|
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?
I don't think calling it a "dumb" interpretation is fair at all. You may have trouble seeing it, but the logical argument is there, though I agree that it's weaker (and therefore wrong). It's certainly not a "dumb" interpretation, and I don't think you should write off a GM and walk from their table for that.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Folks,
If the question is: "How much of the rules are sometimes varied by GMs?" The answer is going to be "All of them." Every rule is modified by somebody.
If the question is "What rules are most commonly subject to table variation," then let's not identify one GM, during one game.
Another common issue I've noticed: NPCs and initiative. Do all the opponents act at once, or does each foe have its on initiative? That makes a huge difference.
Oddly, Diplomacy in the middle of combat. There are a lot of players who either expect it to work, or expect it to work with some negative modifier. (A lot of players remember the -10 penalty from D&D 3.5.)
What "grappled" means.
Shirts and folios.
|
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:
CoverTo 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"
I quoted the entire two paragraphs above, and I bolded sections of both of them for emphasis.
The 2nd paragraph that talks about melee attacks, says that you refer to the ranged attack rules for cover when using a reach weapon.
Why would they talk about soft cover at all with melee attacks, when soft cover only applies to ranged attacks.
Reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules for cover.
So when soft cover discusses ranged attacks, it is also referring to reach weapons, because reach weapons use the ranged weapon rules. Which is clearly stated in the 1st paragraph.
I'm not ignoring one paragraph for another. I'm reading them all in context with one another.
You are ignoring the fact that reach weapons work like ranged weapons for determining cover, and that in the first paragraph it says that a creature in a square provides +4 to AC.
The passage about soft cover just defines what soft cover is. But you still apply it to reach weapons, because reach weapons work like ranged attacks for the purposes of cover.
This is not difficult.
|
|
Folks,
If the question is: "How much of the rules are sometimes varied by GMs?" The answer is going to be "All of them." Every rule is modified by somebody.
If the question is "What rules are most commonly subject to table variation," then let's not identify one GM, during one game.
Another common issue I've noticed: NPCs and initiative. Do all the opponents act at once, or does each foe have its on initiative? That makes a huge difference.
Oddly, Diplomacy in the middle of combat. There are a lot of players who either expect it to work, or expect it to work with some negative modifier. (A lot of players remember the -10 penalty from D&D 3.5.)
What "grappled" means.
Shirts and folios.
I have started running combats off of combat manager on my ipad, it rolls the creatures individually, which I feel makes combat flow better and is more in line with what I feel is the intent.
Also helps prevent damage from spiking by having all the enemies attack at once.
|
|
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"
I don't understand this sentence, as it seems to be agreeing with everything I've been saying.
Because what you quoted is exactly true.
A reach weapon attack is not a ranged attack, but you'd still get cover, because it uses the ranged weapon rules (which includes every word in the soft cover entry).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?I don't think calling it a "dumb" interpretation is fair at all. You may have trouble seeing it, but the logical argument is there, though I agree that it's weaker (and therefore wrong). It's certainly not a "dumb" interpretation, and I don't think you should write off a GM and walk from their table for that.
I think its exceedingly fair.
Its using false logic to make something mean what you want it to mean.
So either its dumb, or its willful (and thus malicious) ignorance of how reading comprehension works.
|
|
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?I don't think calling it a "dumb" interpretation is fair at all. You may have trouble seeing it, but the logical argument is there, though I agree that it's weaker (and therefore wrong). It's certainly not a "dumb" interpretation, and I don't think you should write off a GM and walk from their table for that.I think its exceedingly fair.
Its using false logic to make something mean what you want it to mean.
So either its dumb, or its willful (and thus malicious) ignorance of how reading comprehension works.
Dumb or malicious? what scares me about this quote is that i don't believe it to be hyperbole.
You're writing off a GMs attitude or intelligence because he reads soft cover and goes "they would have soft cover, but it's not a ranged attack, so I guess it doesn't apply"
I actually do agree with everything you have been saying, as far as how it works.
I DON'T agree that it's impossible, dumb, or god forbid, malicious to interpret it the other way. In fact I see that as dangerously condescending especially for a Venture-Officer.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously Ben is remembering it wrong.if Kyle made a different ruling, he was tired and confused and made a mistakeUnpossible.;b
Musta been the other guy misunderstanding what you were saying then eh?
Careful :-p I handed you my phone, with the section that all cover prevents OAs, you handed it back to me and said "soft cover only applies to ranged attacks" and pointed at text. Clearly I should have walked from your table as you're malicious and/or dumb.
You were the GM, I saw reasonable logic in your answer, and I looked into it later. I decided it wasn't perfectly clear, though there was more evidence to support my original claim, so I choose to run it the way I believe it works, but I didn't come back at tell you that you were wrong, or claim that you're dumb or malicious (well maybe malicious, I mean you killed marty 3 times :-p).
I'll be a little more direct.
Andrew: I agree that it works in the way you describe.
I think you're being extreme in your reaction and assumptions about a person running and/or ruling it the other way.
Also: sorry to drag you into this Kyle. You're among the very best GMs I've ever played with, and because you're an exemplary who has excellent rules knowledge, I have to use you as an example that a GM can make a mistake, and easily see logic in the other argument, even while reading the paragraph.
|
"Why is the Gnome mooning us?
"It says I must present my holy symbol to channel energy. I have two tatoos... one for each cheek. What.. did you think the grass skirts were JUST a fashion statement? LUAL!
Due to a joke I made at my VC's table, my half-orc druid almost ended up having to moon an angel.
|
|
I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.
Specific trump generic.
In this situation generic is:"Creatures, even your enemies, can provide you with cover against ranged attacks,"
Specific, as it is related to a narrower range of attacks:
"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."
If you look the cover rules we have 2 sets of rules:
cover VS ranged attack
cover VS melee attacks by adjacent attackers
Then we have a third situation. melee attacks by non-adjacent attackers, and that situation is covered by the using cover VS ranged attack in its entirety.
|
Sometimes in PFS threads, posters state "expect table variation" when dealing with an unusual ability combo or strange rule interaction, but those are often the cautionary 'theoretical' warnings.
As a GM or player, what things have you personally experienced table variation on?
Darkness and light effects - especially magical light effects.
When one uses spellcraft vs knowledge: arcana - it seems to change a lot - also some GMs won't allow a take 10 on spellcraft to idenntify magic items because detect magic requires concentration.
Animal Companions - some get their own initiative some not - some are controlled by players - others the GM- some animals are allowed to work tactically and avoid AOO and others are not - and sometimes whether an animal goes on a different round depends on proximity to "owner".
Reach cure spells needing to succeed on attack rolls on friends - effects of concealment on range metamagic spells on friends.
Passing a wand - some GMs will let people pass a wand and use it each in their successive turn (pickup wand, use wand, drop it - next guy pickup wand use wand etc)- other GMs will not let wands be used more than 1 a full round of turns.
Drawing wands as weapon-like items as one moves - some do and some do not
What can go in a spring-loaded wrist sheath varies GM to GM
What can go in an efficient quiver - varies GM to GM - can you put a wand in an arrow spot? a Rod in a spear or javelin spot?
Perception multiple times in a room to see everything
Some judges roll one Initiative and applies it to all monsters - some apply an initiative to each monsters - and some do initiative in groups
Whether non-spell swift actions provoke AoO - spell swift actions specifically say they do not - but non-spell swifts varies GM to GM.
diagonals and reach weapons - especially charging foes.
Whether one needs to make Handle Animal checks for animals you are riding
Whether you can use a training harness with a saddle
I am sure I can think of some more with more time.
I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.
It does for reach weapons because the book says so. For nonreach weapons the answer is no unless a weapon has a rules exception.
|
|
I agree the target has cover, never disagreed. the argument is if soft cover provides a bonus to AC against melee attacks.It does for reach weapons because the book says so. For nonreach weapons the answer is no unless a weapon has a rules exception.
Not only against reach weapon, it is applied on attacks vs non adjiacent targets.
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.
So an interesting question: it apply to lunge? I think it will.
|
I have to use you as an example that a GM can make a mistakeBut I don't make mistakes. Ever. Let me see your chronicles from Eyes of the Ten, there's a certain boon that needs to be crossed off.
I am confused.
Kyle claims that he doesn't make mistakes. Then he asks for a chronicle back, to cross of something he didn't cross off earlier. So, wouldn't that have been a mistake?
*brain starts shutting down due to circular logic*
(Also reminds self not to introduce myself using my forum alias to Kyle if I ever get the chance to play at his table)
|
|
I DON'T agree that it's impossible, dumb, or god forbid, malicious to interpret it the other way. In fact I see that as dangerously condescending especially for a Venture-Officer.
Having read this whole thread, I agree with this statement. I also agree the rules are clear-- and, I've done it wrong. Not because I don't understand them. But because I have failed to memorize all of the rules from the Core Rulebook, and sometimes don't remember things right. What's more, in the heat of battle, looking things up it's possible to find things like the out-of-context paragraph quoted before that seem to make it pretty clear that soft cover only applies versus ranged attacks. One might run with that, not because it's the right interpretation, but because one doesn't remember all of the rules all of the time, and when one is quickly trying to figure out what's going on, that might just be what one finds in the rulesbook.
In an ideal world, every GM would spend a tremendous amount of time reading and memorizing the rulebook so that they would know it cold, and then run a number of "training" scenarios on simulators where actual people's characters weren't on the line, before GMing for real. That is not the world we live in.
Given that, and given the size of the rules set we're dealing with and the flexibility of the game that it provides rules for, it's really quite harsh to say that a GM who makes an error must be dumb or even malicious.
|
|
I DON'T agree that it's impossible, dumb, or god forbid, malicious to interpret it the other way. In fact I see that as dangerously condescending especially for a Venture-Officer.Having read this whole thread, I agree with this statement. I also agree the rules are clear-- and, I've done it wrong. Not because I don't understand them. But because I have failed to memorize all of the rules from the Core Rulebook, and sometimes don't remember things right. What's more, in the heat of battle, looking things up it's possible to find things like the out-of-context paragraph quoted before that seem to make it pretty clear that soft cover only applies versus ranged attacks. One might run with that, not because it's the right interpretation, but because one doesn't remember all of the rules all of the time, and when one is quickly trying to figure out what's going on, that might just be what one finds in the rulesbook.
In an ideal world, every GM would spend a tremendous amount of time reading and memorizing the rulebook so that they would know it cold, and then run a number of "training" scenarios on simulators where actual people's characters weren't on the line, before GMing for real. That is not the world we live in.
Given that, and given the size of the rules set we're dealing with and the flexibility of the game that it provides rules for, it's really quite harsh to say that a GM who makes an error must be dumb or even malicious.
This is really all I'm trying to prove, I don't feel the rules are clear enough to avoid misinterpretation. I do think they are clear enough to arrive at the correct conclusion (that soft cover applies to reach weapons). Just not in an instant at a table.
|
|
The reach weapons on the diagonal one I've seen bounce back and forth with some very knowledgeable, rules savvy people on both sides.
I'd thought one of the designers finally spoke up because of the diagonal corridor argument. Sure you can use it when they come in on the diagonal, but you could never attack with it in a diagonal corridor? Really?
This has led to some awkward charges too because they have to go to the nearest space they can attack from.
Latest word on this?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Latest word on reach diagonals, as I recall it.
Reach weapons do not threaten on the second diagonal.
However, if an enemy moves from that second diagonal to the first diagonal, it counts as moving through a threatened square.
So effectively, reach weapons threaten the first diagonal, and the point between the first and second diagonal.
A lot of GMs find this confusing, not to mention a complete 180 of what the rules used to be, so they table-rule that reach weapons still threaten the second diagonal.
However, as a player, I often ask my GM before I move past creatures with reach how they rule it, so as not to take unnecessary AOOs.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Here you go David. It is really silly. Which is why a lot of GMs just use the old grid system, where you threaten the second diagonal. Which is why I ask every time :P
And here's a good summary from Grick on the entire matter.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the other issues with cover is the partial cover rule:
That's just asking for table variation.
|
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"
I don't understand this sentence, as it seems to be agreeing with everything I've been saying.
Because what you quoted is exactly true.
A reach weapon attack is not a ranged attack, but you'd still get cover, because it uses the ranged weapon rules (which includes every word in the soft cover entry).
For what it's worth, you are completely correct.
|
Another common issue I've noticed: NPCs and initiative. Do all the opponents act at once, or does each foe have its on initiative? That makes a huge difference.
As a GM more than a player, I have pondered this issue myself. To be "fair" NPC/monsters should act on individually determined initiative. However, I have decided that as long as companions (animal or familiars) continue to play on their handler's initiative and function like there is a hive-mind, I will treat the bad guys the same way. That may not be the ideal circumstance and not the way I would run a home-game, but for the sake of efficiency and time management, some compromises are in order. YMMV
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
More often than not, "expect rules variation" means "expect GM errors" :P
I'd say that is half the time, the other half is when the GM interpretation of the rules is different than yours.
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 did he hold forth that looks like some sort of a symbol?
Funny enough the last time I got denied on the Holy Symbol the GM started with "He is Brandishing a Holy Symbol that looks like the one you saw previously" and I went to sunder it and was denied because there was no item in his gear called "Holy Symbol". Which to me all those Channel's and DF spells he cast were invalid ;-)
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.
If there is a case where I Sunder a pouch that looks like a Spell Component Pouch and he has Eschew Materials. It is all on me. But in this case he didn't have Eschew Materials or any Metamagic feats and had no listed Holy Symbol or Spell Component pouch. So the GM ruled he didn't need either for channeling or casting. Which isn't RAW.
Note to self: Give all oracles holy symbols just for kicks.
Uber!
|
|
If there is a case where I Sunder a pouch that looks like a Spell Component Pouch and he has Eschew Materials. It is all on me. But in this case he didn't have Eschew Materials or any Metamagic feats and had no listed Holy Symbol or Spell Component pouch. So the GM ruled he didn't need either for channeling or casting. Which isn't RAW.
I do not disagree and I think what you describe is poor GM'ing. However, there is a standing expectation to run the scenarios as written even in the face of errors. So, it would be within the GM's purview to allow the spellcasting without the required components.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
TriOmegaZero, that's fine, so long as you roll each initiative and have everybody act on the worst one. (As a bonus though, on the first round, they come out of flat-footedness individually.)
--
When I GM, I hand everybody a 3x5 card before the game begins, and I ask for 5 initiative rolls. If you're running an animal companion or an eidolon, I'll give you a second card for your second character. In almost all cases, playrs are confused. "It acts on my initiative, doesn't it?"
Not acording to the game rules, no. Haven't you noticed that your animal companion has a different initiative modifier?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
scenarios as written even in the face of errors. So, it would be within the GM's purview to allow the spellcasting without the required components.
To be fair, I'd even be fine with that.
I guess my beef is that I got to waste a full attack action, succeed, and the net effect is nothing happened. I wasn't warned before the action, after the action, or ever.
|
|
I just say they delay to go on the same initiative
If the companion is intelligent, reasonable, but most are not. Unless there is a delay trick I have overlooked, I would rule that the companion would continue to perform whatever the last instruction was. In most cases, the default command is defend or perhaps guard. If the companion acts early enough in the initiative order and there is nothing for them to defend against, they would likely do nothing until their handler gave them a new command. But I guess we can call this table variation, hmmmm...
Do I want to be a "jerk" GM? No, but too many players treat their animal companion as a second PC with some sort of hive-mind or precognitive ability and I'm tired of arguing about rules during the game.
|
|
I just say they delay to go on the same initiativeIf the companion is intelligent, reasonable, but most are not. Unless there is a delay trick I have overlooked, I would rule that the companion would continue to perform whatever the last instruction was.
This was clarified for pfs Here A druid or ranger can give its animal companion a command on its own turn and the animal will carry out the direction (if the PC makes the requisite checks) when its initiative comes around. If the animal acts first, it can simply delay until it receives orders.- Mark Moreland
I just usually sit my druid on the critters head. Its a mount, they act on the same init. Otherwise I think I'd have to delay until the critters turn to avoid problematic commands.
|
|
I DON'T agree that it's impossible, dumb, or god forbid, malicious to interpret it the other way. In fact I see that as dangerously condescending especially for a Venture-Officer.Having read this whole thread, I agree with this statement. I also agree the rules are clear-- and, I've done it wrong. Not because I don't understand them. But because I have failed to memorize all of the rules from the Core Rulebook, and sometimes don't remember things right. What's more, in the heat of battle, looking things up it's possible to find things like the out-of-context paragraph quoted before that seem to make it pretty clear that soft cover only applies versus ranged attacks. One might run with that, not because it's the right interpretation, but because one doesn't remember all of the rules all of the time, and when one is quickly trying to figure out what's going on, that might just be what one finds in the rulesbook.
In an ideal world, every GM would spend a tremendous amount of time reading and memorizing the rulebook so that they would know it cold, and then run a number of "training" scenarios on simulators where actual people's characters weren't on the line, before GMing for real. That is not the world we live in.
Given that, and given the size of the rules set we're dealing with and the flexibility of the game that it provides rules for, it's really quite harsh to say that a GM who makes an error must be dumb or even malicious.
I want to clarify here.
Ben says that he understands the rules clearly, but says its understandable that someone might not understand them.
I don't necessarily disagree, that someone could potentially misread or misunderstand how the rules work (or as you say, they just can't possibly know all the rules--I know I don't).
But when its pointed out to them how clear the rule is, and they still choose to do it the way they want to, for whatever reason, then that's malicious. Now granted, if its the first time I've played with this GM (or its the first time this particular rule comes up) and they don't want to slow game play down to look up the rule, I can deal with that. I'll suck it up and deal with it. I've asked the same from players sometimes as well.
But if after the game, I bring it to their attention, and show them how clear the rule is, and the next time I play they make the same mistake... and I say, "hey, remember I showed you the rule," and they choose to do it their own way anyways.
Then I can't trust that GM to get the rules correct, because now they are purposely getting them wrong.
This issue is not an issue of table variation. That was the whole point of me arguing about it in this thread.
This is an issue of a GM getting a clear rule wrong. This happens.
But lets not define it as table variation.
|
|
Latest word on reach diagonals, as I recall it.
Reach weapons do not threaten on the second diagonal.
However, if an enemy moves from that second diagonal to the first diagonal, it counts as moving through a threatened square.
So effectively, reach weapons threaten the first diagonal, and the point between the first and second diagonal.A lot of GMs find this confusing, not to mention a complete 180 of what the rules used to be, so they table-rule that reach weapons still threaten the second diagonal.
However, as a player, I often ask my GM before I move past creatures with reach how they rule it, so as not to take unnecessary AOOs.
Yeah, the ruling is completely counter-intuitive. It creates more problems than it solves.
And since it has not been officially put in an FAQ and is just a board clarification, it isn't official for PFS.
If I see a player moving their character around to carefully avoid AoO's, I don't ambush them with one. I inform them how I rule it, and then let them make their movement decision.
|
|
This was clarified for pfsInteresting...Lame IMHO, but it is what it is
Why does this seem wrong to you? It seems totally reasonable to me that, in the vast majority of circumstances, a well trained animal would wait for its master to tell it what to do. I'd argue that the flaw, if it exists at all, is that this isn't a trick that can be taught.
Getting back to topic, another place there is immense GM variation is on how intelligently non and low intelligence creatures act in combat.
[Pet peeve] GMs who claim that my IQ 7 familiar is acting too intelligently while other vermin and constructs seem to completely understand flanking rules, AoO's, etc [/pet peeve]