RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
TL;DR - Should I exploit every raw loophole I can find with a RAW is law GM to force him to consider RAI?
When you're talking about intentionally ruining other people's fun in an effort to force them to see things your way, my advice would be to recognize that you're the kind of person who would intentionally ruin other people's fun in an effort to force them to see things your way. Is that the kind of person you want to be? Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Either way, I advise self-awareness, as that's foundational to healthy relationships.
Sounds petty and like an extremely bad idea to me personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any conflict involving GM vs Player... keep this in mind:
The GM has unlimited resources. Also, any exploit you find, he can use as well, with unlimited resources.
Don't poke the bear.
Make a list of exploits, and point them out. Don't use them in gameplay.
I think the OP's story is lacking some details though. What are some of the problematic RAW rulings which the DM has been making? Were they things which made other PCs more powerful than the OP's PC? Were they things which just seemed a little silly? Were they things which made the PCs less powerful?
@TriOmegaZero - That sounds like a two way street to me. Sometimes people just can't get along, but other times they can compromise. I personally doubt that, "Hah! Take that!" is often a good way to initiate that compromise though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sell your Soul to the most powerful Devil you can find for great Cosmic Power! *Muhuhaaa*
..
An then get hunted by Hell when they want to collect their payment earlier then you want.
OR (!)
Sell your soul ... to a called Imp! Yeah. For the devil-bound creature template out of Bestiary 4. get Regeneration/good effects, between other things.
And promply turn the imp to stone the second after the deal is complete. (Fles to Stone) Store him in some extradimension place, so the Imp stature doesnt get broken. Dead devil = deal is off. But turned to stone is not dead. Then he cant start machinating your end because he is too stoned. *ba-doom*.
Effectively free awesome template.
Sell your Soul to the most powerful Devil you can find for great Cosmic Power! *Muhuhaaa*
..
An then get hunted by Hell when they want to collect their payment earlier then you want.OR (!)
Sell your soul ... to a called Imp! Yeah. For the devil-bound creature template out of Bestiary 4. get Regeneration/good effects, between other things.
And promply turn the imp to stone the second after the deal is complete. (Fles to Stone) Store him in some extradimension place, so the Imp stature doesnt get broken. Dead devil = deal is off. But turned to stone is not dead. Then he cant start machinating your end because he is too stoned. *ba-doom*.
Effectively free awesome template.
Until the imp's boss shows up wondering where his imp went...
@Devil
Well as far as more details go, with this current group that ive been playing with the past few years, we all take turns running. One person will run a short term campaign for a few months and when that one is finished another person generally wants to try their hand with an idea they had.
Being a very RAI player and understanding that interpretations differ from person to person whenever I am making a new character and the language gets murky about how one thing works or two things work together, I present what I'm looking at to the dm. Get their interpretation, explain to them what my interpretation is and we both try to support our thesis with the caveat that in the end the GM is always right and in their game, the rules play their way.
However the most recent thing that broke the camels back was for this most recent thing I was interested in playing a Kasatha - Master of many styles. Since master of many styles lose the flurry ability, I thought a decent way to offset it would me to take multi-weapon fighting for what was in effect "a fake flurry". I am of the RAI camp that multiple hands = multiple attacks, GM is on RAW of it doesn't explicitly state you get multiple attacks. We do our usual song and dance where I make the attempt to get the GM to see how I believe the rules should be read to which he responds by calling me a munchkin that always tries to squeeze as much as I can out of every rule and force the rules to fit my character concept instead of the other way around. He finishes by telling me that if I bothered to actually spend the time to read the rules, I would know how they actually worked.
While true I do tend to interpret rules in ways that I think work for whatever concept I'm working on, I wouldn't consider myself a munchkin at all and took some insult at this. However, Gm is right and I decided not to pursue that particular avenue.
Nevertheless, that extra barb at the end has stuck with me, and I have been of the thought lately of "ok, you want me to read the rules and see...
1)So were you taking the multi-weapon fighting feat? Otherwise you have some pretty big penalties. Really this feat shows what the RAW is. Did you use this feat as evidence? If not then there's not evidence that PC's can get multiple attacks with multiple limbs, but evidence supporting that PC's only ever have two "metaphorical hands"
2)When debating rules you should find out what the RAW is, or an "Official" RAI, otherwise it's just your interpretation with no actual support.
3)So if you didn't provide any support other than you think it should, and your GM sees the rules as saying no, then you wanting it just because is a "munchkin move" Because it's strictly for power. If you wanted the concept then being limited by the GM's rules (right or wrong) should be fine. It's not like he gimped you, just made you on par with every other race that would have taken the archetype.
4)How much did you argue after the GM made the ruling? If you're asking the GM what his rule is and you've explained your side, then accept his rule. Either play it still or change your character.
5)Plus Kasatha really is pretty broken, I'm surprised you were allowed to take that race. Taking it pretty much makes you a munkin as how much better it is than standard races, especially to "get flurry back" after you trade it away. Like it's basically "Monstrous Race" quality, probably actually should be because of synergy. So unless this is a super powered campaign I'd agree with your GM. If you were to play a Kasatha, I'd limit you to only two "hands" to be like other races
with multiweapon fighting you have 4 attacks at -2. With two weapon fighting you have 2 attacks at -2. You don't get 4 attacks unless you reach BAB 6 AND take another feat, and those extra 2 are at a -7.
Sorry that this was the "final straw" but really it seems less of a RAW > RAI and more of just differing opinions. (And opinions of what is allowed can be wrong, as your GM did)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you think the DM was wrong in your RAW debate I think that getting a FAQ to clarify the RAW situation would be more helpful than making a "revenge" PC to somehow "prove" to the DM that you really aren't a munchkin since you could have done something much worse but clearly RAW (and you might only find that the DM disagrees with your interpretation of RAW again)
So I have been playing pathfinder for several years now, and other rpg's for decades before that. I have always been what is apparently considered a RAI type player. However, recently I have been playing with a couple of different groups, and things have taken a definite RAW turn. At first, I was fine with a rule here or there being strictly interpreted, but lately certain things that had been taken almost as a matter of course over my rp career are now being deemed as violation of RAW.
Now we are planning on doing a few high level sessions to test out dream builds and the like, and I am considering digging up and finding the most broken RAW things I can, and using them in my build as exploits until the GM gets frustrated enough to call me out with something along the lines of "you know X was meant to work this way and not that", as a means of showing them how silly things can get with strict RAW interpretation.
Things like infinite use snapdragon leaf, candle of invocation exploits, simulacrum exploits.
Basically anything that I can say "yeah, but by RAW it's legal".
Problem is it feels wrong / dirty to do this to prove a point, yet I feel a point must be proven. I apologize for my long windednes.thank you for any feedback / input / advice.
TL;DR - Should I exploit every raw loophole I can find with a RAW is law GM to force him to consider RAI?
No.
If you feel so strongly that you are going to attempt to use conflict to solve the problem rather than sitting down and having a conversation with the GM or entire group, perhaps you should sit out.
I know that I'd be irritated as a GM or player if someone did this. It's just poor form at best, and at worst you are being a disruptive element at the table. Many groups would even ask you to leave or sit out if you couldn't control yourself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a crybaby post tbh...
None of those examples are RAW vs RAI... those are "GM wont let me have toys " complaints... RAW vs RAI would be like how Simulacrum works. This is just.... yeah....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really think OP is just frustrated and venting. That he wrote "problem is . . ." tells us he knows he shouldn't do it. This reads as just a fantasy; it'd be really cool to do it . . . if there weren't any other reprecussions, which he knows there will be.
But, yeah, wouldn't it feel good to be able to ram a completely broken RAW build so far up their legalistic rectums that they'd taste the character sheet? To be able to see them frustrated and say, "SEE?!? THIS IS WHY WE HAVE RAI!!!"
But then you'd have butt-hurt people and your group would fall apart mostly because, like Lt. Kaffee, they can't handle the truth. And you don't want your group to fall apart, so just play your game and enjoy yourself as best you can. And continue to vent through fantasy rants here.
...@Devil
Well as far as more details go, with this current group that ive been playing with the past few years, we all take turns running. One person will run a short term campaign for a few months and when that one is finished another person generally wants to try their hand with an idea they had.
Being a very RAI player and understanding that interpretations differ from person to person whenever I am making a new character and the language gets murky about how one thing works or two things work together, I present what I'm looking at to the dm. Get their interpretation, explain to them what my interpretation is and we both try to support our thesis with the caveat that in the end the GM is always right and in their game, the rules play their way.
However the most recent thing that broke the camels back was for this most recent thing I was interested in playing a Kasatha - Master of many styles. Since master of many styles lose the flurry ability, I thought a decent way to offset it would me to take multi-weapon fighting for what was in effect "a fake flurry". I am of the RAI camp that multiple hands = multiple attacks, GM is on RAW of it doesn't explicitly state you get multiple attacks. We do our usual song and dance where I make the attempt to get the GM to see how I believe the rules should be read to which he responds by calling me a munchkin that always tries to squeeze as much as I can out of every rule and force the rules to fit my character concept instead of the other way around. He finishes by telling me that if I bothered to actually spend the time to read the rules, I would know how they actually worked.
While true I do tend to interpret rules in ways that I think work for whatever concept I'm working on, I wouldn't consider myself a munchkin at all and took some insult at this. However, Gm is right and I decided not to pursue that particular avenue.
Nevertheless, that extra barb at the end has stuck with me, and I have been of the thought
Hands/fists do not count as Natural weapons, therefore they do not qualify for the 3 (different) NAT attacks prerequisite of multiattack (which was intended for druid wildshape). Also with the way Natural attacks work, you can never use a single natural attack more than once in a round because when you full attack with NAT attacks, you are getting each attack once (hence why dragons have two claw and two wing attacks).
On both your examples, I agree with the GM(s). When errata comes out, it is not for balancing purposes but for clarifying things, patching loopholes, and making RAW reflect what the RAI should be; I wouldn't be surprised if Paizo gave up on balance a long time ago. If you're working on a Dream Character, instead of trying to use RAW vs RAI, try coming up with a custom idea and working with the GM to add or work it into existing mechanics: there is a race and class builder for a reason.
|
|
This Passive Aggressive approach won't work.
If you simply want to show where rules can't really be determined by what is written, or if it's not written, then just do that.
So, you show everyone where rules are confusing, conflicting, or silent.
Don't go "super exploit". Just build a PC that touches upon such areas in the rules.
Be prepared to scrap the PC. Tell your DM, if it something he is not comfortable with, you are willing to switch PCs.
That is about as far as I would go.
Also, I would just talk to your, first.
Don't do dis.
The only player I've ever had who I'd call a bad player did dis.
We don't talk any more, because hey guess what, I don't HAVE to let you have your way any way you want it, and you can f%@~ off if you think that I do.
Its easy to break the game if you want to.
Choose not to
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@pixie
By raw do you have to attack with a weapon to be wielding it? As such can you gain the benefits granted from wielding a weapon without attacking with it? If you are wearing bladed boots do you count as wielding them? (Not arguing for extra attacks, merely are they considered wielded when worn) Is "wielding" defined by RAW or do you have to RAI what wielding reasonably means?
Does multi-weapon fighting allow a multi-limbed character to gain an attack with each off hand, or allow aforementioned character to gain an additional attack with each off hand? By RAW nothing explicitly states that a char can make more than one offhand attack... by RAI said character should seem to be able to do so.
By RAW snapleaf is an incredibly cheap item one could use to invoke invisibility and haste forever and ever. RAI it seems obvious it was intended to be a one use kind of item akin to a feather token.
RAW invocation candle (in addition to other benefits) allows char to have an item that casts a spell for several thousand gold pieces cheaper than the material cost for same spell on it's own. RAI price should be adjusted or spell should be removed from item.
What are the penalties of being dead? RAW says nothing specific. RAI is pretty freaking clear!
In each of these I maintain a firm RAI standing. However, I would daresay that most RAW people would agree with the former but RAI the latter.
Yes I am complaining, and yes I am upset. However to dismiss the validity of my argument as a crybaby post is both demeaning and insulting and the sort of thing that caused my to make this post in the first place.
It is not about breaking the game and finding all the loopholes to make my char the biggest baddest best and most broken. It is about consistency. I dont understand how a person can clearly RAI one thing, and then completely disregard RAI on another with the basis of that decision being RAW.
Okay I'm gonna go at this in a list.
1. The issue with the chains dangling off your body is that you're not really wielding those. Now if the character was actively holding the chains/shackles ready to swing them at someone then that is wielding. If you were just wearing them and not ready to attack (Not necessarily attacking, just ready and able to attack), you weren't wielding them. Now that I'm pretty certain delves into RAI, but I'm not sure there is actually a RAW definition for wielding as it's assumed that most people just understand that.
2. Yes a multi-limbed character gets attacks with all its off-hands and its one main hand. It's explicitly written in the feat. Bolding by me.
This multi-armed creature is skilled at making attacks with multiple weapons.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, three or more hands.
Benefit: Penalties for fighting with multiple weapons are reduced by –2 with the primary hand and by –6 with off hands.
Normal: A creature without this feat takes a –6 penalty on attacks made with its primary hand and a –10 penalty on attacks made with all of its off hands. (It has one primary hand, and all the others are off hands.) See Two-Weapon Fighting in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.
3. Yes snapleaf has a pricing completely out of line with magic item pricing. It may have been intentional, but was likely one of the many idiosyncrasies that haven't been errata'd yet. But really, are invisibility and feather fall that game breaking? Since by the time someone can afford a snapleaf, roughly lvl 2-3, the party wizard can likely cast both spells. Now yes, it is usable permanently which is powerful, but it is for one utility spell and one non-damaging spell. Anyways, if someone has an issue with the item just ban it at your table.
4. The candles are supposed to be rare, if the GM doesn't want people to have them then just restrict them. That being said the price is actually right in line with what it's supposed to be.
9 X 17 X 50 = 7650gp
Invocation Candle is 8,400 gp, which accounts for it's other abilites.
Yes, it's cheaper, but it's also a 1 use item that is a more restricted usage of Gate since it is restricted to only one alignment of creatures. Really need an angel but you only have a CE candle? Well hopefully a demon will work instead. Also to consider is that they are major items so they should only be potentially available for sale in large cities.
5. I really don't understand this argument. Does Paizo really have to define death? This is a pretty universal concept that people should understand coming into the game. Plus you're already unconscious, staggered, and your soul is moving on to the afterlife. All those conditions really prevent a character from doing anything.
6. The last thing I have to say on "I dont understand how a person can clearly RAI one thing, and then completely disregard RAI on another with the basis of that decision being RAW".
As my groups GM, sometimes I need to make a call away from the letter of the rules to keep the game going and keep people having fun. Sometimes when I have a player making arguments regarding how a rule should be interpreted and slowing the game down it's easier to go by RAW to keep playing.
Anyways, that's my 2cp.
You just got into a heated argument and were personally attacked by your GM. I think its normal to be angry for the insult, but the argument is largely unimportant. I would recommend walking away and examining whether or not you want to continue playing with someone who has divergent expectations about how the game should work. Finally, just try to keep your characters specific mechanical qualities a little more generic so as not to flirt with difficult rules areas if you do continue to play with this particular gm..
The chains are not wielded. Other wise, you would always be wielding a weapon attatched to a weapon cord, even when disarmed. Try again.
A true RAW vs RAI question would be something like how Mongrel Mage Sorcerers interact with the robes to boost effectively bloodline level and Dragon Disciple PrC. By RAW, the mongrel Mage ALTERS the blooDLINE ability, not replace it, therefore they still have the bloodline ability. Additionally, they CAN be dragonic heritage so they can fulfill the pre reqs for entry into DD. But how their ability interacts can get... weird depending on how you read it....
TL;DR - Should I exploit every raw loophole I can find with a RAW is law GM to force him to consider RAI?Forcing someone to play your way rarely works out in the long run.Seriously?
im going to tell you the truth, son:
PF Society and Pathfinder RPG makes you play forced their way...
The PFRPG doesn't make you play a certain way since the GM controls the majority of the game even when playing "as-written", and if the GM is willing to wrestle with the system enough you can make practically any "way" work out if there is a reasonable amount of rules support. Throw in houserules and you could play any way you want if the GM obliges. Given that as-written-no-house-rules doesn't work because the PF ruleset is broken in so many ways, you pretty much have to houserule anyway, so...no, PF doesn't make you play their way in any reasonable sense.
PF Society is basically "this is the way the game is being run - deal with it, or don't play PFS". It is only "forcing" you in so much as it makes you decide between playing their way or playing somewhere else. It would be analogous to the OP telling their GM something to the effect of "I don't want to play under someone who won't let me do X because *reasons*. Let me do X, or I'm out". That wouldn't be forcing the GM to play their way. It's forcing the GM to decide whether or not they can satisfy the OP's playstyle as well as theirs and the rest of the table's. If they can't, then the OP is out.
Which brings me to my advice for the OP...
You have a problem with another player (yes, the GM is a player too), and in tabletop RPGs you have 4 solutions for how to handle problems with other players:
1. Suck it up
2. Stop playing with them
3. Talk to the other players (i.e. the GM in this case) and work with the others to come to a compromise. If this doesn't work out, pick another option.
4. Be an asshat and maliciously ruin the fun of other until they hate you enough to eject you from the game or leave, and possibly no longer associate with you at all to boot.
Those are your options. You are aiming for option 4 at the moment. Are you sure you want to do this? Because if I was your GM and you were trying to deliberately ruin the game (which is your goal), I would talk to you and ask you to stop, and then if you didn't stop you would no longer be welcome at the table. Maybe your GM is to timid to throw you out, but if they are calling you a munchkin to your face I doubt this is the case. It also makes me think the GM isn't absolved of culpability for this problem, but you certainly aren't helping. If you try to ruin the game, your GM is likely to either kick you out or counter your maliciousness in-game using totally RAW tactics such as "oh look, ten Cthulus jump out of nowhere you are dead bad luck".
Besides, as a PC you are totally powerless against the GM - you are a single mechanically bound character, and they are the omnipotent meta-god who can do anything and everything. As a player, the GM is another human being sitting across the table who relies on you showing up and participating so that they have a game. It should be pretty obvious that trying to fight the GM as a PC instead of another player at the table is insanity.
|
|
TL;DR - Should I exploit every raw loophole I can find with a RAW is law GM to force him to consider RAI?Forcing someone to play your way rarely works out in the long run.Seriously?
im going to tell you the truth, son:
PF Society and Pathfinder RPG makes you play forced their way...
Snowblind said everything that needed to be said to this. You can't force a player to stay in your game.
It seems to be that your argument is not rules as written vs rules as intended, but rules as written vs rules as I interpret them.
In the case of the multiweapon fighting you seem to be partially right. The one thing I did not see in the feat is that the penalties are reduced for using a light weapon. So I would allow the extra attacks at the -6 penalty even if they are light weapons. The strange thing with the feat is it actually has a lower DEX requirement than two weapon fighting. It seems strange that a character with 6 limbs and a 13 DEX would be better at fighting with 2 dagger than a character with 2 limbs and a 15 DEX.
Your GM was right on the shackles. Unless you were taking the penalties for wielding a second weapon you were not wielding it. You only get the benefits if you are willing to take any penalties that come with it.
What you plan to do is a battle you cannot win. Rule 0 means the GM has the right to overrule anything he wants for any reason he wants. If he is a dick about it you simply find another GM, but RAW his word is final. That by the way is not just RAW, that is RAI.
Basically, as soon as someone calls you a munchkin, you know that an opinion has already been formed and all of your actions will be looked at with that subjective bias. It sucks, but thems the breaks. Don't expect this dm to rule in your favor in a rules dispute again.
Basically, as soon as someone calls you a munchkin, you know that an opinion has already been formed and all of your actions will be looked at with that subjective bias. It sucks, but thems the breaks. Don't expect this dm to rule in your favor in a rules dispute again.
Sad to say, this is pretty much right. If the GM thinks a player is a munchkin who is trying to squeeze maximum advantage out of the rules, they're going to look at every single rules issue that player brings up through the lens of "How is he trying to use the rules to gain maximum power?" And even if he can't find a game-breaking trick, he might still ban it for fear that the player's come up with something he didn't account for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I just needed to take a step back, catch my breath, put on my big boy undies, and calm the f*ck down. ;-)
Thank you everyone for taking the time to read and respond. :-)
No, no, no! You can't admit you were wrong on Paizo.com, it's against the forum rules. You must continue to post about how anyone who disagreed with your opening post is a crybaby out to undermine you and destroy the hobby.
No, no, no! You can't admit you were wrong on Paizo.com, it's against the forum rules. You must continue to post about how anyone who disagreed with your opening post is a crybaby out to undermine you and destroy the hobby.
Woah there, sarcasm slinger. We know that sort of stuff happens (unfortunately), but this rhetoric isn't particularly funny or helpful.
On topic: We recently had a question come through our Tumblr box about a similar situation a player had that I'm reminded of. Trying to balance play styles within a group of people will inevitably, at some point in time, result in some form of interpersonal conflict. Rather than utilizing your character to "get back at" or "stick it to" someone you disagree with, it's always going to be a better option to handle to issue out of game. While it might feel good to gain some sort of "revenge", deception is only going to result in further table conflict. Best of luck with your group :)
May I make an observation? If you are called a munchkin and don't like it, all making the most broken thing you can dredge up will do is confirm to everyone that the GM was right. If you want to change opinions stop selecting powerful options and just build a normal character for a change.
May I make an observation? If you are called a munchkin and don't like it, all making the most broken thing you can dredge up will do is confirm to everyone that the GM was right. If you want to change opinions stop selecting powerful options and just build a normal character for a change.
Whats powerful? Whats normal? These kinds of assertions are entirely subjective, thus the problem. The only thing you can do to stop this sort of issue is avoid complex rules interactions. It leads to pretty cookie cutter builds, but thats what people who throw around words like munchkin want. Dont hurt the poor GM's brain with novelty, go with boring.
If the GM doesn't like your "raw legal" build, he can still just tell you to shove off and then you don't play. Everything is up to the DM as for what they allow or not. Whether it's RAW or RAI, what actually matters is what the DM says, or you don't play with that DM.
If I was a DM and my player showed up and said "oh yea I took sacred geometry!" then I'd kill his character unless he changed it.
In my games the GM and players usually work together to craft the type of game they want, though the GM does have final say. Not sure I'd have much fun in a game where the GM makes all the rules without care for his players.
Just a comment on all the "GM can kick you out" comments I've been seeing recently.