Venture-Captain, Isles—Online
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If a player is under the effects of Battle Cry and has to make a save
and chooses to take their folio/shirt reroll BEFORE the result is announced (and fails that save), can they then use battle cry to get ANOTHER reroll?
If an ally is under the effect of this feat and fails a saving throw, she can choose to end the battle cry's effect on her to reroll the failed save. The ally must take the result of the reroll, even if it's lower. Each ally can use this effect only once per use of this feat.
a player wearing any of the shirts listed below during a Pathfinder Society event may reroll one d20 roll during the course of that scenario. This reroll must happen before the original result is determined and the player must use the reroll result, even if it is lower.
Andrew would you apply that same logic if an opponent used a re-roll ability with that wording and scored a crit threat on a player and a party member tried to force a re-reoll
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'm with Andy on this one. They both say you must use the reroll. Same thing in the PACG, if you use a reroll mechanic you have to take the reroll, you aren't allowed to use another power to reroll a reroll.
Talonhawke, are you talking about a player forcing an opponent to reroll using their shirt? Because its been ruled you can't do that. A shirt reroll can only be used to reroll your own roll.
Now, if you're talking about say a misfortune ability or something I'd want to look at the two abilities and I'd judge it based on RAW.
|
I want to make sure I understand this.
Andy is playing at a table with Bob the Bard, and their characters come across some harpies. They roll for initiative and the order goes: harpies, Andy, Bob. One of the harpies sings, Andy fails his Will save, but Bob succeeds on his save.
Now Bob's turn comes up. He moves to within 30 feet of Andy and begins a countersong.
Countersong (Su): ... If a creature within range of the countersong is already under the effect of a noninstantaneous sonic or language-dependent magical attack, it gains another saving throw against the effect each round it hears the countersong, but it must use the bard's Perform skill check result for the save. ...
Bob flubs his Perform check and uses his reroll. He nails his reroll, but that doesn't matter because of the word "must"?
|
I want to make sure I understand this.
Andy is playing at a table with Bob the Bard, and their characters come across some harpies. They roll for initiative and the order goes: harpies, Andy, Bob. One of the harpies sings, Andy fails his Will save, but Bob succeeds on his save.
Now Bob's turn comes up. He moves to within 30 feet of Andy and begins a countersong.
Countersong (Su): ... If a creature within range of the countersong is already under the effect of a noninstantaneous sonic or language-dependent magical attack, it gains another saving throw against the effect each round it hears the countersong, but it must use the bard's Perform skill check result for the save. ...Bob flubs his Perform check and uses his reroll. He nails his reroll, but that doesn't matter because of the word "must"?
I don't read your example that way. It doesn't say he must use the Bard's re-roll, but must use the Bard's Perform skill check. In that case, I'd allow the bard to re-roll his perform check, sure.
|
Actually the would work because of the timing with which the rerolls are used.
The t-shirt reroll is done before the results are known: Reroll a 5 and then get a 4, you must use the 4.
Now you get told the results: 4 + X = fail, which means you can now trigger the Battle Cry reroll: Reroll the known 4 and then get a 2 you have to use the 2 and thus still fail.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with the interpretation that "must" is an end-all be-all word for not being able to use a reroll. Pretty sure the intent of the word is so that it is clear that you can't use the first roll you had before you triggered the reroll for that ability, and doesn't have to do with how it interacts with other abilities (that could potentially allow rerolls themselves).
|
At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.
Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At some point, a sessation of rerolls needs to happen. Just because I have 5 different abilities that allow rerolls, should not mean that I can take them all on the same roll, assuming the word must is used.
Let's be honest here. How many characters have 5 different reroll abilities? Also, a lot of those reroll abilities are immediate actions, so they can't use more than one that is an immediate action (a point that is often overlooked, especially with oracles using misfortune trying to have multiple people reroll before their swift action is refreshed).
I have also had a character at one of my tables use this and roll progressively worse (which is more hilarious because they have used tons of rerolls now).
And why shouldn't you be able to use all of them at once? If you say it is because of the word "must," I will accept that argument but disagree with your interpretation of the semantics. If it is because of the following...
Otherwise, as a GM, I should just give you one auto success per session rather than one reroll.
...then I am less likely to accept it.
|
|
Just because you have 5 different attacks per round doesn't mean that I, as a GM, have to sit there and let you take 5 attacks per round.
Let's stay on topic here eh? Your analogy doesn't work. There is no language that says what you are trying to say I'm saying.
@Andrew. The word must is the key.
Expect table variation.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I don't think anybody's going to demonize you for not liking people having tons of rerolls. I sympathize; it is kind of a bummer because they make it that much more difficult to create suspenseful situations.
But the real problem is when you try to twist rules to legitimize your dislike and enforce it.
You may not realize it, but the person at the end of the table who has invested (financially or otherwise) in collecting various means of rerolling out of a bad situation now has to be told that they can't do that because you happen to not like it.
Sounds great for a homebrew where you can very easily establish these constraints and work with your players. In PFS it just creates unnecessary potential for sour situations. Particularly at conventions where you don't know many of the people.
I'm trying not to be sour about this myself, but I'm finding it difficult to not be, because it seems like a trend with many people on the forums. I've said it before: it is fine (and inevitable) to have table variation because of legitimate rules interpretations. It is not ok to introduce table variation by twisting the rules to your whims.
EDIT: Changed wording, the previous phrasing sounded waaaay too personal. Sorry.
|
|
Odd, I've never questioned that the "must use the re-roll result" meant anything other than that you couldn't use another re-roll on the same check.
I've never seen it played differently either, even though I have seen a player ask another GM about it and he ruled the same as I would have.
I popped into this thread expecting an open/shut case, but it does seem a lot of people don't like that interpertation.
I have yet to see anyting that would convince me that they are correct yet though.
|
|
But it says nothing about being able to reroll again using a different ability. All it says is that you "must take the rerolled result as opposed to using the initial roll."
If it was meant that the rerolled result is final, period, end of story, they would have been more explicit about it. "You may not use another ability to reroll this result."
Like in the arcane sorcerer bloodline: "This ability does not grant you a second arcane bond."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odd, I've never questioned that the "must use the re-roll result" meant anything other than that you couldn't use another re-roll on the same check.
It means that if you roll a 3 and you MIGHT have made the save, you can't reroll it, get a 2, and then say "ermm... I'd like that three instead?" Nope, you're stuck with the 2.
|
|
From my perspective, the intent is pretty obvious in that it means you can no longer use your original roll--not that you can't be use another reroll, if available.
On an almost related question, are GMs allowed to reroll? Say I'm running confirmation, and roll a crit threat with the boss, am I allowed to reroll it (via shirt, portfolio, etc)?
|
|
Odd, I've never questioned that the "must use the re-roll result" meant anything other than that you couldn't use another re-roll on the same check.It means that if you roll a 3 and you MIGHT have made the save, you can't reroll it, get a 2, and then say "ermm... I'd like that three instead?" Nope, you're stuck with the 2.
I can certainly see how that might be the intent, it just doesn't seem as logical to me. Once you have picked up a die and re-rolled it, my default assumption would be that you can't go back to the original roll, so I just always assumed that it meant that you can't re-roll again.
Probably worth a FAQ, in my opinion
|
|
Odd, I've never questioned that the "must use the re-roll result" meant anything other than that you couldn't use another re-roll on the same check.It means that if you roll a 3 and you MIGHT have made the save, you can't reroll it, get a 2, and then say "ermm... I'd like that three instead?" Nope, you're stuck with the 2.I can certainly see how that might be the intent, it just doesn't seem as logical to me. Once you have picked up a die and re-rolled it, my default assumption would be that you can't go back to the original roll, so I just always assumed that it meant that you can't re-roll again.
Probably worth a FAQ, in my opinion
THATs not logical. How does that follow, at all? You can't go back, therefore... you can't go forward?
|
|
I can certainly see how that might be the intent, it just doesn't seem as logical to me. Once you have picked up a die and re-rolled it, my default assumption would be that you can't go back to the original roll, so I just always assumed that it meant that you can't re-roll again.
Every "roll more dice" ability is explicit with what your choices are after you do the reroll. As far as I can tell, there is no "roll more dice" ability that gives you the leeway to make that assumption. And that assumption is actually a bad one for several "roll more dice" abilities, because they don't all work the same.
For instance, here's one that lets you reroll but take the higher result:
Aura of Excellence (Su): At 3rd level, an Iroran paladin is immune to any effect that would force him to reroll a die against his will or roll twice and take the lower result. Whenever an ally within 10 feet of him would reroll a die against her will, she can roll twice and take the higher result. Whenever an ally within 10 feet would be forced to roll twice and take the lower result, she can instead roll three times and take the second-lowest result. This ability functions only while the Iroran paladin is conscious, and replaces aura of courage.
Temporal celerity (and similar abilities) lets you roll multiple d20s for initiative, and explicitly allows you to choose whichever result you want.
Maybe intuitively you might assume that you could take the second result, or the best result, or the worst result contextually, but all of these reroll abilities are explicit with which results you get to choose.
But still, nowhere does it prohibit the use of a completely different ability to obtain another reroll.
So I guess in short, that assumption is only correct in a few cases, so it's a rather bad foundation for the assumption that the instructional text bans new rerolls from other sources.
|
|
Aura of Excellence (Su): At 3rd level, an Iroran paladin is immune to any effect that would force him to reroll a die against his will or roll twice and take the lower result. Whenever an ally within 10 feet of him would reroll a die against her will, she can roll twice and take the higher result. Whenever an ally within 10 feet would be forced to roll twice and take the lower result, she can instead roll three times and take the second-lowest result. This ability functions only while the Iroran paladin is conscious, and replaces aura of courage.
As a side note, an Iroran Paladin Witch would be pretty funny.
|
|
You know, I don't think anybody's going to demonize you for not liking people having tons of rerolls. I sympathize; it is kind of a bummer because they make it that much more difficult to create suspenseful situations.
But the real problem is when you try to twist rules to legitimize your dislike and enforce it.
You may not realize it, but the person at the end of the table who has invested (financially or otherwise) in collecting various means of rerolling out of a bad situation now has to be told that they can't do that because you happen to not like it.
Sounds great for a homebrew where you can very easily establish these constraints and work with your players. In PFS it just creates unnecessary potential for sour situations. Particularly at conventions where you don't know many of the people.
I'm trying not to be sour about this myself, but I'm finding it difficult to not be, because it seems like a trend with many people on the forums. I've said it before: it is fine (and inevitable) to have table variation because of legitimate rules interpretations. It is not ok to introduce table variation by twisting the rules to your whims.
EDIT: Changed wording, the previous phrasing sounded waaaay too personal. Sorry.
How is interpreting the word "must" as [,b]must[/b], twisting things?
|
|
Going forward doesn't have to always mean going forward successfully. Sometimes you fail a roll, that's part of the game.
THATs not logical. How does that follow, at all? You can't go back, therefore... you can't go forward?
But you're saying that you can't go forward at all, because you can't go back and then calling my statement illogical. Calling it illogical is a pretty specific statement that I'm not seeing you back up. *spocks your rock*
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is interpreting the word "must" as must, twisting things?You know, I don't think anybody's going to demonize you for not liking people having tons of rerolls. I sympathize; it is kind of a bummer because they make it that much more difficult to create suspenseful situations.
But the real problem is when you try to twist rules to legitimize your dislike and enforce it.
You may not realize it, but the person at the end of the table who has invested (financially or otherwise) in collecting various means of rerolling out of a bad situation now has to be told that they can't do that because you happen to not like it.
Sounds great for a homebrew where you can very easily establish these constraints and work with your players. In PFS it just creates unnecessary potential for sour situations. Particularly at conventions where you don't know many of the people.
I'm trying not to be sour about this myself, but I'm finding it difficult to not be, because it seems like a trend with many people on the forums. I've said it before: it is fine (and inevitable) to have table variation because of legitimate rules interpretations. It is not ok to introduce table variation by twisting the rules to your whims.
EDIT: Changed wording, the previous phrasing sounded waaaay too personal. Sorry.
Because you are taking it out of context. The context is that you must take the reroll instead of the original roll, not that you must not use another way to take a reroll.
Your conclusion also fails if you use a reroll ability on something that you have to roll multiple dice on to begin with, since you would reroll all those dice, and take the one of the rerolled dice that matches the limitation of the original roll multiple dice ability.
Or are we going to go back to whether a True Strike spell active on your original attack, which was a crit threat, would also apply to the critical confirmation roll?
|
|
My interpretation of the word "must" in this context is that you cannot use the original roll if it was higher, not that it prevents you from using further abilities to generate rerolls. I can certainly understand where the more conservative interpretation comes from, though, and would caution ETV to players.
|
|
I think the intent with re-rolling is that you're always only allowed one re-roll per dice roll, using whatever sources you've got available to you (has nothing to do with the "must" wording, it's just how it is).
So if you have 3 sources that give you one re-roll per day each, you can re-roll 3 dice rolls that day, but on separate dice rolls.
Here's some not-perfect commentary about it: Rerolling.
There's more talk elsewhere of the Misfortune hex and the Ill Omen spell not stacking for the purposes of rolling twice, taking the worst roll; but that's less relevant again.
|
|
But you're saying that you can't go forward at all, because you can't go back and then calling my statement illogical. Calling it illogical is a pretty specific statement that I'm not seeing you back up. *spocks your rock*Going forward doesn't have to always mean going forward successfully. Sometimes you fail a roll, that's part of the game.
THATs not logical. How does that follow, at all? You can't go back, therefore... you can't go forward?
I never said any such thing
I never said your take on the rule was illogical, in fact I said I could very easily see how someone could read it that way, but that's never how I had read it. My only point has been that there are two very different ways of reading this, and that an FAQ might be a useful thing. I still don't see anything in this thread that would make me rule differently at my table, but I would be less surprised if another GM ruled the other way after reading the posts of those who are explaining their side, rather than just attacking anyone whos view is in opposition to theirs.
I'm not trying to twist your words, or put words in your mouth. Please refrain from doing the same with me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clear here folks. There is no personal imposition. I honestly have no feeling one way or another about rerolls.
My initial inclination when I read the OP, was to say, "should work." But I usually like to fully read what's written. I saw the word "must" and it changed my mind. That is my legitimate interpretation that is not colored by any personal preference. So please knock off the integrity impugning attacks.
I still interpret it that way. But I have no problem if someone else would like to interpret it differently.
Table variation.
