Hobbun |
David Bowles wrote:Kyle Baird wrote:Yes, that's fine. Just some acknowledgement that the GM understands the default situation, and is not giving the NPCs abilities above and beyond the author's intent.nosig wrote:Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?I was GMing a certain scenario that involved some (of the best ever) mooks who could 5ft step through difficult terrain.
One of my players asked for an AoO, and I told him it was a 5ft step. The player questioned that, because of the difficult terrain. I answered that his character was as surprised as he was, and that the NPC was moving very nimbly... his moves could be described as nimble... one might even say "he has Nimble Moves". Then I gave an over-exaggerated wink.
The player seemed satisfied with that answer, despite not getting an AoO. :D
“Quick! He has a Feather Step Slippers! Attack him first!”
nosig |
David Bowles wrote:That's fine, but GMs still don't get to ad hoc the grapple rules. "The game must go on" doesn't fly with me when 16PP are potentially on the line because a GM doesn't understand how a common combat maneuver works. I don't think GMs should be making "rulings" on mechanics that are unambiguous. There's enough grey area stuff too keep GMs busy as it is. I'm not backing down over an unambiguous mechanic that the GM was trying to mulch new player's PCs with. Being a GM is not a license to cheat. I make damn sure I don't cheat my players, even if sometimes combats take a little extra time.I'm so in this camp. Fortunately I have yet to be in a situation where the GM screwed up the rules so bad it meant life or death. I do not subscribe to the attitude that the GM can do whatever they want because they are GM. This would be like saying an NBA ref can give one team five free throws instead of two on foul shots and the other team should just accept the loss.
but the default position should be to trust the Judge. He knows more than you do (he's read the scenario).
Trust the judge (and player) until the give you a GOOD reason not to. Even then, maybe it was a one time slip...
But a lot of people feel the exact reverse. Their default position is "he's got to EARN my trust". I personally cannot understand how you can play this game with strangers if you feel this way. To me, it would be no fun at all...
David Bowles |
David Bowles wrote:Kyle Baird wrote:Yes, that's fine. Just some acknowledgement that the GM understands the default situation, and is not giving the NPCs abilities above and beyond the author's intent.nosig wrote:Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Yep and in this case it was a new ability from a new class just released. Do I stop the game and explain how the NPC is doing it, or can I say, "you're normally correct, but not in this situation," and move on?I was GMing a certain scenario that involved some (of the best ever) mooks who could 5ft step through difficult terrain.
One of my players asked for an AoO, and I told him it was a 5ft step. The player questioned that, because of the difficult terrain. I answered that his character was as surprised as he was, and that the NPC was moving very nimbly... his moves could be described as nimble... one might even say "he has Nimble Moves". Then I gave an over-exaggerated wink.
The player seemed satisfied with that answer, despite not getting an AoO. :D
That's all I really want. I call out the feats the NPCs are using all the time just avoid problems like this.
David Bowles |
N N 959 wrote:David Bowles wrote:That's fine, but GMs still don't get to ad hoc the grapple rules. "The game must go on" doesn't fly with me when 16PP are potentially on the line because a GM doesn't understand how a common combat maneuver works. I don't think GMs should be making "rulings" on mechanics that are unambiguous. There's enough grey area stuff too keep GMs busy as it is. I'm not backing down over an unambiguous mechanic that the GM was trying to mulch new player's PCs with. Being a GM is not a license to cheat. I make damn sure I don't cheat my players, even if sometimes combats take a little extra time.I'm so in this camp. Fortunately I have yet to be in a situation where the GM screwed up the rules so bad it meant life or death. I do not subscribe to the attitude that the GM can do whatever they want because they are GM. This would be like saying an NBA ref can give one team five free throws instead of two on foul shots and the other team should just accept the loss.but the default position should be to trust the Judge. He knows more than you do (he's read the scenario).
Trust the judge (and player) until the give you a GOOD reason not to. Even then, maybe it was a one time slip...
But a lot of people feel the exact reverse. Their default position is "he's got to EARN my trust". I personally cannot understand how you can play this game with strangers if you feel this way. To me, it would be no fun at all...
I'm not like this at all. I'm pretty easy going until there is an issue that is a) non-trivial for the PCs and b) I know to be incorrect.
The GM may have read the scenario, but for mechanics, what if I've run a grappler in homebrew and know that mechanic much, much better?
RainyDayNinja RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16 |
Fortunately I have yet to be in a situation where the GM screwed up the rules so bad it meant life or death.
But I have. When playing "[REDACTED]" my ninja would have died if I didn't know off the top of my head how crit damage worked on bombs, or that an alchemist couldn't have Fast Bombs until level 8 (he was getting the stat blocks mixed up for the different subtiers)
David Bowles |
N N 959 wrote:Fortunately I have yet to be in a situation where the GM screwed up the rules so bad it meant life or death.But I have. When playing "[REDACTED]" my ninja would have died if I didn't know off the top of my head how crit damage worked on bombs, or that an alchemist couldn't have Fast Bombs until level 8 (he was getting the stat blocks mixed up for the different subtiers)
This. If the PC group can brute force through the mistake, so be it. But if they can't, I'm gonna say something.
Kyle Baird |
N N 959 wrote:Fortunately I have yet to be in a situation where the GM screwed up the rules so bad it meant life or death.But I have. When playing "[REDACTED]" my ninja would have died if I didn't know off the top of my head how crit damage worked on bombs, or that an alchemist couldn't have Fast Bombs until level 8 (he was getting the stat blocks mixed up for the different subtiers)
Even if you didn't catch this mistake until later in the adventure or even after the adventure, it's one which can be rectified. I've done it before, ran the wrong subtier mooks (see page X for this mook, grrr!), and a week later after realizing that, got with the players and corrected the mistake.
N N 959 |
N N 959 wrote:This would be like saying an NBA ref can give one team five free throws instead of two on foul shots and the other team should just accept the loss.Except that Pathfinder isn't supposed to be a game of WINNERS and LOSERS.
It isn't about winning and losing. It's about the integrity of the game. You are no longer playing basketball if one side gets five free throws on a foul shot. That's homebrew.
I have no problem trusting GMs. Just like David, if the GM tells me some other mechanic is at work, that's fine. I don't need to know what the mechanic is or verify how it works. But if burst affects are traveling around corners like spread affects, then the GM should show a willingness to understand the rule correctly.
Kyle Baird |
Kyle Baird wrote:...and a week later after realizing that, got with the players and corrected the mistake.And I would be happy to have you as a GM with this approach. If I know a GM is this committed to getting it right, I have no problem letting things slide during the game.
Running Season 4 scenario with like 4,000 hasted harpies. Went through all the tactics during the fight, the setup worked for the baddies which resulted in a CDG and a death. Were almost done with the fight when I realized I had the PC save vs. the main baddie's song DC vs. the mook harpy DC and that the PC should have not been affected. Stopped the game, reviewed everything again. Apologized to the table. Explained what happened, and discussed with them how to proceed. Dead PC stands up and starts smacking the harpy.
Jiggy RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32 |
David Bowles |
N N 959 wrote:Running Season 4 scenario with like 4,000 hasted harpies. Went through all the tactics during the fight, the setup worked for the baddies which resulted in a CDG and a death. Were almost done with the fight when I realized I had the PC save vs. the main baddie's song DC vs. the mook harpy DC and that the PC should have not been affected. Stopped the game, reviewed everything again. Apologized to the table. Explained what happened, and discussed with them how to proceed. Dead PC stands up and starts smacking the harpy.Kyle Baird wrote:...and a week later after realizing that, got with the players and corrected the mistake.And I would be happy to have you as a GM with this approach. If I know a GM is this committed to getting it right, I have no problem letting things slide during the game.
That's not really what I'm talking about. As a player, I have no idea what the save DC for a harpy song could be. They could be templated, they could have a feat, I don't know.
I'm talking about what N N 959 is talking about. Generic mechanics, if you will. If the GM is having bursts go around corners, that IS something the players know about. Because they can't do it by default.
That's why I just call NPC feats as they use them. If some monster has multi-attack, I just call "it multiattacks you", so the PCs don't have to wonder why I'm not subtracting as much off the dice as normal.
It's not like the PCs can really do anything about NPC feats or read scenario after (or before! Lame, I know) the game.
David Bowles |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
N N 959 wrote:This would be like saying an NBA ref can give one team five free throws instead of two on foul shots and the other team should just accept the loss.Except that Pathfinder isn't supposed to be a game of WINNERS and LOSERS.
People can certainly lose 16PP and get 0XP and 0PP for the scenario. That' s kind of losing in my book. I don't mind this, because without the threat of failure, the game is lame. But the points of failure should be the cleric making a bad decision, not some NPC performing illegal actions.
Chris Mortika RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16 |
Jessica Price Project Manager |
Chris Lambertz Digital Products Assistant |
Jessica Price Project Manager |
Kyle Baird |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Kyle Baird wrote:People can certainly lose 16PP and get 0XP and 0PP for the scenario. That' s kind of losing in my book. I don't mind this, because without the threat of failure, the game is lame. But the points of failure should be the cleric making a bad decision, not some NPC performing illegal actions.N N 959 wrote:This would be like saying an NBA ref can give one team five free throws instead of two on foul shots and the other team should just accept the loss.Except that Pathfinder isn't supposed to be a game of WINNERS and LOSERS.
Expending resources (prestige) and not gaining a reward is not the same as losing. It's like arguing that because you had to use a charge from a wand, you're losing. Or because you had to upgrade your armor, you're losing. If you die in a scenario, hopefully at that point you have spend 4-5 of enjoyable hours socializing and playing the game. Having fun is how you "win" at Pathfinder.
"Death is a friend of ours; and he that is not ready to entertain him is not at home." - Sir Francis Bacon
Benrislove |
Storytime! I like stories, this one happened yesterday, when I killed 2 PCs and a Cheetah, all with Coup De Grace's.
Now I normally don't use Coup De Grace, but it made sense in this case, to me, and my players actually agreed. Though they were sad about the deaths and fleeing in the 2nd encounter (first fight) I think they preferred that I didn't pull punches.
table of 4, 6,7,8,8. Ranger, Barb, Rogue, Alchemist respectively.
All the characters are pretty well built. APL is 7. They vote for playing up, I say "this one is known to be challenging, and anytime someone chooses to play up, they choose to play against appropriately intelligent monsters."
2nd fight on tier 8-9 is 6 ghoul monks and a level 8 ghoul cleric.
Ghoul cleric hears the PCs coming, and turns on his destruction aura (which I forgot to add the damage to for 2 rounds... whoops.)
Baddies win init (ghouls on 1 value, cleric on another value, both before PCs)
Cleric casts unholy blight, no "good" PCs about half saved. ghouls move up.
rogue flanks and stabs a ghoul for lots. Alchemist throws bombs, evasion ghoul monks avoid most of the game.
3 ghouls full attack the (not raging) barbarian. 4 hits, saves against everything.
2 ghouls full attack the rogue, 0 hits.
Rogue kills a ghoul, alchemist makes some earthy's they miss
barb almost kills a ghoul, but doesn't quite.
Ranger and cheetah's dice fail. next round
next round, Order's wrath. 2 chaotic PCs both fail their saves, barb fails a save against paralysis, cheetah fails a save against paralysis. Rogue kills something, alch bombs again but only one enemy takes damage.
Archer and rogue do some damage to a ghoul, but it's still up.
Cleric Holds] the rogue, ghouls coup the rogue, barb, and cheetah seeing tasty, tasty undefended necks to eat. Alch makes smoke and runs, ranger runs.
The full-attacks would have done the same thing as the coups, but the coups are so much more ghoul-y IMO, delicious neck flesh!
Edit: the rogue is actually a ninja, but as he "hates" being called a rogue it is standard form to do so :)
It was a fun game, despite the deaths. The player's genuinely preferred being challenged, as opposed to being handed a scenario.
I would say they have fairly optimized characters. They certainly weren't afraid of a challenge.
Power Gamers =/= optimizer's.
In my experience, most Power Gamers are attempting to break something in the system that allows them to brag about how awesome they are. Most of those people have no interest in challenge, they simply want to brag about how "easy" this game is.
I think a lot of people optimize their characters, because who wants to die/fail a mission? I think many of those people, honestly do want a challenge.
In fact I'm sad that i'm at a wedding this weekend so I can't play "hard Mode" waking rune with Care Baird :)
Benrislove |
Kyle Baird wrote:People can certainly lose 16PP and get 0XP and 0PP for the scenario. That' s kind of losing in my book. I don't mind this, because without the threat of failure, the game is lame. But the points of failure should be the cleric making a bad decision, not some NPC performing illegal actions.N N 959 wrote:This would be like saying an NBA ref can give one team five free throws instead of two on foul shots and the other team should just accept the loss.Except that Pathfinder isn't supposed to be a game of WINNERS and LOSERS.
getting 1 xp and 0 PP / 0 GP is far, far worse :)
Cire |
Cire wrote:Cire: generally when we remove an inappropriate post, we also remove replies that quote it.Not sure why me asking someone to relax when they were swearing and going off justifies having my post removed but whatevs.
Oh... never mind then. I understand. Kyle you are skating on thin ice with that quote! :)
Finlanderboy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is silly to create a private definition of terms and use them on the forums to describe things.
Powergamer/optimizer If you say one is x and the other is Y that is fine but coming out and having definitions for them and using them to make a point is rediculous. How are people going to follow unless you are using the same definitions for the word. If I call someone a nimrod some may take it as an insult because they were confused by bugs bunny, although someone knowign the definition of the word might think I am calling them a hunter. So if you want to use a less common term for something define it befor eyou sumbit your post.
D&D or pathfinder(I think they are the same thing) is a social game where a group of people get together and play. Myself(as a played or DM) if I feel another player is nto having fun. I make a serious effort to engage them and invite them into strategies I am working on. Being that player that has to be the first in every room and speak over every other player NEEDS to be slow down that player and give the other players a chance. The GM NEEDS to give each player at the table an equal chance at his attention. Some players will sit back and participate less, but a DM should step up and try and encourage the other players. This is to let them know they are valued there too. I try to never touch another players fig unless my GMing causes them to do somwething beyond their control. I alos try and ask everyplayer if it is ok to be there when another player moves theri figure, even when it does nto matter. It is no fun to have someone else play your character, why are you there if that uis the case? If you feel someone is a powergamer/yuou hate them/you dislike their build/ think they are a jerk. Settle that before the game. If you take it into the game and make them sit in the shadow you as the DM are the jerk at the table too.
No one plays this game to be alone. Tellign them to play a video game on god mode is a silly answer. They want recognition deserved or not. They are there for the social aspect as well. What they want from it may be more selfish or vain, but telling them to play a game by themselves is the exact opposite of what they want. If you feel a gamer is being a jerk at the table the DM needs to recognize how it effects his players and mediate if need be. I have seen games where one player dominates and others enjoy it, but if there is one or more people regretting being there you as a DM are failign that person, and failing as a GM.
So some ideas I thought of readign through the posts since I was away yesterday.
Karal mithrilaxe |
David Bowles wrote:Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Kyle Baird wrote:Out of curiosity, what the legal methods for targeting through a wall of fire? I mean blasts are obvious. But what about targeted effects?Amanda Holdridge wrote:I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
seeing through the familiars eyes. a summoner can sense what his eidelon can--maybe his eidelon is on your side?
nosig |
nosig wrote:seeing through the familiars eyes. a summoner can sense what his eidelon can--maybe his eidelon is on your side?David Bowles wrote:Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Kyle Baird wrote:Out of curiosity, what the legal methods for targeting through a wall of fire? I mean blasts are obvious. But what about targeted effects?Amanda Holdridge wrote:I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
Can a summoner see thru his eidelons eyes? I didn't know that...
Luthril |
Karal mithrilaxe wrote:Can a summoner see thru his eidelons eyes? I didn't know that...nosig wrote:seeing through the familiars eyes. a summoner can sense what his eidelon can--maybe his eidelon is on your side?David Bowles wrote:Perhaps a good Perception check? or the Flame Oracle using that ability letting him see thru fire? or ... I'm sure there are other's I have missed. Tremersense? Blindsight?Kyle Baird wrote:Out of curiosity, what the legal methods for targeting through a wall of fire? I mean blasts are obvious. But what about targeted effects?Amanda Holdridge wrote:I recognize that unhappy look on their faces. They start questioning everything the bad guys do. Occasionally I get the, "Well it's over now. We're all gonna die". They also proceed to stop really trying. Which I find incredibly weird.This! LOL
Best example: How can the NPC target us through that wall of fire? That's not possible.
Starting at 2nd level, a summoner can, as a standard action, share the senses of his eidolon, hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, and touching everything the eidolon does. He can use this ability a number of rounds per day equal to his summoner level. There is no range to this effect, but the eidolon and the summoner must be on the same plane. The summoner can end this effect as a free action.
You have to spend a standard action, but yeppers, they can do that