|
Shouldn't take 2 minutes if its really that clear cut (take 10, darkness/lightning rules, magus zap and whack will not be)
A few i've seen
1) Making aoos while flat footed with combat reflexes (very important when it seems half the combats start with surprise)
2) The rogue getting sneak attacked from the shadows (still has dex thanks to uncanny dodge , doesn't get sneak attacked)
3) Finding magic traps ( very important on a trapspotting druid)
|
Shooting at someone in melee - if the part you are shooting at is 10' from a friend. THAT rule normally just gets ignored, or "there's not two square [b]between[ib] them - so they are not 10' apart" something that would in all other cases count as 15' now counts as 10'.
nosig can you shot me a PM on this, I don't understand what you are trying to say here and don't want to bring this much more off subject.
|
|
Climb: "you might fall - distracted by the danger"
Knowledge: "This is about what you KNOW - and only Bards can take 10 on Knowledge checks"
Disable Device: (see climb above) or "if you fail by 5 you brake the lock"
Perception checks: "danger - you might set off a trap" or "it's an opposed skill check"
Most of which are reasonable conclusions to draw if you only go by what very little is in the rule book. Distraction and immediate danger are both incredibly vague, the exact opposite of what you need to make a case strong enough to tell the dm "you're doing it wrong"
They may have meant "in danger from something other than the incredibly dangerous thing you're trying to do with the skill check" but that's not what they wrote.
Rules aren't binary right/wrong. Its a continuum from absolutely right to directly contradicted by the text (using the fly skill to flap your arms and fly for example)
Breaking the lock was a 2e thing when you couldn't reroll your percentile dice. Seen that one too. (gotta love 2eisms)
|
In my experience, it is not when a player objects to a ruling that creates the problem. It is the way they do it. All too often, the player immediately gets defensive and their actions are more akin to trying to "best" the GM and show you are "smarter" than s/he is. I have never met a GM who would object to being corrected about a rule (assuming it is 100% clear, not ambiguous), but most get irritated or worse if the player is being a jerk about it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, it is not when a player objects to a ruling that creates the problem. It is the way they do it. All too often, the player immediately gets defensive and their actions are more akin to trying to "best" the GM and show you are "smarter" than s/he is. I have never met a GM who would object to being corrected about a rule (assuming it is 100% clear, not ambiguous), but most get irritated or worse if the player is being a jerk about it.
Charisma as a dump stat is not limited to our characters.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never met a GM who would object to being corrected about a rule (assuming it is 100% clear, not ambiguous), but most get irritated or worse if the player is being a jerk about it.
Dragnmoon (GM) - Ok Bob I rolled a 14, that is a crit!
Bob (Player) - Wait what? How are you criting on a 14?Dragnmoon (GM) - He has improved Crit + Keen
Bob (Player) - They don't stack, see it says right here they don't stack.
Dragnmoon (GM) - Sorry Bob I Object to be clearly shown I am wrong by You. Anyone else at this table want to show me the rule?
Kyle (Player) - Does the Crit kill his character?
Dragnmoon (GM) - Why yes it does.
Kyle (Player) - Nop I don't want to show you anything.
;)
|
Preface: I do not run PFS, and it's been some time since I played a PFS game.
As far as taking 10 and Knowledge checks:
1) I've always tended to think that the Bardic ability allows them to take 10 even when distracted, as with the many things that grant a Swim speed, the accompanying +8 Swim bonus, and the ability to take 10 even when distracted.
2) You can take 10 out of combat when you're in a situation where you can actually access your memory, (nothing in the Bardic ability strictly contradicts this, especially if interpreted as in 1)
3) But in a combat situation you only have enough time for a very quick (1-2 seconds tops) memory scan, and you may not remember the crucial detail in that instant. Doesn't mean the character doesn't, at some level, know it, but that they can't figure it out at the time. I've definitely done this to my players, and had it happen as a player myself.
As far as characters failing a Knowledge check and then justifying having the Knowledge anyway, I tend to disallow things like that. The whole, "I failed my Knowledge check but my character totally read this one text which had a paragraph describing this one head honcho of a small village in the boondocks so I totally know how he is," doesn't really fly to me. As far as failing the Know(religion) check to know a ritual for your own deity, I might grant a circumstance bonus on the check, but if you fail you don't remember at the time. Given enough time to think about it later (or even if there's in-game reason to justify a T10), then you can probably remember something.
Knowing a spell is a tricky scenario. I can sort of understand handwaving them identifying spells that they know/can already prepare. But if my Wizard throws up an illusion of a Prismatic Wall, you might think you know what it is, but you won't know if you don't pass the check. Likewise, an illusory Fireball spell. It might look like a bead of fire, and it might appear that it will burst into a large ball of fire, but if you didn't recognize the specific gestures or words used (make the check), then you don't know if it's an illusion or the real thing until it blows up in your face.
For my 2cp.
|
I used to be with you on this OR, but the one time I spoke up for #1 and #2 (and not #3), it left a bad taste in my mouth, so I decided just not to play with that character with that judge instead. It was an otherwise-great judge who would keep giving enemies an ur-surprise round that goes before the surprise round, when my character had high initiative and always acted on the surprise round, so having that happen was kind of a big deal for her, even though we weren't losing the scenario. So now I'm more of a #1 and #3 guy. I might do it for #1 and #2 some time again, though. We'll see. I think depends on the judge.
Rogue Eidolon, this sounds like something you should bring up to a VO... if the GM doesn't want to comply with RAW... and this certainly seems like a case for that. Especially if it happens all of the time.
Do you know whether or not this GM pulls off the "ur-surprise" when your character is not in the game, or is he just trying to nullify what he probably sees as a "broken" character?
Just wondering.
As for me, unless it is #3, I tend to push the discussion off until a lull in the game, or after the game... and in reality, I am more likely to point out rules issues for other characters than my own. Of course, that may have more to do with my builds being relatively simple (TWF Rogue, Musket Master Gunslinger, and a Paladin).
I would call out the "ur-surprise" round, though... either it is surprise (and all characters that made their Perception check can act, and only a partial action), or it is the first round of regular combat (all characters act). There is nothing else in RAW, at least as far as I know!