Core Combat Maneuvers?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Can a Core PFS character attempt one of the Combat Maneuvers found in the Advanced Player's Guide (Dirty Trick, Drag, Reposition, or Steal)?

Not asking if I can take the feat which allows it to not provoke, just wondering if they can be attempted at all.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A character can attempt such an action in Core play. How it is resolved and what effect it has are up to the GM, who can read any source material that she finds useful. It will very likely be some sort of combat manoeuvre check.

Scarab Sages

Starglim wrote:
A character can attempt such an action in Core play. How it is resolved and what effect it has are up to the GM, who can read any source material that she finds useful. It will very likely be some sort of combat manoeuvre check.

That does sound reasonable....

But feel compelled to ask: If the Scenario in question mentions the Advanced Player's Guide in their list of books the GM is assumed to have access to for running the Scenario, are they allowed to ignore it when I attempt one of those combat maneuvers from that Book?

PS: I'm more asking as a future GM of Core, not really as a player. I'm not even certain that the AVP is mentioned as a required text in any scenarios, but they do often list more materials than just the Core Rulebook.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

Technically, you cannot attempt such a manoeuver, since it doesn't exist.

Don't understand your question. Why would a GM ignore a book they're allowed to use, especially if an NPC takes advantage of such manoeuvers.

Scarab Sages

Dave Baker wrote:
Technically, you cannot attempt such a manoeuver, since it doesn't exist.

Well, see that's the issue. It does exist because Core is more regarding character creation, than it limits in-game options. Those combat maneuvers are not class features, not race, not any part of character creation or part of anything that core specifically limits.

And if, within a given scenario which speciifically mentions that the GM needs to have the book these are found in, does seem vague that the GM would be allowed to ignore those rules because they didn't want to use that text.

Anyway, I don't mean to debate it too much, sounds like there's resistance to doing this, even if I can't find rules to support this resistance. So in practice, I won't attempt these maneuvers.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You're attempting to do something not covered by the CRB, so it's down to the GM to decide how it works, same as they would have to have done before the APG was released.

So...
The GM is free to ignore the rules in the APG, but I for one would find it easier to use those rules than come up with something sensible on the fly.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

No, the GM is not "free to ignore the rules in the APG". The restriction in Core is for character options; it doesn't magically make all the non-Core rules go away.

Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, pg 8 wrote:
Limited Resources: Core Campaign PCs are limited to using the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, and Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement when building their characters.

Clearly "building their characters" includes leveling and purchasing gear, but "actions during play" certainly wouldn't fall under that.

If you want to do a Dirty Trick combat maneuver in Core, technically nothing is stopping you. It probably won't be a good idea, though, because you can't have Improved Dirty Trick.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

It's not just building characters, though. Druids can't take non-core animal companions at higher levels, and characters can't take feats from other sources at higher levels.

My ruling would be no, you cannot make a non-core combat maneuver in core play.

Shadow Lodge

Steven Stewart wrote:

It's not just building characters, though. Druids can't take non-core animal companions at higher levels, and characters can't take feats from other sources at higher levels.

My ruling would be no, you cannot make a non-core combat maneuver in core play.

Perhaps you missed the part where I said this:

SCPRedMage wrote:
Clearly "building their characters" includes leveling and purchasing gear

"Building" applies to more than just initial character creation.

If the phrase "when building their characters" applies to actions taken during play, then there is literally nothing it doesn't apply to, making it a restrictive clause that restricts nothing. I believe that it plainly isn't meant to restrict players from utilizing rules to handle how their actions are resolved; only what character options they take.

To put this another way: can a player who does not own a copy of the Advanced Player's Guide use a Dirty Trick combat maneuver in the RPG campaign? Are players who do own a copy of the APG required to bring it with them any time they may wish to use one of those maneuvers?

Even if the player doesn't have access to the content of the APG, whether in Core or RPG, the GM has no such restrictions, and is allowed to use those rules to adjudicate how an action is resolved. Even if I don't have access to the APG, I can still say I'm throwing dirt in my opponent's eyes, at which point the GM would use the Dirty Trick maneuver rules to adjudicate how that works.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I'm not so sure about that. Last time I checked with a Venture Captain, one did need to have a copy of the APG with them in order to use a Dirty Trick.

Core only allows Core. This includes feats, class abilities, and actions in combat. That's been stressed multiple times by John Compton himself. Sure, we're talking about corner cases here, but the underlying rule still stands. If you want to use non-core actions and abilities, just play standard.

Now, if I'm wrong, and John comes in here and says so, then I'm not too proud to admit it. However, every ruling I've come across (and there's been many), has been the same.

You even have a Venture Captain telling you so. We've seen these kinds of things tons of times in games. We've been called to judge on these things more than I can remember.

But like I said, if someone finds a ruling otherwise, or John Compton or another rules-person comes in and says otherwise, then I will gladly change my stance.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Dave Baker wrote:

Technically, you cannot attempt such a manoeuver, since it doesn't exist.

Don't understand your question. Why would a GM ignore a book they're allowed to use, especially if an NPC takes advantage of such manoeuvers.

This says all you need to know. The APG doesn't exist in Core for players. You cannot make use of anything in it. You cannot reference it. You cannot adjucate a Core action with its rules. It simply doesnt exist.

Shadow Lodge

Steven Stewart wrote:
Core only allows Core. This includes feats, class abilities, and actions in combat. That's been stressed multiple times by John Compton himself.

If you can cite John Compton stating that this restriction applies to action in combat, do so, because that's a definite answer to the exact question being asked.

As to Venture-Captains... VCs can and have been wrong about basic game rules. Nothing about their volunteer position enables them to make official rules clarifications, so a Venture Officer can only really make rulings on a case-by-case basis, and their rulings aren't binding to the campaign as a whole (especially because VOs can and do disagree with each other all the time).

But since you seem to have avoided the issue, I'll ask it point blank: if I don't have access to the APG, what happens when I try to throw dirt in an opponent's eyes? Simply saying "you can't" isn't going to fly, as the game expects the GM to ad hoc how to handle actions that aren't specifically covered by the rules all the time, so denying a character the ability to make a simple physical action that requires no skill or training kinda flies in the face of the spirit of the game.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

SCPRedMage wrote:
Steven Stewart wrote:
Core only allows Core. This includes feats, class abilities, and actions in combat. That's been stressed multiple times by John Compton himself.

If you can cite John Compton stating that this restriction applies to action in combat, do so, because that's a definite answer to the exact question being asked.

As to Venture-Captains... VCs can and have been wrong about basic game rules. Nothing about their volunteer position enables them to make official rules clarifications, so a Venture Officer can only really make rulings on a case-by-case basis, and their rulings aren't binding to the campaign as a whole (especially because VOs can and do disagree with each other all the time).

But since you seem to have avoided the issue, I'll ask it point blank: if I don't have access to the APG, what happens when I try to throw dirt in an opponent's eyes? Simply saying "you can't" isn't going to fly, as the game expects the GM to ad hoc how to handle actions that aren't specifically covered by the rules all the time, so denying a character the ability to make a simple physical action that requires no skill or training kinda flies in the face of the spirit of the game.

That's my point: this is a corner case, and John hasn't ruled on this particular scenario. Which is why if he comes in and says I'm wrong, then I'll gladly smile and say "Okie Dokie".

Yes, VO's can be wrong. My point there is that they don't get promoted to that position easily. I've also seen 5 star GM's rule against this, and that's even harder to attain because they literally have to run a game in front of someone who knows the rules inside and out. And I've seen multiple VC's make the same ruling. The APG doesn't exist, so no. You may not do something so simple as chuck dirt in someone's eyes. Does it break the suspension of disbelief? Yes. But a Core player should understand when they sit down that those actions aren't options, and shouldn't attempt then in the first place.

As for your last paragraph, yep, that definitely is the job of a judge/gm/VO. In the few occasions I've seen it allowed, the GM gave the opponent a save and have him a status effect for a round. Not blinded, but something lesser, like shaken.

The overall point is that Core is meant to be different. It's an understanding between player and gm that some things just aren't allowed. If you as a player attempt to do something that isn't allowed, then the GM has to shut you down. Allowing Dirty Tricks like that is a slippery slope. If they were to be allowed, then what's stopping you from doing literally anything else from another sourcebook that isn't specifically mentioned? The Core banishments aren't a case by case basis. They are a blanket rule. If it isn't Core, it isn't legal.

Shadow Lodge

You're suggesting that in the Core campaign, GMs should be reinventing the wheel, just because the players are not allowed to use character options from the APG. If the player is attempting an action that would be covered by an APG combat maneuver, the GM can and should run it as the APG manuever.

The point of the Core campaign isn't to magically erase all of the rules introduced after Core; it's to simply character options. As the Guide states, players are restricted as to which books they use for character building. Character building includes leveling and equipment. It does not include the adjudication of their actions, because if it did, that restriction clause wouldn't mean anything, and it obviously has to mean something.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

No, I'm not suggesting GM's should re-make the rules for those maneuvers. I'm saying those maneuvers are not allowed. AT ALL.

They are not in the core rule book. Therefore, they do not exist. It's not an option for your character, during combat, to use any combat maneuver not in the core rule book. In the few instances that I've seen it allowed, it was nerfed so drastically that it was useless, and in one instance ended up in the character being killed because he wasted an action on a silly maneuver that the GM allocated a ludicrously low save to. Next round the character ate a greataxe crit, whereas if he had just attacked the enemy instead of trying to kick him in the 'nads, he would have killed him first.

Core only allows the core rule book. As much as that seems like it kills suspension of disbelief, there is an invisible wall in between a character's hand and the dirt during combat, if you try to throw it. That action simply doesn't exist in the Pathfinder Society Core Campaign universe.

As a player, you should understand that before you ever sit down. It's not "Core plus a few other things" or "Core plus the APG."

It's CORE. If you don't like it, play standard. It sounds harsh, but it's the truth. No one is making you play Core. If you don't like the limits Core imposes, then it just isn't for you.

To reiterate: Non-Core maneuvers do not exist in Core. You cannot do them. You cannot cheat the system by trying to "do something unexpected" and expect the GM to go "Oh gee, he did something I didn't expect! Let me just abuse the system and allow this move from a Non-Core book!"

You don't see fighters running around with non core weapons. You don't see casters running around with non core spells. Race Boons aren't allowed in Core, nor are any other boons that aren't on Chronicle Sheets. Heck, even the Pathfinder Society Field Guide isn't allowed in Core! What makes you think an APG Combat Maneuver is?

Dark Archive 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Midwest

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, I think it may be easier (and more evil) to adjudicate it via a CMB check than to disallow a character from doing something.

IMHO, the additional options were added to begin with to try and make adjudicating combat easier. Before their inclusion, we still had players trying to steal things in combat, throw sand in enemies eyes, etc, and oftentimes, it ended up being a table variation issue.

If you allow it your enemy could get a free attack of opportunity.

Certainly there are corner cases where I wouldn't allow it, especially if I got the feeling they were trying to get non-core options into play for free, but basically, all the additional maneuver rules did was codify something that players were already doing, making the adjudication less arbitrary.

However, I could be wrong.

5/5

Todd Morgan wrote:
Eh, I think it may be easier (and more evil) to adjudicate it via a CMB check than to disallow a character from doing something.

I run quite a bit of core and this is pretty much what I do. As players don't have access to the various Improved X feats then they will provoke which tends to discourage their use. I have yet to see it be an actual issue in game.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Stewart wrote:
Yes, VO's can be wrong. My point there is that they don't get promoted to that position easily. I've also seen 5 star GM's rule against this, and that's even harder to attain because they literally have to run a game in front of someone who knows the rules inside and out.

This is not really true at all. Five star evaluations are carried out by VC's. The VC position is an organisational one, and an important one, but I have come across plenty whose rules knowledge is far from "inside and out".

Dark Archive 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Midwest

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since you agreed with me andreww, I think you're probably a genius and know all the rules inside and out :)

5/5

Just today I allowed a gnome barbarian to steal a vitally important macguffin from a very dangerous opponent in a seeker tier adventure with a CMB check. Strength surge even allow him to succeed (only just, by about 3). He provoked moving in to do it and the enemy didn't have combat reflexes to take the attack he provoked trying to steal the item. The group then fled via getaway (obtained in scroll form in an earlier session and scribed into the wizards spellbook).

Sadly the Macguffin turned out to be fake and the group ended the adventure with zero prestige.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

The Combat Manuevers from the APG are no different than any other rule or spell. The player needs to provide the source book for their rule. Since the APG is not a legal source book for Core, you can't provide a legal copy of the rule you wish to use.

I provide no authority on the subject, as was clearly pointed out. Though the above is how i rule during the games i run. If the subject is clarified to the contrary, then i will indeed abide. Until then, that's how it is.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Baker wrote:

The Combat Manuevers from the APG are no different than any other rule or spell. The player needs to provide the source book for their rule. Since the APG is not a legal source book for Core, you can't provide a legal copy of the rule you wish to use.

I provide no authority on the subject, as was clearly pointed out. Though the above is how i rule during the games i run. If the subject is clarified to the contrary, then i will indeed abide. Until then, that's how it is.

Which reverts us back to the GM needs to make a decision about how things work which are not covered by the rules. The player wants to do a thing which is physically possible in the game, the GM determines how that thing works. For stuff like steal, drag etc that is liable to default to a standard action CMB versus CMD which provokes.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

andreww wrote:
Dave Baker wrote:

The Combat Manuevers from the APG are no different than any other rule or spell. The player needs to provide the source book for their rule. Since the APG is not a legal source book for Core, you can't provide a legal copy of the rule you wish to use.

I provide no authority on the subject, as was clearly pointed out. Though the above is how i rule during the games i run. If the subject is clarified to the contrary, then i will indeed abide. Until then, that's how it is.

Which reverts us back to the GM needs to make a decision about how things work which are not covered by the rules. The player wants to do a thing which is physically possible in the game, the GM determines how that thing works. For stuff like steal, drag etc that is liable to default to a standard action CMB versus CMD which provokes.

Or, as stated before, the players need to understand that they are playing Core, and those actions simply aren't allowed. They don't exist. Don't attempt to do them.

Granted, before the APG, it made sense to allocate those actions in one way or another, but now that the APG does exist, and those actions are in it, they are no longer allowed.

Corner Case? Yes. Kind of dumb? Yes. Limiting? Yes.

Welcome to Core. Standard is at that table over there.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

andreww wrote:
Steven Stewart wrote:
Yes, VO's can be wrong. My point there is that they don't get promoted to that position easily. I've also seen 5 star GM's rule against this, and that's even harder to attain because they literally have to run a game in front of someone who knows the rules inside and out.
This is not really true at all. Five star evaluations are carried out by VC's. The VC position is an organisational one, and an important one, but I have come across plenty whose rules knowledge is far from "inside and out".

I believe it is point 6 on the Venture Captain responsibilities.

"Be extremely familiar with all paizo products" or something to that effect.

A VC should know the rules. They should know what's legal and what's not. I haven't come across one yet who doesn't. Granted, no one is perfect, and there are definitely exceptions to the rule, but most of the time, if a VC tells you something, he's probably right. As far as I'm concerned, if someone is making that kind of volunteer commitment to be a VC, they are to be respected.

SCPRedMage wrote:

The point of the Core campaign isn't to magically erase all of the rules introduced after Core; it's to simply character options. As the Guide states, players are restricted as to which books they use for character building. Character building includes leveling and equipment. It does not include the adjudication of their actions, because if it did, that restriction clause wouldn't mean anything, and it obviously has to mean something.

... That's exactly the point of Core. It was made to erase all other rules and options. That was in the blog post where it was announced. It's meant to limit you to the Core rule book to challenge you, to take away all other abilities and actions, to remove all other options, to limit you to only the CRB.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll point out that those who have taken the stance that it is impossible for characters to throw dirt in someone's eyes or steal an item off of an enemy during combat in Core haven't actually cited anything to support their stance yet, nor have they attempted to explain why the phrase "during character building" is used when setting the source restriction for the Core campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was mentioned up-thread but bears repeating that Core Rules apply to how a players may build their characters. Page 8 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide states:

Core Campaign PCs are limited to using the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, and Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement when building their characters.

Core Rules do not apply to how a scenario runs. The scenario must the run as written. PC's may act in a scenario in any way allowed by current Pathfinder Rules.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:


For players participating in the Core Campaign, only the Core Rulebook, Character Traits Web Enhancement, and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play may be utilized for character creation.

At no time may any trait, feat, equipment, magic item, skill, animal companion, familiar, or any other character option come from a source beyond these three resources unless it appears on a Chronicle sheet. Race boons found on Chronicle sheets may not be used in the Core Campaign.

Actions are options.

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:


If a Core Rulebook option advises that something found in the Core Rulebook is clarified in the Bestiary 1, then the player uses that specific option out of the Bestiary 1 to meet the requirement set forth in the Core Rulebook. That would include, but is not limited to, animal companions, special abilities, summon spells, etc... Only the Bestiary 1 is available for these extra options outside of the Core Rulebook.

John has stated this multiple times, over a variety of things. Yes, this debate is a new one. But the precedent stands. If it isn't in the allowable books, then it isn't allowed.

Until John comes in and says otherwise, that's how it's going to be at my events.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Pink Dragon wrote:

It was mentioned up-thread but bears repeating that Core Rules apply to how a players may build their characters. Page 8 of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide states:

Core Campaign PCs are limited to using the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, and Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement when building their characters.

Core Rules do not apply to how a scenario runs. The scenario must the run as written. PC's may act in a scenario in any way allowed by current Pathfinder Rules.

Yes, it must be run as written. The GM can use anything the scenario references. The players may not. Just because a scenario features a magus doesn't mean a player can whip his magus character out and use it.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

SCPRedMage wrote:
I'll point out that those who have taken the stance that it is impossible for characters to throw dirt in someone's eyes or steal an item off of an enemy during combat in Core haven't actually cited anything to support their stance yet, nor have they attempted to explain why the phrase "during character building" is used when setting the source restriction for the Core campaign.

The rules are such that the onus is not on me to prove the option is illegal. It is upon the user to prove their option is legal.

That has not been done by anyone.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Todd Morgan wrote:

Eh, I think it may be easier (and more evil) to adjudicate it via a CMB check than to disallow a character from doing something.

IMHO, the additional options were added to begin with to try and make adjudicating combat easier. Before their inclusion, we still had players trying to steal things in combat, throw sand in enemies eyes, etc, and oftentimes, it ended up being a table variation issue.

If you allow it your enemy could get a free attack of opportunity.

Certainly there are corner cases where I wouldn't allow it, especially if I got the feeling they were trying to get non-core options into play for free, but basically, all the additional maneuver rules did was codify something that players were already doing, making the adjudication less arbitrary.

However, I could be wrong.

I missed this somehow. This is exactly what I've been trying to say. The options aren't allowed because they aren't Core, but if you do allow it, it needs to be adjucated in a way that Core allows.

To me, when someone is attempting this, it always sounds like someone is trying to fit non-core actions into a core game. I haven't had a player yet get mad when I tell them I won't allow it. They just move on and take a different action.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

so "You can't do that" is better than "the rules we're using don't cover that, so we'll do it like this"?

5/5

When playing in a Core game, you are limited to using Core rules unless you have a Chronicle granting access to something from another source. This is the reason for the "when building their characters" restrictive clause - it is possible to gain access to options from other sources after character creation from Chronicles you earn while adventuring. If you do not have access granted to a non-Core combat maneuver from a Chronicle, you do not have the option to use that rule in a Core game. It may be possible that a scenario has an NPC using that rule, but you still do not have the option to use that rule unless your character has a Chronicle granting you that access. It is the same if I am running a PFS game and a character wants to use a non-Core combat maneuver - the player needs to have the source material or it will not be allowed. I may own a copy of the source material myself, but if you don't, you don't get to use options from it. I don't want to create a situation where the player's next GM, who doesn't have that material, has to deal with, "But my last GM let me do it."

Scarab Sages 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Are we playing a video game where our options are limited to those "coded in" to the game?

Player A says "my guy does XXXX"...
Judge says "I think that is covered in a Non-CORE Feat from a different book, so no, you can't do XXXX".
Player A "How about YYY"?
Judge "Most likely covered in something else..."
Player A "WWWW?"
Judge "Nope"
Player A "What are my options?"
Judge "you can AAAA, or BBBB."
Player A "... I think I'm just going to go play Everquest, it at least gives me 4 different choices..."

The reason many of us play CORE is because it DOESN'T have all those codified rules - we don't need to have read 99 different rule sources and spend 4 hours a day on the Boards researching rules... We just tell the judge what we want our PC to do, and the JUDGE makes the ruling on how that works. Can we do XXXX? What procedure do I need to go thru to do it?

So... in answer to the OP...

"Can a Core PFS character attempt one of the Combat Maneuvers found in the Advanced Player's Guide (Dirty Trick, Drag, Reposition, or Steal)?"

the answer is - "sort of". the question would be better phrased as "Can a Core PFS character attempt as a Combat Maneuver something like a Dirty Trick, Drag, Reposition, or Steal Item?" and the answer would be - "Sure! If the judge rules that you can try it, and he will then tell you HOW it's done." If he then says "It's a DC 45 CMB check" your CORE character CANNOT then say "But according to the rules in the APG it should be...." because those rules aren't in CORE and you can't reference them.

This is the way it worked back before the APG was published and the way it works now when dealing with rules that are not part of the Standard game ...

If your PC wants to do something that there is no rule covering (in CORE or in Standard PFS) the judge HAS to rule how it works - even if that ruling is "you can't do that".

Picture this situation:

In the middle of combat PCA goes down. PCB wants to grab him and drag he out of harms way so that he can cast a Cure spell on him next round.
Player B: "I grab PCA and drag him to here..."
how does the judge respond
1) "Can't do that, those rules are in the APG and not in CORE, so you are not allowed to DRAG someone out of combat..."
2) "ah... that would give these guys AOOs on you and they roll...."

which way is going to be more fun for the players? Which way is playing the game?


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If Core PFS is meant to encourage new GMs to get into the game, then how can you expect them to have all the meta-knowledge about every PFS-legal rule in every PFS-legal supplement?

If I'm just getting started in Core, how can I possibly know the difference between a creative attempt to "throw dirt in their eyes" that has a rule somewhere else and a creative attempt to "throw dirt in their eyes" that has not yet been codified into a supplemental rule?

Scarab Sages 5/5

CrystalSeas wrote:

If Core PFS is meant to encourage new GMs to get into the game, then how can you expect them to have all the meta-knowledge about every PFS-legal rule in every PFS-legal supplement?

If I'm just getting started in Core, how can I possibly know the difference between a creative attempt to "throw dirt in their eyes" that has a rule somewhere else and a creative attempt to "throw dirt in their eyes" that has not yet been codified into a supplemental rule?

that's the beauty of CORE. Even for the judge, she doesn't need to know "difference between... a rule somewhere else ...(and one that) has not yet been codified into a supplemental rule"... because neither of those rules are in CORE, there isn't a rule to cover it, just guidelines. The judge just has to make a ruling that makes sense to her and get on with the game.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Steven Stewart wrote:

To reiterate: Non-Core maneuvers do not exist in Core. You cannot do them. You cannot cheat the system by trying to "do something unexpected" and expect the GM to go "Oh gee, he did something I didn't expect! Let me just abuse the system and allow this move from a Non-Core book!"

And how is a new GM supposed to know what is in other books and what isn't? Do new Core GMs have to learn ALL the rules so they know what has been codified and what hasn't? Doesn't that negate the idea of easing into GMing by starting with Core?

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

CrystalSeas --

Don't overthink this. Being a GM means doing the best that you can to give your characters a good game -- tell the story, bring the characters to life, and adjudicate the adventure to the best of your ability. There will be rules, even in CORE, that you might not know. That's okay. Make a ruling, look it up later. Apply what you learn to the next game.

I have players look up stuff for me all the time so that I can keep the game moving. I know a lot, but my rules knowledge isn't perfect. Each game, I get better and more confident. If you haven't GMed PFS, you should give it a try. Don't stress about minor gaps in knowledge.

You will make mistakes. I make mistakes. We all make mistakes from time to time, but we have great games anyway.

Hmm

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

CrystalSeas --

Don't overthink this. Being a GM means doing the best that you can to give your characters a good game -- tell the story, bring the characters to life, and adjudicate the adventure to the best of your ability. There will be rules, even in CORE, that you might not know. That's okay. Make a ruling, look it up later. Apply what you learn to the next game.

I have players look up stuff for me all the time so that I can keep the game moving. I know a lot, but my rules knowledge isn't perfect. Each game, I get better and more confident. If you haven't GMed PFS, you should give it a try. Don't stress about minor gaps in knowledge.

You will make mistakes. I make mistakes. We all make mistakes from time to time, but we have great games anyway.

Hmm

This is true as well.

What my point is, is that players and GM's have to meet in the middle. In situations like this, a player should understand that the maneuvers aren't core, and shouldn't try them in the first place. If they're new, if they don't know, well, that's a different story. Every table is different. For the players that do know, and try to defend their stance, are the ones you have to correct. Debates can make the game not fun. And that's the point.

The most important thing is to have fun. If the game becomes an argument, then no one wins. Keep the game moving, keep the dice rolling. Rules are important, so is having fun. As a GM, do what you have to in order to make it work while also following the rules, and the restrictions imposed on the table by the game. As a player, try to know what is and isn't allowed so that this debate doesn't even come up.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Stewart wrote:
In situations like this, a player should understand that the maneuvers aren't core, and shouldn't try them in the first place.
Quote:
The most important thing is to have fun.

Seems a little self-contradictory


As an additional thought, the first paragraph of the Combat Maneuvers section of the CRB is

Quote:
During combat, you can attempt to perform a number of maneuvers that can hinder or even cripple your foe, including bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder, and trip. Although these maneuvers have vastly different results, they all use a similar mechanic to determine success.

To me, the use of the word 'including' says this is not an exhaustive list of things that can be done. Therefore, attempting something else to "hinder or even cripple" would use the same rules.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Andy Brown wrote:
Steven Stewart wrote:
In situations like this, a player should understand that the maneuvers aren't core, and shouldn't try them in the first place.
Quote:
The most important thing is to have fun.
Seems a little self-contradictory

It's not self contradictory. They can't perform an APG maneuver, so they pick a different action and keep on chugging.

If your only mission to have fun during PFS is to do non-core actions, then why did you sit down at a Core table? That's contradictory.

If you want to have fun playing a build that uses non-core stuff, then play non-core. People who have fun playing Core enjoy the limitations. A lot of them have been playing so long that it's easy to make a barbarian who swings a falchion for 2d4+20 damage at level 4 and has a 15 foot reach. Core provides a challenge that makes them overcome obstacles without that barbarian. It makes the option pool limited with the express purpose of making the game harder, of making you come up with ways to beat the encounter without relying on more rules. Need to get something off a bad guy without killing him? Can't steal since it's Core, so have the monk beat him unconscious with non-lethal damage and then take it.

Core is limiting on purpose. Some people enjoy that. That's why they play it. Some people don't, so they play standard. It's all up to the player as to what they enjoy.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

And some of us have been playing long enough that "throwing dirt in the enemy's face" wasn't covered by the rules at all, so the GM made something up instead of telling us we couldn't do it.

I know which of those options is more fun.

At this point it's clear we're not going to agree on this.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Andy Brown wrote:

And some of us have been playing long enough that "throwing dirt in the enemy's face" wasn't covered by the rules at all, so the GM made something up instead of telling us we couldn't do it.

I know which of those options is more fun.

At this point it's clear we're not going to agree on this.

And I've been playing since THAC0 was a thing. That doesn't give me any more authority on the matter than anyone else. My point is that Core is meant to be a newer way to play, one that intentionally limits your options. By playing Core, you are acknowledging those limits. Yes, throwing dirt at one point wasn't covered by a rule. Well, now it is. And Core took that rule away.

I don't know how many more times I can say this:

If you don't like the limits Core imposes, don't play Core!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The issue is that there are those of us that believe that this is not a limit set by the Core Campaign.
I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Also: Roleplaying Guild Guide, Version 8, Page 12: "Creative Solutions"

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Andy Brown wrote:

The issue is that there are those of us that believe that this is not a limit set by the Core Campaign.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it.

I understand yours as well, I am only defending the position because of the rulings I have seen by those more versed in PFS than I.

*initiate agree to disagree handshake protocol*


*protocol accepted*

Shadow Lodge

Oh god, I can't believe I'm posting on this again, even after I promised to stop beating my head against the brick wall...

Steven Stewart wrote:
I understand yours as well, I am only defending the position because of the rulings I have seen by those more versed in PFS than I.

Just because others do it doesn't mean it's how things are supposed to work. I keep seeing people playing PFS online who ask the GM if they can just take the average roll for their CLW wand (and GMs who allow it) despite the fact that nothing in the rules allow for it. Does that mean it's legal? No.

I've pointed out that the Core restriction is clearly labeled "when building their characters". If you want to "defend the position", you need to cite something official that backs up your assertion that "when building their characters" actually means "for all things" (which is grammatically insane); otherwise you're just parroting back a potentially incorrect interpretation of the rule from a group of people who don't actually make the rules.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

Steven Stewart wrote:
Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:


For players participating in the Core Campaign, only the Core Rulebook, Character Traits Web Enhancement, and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play may be utilized for character creation.

At no time may any trait, feat, equipment, magic item, skill, animal companion, familiar, or any other character option come from a source beyond these three resources unless it appears on a Chronicle sheet. Race boons found on Chronicle sheets may not be used in the Core Campaign.

Actions are options.

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:


If a Core Rulebook option advises that something found in the Core Rulebook is clarified in the Bestiary 1, then the player uses that specific option out of the Bestiary 1 to meet the requirement set forth in the Core Rulebook. That would include, but is not limited to, animal companions, special abilities, summon spells, etc... Only the Bestiary 1 is available for these extra options outside of the Core Rulebook.

John has stated this multiple times, over a variety of things. Yes, this debate is a new one. But the precedent stands. If it isn't in the allowable books, then it isn't allowed.

Until John comes in and says otherwise, that's how it's going to be at my events.

Since you didn't catch it the first time I cited it, here ya go. This is the closest thing either one of us is going to be able to come up with either side of the debate until an official ruling is made. After this post, I'm done here until the design team clarifies. If we keep on, we're just going to end up repeating the same things over and over.

Happy New Years everyone!

Liberty's Edge 3/5

SCPRedMage wrote:

Oh god, I can't believe I'm posting on this again, even after I promised to stop beating my head against the brick wall...

Steven Stewart wrote:
I understand yours as well, I am only defending the position because of the rulings I have seen by those more versed in PFS than I.

Just because others do it doesn't mean it's how things are supposed to work. I keep seeing people playing PFS online who ask the GM if they can just take the average roll for their CLW wand (and GMs who allow it) despite the fact that nothing in the rules allow for it. Does that mean it's legal? No.

I've pointed out that the Core restriction is clearly labeled "when building their characters". If you want to "defend the position", you need to cite something official that backs up your assertion that "when building their characters" actually means "for all things" (which is grammatically insane); otherwise you're just parroting back a potentially incorrect interpretation of the rule from a group of people who don't actually make the rules.

I meant to say "defending the position with such righteous certainty that I am a holy paladin of the rules because I worship the mighty diety known as CRB (pronounced "Kerb"), and because my brothers in my faith bolster me with their holy opinions.

There. I made a funny. Now I'm out.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Core Combat Maneuvers? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.