| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM is always right.
That said, right in the CRB, in the combat section, within the rules for charging, it
says:
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
Its bottom of the 9th and the fight is on. 2 Charging Cavaliers have lined up to charge us and i moved up to cast Obscuring Mist.
DM says he can still charge the square i was in at a 50% chance to hit. Is he wrong or right?
As Oddman said:
1-. GM is "always" right
2-. Per RAW, Cavaliers cannot charge
Charge rules:
"If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent."
Obscuring mist grants total concealement to creatures more than 5ft away (you have line of effect but not line of sight). Cavaliers need to be at least 10ft away to be able to charge, and must have LoS to be able to charge an opponent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No charge!
YOur death is free
|
Note that being unable to see where you are going counts as hampered movement and thus halves your speed and prevents running or taking a 5' step.
Thus, I'd say it is difficult to charge an enemy in fog even if you DID have line of sight at the start of your turn.
Indeed, I don't see any reason that it would be easier to charge a square you can't currently see if you last saw it at the start of your turn vs earlier the same round.
You could have them move into the mist, and attack the square they last saw the PC in. It just wouldn't be a charge action. You could even describe it similarly, but mechanically, it would be a move & attack, not a charge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could have them move into the mist, and attack the square they last saw the PC in. It just wouldn't be a charge action. You could even describe it similarly, but mechanically, it would be a move & attack, not a charge.
That probably wont do for the GM since the cavaliers are probably build as charging killing machines (as most cavaliers are). The player casting Obscuring Mist had a bright idea and is technically correct. The cavaliers should not be able to charge which would severely reduce their damage if they're built for lance charges.
As a GM and player, the best way to handle this is for the GM to say "Okay, I know obscuring mist would normally block the charge but, for thematic reason I don't want that to happen. How would have liked to have spent your turn instead since I am changing the rules, and it would invalidate your action."
Because the honest truth is, if you don't throw the player a bone here and do insist on the changed rules you are basically just setting it up to kill the player. And being a good GM doesn't mean killing the PCs, it means challenging them and having a fun story. It's not a GM vs PC game.
What's more cinematic than the caster moving into harms way to cast a spell to save everyone?
I also agree with Gauss. You are playing a game by the rules, and the GM disregarding them is a pretty big breech of trust. If the cavaliers do charge you, I'd be just as likely to reduce the damage I write on my character sheet, since we're just following our own rules at that point. GM: Take 60 damage.
Me: "Take 60 damage? Sure thing." Mentally: "Reduce that by 1/3 because they didn't charge, and thats 20, still alive!"
Note that being unable to see where you are going counts as hampered movement and thus halves your speed and prevents running or taking a 5' step.
Given the Line of sight rule, this is irrelevant to the question at hand, however, Having one's sight be limited to 5' is not the same as being blind.
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
Being blind does not mean you HAVE to move at half speed - just that if you move faster than half speed, you must make a DC 10 Acrobatics check or fall prone. This is because you can not even see where you are stepping and you may step in a ditch or trip on something you cannot see. However, a medium creature, mounted on a large creature, can see pretty clearly within the 20'-0"(w) x 20'-0" (l) x 15'-0" (h) zone that surrounds them. So it would be rather extreme to apply a penalty greater than what actually being BLIND would require.
ALL THAT SAID, @Danzibe1989 - you should really try to go with the flow and not bust out into rules arguments at the table. It is one thing if you design your entire character around a part of the rules and then without warning your GM says that rule is going to change on you. It is different for you to spend game time arguing about who the world works. A large part of the game is playing the role - and while there is a lot of abstraction and numbers flying around, this is still supposed to be a game where you feel like you are your character in battle. When an opponent does something that you don't think should be possible, would you try to call a time out?
"Whoah whoah whoah! You guys should not have been able to hit me in this mist. You need to be able to see your target before you start a charge"
No - of course not. You would be like "Oh Sh*t!!! THEY CAN SEE THROUGH THE MIST!!! We need a new plan!!!!"
If you can turn off your rules lawyer brain for a bit and let your adrenaline get pumping by the clear and immediate danger your character is finding himself in, by the end of the night, it will be far more memorable than if it is just another story of arguing with the GM for an hour because he clearly didn't know the rules.
If there are things that you want to talk to the GM about afterwards - that is fine. "Hey - you know how that cavalier charged me in the middle of the mist? Is that the rule we are using now - that you can charge to the last location an enemy has been seen even if you can no longer see your target? Or was that just something unique to those Cavaliers? I want to make sure my character learns the proper lesson form the encounter."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that being unable to see where you are going counts as hampered movement and thus halves your speed and prevents running or taking a 5' step.Given the Line of sight rule, this is irrelevant to the question at hand, however, Having one's sight be limited to 5' is not the same as being blind.
The creature cannot see. It takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class, loses its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any), and takes a –4 penalty on most Strength- and Dexterity-based skill checks and on opposed Perception skill checks. All checks and activities that rely on vision (such as reading and Perception checks based on sight) automatically fail. All opponents are considered to have total concealment (50% miss chance) against the blinded character. Blind creatures must make a DC 10 Acrobatics skill check to move faster than half speed. Creatures that fail this check fall prone. Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.Being blind does not mean you HAVE to move at half speed - just that if you move faster than half speed, you must make a DC 10 Acrobatics check or fall prone. This is because you can not even see where you are stepping and you may step in a ditch or trip on something you cannot see. However, a medium creature, mounted on a large creature, can see pretty clearly within the 20'-0"(w) x 20'-0" (l) x 15'-0" (h) zone that surrounds them. So it would be rather extreme to apply a penalty greater than what actually being BLIND would require.
ALL THAT SAID, @Danzibe1989 - you should really try to go with the flow and not bust out into rules arguments at the table. It is one thing if you design your entire character around a part of the rules and then without warning your GM says that rule is going to change on you. It is different for you to spend game time arguing about who the world works. A large part of the game is playing the role - and while there is a lot of...
If the GM is changing rules on the fly without the player's knowledge or understanding then he is playing a different game than the player is.
This is not a case of the cavaliers having an ability the player didn't know about. This is a case of the GM not educating himself and then rejecting anyone telling him otherwise and screwing the player. It sounds like this is a consistent issue with this GM.
Either he needs to educate himself, accept that the players know better and be willing to adjust his tactics when they correct him, or play a different game or with different people who don't care what the rules are.
If the GM is going to make up/change the rules he better know the rules he is changing before he does so.
"Whoah whoah whoah! You guys should not have been able to hit me in this mist. You need to be able to see your target before you start a charge"
I wouldn't quite say it like that. I'd say something like, "Normally you can't charge through mist because you can't see the target, you're sure they can do it?"
GM says: "Oh I didn't realize that, uhh, hang on a second. Instead..."
or
GM says: "Apparently so, they charge into you and deal piles of damage...."
What doesn't happen is the GM saying, "It would be more cinematic for them to charge into you, and I want that to happen, so they do."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be asking why on earth would you play a system you hate? GM'ing a sytem you hate is a whole 'nother level of masochism!
If you agree to GM a system though, you either use the rules of that system or make it crystal clear up front you'll be playing fast and loose by the rules and in what way - and whether you will hold the players to a similarly lax standard.
Otherwise you will quickly lose the trust of your players and potentilly put them off RPGs for life - and that would be criminal.
I've seen it happen.
Bringing up rules in a game is fine.
Spending forever debating rules is not.
GM making up houserules is fine.
GM making up houserules and not letting me change my turn is a jerk move.
Even more cinematic! The ANTIpaladin, doing something to help the group! (Or maybe just a byproduct of trying to save themselves, but you know, gotta spin it!)
Sounds totally reasonable for you to do that.
If I did the same thing, and then the GM said they charged, I'd do a simple, "Are you sure, because you can't charge if you don't have LOS."
GM can say, "Yes, they charge anyway, you don't know what their abilities are."
or
GM can say, "No they don't charge, you're right, instead they do this."
Or, apparently your GM said, "They charge even though they can't see you."
So I'd ask if that is the case for charging from now on, you don't need LOS to charge, but can just attempt a charge if you know the square of the thing you want to attack. If that's the case, fine, new house rule. I'd still ask to take the action back, as the rules changed after having taken it.
Haha, I'm a little curious, as I'm running the hell's vengeance game for my group at the moment too. But it will be a while before they get to this part. Hopefully everything works out.
I would like to know if you decide to implement charge to a square as a house rule, and if it results in any complications later on if you do.
Everyone knows those two cavaliers are wearing fogcutting lenses...
Or a Goz Mask. Or had Life Sense (Su). Or had Blind Sight (Ex). Or had Blindsense (Ex). Or had Tremmorsense (Ex). Or had Mistsight (Ex). Or had Thoughtsense (Su). Or had Water Sight (Su). Or they could be Slyphs with the Cloud Gazer feat. Or wore Circlets of Mindsight. Or one of them had a Svingli's Eye. Or - heck - they could have actually been 9th level Boreal Bloodline sorcerers on Horseback with the Snow Shroud (su) ability.
Lots of options.
Or a Goz Mask. Or had Life Sense (Su). Or had Blind Sight (Ex). Or had Blindsense (Ex). Or had Tremmorsense (Ex). Or had Mistsight (Ex). Or had Thoughtsense (Su). Or had Water Sight (Su). Or they could be Slyphs with the Cloud Gazer feat. Or wore Circlets of Mindsight. Or one of them had a Svingli's Eye. Or - heck - they could have actually been 9th level Boreal Bloodline sorcerers on Horseback with the Snow Shroud (su) ability.
Any opponent the creature cannot see still has total concealment against the creature with blindsense, and the creature still has the normal miss chance when attacking foes that have concealment.
Tremorsense (Ex) A creature with tremorsense is sensitive to vibrations in the ground and can automatically pinpoint the location of anything that is in contact with the ground.
The rest work fine, but blindsense and tremorsense you still can't see the creature, you just know the square they are in (something they already knew, since they saw him before he cast the mist.)
Not true.
Without any of the above listed items/abilities/feats,etc, the guards could only GUESS that he was still in the same square due to metagame knowledge informing them that it was the most likely scenario.
However if the PC had a Quick Runner Shirt, or a quicken metamagic rod, or even as unlikely as it may be, the party had a PC with levels in the Pathfinder Chronicler Prestige Class and therefore had the ability to grant extra move actions to allies... In any of the scenarios (and in several others unmentioned), the PC who cast Obscuring Mist could be somewhere else.
Both Tremmorsense and Blindsense would allow them to actually KNOW precisely where they are. Now - granted blindsense says it doesn't remove concealment, but concealment (i.e. 20% miss chance) does not prevent a charge.
If you don't have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can't charge that opponent.
Tremor sense and blind sense do not give line of sight. If he was invisible, they would also not be able to charge, because they cannot see him. They know he is in that space, but no line of sight is present. They are not precise senses, they let you pinpoint the square, that's it.
Lances are reach weapons, so they would be 10' away when attacking in the mist, which would still allow him total concealment. Mist grants 20% concealment within 5', and 50% 10'+.
|
In regards to changing rules and having everyone buy into it and so we are all on the same page at the table, I have put together a binder that my group has come to refer to as the black book or the DM's Binder, in which i have typed up and printed out all the rule changes / clarifications that I or any of my players have come up with over our years of playing. Before it gets printed and put in the binder the majority of the group has to be on board with the change and understand why its getting changed, until its printed out we play as written in the core books.
This has worked out really well for everyone as rule changes are written down and easily accessible by all the players and when an issue comes up in game we can either refer to the Binder or the core book and either add to the binder, edit something in the binder or leave it as it is in the core book.
perhaps you should try to take up a similar method if you disagree with a lot of the rules currently presented in the system, this doesn't require you to comb through the rules and write up a whole new rule book, just as you play and as things come up in game, be like this is how i envision this working instead and write up a little change.
Like This:
Charge,
As per the current rules you need line of sight on a target before charging on your turn.
My change is if you had seen your target the round prior then you can attempt the charge at that square he was in.
or you charge a square instead of a target whether you can see the target or not. both these methods still require you to roll % to hit chance if they had concealment or some other cover as normal.
type it up printed out and put it in a folder and label it "my house rules".
I too love pathfinder and the system its presented around, i don't think its perfect, i also doubt i could have done a better job at creating a better system, but when me or my group finds an issue or something we want to change and do differently we have a system in place to do these changes and to make sure everyone is aware and on the same page with everything. this system works out so well for my group we all use the same house rules no matter who is running the game.