Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So basically, GMs need to learn how to tell how rough an individual scenario is likely to be? Am I following right?
I feel like I'm being trapped. At risk of losing my leg: Why not?
More appropriately, however, I would actually say that GMs need to be sure they know what they are doing. There are a great many who are very good at it. They know when to go all out, but know when to not take the obvious flank they should be taking. They know that, just because a fighter has power attack doesn't mean you have to use it.
I could go on, but the simple statement is this: GMs are largely responsible for the amount of fun that a table is going to have. Own that, and know your capabilities and limitations.
And, yes, hogarth, players should also be aware that any given scenario is possibly going to turn out badly, and should be prepared for that (meaning they should know how to avoid it). That is to say, I don't think that GMs should be required to buy a pair of kid gloves and always play with them on.
I'd prefer to have things one way or the other: either cut me loose from the RAW and let me sink or swim throwing my full creative capabilities at situations--let me be wildly resourceful and imaginative--or not. But if you're going to tie my hands and make me wargame my way through what should be roleplaying, then don't get mad when I use every resource at my disposal. It's all I've got. It seems like the critters we fight aren't builld for their excellent story value--they're build to use cheap mechanical gimicks to hose PC parties. Until I find a narrative game I fully intend to be cheap in ways that drop jaws and make DMs want to throw their books against the wall.
...so you were saying there's an Alchemist build that can throw force bombs that knock enemies down? Do tell.
It seems like the critters we fight aren't builld for their excellent story value--they're build to use cheap mechanical gimicks to hose PC parties.
If you could provide one example of the latter half of that statement I'd examine your example to help me understand your position.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Well, there are a lot of scenarios that feel like they have extra combats for no apparent reason.
Consider the Dalsine Affair:
Or Voice in the Void:
On the other hand, some scenarios do manage to work their combats into the main storyline very well.
Can I tell you guys the truth? Seriously? I really just want to be playing through the stories of these guys. I love the idea that there's this guy who lost his dad to his own Forlorn nature (who'd rather leave than see the mother of his kids grow old and die in hamster-years) and everyone else to the blackscour. I dig that he's looking at the church of Pharasma as his ticket to die and go out into the planes to find them because he's so freakin' lonely--an until then he's working with graverobbers, legbreakers and necromancers in the hope that he can study death and hopefully understand it and get his head around his own, not because it helps him, but because he's experiencing it vicariously through other people. I dig the drama of that--of him running up to badguys with tears streaming down his face and throwing his arms around them and melting them to goo, wreathed in the essence of death. But more than that I just want to play through the dramas of this guy's life. Does anyone try to change the course of his crazy bonzai charge toward death? Does he find someone he cares about that pulls him back to the world--an orphan in Absolom or a mongrel dog? Do the Venture Captains know he's screwed up and hurting, but use him anyway as a disposable pawn because it's more convenient for them for him to stay screwed up.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Until I find a narrative game I fully intend to be cheap in ways that drop jaws and make DMs want to throw their books against the wall.
I just don't get this. Why even play if you don't enjoy the game? If you think PFS is filled with cheap, unfair gimmicks and meatgrinder scenarios, and that it's a boring slugfest, why are you participating? I can guarantee that it is not just the GMs that are frustrated by players who insist on dominating tables. Other players are frustrated, too.
Or is it merely the act of making jaws drop that you enjoy?
Edit: Considering your next post, it seems like you would be far better served in a home game where a GM could tailor his story around his players' backgrounds. Why are you not playing in one of those instead of boring yourself in PFS?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd prefer to have things one way or the other: either cut me loose from the RAW and let me sink or swim throwing my full creative capabilities at situations--let me be wildly resourceful and imaginative--or not. But if you're going to tie my hands and make me wargame my way through what should be roleplaying, then don't get mad when I use every resource at my disposal.
Creativity actually *is* supposed to be rewarded in PFS. I'm sorry your GM didn't run things that way in the handful of games you've played. Heck, on two different occasions I've come very close to forcing the GM to throw the whole adventure out the window by going so far off the rails. (In one case I'm glad it didn't happen, because my plan involved the slaughter of an entire town that I mistakenly thought was evil and dangerous.)
Unless by "creativity" you mean "no more rules". If you require the removal of rules to do what you want to do, you're not actually being creative. "Restriction breeds creativity," as the saying goes.
One of my players kept some oil they found, and started jury-rigging flaming crossbow bolts using the oil, some cloth, and (IIRC) the spark cantrip (and lots of actions). That's creativity. It also doesn't break any rules.
I'm not saying that you *are* defining creativity as a lack of rules, I'm just making sure.
It seems like the critters we fight aren't builld for their excellent story value--they're build to use cheap mechanical gimicks to hose PC parties.
Have any examples? What exactly is a "cheap mechanical gimmick"? So far, all I've seen is monsters using their natural abilities in natural ways, or NPCs using their feats and spells in intelligent ways. What makes something a gimmick?
EDIT - Ninja'd. Sounds more like you want to write a book, or at least play in a custom home campaign (or maybe write and GM one).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you could provide one example of the latter half of that statement I'd examine your example to help me understand your position.
Well I've got a few so far, but here's the most recent:
Stuff like this makes me want to make the most broken, contrived, ridiculous characters ever...
I just moved to a new town. The gamestore here has one weekly game--this one. I'm more concerned right now with making contacts and friends in this new area that I am in forcing them to play games my way--and it's a new format, so I'm interested in doing something new that works new muscles--if for no other reason than so I can better understand how most folks experience the game I love: mapboard, minis and all.
That's the hope anyway.
If you could provide one example of the latter half of that statement I'd examine your example to help me understand your position.Well I've got a few so far, but here's the most recent:
** spoiler omitted **Stuff like this makes me want to make the most broken, contrived, ridiculous characters ever...
Out of the 130+ scenarios/modules you can play in PFS you picked the one scenario that should not have made it past the editors let alone not have been retired by now.
Here's another example:
Out of the 130+ scenarios/modules you can play in PFS you picked the one scenario that should not have made it past the editors let alone not have been retired by now.
Does that somehow make my frustration less legitimate?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Here's another example:
** spoiler omitted **
Say what!?!?
Man, you need to tell Mike who this GM is. The guy very obviously altered not only the stat block, but the tactics in this scenario in an effort to "make it fun" which obviously had the opposite effect.
Under no circumstances can that guy do any of that, nor does he himself know about the collapsing floor. In fact, he's sitting on it and is likely doomed to fall to his death, himself.
All of this proves my point from above: GMs need to know their limitations and abilities and start working within that frame.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Produce flame doesn't "turn all his melee attacks into fire-added touches". It can be used as a standard action to make one touch attack that deals its own damage and no other. That also means no other attacks (or casting any spells that round). And the maximum damage (for a caster of level 5 or higher) is 1d6+5.
What was this GM doing? Or did I misunderstand your description?
As I read it produce flame lasts 10 rounds per level (3rd in this case) which left him with two fireballs and 10 rounds of effect (each fireball nixes 10 rounds). It adds fire damage to unarmed attacks and makes them melee touch attacks.
The DM was not enjoying himself. He was so frustrated with the printed tactics when it was so obviously going to wipe everyone I thought he was going to cry. Our DM is an awesome guy.
Parenthetically did I mention I was thinking of taking a level in Druid for no in character reason and then using two PP to get a wand of Produce Flame?
Does that somehow make my frustration less legitimate?
Out of the 130+ scenarios/modules you can play in PFS you picked the one scenario that should not have made it past the editors let alone not have been retired by now.
Yes.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
As I read it produce flame lasts 10 rounds per level (3rd in this case) which left him with two fireballs and 10 rounds of effect (each fireball nixes 10 rounds).
The DM was not enjoying himself. He was so frustrated with the printed tactics when it was so obviously going to wipe everyone I thought he was going to cry. Our DM is an awesome guy.
I'm sorry, but your GM was wrong.
That guy does not know about the floor; he's sitting right on it. When it collapses, there *is* no choke point; one wing of the tower falls, likely taking him with it. Each time you throw one of the flames from produce flame you reduce its duration by one minute. And you only get to attack one person with that ball, not make a "fireball" effect.
I could easily go on about this encounter, but I won't continue to beat this dude up.
Your GM may be an awesome guy, but he needs to learn how to read a scenario before he plays it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically, GMs need to learn how to tell how rough an individual scenario is likely to be? Am I following right?
It's a trap!
What I'm saying is that a GM needs to understand that he's there to provide a fun experience. Just because a scenario includes 1001 ways to maim the PCs doesn't mean he should do it. Not every table and player wants to be brought near the edge of death. Listen to your players, use the first encounter(s) to judge what they enjoy. If they spend a lot of time on their character introductions and spend a lot of time talking IC to each other, chances are they're going to have fun even if the encounters aren't deadly. Is that always true? Of course not. The point is, make your table FUN.
For the given encounter, you have to be able to recognize how deadly deeper darkness is to 1st level PCs. If you can't see that, you don't belong "behind the screen" yet. Play a bit more so you can learn to recognize these things. As for that encounter, who says that the DS has to stab and full attack and murder every turn? There are other things they can do. There's 8 combat maneuvers that can make an encounter pretty cinematic. PC going for the macguffin? Bull rush him away from it first. Big scary fighter type that have a weapon that could kill you in one hit despite the darkness? Disarm him. Hell, want to be evil? Sunder it! Do non-lethal! DS doesn't have a sap? Add one. *omg he just suggested cheating!* Do the bad guys really want the PCs dead, or is there some use to having hostages?
For the players. Listen up. Stop being stupid. Yep. I said that.
Stop assuming you can just defeat an encounter by attacking it with sword and magic. Opening an unknown door is just that, unknown. Come up with a real strategy for dealing with some of the things you expect to be behind that door. Here's an important one. If you lose a battle, don't assume you played it smart. I've had several tables talk about how an encounter or scenario is way too hard because they played it "right" or they didn't make any mistakes and they lost, so obviously it's the scenarios fault. Be a big enough person to realize that you may have been outsmarted by the NPCs. Realize that your tactics may NOT be the right choice. Sometimes the dice hate you. Sometimes the author hates you. :-) (as in the encounter tactics just happen to be the perfect counter for your favorite style of play)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As I read it produce flame lasts 10 rounds per level (3rd in this case) which left him with two fireballs and 10 rounds of effect (each fireball nixes 10 rounds). It adds fire damage to unarmed attacks and makes them ranged touch attacks.
No, that's not what the spell does.
You're correct that it lasts 10 rounds per level.
You're also correct that throwing it nixes 10 rounds.
However, it does not modify unarmed attacks at all. You can make a melee touch attack with it as a standard action, all by itself, and this ALSO nixes 10 rounds.
So if the guy was CL3, then he gets no more than 3 fire attacks, regardless of whether they were at range or in melee. That's it. Three. And none of them combine with or modify unarmed attacks or any other attack forms.
If you get a wand of it, then for each charge you'll get exactly ONE touch attack (melee or ranged, your choice) that deals 1d6+1 fire damage and that's it. Oh, and it'll cost you two standard actions to do it: one to activate the wand, and then another the next round to make the attack.
Your GM made some extremely serious errors, it sounds like.
|
|
Does that somehow make my frustration less legitimate?
Out of the 130+ scenarios/modules you can play in PFS you picked the one scenario that should not have made it past the editors let alone not have been retired by now.
Nope, but what it should help you realize is that if you stick with it and play 99 more scenarios, your frustration level will be significantly reduced. There are a LOT of great scenarios written by some great authors.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So basically, GMs need to learn how to tell how rough an individual scenario is likely to be? Am I following right?It's a trap!
That's two people in a row thinking that question was a trap. :/
I was actually planning (after confirming the sentiment) on agreeing and saying that should probably be a skill to develop as a GM - analyze the scenario and say something like "Man, these NPCs are lame - I'd better think ahead to some tactical ideas to keep it interesting" or "Yikes, this is brutal - I'd better think ahead to some believable pressure-release valves in case it's killing the table's fun".
I thought that's what you guys were saying, and I was going to thank you for the idea. I should probably add that to my list of fun-fostering skills to work on.
...I should, right?
Okay well the way we ran it the floor section collapsed, the crennelated outer rim stayed intact. Haven't read the module so I don't know how accurate that is--but it seems like if the main boss were to die falling off the roof that'd be a weird way to end the module--so I get the impression they mean for him to survive.
Sorry...I'm saying fireball, not Fireball--like a ball of fire. It wasn't doing the multi-dice radius damage thing. It was just a ball of fire. As far as the duration goes there's 10 rounds per minute (6 second rounds). He burns two minutes with two ranged fire attacks and then gets to wail on us for ten rounds with touch attacks. Right?
|
Nope, but what it should help you realize is that if you stick with it and play 99 more scenarios, your frustration level will be significantly reduced. There are a LOT of great scenarios written by some great authors.Does that somehow make my frustration less legitimate?
Out of the 130+ scenarios/modules you can play in PFS you picked the one scenario that should not have made it past the editors let alone not have been retired by now.
Yeah, just avoid the scenarios written by that Baird guy if you don't want to die (or suffer what one friend of mine described as a fate worse than death!).
For the players. Listen up. Stop being stupid. Yep. I said that.Stop assuming you can just defeat an encounter by attacking it with sword and magic. Opening an unknown door is just that, unknown. Come up with a real strategy for dealing with some of the things you expect to be behind that door. Here's an important one. If you lose a battle, don't assume you played it smart. I've had several tables talk about how an encounter or scenario is way too hard because they played...
You know, we try. We spend most of most fights strategizing and positioning, and then finding out our tactics won't work because of RAW rule thus-and-so or Society restriction thus-and-so. So instead we try to make clever builds and optimize the crap out of them and hopefully I get to inject a little story and flavor in there as I go. I figure that's as good as it gets.
Wrong.
Each fire attack you make, regardless of whether it was melee or ranged, whacks a minute off the duration.
Three attacks. Period.
Fair enough. Sorry if it looks like I'm not hearing you. This conversation is going pretty quick and by the time I've fired off a post there's a few posts in between I haven't read yet. Its not that I'm not taking them into account. There's just some lag from my reply to one post and the next. Thanks for the clarification though.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, we try. We spend most of most fights strategizing and positioning, and then finding out our tactics won't work because of RAW rule thus-and-so or Society restriction thus-and-so.
Can you give an example of a tactic/strategy that's neutralized by "RAW rule thus-and-so or Society restriction thus-and-so"? I've never run into this problem myself, and as I mentioned upthread, PFS GMs are supposed to reward creative solutions - there's even a whole section of the Guide devoted to that topic!
I figure that's as good as it gets.
Might be, with that GM. If the GM radically multiplies the power of basic spells and completely fumbles the tactics, then yeah, things will keep sucking. :/
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sorry if it looks like I'm not hearing you. This conversation is going pretty quick and by the time I've fired off a post there's a few posts in between I haven't read yet. Its not that I'm not taking them into account. There's just some lag from my reply to one post and the next.
Yep, happens to me all the time. No worries. :)
We wanted to Bull Rush the troglodyte guy off the top of the tower at one point--and I think the response was that while you can do things like that in standard play, in Society you can't push enemies out of a fight. There was another time when I was being charmed by an evil muppet into attacking the PCs, but in Society play PC's who aren't under monster influence can't target other PC's--so they couldn't grapple me or knock me out. Weird stuff like that.
|
|
We wanted to Bull Rush the troglodyte guy off the top of the tower at one point--and I think the response was that while you can do things like that in standard play, in Society you can't push enemies out of a fight. There was another time when I was being charmed by an evil muppet into attacking the PCs, but in Society play PC's who aren't under monster influence can't target other PC's--so they couldn't grapple me or knock me out. Weird stuff like that.
OK this isn't a PFS thing. It's a GM thing. You can totally bullrush enemies off a cliff any time you want (they get an AoO though) and you can always attack a fellow player in any way as long as you have their permission.
Grimcleaver, I would download the guide to organized play and give it a read. It very clearly states what changes are made to the core rules. None of your examples are allowed. The GM was simply mistaken.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So basically, GMs need to learn how to tell how rough an individual scenario is likely to be? Am I following right?It's a trap!That's two people in a row thinking that question was a trap. :/
I was actually planning (after confirming the sentiment) on agreeing and saying that should probably be a skill to develop as a GM - analyze the scenario and say something like "Man, these NPCs are lame - I'd better think ahead to some tactical ideas to keep it interesting" or "Yikes, this is brutal - I'd better think ahead to some believable pressure-release valves in case it's killing the table's fun".
I thought that's what you guys were saying, and I was going to thank you for the idea. I should probably add that to my list of fun-fostering skills to work on.
...I should, right?
Yes.
And so should anyone else who decides to put the GM hat on. And even if you think you've already worked on that aspect of your fun-fostering skills, work on it some more. It's one of those things that can always use propping up.
Edit: And sorry I accused you of setting a trap, Jiggy. It just felt like you were hunting down a debate and trying to get us to start it. (-:
Here's an example from my current build. I want to make a grappling cleric. The idea being that I grab a hold of enemies--and am thereby touching them I would assume, and while holding them, fry them with touch attacks like Bleeding Touch, or Inflict spells. Well while conceptually that seems like a wonderful tactic, the rules don't support it at all.
Just an example, mind you. Stuff you should be able to do versus what the rules let you do come up all the time. All the time.
Or just whether or not you can buy something that you'd need to try and overcome an obstacle--whether you can even buy it at a certain level and if this particular gold is real or not, and if the items you get are permanent or if they just exist in the module...it can get really weird.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We wanted to Bull Rush the troglodyte guy off the top of the tower at one point--and I think the response was that while you can do things like that in standard play, in Society you can't push enemies out of a fight.
No such rule exists. I don't even know of anything that could sound like that rule. There's even a rule in the Guide saying that PCs can roleplay their way past what was supposed to be a fight, and still get the loot. I have no idea where this GM got this idea.
There was another time when I was being charmed by an evil muppet into attacking the PCs, but in Society play PC's who aren't under monster influence can't target other PC's--so they couldn't grapple me or knock me out. Weird stuff like that.
At least I know where he's coming from on this one. There is a "No PvP" rule, but it does NOT mean that when one PC gets dominated everyone else has to just bend over.
It sounds like instead of actually reading the Guide to Organized Play, the GM based his idea of PFS on what he could remember of other people's conversations that he overheard half of. While drunk.
Sorry to be so harsh, but this guy's list of errors is unfathomably long, and ruined your (and I'm guessing others') experience with PFS. My advice is to not bother playing under this guy again unless he seriously steps it up. That level of GMing is completely unacceptable.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Weird stuff like that.That is weird. I would never make silly rulings like those.
Indeed.
Grimcleaver, you're not helping make the case that your GM is an "awesome guy" and that you got punked by crappy scenarios. Instead, it seems he is a huge part of the problem you are having with your games. Please direct him to the Guide, and to things like the GM101 download. He needs to learn a few things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's an example from my current build. I want to make a grappling cleric. The idea being that I grab a hold of enemies--and am thereby touching them I would assume, and while holding them, fry them with touch attacks like Bleeding Touch, or Inflict spells. Well while conceptually that seems like a wonderful tactic, the rules don't support it at all.
Just an example, mind you. Stuff you should be able to do versus what the rules let you do come up all the time. All the time.
You can certainly make this build in PFS and in any other game, but you'll need Greater Grapple before you can also use touch spells on them (by grappling as a move), so it will take a while to get there. Why should a character necessarily be able to do this without the Greater Grapple feat?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You can certainly make this build in PFS and in any other game, but you'll need Greater Grapple before you can also use touch spells on them (by grappling as a move), so it will take a while to get there. Why should a character necessarily be able to do this without the Greater Grapple feat?Here's an example from my current build. I want to make a grappling cleric. The idea being that I grab a hold of enemies--and am thereby touching them I would assume, and while holding them, fry them with touch attacks like Bleeding Touch, or Inflict spells. Well while conceptually that seems like a wonderful tactic, the rules don't support it at all.
Just an example, mind you. Stuff you should be able to do versus what the rules let you do come up all the time. All the time.
And if you're a cleric of Irori (favored weapon: unarmed strike), then in PFS you get Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. That'll help with the Grapple feat chain.
Why should a character necessarily be able to do this without the Greater Grapple feat?
They shouldn't necessarily as a matter of game rules. I got asked to provide an example of where a tactic that otherwise makes sense doesn't necessarily work because of RAW rules. The idea is, if to hit with an attack I just need to touch you, then if I'm holding onto you I should automatically also be touching you.
Here's another logic hiccup. I have fallen in love with swarmsuits (DR 5 vs. swarms--and every module just loves to throw in swarms) but apparently with bat swarms their bleed effect would still work because it's an aura. So they can't bite you, but you still start taking bleed damage.
I actually went Pharasma for the Death domain power Bleeding Touch 5x a day.
Why should a character necessarily be able to do this without the Greater Grapple feat?They shouldn't necessarily as a matter of game rules. I got asked to provide an example of where a tactic that otherwise makes sense doesn't necessarily work because of RAW rules. The idea is, if to hit with an attack I just need to touch you, then if I'm holding onto you I should automatically also be touching you.
GrappledA grappled creature is restrained by a creature, trap, or effect. Grappled creatures cannot move and take a –4 penalty to Dexterity. A grappled creature takes a –2 penalty on all attack rolls and combat maneuver checks, except those made to grapple or escape a grapple. In addition, grappled creatures can take no action that requires two hands to perform. A grappled character who attempts to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability must make a concentration check (DC 10 + grappler's CMB + spell level), or lose the spell. Grappled creatures cannot make attacks of opportunity.
Emphasis mine.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
We wanted to Bull Rush the troglodyte guy off the top of the tower at one point--and I think the response was that while you can do things like that in standard play, in Society you can't push enemies out of a fight.
I've never heard of such a rule, and I've been running games since the first slot at the GenCon where the Society opened up. The closest rule that I can think of would be the Pathfinder (not Society) rule that the Reposition maneuver can't be used to place someone in danger (such as sending them into a pit). That doesn't apply to bull rushes, just repositioning.
There was another time when I was being charmed by an evil muppet into attacking the PCs, but in Society play PC's who aren't under monster influence can't target other PC's--so they couldn't grapple me or knock me out. Weird stuff like that.
Your GM was drastically misinterpreting the "No PvP" rule. Its intent is to prevent people from killing each other for giggles, not to keep PCs from stopping a rampaging PC under an enchantment.
They shouldn't necessarily as a matter of game rules. I got asked to provide an example of where a tactic that otherwise makes sense doesn't necessarily work because of RAW rules. The idea is, if to hit with an attack I just need to touch you, then if I'm holding onto you I should automatically also be touching you.Here's another logic hiccup. I have fallen in love with swarmsuits (DR 5 vs. swarms--and every module just loves to throw in swarms) but apparently with bat swarms their bleed effect would still work because it's an aura. So they can't bite you, but you still start taking bleed damage.
Emphasis mine.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Why should a character necessarily be able to do this without the Greater Grapple feat?They shouldn't necessarily as a matter of game rules. I got asked to provide an example of where a tactic that otherwise makes sense doesn't necessarily work because of RAW rules. The idea is, if to hit with an attack I just need to touch you, then if I'm holding onto you I should automatically also be touching you.
You would be. But if you stop maintaining the grapple so you can activate/cast your Bad Touch, they slip out. Having been touching them a minute ago isn't good enough.
Now, if you were already holding the charge from an Inflict spell you'd previously cast, and you successfully grappled an opponent, the rules don't really say whether it'd discharge or not. But I'd sure allow it! :)
Here's another logic hiccup. I have fallen in love with swarmsuits (DR 5 vs. swarms--and every module just loves to throw in swarms) but apparently with bat swarms their bleed effect would still work because it's an aura. So they can't bite you, but you still start taking bleed damage.
What source are you reading? Bat swarms don't have an aura. You bleed if they damage you, exactly as you thought they should. Was this another thing your GM told you?
The closest rule that I can think of would be the Pathfinder (not Society) rule that the Reposition maneuver can't be used to place someone in danger (such as sending them into a pit). That doesn't apply to bull rushes, just repositioning.
That actually sounds like exactly the rule we were talking about, though I'm fuzzy on how repositioning an enemy works unless you were to try to actively move them with something like a Bull Rush.