Yeah, I run 4 characters solo and my fighter got panicked by a yeth hound and was supposed to flee but he was stuck between a wall to his right, my stern Dwarf cleric in the adjacent square behind him at the doorway, a yeth hound adjacent to the left, another adjacent front and the party rogue diagonally adjacent between the yeth hounds. I decided my Cleric was not going to willingly allow the Fighter to pass thru his square and the GM got mad and said I had to flee and a fellow PC couln't block me since friendly characters can move through other friendly characters squares. My argument was that the cleric didnt have to let him thru by treating him as an opponent for that purpose and that the fighter would have to overrun or push him aside with a Combat manuever check. The GM At this point says whatever he doesn't flee and instead starts bumrushing my fighter to the exclusion of my other three characters. Was his call right by the RAW or was I right that the Cleric could stop the fighter freely moving? OH, he also stated that I couldn't do it because the Cleric would have needed to ready an action to oppose the fighter even though it was my opinion that his(the clerics) CMD would suffice to at least give the fighter a number to beat in order to flee. So which is correct by the written rules?
The Yeth hounds blew out the characters ears with their howl and they all had to save vs. fear, the Rogue and Fighter failed, the cleric and Druid saved. That would indicate to me that the Fighter was frightened if he chose to turn and run rather than attack two adjacent foes. Just my guess there. Yes, I fully expected the Fighter to be REQUIRED to roll a combat maneuver check to escape, the GM wasn't having it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If i would have been your GM I would have had the cleric roll to see if he got that the fighter was trying to flee. In my opinion he would have had a good chance because the fighter would look extremely scared and he is running away, this looks different than repositioning. When you reposition you will most likely keep looking at the hounds and be hustling, not running.
For me passing the save doesn't mean the howl sounds like any other howl, it sounds very scarry but you are able to withstand your fear. (I think of it this way because it is a will save.)This combined would mean for me that the cleric could react to the fighters action and it would indeed be a roll of the fighter against the clerics CMD.
Sadly, whether or not your cleric would behave my way, or your GM's (and Isil-zha's) way isn't in the rules as far as I know..
Ps. You could ask James Jacobs what he thinks, my GM often suggests when we have different opinions. (Which isn't very often btw)
The GM didn't even suggest that a perception roll to figure this out would even be possible. I essentially felt like I was being steamrolled/stonewalled. Ironic because thats what I wanted the cleric to do to the fighter so I could use my scroll of remove fear on him so as not to have half my party fleeing what was at the time a "hard" fight.
Well Isil maybe if we look at it in terms of Common sense we see that in real life if your friend is in front of you and you want him to fight the guys boxing him in and they yell and he turns tail and tries to run by you, maybe you know he is chickens!@#t and you choose not to let him by so at that point he can either try to go another direction OR bowl you over...if he can. So why couldn't a PC react in the same way?
That's one way to look at it, doesn't make it the right way though. If an NPC could block an "allied" NPC I should be able to as well, and I am pretty sure an Npc Orc could block his Npc Orc brother in the same situation.
It would be sense motive, not perception.
Also, not allowing your friend to flee for his life is a pretty dastardly move.
true, but it could be done.The GM just didn't want to have to think about it I believe, a case of too much effort in addition to keeping track of the other aspects of the game.
If a Character any character tries to overrun any other character he has to succeed against the targets Cmd, the target doesn't expend an action to block, it's done passively. Remove Fear is I believe, a touch spell and with the fighter adjacent, taking a double move, my cleric would not be able to then move twice to follow and then cast a standard action touch spell. So I thought he could passively decide to block the fighter using his Cmd and then on his turn use remove fear and touch the fighter with it.
I guess no one is bending here, I find the ruling obtuse, obdurate, closed minded and belligerent. It is my opinion that under the circumstances where the Cleric did succeed on his knowledge of the Planes check to identify the beasts and the effects of the howl he'd have to be pretty fudgingly dense despite a 16 widom, not to realize what was happening. End of story.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how this is metagaming in any way, shape, or form. If multiple characters came under a fear effect and only some passed their saves, then they likely know that the fighter who is suddenly trying to flee in terror must have succumbed to the effect.
If anything, I think the GM is the one breaking verisimilitude.
Steamrolling my point that the fighter is only an ally if I choose for him to be one. If I use a spell that targets all allies within 30 feet and want to exclude a character, nothing in the rules says I can't do that, just as I don't have to consider a monster as an ally. It's.The.Players.Choice. In a game of choices.End of story.
If I don't need to reserve an action to stand in someones way, and they have to roll to get past me, I should be the one to decide who is and isn't freely going by. What if I wanted to stand in his way so he wouldn't run off a cliff and die? Could I not stop him because he is an "ally"?
If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
No but a successful Knowledge(Planes) at the start of combat, in which the monsters abilities were stated, would.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but a successful Knowledge(Planes) at the start of combat, in which the monsters abilities were stated, would.If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
Also, experiencing the effect yourself can give you a great deal of knowledge. If you are an abnormally brave member of your race (most adventurers are), and feel yourself becoming afraid for some inexplicable reason, but manage to overcome it, it's easy enough to conclude that you were attacked and thus also able to see that your comrade might not have been so lucky.
I really don't believe abilities like these simply "happen" like a light switch in the narrative. The character experience them and can draw conclusions from them.
To say otherwise DESTROYS verisimilitude.
Oh well, all 4 characters survived anyway so it wasn't a dealbreaker, but it seemed needlessly frustrating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At any point one can choose to allow their allies through their square or not. Of course there is no cosmic anomaly that allows some people past you but not others. In the same token, you can perform an AoO on any of your friends that move through a threatened square. My group does it all the time in cases like this. We would trip/grapple the friend for their own safety.
Verisimilitude is a fickle beast. For me, I usually see people play extra stupid to make sure they don't metagame.
In my opinion, you have to look at it as if you actually lived there. For example, few of us probably know the ins and outs of squad level combat. We live in a world where armed conflict is handled by a small few, especially in America. Our military is like 1% of the population and only a small part of that actually fights. But I assure you, those that know they are going into combat, they know their enemy and they know how each other reacts in a fight.
If I were to live in a fantasy world like Pathfinder, I ASSURE YOU, as an adventurer, I would seek out any and all information about creatures. I may not be able to identify them, and I may not know all of their weaknesses, but if one, any one, could make my friends run away, I assure you, I would be on the lookout for that.
The threats of a world like that are so great in number and danger that one that chose to seek out those dangers would have to be on the lookout for everything. And remember, our characters are the Rambos, Jack Reachers, Scot Harvaths and James Bonds of the world.
Extra Stupid Example: In a LARP I played, there was no such thing as dragons. When a car was forced to drive through the game (parking/packing up) we would all yell DRAGON! and get out of the way. Some morons would then try to chastise us for breaking character because there were no dragons in that world. So then I would ask them how they know what a dragon is since you know, there isn't one on earth either.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you have to make a sense motive or perception check to see if some one has becone panicked?
"A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear"
Fighters don't just drop their weapons and fill their shorts with crap for the lawls.
If anything I think he should've started cowering!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You were right. Who is considered your "ally" and your "foe" is entirely up to your discretion, NOT the GM. You could cast Prayer and give a boost to the enemies and penalty to your party, if you really wanted to.
You made the right call, and I think it was totally justified by the rules and by the character knowledge that you had. If the fighter drops his weapon and tries to scram after getting blasted by a roar, you can bet he's not making a "tactical retreat", he's under the influence of some other effect.
I guess no one is bending here, I find the ruling obtuse, obdurate, closed minded and belligerent. It is my opinion that under the circumstances where the Cleric did succeed on his knowledge of the Planes check to identify the beasts and the effects of the howl he'd have to be pretty fudgingly dense despite a 16 widom, not to realize what was happening. End of story.
Keep in mind that just because you identify the creature you don't know everything about them. You get a single piece of info about them plus 1 for every 5 you exceed the check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Attack of Opportunity to trip the character. In 3E, you would generally use the AoO for grapple, if you had a hand free, but grapple is now a standard action in PF. Any other AoO abilities you have to halt a character in his place woull also be relevant.
Keep in mind that just because you identify the creature you don't know everything about them. You get a single piece of info about them plus 1 for every 5 you exceed the check.
But you also learn everything they do while you are standing there watching them. Like howl in a frightening manner.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a long time DM, I readily allolwed my players to choose whether they'd let someone through a square or not. Soemtimes the guy in front didn't want his mates pushing past him, and so he chose not to move out of the way in his 5 foot square to let him through.
In a situation where characters were compelled to run away because they were in fear, I allowed them to block the square, but then they were hindered in whatever action they attempted next as the fleeing party member tried to push past.(-4 to attacks or skill checks etc). I also make the fleeing character do a bull rush or overrun to get past, but at negatives since they aren't planning it. I imagine it as something a truly terrified person would do if they felt their life was in that much jeopardy.
On the other note, why on earth would someone have to make a sense motive check to see that a fighter was so scared he was now fleeing. Not only is he dropping his gear, he's most likely screaming things like "OH MY F... GODS, WE'RE GONNA DIE!" or words to that effect. We're not talking shaken here, or slightly nervous. We're talking so scared they flee away from it despite all dangers to themselves in doing so. That's going to be pretty obvious.
So, in my game you'd be perfectly justified in trying to stop him. Unfortunately for you, you're not in my game, so I advise just running with the DM's decesion. Remember this will work for you as well at some stage. Frightening enemies can be a good tactic to thin numbers and temporary battlefield control. If you can block your friends from running, then your enemies can do the same, and that may not be something you want to deal with later down the track.
Cheers
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He dropped all his gear, turned his back to the enemy, and is running full speed away from them.
If my GM said I was "meta-gaming" because my character divined there was something wrong from these actions, I would punch him in his stupid face.
|
If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)
I'd be a bit nervous about setting that precedent. On some level it makes sense. On the other hand, it would mean that if your friend was Dominated and you had to knock them unconscious, they'd be making a Will save against the CLW you cast to revive them.
Heck, any enemy you tried to magically stabilize after a fight would get a saving throw.
Successfully saving against an effect does not grant you knowledge about the effect.
No, but it does give you knowledge that there was an effect.
Succeeding on a Saving Throw
A creature that successfully saves against a spell that has no obvious physical effects feels a hostile force or a tingle, but cannot deduce the exact nature of the attack.
So the cleric hears an otherworldly howl, feels a hostile tingle, and sees his friend drop everything and move away from the enemy at top speed, probably with an expression of panic. Figuring out this is a fear affect should be pretty much automatic.
|
|
If the GM says no on the overrun attempt, then your only option is to trip the fighter like StreamOfTheSky suggested. The problem is, by RAW, only opponents provoke attacks of opportunity. If you GM is being a jerk and not letting you follow the rules as written for Overrun, he's not likely to bend the rules and allow you an AoO. :(
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
But you also learn everything they do while you are standing there watching them. Like howl in a frightening manner.
You do not. It's random facts as determined by the GM.
You can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster's CR. For common monsters, such as goblins, the DC of this check equals 5 + the monster's CR. For particularly rare monsters, such as the tarrasque, the DC of this check equals 15 + the monster's CR, or more. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster. For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. Many of the Knowledge skills have specific uses as noted on Table: Knowledge Skill DCs.
These bits are up to GM discretion. There's nothing in the knowledge skill that auto grants you info about them. Just because a creature howls doesn't mean there's something special about the howl. Unless it's a spell that can be identified with spellcraft there's no way to tell what's going on without the appropriate knowledge check in terms of the significance of a creatures actions. If you automatically *knew* everything a creature did as you did them then you could essentially perfectly defend against every creature not to mention that it doesn't make sense as no class or feat grants you such an ability or predicates other actions based on learning such an ability. To use this information in-game is metagaming.
On the face of it I adamanty agree the GM was out of line. Sense motive? I don't think so. Perception roll? yeah with like a dc of like 4... A Front line fighter on the run is a pretty distinct sight. So... Officially my ruling is your GM's ruling was bunk.
I'm almost positive that the wording from the core is not 'a player can choose to move through an ally's square unobstructed' but instead 'an ally can choose to allow you through his square unobstructed'... the permission lies with the blocker.
That aside... There's also an argument to be made that if you see your frontline fighter drop his weapons and head back your way that, even if you made your save against fear, might be a good idea to turn and run as well. He ain't runnin for his health... He's runnin for his life.
Good role playing might dictate that the fighter knows something you don't, so you better trust his judgement...
Heck. Might have even given you a tactical advantage. Is this
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)I'd be a bit nervous about setting that precedent. On some level it makes sense. On the other hand, it would mean that if your friend was Dominated and you had to knock them unconscious, they'd be making a Will save against the CLW you cast to revive them.
Heck, any enemy you tried to magically stabilize after a fight would get a saving throw.
Unconscious targets are always considered willing targets.
On the face of it I adamanty agree the GM was out of line. Sense motive? I don't think so. Perception roll? yeah with like a dc of like 4... A Front line fighter on the run is a pretty distinct sight. So... Officially my ruling is your GM's ruling was bunk.
Why don't you "think so" re: sense motive?
Sense Enchantment: You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it. The usual DC is 25, but if the target is dominated (see dominate person), the DC is only 15 because of the limited range of the target's activities.
That is a much closer use than perception... as perception is used to hear, see, smell, taste, and feel things.
I've always felt that sense motive involves careful examination of a characters features during conversation... Perception is more of a quick 'do you even see what's going on' skill. The question in the blocker's mind isnt 'why is he running' it's 'is he running because he's gotta go change his shorts'
In the heat of battle your blocker isnt thinking 'hmm. is this a fear spell? is there magic at work?" He's thinking "our front liner has decided that whatevers in the next room gives him a feeling quite the opposite of wanting to hug it, in such a way that he doesnt seem to have time to discuss it.'
If thats not easy to 'perceive' then maybe the lighting was low...
IMHO
I've always felt that sense motive involves careful examination of a characters features during conversation... Perception is more of a quick 'do you even see what's going on' skill. The question in the blocker's mind isnt 'why is he running' it's 'is he running because he's gotta go change his shorts'
IMHO
Not to be too blunt, but your feelings do not reflect the way these skills are written up in the CRB.
To be blunt the way you interpret the way these skills are to be implemented is not RAW
IMHO
Either can be correct. You can get a SM check free as a result of a single character's action or you can case a room to get a feel for the overall state of things over a couple hours.
To be blunt the way you interpret the way these skills are to be implemented is not RAW
IMHO
Perception covers all five senses, including sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.
Being able to see someone running from 100 feet away does not tell you that they are running because of fear.
You can tell that someone's behavior is being influenced by an enchantment effect even if that person isn't aware of it.
While the rules never say "fear is an enchantment effect", it is obvious sense motive is the best skill to use to determine it as
1) Some fear effects are enchantments
2) Mindless things are immune to fear
You can get the feeling from another's behavior that something is wrong.
You can also use this skill to determine when “something is up” (that is, something odd is going on)...
I obviously won't be able to convince you of this common sense ruling, so I'll just leave this here for others to judge.
Personally I think sense motive is what you do when you're trying to sort out someone's intent... I'm pretty sure the intent is clear... Get thee the heck out of my way for its fleeing time, good sir. Usually the verbal component to this motive is 'jeesus jeesus jeesus outta the way I dont wanna die' but you know... Since the motive is unmistakable 'get me the hell out of here' I call it a perception check, and a relatively easy one, to see that the look on his face is indeed 'get me the hell out of here'. Its clear you dont think running in terror is an easy thing to pick up on. Point taken, and I'm almost certain that was why i slapped an 'IMHO' on my post, because I know there are so many people on these forums that think vastly different than myself.
That being said basically if your blocker has decided to block the flee attempt without knowing why, he's setting up a precedent that he doesnt just let front line fighters run from fights. Pretty ballsy and as I said earlier not necessarily the best option either tactically or role playing wise, but gm fiat that he just doesnt have a choice? I call BS.
Based on how combat movement is written I'm nearly certain the blocking character always has a choice.
The fear effect says that the runner will use any means necessary to escape for as long as the fear effect lasts, so i'd also argue that he'd be willing to make even an untrained tumble check to get past the blocker, and I wouldnt want to be fighting my own guy while the big bad is chasing him, but I give players freedoms even if they're not the same decisions i'd make myself. Otherwise who needs players?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another way to phrase it is that while I agree that deciding to stop the runner could be considered 'meta'
Not allowing a sense motive or perception or even 'choice to block' is just meta in the opposite direction.
I don't live in a world where GM's rule is law though. The more a gm's ruling doesnt make sense the less I sit at those tables. We're all adults at my table and everyone decides what's fair... In this case the OP is at a disadvantage because it sounds like it's just the GM and him.
So he came to us. I'm here for ya buddy.
As a GM I would never stop a player from blocking an ally. But I tend to respect my players (and their "common sense", a loaded term, I know) more than nitpicky RAW interpretations.
An character can pass through an ally's square because the ally lets them, not because of some mystical ally bond. Obviously the fighter was fleeing (you're gonna require a roll for that?), so if the cleric withdraws his "pass through" privileges, acrobatics/combat maneuver check it is.
Of course, I can see how RAW is ambiguous here (as it often is, just the nature of the beast), and how a GM might rule against it, particularly if the GM has a "me vs them" attitude, or isn't interested in rewarding player ideas, solutions, and preparatory plans such as bringing a scroll of remove fear. I just can't think of a "good" (subjective term, I know) reason why the GM wouldn't let their player do this. It's good story, good drama, allows the player to use their resources, more fun, and not disallowed by RAW.
If anyone wishes to enlighten me as to why disallowing this was a good idea, given that it's an ambiguous RAW situation that could go either way, feel free.
|
|
These bits are up to GM discretion. There's nothing in the knowledge skill that auto grants you info about them. Just because a creature howls doesn't mean there's something special about the howl. Unless it's a spell that can be identified with spellcraft there's no way to tell what's going on without the appropriate knowledge check in terms of the significance of a creatures actions. If you automatically *knew* everything a creature did as you did them then you could essentially perfectly defend against every creature not to mention that it doesn't make sense as no class or feat grants you such an ability or predicates other actions based on learning such an ability. To use this information in-game is metagaming.
Sure, the bits of information gained by a Knowledge check are up to the GM. But the bits of information gained by actually watching a monster act are in addition to this. A character who sees fire come out of a red dragon's mouth, doesn't need to make a Knowledge check to learn "red dragons breathe fire." And the character can then probably safely infer, without metagaming, "red dragons are immune to fire" since the fact that dragons are immune to the energy type matching its breath weapon is probably common knowledge.
In the case of the howl, the creature's howl is immediately accompanied by the "hostile tingle" of a magical effect successfully resisted. You might not know exactly what about the howl is magic, but if the team's fighter then runs in panic it's a safe inference that the howl caused magical fear - especially for a high-wis character like a cleric who has access to the spell Cause Fear and is carrying a scroll of Remove Fear and thus clearly knows that magical fear effects exist.
Unconscious targets are always considered willing targets.If the cleric is starting to treat the fighter as hostile, which he probably can, the fighter gets a will save against the spell (which he is going to take since he most like is unable to identify the spell via spellcraft)I'd be a bit nervous about setting that precedent. On some level it makes sense. On the other hand, it would mean that if your friend was Dominated and you had to knock them unconscious, they'd be making a Will save against the CLW you cast to revive them.
Heck, any enemy you tried to magically stabilize after a fight would get a saving throw.
I know this is true for teleportation magic, but is it also true for all harmless spells? You're not denied a saving throw when unconscious. The exact wording on unconsciousness is:
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Cure spells don't restrict themselves to willing targets only - that's why there is a saving throw. You're allowed to give up that saving throw, but that's not the same thing as a spell that only targets willing creatures. And there has been a ruling saying that you can still save against harmful spells when unconscious (even a reflex save). There's a bit of a debate over the (harmless) spells here. (You have to scroll down a bit to get into the meat of the debate, with the best counter-arguments being here and here.)
Now, my group does assume that Cure always works normally on unconscious targets, but if you're going to require saving throws against any (harmless) spell from a caster who is an ambiguous ally, then you might end up in uncomfortable places. Consider the alternate case of a conscious Dominated person who receives Protection from Evil from an ally. Do they have to fail a will save against Protection from Evil in order to get the second save vs Dominate granted by the spell?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my gaming groups, getting in the way of/tripping/grappling allies who are effected by magical fear is considered Standard Operating Procedure.
Once the effect is gone, the usual response from the other player is usually "thanks, I don't know what came over me."