Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I get the picture of two zombies aid another to give the Wight BBE the extra he needs to hit the heavy armored tank... that +2 or +4 could easily lead to a TPK against even Optimized PCs.Sometimes the best thing a minion can do is aid another their boss...If that's where you are at, the battle is probably already foregone conclusion. NPCs already lack action efficiency badly. Taking the few actions they do have for aid another is not getting it done.
Basically this. (Well, zombies, not being intelligent undead might be a tough sell, but on the other hand, how many movies have you seen where the zombie horde flails ineffectively at the hero until he is born down by their shear numbers?)
those two zombies, could go fishing for a 20 and do little or no damage. So they aren't really sacrificing their action economy (especially if they are right next to the tank and have the choice between hitting him (and probably missing) or moving (and hitting no one.) or helping the level draining kill-spawning monster hit him...
|
Maybe. In my neck of the woods, even with a +4, they are often still looking at nat 20s to hit the "tanks". I've just GMed an awful lot of scenarios where I was needing 17+ across the board to hit PCs, and the NPCs just don't last long enough to be a threat under those circumstances. I don't see how to tactic my way out of that. The NPCs can't get flanks that often because they are outnumbered so badly. THEY are the ones being flanked.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblins aren't even really supposed to use tactics most times. Too busy laughing at the PCs and admiring the shiny fire.
It is rare when I run goblins that aide each other. I often have them hurt each other and force them to walk through ally squares giving the PCs free hit.
As for making challenges.
Well In some scenarios my hands are tied and no amount of tactics I could use could hurt a well made party. That is fine, infact that is great. Some scenarios should not be a brutal fight to the end. There SHOULD be a variety.
Now Dm fiat can make rulings that make the game horribly more complex and difficult. Making ruling that penalize the characters at every turn to make the game harder. It is possible to be in the rules and make things more difficult. There are many grey areas to rule against PCs and if you take EVERYONE of them it can make a simple scenario harder. So I would argue the DM controls the game more than the material.
As for zombie hoarde. I cold not see them assisting to hit the PC. But I could easily see them assisting to grapple. As the hoard just grabs and bears down on the pc bringing them down.
|
|
" There are many grey areas to rule against PCs and if you take EVERYONE of them it can make a simple scenario harder. So I would argue the DM controls the game more than the material."
I would agree with this. My assertion about the material assumes the GM is not griefing the players at every step. I find that most GMs who do that step over the line quite a bit and make illegal judgement calls. They are also quite rare. Very rare; which is why I give the nod to the authors.
|
|
Me as a DM i look to make the encounter more difficult. I do this by reading all the spells and abilties aover and over. Understanding tactics and rules. I feel that someone living as the character should knwo those better than I could so I need to do them as much justice as I can.(As a player I get annoyed by stupid actions from NPCs because the DM does not take the effort I do)
Some scenarios I have almost no control over the difficulty. Even in some teirs it changes the difficulty dramatically.
I try to play as written as much as I can possibly. In that case I would agree with you Mr Bowles completely. But I encounter enough variety in DMs to know some will rule against you just to rule against you in the grey areas.
|
|
" But I encounter enough variety in DMs to know some will rule against you just to rule against you in the grey areas."
That's just unnecessary. Often, it won't change the outcome and it just makes it less fun for the players. If the players are owning the scenario, let them own it. It happens.
It's best to make impartial rulings.
|
|
" But I encounter enough variety in DMs to know some will rule against you just to rule against you in the grey areas."
That's just unnecessary. Often, it won't change the outcome and it just makes it less fun for the players. If the players are owning the scenario, let them own it. It happens.
It's best to make impartial rulings.
I agree, but if you play enough PFS with enough variety you start to see what happens on a whole.
Because I take an effort to make it more difficult I almost always rule on the sides of the players as well. I know what they are in for.
But you debating the necessity with me is worthless. I am in the same boat with you. Although I would strongly disagree, the grey rulings can mean change things
For example
Not allowing rage cycling by limiting free actions, or gun reloads
Not allowing a bane baldric to give greater bane
Downed PCs are rough terrain or can not be entered.
Drawing a rod as weapon
what stores in a wrist sheath
These are all rulings I saw by DMs this last week. If it is wrong or not I am not debating but if a DM wants to make it harder by making a ruling at that time against the player they can make things much harder.
|
|
That one is not really a grey area. If the PC is medium or smaller, they do not impede movement. If they are large they are difficult terrain.
Downed PCs are rough terrain or can not be entered.
That's exactly what I mean. Once a contrarian GM gets rolling, its very easy for them to start making "rulings" on issues that are not grey areas. It's always better to ask the table first if someone knows and then make a ruling only if necessary.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That one is not really a grey area.
But what's a "gray area"?
To some, a "gray area" is when a plain reading of the rules could mean more than one thing, or leaves certain info out altogether, or is otherwise unable to produce a conclusion. For instance, what does "magical healing" mean for ending bleed effects: does it include any hit point recovery that isn't the 1-per-HD bedrest mechanic, or is it more restrictive than that?
To others, however, a "gray area" can include when a plain, honest reading of the rules does indeed produce exactly one conclusion, but that conclusion happens to be different than what they previously believed or what they would have decided if they were the one designing the game; anything that produces a different result than what they envision (without explicitly calling out their exact idea as not being the case) is considered by some to be a "gray area" that they need to "adjudicate". (And can you guess which way they'll rule?)
|
|
"To others, however, a "gray area" can include when a plain, honest reading of the rules does indeed produce exactly one conclusion, but that conclusion happens to be different than what they previously believed or what they would have decided if they were the one designing the game; anything that produces a different result than what they envision (without explicitly calling out their exact idea as not being the case) is considered by some to be a "gray area" that they need to "adjudicate". (And can you guess which way they'll rule?)"
It's a good thing this is rare. At least in my experience. That being said, I do actively avoid GMs who grief the players. That's not what organized play should be about.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
That one is not really a grey area. If the PC is medium or smaller, they do not impede movement. If they are large they are difficult terrain.
Downed PCs are rough terrain or can not be entered.
Still not quite right. If they are large they could be difficult terrain (although I have to admit that, at present, I can't find where that is spelled out). Expect table variation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Perhaps more commonly, my "plain, honest reading of the rules" differs from your "plain, honest reading of the rules" in a case where I believe they produce exactly one conclusion, so therefore you obviously fall into that second case."To others, however, a "gray area" can include when a plain, honest reading of the rules does indeed produce exactly one conclusion, but that conclusion happens to be different than what they previously believed or what they would have decided if they were the one designing the game; anything that produces a different result than what they envision (without explicitly calling out their exact idea as not being the case) is considered by some to be a "gray area" that they need to "adjudicate". (And can you guess which way they'll rule?)"
It's a good thing this is rare. At least in my experience.
Actually, that's a whole different category that I wasn't even talking about. Usually, in what you describe, neither party is calling it a "gray area".
I'm talking about when a topic comes up, and the guy doesn't even try to claim that the rules could actually be read to mean what he claims. Instead, he asserts that the given conclusion is bad in some way, projects his opinion onto the designers , and finally declares that since there's a conflict between what's written and what they totally meant to write we're left with a "gray area" or "ambiguity".
Completely different situation than both sides claiming the rules clearly mean X and not Y. ;D
|
|
I'm talking about when a topic comes up, and the guy doesn't even try to claim that the rules could actually be read to mean what he claims. Instead, he asserts that the given conclusion is bad in some way, projects his opinion onto the designers , and finally declares that since there's a conflict between what's written and what they totally meant to write we're left with a "gray area" or "ambiguity".
Completely different situation than both sides claiming the rules clearly mean X and not Y. ;D
I don't know, but I suspect that most practitioners of that are people like me who learned to adjudicate things in the "olden days" before the internet. There's a definite mindset and skillset that comes about from needing to divine rule intent without any additional input whatsoever.
Doesn't make it right, of course. Just explaining where it might come from.
Personally, I've been through so many systems I strive for consistency over correctness.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm talking about when a topic comes up, and the guy doesn't even try to claim that the rules could actually be read to mean what he claims. Instead, he asserts that the given conclusion is bad in some way, projects his opinion onto the designers , and finally declares that since there's a conflict between what's written and what they totally meant to write we're left with a "gray area" or "ambiguity".
Completely different situation than both sides claiming the rules clearly mean X and not Y. ;D
I don't know, but I suspect that most practitioners of that are people like me who learned to adjudicate things in the "olden days" before the internet. There's a definite mindset and skillset that comes about from needing to divine rule intent without any additional input whatsoever.
Doesn't make it right, of course. Just explaining where it might come from.
Personally, I've been through so many systems I strive for consistency over correctness.
Sure, I've long assumed it came from something like that. And at the time and in the context in which the mindset/behavior was learned, it was the hallmark of a great GM. I'm running a homebrew campaign of my own, complete with a set of pretty significant houserules.
But some folks need to realize that what's a great skill in one setting could be wrong to use in another, even if both settings give you the same title ("GM").
When I changed departments at work, I had to learn a new skillset. Some skills were transferable (like fast keyboarding), but it's not the same job. One involves minimal interaction with others, simply chugging away at daily quotas; the other involves lots of interdependence and back-and-forth with other people. Or to bring the analogy closer to GMing, one involves a lot of judgment calls while the other requires me to stick to the written procedures.
And I'm only 20 feet from my old desk.
Some folks need to realize that what they learned as a good thing could in fact actually be a bad thing that they shouldn't do when applied to a different setting/context.
|
|
" finally declares that since there's a conflict between what's written and what they totally meant to write we're left with a "gray area" or "ambiguity"."
I didn't understand what you meant, either. This is the kind of stuff that makes me get up from/avoid your table. If a given GM can't handle RAW, I want no part of that. There are plenty of legitimate grey areas without making up more.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
" finally declares that since there's a conflict between what's written and what they totally meant to write we're left with a "gray area" or "ambiguity"."
I didn't understand what you meant, either. This is the kind of stuff that makes me get up from/avoid your table. If a given GM can't handle RAW, I want no part of that. There are plenty of legitimate grey areas without making up more.
Now, be fair: in a different context it's a great skill to rely on. It's not like there's malice behind it.
|
It's magnificent for homebrew. But it just creates chaos in PFS, imo. Especially when someone has no problem locally but goes to cons and gets their PC concept invalidated by GM fiat. Very rare, but I know of it happening at least twice.
Yeah - I ran into that issue at Origins last year. A magus player was convinced that they didn't have to use concentrate to cast in combat with spellstrike. He got more than a bit grumpy when disabused.
|
|
That's the cousin of the phenomenon I described. That's a player and/or playgroup that are ignorant of an actual rule. When a GM properly enforces said rule, the PC falls apart.
This can also happen with the player being in the right of things and GM using their position to "interpret" the PC into uselessness.
|
|
Mr. Bowles, we had PMs about GMS wrecking games for people. I agree with your feelings completely. If a PC wants to pretend to be something specific and it does not wreck the fun of someone else. I will always rule on their behalf in regards ot their characters.
Although it would also be foolish to ignore the GM fiat that can make a scenario more difficult. That their rulings can make things incredibly difficult.
So the statement that a DM controls the difficulty, and does not need to cheat or skim. Just judge agaisnt the PCs using the rules present.
This is alos not to mention ignorance or cheating as well(side note, every DM should read withdraw rules).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Still not quite right. If they are large they could be difficult terrain (although I have to admit that, at present, I can't find where that is spelled out). Expect table variation.That one is not really a grey area. If the PC is medium or smaller, they do not impede movement. If they are large they are difficult terrain.
Downed PCs are rough terrain or can not be entered.
Oops, you are right. I miss-remembered that.
Moving Through a Square
You can move through an unoccupied square without difficulty in most circumstances. Difficult terrain and a number of spell effects might hamper your movement through open spaces.Friend: You can move through a square occupied by a friendly character, unless you are charging. When you move through a square occupied by a friendly character, that character doesn't provide you with cover.
Opponent: You can't move through a square occupied by an opponent unless the opponent is helpless. You can move through a square occupied by a helpless opponent without penalty. Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.
Interesting grey area.
Party is fighting a large wild bear and something else.
Druid Ally wildshapes into a large bear.
Druid and wild bear both go down.
By rules as written, the druid does not obstruct movement but the wild bear may.
|
Flite
No gray area there at all. The Ally doesn't obstruct movement (except a charge) The opposing bear does. The rules are crystal clear on this.
It also makes sense too. Druid Bear will move his rump out of the way if you try to go past him. Bear bear will try to take a swipe out of your rump if you get near him.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flite
No gray area there at all. The Ally doesn't obstruct movement (except a charge) The opposing bear does. The rules are crystal clear on this.
It also makes sense too. Druid Bear will move his rump out of the way if you try to go past him. Bear bear will try to take a swipe out of your rump if you get near him.
If they are unconscious they are no longer considered an ally or enemy for purposes of being able to move through their square.
Depending on the size of the creature, a GM would have the right to declare that(those) square(s) difficult terrain, however.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
BNW, We are talking about helpless (unconscious, paralyzed, et all...) No one is moving rumps out of the way or taking a swipe.
Andrew, the rules for helpless creatures appear to only apply to opponents. There is nothing in them saying the cease to be an ally or enemy. I agree that is how it should work, but that is RAI, not RAW.
Not to say that is not how I would rule it, but it is just a funny RAW grey area I was not previously aware of.
|
|
BNW, We are talking about helpless (unconscious, paralyzed, et all...) No one is moving rumps out of the way or taking a swipe.
Andrew, the rules for helpless creatures appear to only apply to opponents. There is nothing in them saying the cease to be an ally or enemy. I agree that is how it should work, but that is RAI, not RAW.
Not to say that is not how I would rule it, but it is just a funny RAW grey area I was not previously aware of.
A helpless body cannot stop you from moving through their square.
|
|
I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I don't feel a need to mod the scenarios as written. If my players steam roll through an encounter, fair play to them. I see no shame in the heroes of the story (the player characters) kicking ass and taking names. I don't want every encounter to be a near death experience for them, or for them to spend all their time dealing out potions etc. I want them to have fun and feel like heroes. I find this works really well, especially because there's nothing better than seeing that same party come up against an adversary that punches their clock, they quickly realise that they aren't always the biggest fish.
If GM's are modding scenarios and modules outside the limit of logical tactical changes and enviromental decisions, it's going against the spirit of the game. If you've got a power gaming player looking to break the game, have a polite word with them about how they can play their character without detracting from everyone elses enjoyment.
|
|
A helpless body cannot stop you from moving through their square.BNW, We are talking about helpless (unconscious, paralyzed, et all...) No one is moving rumps out of the way or taking a swipe.
Andrew, the rules for helpless creatures appear to only apply to opponents. There is nothing in them saying the cease to be an ally or enemy. I agree that is how it should work, but that is RAI, not RAW.
Not to say that is not how I would rule it, but it is just a funny RAW grey area I was not previously aware of.
Actually, Andrew, the rules say that a helpless boduy7, if large enough, can turn an area into difficult terrain.
Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.
I would ten, personally, to take the very word in the rules as an important piece, so Large would do it, but Gargantuan or Huge might...
But probably only for the central square(s), not the whole area. You can get past that dead dinosaur's head or tail easily, but getting past the main part of their body? Not so easy, it's like a hill, there...
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
A helpless body cannot stop you from moving through their square.
Actually, Andrew, the rules say that a helpless body, if large enough, can turn an area into difficult terrain.
Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.
Specifically a helpless enemy body, because that language is only in the opponents section, not in the allies section.... :)
I think it comes down to GM call how large is "Very Large"
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
My call, FWIW (YMMV):
If you're only moving through the peripheral squares of the space the creature takes up, I wouldn't count it as an obstacle. But if you're trying to go through the central square of a huge creature, or the central four squares of a gargantuan one, that's going to be a bit harder.
Edit: If you're trying to short-cut across the body (such as when moving diagonally through the space of a large creature) I'd count that as difficult terrain, too.
|
|
A helpless body cannot stop you from moving through their square.BNW, We are talking about helpless (unconscious, paralyzed, et all...) No one is moving rumps out of the way or taking a swipe.
Andrew, the rules for helpless creatures appear to only apply to opponents. There is nothing in them saying the cease to be an ally or enemy. I agree that is how it should work, but that is RAI, not RAW.
Not to say that is not how I would rule it, but it is just a funny RAW grey area I was not previously aware of.
Actually, Andrew, the rules say that a helpless boduy7, if large enough, can turn an area into difficult terrain.
Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.I would ten, personally, to take the very word in the rules as an important piece, so Large would do it, but Gargantuan or Huge might...
But probably only for the central square(s), not the whole area. You can get past that dead dinosaur's head or tail easily, but getting past the main part of their body? Not so easy, it's like a hill, there...
Yup. Pretty much said this up thread. Remember that difficult terrain is different than stopping.
|
|
Yup. Pretty much said this up thread. Remember that difficult terrain is different than stopping.A helpless body cannot stop you from moving through their square.BNW, We are talking about helpless (unconscious, paralyzed, et all...) No one is moving rumps out of the way or taking a swipe.
Andrew, the rules for helpless creatures appear to only apply to opponents. There is nothing in them saying the cease to be an ally or enemy. I agree that is how it should work, but that is RAI, not RAW.
Not to say that is not how I would rule it, but it is just a funny RAW grey area I was not previously aware of.
Actually, Andrew, the rules say that a helpless boduy7, if large enough, can turn an area into difficult terrain.
Some creatures, particularly very large ones, may present an obstacle even when helpless. In such cases, each square you move through counts as 2 squares.I would ten, personally, to take the very word in the rules as an important piece, so Large would do it, but Gargantuan or Huge might...
But probably only for the central square(s), not the whole area. You can get past that dead dinosaur's head or tail easily, but getting past the main part of their body? Not so easy, it's like a hill, there...
This statement makes me laugh. I was running DotSP2 today, and one of the players got one of the fun items, so his base speed was reduced to 15'.
That pretty much killed any chance of his using his trained Acrobatics skill to tumble through an enemy's square, since he did not have enough movement to do so...
|
|
That pretty much killed any chance of his using his trained Acrobatics skill to tumble through an enemy's square, since he did not have enough movement to do so...To be fair, they still could have attempted it, as they could either double move or take the penalty for tumbling it full speed.
As to speed reduction potentially preventing the use of tumbling out-right, the Acrobatics description only says you can't tumble if your speed is reduced specifically from encumbrance or armor, so speed reductions from any other source technically don't prevent it.
** spoiler omitted **
He wanted to do something in his destination square, so a double move didn't meet his needs.
And two of our newer players have finally managed to get their PCs to survive to second level!
|
|
It is pretty obvious that a GM can have a significant affect on the way a session runs. Assuming it was written and vetted well, then it is up to the GM. After all, a good GM see's veteran soldiers working together in a unit to exploit flanking, use cover/concealment as a normal course of events. Goblins? Not so much............