if it gets to an enemy it can't just run into them, because the jet ability doesn't say "it can use this as an attack" or "it can use this as part of a charge." The ability is for movement only. It doesn't provoke AOOs for its movement (the ability says that), but if it enters an opponent's square it's going to provoke an AOO just like normal movement. And it can't "run into" a creature because that's an attack, specifically a bull rush, and a bull rush is "a standard action" or part of a charge, and as it's a standard action to jet and a full-round action to charge, so you can't do both of them in the same round and nothing in the jet, bull rush, or charge ability says "you can combine jet and a charge or jet and a bull rush." The rules are QUITE clear on this.

Yes, it can make the "backwards direction towards the enemy by turning around," but all that does it (at best) put the creature adjacent to the enemy. Jet is basically a kind of special kind of move, and a move doesn't let you attack someone unless it's part of a charge or bull rush.

Seriously, there are reasons why the rules work they do, and "creatures shouldn't break the action economy rules unless the ability explicitly says they can" is an important rule you shouldn't disregard (an example of a creature that breaks the action economy rule is the choker, and its ability that breaks it specifically calls out that it's an extra action per round).


Sean, a person travels at 10 meters per second. After 3 seconds, it comes into direct contact with another person. Does the moving person stop dead in his tracks, suddenly slow and gently stop under the force of magic, or wreck into the individual?

The Pathfinder rule that, "objects traveling at full speed can't hit anything," is kind of off, don't you think?

It isn't a squid. It is a person with squid legs. I'm not clear on why it can't "retreat in the opposite direction" while holding a spear towards its enemy, stabbing him. "Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cranewings wrote:
"Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Hngggggghhhhhhhhh

I think the reason that this line of thinking gives most people a head ache (myself included) is that players typically expect the game to work a certain way, by certain rules, and that when those rules are broken or bent it makes the game something that you cannot trust to be fair or balanced. Kind of like real life, but I'm not here for real life.

HOWEVER, having seen your posts around the forums, you seem to always defend your style of play well. It comes across as overly harsh to me, but if your players are into it, more power to you. I think most people will just have to learn to agree to disagree with the way you play the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"cranewing" wrote:

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.

Players run their characters by the book in my game. That is there job. My job is to run everything else how I want. I'm gentle with changing pc abilities because I don't want to jar them, but cry-face players who try to do the gms job for him, them I will walk over and think nothing of it.

Wow the level of disdain for your players and their concerns is troubling. Have you ever considered you are not well suited to DM.

My players job is to have fun. I feel sorry for yours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to say something that I seldom do...

I agree wholeheartedly with Sean K. Reynolds on this.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And when the players decide "I am going ot poly/shape change into this creature and use the same tactics against the next mob" the GM will say what exactly? "You can't even though I did?" -No offense, but I hate GM fiat: if you do it, its the rules. Just remember, you are going to have to live with them before you change them.


xn0o0cl3 wrote:
cranewings wrote:
"Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Hngggggghhhhhhhhh

I think the reason that this line of thinking gives most people a head ache (myself included) is that players typically expect the game to work a certain way, by certain rules, and that when those rules are broken or bent it makes the game something that you cannot trust to be fair or balanced. Kind of like real life, but I'm not here for real life.

HOWEVER, having seen your posts around the forums, you seem to always defend your style of play well. It comes across as overly harsh to me, but if your players are into it, more power to you. I think most people will just have to learn to agree to disagree with the way you play the game.

Well, I find I get along with players in real life better than internet people. In real life, people appreciate the work and the logic, and that I'm helping them experience better immersion. People online are here, motivated to argue about the rules. I don't mind. I like to argue. Obviously. Not only that, but I don't expect my opinion that the subject they like debating (rules) isn't important, to be a popular opinion.

Trust is the real issue. If you don't trust me to run the game and want to default to the book so that you know it is fair and balanced, I wouldn't feel like I have much to offer. I'm experienced and have a reputation for giving people a good game. My motivation is the enjoyment of immersion and great events, rather than to sell a book or give a player the false sense of victory in a loaded tactical game. If you do not trust me, I'm not going to be able to deliver those things to you anyway.


maouse wrote:
And when the players decide "I am going ot poly/shape change into this creature and use the same tactics against the next mob" the GM will say what exactly?

Did I say I have an issue with this? "Oh no! The player swam real far and hit something with a spear, the game is broke!"

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cranewings wrote:
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
cranewings wrote:
"Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Hngggggghhhhhhhhh

I think the reason that this line of thinking gives most people a head ache (myself included) is that players typically expect the game to work a certain way, by certain rules, and that when those rules are broken or bent it makes the game something that you cannot trust to be fair or balanced. Kind of like real life, but I'm not here for real life.

HOWEVER, having seen your posts around the forums, you seem to always defend your style of play well. It comes across as overly harsh to me, but if your players are into it, more power to you. I think most people will just have to learn to agree to disagree with the way you play the game.

Well, I find I get along with players in real life better than internet people. In real life, people appreciate the work and the logic, and that I'm helping them experience better immersion. People online are hear, motivated to argue about the rules. I don't mind. I like to argue. Obviously.

Trust is the real issue. If you don't trust me to run the game and want to default to the book so that you know it is fair and balanced, I wouldn't feel like I have much to offer. I'm experienced and have a reputation for giving people a good game. My motivation is the enjoyment of immersion and great events, rather than to sell a book or give a player the false sense of victory in a loaded tactical game. If you do not trust me, I'm not going to be able to deliver those things to you anyway.

See, that's exactly what I always end up getting out of your posts. Initially, I'm almost always outraged whenever I read something you've posted, but after reading a bit further I can see where you're coming from. Still, I probably wouldn't be a big fan of that style of play myself (in Pathfinder at least - in other RPGs I could see myself enjoying it), but it would be very interesting to at least experience.


xn0o0cl3 wrote:
cranewings wrote:
xn0o0cl3 wrote:
cranewings wrote:
"Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Hngggggghhhhhhhhh

I think the reason that this line of thinking gives most people a head ache (myself included) is that players typically expect the game to work a certain way, by certain rules, and that when those rules are broken or bent it makes the game something that you cannot trust to be fair or balanced. Kind of like real life, but I'm not here for real life.

HOWEVER, having seen your posts around the forums, you seem to always defend your style of play well. It comes across as overly harsh to me, but if your players are into it, more power to you. I think most people will just have to learn to agree to disagree with the way you play the game.

Well, I find I get along with players in real life better than internet people. In real life, people appreciate the work and the logic, and that I'm helping them experience better immersion. People online are hear, motivated to argue about the rules. I don't mind. I like to argue. Obviously.

Trust is the real issue. If you don't trust me to run the game and want to default to the book so that you know it is fair and balanced, I wouldn't feel like I have much to offer. I'm experienced and have a reputation for giving people a good game. My motivation is the enjoyment of immersion and great events, rather than to sell a book or give a player the false sense of victory in a loaded tactical game. If you do not trust me, I'm not going to be able to deliver those things to you anyway.

See, that's exactly what I always end up getting out of your posts. Initially, I'm almost always outraged whenever I read something you've posted, but after reading a bit further I can see where you're coming from. Still, I probably wouldn't be a big fan of that style of play myself (in Pathfinder at least - in other RPGs I could see myself enjoying it), but it would be very interesting to...

You know what is strange about it to me is that I didn't make this style up. Back in the 90's when I started gaming this is how everyone played, both in LFGS and in private home games. The groups I played with had different beginnings and no crossover, but this is how they all did it. It wasn't until later in 3.5 that the current PF message board style of the game became popular, at least in the various LFGS and now I run into it all the time there: playing RAW, reading from the adventure directly, and moving on a grid even while outside of combat. It is really weird. It's like I stepped through a leak and now everything is different.

Contributor

cranewings wrote:
Sean, a person travels at 10 meters per second. After 3 seconds, it comes into direct contact with another person. Does the moving person stop dead in his tracks, suddenly slow and gently stop under the force of magic, or wreck into the individual?

Where in the game does it say you have to deal with inertia for walking, running, or swimming? On round 1 you can take a run action, go 4x your speed due north. On round 2, you don't have to move at all, or you can move 4x your speed in the opposite direction. Why? Because remembering vectors from round to round for characters slows down the game.

The game makes certain assumptions because it's using turn-based mechanics (so you can actually play through a combat) to simulate a real-time situation. Sometimes you have to err on the side of playability at the expense of realism.

There's nothing in the game about inertia for weapons, either. If a character is surrounded and uses his greatsword to attack the guy in the square north of him, the rules don't say "because the greatsword has vertical inertia (if you're making an overhand chop) or horizontal inertia (if you're making a sideways slice), any iterative attack you make must be in an adjacent square to your target, you can't attack someone to the north and to the south in the same round."

Quote:
It isn't a squid. It is a person with squid legs. I'm not clear on why it can't "retreat in the opposite direction" while holding a spear towards its enemy, stabbing him. "Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Because the ability was designed and described as working a certain way. You're giving it additional abilities that weren't taken into account by the monster's tactics and CR. I would be totally fine with a feat that let you combine jet with charge or bull rush (or a superior version of the ability), but as written you're doing something that's breaking the rules. Jet is a move action. Charge is a FRA. Bull rush is a standard action or part of a charge. According to the rules, you can't take a move action and a FRA on the same turn.

And my original point still stands: as presented by the OP, the grindylows were breaking the charge rule that says you stop as soon as you can attack the target—you can't charge past (or over) them and attack from the other side.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

cranewings wrote:
It isn't a squid. It is a person with squid legs. I'm not clear on why it can't "retreat in the opposite direction" while holding a spear towards its enemy, stabbing him. "Because it is against the rules" is hardly an excuse. That just means the rules are written wrong.

Squids have this ability to flee rapidly from creatures using a jet of water they store internally and the grindylow inherit that ability. The jet ability models that well. The fact that you cannot hijack that ability for something else does not mean the rule is written wrong.

Shadow Demons have a similar ability which simply alters their movement. The author and developer felt the it was most appropriate to model the grindylow after a squid, with a purely defensive ability. Obviously you disagree, the answer is simple, make a grindylow with a sprint ability instead of the jet ability and be done with it.


Skull and Shackles:

We are playing the Ap Skulls and Shackles we are at 3rd level, and we are at the end of the mod, we set up at a tunnel that is 10' wide, 2 characters in the front blocking the way and 2 people in the back, Im playing a Magus in the back.

15 or more of these goblin squids attack us, the GM jets the goblin squids and jumps over us, and then attacks, the creature knocks me down to 2 HP, so for the rest of the combat Im in full defense. He didnt roll against my CMD or anything, he just moved there.

So our tactics were destroyed because of this move used against 3rd level characters with no healer. After that the GM had to fudge alot of rolls to not TPK us.


jyster: Didn't read past your warning, (which was effective) but there's a more elegant way: using (spoiler="Whatevs")EXPLOSIVE RUNES!(/spoiler) yields

Whatevs:
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
if you change the parentheses () to square brackets []. Also 6d6 force damage.

If cranewing wants to rewrite rules during his home game that's fine, but it's particularly inappropriate to answer unrelated rules questions with a suggestion to just make up your own rules. OP is asking questions about Pathfinder, not cranewing's Pathfinder-inspired home game.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If cranewings wants to rewrite rules during his home game that's fine, but it's particularly inappropriate to answer unrelated rules questions with a suggestion to just make up your own rules. OP is asking questions about Pathfinder, not cranewings's Pathfinder-based home game.

jyster: Didn't read past your warning, (which was effective) but there's a more elegant way: using (spoiler="Whatevs")EXPLOSIVE RUNES!(/spoiler) yields

Whatevs:
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
if you change the parentheses () to square brackets []. Also 6d6 force damage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
maouse wrote:
And when the players decide "I am going ot poly/shape change into this creature and use the same tactics against the next mob" the GM will say what exactly? "You can't even though I did?" -No offense, but I hate GM fiat: if you do it, its the rules. Just remember, you are going to have to live with them before you change them.

Actually unless the ability the player is looking to copy is available within the polymorph spell the player he's looking to use, the GM is right, even if he's not stating the correct reason why.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed some posts. Play nice.

I also fixed a spoiler tag.


For the OP's original question, jet is a full round action that doesn't provoke AoO. The wording is little vague, but it may not be able to move less than the listed speed.

For GM fiat, GM's are like umpires. What they say goes, but that doesn't mean you can't make a bad call. And I'm afraid that adaptation to the grindylow's jet ability was a bad call.

You basically gave the grindylow's a dimensional door with a charge attack attached.

As one GM to another:

I'm all for adapting to make the scene more memorable, or throw in abnormal stuff, but regular old grinylows should really follow regular old rules.

If you want grindylows clever or coordinated enough to use their jet to charge, make a couple elite ones with a class level or two, and use up a feat to allow them to charge with their jet.

If you want a grindylow that will get behind enemy lines by moving through enemy spaces, give it some rogue levels, and make it use acrobatics.

Or make a giant, primitive throw back one, and give it overrun or trample or something. Claim it's too big to jet anymore, or toss another feat to allow it to overrun with jet.

If you are making your own variant, you got to give PCs a chance to recognize they're different, hopefully with some clue as to what has changed. So say if you decide that zombies will actually spread zombie plague, you gotta give them a knowledge religion check, or a heal check to realize this exception, even if it's what you decide zombies to 'normally' be.


havoc xiii wrote:
cranewings wrote:

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.

Good thing I don't play with you then. To say you don't care at all what your players think about how something works. Well I sure hope you don't randomly start deciding that rage won't work cause you don't think their character was angry enough yet...

WOW!!!!!! "players run their characters by the book in my game. That is there job. My job is to run everything else how I want. I'm gentle with changing pc abilities because I don't want to jar them, but cry-face players who try to do the gms job for him, them I will walk over and think nothing of it."

DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!!!!!! I AM G M!!!!!!!!
Talk about GM power tripping, control freak with a bit of napoleon syndrome add for good measures. I agree with you Havoc. I wouldn't want to play in your game.

I wonder what your players would think if they read your post and what you thought of them.


Jeff Clem wrote:


WOW!!!!!! "players run their characters by the book in my game. That is there job. My job is to run everything else how I want. I'm gentle with changing pc abilities because I don't want to jar them, but cry-face players who try to do the gms job for him, them I will walk over and think nothing of it."

DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!!!!!! I AM G M!!!!!!!!
Talk about GM power tripping, control freak with a bit of napoleon syndrome add for good measures. I agree with Havoc. I wouldn't want to play in your game.

I wonder what your players would think if they read your post and what you thought of them.

Eh.

If I run a monster called a "Grindylow" in my game, it may or may not have anything to do with the "Grindylow" in the Bestiary, (which a player shouldn't be reading, anyway). It may or may not have similar abilities and, if it does, that may or may not be coincidental.

I don't tell players how to play their characters, and players do not quote rules at me. I am well aware of the rules, unlike players who are not aware in the slightest of the specifics of the encounter I have written.

Players at my table understand that there is room for only one GM and I don't ask for any considerations that I do not give when I am a player.

I realize your comment was not directed at me, but I happen to agree with much of cranewings sentiment.


Sorry, I know I'm coming in late to this discussion but what is "backwards" as it relates to Pathfinder?

I thought there was no "facing" on the battle mats. Has this changed? If no, please define "backward" as it relates to the Jet ability.

Does backward really mean "away from foes"?


Lochmonster wrote:

Sorry, I know I'm coming in late to this discussion but what is "backwards" as it relates to Pathfinder?

I thought there was no "facing" on the battle mats. Has this changed? If no, please define "backward" as it relates to the Jet ability.

Does backward really mean "away from foes"?

I'd guess that "backwards" is really just fluff in this case, meant to help players and DMs who aren't familiar with the real-life ability of a squid to visualize what is happening. You're right that PFRPG doesn't really have facing rules, except in some specific cases such as flying creatures with low maneuverability.


Then it seems to me the wording should be changed to "away form enemies" or "only to withdraw or retreat" and then the issue would be cleared up.

As it is now RAW it can jet back and forth across the same patch of map over and over since it technically has no "front".


Quantum Steve wrote:
Jeff Clem wrote:


WOW!!!!!! "players run their characters by the book in my game. That is there job. My job is to run everything else how I want. I'm gentle with changing pc abilities because I don't want to jar them, but cry-face players who try to do the gms job for him, them I will walk over and think nothing of it."

DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO!!!!!! I AM G M!!!!!!!!
Talk about GM power tripping, control freak with a bit of napoleon syndrome add for good measures. I agree with Havoc. I wouldn't want to play in your game.

I wonder what your players would think if they read your post and what you thought of them.

Eh.

If I run a monster called a "Grindylow" in my game, it may or may not have anything to do with the "Grindylow" in the Bestiary, (which a player shouldn't be reading, anyway). It may or may not have similar abilities and, if it does, that may or may not be coincidental.

I don't tell players how to play their characters, and players do not quote rules at me. I am well aware of the rules, unlike players who are not aware in the slightest of the specifics of the encounter I have written.

Players at my table understand that there is room for only one GM and I don't ask for any considerations that I do not give when I am a player.

I realize your comment was not directed at me, but I happen to agree with much of cranewings sentiment.

But do you harvest the same attitude toward your players?


Jeff Clem wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:


Eh.

If I run a monster called a "Grindylow" in my game, it may or may not have anything to do with the "Grindylow" in the Bestiary, (which a player shouldn't be reading, anyway). It may or may not have similar abilities and, if it does, that may or may not be coincidental.

I don't tell players how to play their characters, and players do not quote rules at me. I am well aware of the rules, unlike players who are not aware in the slightest of the specifics of the encounter I have written.

Players at my table understand that there is room for only one GM and I don't ask for any considerations that I do not give when I am a player.

I realize your comment was not directed at me, but I happen to agree with much of cranewings sentiment.

But do you harvest the same attitude toward your players?

That they should shut up and let me GM and not second guess me? Absolutely!

It is the players' job to play their characters by the book. My job, as GM (read: Glorious Leader), is to ensure fun times are had by all. The way I do that is by running everything else how I want.

If a player has legitimate complaints about how I'm running things, I'm open to opinions and suggestions, but if he wants to cry at me about the rules, or rather, what he thinks the rules are, then he needs to cry someplace else.

This does mean that I can't GM for every possible player of the game. For example, if a player's idea of "fun times" is "strict and unwavering adherence to the Rules-As-Written," then he and I have "Incompatible Playstyles" and he needs to find a new table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:


Eh.

If I run a monster called a "Grindylow" in my game, it may or may not have anything to do with the "Grindylow" in the Bestiary, (which a player shouldn't be reading, anyway). It may or may not have similar abilities and, if it does, that may or may not be coincidental.

I don't tell players how to play their characters, and players do not quote rules at me. I am well aware of the rules, unlike players who are not aware in the slightest of the specifics of the encounter I have written.

Players at my table understand that there is room for only one GM and I don't ask for any considerations that I do not give when I am a player.

I realize your comment was not directed at me, but I happen to agree with much of cranewings sentiment.

I have to ask, what are you doing on a rules forum if you don't feel obligated to follow them?

What's the point of stating you are well aware of the rules when as a GM you admittedly rewrite standard and universal rules, or reading this as a player, as you said you don't like players overly familiar with the rules...

Quote:


Then it seems to me the wording should be changed to "away form enemies" or "only to withdraw or retreat" and then the issue would be cleared up.

As it is now RAW it can jet back and forth across the same patch of map over and over since it technically has no "front".

Jet says it has to be in a straight line. So while there is no facing, you could not bounce back and forth, or even circle around something.

Jet also does not allow you to move through enemies' spaces, and as it is a full round action there could be no attack after the jet (assuming the grindylow didn't have something it could do as a swift or free action if it had some template or class ability or whatever).

Nothing is wrong with the Universal Monster Rule jet. We're just not really even talking about the UMR jet anymore...


cranewings wrote:

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.

It is strange, I both agree with and disagree with this.

As a GM, I would hold myself to a higher standard — my players at least deserve the right to ask "Doesn't it work like this?" so that I can say "It did, but I'm handling it this way." So, if cranewings offers this as advice to other GMs, I kindly say "no thanks."

But as a player, this statement rings true. The way to have the most fun is to trust that the GM isn't trying to merely waste your character. If they wanted to do that, they're more than empowered to do so. If the GM makes the call, just go with it, chances are the situation isn't impossible. (unless it is, and then and only then is this a GM fail.)


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Yes, if it gets to an enemy it can't just run into them, because the jet ability doesn't say "it can use this as an attack" or "it can use this as part of a charge." The ability is for movement only. It doesn't provoke AOOs for its movement (the ability says that), but if it enters an opponent's square it's going to provoke an AOO just like normal movement. And it can't "run into" a creature because that's an attack, specifically a bull rush, and a bull rush is "a standard action" or part of a charge, and as it's a standard action to jet and a full-round action to charge, so you can't do both of them in the same round and nothing in the jet, bull rush, or charge ability says "you can combine jet and a charge or jet and a bull rush." The rules are QUITE clear on this.

And what happens if jet is used along a path and the jetting creature is unaware about an obstacle or another creature in the way?

I do not know anything else than handling this as an overrun (overrun is at least as part of normal movement possible) attempt. So the blocking creature can avoid contact if aware and the jetting creature has to make an CMB not to be stopped, although the roll is probably at -something for being blind and at +something due to high speed.


Evil Lincoln wrote:
cranewings wrote:

I have a suggestion:

Play your character and let the GM run the game. If he is anything like me, he doesn't care, at all, what you, the forum, the errata, or the book have to say about how a power works. I read the power (or sometimes just the name of the power), I think of how I would like the NPC to use it, and then I run the game. If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time.

It is strange, I both agree with and disagree with this.

As a GM, I would hold myself to a higher standard — my players at least deserve the right to ask "Doesn't it work like this?" so that I can say "It did, but I'm handling it this way." So, if cranewings offers this as advice to other GMs, I kindly say "no thanks."

But as a player, this statement rings true. The way to have the most fun is to trust that the GM isn't trying to merely waste your character. If they wanted to do that, they're more than empowered to do so. If the GM makes the call, just go with it, chances are the situation isn't impossible. (unless it is, and then and only then is this a GM fail.)

No doubt wise and venerable Evil Lincoln. I think most people who GM as enough of a hobby to have an opinion on player agency and RAW vs. Story Telling don't need harsh advice.

I was writing to the OP.


Quantum Steve wrote:
Jeff Clem wrote:
Quantum Steve wrote:


Eh.

If I run a monster called a "Grindylow" in my game, it may or may not have anything to do with the "Grindylow" in the Bestiary, (which a player shouldn't be reading, anyway). It may or may not have similar abilities and, if it does, that may or may not be coincidental.

I don't tell players how to play their characters, and players do not quote rules at me. I am well aware of the rules, unlike players who are not aware in the slightest of the specifics of the encounter I have written.

Players at my table understand that there is room for only one GM and I don't ask for any considerations that I do not give when I am a player.

I realize your comment was not directed at me, but I happen to agree with much of cranewings sentiment.

But do you harvest the same attitude toward your players?

That they should shut up and let me GM and not second guess me? Absolutely!

It is the players' job to play their characters by the book. My job, as GM (read: Glorious Leader), is to ensure fun times are had by all. The way I do that is by running everything else how I want.

If a player has legitimate complaints about how I'm running things, I'm open to opinions and suggestions, but if he wants to cry at me about the rules, or rather, what he thinks the rules are, then he needs to cry someplace else.

This does mean that I can't GM for every possible player of the game. For example, if a player's idea of "fun times" is "strict and unwavering adherence to the Rules-As-Written," then he and I have "Incompatible Playstyles" and he needs to find a new table.

[/QU
GM's get the rules wrong sometimes but hey if your able to change the rules when ever you like then your always right.
So you saying your players bound by the rules of Pathfinder but you as a GM can change, manipulate,include and exclude. I understand that the rules should and can be changed do to certain situation. Sounds more like fun times for you the GM and uck ya all.
I wonder how many players have left your table with your me style of play.

I wonder when you are on the player side of the table do you follow the same rule of thumb you want your player to follow when you're GMing. Probably not.

You guys must be cut from the same cloth.
Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I still agree with Havoc.


cranewings wrote:

...

Well, I find I get along with players in real life better than internet people. In real life, people appreciate the work and the logic, and that I'm helping them experience better immersion. People online are here, motivated to argue about the rules. I don't mind. I like to argue. Obviously. Not only that, but I don't expect my opinion that the subject they like debating (rules) isn't important, to be a popular opinion.

Trust is the real issue. If you don't trust me to run the game and want to default to the book so that you know it is fair and balanced, I wouldn't feel like I have much to offer. I'm experienced and have a reputation for giving people a good game. My motivation is the enjoyment of immersion and great events, rather than to sell a book or give a player the false sense of victory in a loaded tactical game. If you do not trust me, I'm not going to be able to deliver those things to you anyway.

Got to this post and had to stop.

RAW, the GM in this post was wrong. Can't do that with Jet.

Crane, The op posted a rules question. Your answer was that quest was and I paraphrase: don't question the DM because if he's like you he won't care about how the rules are written. Not exactly a helpful answer. And when players expect the rules to work as written and they don't then it can cause issues. As a player, when a DM starts doing that and making up things as he goes that run contrary to the rules I find another game. As a DM, if someone calls me on a rules question I might keep going to avoid breaking the flow, but I listen the the player and look it up. I wouldn't say "If there is any difference between the book and how I explain it, assume that it is because I don't care what the book says and am rewriting it, right now, in real time."

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The jet 200 ft. monster ability All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.