Is there a rule that allows you to is the question.
Actually you would need the rule to allow it. There are rules that allow you to grapple someone and then make not be able to speak, but they require feats. Without feats you can't do it at all.
shoving my hand into an opponent's mouth to prevent him or her from being able to speak?
The lack of any rule that says you can.
Yeppers. This is a permissive ruleset. That means anything you are said to be able to do, you can do. Anything you do not have a specific reference for doing is not within the rules, and by default disallowed.
Your GM can change this, but that will obviously vary wildly form person to person.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeppers. This is a permissive ruleset. That means anything you are said to be able to do, you can do. Anything you do not have a specific reference for doing is not within the rules, and by default disallowed.
Your GM can change this, but that will obviously vary wildly form person to person.
First of all, that sort of rule set is "restrictive", not "permissive" — i.e. "everything is forbidden, except that which is is permitted". ("Permissive" would be "everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden".)
But more importantly: can you cite where in the rules it is stated that only those things are permitted which have specific rules defining them?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
shoving my hand into an opponent's mouth to prevent him or her from being able to speak?
The same place that allows or disallows an NPC or another player to shove their hand in your character's mouth to prevent him from speaking: The GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeppers. This is a permissive ruleset. That means anything you are said to be able to do, you can do. Anything you do not have a specific reference for doing is not within the rules, and by default disallowed.
Your GM can change this, but that will obviously vary wildly form person to person.
First of all, that sort of rule set is "restrictive", not "permissive" — i.e. "everything is forbidden, except that which is is permitted". ("Permissive" would be "everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden".)
No, it's the opposite of what you think: a restrictive system is one that puts restrictions on participants, i.e. tells you what you can't do, or are "restricted" from doing.
Pathfinder is a permissive system.
Yeppers. This is a permissive ruleset. That means anything you are said to be able to do, you can do. Anything you do not have a specific reference for doing is not within the rules, and by default disallowed.
Your GM can change this, but that will obviously vary wildly form person to person.
First of all, that sort of rule set is "restrictive", not "permissive" — i.e. "everything is forbidden, except that which is is permitted". ("Permissive" would be "everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden".)
But more importantly: can you cite where in the rules it is stated that only those things are permitted which have specific rules defining them?
The rules tend to tell you want you can do and how to do it. Anything not spelled out falls into GM territory because he has to decide if it will be allowed, and how to adjudicate the mechanics involved.
You can use the grapple rules. Once you have them pinned you can tie them up and I don't see any reason you couldn't add a gag.
I think grapple is where its at^ Although I would probably give them a free bite attack on your hand every round actually... probably just auto bite damage. so don't so it to anything poisonous or with snarly teeth.
The original 3.5 grappling rules specifically allowed you to silence your opponent if you successfully pinned them:
At your option, you can prevent a pinned opponent from speaking.
It seems that it was deliberately not carried over to PF because if you check the pinned condition, you'll see:
A pinned creature can take verbal and mental actions
in addition to it being removed from the grappling rules.
So unless you find a feat or other option that allows you to silence your opponent in some way, there's nothing that says you CAN do that.
You can use the grapple rules. Once you have them pinned you can tie them up and I don't see any reason you couldn't add a gag.
The OP seems to think that such shouldn't be neccessary. What he forgets that in combat, people aren't just standing around waiting their turns to act. They're actively defending themselves against shennanigans. Just as you would if the GM said that an NPC was doing the same to you.
But more importantly: can you cite where in the rules it is stated that only those things are permitted which have specific rules defining them?
Can you cite in this law book where it says it's about the law?
I am fairly sure that this situation might fall under dirty trick rules.
Maybe not your hand, but a sock, or some other cloth. I could see that as something you could do as a dirty trick. And the action to remove the trick would be the action to remove the cloth.
Even that requires GM discretion, as it's not one of the directly listed options.
Even that requires GM discretion, as it's not one of the directly listed options.
Of course. I am just trying to find some place to shove this random suggestion rather than just having it stand alone.
It takes less gm fiat to just say 'do a dirty trick maneuver'. Because you would then fall under the normal dirty trick rules (ie: action to take, whether it draws AoOs, the action required to undo it).
You can use the grapple rules. Once you have them pinned you can tie them up and I don't see any reason you couldn't add a gag.
There is a feat for that.
Chokehold (Combat)
While grappling, you can cut off an opponent's air and blood supply.Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: While you have an opponent up to one size category larger than you grappled, you can attempt a grapple combat maneuver with a –5 penalty on the check. If you succeed, you have pinned your opponent and hold the opponent in a chokehold. When you maintain the grapple, you also maintain the chokehold. A creature in a chokehold cannot breathe or speak, and thus cannot cast spells that have a verbal component. An opponent you have in a chokehold has to hold his breath or begin suffocating. Any creature that does not breathe, is immune to bleed damage, or is immune to critical hits is immune to the effects of your chokehold. When the grapple is ended, so is the chokehold.
shoving my hand into an opponent's mouth to prevent him or her from being able to speak?
In general, if there's no rule that specifies that you can't do something, then you can do it. It's just up to the GM how to adjudicate it.
Personally, I would rule it a dirty trick combat maneuver because
This maneuver covers any sort of situational attack that imposes a penalty on a foe for a short period of time.
Have fun!
I would think that AFTER you have pinned someone, you would need to actively gag them (with whatever action and materials that might require), rather than as part of the pinning action as in the 3.5 rule Gulthor cited. The feat Wraithstrike cited would be how to do it with the grapple itself.
Rules aside I would think that you would have to tie them up or keep them pinned to so they can't remove the gag, but if you are just trying to keep them quiet for a round then I would go with dirty tricks.
Nice find, Wraithstrike!
Dirty Trick seems reasonable, too, but some GM's won't go with it because silenced isn't one of the specific conditions listed as possible under dirty trick. I like it, though, seems very reasonable.
You can use the grapple rules. Once you have them pinned you can tie them up and I don't see any reason you couldn't add a gag.There is a feat for that.
Chokehold (Combat)
While grappling, you can cut off an opponent's air and blood supply.Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: While you have an opponent up to one size category larger than you grappled, you can attempt a grapple combat maneuver with a –5 penalty on the check. If you succeed, you have pinned your opponent and hold the opponent in a chokehold. When you maintain the grapple, you also maintain the chokehold. A creature in a chokehold cannot breathe or speak, and thus cannot cast spells that have a verbal component. An opponent you have in a chokehold has to hold his breath or begin suffocating. Any creature that does not breathe, is immune to bleed damage, or is immune to critical hits is immune to the effects of your chokehold. When the grapple is ended, so is the chokehold.
So this would be a chokehold from INSIDE the person's throat?
...seriously, it was kind of that the original scenario was shoving your hand in someone's mouth. Usually, it would be...like over the mouth? At least if you are using your hands? Shoving your hand in mostly seems like a good way to get bitten. Terrible if you are fighting werewolf or serpentmen mages.
You can use the grapple rules. Once you have them pinned you can tie them up and I don't see any reason you couldn't add a gag.There is a feat for that.
Chokehold (Combat)
While grappling, you can cut off an opponent's air and blood supply.Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +6 or monk level 5th.
Benefit: While you have an opponent up to one size category larger than you grappled, you can attempt a grapple combat maneuver with a –5 penalty on the check. If you succeed, you have pinned your opponent and hold the opponent in a chokehold. When you maintain the grapple, you also maintain the chokehold. A creature in a chokehold cannot breathe or speak, and thus cannot cast spells that have a verbal component. An opponent you have in a chokehold has to hold his breath or begin suffocating. Any creature that does not breathe, is immune to bleed damage, or is immune to critical hits is immune to the effects of your chokehold. When the grapple is ended, so is the chokehold.So this would be a chokehold from INSIDE the person's throat?
...seriously, it was kind of that the original scenario was shoving your hand in someone's mouth. Usually, it would be...like over the mouth? At least if you are using your hands? Shoving your hand in mostly seems like a good way to get bitten. Terrible if you are fighting werewolf or serpentmen mages.
It is intended to be chokehold that cuts off the air supply, not gagging. I mentioned the feat because I know it stops speaking, and that is what the OP was trying to do.
Maybe like a rear naked choke or guillotine, both are martial arts maneuvers that make people go unconscious.
Yeppers. This is a permissive ruleset. That means anything you are said to be able to do, you can do. Anything you do not have a specific reference for doing is not within the rules, and by default disallowed.
Your GM can change this, but that will obviously vary wildly form person to person.
First of all, that sort of rule set is "restrictive", not "permissive" — i.e. "everything is forbidden, except that which is is permitted". ("Permissive" would be "everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden".)
No, it's the opposite of what you think: a restrictive system is one that puts restrictions on participants, i.e. tells you what you can't do, or are "restricted" from doing.
Pathfinder is a permissive system.
Nope. That is entirely contrary to the common usage of the terms. They generally refer to what the default is: if the default is "permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "not permitted!"), then the system is "permissive"; if the default is "not permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "this is permitted"), that's "restrictive".
Of course, this is merely a terminological issue; they're just words, and we can use them however we like... I just happen to think that the usage I cite (which is, in my experience and according to my googling also, the more common usage) makes a lot more sense. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless of the common usage of the term in the world at large (which is debatable), this is how it's always been used on this particular forum that I've seen. Saying otherwise just makes it confusing for this community.
Can you cite in this law book where it says it's about the law?
But more importantly: can you cite where in the rules it is stated that only those things are permitted which have specific rules defining them?
This glib reply doesn't actually answer my question, and I wonder if what I said wasn't clear, or what.
You made a claim that Pathfinder is a system where nothing is permitted except what the rules specifically allow (as opposed to a system where everything is permitted except what the rules specifically forbid). I am asking you what you base this on. Pointing to the rules doesn't answer that! Of course there are rules. But are the rules an exhaustive list of things you can do? Or not? You say they are; I'm asking you to support that claim. (Or are you not really making any substantive claim at all?)
Your analogy, by the way, actually hurts your point! The laws we have (at least, here in the U.S.) are a permissive system. There's a set of explicit laws (just like Pathfinder has a set of explicit rules) — but anything that the law makes no mention of, is, in fact, allowed (as noted by this old political joke).
P.S. Not to mention that the U.S. Code, for instance, does mention quite frequently that it's talking about the law. So... even that part of your analogy doesn't make sense? :/
Note that neither Grappled nor pinned stop you from talking. Only tied up Or the Chokehold feat.
Thus, no, you can not do this short of either of those.
You made a claim that Pathfinder is a system where nothing is permitted except what the rules specifically allow (as opposed to a system where everything is permitted except what the rules specifically forbid). I am asking you what you base this on. Pointing to the rules doesn't answer that!
It kind of does though, because it's self evident in the way the rules are written. Pathfinder's ruleset is a list of things you can do. There are very few examples that I can find, at least among the basic rules, of things you cannot do. So the idea of it being a system where things are allowed unless otherwise stated means that most of the book is meaningless.
This glib reply doesn't actually answer my question, and I wonder if what I said wasn't clear, or what.Can you cite in this law book where it says it's about the law?
But more importantly: can you cite where in the rules it is stated that only those things are permitted which have specific rules defining them?
It was clear, I just thought it was a rock stupid question and wanted to be a little politer in pointing it out. Hope that clears things up on your end.
Read the book. If you somehow get the impression I'm not correct by the way the book is written and laid out, and all the general assumptions of the system (you need Feats to do certain actions, every single action is very clear about what you can do with it, etc.), read it again until you do it right.
There's even a specific rule that says "Your GM can change some of these rules if they want" for god's sake, how much clearer does it need to be?
Or, if you want the more accurate glib answer, it's in the Unwritten Rules, along with the imaginary hands of effort, and exactly what line Rolf has to cross before drinking blood is evil.
No, it's the opposite of what you think: a restrictive system is one that puts restrictions on participants, i.e. tells you what you can't do, or are "restricted" from doing.
Pathfinder is a permissive system.Nope. That is entirely contrary to the common usage of the terms. They generally refer to what the default is: if the default is "permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "not permitted!"), then the system is "permissive"; if the default is "not permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "this is permitted"), that's "restrictive".
Of course, this is merely a terminological issue; they're just words, and we can use them however we like... I just happen to think that the usage I cite (which is, in my experience and according to my googling also, the more common usage) makes a lot more sense. :)
No, a Permissive Rule, by definition, tells you what you are allowed to do, and not just in gaming, any rule, anywhere, that defines a thing that is permitted or allowed is a Permissive Rule.
A Restrictive Rule, or restriction, again by definition, tells you what you are not allowed to do.A set of rules, or ruleset, consisting of mostly Permissive Rules would most logically be defined as a Permissive Ruleset.
Being a Permissive System, Pathfinder doesn't necessarily mean "everything is forbidden," but it does set the standard that, generally, there are rules for the things you can do; if there isn't a rule for it, you generally can't do it.
It is contrary, Permissive Systems do not actually have much freedom, and a more permissive system would not be a Permissive System.
This glib reply doesn't actually answer my question, and I wonder if what I said wasn't clear, or what.Can you cite in this law book where it says it's about the law?
But more importantly: can you cite where in the rules it is stated that only those things are permitted which have specific rules defining them?It was clear, I just thought it was a rock stupid question and wanted to be a little politer in pointing it out. Hope that clears things up on your end.
Read the book. If you somehow get the impression I'm not correct by the way the book is written and laid out, and all the general assumptions of the system (you need Feats to do certain actions, every single action is very clear about what you can do with it, etc.), read it again until you do it right.
There's even a specific rule that says "Your GM can change some of these rules if they want" for god's sake, how much clearer does it need to be?
Or, if you want the more accurate glib answer, it's in the Unwritten Rules, along with the imaginary hands of effort, and exactly what line Rolf has to cross before drinking blood is evil.
In other words: you don't actually have any support for your claim. Ok, cool. That's basically what I expected. (Throwing up your hands and saying "ugh, it's ***obvious***!!!", and "it's totally seriously an unwritten rule, for real, trust me" is tantamount to admitting that nowhere in the text does it say anything like what you claimed.)
For what it's worth, I have indeed read the book. I've read it quite a few times. (3.5, too, and other versions, and other games — useful for comparison and context.) And I've read the comments of the game's developers, here and elsewhere. And the impression I got — and the way I've always played the game, and the way that it very much seems is the way that the devs themselves play the game — is diametrically opposed to what you describe. So I was curious just where you got this strange notion of yours (which does indeed seem to be popular around here, little as that does to make it any less wrong).
No, it's the opposite of what you think: a restrictive system is one that puts restrictions on participants, i.e. tells you what you can't do, or are "restricted" from doing.
Pathfinder is a permissive system.Nope. That is entirely contrary to the common usage of the terms. They generally refer to what the default is: if the default is "permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "not permitted!"), then the system is "permissive"; if the default is "not permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "this is permitted"), that's "restrictive".
Of course, this is merely a terminological issue; they're just words, and we can use them however we like... I just happen to think that the usage I cite (which is, in my experience and according to my googling also, the more common usage) makes a lot more sense. :)
No, a Permissive Rule, by definition, tells you what you are allowed to do, and not just in gaming, any rule, anywhere, that defines a thing that is permitted or allowed is a Permissive Rule.
A Restrictive Rule, or restriction, again by definition, tells you what you are not allowed to do.A set of rules, or ruleset, consisting of mostly Permissive Rules would most logically be defined as a Permissive Ruleset.
Being a Permissive System, Pathfinder doesn't necessarily mean "everything is forbidden," but it does set the standard that, generally, there are rules for the things you can do; if there isn't a rule for it, you generally can't do it.
It is contrary, Permissive Systems do not actually have much freedom, and a more permissive system would not be a Permissive System.
You know, you keep insisting on this definition, but where are you getting it? I've made it clear that I'm basing my usage on common usage outside these forums. What's yours based on? (It clearly doesn't make sense, as your last line demonstrates, so it can't be preferable on its merits...)
It kind of does though, because it's self evident in the way the rules are written. Pathfinder's ruleset is a list of things you can do. There are very few examples that I can find, at least among the basic rules, of things you cannot do. So the idea of it being a system where things are allowed unless otherwise stated means that most of the book is meaningless.
You made a claim that Pathfinder is a system where nothing is permitted except what the rules specifically allow (as opposed to a system where everything is permitted except what the rules specifically forbid). I am asking you what you base this on. Pointing to the rules doesn't answer that!
Ah, to the contrary; it makes all the sense in the world, if you consider that the point of the rules is to define the mechanics and game structures for how characters do certain things. (And to provide a framework for extrapolation: can you do things that aren't spelled out in the rules? Of course; and the existence of the rules lets you come up with mechanics for doing just about anything, by extrapolating, by looking at rules for similar situations, by applying general patterns and approaches inherent in the mechanics to whatever you're trying to instantiate, etc.)
Seen in that light, the rules are not a straightjacket, but a scaffold. Far from "meaningless", they are much more useful than you give them credit for!
Edit: Rules in a permissive system ("everything is allowed, except...") can also serve a function which I mention above, but which bears expanding upon: they can serve to establish structures. Many actual, real-world laws in a legal system like that of the U.S. (certainly a permissive one, as I mentioned already) do just that: they establish government institutions, establish procedures for doing things, establish guidelines for legal decisions... etc. They do not so much permit the citizens to do something, which might, lacking the law, be forbidden; instead, they construct a way for the government (which, by analogy, is the GM) to accomplish something. Likewise with many rules in Pathfinder.
It kind of does though, because it's self evident in the way the rules are written. Pathfinder's ruleset is a list of things you can do. There are very few examples that I can find, at least among the basic rules, of things you cannot do. So the idea of it being a system where things are allowed unless otherwise stated means that most of the book is meaningless.
I don't think any TTRPG in history has worked like this, I've certainly never run one like this or been in a game where anybody was running one like this. Like if none of the rulebooks gives a price for "an apple" and a PC elects "I want to buy an apple", are you supposed to tell them that there are no apples in the world and that what they want to do is impossible?
If the PCs need to get over a mountain and they decide that the best way to do it would be to build a hot air balloon, are you going to tell them "there's no rules for a hot air balloon, so this is impossible."
The fact of the matter is that in TTRPGs, Pathfinder included, you can do anything you are able to describe, provided it does not conflict with an anything previously established. If there are no rules for something, and there didn't used to be rules for things like naval or mass warfare, you just make some up that seem reasonable. The rules are a gross abstraction of a living actual world, and they work for a lot of things, but if players want to do something that is entirely plausible for a person in a world to do, you've just got to figure out what rule or combination of rules would best cover the situation. I mean, every rule that covers "what happens when I shoot lightning bolts at that ship" or "can my character be half-djinni" started in someone's home game where a GM wanted to accommodate some player's idea that they liked. I mean, Pathfinder didn't have chase rules prior to Ultimate Intrigue, so were you incapable of chasing someone who was running away prior to this March?
What you're illustrating though is the "Tenth Amendment Problem." Those rights that have been explicitly specified are not the only rights that there are. Those actions specifically allowed by the rules of Pathfinder are not the only actions you can take.
No, it's the opposite of what you think: a restrictive system is one that puts restrictions on participants, i.e. tells you what you can't do, or are "restricted" from doing.
Pathfinder is a permissive system.Nope. That is entirely contrary to the common usage of the terms. They generally refer to what the default is: if the default is "permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "not permitted!"), then the system is "permissive"; if the default is "not permitted" (unless there exists a rule that says "this is permitted"), that's "restrictive".
Of course, this is merely a terminological issue; they're just words, and we can use them however we like... I just happen to think that the usage I cite (which is, in my experience and according to my googling also, the more common usage) makes a lot more sense. :)
No, a Permissive Rule, by definition, tells you what you are allowed to do, and not just in gaming, any rule, anywhere, that defines a thing that is permitted or allowed is a Permissive Rule.
A Restrictive Rule, or restriction, again by definition, tells you what you are not allowed to do.A set of rules, or ruleset, consisting of mostly Permissive Rules would most logically be defined as a Permissive Ruleset.
Being a Permissive System, Pathfinder doesn't necessarily mean "everything is forbidden," but it does set the standard that, generally, there are rules for the things you can do; if there isn't a rule for it, you generally can't do it.
It is contrary, Permissive Systems do not actually have much freedom, and a more permissive system would not be a Permissive System.
You're reversing things
a Permissive system has "whatever is not expressly forbidden is allowed".While a restrictive one sayss" it's forbidden unless expressly allowed".
The former permits you to do whatever is not forbidden, while the latter restricts you to what is formally allowed. As per those definitions, PF is a restrictive system, even if it does allow much freedom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In other words: you don't actually have any support for your claim. Ok, cool. That's basically what I expected. (Throwing up your hands and saying "ugh, it's ***obvious***!!!", and "it's totally seriously an unwritten rule, for real, trust me" is tantamount to admitting that nowhere in the text does it say anything like what you claimed.)
For what it's worth, I have indeed read the book. I've read it quite a few times. (3.5, too, and other versions, and other games — useful for comparison and context.) And I've read the comments of the game's developers, here and elsewhere. And the impression I got — and the way I've always played the game, and the way that it very much seems is the way that the devs themselves play the game — is diametrically opposed to what you describe. So I was curious just where you got this strange notion of yours (which does indeed seem to be popular around here, little as that does to make it any less wrong).
The idea is popular among both the community and developers of this game.
That puts the burden of proof upon you. Please, find me something from a DEVELOPER (James Jacobs is not a developer) that contradicts me. Pay special attention to posts from Sean K Reynolds, Jason Buhlman, and Mark Seifter, since the first and last were/are very active on the boards, and the middle is the lead developer.
I do not have the time to hold you by your little hands and trawl through old forum posts for you, or teach you reading comprehension. If you're so curious, educate yourself.
You're not going to find in almost any game a clear piece of text that says "And here's the design principles we're working under" any more than when reading a novel you're going to find a line that says "This is an allegory to help my political agenda" even when both are pretty damn obvious on reading them if either is present.
Like if none of the rulebooks gives a price for "an apple" and a PC elects "I want to buy an apple", are you supposed to tell them that there are no apples in the world and that what they want to do is impossible?
You apply rule zero and make rules for an apple.
If the PCs need to get over a mountain and they decide that the best way to do it would be to build a hot air balloon, are you going to tell them "there's no rules for a hot air balloon, so this is impossible."
You apply rule zero and tweak the rules for airships slightly.
However, there are no rules by default for either. If the GM does not make and permit them, they do not exist.
The opposite of this would be the PCs doing it without any GM adjudication. There are no rules for apples, so player 1 decides they can be bought for a copper piece and voila, he has one. Or player 2 decides he's going to be the first one to invent a hot air balloon and build it overnight.
That is the difference between the two kinds of rulesets. One lays a very detailed set of things you can do, which the GM can deviate from, but nobody else can. The other is a very loose guideline for play, where anything goes besides what the GM and rulebook says you can't.
Which sounds more like Pathfinder to you? Because I've never seen a game of Pathfinder where "Players can do anything, but the GM stops them if they get out of hand" is the norm. It's generally "Players can do what the rules say, and can ask 'GM may I?' to do anything outside of that".
What's normal to me in Pathfinder (and other games) is "players can describe doing anything that a normal human being could do even if there's not a rule for it" and the GM comes up with a rule, a check, or just okays it.
Like "I'm going to clasp my hand over that guy's mouth to shut him up" or "I'm going to run after her" might not be things that there are existing rules for, but they're not things that I'm going to say "that's clearly not possible, there's no rule for it." Since that makes no sense from a simulationist perspective, and "simulating a fantasy world" is an important part of this exercise.
If it's something that's borderline, like "We want to found a stock market and invent the limited liability company to fund this expedition" (this has happened to me), then it will require GM approval but "chasing after someone in a world in which the chase rules don't exist yet (i.e. "last year") wasn't something that ever needed approval, nor should it.
That is to say, any action that any average human being in that situation could take is an action the PCs can take, even if there's no rule for it, and as the GM I don't have the power to say no to that.
I started playing The Brand when things like "naval combat" and "mass combat" rules didn't even exist, so when a player said "I shoot a fireball at that ship" or "I shoot a fireball at that troop unit" I had to come up with how that worked, I wasn't about to say "No, you can't shoot fireballs at ships or a bunch of dudes all huddled together, fireballs don't work that way" because that's nonsense. As many rules and systems have been added since the hoary days of AD&D, you're still never going to be able to have an exhaustive set of systems that realistically models all possible things in the world of the game, so we shouldn't act like we have that.
What's normal to me in Pathfinder (and other games) is "players can describe doing anything that a normal human being could do even if there's not a rule for it" and the GM comes up with a rule, a check, or just okays it.
...Isn't this exactly what I said?
Sure, but there are rules for stopping someone from talking. So yeah, if there are no rules for buying apples the DM is free to take guidance from other similar goods. He doesnt just say "well, if you wiggle your nose, apples appear."
I think you guys are getting FAR FAR to astray from the Op with your Permissive vs Restrictive debate.
Maybe start a new thread?
is the difference between the two kinds of rulesets. One lays a very detailed set of things you can do, which the GM can deviate from, but nobody else can. The other is a very loose guideline for play, where anything goes besides what the GM and rulebook says you can't.Which sounds more like Pathfinder to you? Because I've never seen a game of Pathfinder where "Players can do anything, but the GM stops them if they get out of hand" is the norm. It's generally "Players can do what the rules say, and can ask 'GM may I?' to do anything outside of that".
Actually they both sound like Pathfinder to me, and for me that is the beauty of RPGs they are not permissive systems, or restrictive for that matter, they are much more flexible than that. A good example of a permissive system is a computer game, which is not like Pathfinder at all.
shoving my hand into an opponent's mouth to prevent him or her from being able to speak?
No, and even if there was a rule you and your group can invent your own rule.
find me something from a
DEVELOPERDESIGNER (James Jacobs is not adeveloperdesigner) that contradicts me. Pay special attention to posts from Sean K Reynolds, Jason Buhlman, and Mark Seifter, since the first and last were/are very active on the boards, and the middle is the leaddeveloperdesigner.
Quick edit so you don't hide behind a semantics argument again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In other words: you don't actually have any support for your claim. Ok, cool. That's basically what I expected. (Throwing up your hands and saying "ugh, it's ***obvious***!!!", and "it's totally seriously an unwritten rule, for real, trust me" is tantamount to admitting that nowhere in the text does it say anything like what you claimed.)
For what it's worth, I have indeed read the book. I've read it quite a few times. (3.5, too, and other versions, and other games — useful for comparison and context.) And I've read the comments of the game's developers, here and elsewhere. And the impression I got — and the way I've always played the game, and the way that it very much seems is the way that the devs themselves play the game — is diametrically opposed to what you describe. So I was curious just where you got this strange notion of yours (which does indeed seem to be popular around here, little as that does to make it any less wrong).
The idea is popular among both the community and developers of this game.
That puts the burden of proof upon you. Please, find me something from a DEVELOPER (James Jacobs is not a developer) that contradicts me. Pay special attention to posts from Sean K Reynolds, Jason Buhlman, and Mark Seifter, since the first and last were/are very active on the boards, and the middle is the lead developer.
I do not have the time to hold you by your little hands and trawl through old forum posts for you, or teach you reading comprehension. If you're so curious, educate yourself.
You're not going to find in almost any game a clear piece of text that says "And here's the design principles we're working under" any more than when reading a novel you're going to find a line that says "This is an allegory to help my political agenda" even when both are pretty damn obvious on reading them if either is present.
If you make a positive claim about how the game is, the burden of proof is on you. "The idea is popular around here" is nothing. You say many people play Pathfinder as a restrictive-ruleset game; fair enough; I'm sure they do indeed. But the claim that it just is that sort of game, somehow, by default, or by dint of the actual rules — that is a claim that needs defending, which is why I challenged it (and also because I simply disagree with it). (And PossibleCabbage makes some excellent points, in his posts, about why it really doesn't make sense for Pathfinder to be a restrictive-ruleset kind of game.)
However, and although you've been nothing but rude to me, I think it's only reasonable for me to at least try to fulfill your request. The designers' posting history is long, so this is by no means exhaustive — just some things that jump out at me as I peruse the archives.
{Does having a blanket give you a bonus to Survival checks?}
No, it's just nice to have if you want to sleep. Not everything in the game has to have rules text (though "has straps so it can be rolled up and tied" may be useful if for some reason you need to steal a strap, or justify how you're carrying it). Remember, we got a lot of flak for the CR not saying how much a backpack can hold (because it's a backpack), and this book added more should-be-obvious descriptions to common gear that didn't have descriptions in the CR.
{Do I need an animal harness to use Handle Animal?}
No. Like the blanket, knowing that your animal has a harness may come in handy at some point in the game, but the GM is not a robot and the books shouldn't try to explain every single possibility for every single item in the game. "Your guard dog has fallen into the icy river, how are you getting him out?" "He has a harness! Do I get a bonus for that?" "Sure, GM's best friend rule, I'll give you a +2 on your roll!"
{Does [item] give a bonus to [something] or [have a specific game effect]?}
Much of the equipment in this book is based on real Earth equipment. If you could use it for that purpose on Earth, you should be able to use it for that purpose in the game. AA is not the place to codify how long a drill lasts before it wears out, or what temperature a firework burns at, or the chances of breaking a shovel on hard gravel, or how much damage a bundle of burning rice paper causes. The item works as expected for its intended purpose; if the players or the GM are getting too bogged down in round-by-round analysis of hp, hardness, break DCs, and fatigue, they need to take a step back, hand-wave the specifics because it doesn't matter for the adventure, and let the PCs get back on track doing some adventuring.
(From http://paizo.com/products/btpy8dmf/discuss&page=8?Pathfinder-Player-Com panion-Adventurers-Armory#363. Bolded emphasis is mine.)
I don't think the spell needs that, that sounds like a no-brainer property of ice, falling under the category of "some energy types might be particularly effective against certain objects" rule (Core Rulebook page 173). The wall of ice spell mentioning that is just the rulebook being redundant (which is fine for a core rulebook where you want to reiterate rules, but shouldn't be held as a precedent that every later rule supplement spells out obvious and redundant things).
(from http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m8o8&page=7?Ultimate-Magic-Errata#318)
You can't grapple a gaseous creature, that's obvious and we shouldn't need to state that in the rules. If a gaseous creature can slip through any crack because it's gaseous, it can easily slip through the gaps between your fingers or arms.
(from http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kc70?Grappling-VS-Gaseous-Form#32)
I think the pattern is fairly clear. Do you disagree? I suppose I can dig up more posts, if need be. You did say "find me SOMETHING", though, and this is clearly something.
If the PCs need to get over a mountain and they decide that the best way to do it would be to build a hot air balloon, are you going to tell them "there's no rules for a hot air balloon, so this is impossible."
One, I would ask them where their characters would get the idea for a hot air balloon. Two if they sell me on the inspiration, I would tell them that it's a Knowledge Engineering, some craft checks, and Skill Fly check with all with a hidden DC, since their characters never having flown, or created a hot air balloon would have no idea of the challenges inovlved. I would remind them of the lists of fatalities involved in historical flight experiments, I would also remind them of the damage that a fall of terminal velocity would entail. After that..if they're willing to try with the potential consequences of failure, more power to them.
Could be explosions, and shrapnel, and fire, and things falling on top of you, and being stranded in the mountains.
Could be explosions, and shrapnel, and fire, and things falling on top of you
Did you know that of the passengers in the Hindenburg disaster, most survived? And those were just regular IRL humans! Not even soldiers or athletes or anything, much less fantasy adventurers.
and being stranded in the mountains.
Oh boy, being stranded in the mountains. What a truly terrifying situation, that no D&D player characters have ever escaped from... :p
I would also remind them of the damage that a fall of terminal velocity would entail.
About 70 on average, to be specific.