Dual-Cursed Oracle's Misfortune (Ex) and showing GM's dice rolls.


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge 3/5

Mystically Inclined wrote:

You present a thought provoking argument in favor of GM's using screens, and if I'd really enjoy playing with any GM who could weave the misfortune power into their narrative as you've described. I do have a question, though.

Secane wrote:


A natural 20 is an automatic hit. Misfortune would be USELESS if a GM rolls a 20 and everyone sees it... as the results are already "revealed", a 20 is an automatic crit threat.
The poor Oracle can now only use his Misfortune on the confirmation roll.
So using this logic, wouldn't ANY roll that crits be immune to the misfortune revelation?

Only if the GM is being a jerk about it. I for one would certainly allow (and encourage), Misfortune to be used against Crits.

Or for that matter, even on party members that fail their saving throw.

After all Misfortune, never says WHO is the one suffering from the bad luck.
So when using on party members, it can be treated as the enemy not being lucky on a negative effect targeted at the party.

In my previous post, I was just trying to point out one of the flaws of openly rolling for every thing, as doing so can be a negative to players.

That post should be taken as a possibility of an extreme and kinda bias ruling by a GM.
Sorry for not clarifying it.

Mystically Inclined wrote:


So long as a player knows the threat range for the attack, they're going to know if it's a critical hit or not.

*GM rolls an 18* "Do you want to use misfortune?"
Player: "You said he's using a scimitar?"
GM: "Yeah."
Player: "I use misfortune."

The only possibility for it NOT being a crit is if the attack doesn't meet the character's AC. That can certainly happen with front line combatant characters. Using your interpretation, this would be the ONLY time misfortune could be used.

Misfortune is not limited to only crit, crit-range or high rolls only.

A Crit roll is just one of the better times to make use of Misfortune.
And any hit should be clear if is a normal hit or a crit.

In any case, I would pay less focus on the "before the results are revealed" part of Misfortune and more on the "Force a re-roll part."

After all, it the whole point of the "before the results are revealed" part being in the wordings, is to prevent abuse.


Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Is that what you are saying?

Yeah, that seems the logical inferrence for all those.

(I wasn't familiar with those off the top of my head, but like you say, the wording is the same)
Assuming that you've ID'd whatever spell/effect as it's Cast upon you (so you know it's effect/Save effect),
there is absolutely no information that you could possibly learn about the result once you know a 1/20 has been rolled.
ID'ing the spell to know what it's specific effect is, doesn't seem more crucial to the roll itself than knowing success/failure.
(effects depending on other dice rolls, e.g. secondary saves, damage dice, aren't the result of THAT ROLL, and thus are irrelevant here)
Even if knowing the spell effect IS crucial to knowing the result, then if you do ID the spell, you are subject to this rule.
In the context of comparing to some attack roll with Misfortune, if you see they are attacking w/ a scimitar, etc,
that seems equivalent to ID'ing a spell in terms of knowing what success/failure means, AFAICT.

That seems to satisfy the 'before you know the result' limitation.
Maybe it's unfair, or a 'hidden'/non-obvious limitation of the RAW,
but that seems like a pretty reasonable application of the RAW there.
If you want to FAQ that, I will also. Maybe another thread in Rules Questions to clarify the topic?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Quandary wrote:


That seems to satisfy the 'before you know the result' limitation.
Maybe it's unfair, or a 'hidden'/non-obvious limitation of the RAW,
but that seems like a pretty reasonable application of the RAW there.
If you want to FAQ that, I will also. Maybe another thread in Rules Questions to clarify the topic?

I don't find this interpretation at all reasonable. I suspect that a faq will get declined to be answered... But if you feel that strongly that this is how it works, go ask in RQ if you're right.

Meanwhile, I'll be over here, agitating in favor of the more obvious reading.

Lantern Lodge

I believe some folks are really making a bigger stink about this than it deserves. Every single class has the ability to trivialize some encounters, or even entire scenarios if playing with minx-maxers. So the oracle makes the bbeg re-roll his save, and he blows the re-roll. What is so horrible about that?

Do you then add miscellaneous hit points when the raging barbarian crits for 80 with his scythe?

Do you give the bbeg sorcerer a free freedom of movement when the druid's buffed out tiger companion pounces, rakes, and grabs the hell out of him?

Does that die roll that reads 11 suddenly become a 17 when you tally up that will save against hold monster?

Allow me to respectfully offer this advice. If you know every single player at your table, and this is the way they want to play, then I see no harm in it. It's against the campaign rules, but folks who are going to break the rules are going to break them, and that is all there is to it.

But if you do not know every single player at your table, it is grossly inconsiderate of you to simply assume you know what sort of experience they desire. Work to have fun with them, not against them. Don't fudge your rolls, don't add any "extras", and just let the dice fall where they may.

If you are a sort who wants a bbeg to present more of a threat, so you fudge dice rolls for them, consider if your player's took an opposite stance. Something along the lines of we are the stars in this story, so save or suck effects shouldn't take us down! Now everyone at the table is fudging their dice rolls.

I am all for hard scenarios. And yes, for my group, most are not challenging past level 4. The best solution for this is not to starting going off the reservation with "personal enhancements", but to make the campaign management aware that we want some percentage of scenarios printed each season to be very tough, and given a label warning to ward off player's who aren't in it for experiences like that.

If this concept is antithetical to your GMing preferences, might I advise you consider starting a non-PFS home group?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber
Dragnmoon wrote:
hmmm... Where do I find Rule Zero?

This quote is also from GM101, but it has been paraphrased in the first chapter or two of every RPG I have ever played. Including every version of the "world's oldest roleplaying game."

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

The actual use of the term is not used in the Core book, and is confusing to new players who have never heard of it. Though the idea behind the rule is still in the core book.

I avoid using that term because it is not used, better to call it the most important rule as used in the core book. Though it has it's limits in PFS compared to a home game.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

"Rule Zero a.k.a. the GM is always right" not being there or at least heavily restricted is one of the blessings about PFS!
Just look over the board how many people misunderstand rules or think they know it better but suffer a very heavy form of misperception.


Mike Clarke wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
hmmm... Where do I find Rule Zero?
This quote is also from GM101, but it has been paraphrased in the first chapter or two of every RPG I have ever played. Including every version of the "world's oldest roleplaying game."

I thought rule zero of the "world's oldest roleplaying game" was to get the money up front?


Secane wrote:
That post should be taken as a possibility of an extreme and kinda bias ruling by a GM.

Ah! Okay, that makes sense.

Quandary wrote:
Yeah, that seems the logical inferrence for all those.

Okay, first, let me congratulate you for doubling down. I'm not being sarcastic--it was an unexpected move. I am impressed.

The thing is, I was bringing up the comparison to other powers to demonstrate that your interpretation doesn't make sense. If those other two powers could only be used on 90% of the possible rolls, they would say so.

"Before the results are determined" means "based strictly on the number on the die." "After the results are determined" means "based on the total result of the roll plus/minus modifiers."

This idea that 1s and 20s are exempt is just ... incorrect.

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Two issues in this thread concern me.

First, the root issue of the misfortune hex is that it relies on the meta-mechanics of the game. That's just bad design if you want to discourage meta-thinking. The power is written so poorly that it also gives you the "fortune" hex for free, and doesn't really explain how it's supposed to work. It should be errata'd and fixed to clarify this and every other problem with it.

Second, several people pointed out that we shouldn't preference the GM's fun over the players'. Here's a flaw with codifying that approach in the rules: If the GM doesn't also enjoy the game, they will quit, and then no one gets to play.

In my experience, I have run across a couple of GMs who abuse their power. I have come across a score or more players who abuse the rules loopholes and scenario design limitations to game the system. Rules should protect the few from the many, not the other way around.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Young wrote:
Rules should protect the few from the many, not the other way around.

No one should need protection from anyone. It's a cooperative game. The GM doesn't win if the players die.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

redward wrote:
Scott Young wrote:
Rules should protect the few from the many, not the other way around.
No one should need protection from anyone. It's a cooperative game. The GM doesn't win if the players die.

Should vs reality are often distant.

Besides, if the players die, the GM has bigger problems...

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Scott Young wrote:
First, the root issue of the misfortune hex is that it relies on the meta-mechanics of the game. That's just bad design if you want to discourage meta-thinking.

Deflect Arrows lets you wait and find out whether the attack is a hit or a miss, and then if it's a hit you get to retroactively go back and "deflect" it so that it's a miss.

So if you shoot at my oracle/monk multiclass character from within 30 feet, and I ask to see your roll before you announce the total result so I can decide if I want to Misfortune it, then it's inappropriate meta-thinking. But after you tell me the total and I see that it's higher than my AC and I decide to deflect it based on those numbers, that's totally fine?

What exactly is the difference?

Quote:
In my experience, I have run across a couple of GMs who abuse their power. I have come across a score or more players who abuse the rules loopholes and scenario design limitations to game the system.

Those numbers can change a lot based on how you define "abuse". Sort of like how if you legalize marijuana, suddenly your drug-related crime rate goes way down.


Scott Young wrote:

Two issues in this thread concern me.

First, the root issue of the misfortune hex is that it relies on the meta-mechanics of the game. That's just bad design if you want to discourage meta-thinking. The power is written so poorly that it also gives you the "fortune" hex for free, and doesn't really explain how it's supposed to work. It should be errata'd and fixed to clarify this and every other problem with it.

Second, several people pointed out that we shouldn't preference the GM's fun over the players'. Here's a flaw with codifying that approach in the rules: If the GM doesn't also enjoy the game, they will quit, and then no one gets to play.

In my experience, I have run across a couple of GMs who abuse their power. I have come across a score or more players who abuse the rules loopholes and scenario design limitations to game the system. Rules should protect the few from the many, not the other way around.

Virtually all "luck" effects involve understanding the meta-mechanics.

I've used misfortune online without issues through using prearranged thresholds. It's really not hard to make it work in a non-annoying fashion, even without seeing rolls.

Are you really claiming that the rules should protect the few (Gms) from the many (players)? As GMs have power over the players, this literally is an argument to protect the powerful from the weak.

Good luck with that one.

This whole argument goes back to the don't be a jerk rule. Players shouldn't greatly slow down the game and force GMs to do what they don't wish to do. GMs shouldn't neuter player abilities just because they dislike those abilities.

For example, I find gunslingers to be annoying. Should I, as GM, steal all their ammunition or guns in game to eliminate this aspect of the game that annoys me? Or have them fall in puddles or rain such that all their powder gets wet? Or have a fireball explode their powder? I mean there are puddles, rain, and/or fireballs in virtually every scenario....

4/5

Matthew Morris wrote:
redward wrote:
Scott Young wrote:
Rules should protect the few from the many, not the other way around.
No one should need protection from anyone. It's a cooperative game. The GM doesn't win if the players die.

Should vs reality are often distant.

Besides, if the players die, the GM has bigger problems...

There is no rule that will will solve the problem of players and GMs playing against each other, which is why I think it would be a waste of Paizo's time to try to baby proof the game for people who aren't mature enough to play it in the spirit intended.

The best solution for anyone exploiting rules loopholes is to sit down and talk like adults. Is it more important to show how clever you are, or for everyone to have fun? Anyone who can't prioritize the latter needs to re-evaluate why they're playing the game in the first place.


redward wrote:
The best solution for anyone exploiting rules loopholes is to sit down and talk like adults. Is it more important to show how clever you are, or for everyone to have fun? Anyone who can't prioritize the latter needs to re-evaluate why they're playing the game in the first place.

See, this is why it's important to make sure displaying your cleverness is entertaining. Then everybody wins!

Lantern Lodge

Scott Young wrote:
Second, several people pointed out that we shouldn't preference the GM's fun over the players'. Here's a flaw with codifying that approach in the rules: If the GM doesn't also enjoy the game, they will quit, and then no one gets to play.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.


+1 Lormyr


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lormyr wrote:

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.

If a GM's fun relies solely on crushing players' hopes and dreams, then they are probably being a jerk.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Lormyr wrote:
Scott Young wrote:
Second, several people pointed out that we shouldn't preference the GM's fun over the players'. Here's a flaw with codifying that approach in the rules: If the GM doesn't also enjoy the game, they will quit, and then no one gets to play.

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.

I'm a little lost over this whole BBEG debate... what does a BBEG has to do with Misfortune (Ex) or having a GM roll openly?

Read the past posts.... not sure what is going on... or how it ended up this way......

Nani Pratt wrote:
Lormyr wrote:

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.

If a GM's fun relies solely on crushing players' hopes and dreams, then they are probably being a jerk.

Totally agree.

For me a GM's fun comes from seeing your players smiles from being well entertained.
Their delight at a well run game by me, is my delight too.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Nani Pratt wrote:
If a GM's fun relies solely on crushing players' hopes and dreams, then they are probably being a jerk.

But naturally if the GM decides that the players' fun relies solely on crushing those same players' hopes and dreams, that's something else entirely.

Especially when that involves fudging die rolls. I mean, sure, it's strictly forbidden to swap in monsters who have higher stats, or add monsters so the first save doesn't end the encounter, or add extra bonuses to the BBEG's save or attack bonuses.

But if you just pretend your BBEG rolled 10 points higher, that's totally different than adding a +10 bonus to his attack or save scores. The latter (increasing the bonus) is explicitly forbidden, and is the kind of thing that Mike Brock keeps repeating over and over that GMs shouldn't do, and he keeps getting emails from players about games where an experienced GM thought for sure that bonus would make things more fun for the whole table, but turned out to be wrong. But the former (increasing the die roll), now that is definitely in the interest of everyone having a grand old time, and is certainly not meant to be included in the rule against altering stats.


Hayato Ken wrote:

"Rule Zero a.k.a. the GM is always right" not being there or at least heavily restricted is one of the blessings about PFS!

Just look over the board how many people misunderstand rules or think they know it better but suffer a very heavy form of misperception.

Amen. The greatest rule in the PFS Field Guide is this:

Quote:
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever calls you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources. Scenarios are to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to number of monsters, or changes to stats, feats, spells, skills or any other mechanics of the scenario.

Emphasis added.


Jiggy wrote:
But if you just pretend your BBEG rolled 10 points higher, that's totally different than adding a +10 bonus to his attack or save scores.

I hope you are being facetious.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But if you just pretend your BBEG rolled 10 points higher, that's totally different than adding a +10 bonus to his attack or save scores.
I hope you are being facetious.

I wish you didn't have to wonder.


Jiggy,

You're right, it's totally different! It's cheating! And you already know how I feel about that :-D

/hug

Scarab Sages

I think GM's are power hungry cheaters. They don't mind being the sole authority on everything, as well as this. I feel like I should get a screen and do all my rolls behind the screen as well.

The only time that GMs get to roll behind a screen is when the PC is not supposed to know what he is rolling for. In effect, all perception check rolls should be done by the GM, in secret. And information on the roll given to the passing PCs. There should be a searching for traps mechanic where a PC moves at say 1/4 speed but makes a Perception check before moving in the space in front of him, instead of some standard action nonsense. Maybe there is a +5 to the DC of checking for traps this way. Moving alertly should be the norm in tight spaces and all that.

Second, the oracle should only be able to "cast" misfortune on a creature that he/she is aware of. And if not, then all rolls should be reveled, with some uncertainty of what they are for. And if the power is so great, that the mere presence of the oracle is enough for some God to affect all that the oracle is exposed to, then that is the case.

The whole, withholding of information by GMs bugs me. I understand not passing my knowledge checks, but being told that I can only see 20 feet in front of me, with dark vision 60 ft., without any magical effects there or some obstacle that I SEE, is just ridiculous. Having dark vision 120 ft. and not being able to see 120 ft. in daylight is another non-sense. The only thing that should prevent my natural knowledge is that which is rational, not some made up GM nonsense. I understand that they would have to think about what would or should be there in advance, but come on.

Also, I can see why somebody should not be able to know how much damage is added because of the str. statistic or if it is magical, but tell me what the weapon is that they are using and their armor. I have been to a friggin store. I know what is the technology of our time. Don't act like I have to guess all these thing before I make a decision. You would be surprised how many decision we base on what we see and know.

I can understand situations where the PC can and should be deceived, and the real question is, should the Oracle have the power to say, nope, you didn't deceive me, or try harder.

In any case, it would be weird, even if the case, for a God to tell his oracle everything that would affect him or his party, and then ASK HIM/HER if he ( the god ) should zap the "opponent" with misfortune. I think the God would make that decision on his own and therefore that power should be on the GM to decide which rolls the God, which is usually the GM, in the most humble way, would make the perp re-roll. Simple.


Whoa dude. That's a pretty strong accusation*. I'm not sure you're really furthering your point by starting with something like that.

Lots of GMs have different styles. And that's okay. Some GMs prefer different levels of transparency, and it even varies depending on the table. That's not out of some sort of malicious intent.

*Yes, I realize the inherent irony in this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Vincent The Dark wrote:
(snipped for space)

Um...

1) Some GM's are, most of them aren't, and you can't necessarily tell who's who by whether or not there's a screen.

2) I think you need to brush up on Perception rules.

3) Sounds like maybe you had a nasty run-in with deeper darkness, which blocks darkvision if it drops the light level low enough? But if you feel your GM is in serious error, talk to them (after the game, if it can wait). If that doesn't help, talk to a Venture Officer. If that doesn't help, contact Mike Brock.

4) Regarding clearly-visible equipment, see #3.

5) Oracles do not receive their powers from a deity.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes, the player characters get the drop on the bad guy and the fight is short.

Sometimes the bad guy gets the drop on the PCs, and the play group cannot roll above an 8 on a d20 for love or money, and the fight is brutal and short.

That's why we roll dice. If you don't want to listen to the dice, don't roll them.

If you think this is fun:

Quote:

Player: I cast a spell. The evil cleric should make a saving throw.

GM: (rolls a 4) I rolled a 16, plus modifiers, that's a 23. He cackles and draws his unholy dagger.

Try this:

Quote:

Player: I cast a spell. The evil cleric should make a saving throw.

GM: It's too early in the fight; you fail. He chuckles and draws his unholy dagger.

"Well, don't be silly. If the players knew I was hosing them in order to have a long combat where their characters were in actual peril, they wouldn't like that."

And what seperates you from the guy who just cheats to kill PCs?

"Well, I'm a lot smarter than that GM. I always know just when to give the bad guys a little immunity here, and a few extra hit points there, so that the PCs expend a lot of consumables and it's an exciting fight, but they're never in actual danger of permanent death."

At least not in that fight. Do you give them extra gold, to allow them to repurchase their consumables they expended during the fight they shouldn't have had to fight? Or do you send them off to the next scenario, deliberately weakening them against those challenges.

In another thread, I listed "integrity" as the most important hallmark of a PFS GM. This is what I meant.


Jiggy wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But if you just pretend your BBEG rolled 10 points higher, that's totally different than adding a +10 bonus to his attack or save scores.
I hope you are being facetious.
I wish you didn't have to wonder.

I'm kind of slow on the draw sometimes :)


Jiggy wrote:
and he keeps getting emails from players about games where an experienced GM thought for sure that bonus would make things more fun for the whole table, but turned out to be wrong.

Oh really? Care to link to the multiple posts your are refering to or the one post where Mike says "he keeps getting emails from players about games where an experienced GM thought for sure that bonus would make things more fun for the whole table, but turned out to be wrong."?

Cause that sounds like an epidemic of crappy games sweeping the PFS nation.


Patrick Harris wrote:
The thing is, I was bringing up the comparison to other powers to demonstrate that your interpretation doesn't make sense. If those other two powers could only be used on 90% of the possible rolls, they would say so.

Well, I think this is demonstrably false, in that there's plenty of other rules features which don't explicitly tell you every case that the ability doesn't work with, due to interactions of rules. The rules in fact depend on rules interacting with other rules, and the logical implications of that being just as valid as anything explictly stated. I went into enough depth to show the logical basis that there is no distinguishing feature re: 'knowing the result' between knowing the die-result is 1/20 and having the GM play out the result. If you want to bust a hole in that RAW-based logic, PLEASE DO, but barring that, that seems like the only RAW-supportable interpretation.

Quote:
"Before the results are determined" means "based strictly on the number on the die." "After the results are determined" means "based on the total result of the roll plus/minus modifiers."

This is NOT a RAW-supportable interpretation. As you might like to say in an alternate universe :-), "if they meant to say that, they would have". I mean, maybe they did MEAN to say that... But they DIDN'T actually do so. If we are obliged to go off of RAW, then we actually are obliged to do so, not inject 'what we feel would be more fair or balanced'. I went to lengths to show the logical basis of taking what the rules actually to say, to the implication I am suggesting. I simply don't believe you can do that for your interpretation.

Complaining about 'it only applies to 90% of rolls' seems a pretty weak reason to diverge from RAW. I mean... if the RAW is totally non-functional then I am not going to argue against doing what is necessary to be functional and coherent with the rest of the (functional) rules (that doesn't mean that is the RAW function, or that the rule shouldn't be Errata'd to have some other RAW). But that just isn't the case here, the ability IS functional as written per RAW. I mean, whether you want a good result or bad result, half of this 10% that it doesn't apply to is corresponding to your desired result, so it's really that if you have seen the die result of the roll, you can't achieve the goal of the ability 5% of the time. That just is not remotely enough of a limitation to make the ability not worthwhile... Especially since when this comes up, it means you simply can't use the ability, not that you can use the ability, depleting a limited use/day ability, and then find out it was useless. The idea of some 'luck' ability which can re-roll 'normal' die-rolls but NOT nat. 20's or nat. 1's just does not seem that far out to me, and needing to apply the logical inferences of the stated rules, rather than have everything served to you on silver platter is again exactly how this game works in general. (of course, on skill checks and other checks where nat.1/20 aren't special, this isn't even applicable)


I still shake my head at the sometimes strident insistence that GMs MUST run games one way or another.

I for one started with the D&D White Box. Most DMs I knew back then all rolled behind screens, and rules were guidelines, not straitjackets.

A lot of folks come from that background.

PFS is a different ballgame, and is much more rigid in what can and cannot be done, but if you have GMed a particular way for 20 years you're going to have certain tendencies, PFS or no.

I would hope that understanding and discussion rules the day, not suspicion and accusations.

-j

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wu wrote:

I still shake my head at the sometimes strident insistence that GMs MUST run games one way or another.

I for one started with the D&D White Box. Most DMs I knew back then all rolled behind screens, and rules were guidelines, not straitjackets.

A lot of folks come from that background.

PFS is a different ballgame, and is much more rigid in what can and cannot be done, but if you have GMed a particular way for 20 years you're going to have certain tendencies, PFS or no.

I would hope that understanding and discussion rules the day, not suspicion and accusations.

-j

That would be fantastic. If only the response to "You're not supposed to change things in PFS games" was something like "I guess that makes sense, though old habits die hard; any suggestions on how to learn how to run a good game within those constraints?"

Unfortunately, the response seems to more often be in defense of existing behavior rather than an interest in learning new behaviors more appropriate for the campaign.

Lantern Lodge

Nani Pratt wrote:
Lormyr wrote:

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.

If a GM's fun relies solely on crushing players' hopes and dreams, then they are probably being a jerk.

I couldn't agree more. But I also understand that each person measures things differently in life. To me, fudging a d20 roll against a spell I cast is a seriously jerk move. To others here, it is an "enhancement" of fun.

Lantern Lodge

Secane wrote:
Lormyr wrote:

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.

I'm a little lost over this whole BBEG debate... what does a BBEG has to do with Misfortune (Ex) or having a GM roll openly?

Read the past posts.... not sure what is going on... or how it ended up this way......

It was just a response to a portion of this conversation that has deviated somewhat from the original topic. It was in reference to GMs that feel a need to "enhance" the game with die fudging, and a hypothetical bbeg fight was simply used as an example to highlight my belief that it should not be necessary in order for a GM to have fun running a game.


Jiggy wrote:
Jason Wu wrote:

I still shake my head at the sometimes strident insistence that GMs MUST run games one way or another.

I for one started with the D&D White Box. Most DMs I knew back then all rolled behind screens, and rules were guidelines, not straitjackets.

A lot of folks come from that background.

PFS is a different ballgame, and is much more rigid in what can and cannot be done, but if you have GMed a particular way for 20 years you're going to have certain tendencies, PFS or no.

I would hope that understanding and discussion rules the day, not suspicion and accusations.

-j

That would be fantastic. If only the response to "You're not supposed to change things in PFS games" was something like "I guess that makes sense, though old habits die hard; any suggestions on how to learn how to run a good game within those constraints?"

Unfortunately, the response seems to more often be in defense of existing behavior rather than an interest in learning new behaviors more appropriate for the campaign.

+1

Lantern Lodge

Jiggy wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
But if you just pretend your BBEG rolled 10 points higher, that's totally different than adding a +10 bonus to his attack or save scores.
I hope you are being facetious.
I wish you didn't have to wonder.

Nods in agreement of Jiggy.


Jason Wu wrote:

I still shake my head at the sometimes strident insistence that GMs MUST run games one way or another.

I for one started with the D&D White Box. Most DMs I knew back then all rolled behind screens, and rules were guidelines, not straitjackets.

A lot of folks come from that background.

PFS is a different ballgame, and is much more rigid in what can and cannot be done, but if you have GMed a particular way for 20 years you're going to have certain tendencies, PFS or no.

I would hope that understanding and discussion rules the day, not suspicion and accusations.

-j

I grew up with AD&D 1e. DM was god. But as you seem to understand PFS is about something very different than D&D under TSR or WotC. The key phrase is "Organized Play." Those two words change everything. What many people fail to grasp is that if people (GMs and Players) don't follow one unified rule system, the whole thing fails. Deciding that you won't allow a legal Take 20 is fundamentally no different than deciding you won't let someone use a 20 Point Buy. Imagine if DM's were allowing characters with different point buys?

I think you get it.


Quandary wrote:
[...]

Okay. Well, you're just wrong. Sorry, there's no other way to put it at this point.


Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Quandary wrote:
[...]
Okay. Well, you're just wrong. Sorry, there's no other way to put it at this point.

Actually he's not. The problem is the rule is ambiguous and that is where the fault lies. The feat description never explicitly requires the DM to divulge any information regarding the roll. Without a specific rule that requires a DM to roll in front of the player, there is no requirement that the player gets to see or know anything prior to knowing the result.

What many players have done, myself included, is interpreted the rule to allow a person to see the number sans modifier. Why? Because as someone stated early on, the feat doesn't make a lot of sense otherwise. Using "misfortune" on your ally or yourself to avoid a bad result is clearly not the intent behind the feat. And technically, the player shouldn't be able to see their own roll before making the decision as the nature of the power is not dependent on who is physically making the rolls, but what information they have when they have to make the decision.

The feat makes sense if a player gets to see a naked roll, but does not know the modifier attached to the roll. But, RAW doesn't mandate this interpretation and if it was meant to, it is very poorly worded.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you look through the "Getting Started" section of the CRB/PRD, you'll see that the word "result" is used interchangeably to denote the number shown on the die, and the total of one or more die results and any related bonuses or penalties. Which means either interpretation is valid, I believe. Although only one of them makes sense.

"Misfortune" isn't all that unfortunate if the Oracle turns a 1 into a 20 because they didn't have access to the number on the die.

So, yes, I think you could make an argument that you can't see the number on the die before you use it, or that a 20 or a 1 determines the result and disallows the use of the ability. But I think it's being deliberately obtuse to do so.

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:
Vincent The Dark wrote:
(snipped for space)

Um...

1) Some GM's are, most of them aren't, and you can't necessarily tell who's who by whether or not there's a screen.

2) I think you need to brush up on Perception rules.

3) Sounds like maybe you had a nasty run-in with deeper darkness, which blocks darkvision if it drops the light level low enough? But if you feel your GM is in serious error, talk to them (after the game, if it can wait). If that doesn't help, talk to a Venture Officer. If that doesn't help, contact Mike Brock.

4) Regarding clearly-visible equipment, see #3.

5) Oracles do not receive their powers from a deity.

Please, I wish I could use the rules with my GMs. They don't let me use perception to check for traps outside of my 5 ft. surrounding area. Not even ten ft. I get that it is a move action, but I would have to be able to see the trap as long as I have line of sight, if my perception check is higher than the DC for the trap +1/10 ft. distance between us.

"Although the gods work through many agents, perhaps none is more mysterious than the oracle." First line in the description of an Oracle. Divine casters cast spells because a God let's them. Arcane do so from knowledge of the arcane, hence, spell failure. "These divine vessels are granted power without their choice," second line, maybe there is some brushing up for you to do as well. "Unlike a cleric, who draws her magic through devotion to a deity, oracles garner strength and power from many sources, namely those patron deities who support their ideals. Instead of worshiping a single source, oracles tend to venerate all of the gods that share their beliefs."

And rerolls are broken to begin with. The idea is that you have to guess what the modifier is, but the mere roll, unless a bluff, always means some kind of interaction. The GM can always say, I rolled, whatever. As long as the PC doesn't know what the roll is for, he can still make the choice.

I cannot see why, the all knowing GM is capable of knowing ALL, and omitting what he knows in the spirit of the game, but us, the PCs, we lack that capability if we ask for it? So what if I saw you roll for something. Half of the fun of the game is falling into trouble. As long as you don't die, to heck with it. As long as nobody makes fun of you, it's all a game. Have fun, play, it's a sandbox, the bullets are imaginary.

Scarab Sages

I don't know any movie where the heroes whistle while moving through a dungeon. I have nothing against having a single check for each area while moving, but don't tell me that I cannot find an item on a corpse with out a perception check, unless that item is inside the body of the corps.

I don't see why a stalker trying to ambush the party cannot be unlucky if there is an oracle with that revelation. And as I said, it is technically a god doing the misfortune, not the awesome power of the oracle who is just a tool. It is almost obvious that a roll above a 15 should be rerolled, so why even bother the PCs with that question.

The problem comes when PC want to do everything in their matagaming power to avoid certain situations. That is bad. But if we are talking about something that would flat out kill the PC, THAT is of huge concern. The second important thing would be Fame points and permanent outcomes. But I mean, without any "real" danger, what is the point of "adventuring". We can always turn on the tv and eat chips.


redward wrote:
So, yes, I think you could make an argument that you can't see the number on the die before you use it, or that a 20 or a 1 determines the result and disallows the use of the ability. But I think it's being deliberately obtuse to do so.

Bingo.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Lormyr wrote:
Secane wrote:
Lormyr wrote:

I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

What I will point out, however, is that if a GM's fun relies solely upon how well his or her bbeg's perform against their players then they might consider sticking to playing for their fun, or simply GM a non pfs game.

I'm a little lost over this whole BBEG debate... what does a BBEG has to do with Misfortune (Ex) or having a GM roll openly?

Read the past posts.... not sure what is going on... or how it ended up this way......

It was just a response to a portion of this conversation that has deviated somewhat from the original topic. It was in reference to GMs that feel a need to "enhance" the game with die fudging, and a hypothetical bbeg fight was simply used as an example to highlight my belief that it should not be necessary in order for a GM to have fun running a game.

Ah, I see.

Don't see what is the point of fudging dice rolls. The randomness is what makes the game fun.

Unless it is to save a PC from death. Unless your are out for blood, a GM should try to let players have a chance to avoid dying.

Vincent The Dark wrote:


I don't see why a stalker trying to ambush the party cannot be unlucky if there is an oracle with that revelation. And as I said, it is technically a god doing the misfortune, not the awesome power of the oracle who is just a tool. It is almost obvious that a roll above a 15 should be rerolled, so why even bother the PCs with that question.

The Misfortune revelation, requires a immediate action and only works within 30 feet.

This means that if inits are rolled, and the Oracle is flatfooted or if the enemy is made a stealth check outside the 30 feet and charge at the party, the Oracle cannot use Misfortune against the stealth roll.

This is not GM abusing, but simply how the rules work. The Oracle may not have access to an immediate action, for example if he is flat footed. In cases where is enemy is pass the 30 foot range, Misfortune can't affect.

Vincent The Dark wrote:


The problem comes when PC want to do everything in their matagaming power to avoid certain situations. That is bad. But if we are talking about something that would flat out kill the PC, THAT is of huge concern. The second important thing would be Fame points and permanent outcomes. But I mean, without any "real" danger, what is the point of "adventuring". We can always turn on the tv and eat chips.

I am a little confused. How does the the fact that a revelation has certain limits = "something that would flat out kill the PC"????

I get the impression that your GM/s are really brutal and are out to screw with you....


redward wrote:
If you look through the "Getting Started" section of the CRB/PRD, you'll see that the word "result" is used interchangeably to denote the number shown on the die, and the total of one or more die results and any related bonuses or penalties. Which means either interpretation is valid, I believe. Although only one of them makes sense.

While it is true that it's not clear by what is meant by "result" , it's also not particularly relevant.

Even if we take "result" to mean the number after you add the modifiers, the problem is as Quandary observes: nothing in the description that mandates the player be allowed to know the die roll before the result is determined. If that's what Paizo wanted, then they could/should have made that clear.

Quote:
"Misfortune" isn't all that unfortunate if the Oracle turns a 1 into a 20 because they didn't have access to the number on the die.

Completely agree, which is why I think common senses says you let them see the die roll.

Quote:
or that a 20 or a 1 determines the result and disallows the use of the ability. But I think it's being deliberately obtuse to do so.

I would agree about 1 or 20 not being special cases.

As an aside, what I don't get is DM's who allow players to issue parameters, "use misfortune if it's a 20 or scimitar 18 and above." I have no idea where that interpretation comes from.

Dark Archive

I just want to say that I've read the entire thread, and I'm going to consider these opinions when I GM. I started with the opinion that fudging was a necessary part of GMing, and the response from some of these posters has changed that a bit. Next time I GM, I will be wary of keeping all of my players trusting me.

As for misfortune, I haven't had a player use it with me yet, but I would be fine with rolling in the open for his or her benefit. I would also be fine with parameters set, like rerolling anything 15+.


"N N wrote:

As an aside, what I don't get is DM's who allow players to issue parameters, "use misfortune if it's a 20 or scimitar 18 and above." I have no idea where that interpretation comes from.

It is a work around that players use to either not to slow the game down or to use the power when you cannot see the GMs dice for whatever reason. It also is useful in online games where the roll also shows the outcome.

101 to 150 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Dual-Cursed Oracle's Misfortune (Ex) and showing GM's dice rolls. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.