well if he doesnt like it then he doesnt have to do it or take feats acordingly!
its almost as saying i dont like only attacking once each turn I think my charachter is faster and therefor I can attack more than once
or arguing that you dont like your enemy's taking a 5ft step so they can cast without aoo
its the rules so dont let a jerk tell you off if he dont like it so be it!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should make one thing clear to your players: There is no facing in Pathfinder! There is no 'turning his back'. Like it or not, but that is just a part of the system.
Even if a wizard tries to cast a (partially) harmless spell into melee, if it is targeted he gets -4 on his roll. Think of it as the combatant granting cover! Doesn't matter if it's not dangerous to the fighter in your example, the undead is still harder to hit.
In general, if a player complains about a rule I try to find out if he doesn't like it right now because it meant a penalty for his character or if he has a serious issue with it. Most of the time it's the former. If it is the latter you should discuss the rule after the session and find a house rule to improve it.
At the end of the day, you ALL are supposed to have fun, if your players don't have fun with a certain rule, there is no reason to enforce it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the specific rule
The -4 represents taking care to avoid your friend. Your friend is moving about and getting in the way.
Even with the ray, your friend is moving about and blocking your aim.
There used to be rules about ignoring the penalty but if you miss by x amount then you hit your friend instead of your foe.
Those rules were awkward and overcomplicated (armour makes them especially odd). Sometimes the system simplifies and streamlines: it's a game rather than a simulation.
Similarly, there is no such thing as facing in the game. The rules do not support the idea of the enemy having their back to you.
Why? Facing creates needless complication and reduces the sense of combat as a fluid, dynamic situation.
If he cares enough about it then he can take precise shot so that his player does not take that penalty.
The rule has been used happily by players across the world since 2000.
On rules complaints
At the table, it wastes time and undermines the fun of the group to be debating rules. The rules are there to support the game, not be the game.
If your player wants to debate rules then they should get a copy of the Core Rulebook and read it through. Then they could come on the boards and ask about rules that they don't like or don't make sense to them.
If they're still not happy then they could talk to you about houserules.
All of this takes place away from the table and does not dirupt the game.
You might also suggest that the player has a go at GMing, that's the best way to get to grips with how the rules work and why they might be there. They could GM a free adventure from Paizo if they don't want to design their own.
Ultimately, few of us have the skill, time or desire to rewrite a complex ruleset that has been produced by full-time professionals and then heavily edited and playtested twice.
|
This is also Paizo's answer to having to deal with misses and friendly fire for missiles. Some rules are there simply to make the game easier to play. I think this is one of those rules.
If he is complaining a lot, it may be time to have a chat about attitude. As the GM, you should have the final word or the game becomes a chore for you. If he continues to complain, then it may be time to have a chat about him starting his own game.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's what you do
1.Face towards your friend.
2.Hold your hand out.
3.Place the tip of your pointer finger to your thumb.
4.Start rubbing them back and forth
5.Continue doing so until your friend asks what you are doing.
6.Tell him your playing the world's smallest violin on his behalf.
But in all seriousness the others above have made perfectly valid reasons why that rule exists. Remind him that there exists a feat to get around this. Be gentle but firm that this is the way your game going to be run.
Like people say, rules debates in mid-game is just not conducive to a good gaming experience.
Simply banning rules debates out-right (mid-game) is certainly a good approach.
Since we're all human and make mistakes, players pointing out a mistake is sometimes a help to the game,
which can be briefly stated when necessary and not side-track the game with debate, the GM can just make the call then and there.
Quickly realizing what the rules actually call for is very very different than somebody b~~$@ing about how they don't LIKE the rules.
That sort of thing just doesn't really have any place in in-game discussion,
and really, there is no particular reason it needs to be entertained out-of-game, either, past the point it feels productive to you.
re: Cover penalties, also remember that Cover may be 'Partial Cover' in which case the AC bonus is only +2.
What qualifies as Partial Cover is left to GM discretion (referring to if 'more than half the creature is visible'),
and while it's tempting to apply it to all Cover from creatures (as opposed to objects like walls),
the fact that cover from creatures is explicitly listed under the entry for normal Cover weighs against that reading.
Still, it's reasonable to apply Partial Cover whenever you can draw an un-impeded line from your corner to ONE of the targets' corners,
and/or it otherwise seems that you can target 50%+ of the target un-impeded by any Cover.
Low Cover (1/2 the attacker's height or less) can also result in Cover being negated
if either the target is 30' or more past the Low Cover, or the attacker is closer to the Low Cover than the target is.
There is eventually a Feat (Improved Precise Shot) that negates the effects of all but total Cover and Concealment,
albeit it normally requires BAB +11 (although several classes can get 'early entry, such as Archery Style Rangers').
Precise Shot is widely considered a must-have Feat for anybody at all dedicated to Ranged Combat, improved precise shot is a bit less 'must have', but still often picked up by Ranged Attack specialists. As you're aware, all these rules also apply to Ranged Attack rolls of spells, but since those are basically all Touch Attacks, suffering an occasional penalty isn't that harsh.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tell him he can skip the -4, but then has to roll randomly to see whom he hits.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it's a good idea to start engaging at that level,
the OP was clear that the player in question has a host of other issues with the rules,
and enabling the player to negate any rule they don't like, even if an alternate mechanic is introduced,
would almost certainly result in a never-ending flow of complaints and modifications to the rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simply put, as suggested earlier:
1) You want to debate? You got to wait.
Rules debates happen away from the table. Never during game.
2) Penalties hard to beat? Then grab a feat.
Most penalties can be bypassed with feat and class choices. Research, and you will find a way.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of gamers (who have not tried Live Action Role Playing or Interactive Theatre or some other situation in which real people are really trying to hit other real people) often seem to lose perspective about combat.
If reasonable arguments like "It is actually not that easy to hit only one of two guys who are trying to kill each other. Much less to hit exactly the correct one." do not sway the player then try this practical demonstration.
Get two buckets, two tennis balls, a fairly long rope and go to your local park.
Drape the rope over the monkey bars or swing set.
Tie the buckets about chest high off the ground. If you have enough slack you can leave leads that you pull, otherwise you'll need to give them a good swing.
Walk a good 20ish feet away and hand the tennis balls to your player.
Explain he has 6 seconds to hit the far bucket twice when you give the word.
Walk back to the buckets and pull the leads or set them swinging.
Realistically the buckets have an approximate AC of about 5, so a character should have good odds of hitting them every time. Unless the player has had some practice they won't perform that well.
Usually simple demonstrations like this handle the situation long term for a small trade off of personal time. You could also look up How To and Learning To videos. Like this one. Or, more official than a random Felicia Day webcast where she and a friend go get Archery lessons while wearing elf ears.
When that fails, inform the player that he can have an opinion on how silly the combat rules are when he returns from a tour of active duty.
Every archer should be taking Precise Shot anyway since it's a prerequisite for a fair chunk of archery Feats, including the almighty Clustered Shots.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How well do you know this player? Is he a good friend that you want to have in your game at all costs?
Because to be frank, what you tell sounds like the general archetype of a "problem player", that just argue over rules for the fun of it or to disrupt the game.
Tell him, that if he doesn't like this particular rule, then that's bad, but everyone will run into situations where they can't do something. You think the fighter likes that he can't charge through an ally's square or the rogue thinks it's fair you have to be flanking to get sneak attack?
Tell him that GMing is a lot more work than just sit there and read stuff from a notebook/book/PDF at them, it involves a lot of preparation, and the same rules debates that have been done 5 times now are not fun for you (and probably none of the other players eeither) and if he doesn't stop it might be time for him to find a different GM.
Make sure he knows that he can bring up issues he has with the rules, but once you as the GM made a ruling on it, he should stick with it. At least for the session he might bring up arguments later (but more than "I don't like it"). Again once you made a ruling then, even if its the same, he has to respect it.
That sounds harsh, but might be the only way.
Hello,
Just finished running my second session of a new campaign. Had one player who kept complaining about the rule that states you incur a -4 penalty to hit when firing at an enemy adjacent to an ally. He argued that if a bad guy has his back to you - ie, your ally is on the other side of your target - you shouldn't get the penalty. Later on, he argued that since the wizard was casting disrupt undead at an undead adjacent to the fighter, he shouldn't get the -4 because disrupt undead can't hurt the fighter, so why would the wizard need to be extra careful with his aim?
I tried to explain this by saying that the penalty is meant to not only represent the extra care taken to miss an ally, but also the fact that a creature engaged in melee is darting about and probably a hard target - naturally he didn't buy it.
Well you could waive the penalty for a fifty-fifty chance you will hit the friendly person, I suppose, but I imagine he'd like that even less.
So I guess I'm frustrated and just looking for some advice on how to handle this sort of thing. How do you generally deal with players who complain about rules they don't like (there were others I'm not mentioning - other rules he complained about, that is.)
Incidentally, I did point out to him that the -4 applied to the PCs enemies as well, so it works both ways. It just so happens that in tonight's session all of their foes only had melee attacks, so the -4 didn't factor in for them, only against them. Even after this point, which I felt was pretty ironclad, he just scoffed.
Get used to being frustrated if you play with this guy.
What he wants is for you to say "Yes of course, no penalty will apply to you in future." Nothing else will do for him, so if you insist on trying to argue with "reasons" and "facts" he will continue to scoff and insist he is right, because all that matters is him getting his own way.
Just tell him those are the rules, that's what you are playing by, YOU are satisfied that they are fair, and he can vote with his feet if he doesn't like it.
|
|
You need to note that the rules work around these penalties.
To dismiss the penalty, is to change numerous feats, abilities, and various other mechanics.
Even substituting with "accidentally hitting an ally" as houserule, would impede on the Reckless Aim feat.
He has options. Point them out, and tell him there are nearly always options. He need only look.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really is a BS penalty. It just puts a double feat tax on every archer (PB and Precise Shot). I would probably eliminate the -4 penalty for firing into melee and houserule Precise Shot to do something else (maybe extend the PB shot range ...).
It really is a BS penalty. It just puts a double feat tax on every archer (PB and Precise Shot). I would probably eliminate the -4 penalty for firing into melee and houserule Precise Shot to do something else (maybe extend the PB shot range ...).
Archery is incredibly easy to do a lot of damage at with only a couple feats. It's not a feat tax if the feat is doing something useful.
To the OP: yeah you really shouldn't entertain this sort of thing. I'm all for diplomatic solutions but this is something where the player really needs to be taken down a peg. He sounds like someone you shouldn't be afraid to lose from your group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really is a BS penalty. It just puts a double feat tax on every archer (PB and Precise Shot). I would probably eliminate the -4 penalty for firing into melee and houserule Precise Shot to do something else (maybe extend the PB shot range ...).
It's really not BS. That little -4 penalty represents both the extra care you take when trying not to hit an ally that's in melee with your target and (perhaps most importantly) the absolute guarantee that you cannot hit your ally by mistake as a result of missing your target. Spending a feat so that that absolute guarantee doesn't come with an attached penalty seems pretty reasonable to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there actually a chance of hitting your ally without Precise Shot? Can't find it in the rules, myself. If you can quote me an official rule about that, then I will sit corrected. If not, that point is, well, pointless because it's not preventing anything that can actually happen.
no that is why you take the penalty you would rather miss than hit your alie sort of thing
It really is a BS penalty. It just puts a double feat tax on every archer (PB and Precise Shot). I would probably eliminate the -4 penalty for firing into melee and houserule Precise Shot to do something else (maybe extend the PB shot range ...).It's really not BS. That little -4 penalty represents both the extra care you take when trying not to hit an ally that's in melee with your target and (perhaps most importantly) the absolute guarantee that you cannot hit your ally by mistake as a result of missing your target. Spending a feat so that that absolute guarantee doesn't come with an attached penalty seems pretty reasonable to me.
The problem is that as far as I can tell, that absolute guarantee is something you already get by the rules. So all the feat does is eliminate a penalty that Zhayne (and others) believe shouldn't be there in the first place.
I admit to being of two minds. I acknowledge the realism of the rule, but there are certainly enough other aspects of Pathfinder combat that are unrealistic in the interests of playability. The effect of the rules, as far as I can tell, is to make firing-into-melee for low-level characters or for characters who aren't ranged specialists. I don't see any other, similar rules that make melee attacks impractical under common conditions. My wizard can hit orcs with a quarterstaff, but not fire crossbow bolts at them.
I think the penalty is justified. That said...
1. I think it's bs that you can suffer the firing into melee penalty *AND* the "soft cover" penalty for having someone (an ally) in the way. You should never have to face both penalties, they're freaking redundant with each other.
2. I could see good reason to remove both the firing into melee penalty and the fact that ranged attacks provoke AoOs. Those rules are "realistic", but... so much of the rest of combat is not, often to the archer's detriment. "Realistically," the vast majority of combats wouldn't be in cramped dungeons and you'd actually be able to shoot at foes from hundreds of feet away, instead of fights starting at 30 ft or less apart, like often seems to be the case.
Furthermore, "realistically," if you shot someone in the chest with a few arrows... he would NOT be reaching melee still swinging and moving at full power...if he is able to crawl his way into melee at all at that point. The critical existence failure that comes as part of heroic fantasy means the guy who scores first blood (almost always, the archer, when it's archer vs. melee) gets no real advantage for it.
And yet, the game insists on making being pressed upon or shooting into a melee difficult for an archer "because realism, duh." It's patently unfair, and I can totally understand a player getting upset about it.
Re: Stream of the Sky - Yeah. D&D combat is 99% abstract, so I really don't get where any 'realistically' argument comes into play. Just seems like another nerf to the martials. "I have to shoot my arrows realistically? Where are the realistic elves? The realistic Fireballs? The realistic Cure Light Wounds?"
Re: Kayerloth - 2nd Edition.
|
|
I think the penalty is justified. That said...
1. I think it's bs that you can suffer the firing into melee penalty *AND* the "soft cover" penalty for having someone (an ally) in the way. You should never have to face both penalties, they're freaking redundant with each other.
If I have to shoot past multiple dodging and moving creatures to hit my target it is pretty hard. Hunters do not try fire past their friends at prey without serious risk of putting holes in the wrong meatbag. The cumulative -4's are pretty steep but not redundant.
2. I could see good reason to remove both the firing into melee penalty and the fact that ranged attacks provoke AoOs. Those rules are "realistic", but... so much of the rest of combat is not, often to the archer's detriment. "Realistically," the vast majority of combats wouldn't be in cramped dungeons and you'd actually be able to shoot at foes from hundreds of feet away, instead of fights starting at 30 ft or less apart, like often seems to be the case.
Encounter design is different from the mechanics that are used to resolve the encounters. Archers already rank in the top for delivering damage. A few hurtles along the way hasn't changed that. Also, you could employ different tactics.
Furthermore, "realistically," if you shot someone in the chest with a few arrows... he would NOT be reaching melee still swinging and moving at full power...if he is able to crawl his way into melee at all at that point. The critical existence failure that comes as part of heroic fantasy means the guy who scores first blood (almost always, the archer, when it's archer vs. melee) gets no real advantage for it.
And yet, the game insists on making being pressed upon or shooting into a melee difficult for an archer "because realism, duh." It's patently unfair, and I can totally understand a player getting upset about it.
Fantasy combat has a lot of problems with where to cross the reasonability barrier and where to reinforce it. The first thing to embrace is that this is a turn based system. I go, do all of my stuff, then you go and do all of your stuff creates a lot of basic problems for simulating real combat.
Instead of whining about the penalties try and see how the system functions and establish why there are barriers to achieving certain actions. I realize you're not a system designer but try to keep certain things in mind.
1) Hit Point Damage represents how seriously you hurt someone, not the number you rolled on a D20. If you rolled a Natural 20, confirmed the critical hit, and then rolled maximum damage but it only took 10% of the opponent's health away, you should probably stop describing that as a head shot. It's breaking your grasp of what the numbers represent.
2) Going first is a huge advantage. In any turn based system, when you get your turn before the opponent you begin the damage countdown first. At its simplest: Rabbit has initiative and a bow. Turtle has a sword. Both have 3 hit points and do exactly one damage each turn. Even if Turtle can reach Rabbit and do damage on the same turn, because Rabbit goes first Turtle will die and Rabbit will live. Once you start incorporating all the options available, this going first advantage gets even better. Why do you think it is so vital for control characters to have a good initiative and/or many reactive actions?
3) A penalty in the game represents something being more difficult. Trying to shoot a specific one of two guys actively engaged in killing each other is more difficult than trying to shoot a guy just hanging around in open terrain. If you honestly believe that is not the case then there is no discussion possible. Just open a can of Derp Soda and go back to Honey Boo Boo.
Ok, if the realism argument is bunk - and I'm prepared to entertain that notion - what are the effects from a purely mechanical standpoint? Would eliminating the -4 make ranged touch attack spells and archery too easy/powerful, or would it *fix* a rule that unbalances the game to the detriment of these abilities/attacks?
Both, I think.
Archery specialists in Pathfinder are stupidly powerful (at least in comparison with other martial types). This would only make them more powerful as it would free up a few feats they could spend on other things, or simply power up more quickly as they got the feats they need in fewer levels.
However, archery is sufficiently feat-intensive that you need to specialize in it to be effective. Treantmonk's "Switch hitter" is a pretty good example; an archery-specialized ranger can be more effective in hand-to-hand combat as a two weapon melee specialist. But there's no way that a melee specialist of any type can be as effective as an archer at ranged combat.
Certainly anything that makes ranged-touch attacks more effective would also make casters even more overpowered than they already are.
So I think the fix would need to be deeper and more far-ranging than simply eliminating the -4 penalty. My personal suggestion would be for a fix that makes hand to hand combat more effective as a choice. (Just off the top of my head, one possible fix would be to make the Hammer The Gap feat or something similar to it automatic, but only when applied to hand-to-hand weapons. An alternative would be to provide some way for martials to get full attacks routinely, possibly with something like a (stackable) feat that allows people to move five additional feet and then take a full attack action.)
If I have to shoot past multiple dodging and moving creatures to hit my target it is pretty hard. Hunters do not try fire past their friends at prey without serious risk of putting holes in the wrong meatbag. The cumulative -4's are pretty steep but not redundant.
Well, the problem is that one meatbag results in two -4 penalties if he's in the wrong spot. Given how there's officially no facing in Pathfinder, this argues that the penalties are in fact redundant.
|
|
@Ofamay Quest One penalty is for the difficulty of hitting a specific individual out of two engaged in Mortal Kombat. The other penalty is for shooting past an obstacle. I understand the perception of redundancy when the obstacle is the other guy engaged in Mortal Kombat.
I simply do not agree with the legitimacy of that complaint.
One penalty is a cover penalty, the other penalty is firing into melee. The penalties stack, but are not identical. If the penalties were being applied for the same effect I would feel differently. Like -4 for being prone, and then -4 for laying down. That would be redundant.
|
|
Another thought on this, based on the "the enemy has their back to me" premise. That may be true, but here's the thing: What if you miss? The shot still goes somewhere. The -4 in this case can usually reflect the character taking the trouble of firing at such an angle that they know for certain they won't hit any unintended targets if they end up missing or their actual target dodges.
It's an abstraction of the "know what's beyond your target" rule of safety with bows and other projectile weapons, but one I'm willing to live with.
The penalties aren't redundant, because they aren't both penalties. Cover means that the target is effectively hiding behind something. In this case another fighter. His ability to avoid the arrow shot is increased. Shooting into Melee IS a penalty, because the combat impedes the archer's ability to fire accurately.
They aren't redundant because that is a -4 to an attack roll, and a +4 to AC.
If the player doesn't like the -4 rule tell him you could always go back to an earlier edition's rule where it was randomized who the shot would hit. That was all sorts of fun.
Archer: I shoot the enemy who is in melee with my fighter.
GM: Ok, roll 50/50 to see who you hit.
Archer: What?! Uhhh, never mind. *Checks* Nobody else to shoot at. Guess I will just stand here.
- Gauss
Nah, I don't think discussing D&D Edition Archaeology in the middle of a game is a good idea.
As the OP made clear, it was not just this one rule being disputed in-game, the player didn't like a bunch of rules,
so humoring a player like this who can't just PLAY THE GAME is just going to result in a raft of houserules.
If the GM wanted to use such houserules, they would already be using them.
There's no reason that a player with poor attitude should force their hand.
A player like this needs to learn the etiquette of game-play and not putting their own opinion above the experience for everybody.
If the GM isn't onboard the player's preference for house-rules, tough luck.
Is there actually a chance of hitting your ally without Precise Shot? Can't find it in the rules, myself. If you can quote me an official rule about that, then I will sit corrected. If not, that point is, well, pointless because it's not preventing anything that can actually happen.
Okay, clearly I wasn't clear. The reason the penalty exists is because if it did not, there would have to be some other way of adjudicating what the designers clearly decided was "a more difficult shot" (I am presuming because you might hit your ally). The options include randomising the target between all of those in melee, as Gauss mentions existed in earlier editions of D&D. That would make it really sucky to use an archer without Precise Shot. Or, for simplicities sake, how about a penalty applies to the attack roll and we don't worry about the archer's allies? It is objectively harder to take a shot at your target and absolutely guarantee that you won't hit the guy standing to one side of him, or behind him. Especially when they're both moving, dodging, weaving, and generally making it harder for you to hit. The flat penalty is the simplest solution to the problem. You may not like it, but I've yet to see a simpler system to use in the abstract nature of the d20 combat system when you can figure out one of the design goals simply from the fact that the penalty is there in the first place.
So, the question is not "should the penalty exist?", it's "how do you simply adjudicate the added difficulty of firing into melee in a way that requires no more maths than a simple penalty to the attack roll?"
Quandry, Chemlak got the reason why I made my post about previous ways to handle this. :)
- Gauss
It's your game, so if you're worried, simply ask if the player would allow you to roll the digital device on their phone app to ensure whether or not the perceived '18 is really an '8'. Regardless, go with your gut when allowing this sort of thing at your game.
If you want everybody to roll dice (including yourself), everybody should roll dice.
That's a pretty normal thing, socially inclusive, and engages the whole table vs: staring at personal smartphones.
That is wholly justifiable SOLELY on an 'aesthetic' basis like you gave, not to mention ease of verification.
(your worry about you as a GM rolling behind a screen has no basis, GMs can and should verify rolls, and players have no need to do so for GM rolls, who may need/want to keep secret even the fact that they are making a roll, albeit in that case having pre-rolled numbers to use is often ideal)
If the player doesn't like the dice they were using, use other dice, the idea that a random number generator is more neutral than any and all dice is kind of a joke. In fact, normal random number generators themselves are not really random, if you want to get down to it.
If there's a problem with the dice, how does it fix the game for this one player to use their smartphone while everybody else continues the same?
If the player wanted to discuss the issue with everybody and the group decides as a whole to use a different 'rolling' method, great,
otherwise it feels like the player is just up to their same game of imposing their own preferences on game dynamics.
I can't really say from your post, but if the player wasn't asking you your opinion about this,
but 'informing you' of how he will play, I'd say that the same set of concerns of player dictating to GM still applies.
Rolling a dice is random. They made so that there is the same chance to roll a 1 as there is to roll a two.
Small imperfections in the die's shape and weight makes this untrue.
The vast majority of dice will be just as random as a dice roller.
And if you buy dice from a very poor manufacturer you get an inferior product, it's the same deal.
I'm assuming we're talking about average to well made dice vs the same quality of dice roller.
Yes, inferior products will be unreliable, but that holds just as true for either side. I find that sites that utilize a dice roller made for gaming are just as random as actually rolling a die yourself.
The built-in Roll20 (and other VTTs I'm sure, but I don't use them) dice roller is a good example as is this one.