|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I'm about to start RoW in a few weeks, if not sooner. My group likes to debate rules that are "iffy" or overly subjective. In hopes of clarifying my take on some of the more commonly debated rules beforehand, I am looking to these boards to get a list of said "iffy" rules, spells, feats etc.
As an example I will share our latest debate. It was Saturday night during the final encounter of the Kingmaker AP. The BBEG cast Charm Monster on the Wizard. What transpired was a heated debate on what the INTENT of the Charm spells is vs that of Dominate Person (which said BBEG had and should have just cast instead of CM). The DM, having exhausted the PCs nonviolent spells (Slow etc) was attempting to have the PC attack the group using the opposed Charisma mechanic of Charm Person. His argument was that the disparity between the PCs Charisma and the BBEGs Charisma (8 vs 36) was so great that the BBEG could get him to attack his friends... Needless to say, not everyone agreed.
So, in your games, which spells, rules, feats, etc have caused your group the most pain when trying to mitigate differing opinions and why?
|
Stealth
"you can't stealth, you're considered observed"
"it makes no sense that I would automatically be observed in this situation"
"that's the rules"
"stealth sucks"
Roleplaying tactics
"a mindless creature would not do that"
"he's just going through the gap"
"but you only created the gap there specifically to avoid the grease when we cast the grease to impede passage in the obvious path, and furthermore, he has to squeeze to do it"
My two cents on the charm monster bit.
Charm makes you think of the caster in similar terms as you would close family member or lifelong friend. Would you attack someone who attacked your family, since you are and adventure, hell yeah. The problem comes in that the other party members are also close family. Would you attack your mother to defend you wife or vice versa? This is much more iffy. The oppose cha check makes sense but then just having the PC try to break it up would work to. Or they might just sit it out and try and stop the victor from killing the loser. Also you can love your brother and still call the police and even take him in against his will if he is crazy.
|
|
That is suggestion, not charm.Charm monster opposed charisma is in the wording
You gotta say something like
" your allies have been replaced by doppelgängers and are going to turn on you"
GM rolls bluff
Then opposed charisma
I'm instilling the pre-campaign stipulation/houserule/whatever that only Dominate Person will allow a caster to convince a target to blatantly attack their allies. They get a +2 Save, but otherwise no restriction.
It could be argued that the Charm spells are intended to work over a period of time, and that given enough consecutive opposed Charisma checks, the caster could eventually convince the target that their allies somehow warranted attacking (Charm doesn't say you have to tell the truth. Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate could be further employed mechanically to legitimize getting the target to attack). However, for me, to simplify things, it will be black and white. Charm won't do that, but Dominate will.
I'm about to start RoW in a few weeks, if not sooner. My group likes to debate rules that are "iffy" or overly subjective. In hopes of clarifying my take on some of the more commonly debated rules beforehand, I am looking to these boards to get a list of said "iffy" rules, spells, feats etc.
As an example I will share our latest debate. It was Saturday night during the final encounter of the Kingmaker AP. The BBEG cast Charm Monster on the Wizard. What transpired was a heated debate on what the INTENT of the Charm spells is vs that of Dominate Person (which said BBEG had and should have just cast instead of CM). The DM, having exhausted the PCs nonviolent spells (Slow etc) was attempting to have the PC attack the group using the opposed Charisma mechanic of Charm Person. His argument was that the disparity between the PCs Charisma and the BBEGs Charisma (8 vs 36) was so great that the BBEG could get him to attack his friends... Needless to say, not everyone agreed.
So, in your games, which spells, rules, feats, etc have caused your group the most pain when trying to mitigate differing opinions and why?
Since there isn't a +20 bonus difference, a roll would be required, and then I would give the charmed person a second saving throw at + 5.
Thought it took a minute to convince someone to do something anyway.
Most common rule debates I see are about how certain spells or special abilities work, but those come up because they are a case by case basis and sometimes its hard to see or figure out unless you have the text in front of you. I usually give my DM a copy of the spells text and works so that theres no future confusion(if I'm playing a wizard).
Most of the rules debates (not truly a debate, more of a temporary misunderstanding) that come up in my games are b/c one of my players often assumes that the rules from 3.x are the same as pathfinder, which is often not the case. For example, reach weapons toward the corner squares. It's taking him a long time to make the transition. :P
If your going to be alignment heavy be sure to be up front about it. Different people have different ideas on the way things work and it sucks when your different from the DM on something. If your alignment lite, good for you! less stress.
|
It could be argued that the Charm spells are intended to work over a period of time, and that given enough consecutive opposed Charisma checks, the caster could eventually convince the target that their allies somehow warranted attacking (Charm doesn't say you have to tell the truth. Diplomacy, Bluff, or Intimidate could be further employed mechanically to legitimize getting the target to attack). However, for me, to simplify things, it will be black and white. Charm won't do that, but Dominate will.
Suggestion is designed to allow for attack of enemies, charm is not. There are many, many instances of listed tactics in AP's and modules that expect Suggestion to be capable of making allies attack allies.
Charm is different.
If you want to have a general rule, I would say that Enchantment (Compulsion) spells are more likely to cause allies to attack allies if properly used, while Enchantment (Charm) spells are not.
1) Are all ranged touch attacks weaponlike, or are only those specifically called out as rays weaponlike? What about melee touch attacks?
2) While the rules are clear, people may try to argue intent when it comes to Wild Shaping into differently sized animals (either through templates or not), especially for the Shaman archetypes.
3) Create Pit plus Wall of Stone over top to seal it = ?
4) Forcecage
|
|
Suggestion is designed to allow for attack of enemies,
I don't read anything under the spell or school description to substantiate this.
charm is not. There are many, many instances of listed tactics in AP's and modules that expect Suggestion to be capable of making allies attack allies.
I don't doubt that, but I haven't run across it.
Charm is different.
If you want to have a general rule, I would say that Enchantment (Compulsion) spells are more likely to cause allies to attack allies if properly used, while Enchantment (Charm) spells are not.
I agree with you here completely. The catch? "More likely".
I agree that suggestion surely has the potential to turn you against your allies, now charm i don't know if it can or can't do that.
There's a debate whether or not a Magus can spellstrike with Arcane Mark. An FAQ implied they can, but some people argue otherwise because the spell is awkwardly written and it would be silly. It's generally considered legal, but many still debate otherwise.
Anything that has to do with alignment often raises debate.
From recent threads:
Is the price of mithral items (and by extension, darkleaf cloth items) based on the items original weight, or its new, reduced weight? (Does a mithral dagger cost 252gp, or 500gp?)
Who controls an animal companion/familiar/summoned monster, the PC or the GM? Are these creatures under the full control of the player, or an NPC under control of the GM?
|
(deeper) darkness, counterspelling misunderstandings (it's touch range), and interaction with light spells and natural light sources.
When you can take 10 and 20
Encumbrance includes clothing?
Protection from evil and what it protects you from or not (Harpy song?)
Custom magic item creation costs
Aid another with saving throws?
What exactly you can do when grappled/grappling.
Which combat manouvers you can use with attacks of opportunity.
Mirror image
- and magic missile (and other non-attack roll spells such as chain lightning)
- and area attacks/splash
- and cleave
The most debated rule is Rule Zero.
There is generally a lot of difference between how GM's handle illusion spells, so I could see some debates coming from that.
What acts make a paladin fall? That's always good for a 1000 post thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't realize how different the reach rules are for PF. Damn, but I prefer the 4e simplicity of concentric circles, and to hell with the diagonal distance issue. It just isn't worth it, IMO.
|
Encumbrance includes clothing?I hear ppl often state it does not, and I couldn't find where they were reading that, until someone told me Herolab lists your first "outfit" as having a weight of 0lbs.
In 3rd ed the first outfit specifically didn't count toward encumberance, but that line vanished during the cut & paste to PF. That's where people get it from.
In 3rd ed the first outfit specifically didn't count toward encumberance, but that line vanished during the cut & paste to PF. That's where people get it from.Encumbrance includes clothing?I hear ppl often state it does not, and I couldn't find where they were reading that, until someone told me Herolab lists your first "outfit" as having a weight of 0lbs.
It didn't vanish during cut and paste. The line that says the first set of clothing doesn't count for encumbrance was not made Open Content (it doesn't appear in the SRD), so Pathfinder couldn't use it. Sure, Paizo could of rewritten it and included it, but they didn't.
It didn't vanish during cut and paste. The line that says the first set of clothing doesn't count for encumbrance was not made Open Content (it doesn't appear in the SRD), so Pathfinder couldn't use it. Sure, Paizo could of rewritten it and included it, but they didn't.In 3rd ed the first outfit specifically didn't count toward encumberance, but that line vanished during the cut & paste to PF. That's where people get it from.Encumbrance includes clothing?I hear ppl often state it does not, and I couldn't find where they were reading that, until someone told me Herolab lists your first "outfit" as having a weight of 0lbs.
Wow. How did I completely miss that? Learn something new every day.
Oh, wow! I remember having that clothing argument with my group and being puzzled when I couldn't find it in the books. It makes me feel a little better to know that it was, in fact, a rule at one point.
*
When do your available Attacks of Opportunity refresh? At the beginning of every round, at the beginning of your turn, or at the end of your turn?
[My recommendation is that they refresh at the same time your Swift action becomes available. Easier to remember.]
*
As said -- Illusion spells. I've had some good, long arguments about these. For example, some people run Illusions such that silent image, which does not have tactile components, can force you into treating it as real 'because if you fail your save to disbelieve it, then you believe it's real'.
Similarly, what actions automatically prove an illusion to be false? In a world where it's possible for creatures to fly, walk through walls, swim in lava without harm, vanish and more, it's arguable what things are 'impossible'.
*
Can you benefit from reusing an invisibility effect after being affected by glitterdust?
*
Can you create items with the same Command Word, and activate them all simultaneously?
|
|
When do your available Attacks of Opportunity refresh? At the beginning of every round, at the beginning of your turn, or at the end of your turn?
At the beginning of your turn. There is no 'universal' round anymore; 3rd ed changed it so that each creature has a 'personal' round.
Can you create items with the same Command Word, and activate them all simultaneously?
Saying a command word is not enough, by itself, to activate a 'command-word activated' item, as strange as it may seem. It takes a command word AND a deliberate act of will in order to do so, and this is (usually) a standard action.
This has a few consequences:-
* You cannot activate more than one item with the same command word using one single action. Each item needs its own standard action and its own act of will.
* You cannot accidently activate an item by saying the word (the command word) in normal conversation. A cursed item could work that way, however.
* This is why something like magic mouth is unable to activate such an item, even though it is capable of speaking that word.
Can you create items with the same Command Word, and activate them all simultaneously?Saying a command word is not enough, by itself, to activate a 'command-word activated' item, as strange as it may seem. It takes a command word AND a deliberate act of will in order to do so, and this is (usually) a standard action.
This has a few consequences:-
* You cannot activate more than one item with the same command word using one single action. Each item needs its own standard action and its own act of will.
Much to the chagrin of my high level wizard wielding a wand of magic missles....
What do you mean it only shoots one?? Two at most?!?!? Screw THAT, give me three of these wands and some tape! We're going to fix that problem! Take three of these crap wands and then cast it like a REAL wizard can!!
Sadly, it was not allowed ;)
|
|
Also see thread What are some things about the Pathfinder rules that you think most people do not know?
Perfect, thanks!
Spellcaster is blind (either by the spell Blindness/Deafness or by some other means) and then tries to cast Lightning Bolt.
The best answer I've ever gotten about this is "DM fiat."
My DM fiat for that is "Spell targeting requires being able to see the target".
So a blinded spellcaster is nearly helpless. I view it as a counterbalance to no hit rolls needed for fireball. I have yet to find anybody who is willing to give up auto target spells in exchange for a 50% miss chance with fireball should they be blinded.
|
|
I believe at least some spells do simply let you pick a point in space as specified by distance, angle, ect
Area effect stuff should be able to go where the player wants. The real question is weather or not you can trust the player to not meta game the placement. You could argue it is fair based on last seen and doing so next turn right after but each round that goes by would make it harder and harder to know if it is gambling the spell is cast where they want it or not or if the player is looking at the map. Remember perception also includes hearing, scent, feeling a blast come at you from a direction. It might justify coming up with new rules about slight misplacing area of effect stuff. Maybe one square off for shot, 3-5 for beyond short but within medium. How big or far away for long range? Of course, they might still get it right. Use wisdom or intelligence?
I don't recall anything preventing you from using ranged touch attacks or area spells when blind. I know that Target: Creature spells cannot be made while blind, however.
Nothing prevents you from throwing a fireball into a misty fog, but you can't dominate somebody you can't see standing in the middle.
|
As a DM, I have always allowed players to make thier Ranged Touch, or Melee Touch attacks if blinded, albiet at a 50% miss chance. As for Area effect, I also do the miss chance, but with diviation rules, think Warhammer 40K. I do a 1d8 for direction, then a 1d3 for short range, 1d4 for medium, and 1d6 for long range. I still allow the PC to pick a spot to cast at, but since they can't see that spot, it makes it really hard to hit. Auto hits, like magic missile, also have the 50% miss chance, but only if they pass a DC 20+ Perception check to be able to hear the creature move or whatever senses they choose to use. Otherwise the spell is useless.
When it comes to reach weapons, I treat it as line of effect. If you cant draw a line for any of your corners to any of the opponets corners and be able to so over half the target, you cant use it.
Cover I make incredably simple. If you can see the target, but you have a wall, door, crate, whatever in front of you, then you have +4 to your AC. Unless it is smaller than half your size, then its +2. If you are completly covered, then you can't be hit.
Now, when it comes to Illusion spells, I do this as a case by case basis. For instance, one night I had a few ogres attack the party. Our Magus used Ghost Sound the make it sound like a heard of Sheep was passing behind them. So what I decided was that the all got a Perception Check, if they beat the DC of the spell they could acertain that there were no sheep where the sound was coming from, so it gave them a +5 to thier Will saves to disbelieve. Then I decided to give them a percentage check to see if they would go off to find the sheep (a much less hazardous food source) or continue thier assult on the party. In the end, about half the ogres left and the party was able to survive the encounter, with no problem, and netted half the experiance of the orges who left. Its difficult, but I find that coming up with my own rules on the fly can make it fun, but I will always allow a player to take back the action once I have made a ruling. Generally though, when I do something like that, I always give it a fair chance of working.
I think the last thing on your list was about Stealth. In one of my games, we have a player who thinks that he can stealth ANYWHERE. It sucks, but we just have to constantly remind him that you can't stealth up to an opponent wearing all black in the middle of a field of snow. It just doesnt work. That or sniping. "I have a +12 to my stealth so I am going to snipe with my longbow at 20 feet. You can't see me because I rolled a 15." Remember, it is always up to you and you alone as to if a situation would be effective. If they insist on trying to stealth in obvious situations where it can't be used, humor him by "rolling perception" and always seeing him. Eventually he will either take the hint and stop, or get upset and leave. In either case, it could very well be a win/win.
My group tends not to have many rules debates, as they aren't fun and we 1) generally trust our GMs; or 2) talk stuff out beither before or after the game if anyone has any serious heartburn with a ruling.
That said, the trickiest things to adjudicate, with the most potential for GM error or at least difference of opinion, are:
-- appropriate modifiers to DCs in social situations
-- illusion spells (including invisibility)
-- stealth
-- alignment issues
-- information gathering spells
-- area of effect spells that are highly morphable (i.e. one ten 10 foot square per level) - this is only because I houserule when I'm running that you can make that in whatever shape you want, so long as you can grab a marker and draw it on the map in six seconds from when I say go after the caster has announced intent - I did this out of annoyance with odd and convoluted areas of effects which would result from a player having infinite time (while everyone else twiddles their thumbs) to draw an AoE that excludes all friends and includes all enemies in the midst of vicious and confused melee fight.
-- wish and other similar
Judging from the number and length of threads debating them endlessly, alignment in general, and paladins' codes in particular, generate a greater volume and animosity of debate than any other topics.
Can you create items with the same Command Word, and activate them all simultaneously?Saying a command word is not enough, by itself, to activate a 'command-word activated' item, as strange as it may seem. It takes a command word AND a deliberate act of will in order to do so, and this is (usually) a standard action.
This has a few consequences:-
* You cannot activate more than one item with the same command word using one single action. Each item needs its own standard action and its own act of will.
Much to the chagrin of my high level wizard wielding a wand of magic missles....
What do you mean it only shoots one?? Two at most?!?!? Screw THAT, give me three of these wands and some tape! We're going to fix that problem! Take three of these crap wands and then cast it like a REAL wizard can!!
Sadly, it was not allowed ;)
THere's a rod that does that. Insert wands, fire all at once. Triple fireball?
What rod is that?