I know there will be GMs who are less well-versed in the rules involved than I am, and will confuse "I don't understand it" with "it's a gray area".
You forgot the ever-popular "I don't like it" therefore "It's a loophole".
It's really unlikely a GM will admit to not understanding the rules.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Andy (and Wraith) - I'm not going to debate (here, at least) which of us is correct on this particular thing.
Let's assume for a moment that you (both Andy and Wraith) are right, and the flurry thing really is a gray area. What about the next build that comes along? Or the one after that? After that?
Are they ALL gray areas? Are you interpreting the rules more correctly than every single player in every single instance? Or will there be some times when it looks gray to you, but you're simply wrong? And if that situation can arise (and I really hope you're both man enough to admit that there will be times when you're wrong about something being a gray area), then how will you tell when it's the case?
What do you do in order to try and make sure that you only treat something as a gray area when it really is a gray area? Or do you just assume that anything which looks gray at first must be so?
|
That may be. But exploiting those loopholes exacerbates the problems of power builds.
I have little sympathy for table variation issues that ruin character builds when someone chooses to use a loophole like this.
I agree 100% ... and my statment wasnt an excuse just an acknowledgment of how bad UC is ...
but again ... this is table variation and not applicible to the understanding question .... and I have done my best to continue to state the difference
|
Even if the player wants to make it seem the GM just doesn't understand.The veil on your jab is a bit thin.
Not meant to be Jiggy. It unfortunately does kinda apply to you, but if you read upthread quite a bit, I basically said the same thing long before you got involved in the conversation. Just reiterating it again.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
but again ... this is table variation and not applicible to the understanding question .... and I have done my best to continue to state the difference
Ah, but this IS relevant. I bet you dollars to donuts that every time the situation that this thread is about comes up, the GM is calling it an instance of "table variation" or "YMMV". I can't remember if you were here for them or not, but a while back there were some pretty big threads on various topics (perhaps most notably which skills you can use "take 10" on) where multi-star GMs (some of them also VO's) were flat-out wrong about how things worked, and continually recited things about table variation and adjudication and the GM's job and so forth. But they were wrong.
If we are to be responsible GMs, we must acknowledge that sometimes what we think is unclear is only unclear to us, and the player might be right and we might be wrong. And it seems to be well within the scope of this thread to discuss how we can most responsibly address situations where something smells like YMMV but we don't have time to prove.
What can and should come out of this thread is how GMs should behave when their spider-sense tingles but can't be sure.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Andy (and Wraith) - I'm not going to debate (here, at least) which of us is correct on this particular thing.
Let's assume for a moment that you (both Andy and Wraith) are right, and the flurry thing really is a gray area. What about the next build that comes along? Or the one after that? After that?
Are they ALL gray areas? Are you interpreting the rules more correctly than every single player in every single instance? Or will there be some times when it looks gray to you, but you're simply wrong? And if that situation can arise (and I really hope you're both man enough to admit that there will be times when you're wrong about something being a gray area), then how will you tell when it's the case?
What do you do in order to try and make sure that you only treat something as a gray area when it really is a gray area? Or do you just assume that anything which looks gray at first must be so?
I like to think, that when I’m at the table playing, I’ll defer to just having fun, rather than a rules argument based on semantics, interpretation, and the logic of precedence vs. strict stance rules as written.
I like to think, that I will defer to the player more often than not.
I also have admitted many times when I don’t know, or don’t understand something fully, and I’ve deferred to the player in all instances.
But when I’m sure I’m right, unless you can unequivocally prove me wrong (in this particular case, a quote from a developer – read this as not creative director, as in not James Jacobs—or a FAQ or errata entry), then I have to adjudicate based on how I understand the rules. Every GM has to do it this way. Otherwise we have anarchy.
And it is particularly unfair of a player to read so far into RAW, that they can’t look at the game as a whole and how the intent should work, just to get a few extra AC or damage or whatever, and then put a GM in a very uncomfortable position of deciding on whether he goes with what he feels is the rules, or goes by this out-of-context interpretation of one ability of rules text.
It isn’t about ruling against it because I don’t like it. I don’t like plenty of rules, but there is no precedent or reason to exclude said abilities (i.e. the Gunslinger deed of targeted shot, arm, not be affected by DR . Why would I drop my weapon if your bullet can’t hurt me?)
In this case, there is pages of precedent that says the Monk can’t wear armor and receive their special monk abilities. To take the Flurry of Maneuvers completely out of context of the game whole, and say, “well it doesn’t say I can’t” is disingenuous.
|
|
but again ... this is table variation and not applicible to the understanding question .... and I have done my best to continue to state the differenceAh, but this IS relevant. I bet you dollars to donuts that every time the situation that this thread is about comes up, the GM is calling it an instance of "table variation" or "YMMV". I can't remember if you were here for them or not, but a while back there were some pretty big threads on various topics (perhaps most notably which skills you can use "take 10" on) where multi-star GMs (some of them also VO's) were flat-out wrong about how things worked, and continually recited things about table variation and adjudication and the GM's job and so forth. But they were wrong.
If we are to be responsible GMs, we must acknowledge that sometimes what we think is unclear is only unclear to us, and the player might be right and we might be wrong. And it seems to be well within the scope of this thread to discuss how we can most responsibly address situations where something smells like YMMV but we don't have time to prove.
What can and should come out of this thread is how GMs should behave when their spider-sense tingles but can't be sure.
I agree with you wholeheartedly on this Jiggy.
But if as a GM I've also done the research, and the player and GM straight up don't agree on the interpretation, then the GM wins the argument every time.
Are there instances where a GM makes a wrong ruling based on a misunderstanding of the rules? Sure. Happens all the time I'm sure.
But just because the GM's understanding is different than the players, does not mean the GM's understanding is wrong, even if the player "has done their research."
You do realize Jiggy, even with your vast wealth of knowledge on how this game works, you can be wrong sometimes too.
|
The problem isn't that they are WRONG about how the rules for T10 work it's that they were RIGHT about YMMV and table variation. the vast majority of the time that I say "take 10" a get a sideways look from the GM the first time.
I think the appropriate way to handle spider-senses is to trust the player, or if it seems really off say "hey that seems off can I see the rules on that" and have them look it up and show it too me, if it's before the game, great.
If it's during the game I'll let them play it the way they think it works until I can prove otherwise. Afterall it's this persons character; until proven otherwise I'm going to believe they put the time in to verify that it worked.
.
..
...
....
.....
Player: Hi! My character is a bit unique, so I wanted to give you a quick rundown of what he does, so you're not blindsided by it in-game.
GM: Great, let's hear it!
Player: Alright, he's 4th level, almost 5th: Ninja3/Monk1, with the maneuver master archetype on his monk level. He has 24 AC, using a mithral breastplate and a +1 buckler. On a flurry, he starts with a dirty trick maneuver to blind the target, then follows it with a claw and a bite. If the dirty trick succeeded, then those attacks each get 2d6 sneak attack, and I might spend a ki point to get an extra bite.
GM:
1) You haven't mentioned your race or a trait or feat that gets you a bite or a claw. Where is it coming from ?
2) The rules say the GM is the arbiter of what can be done with a dirty trick. How do you intend to blind your target ?
(If the response is "I kick dirt in his face", I'll respond with "You realize there won't always be dirt available, right ?". If it's "I smack the back of his helmet so it falls down over his eyes." I might respond with "What will you do against opponents who don't wear helmets ?")
And if you're relying on Flurry of Maneuvers != Flurry of Blows and therefore not subject to the restriction of armor, SAY SO UP FRONT. Otherwise, the implication is that you realize it's a potential point of contention and were concealing it so that it might go unnoticed. Not saying that's what's really happening, but that can be the impression.
|
Try wild shaped feral combat style, Janni Rush, Vital Strike. Even extremely experienced GMs take 15 minutes to look it all up and actually believe that it all stacks. It just doesn't sound like it should.Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the combat bit of Janni Rush require a charge, whereas Vital Strike doesn't work on a charge? That took me three minutes, so there are 12 minutes left to explain it. :-)
I fail due to lack of sentence structure. The point I was trying to make is that if you don't know the Vital Strike clarification off the top of your head (which still doesn't appear in the FAQ for the Core Rulebook) adding all that other stuff can further confuse even an experienced GM into believing it all stacks if the player insists "it just doesn't sound like it should."
So it's quite possible to spend 15 minutes to come to the wrong conclusion. Sometimes you just have to trust your players, even when they are wrong.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The problem isn't that they are WRONG about how the rules for T10 work it's that they were RIGHT about YMMV and table variation.
In the discussions I'm talking about (I think they were before your time, as well, but I could check if you really want me to) they were actually wrong. Statements like "the rules are unclear about whether or not you can take 10 on [insert skill here]". That's not "YMMV", that's a GM being wrong.
The point is, sometimes GMs are wrong, and simultaneously think that the proof of such is inconclusive. A responsible GM needs to recognize the ways in which he's been wrong before* and then proactively come up with ways to prepare for future issues before they arise.
If a GM knows he keeps forgetting how monster abilities like swallow whole work, then when a player corrects him he should check (or even defer) instead of going with what he originally thought.
If a GM notices that many of his errors are because he went with his gut instead of what's printed, then he should start going with the text instead of his gut when they clash, and will probably start giving more consistently correct rulings as a result.
If a GM knows he doesn't know much about how animal companions work, he should research them, and give players the benefit of the doubt in the meantime.
And so on, and so forth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, there is pages of precedent that says the Monk can’t wear armor and receive their special monk abilities.
Special monk abilities that don't work in armor: AC bonus, Fast Movement, Flurry of Blows.
Special monk abilities that work in armor: Unarmed Strike, Bonus Feats, Stunning Fist, Evasion (Light armor only), Maneuver Training, Still Mind, Ki Pool, Slow Fall, High Jump, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Improved Evasion, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self.
Archetype abilities that replace normal abilities don't inherit the restrictions on those old abilities.
|
|
To play devil's advocate here, what's the difference between my playing a PC that needs 15 minutes to explain and my playing a PC that I could explain in 1 minute except that GMs don't believe me and need 15 minutes of convincing?
Nothing, it's the 15 minutes. If it literally takes 15 minutes to explain something, you're taking 15 minutes away from the rest of the table. If you're knowingly and willing taking 15 minutes of a 4 hours slot away from the rest of the table just because your character needed to be special (or more likely exploit a gray area in the rules), then you're being a jerk.
The best you can do is show up 15 minutes early and hope the GM doesn't need that time to get the table ready for the rest of the table.
Part of my intro to the table includes a line like: "and if your character does anything janky, go ahead and let me know now. Thanks!"
I find that people are excited to share their awesome builds, and I like knowing ahead of time so I don't have that 'wait, what?' moment.
Same here, although I often forget. Some times I wait until the encounter is over to have the 'wait, what?' discussion.
I will also say that ime, when that moment occurs, greater than 9 out of 10 times, the player has something incorrect. About half the time, I learn something new. I probably learn or relearn something from the rules at least once per scenario.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In this case, there is pages of precedent that says the Monk can’t wear armor and receive their special monk abilities.Special monk abilities that don't work in armor: AC bonus, Fast Movement, Flurry of Blows.
Special monk abilities that work in armor: Unarmed Strike, Bonus Feats, Stunning Fist, Evasion (Light armor only), Maneuver Training, Still Mind, Ki Pool, Slow Fall, High Jump, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Improved Evasion, Diamond Body, Abundant Step, Diamond Soul, Quivering Palm, Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body, Perfect Self.
Archetype abilities that replace normal abilities don't inherit the restrictions on those old abilities.
If there were an archetype ability that was completely different from flurry of blows (i.e. you can shoot lasers from your eyes by spending a Ki point) I'd agree with you.
But Flurry of Maneuvers IS Flurry of Blows, you just use maneuvers instead of strikes.
To say otherwise is exploiting a loophole.
[Disclaimer: not a PFSOP player, feel free to ignore these 2 cp]
So, I have a shiny idea about cutting through the power creep and complications. Some folks will love it, others will hate it; please don't have a huge argument over it?
Anyway.
What about trimming some of the supplemental books in their entirety out of organized play? (Utimate Combat, I'm looking at you. You, too, Ultimate Magic. I really dislike a lot of stuff in those books.)
Calm down and consider for a moment. The CRB and APG have a veritable WEALTH of class and feat options. Do we (well, you guys playing PFSOP) really need all the extra stuff on TOP of those resources for fun games?
I mean, how much time and effort on FAQing the complications out of supplemental books do you SPEND, before deciding that the problem is that the complications are needless?
It just seems to me that streamlining all of this by amputation would make a lot of sense. YMMcertainlyV.
And I wouldn't be losing anything I LIKE playing in such a move, so it's easy for me to consider this a rational idea...
|
I think in the end it boils down to the following:
When a player shows up to my table I first assume his build is legal.
If he shows some skills, properties that just seem off and wrong - especially if they seem way to good - then he might need to explain how he gets this values.
If he is unable to explain, then I will not allow it.
I can be wrong - and I admit I got it wrong in at least one instance. A magus suddenly had a bonded item.
Puzzled GM - Magus don't have bonded item.
Answer from player - Magus have bonded item like wizards
Result - I didn't allow it
What I only found out much later looking up his character in detail. He used a special archetype / feat combination to get the bonded item. If he would have told me that on the table - fine.
But it can't be up to me as GM to understand the character better as the player. When his answer was - all Magus have bonded items like wizards I had to assume he just didn't understand the rules / did a mistake here.
Examples like these are likely behind the original question.
Will I ever knowingly ban a legal build. No.
Might I ban a legal build that just seems wrong and the player seems unable to tell me where he gets his powers from. When it's unbalanced and the player has no clue where the powers come from - likely yes.
I don't know when I make the decision if it is legal or not. I give a player some leeway - but if it seems off and against my experience then I need some explanations.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To play devil's advocate here, what's the difference between my playing a PC that needs 15 minutes to explain and my playing a PC that I could explain in 1 minute except that GMs don't believe me and need 15 minutes of convincing?Nothing, it's the 15 minutes. If it literally takes 15 minutes to explain something, you're taking 15 minutes away from the rest of the table. If you're knowingly and willing taking 15 minutes of a 4 hours slot away from the rest of the table just because your character needed to be special (or more likely exploit a gray area in the rules), then you're being a jerk.
The best you can do is show up 15 minutes early and hope the GM doesn't need that time to get the table ready for the rest of the table.
Okay, then how about if I happen to mention my rogue's recent exploits against a flanked ghoul, and the GM overhears and says that I can't sneak attack undead? Suppose I spend 15 minutes trying to convince him that in Pathfinder I can sneak attack undead, and keep having to deal with his "nothing in the CRB says you can sneak attack undead" and "there are years of precedent" and "the intent ever since backstab"? Am I still being a jerk by taking up that time? Does the answer change if today's rogue is being played by the now white-faced and wide-eyed player next to me?
And if them being stubborn about a Core Rule is different than me trying to "exploit gray areas", then where exactly is the line? Maybe I came to the table fully expecting that the GM would come to the same conclusion I did with the 90-second spiel I gave him. Maybe the last three GMs all got it in 90 seconds, but now this one is asking me for 15 minutes. Am I still a jerk?
|
|
Thanks for the post Alitan. The problem here is that PFS is a marketing tool for Paizo (not a bad thing, seriously). The incentive to include most of the material from new books in PFS is that those players then need to purchase access to those materials to use them in PFS.
Mike and Mark do their best to evaluate invidivdual components of each book that don't fit within the campaign, but that really does little for power creep. Besides, even if every new option coming out was equally powered to everything already published, power creep would still occur because more options equal more powerful combinations of equally powerful components (and there's an equal amount of overly weak new combinations as well).
|
|
To play devil's advocate here, what's the difference between my playing a PC that needs 15 minutes to explain and my playing a PC that I could explain in 1 minute except that GMs don't believe me and need 15 minutes of convincing?Nothing, it's the 15 minutes. If it literally takes 15 minutes to explain something, you're taking 15 minutes away from the rest of the table. If you're knowingly and willing taking 15 minutes of a 4 hours slot away from the rest of the table just because your character needed to be special (or more likely exploit a gray area in the rules), then you're being a jerk.
The best you can do is show up 15 minutes early and hope the GM doesn't need that time to get the table ready for the rest of the table.
Okay, then how about if I happen to mention my rogue's recent exploits against a flanked ghoul, and the GM overhears and says that I can't sneak attack undead? Suppose I spend 15 minutes trying to convince him that in Pathfinder I can sneak attack undead, and keep having to deal with his "nothing in the CRB says you can sneak attack undead" and "there are years of precedent" and "the intent ever since backstab"? Am I still being a jerk by taking up that time? Does the answer change if today's rogue is being played by the now white-faced and wide-eyed player next to me?
And if them being stubborn about a Core Rule is different than me trying to "exploit gray areas", then where exactly is the line? Maybe I came to the table fully expecting that the GM would come to the same conclusion I did with the 90-second spiel I gave him. Maybe the last three GMs all got it in 90 seconds, but now this one is asking me for 15 minutes. Am I still a jerk?
If it takes you that long to look up Undead traits in Bestiary 1 then you got problems.
|
|
Okay, then how about if I happen to mention my rogue's recent exploits against a flanked ghoul, and the GM overhears and says that I can't sneak attack undead? Suppose I spend 15 minutes trying to convince him that in Pathfinder I can sneak attack undead, and keep having to deal with his "nothing in the CRB says you can sneak attack undead" and "there are years of precedent" and "the intent ever since backstab"?
Ick... I still run into GMs who think this... For some GMs unlearning 3.5 has been difficult.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately I think Jiggy's build is against the intent of the rules, and I wouldn't allow it in a home game.
I think that is the type of build that exists to point out the errors in rules design (sorry paizo!) instead of being clever and knowledgeable. By RAW Pun-Pun Worked. We're not playing this game by RAW, nobody is, we have to make some attempts to be reasonable here.
making the assertion that "flurry of maneuvers" isn't bound by the flurry of blows restrictions because it isn't called out is.. a stretch.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But Flurry of Maneuvers IS Flurry of Blows, you just use maneuvers instead of strikes.
This ability replaces flurry of blows.
Also note that the text of FoM never uses FoB as a frame of reference (i.e., "this functions as Flurry of Blows, except...").
Your stance is built purely on how you think monks "should" work.
Thanks for the post Alitan. The problem here is that PFS is a marketing tool for Paizo (not a bad thing, seriously). The incentive to include most of the material from new books in PFS is that those players then need to purchase access to those materials to use them in PFS.
Mike and Mark do their best to evaluate invidivdual components of each book that don't fit within the campaign, but that really does little for power creep. Besides, even if every new option coming out was equally powered to everything already published, power creep would still occur because more options equal more powerful combinations of equally powerful components (and there's an equal amount of overly weak new combinations as well).
Ah, well then. Must admit had given zero thought to that aspect of things. And, no, I wouldn't call it a bad thing. A little unfortunate, since it so elegantly hamstrings my clever idea...
|
|
If it takes you that long to look up Undead traits in Bestiary 1 then you got problems.Not talking about the time to look it up. Talking about the time to convince them that the fact that it doesn't specify whether they're immune or not means they're not.
Thankfully illiterate GMs are few and far between.
|
|
Okay, then how about if ...
Read this again, emphasis mine.
On a more serious note:
If you're playing a character that you feel needs to be explained to the GM every time you sit at a new table AND you feel as though a high percentage of GM's just don't understand it or believe you, then you really should consider playing a different character. Continuing to push a concept that in your opinion requires 15 minutes to explain, is a borderline violation of the "don't be a jerk" rule.
Your examples aren't applicable because you don't expect a GM to not know a standard universal monster rule OR that the GM won't be able to read and understand a universal monster rule.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, even if it was something as simple as sneak attacking undead, if the GM doesn't think it works, the onus is on the player to prove that it does. GMs can't be expected to know every rule, nor should they be.
One of the tips we give out in GM 101 is for the GM to make a ruling, keep the flow of the game going, but invite the player to look up the necessary rules to argue their case. Then revisit the issue at the appropriate time (may be the next round, may be after that encounter, or may be after the slot). Always put as much of the work looking anything up on to the players as possible.
|
|
The problem isn't that they are WRONG about how the rules for T10 work it's that they were RIGHT about YMMV and table variation.In the discussions I'm talking about (I think they were before your time, as well, but I could check if you really want me to) they were actually wrong. Statements like "the rules are unclear about whether or not you can take 10 on [insert skill here]". That's not "YMMV", that's a GM being wrong.
The point is, sometimes GMs are wrong, and simultaneously think that the proof of such is inconclusive. A responsible GM needs to recognize the ways in which he's been wrong before* and then proactively come up with ways to prepare for future issues before they arise.
** spoiler omitted **
oh I was agreeing they were wrong, I was stating that I'm ok with people being wrong about rules (because mistakes happen) What worried me about that discussion was that they were correct in that YMMV is something that happens all the time with T10 even though it SHOULDN'T. If you want to T10 on things your mileage WILL vary it shouldn't, because the rules work, but it does.
I still get caught on 3.5->PF changes that I didn't know happened, if someone corrects me and says "they changed that in PF" I go "ahh derp" and play it that way.
|
|
If it takes you that long to look up Undead traits in Bestiary 1 then you got problems.Not talking about the time to look it up. Talking about the time to convince them that the fact that it doesn't specify whether they're immune or not means they're not.
Say "look at elemental traits" then look at "undead traits" see something missing? (though be more diplomatic about it..)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Okay, then how about if ...Read this again, emphasis mine.
Your examples aren't applicable because you don't expect a GM to not know a standard universal monster rule OR that the GM won't be able to read and understand a universal monster rule.On a more serious note:
If you're playing a character that you feel needs to be explained to the GM every time you sit at a new table AND you feel as though a high percentage of GM's just don't understand it or believe you, then you really should consider playing a different character. Continuing to push a concept that in your opinion requires 15 minutes to explain, is a borderline violation of the "don't be a jerk" rule.
Okay, then what if in my honest opinion the rules in my build are just as clear, and I fully expected to be done explaining in two minutes? I've seen some pretty bewildered and stunned looks on some players' faces when GMs told them they disagreed about how something worked. At what point does it switch from (as you put it) "the GM should be able to read and understand it" to "I'm exploiting a gray area"?
Obviously that line can't be fully defined. So my ultimate question is this: how should GMs approach these situations, knowing that they won't know whether it's them or the player that's not understanding things right?
Suppose I spend 15 minutes trying to convince him that in Pathfinder I can sneak attack undead, and keep having to deal with his "nothing in the CRB says you can sneak attack undead" and "there are years of precedent" and "the intent ever since backstab"? Am I still being a jerk by taking up that time?
In a time-limited convention slot, at some point, yes. I'm not saying it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes or 30 minutes, but there is some (fuzzy) line where you have to say "Let's talk about this later, but for now we'll do it your way since you're the GM and we're time limited."
And am I as another player at the table a jerk if I pipe up with "<player name> is right, but can we just do it <GM>'s way to get on with this ? I have another event next time slot."
Does the answer change if today's rogue is being played by the now white-faced and wide-eyed player next to me?
I don't think so, but I'm not sure I'm understanding your postulate. Are you saying the player next to you is playing the rogue (correctly), the GM is still questioning (incorrectly), but you're the one making the arguement ?
And if them being stubborn about a Core Rule is different than me trying to "exploit gray areas", then where exactly is the line?
I'm tempted to say the line is the length of the thread discussing the grey area, but that would be my specious snark coming out. Are there still any threads where someone argues that undead aren't sneak attackable any more ?
Edit: Oh, spelling, spelling and grammar.
|
|
Also, I've had several situations where I made a ruling that the player absolutely didn't agree with. They were pissed. We moved on. They were grumpy but we got the slot done and for the most part the table was enjoyable for everyone else. Every time, the player went back, read more clarifications/rulings/etc and admitted to me later that they were indeed wrong and were sorry for the way they acted.
Here's a great one (let's please not debate this actual case here):
charm person vs. protection from evil. I had always ruled that ProE stops CP in the past. Got a clarification from Bulmahn:
"...note that not all charm and compulsion effects "excise mental control" over the target. Making a target friendly is not control. This is subject to GM discretion."
So after reading that, I decided to agree with Jason since I had always hated how powerful ProE was vs. some high level spells. Naturally, the first time I tried to implement this at my table it caused quite a discussion. Feelings were probably hurt and the table didn't end well.
So was it a good thing? Don't know. I later played EotT at the same table as these guys and they mentioned that they now agreed with me and it just caught them off-guard at the time. The lesson learned here was that I should have mentioned my understanding of the spell as soon as the player chose to cast it.
Talk with your GM. Accept that their understanding might not match yours . Make the best of it and have fun.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So my ultimate question is this: how should GMs approach these situations, knowing that they won't know whether it's them or the player that's not understanding things right?
If I understand what the player is arguing, and simply am not convinced he's right (such as in the Flurry of Maneuvers example), then I would let the player's interpretation stand unless and until I thought it was ruining the fun of the other players by neutering encounters. But once I had the time, I would search for more information on the rule, both in the rulebooks and on the forums, so I could be sure the next time I ran a table with that build.
|
|
So my ultimate question is this: how should GMs approach these situations, knowing that they won't know whether it's them or the player that's not understanding things right?If I understand what the player is arguing, and simply am not convinced he's right (such as in the Flurry of Maneuvers example), then I would let the player's interpretation stand unless and until I thought it was ruining the fun of the other players by neutering encounters. But once I had the time, I would search for more information on the rule, both in the rulebooks and on the forums, so I could be sure the next time I ran a table with that build.
Yup. Sans this conversation, and my subsequently looking up the rules myself. I'd do the same.
But since this conversation did exist, and I did do the research myself...
I have a basis for ruling against such a build wearing armor.
|
Speaking only for myself here:
Under no circumstances would I ever turn away a character from a table I ran, so long as said character was legal ofcourse. In my experience most times a problem arises it is more because of the player than the character being played.
I have only recently moved into Pathfinder from 3.5 DnD, so I am still learning many of the new mechanics. When it comes to characters I play, I simply research extensively the build I run so that I know the mechanics of every aspect backwards and forwards. If I am running a game, all I need is a quick reference to the unfamiliar resource and we're good to go.
Like life, there are many loopholes and grey areas in the system. I tend to run things "as written" at my tables, simply because it keeps interpretation down to a minimum and helps prevent reverse engineering logic (but where does it say you can sneak attack undead?) from carrying the last remaining shreds of patience from the table. Sometimes this leads to game imbalance and/or defying mechanic intentions, such as armored monks flurry of maneuvers and gunslinger pistolero double dex damage - but lets face it, the game is easy enough to "game" anyhow while being perfectly within defined black and white mechanics.
These loopholes are simple enough to correct with errata and FAQs as necessary.
|
|
If you need a flow chart to understand your character, its probably too complicated to truthfully play by the rules with it.Sadly the first thing that came to mind is the flow chart that is out there for Grapple.
is that that stupid 3.5 flow chart? The one where you need a mechanical engineering degree to figure out how to adjudicate grapple in that system?
|
|
is that that stupid 3.5 flow chart? The one where you need a mechanical engineering degree to figure out how to adjudicate grapple in that system?If you need a flow chart to understand your character, its probably too complicated to truthfully play by the rules with it.Sadly the first thing that came to mind is the flow chart that is out there for Grapple.
I use this site all the time to research info when I don't have my books. d20pfsrd
Theres actually two parts. If they are updated versions of the 3.5 system I don't know. Like I said, first thing that popped in my head.
|
|
is that that stupid 3.5 flow chart? The one where you need a mechanical engineering degree to figure out how to adjudicate grapple in that system?If you need a flow chart to understand your character, its probably too complicated to truthfully play by the rules with it.Sadly the first thing that came to mind is the flow chart that is out there for Grapple.I use this site all the time to research info when I don't have my books. d20pfsrd
Theres actually two parts. If they are updated versions of the 3.5 system I don't know. Like I said, first thing that popped in my head.
Ah, I prefer to use the PRD here on the Paizo site, vs. the d20PFSRD, because the d20PFSRD has a lot of 3rd party stuff and opinions of 3rd party people. Some players have a propensity to take those 3rd party opinions as clarifications from Paizo.
|
Suppose I spend 15 minutes trying to convince him that in Pathfinder I can sneak attack undead, and keep having to deal with his "nothing in the CRB says you can sneak attack undead" and "there are years of precedent" and "the intent ever since backstab"? Am I still being a jerk by taking up that time?In a time-limited convention slot, at some point, yes. I'm not saying it's 5 minutes or 15 minutes or 30 minutes, but there is some (fuzzy) line where you have to say "Let's talk about this later, but for now we'll do it your way since you're the GM and we're time limited."
And am I as another player at the table a jerk if I pipe up with "<player name> is right, but can we just do it <GM>'s way to get on with this ? I have another event next time slot."
I kind of disagree with you on this. Since the GM has final say on the ruling, I'd say the onus is also on him to decide when to end the debate and just move on. A player can give in and just go with the GM's call earlier than the GM, but a long debate is more likely the GM's fault than the player's. As others have said, the GM can (and should) at some point say "For now, let's just play it this way, and look it up later, just to keep things moving."
But as is frequently the case in heated debates, both sides do bare some responsibility if it goes on too long and/or gets too heated.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First and foremost, I am not a PFS GM, but I did GM a lot of Living Greyhawk back in the day, so take this with a grain of salt. Also, I apologize if this post seems like a ramble.
Players and GMs make mistakes. We're all human. It happens.
The best thing that one can do (and I have done both in LG and PFS) is to just run with the GMs call. If a rule can be quickly looked up and shown, then fine. If not, I generally don't argue with the GM. It wastes precious time away from actually playing, and I don't want to do that to my fellow players.
That being said, if it's something very important, like it would cause someone from dying at the table, then I would argue it, because that it is a huge deal.
I've seen local experienced PF GMs make mistakes, but since they weren't really crucial, I just let it go. For example, the GM questioned whether my Ranger could use a Wand of Cure Light Wounds even though he didn't have a caster level, and might need to make a Use Magic Device check. Since in the end he decided that I could use it without rolling, I dropped the matter (and even if he didn't, I wouldn't have argued, since at the time, it didn't matter; we had an Inquisitor in the party who could use it). I meant to look up the rule afterwards just to show him so he'd know for next time, but it was getting late and I forgot.
By that same token, I've seen players make mistakes, and have chimed in on it. And when I make a mistake, I appreciate it when someone points it out to me.
As a GM in Living Greyhawk, I found it best to slide on the player's side when there wasn't any clear evidence one way or another. If it wasn't someone I knew, I'd just mention that I'll allow it, but they should try to get something more concrete for next time, one way or another.
As a player in PFS, I have found it best to stay away from anything that could be considered "inflammatory", such as whether a Master of Many Styles Monk can Fuse Style while wearing armor. If I happen to disagree with the GM on a ruling, but don't consider it as something too crucial, I just go with the GM's ruling. If after the game I find the ruling was wrong, I'll try to point it out. (I suspect this won't happen very often, as all of my PF books are in PDF format, and I only print out the things that directly relate to my character).
[As an aside: for Jiggy's Ninja/Monk, by the RAW, I'd say it works. RAI is another matter. I've considered using the Maneuver Master Monk archetype for the same Ranger character (who has taken 2 levels of Monk) since I'll be wearing armor and Flurry of Blows would be useless. I ended up not taking it because, while RAW suggests it works, it contradicts the flavour of the Monk and therefore I suspect that the local GMs here would think it didn't work; And I don't feel like arguing with them every time it came up, because it would mean less time I can play. With my current schedule, I don't get to play as often as I'd like, so each moment is precious to me. In a home game, I probably wouldn't allow it to work. But for an Organized Play environment, if I were the GM, I'd allow it because, just like Living Greyhawk, I have to go with the way the rules are written, rather than how I think they were intended. But, I don't expect every GM to be like that.]
you need a mechanical engineering degree to figure out how to adjudicate grapple in that system?Good thing I have one of those. :-)
I knew there was a reason I usually agree with you.
(Virginia Licensed Professional Engineer, but I don't usually bother putting the P.E. after my name because everyone thinks of Phys. Ed.)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I've located an necro'd a rules thread about maneuver master abilities and armor. Let's please divert any further discussion of that issue HERE.