|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A little while ago i started running te rise of the Runelords AP. Now my players have gained a few lvls and plowed through many encounters. They have complained a lot about the difficulty of the modules . i understand its a small group (3 players). But i have adjusted accordingly. To be fair it is a difficult AP and their only pc death occured during a "lets split the group" moment (because those always go well)
Here's the part where it seemed to me that i was suddenly a fascist to my pcs.
The barghest has blur, there is a 20% chance to miss whenever you attempt to strike him. To perform an aid another action you must hit AC 10. I called the rule out that if he didnt roll the percentage, his aid another action would fail to help.
Was I wrong or overly severe?
Thank you for the feedback.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm not sure what you are asking.
What you did certainly has no basis in the rules.
However, it doesn't seem particularly harsh by itself.
On the other hand, to a player who knows the rules, it would certainly seem like the GM was pulling new rules out of *ahem* thin air to nerf their strategies.
I would probably call foul as a player unless the rule had come up previously.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it was "mean," but I don't think it was correct.
The AC 10 number for Aid Another is just a target number, and doesn't have anything to do with the opponent you're facing. That's why it's always "AC 10." The basic idea is, "You need to show at least this much skill before you can provide meaningful aid in a fight."
Think of it as "DC 10, using your full attack bonus."
Correction. The spell was Blink
I should have posted my reasoning.
What I see the aid another action iaa timely attempt to deflect an ennemy's attack (+2 ac) or to upset his balance into harm's way (+2 to hit). If your weapon or body goes right through then your not really helping.
I understand your reasoning, but the miss chance triggers on a hit. Aid another simply helps you get there. No rules allowing miss chances to block aid another attempts. And definitely not bonuses to ac, since blur has nothing to do with that.
So, basically, you're giving a flavor bonus to the monster and the PCs resent it since it's not the way the spell is written to work.
I get both your approaches, but unless you routinely give similar flavor bonuses to the players, I'm more sympathetic to their concerns.
Ive given many concessions to my players. Diagonal movements count as 1, they can partial, charge, all feats, spells, classes etc are allowed to name a few
That's cool, and it's quite a bit more than I allow in my games, but it's not really what I was talking about. That is, do you go beyond the spell mechanics to grant benefits based on the flavor? If you do, reminding them of those moments, might make this time go down easier.
Since Aid Another is an attack role performed against a target, if the target has a miss chance, then it applies to AA just like any other attack. YMMV
Was I wrong or overly severe?
You were tough on them, but it's not a 'wrong' ruling, opinion here varies on it being legal or not and I think you can argue either way.
Did they survive and have fun? that's the main thing. If a particular character is feeling sidelined all the time that's a problem.
I agree. I would have made him roll the %-age dies to see if he "hits" the AC10.
Might be important, might be trivial.
But look at it this way, you could have said "he ain't gonna do nuffin but stand in a corner and watch".
So you did more than nothing, but less than everything. I call that balance :D
As a quick preface ... 1' diagonals and partial charges aren't really 'for' the party. They are tools that both sides can use if they wish. Partial charges are only really a benefit to the party if the players focus on them often and it helps them avoid normal limitations, like if one of your players is a cavalier, who may now walk around an obstacle then partial charge 30 feet. So that's likely not really a favor to your players.
All books allowed? Unless you love tinkering with your NPCs and minmax them as much as the players, that's probably more to their benefit than to yours.
Anyway, mechanically, I don't know that blur would confer a miss chance to Aid Another attempts.
Stylistically, it makes sense to me that it would confer a miss chance to Aid Another attempts. To attack the creature, at least.
It's sad that the players were upset, but the situation is a rare case, they likely had plenty of other things they could do (attempt to trip, grapple, find other options), and your ruling wasn't even that big; 20% chance of negating a +2 bonus. Hrm. It seems like a small thing to be upset about, unless they're trying to illustrate a more general pattern about ruling situations against them.
Why do you roll against AC10?
Why not make it a DC10 roll, where you add BAB+STR+feats=... Oh wait, that's an attack roll :p
This single instance would not mean you are a mean GM.
I think you ruled incorrectly, but I do that all the time myself so that's no big deal.
If something like this led to my group seriously calling me a mean GM (as opposed to joking) then I'd probably start talking to the players individually to get a feel for the group's fun level.
|
|
I would have done the same as you Cymric.
When a character attempts to Aid Another, I interpret it that they are engaging the enemy in such a way that they are trying to create an opening for their ally (+2 to Hit) or they hinder the enemy's attack (+2 AC). Therefore any effect that would apply to an attack would also apply to Aid Another.
If the enemy is concealed in shadows.
If the enemy is blurred.
If the enemy is invisible.
If the character is blinded.
etc.
etc.
And don't feel bad when you make a call on a rule. It's part of being a GM. Just tell them that this is the way you will run it for that encounter, but you will revisit it between sessions. Then you can take some time between sessions to decide if you want to keep your ruling or make a different call for future games.
My two cents: It's an attack roll, so it's not unreasonable to rule that anything that would cause an attack to miss would cause an aid another to miss.
|
|
Thanks a lot for the feedback. It seems like a mitigated subject, there are no clear cut answer. I think i will stick with my ruling. It was a comment from one of the players that made me question it but then again you cant make everybody happy all of the time.
While I agree with you that there's a pretty even division of opinion (which surprises me, because it seems pretty cut-and-dried to me, and I'm literally trained to see multiple sides of an argument), there's another factor to consider:
Will this decision, in practice, hurt one group -- the PCs or their opponents -- more than the other?
IMG, monsters rarely, if ever, use Aid Another. PCs (and allied NPCs) do it often. IMG, even if all else were equal, making the miss-chance apply would be an anti-PC ruling.
Is it possible that rather than taking exception because your ruling is somehow offensively incorrect to him or her, your player is taking exception because it's seen as an anti-PC ruling? GM vs. PC, even as an incorrect perception, is something that's worthwhile to try to avoid.
You are and were wrong. Fix it and move on. No big deal.
|
|
I actually use aid another pretty often because of the ac of the paladin. In fact aid another ia a staple of swarm fighting in our gaming group that is rarely used by the pcs.
Addendum if you have nothing beter to say then "You are wrong because i say you are" then your opinion will be ignored. Develop your opinion or keep it to your self. Anything else is just aggressive lashing
I don't think the 20% should be applied. Like some others stated, that only applies to a hit or miss. The character isn't trying to do that, he is just trying to take up some of the attention to make it easier to hit.
But either side of the issue is not obvious RAW and I don't feel that the ruling is harsh.
For those of you arguing that "it's an attack roll so the miss chance should apply" what miss chance the the AC of 10 have?
Because apparently the 10 AC the aider is targeting is not the actual AC of the creature. So if it's not the AC of the creature, why does the creature's miss chance apply?
Cymric, I'm sorry, but that simply makes no sense to me whatsoever. It is far more likely that AC 10 is simply an arbitrary goal that has no connection whatsoever to the subject. Why would the subject's dex, natural armor or other armor values not apply?
AC10 = "actually touching something" is clearly a speculation.
While it may give support to your claim, which I don't agree with, it is hardly proof.
However, I have no proof to back up my claim either.
I certainly wouldn't call you mean, Cymric.
As a DM, I doubt I would have used that ruling. I want to encourage Aid Another, as I never see it in play, rather than discourage it, so I wouldn't have done that. On the other hand, I can see what you're saying, and there's a certain amount of logic to it. It's hard to come up with a definitive counter-point.
As a player, I might be a little upset, and make a quick argument against it, but if you held fast, I would shrug it off and roll with it. But I would certain ask after the fight if we will make that a permanent house rule and apply it both ways. If we didn't, I'm thinking BS, and would bring it up with you after the game. During is not the place.
It's an odd ruling, but I can see your logic, and I don't find it unduly harsh. It's fine, just different, in my opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I find this pretty clear cut and simple aslong as you require your players to roleplay combat.
Ask them to describe what they are doing and how they are aiding the other player before making a ruling such as this.
If they go to physically interact with the bharghest in any way make them take the 20%... As for a sudden yell or running around behind it to flank it and hopefully distract it yeah I would allow that in this case no problem (give both flanking and aid another bonus)
If the player comes up with an idea that doesn't require a physical interaction to distract the bhargest then no 20%.
Aslong as players are actually roleplaying and they get logical explanations about certain things I cannot see a reason to ever complain.
Also take into account that the bharghest is intelligent... Hell if a player was trying to distract the bharghest for aid another I might allow it with creative spell use (including orisons or cantrips), item use or even allow the player to use a bluff/intimidate check to see if their yelling/attention grabbing worked or not.
It is all about being creative and getting your players to play as if they are in the world.
Also I can see where people want a completely balanced and purely rule based tactical system with no interpretation but really that isn't what pathfinder is built around, for people who want that 4e dungeons and dragons works really well. (I am not a fan but for doing what it set out to do it does tactical combat in a very balanced and boardgamey way)
I actually use aid another pretty often because of the ac of the paladin. In fact aid another ia a staple of swarm fighting in our gaming group that is rarely used by the pcs.
Addendum if you have nothing beter to say then "You are wrong because i say you are" then your opinion will be ignored. Develop your opinion or keep it to your self. Anything else is just aggressive lashing
But you don't seem to have a problem with "You're right because I say you are."
You asked for opinions, not evidence. In fact, you phrased your question in such a way that would seem to suggest that you're inviting opinions.
Telling you you're wrong is a perfectly reasonable answer to your question.
There is only evidence in favor of your opinion if you start from the opinion that your reasoning is correct. Nowhere in the rule book does it say that Aid Another is at all affected by any defensive abilities of the opponent. In fact, to me, the very fact that you're rolling against AC 10 is very strong evidence that none of the defensive abilities of the opponent do apply.
Why would deflection, dodge, armor, natural armor, shield, enhancement, dexterity, insight, sacred, profane, trait, and racial bonuses not apply, but miss chances do?
|
|
I asked that if someone wants to take a side that he supports his opinion with a developed argument. "You're right because i said you are" would be just as wrong, as it happens I see no such argument on the thread.
Gnomercy actually showed where i was wrong. If aid another were to work like I ruled it, it would require you to make a roll vs Touch AC.
Unkwowable also brings up the roleplay aspect. I like the idea that someone could use bluff or another roleplayed action to give aid another.
You see what happens when you expand on your opinion? You can then sway other opinions, that is how debates work.
That being said i dont think ill allow aid another vs invisible targets or if you are currently suffering from being blind.