|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing them to waste their actions when you tell them they can is a jerk move.
A big part of the problem us that no properly built spell caster should have only one pouch, only one holy symbol, etc. You might cost an action or orvoje an AoO but sundering a spell component pouch should NOT be an "I win" button.
One significant bit of table variation is what gear an NPC is assumed to have even if is not listed. Just about everybody should have a dagger, for example.
|
|
If this happened to me I would get up and walk away from the table. The choice to do that and watse your turn is a debilerate jerk move and does not deserve an explantion as to why you are leaving.
I really hope that is hyperbole. The GM makes a ruling that you don't like and you'd leave the table without even giving an explanation? That is totally and utterly unacceptable to me, far more than a GM making a bad ruling. Any bad ruling.
|
|
If this happened to me I would get up and walk away from the table. The choice to do that and watse your turn is a debilerate jerk move and does not deserve an explantion as to why you are leaving.I really hope that is hyperbole. The GM makes a ruling that you don't like and you'd leave the table without even giving an explanation? That is totally and utterly unacceptable to me, far more than a GM making a bad ruling. Any bad ruling.
Life is to short for jerks. The Gms job is to judge and provide a fun game. Someone using that position to what I would percieve as the exact opposite does not deserve an answer.
I am sorry you find that unacceptable, but I disagree. There is a huge difference between making a bad ruling, and then knowing you are making a ruling against a player that has a different perception of the rules. As a GM you should not hide how you intrept the rules from the players.
From what I understand PFS is very strict. You can't add items that the PC does not have one them. I understand assumign it had one pouch but you should be able to give it two.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Crap, did some digging. Supposed to used the ranged weapons rules for cover for reach weapons.
This was an error on my part, though, not a choice to apply the rules differently.
(So many rules... I'm getting old and my brain can't hold them all any more. I used to practically have the 1e DMG memorized.)
It was way simpler and linearly organized. Gygax background in wargaming was very visible in its organization.
From 3rd edition onward the rules have been scattered around all the places, sometime they are defined in a different way and even things with the same name sometime work in a different way (natural invisibility of some monster vs the spell, as an example).|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is important for DMing in general, but goes 100 times as much for organized play.
If something is not going to work, and that should be obvious to the characters then you have to tell them... and try not to make the player feel stupid for asking.
Maybe they have a house rule about what they're trying, maybe they read a rule differently than you do, maybe they don't know a rule, maybe you're wrong about something: but if it doesn't work when you're Dming you should tell the player.
Ie Thiefy: I'm going to sneak through the dark past the dogs. Now in the past Thiefy's player has had a DM that would make that a stealth vs. perception check. If you're doing scent as auto spot within range you might want to tell Thiefy that BEFORE he becomes a snausage. Getting the DM and the player on the same page about how this works is more important than getting them on the one true page.
The rules of the game change slightly from DM to Dm, changing the laws of the universe. Its inevitable. Characters should be aware of how the world has "always worked" from their perspective, even with a new DM. Its hubris to think that you have the ONLY way every single rule in the game could legitimately be read. With a regular group you slowly work the kinks out, with DMs swapping in and out you sometimes have to stop and spell them out as they come up.
|
|
Being snide and using a PC ignorance of the rules against them is debatable. Forcing them to waste their actions when you tell them they can is a jerk move.
I was a jerk because I let a PC use a steal maneuver to steal a NPCs holy symbol? Wow...
It is not my responsibility to predict a players intentions and preemptively explain possible implications of doing something in game.
This reminds me of the time that time I had an player who grappled a monster and then got upset when he ate a full attack on his turn, nearly killing him, because he thought it would keep them from making full attacks.
|
Finlanderboy
Sometimes players waste a move because they assume it always worked and are surprised if it suddenly isn't.
I once had this grapple/pin specialist grappling the alchemist. He looked smug at me - until he got attacked by the alchemist. In my view this was 100% rules conform. He took it with humor and not walking or a table flip
He drank an elixir of fire breath.
Action while pinned:
Exhale point blank
I'm open to rule that as part of a pin you can keep someone's mouth shut. But I rule this is not part of a default pin - unless you tell me so.
|
|
If this happened to me I would get up and walk away from the table. The choice to do that and watse your turn is a debilerate jerk move and does not deserve an explantion as to why you are leaving.I really hope that is hyperbole. The GM makes a ruling that you don't like and you'd leave the table without even giving an explanation? That is totally and utterly unacceptable to me, far more than a GM making a bad ruling. Any bad ruling.
Life is to short for jerks. The Gms job is to judge and provide a fun game. Someone using that position to what I would percieve as the exact opposite does not deserve an answer.
I am sorry you find that unacceptable, but I disagree. There is a huge difference between making a bad ruling, and then knowing you are making a ruling against a player that has a different perception of the rules. As a GM you should not hide how you intrept the rules from the players.
You stated that you'd leave without giving an explanation. How the heck do you expect the GM to know what he did "wrong"? You seem to be assuming that he is consciously being a jerk as opposed to just seeing the situation differently than you do.
I've never even come close to banning a player at the store I coordinate. But if anybody pulled that they'd maybe get one warning. Maybe.
|
|
I think this is important for DMing in general, but goes 100 times as much for organized play.
If something is not going to work, and that should be obvious to the characters then you have to tell them... and try not to make the player feel stupid for asking
I agree in general. Especially if it is in an area where I know there is GM variation.
But one can go too far. Players OFTEN do silly things, things that their characters arguably wouldn't do. When a newby makes a newby mistake I'll warn them. An experienced player gets less slack. Players have to be allowed to make mistakes.
|
|
More often than not, "expect rules variation" means "expect GM errors" :P
As the game becomes bigger and more complex, sometimes it just becomes impossible to actually *know* all of it: it's a bit like tax law.
I know I make incorrect calls from time-to-time. It's really up to the players to understand how their abilities works, to be able to cite the source, and to have the source available; it's up to the GM not to get all egoistic when a player calls him out on a rule and has the materials to clarify an incorrect ruling.
As a GM, I value speed of play, and I also value accuracy of rulings; really, it's an optimization problem between these two warring features of "a good game": when a game simply halts in its tracks as rules are looked up, this is very bad, but it's also very bad when a player is penalized (or worse, killed) because a judge makes an incorrect rules decision.
So, really, the problem of "table variation" comes down to preparedness, as much on the part of the players as the GMs.
|
|
I think this is important for DMing in general, but goes 100 times as much for organized play.
If something is not going to work, and that should be obvious to the characters then you have to tell them... and try not to make the player feel stupid for asking
I agree in general. Especially if it is in an area where I know there is GM variation.
But one can go too far. Players OFTEN do silly things, things that their characters arguably wouldn't do. When a newby makes a newby mistake I'll warn them. An experienced player gets less slack. Players have to be allowed to make mistakes.
It would require a lot of second guessing on why someone is doing something and how he think to do that.
In the 3 and 3.5 versions of D&D we have a player that had the habit to cast ray and ranged touch attack into melee without taking the -4 to hit. We remembered the rule to him several times, he constantly forgave to take the -4 and when remembered his reaction was "Oh well, it isn't a problem, X can survive my ray of enfeeblement while grappled by the druid wildshaped in a dire bear ...." X generally wasn't very happy.
We did broke him of that habit when the character in game started reacting to his mistakes instead of forgiving them.
So, up to a point you should inform the players if they are doing something that you think is weird or will not work, but the Gm work isn't to drive a player character from the backseat. It wouldn't be fun nor for the Gm, nor for the player.
The player can make mistakes and foolish things. It is one of his rights.
|
|
Finlanderboy
Sometimes players waste a move because they assume it always worked and are surprised if it suddenly isn't.
I once had this grapple/pin specialist grappling the alchemist. He looked smug at me - until he got attacked by the alchemist. In my view this was 100% rules conform. He took it with humor and not walking or a table flip
** spoiler omitted **
wow... my high level alchemist often has detonate spells in his Poisoners Gloves. And he hits himself with them
Nosig
Indeed - if he is doing this just ahead of being grappled and pinned than - kaboom.
Pinning your alchemist comes too late. The spell is cast - the explosion will happen.
But once you are grappled and pinned you have an issue as it is V,S, M to pull it off.
|
|
Nosig
Detonate is an interesting one. It doesn't say concentration. So I would rule - you cast it - you get killed - the spell still goes off. I can't see much (apart of a globe of force around you) to stop the effect once you have cast it as far as a quick reading if the spell would indicate to me - and that would be all I have at a table.
But expect table variation.
My big questions are: what happens if you cast a spell on someone and have no effect, and what constitutes 'interacting' with an illusion.
While I would have a lot of fun with an enchanter or illusionist, I won't play one in PFS, too much variation.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is important for DMing in general, but goes 100 times as much for organized play.
If something is not going to work, and that should be obvious to the characters then you have to tell them... and try not to make the player feel stupid for asking.
Maybe they have a house rule about what they're trying, maybe they read a rule differently than you do, maybe they don't know a rule, maybe you're wrong about something: but if it doesn't work when you're Dming you should tell the player.
I often have an issue with players asking for very specific pieces of information that the scenario doesn't provide or seem to be planning something really stupid. I usually end up getting them to tell me what their end goal is and working backwards. For example, in one scenario where the players were on a small island with "high security" and an unstated number of hired guards, I had one player walk around the island, constantly asking "How many guards are in this section of the woods?" "Do I see any guards from here?" "Where is the closest guard to my current location?" etc. The scenario is pretty clear that any violent behavior on the part of the PCs will not be tolerated by security, so the player was skirting with getting his character kicked off of the island and out of the scenario.
I finally asked him "What exactly are you trying to do?"
He was trying to scout the island and look for potential weak spots that the party might need to cover or that he could bring to the attention of the guards.
OK, so your character isn't actually skulking around trying to sneak up on the guards? Sure, you can easily accomplish that without getting in trouble: it will take you a total of two hours, and you identified the following potential issues....
That's become my go-to tactic anytime a player asks a weird question or says "My character is going to take this really stupid action": ask "what is it that you are trying to accomplish, here?"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reach weapons are only slightly unclear.
Soft cover specifies ranged weapons.
The cover rules say that you determine cover for reach weapons as if they are ranged weapons, but it's in the section about determining if it comes into play.
I don't see how cover and reach weapons is unclear at all.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your
ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line
from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).When making a melee attack against an adjacent target,
your target has cover if any line from any corner of your
square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including
a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target
that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use
the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
First paragraph tells you how to determine cover for ranged attacks.
Bolded section of 2nd paragraph tells you to use ranged rules for reach weapons.
How is that unclear or confusing?
How is that in a different section of the rules?
|
|
Sundering the pouch is also problematic because its a composite item. If you hit a bag full of sand, bat guano, gnoll hair with a big honking axe you still have sand, bat guanto and gnoll hair all over the place: it doesn't suddenly vanish.I find an easier way is to ask them just how they plan to identify the pouch amongst all the other little bags, pouches and pockets an NPC is likely to have as part of their normal clothing.
Player: Well, the last time he cast a spell, what pouch did he reach into to pull out his spell component?
- or -
Player: Well, the last time he cast a spell, what did he hold forth that looks like some sort of a symbol?
If the PC waste an action on something such as stealing a holy symbol that does not exist the GM should say there is no holy symbol. If the PC assumes the holy symbol will stop the caster from casting, and the caster does not need it, that is on the player for assuming the caster does not have an ability to bypass rule X.
Reach weapons are only slightly unclear.
Soft cover specifies ranged weapons.
The cover rules say that you determine cover for reach weapons as if they are ranged weapons, but it's in the section about determining if it comes into play.I don't see how cover and reach weapons is unclear at all.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your
ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line
from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).When making a melee attack against an adjacent target,
your target has cover if any line from any corner of your
square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including
a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target
that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use
the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.First paragraph tells you how to determine cover for ranged attacks.
Bolded section of 2nd paragraph tells you to use ranged rules for reach weapons.
How is that unclear or confusing?
How is that in a different section of the rules?
I agree. It seems pretty cut and dry to me also.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the PC waste an action on something such as stealing a holy symbol that does not exist the GM should say there is no holy symbol. If the PC assumes the holy symbol will stop the caster from casting, and the caster does not need it, that is on the player for assuming the caster does not have an ability to bypass rule X.
I agree.
I was playing my Grippli with the Agile Tongue feat, and stole a spellcaster's spell component pouch. He then pulled out his crossbow and I disarmed that. So the GM looked at his list of spells to see if there was one he could cast without his spell component pouch. Low and behold, he had magic missile and he knocked my grippli unconscious.
But I did end up causing the NPC to do useless stuff for a few rounds, which probably saved a TPK.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Reach weapons are only slightly unclear.
Soft cover specifies ranged weapons.
The cover rules say that you determine cover for reach weapons as if they are ranged weapons, but it's in the section about determining if it comes into play.I don't see how cover and reach weapons is unclear at all.
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your
ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line
from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).When making a melee attack against an adjacent target,
your target has cover if any line from any corner of your
square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including
a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target
that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use
the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.First paragraph tells you how to determine cover for ranged attacks.
Bolded section of 2nd paragraph tells you to use ranged rules for reach weapons.
How is that unclear or confusing?
How is that in a different section of the rules?
Nothing about the part you stated is confusing, I agree.
Soft Cover: Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks, giving you a +4 bonus to AC. However, such soft cover provides no bonus on Reflex saves, nor does soft cover allow you to make a Stealth check.
however in the section on soft cover it says that soft cover specifically applies to ranged attacks.
Logical argument:
Premise - Soft cover is different from normal cover.
Premise - The reference to reach weapons in the cover section, is for determining line of cover.
Fact - Soft cover applies no bonus to AC against melee attacks
Fact - A reach weapon is not a ranged weapon.
Conclusion - The target of an attack from a reach weapon would have soft cover from the attack, as determined by there being an intervening creature, they would gain no bonus to AC however, as a reach weapon is a melee attack.
As you can see, the ambiguity isn't if the target has cover, but whether or not soft cover provides any bonus against reach weapons, as they are still melee attacks.
|
|
First paragraph above:
If any line
from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).
I don't care what the passage about soft cover says.
This is 100% clear.
And anyone that wants to parse the statement above soft cover only referring to ranged attacks, I refer you to the first passage I bolded that says that reach weapons work like ranged attacks for deciding cover.
If a GM wants to Table variation something that is 100% clear like this, I walk from the table. Seriously.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.
How wouldn't it? The parts I bolded are quite clear. The part you bolded doesn't suddenly change the words in the parts I bolded.
First part I bolded: If you use a reach weapon, use the ranged weapon rules for when cover applies.
Second part I bolded: If a creature is in a square crossed by a line drawn to determine cover, it gives the cover bonus for ranged attacks.
Second Part is ranged attacks, first part refers you to ranged attacks.
The part about soft cover talks about ranged attacks. even if the second part I bolded wasn't written, you would still apply the part you bolded, because you use the ranged attack rules for reach weapons.
This isn't rocket science. I can't believe people can't read what's written in the context its written, and get 1+1=2 when it tells you to add 1 + 1.
|
|
I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.Yes if they're reach attacks. /discussion
So speaking of table variation, I never questioned it until you told me that PCs didn't grant cover in Eyes part 3, when I said if our gunslinger stood in the middle of us he wouldn't provoke AoO's.
Admittedly we were all addled and exhausted. I run it as giving cover on reach attacks, but yours was not the first table I had been at that it was run that way.
I was simply explaining how it could be interpreted that way, though I think Andy's "walk from the table" is a bit over the top.
|
|
So speaking of table variation, I never questioned it until you told me that PCs didn't grant cover in Eyes part 3, when I said if our gunslinger stood in the middle of us he wouldn't provoke AoO's.I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.Yes if they're reach attacks. /discussion
Versus huge creatures? Where's that text about cover and big and little creatures? FWIW, I barely remember anything past part 1 of that weekend. :)
|
|
Determining and applying are different things.
you determine that they have cover, you apply no cover bonus because the attack isn't a ranged attack.
The section about treating reach as ranged is in the subsection about determining if the target has cover, as the rules for determining cover are different for ranged a melee attacks. (IE what part of the square must be targetable)
|
|
Versus huge creatures? Where's that text about cover and big and little creatures? FWIW, I barely remember anything past part 1 of that weekend. :)So speaking of table variation, I never questioned it until you told me that PCs didn't grant cover in Eyes part 3, when I said if our gunslinger stood in the middle of us he wouldn't provoke AoO's.I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.Yes if they're reach attacks. /discussion
yeah we were all addled and exhausted, he clearly had cover, we agreed on that, you pointed out the soft cover saying "ranged" attacks to me :D.
Again, I don't think it SHOULD work that way, nor do I run it that way. HOWEVER the wording is certainly not conclusive.
|
|
you determine that they have cover, you apply no cover bonus because the attack isn't a ranged attack.How's that again? If you determine they have cover, cover is a +4 bonus to AC regardless of if it is melee or ranged.
Character's provide soft cover, soft cover specifies ranged attacks.
nobody is arguing what happens when there is a wall or some such
|
|
Versus huge creatures? Where's that text about cover and big and little creatures? FWIW, I barely remember anything past part 1 of that weekend. :)So speaking of table variation, I never questioned it until you told me that PCs didn't grant cover in Eyes part 3, when I said if our gunslinger stood in the middle of us he wouldn't provoke AoO's.I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.Yes if they're reach attacks. /discussionyeah we were all addled and exhausted, he clearly had cover, we agreed on that, you pointed out the soft cover saying "ranged" attacks to me :D.
Again, I don't think it SHOULD work that way, nor do I run it that way. HOWEVER the wording is certainly not conclusive.
I still have zero idea how you think it isn't conclusive.
The first part I bolded says in parenthesis (+4 AC), I'll quote it again:
If any line
from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).
And you can't start reading later parts of the same section of the book, read it in a vacuum, and ignore all the rules that came before it. Rules for this game are meant to be read in context.
There is no way this is anything but conclusive.
I posit, that if Kyle made a different ruling, he was tired and confused and made a mistake. This doesn't make it table variation insomuch as GM error. Lets not mistake those two.
|
|
The point about walking from the table, is if I'm playing with a GM who gets such a fundamental part of the game wrong (which happens, especially with new GMs), and they choose to do what I call a "dumb interpretation" of part of the rules (basically interpreting only one small portion of the rules and ignoring how it fits into the context of a sentence literally 50 words prior), then how am I to trust that they can get the rest of the rules right enough that the game is still considered Pathfinder and not Jim-Bob's version of Pathfinder?
|
|
You're doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing.
You can't quote halfway through a paragraph, that breaks referencing.
Core Rule Book, Page 195, Cover wrote:
Cover
To determine whether your target has cover from your
ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line
from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes
through a square or border that blocks line of effect or
provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature,
the target has cover (+4 to AC).
When making a melee attack against an adjacent target,
your target has cover if any line from any corner of your
square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including
a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target
that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use
the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks.
Notice how the section about melee attacks ONLY lists a wall as something that could provide cover.
then Soft Cover specifies ranged attacks.
Soft cover has multiple differences from cover. It doesn't grant a bonus to reflex saves, and it specifies ranged attacks.
I do agree that "When making a melee attack against a target
that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use
the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks." applies to all forms of cover, and therefore they would receive the cover bonus.
I don't agree that it's impossible, or even difficult, to say "well they would have cover from this, but it's not a ranged attack"