Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.
Sounds like you tried to rule according to, well, the rules.
However, do note that you should not expect rules to emulate reality particularly well. The system quickly breaks down that path.
So you're saying he was standing on 8 inches of ground right?
If you weren't forcing them to do acrobatics checks to balance then the rogue should have no penalties. But if they are making acrobatics checks to balance then they are denied dex to AC.
But I agree with your players, you making up rules on the fly cause you think it should work a certain way would make me very upset. That's like playing a game of checkers with a 4 year old that makes up rules as they play. You expected a normal game of checkers, but what you got was just play time with a 4 year old.
So it's wrong to demand realism, ON THE FLY. If you want realism you need to either make an official house rule before a game saying how things work, OR you make an official house rule that goes into effect after the current game.
The other option is to prepare better beforehand to find rules that might apply and be ready to quote them when you apply the rule, OR be ready to pause in a game looking for a rule before continuing on. It really is a pretty bad move to go "I'm the GM I think it should work like this now so it is going to."
No rule no dice, look it up afterwards and maybe apply the correct rule or houserule in future games.
What is the rest of the party composed of? The rogue is not normally the damage dealer in a party. One thing I would tell the players is that the game rewards those who specialize, so if they want to be good at damage, they have to focus on it.
Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.Sounds like you tried to rule according to, well, the rules.
However, do note that you should not expect rules to emulate reality particularly well. The system quickly breaks down that path.
But if he wasn't making them make acrobatics checks then this rule doesn't apply. So he probably should have been and then citing this source for why. But just making up rules on the fly and then validating them afterwards will make for very unhappy players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do not single out players. It will make them upset.
As for not finding the rules quickly enough here is my suggestion:
Take some time to try to find the rule, and have the group help you. If it takes too long then let them know you will make a ruling for now, but that you will try to find the actual rule later.
If you need help then come to the rules section and ask here.
Do not single out players. It will make them upset.
As for not finding the rules quickly enough here is my suggestion:
Take some time to try to find the rule, and have the group help you. If it takes too long then let them know you will make a ruling for now, but that you will try to find the actual rule later.
If you need help then come to the rules section and ask here.
See, I strongly suggest that if it's applying penalties to not do it until vetting it afterwards. If it's about something a player is trying and wanting to do then it's fine to make a ruling on the spot if needed.
But it's very annoying to be in a game and be expecting one thing and have the GM go, okay I think you take a -8 to your attack there, but I can't find the rule, but I'm going to enforce that penalty for now anyways and you miss. Probably should have tried something more useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the rule system as an attempt to quantify reality with the addition of magic
This statement will hurt your heard a lot if you hold to it. Pathfinder/3.5 rules are not attempting to be realistic except for magic. Maybe "generally", "somewhat", "loosely", etc. realistic are better terms.
You will come across a lot of places where realism isn't there. See pretty much every (Ex) ability just to start, then look to lack of facing, then to diagonal movement, then to 5ft squares (which are just there to make maps and tactical movement convenient), etc...
They are just there to provide some structure to play a game without trying to overthink it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do not single out players. It will make them upset.
As for not finding the rules quickly enough here is my suggestion:
Take some time to try to find the rule, and have the group help you. If it takes too long then let them know you will make a ruling for now, but that you will try to find the actual rule later.
If you need help then come to the rules section and ask here.See, I strongly suggest that if it's applying penalties to not do it until vetting it afterwards. If it's about something a player is trying and wanting to do then it's fine to make a ruling on the spot if needed.
But it's very annoying to be in a game and be expecting one thing and have the GM go, okay I think you take a -8 to your attack there, but I can't find the rule, but I'm going to enforce that penalty for now anyways and you miss. Probably should have tried something more useful.
I think that would be corner case for a penalty that large, but I think you are just trying to use an example.
I agree that doing something that is negative to the PC is not a good idea. I made my comment under the impression of a "how does it work" type situation.
I am siding with the player in the case of penalties because letting them live is not going to cause nearly as much trouble as killing or penalizing a PC based on a mistake that the GM made, and not dying or being penalized is generally more fun.
If the player got a "freebie" then it can be noted that the freebie wont happen again due to the rules being found.
PS: For the OP, if the player is trying to be creative then let them know that their actions need to be supported by the rules or they are subject to whatever you think is appropriate. Them knowing the rules is also part of them running a character. If they can find the rules it can help you not make an improper ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I created a path winding around a mountain top, and had a large part of it missing, leaving an 8 inch ledge for the PCs to use. As the rogue rounded the corner (he was scouting) there were 4 skeletal archer pcs past the fallen part. I informed him that he wasn't getting his dex bonus to ac because of the narrow confinded space. He argued that he could do matrix moves (his comparison), essentially just leaning to the ground forwards or backwards.
As Blymurkia notes, it is per rules that an 8 inch ledge would require a DC 10 Acrobatics check and they would lose their Dex to AC.
If they wanted to retain their Dex to AC, they would need the rogue talent Ledge Walker (there is also a version for Unchained Rogue).
I agree with others that trying to apply realism to the Pathfinder rules when making judgement calls will cause problems. There are things in the rules that are far harder to do than in reality (such as a kip up) and other things that the rules allow but have no basis in reality.
I am also surprised that the Rogue has been outpacing all the other characters in the party. Could you please give us a basic breakdown of what the party composition is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I also didn't want the rest of the group to feel like they were worthless (he was soloing zombies)
This guy sounds like a classic pow-
(he was soloing zombies)
:|
rest of the group ... worthless ... soloing zombies
:/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We could definitely use a little more context here in terms of the party composition and also how experienced the players are.
If the rogue is an experienced player who knows how to build a character and has a good handle on the rules, then it's not that surprising for them to be soloing beginner zombies/skeletons. High initiative+sneak attack vs rigor mortis can make for an easy rogue challenge.
Meanwhile, if the rest of the group doesn't really know how to handle themselves or their characters and are prone to poor strategic choices (firing into melee without precise shot, casting in melee, etc) then yes, the rest of the party is going to feel useless.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I agree with your players, you making up rules on the fly cause you think it should work a certain way would make me very upset. That's like playing a game of checkers with a 4 year old that makes up rules as they play. You expected a normal game of checkers, but what you got was just play time with a 4 year old.
As a GM, you're constantly designing encounter areas, unique monsters, new magic items and what not. Those aren't always going to follow the rules completely. And you can't share their rule with the players before the campaign starts, because the rules haven been made yet.
What is bad is to use made-up, new house rules as a sort of gotch moment. »Haha, you don't have your Dex to AC! Now I can hit you!«. That's very bad GMing.
Moorningstaar should inform the players before combat begins on what rules govern the encounter. Tell them what constitutes difficult terrain, what symbols mean etc. Tell them that anyone walking the ledge is flat-footed. If a player challenge Moorningstaar on this, fine, you could go looking for a rules quote. But it's equally fine that Moorningstaar says »I don't have a rules quote at the moment, we'll have to look it up afterwards. But this is how this encounter is going to work, it's what I've planed.« That is a strong cue that Moorningstaar has made an encounter with the PCs in mind, that it is balanced and intended to be challenging. If there's any trust between players and GM, the players should roll with it.
Now, roleplaying is hard. Maybe Moorningstaar, being a beginner GM, forgot to inform the player about the flat-footed rule. That happens. Even to experienced GMs. It should be handled by backing up. Rewinding. The player should be given the option to have the PC avoid the ledge, perhaps sniping from behind the corner instead. Or retreating to get the party to help (which would have accomplished what Moorningstaar set out to do - involve every player).
_____
It sounds to me, Moorningstaar, as if you've got a problematic player. Perhaps a beginner, like yourself? Though some never learn ... Throwing a hissy fit and threatening to leave because a single rule decision made it harder for his PC? That's not exactly good gaming. Now, I don't know how this played out. There might be mitigating circumstances, like if you didn't allow his PC to avoid the ledge once you informed him about the rule.
Out-of-character problems should always be handled as such. Talk to this player. Inform him about the fact that you're not out to get him, you're trying to create varied challenges that let every player shine. Remind him that most classes have weaknesses - wizards have spellbooks that can be taken away, most martials rely heavily on weapons that can be sundered, all spellcasters struggle in dead magic zones. It's dickish to overuse these tactics, but a good GM is well within her right to try them occasionally.
I also want to echo wraithstrike. The rogue class, or at least the core rogue (he isn't playing an unchained rogue, is he?) is considered a very weak class. A rogue needs sneak attack to deal relevant damage, but sneak attack is unreliable (you're not normally always able to flank, core rogue sneak attack doesn't work if the target has concealment and there are several monsters who are immune to sneak attacks, like elementals). Further, rogues have not-that-great-HP, bad Fort and Will saves and aren't known to have sky-high AC either. If a rogue is dominating your game, there might be something that's a bit off. Perhaps a faulty rules interpretation that has greatly increased the reliability of sneak attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
House rules are fine, but they should always be stated well in advance. Most of the time they should be stated before the campaign begins. If not they should be stated before the encounter begins. This is of course assuming that this is something you planed. If the player does (and they will) something unexpected come up with a temporary ruling and let them know that you will make a decision after the game. If you are not familiar with a rule and make something up that is a house rule. If what you decided is latter backed up by fact at that point it is not a house rule, but during the encounter it should be treated as such including giving advance warning.
From the sound of it you knew what the player’s tactics were going to be and how he would react. It also sounds as if you had already decided what you wanted to do. Did you inform the player of the rules of the encounter beforehand? AT the very least you should have warned him of the fact he was not getting his DEX to AC when first got on the ledge. Did you also require the other players to make acrobatics rolls when they crossed the ledge?
From what I can see you did not make any mistakes in apply the rules. But how you did it may have created problems when there should be none.
If you are having problems balancing a particular character the first thing to do is to read up on the rules they are using. Often times this will give you enough options to handle the character. The more you go into house rules the more chances of conflict. As a GM you should be at least as familiar with your player’s characters as they are. Look up the rules for their class abilities and feats and skills they will be using.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's my point Blymurkla, avoiding those gotcha moments.
Creating a unique rule breaking item or something is fine, that's just part of the game.
Creating mechanics that this ledge stuff will deny dex is fine (assuming the real rules didn't), IF the players know about it before having to deal with the ledge. But they shouldn't be on the ledge when they find out that the ledge was penalizing them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...but I do believe the intention is to create rules that emulate reality as much as possible while not over-complicating the game.
Sorry, I strongly disagree with this and believe it will cause you problems.
The rules create a reality of their own.
A reality where gauntlets take a penalty for using them underwater, but spiked gauntlets (being piercing weapons) take no penalties. Neither do Spiked Chains.
I see nothing realistic in hit points, falling damage, crafting where how long the task takes is dependent on the value of the item, or any of a multitude of other things in the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even if we assume that BretI is wrong and that the rules are trying to emulate reality (and there is a case to be made for that: right here on the forums we can find old posts from SKR noting that they did real-world tests to determine how skills should work, for example), it's still going to be a problem. That is, even if the rules mirror reality, treating the rules as if the mirror reality is going to be a bad road to go down.
Why? Because of what we see here:
I informed him that he wasn't getting his dex bonus to ac because of the narrow confinded space. He argued that he could do matrix moves (his comparison), essentially just leaning to the ground forwards or backwards.
If "reality" is what rules the day, and if "reality" is what wins the debate, then players will constantly argue about how realistic something is in order to gain an advantage. If it's a game of rules and you end every debate with "I'm just going to follow the rule, even if it's unrealistic and stupid, so that we have something stable to work with," then there isn't really much arguing to be had. I mean, sure the player argued that it would be "more realistic" to do something, but the rules say no, so the answer is no. (Or yes, if the rules say yes.)
The moment you put realism above rules, players get to use that too. They get to say "That's not realistic," and argue about what IS realistic. And of course, their interpretation will serve their own purpose. They will argue in favor of their own circumstance. And you've got a precedent that says realism wins, so if they can beat your rules into submission by citing realism, they will. They will do it ALL. THE. TIME.
Because that's the system you put in front of them.
Of course, you might argue that a player suggesting he "matrix move" is absolutely zero realism, and therefore my point is wrong. However, not to that player. That player is arguing what's sensible and favorable to him. He's trying to get an advantage and believes in his argument. That's why he's making that argument. So even if you don't feel that he's arguing realism, he does. And he's going to keep doing it, because that's what you've shown works.
Frankly, sounds like a nightmare, but this is your burden to bear because you've said you must for a secret reason. So, tough it out. Good luck.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most RPG rule systems are designed to model reality in the sense that they are intended to take the actions players want their PCs to take and make them able to be adjudicated with consistency and decent playability. But it's important to note that the realities they model aren't necessarily exactly the same as our reality. They're genre realities and should reflect the sensibilities of the genre. Toon models a very different reality from D&D, which is different from Call of Cthulhu, which models a very different reality from Mutants and Masterminds, which is very different from Pendragon, etc. And still all of these depend on some basic expectations from our own reality as well, just different amounts varying from genre to genre.
So it's not really whether or not the player's idea of some kind of Matrix move is realistic in general (in action movies, very little really is) but does it seem to fit the genre.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is a rogue talent that specifically allows them to walk ledges without losing Dex to AC -- Ledge Walker.
I rule that without that talent, they lose Dex to AC when going across narrow ledges.
Consider that at 4th level (when rogues get Uncanny Dodge) they would only be picking up their second rogue talent. Does it really make sense to have the only thing the talent gives them is a faster movement speed in a very special case at that point?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flat-footed is not the same as being denied Dexterity to your AC.
Flat-Footed
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.
Flat-footed is a special condition gained at the start of combat before a character has taken their turn. Rogues with Uncanny Dodge are immune to this condition.
Rogues with Uncanny Dodge are not immune to being denied Dexterity to AC for other reasons. Such scenarios include climbing, balancing on a narrow ledge, being blind, and other cases. Each of these have their own specific counters (a climb speed, the ledge walker rogue talent, blind-fight, etc) but aren't prevented by Uncanny Dodge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Flat-footed is not the same as being denied Dexterity to your AC.
Flat-Footed
A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed character loses his Dexterity bonus to AC and Combat Maneuver Defense (CMD) (if any) and cannot make attacks of opportunity, unless he has the Combat Reflexes feat or Uncanny Dodge class ability.
Characters with Uncanny Dodge retain their Dexterity bonus to their AC and can make attacks of opportunity before they have acted in the first round of combat.
Flat-footed is a special condition gained at the start of combat before a character has taken their turn. Rogues with Uncanny Dodge are immune to this condition.
Rogues with Uncanny Dodge are not immune to being denied Dexterity to AC for other reasons. Such scenarios include climbing, balancing on a narrow ledge, being blind, and other cases. Each of these have their own specific counters (a climb speed, the ledge walker rogue talent, blind-fight, etc) but aren't prevented by Uncanny Dodge.
The Acrobatics skill does specifically say that a character caught balancing is 'flat-footed' though not simply that they lose their Dex to AC, and Uncanny Dodge specifically prevents a rogue from being caught flat-footed. RAW a character with Uncanny Dodge doesn't lose Dex to AC while balancing.
There is a rogue talent that specifically allows them to walk ledges without losing Dex to AC -- Ledge Walker.
I rule that without that talent, they lose Dex to AC when going across narrow ledges.
Consider that at 4th level (when rogues get Uncanny Dodge) they would only be picking up their second rogue talent. Does it really make sense to have the only thing the talent gives them is a faster movement speed in a very special case at that point?
Lots of Rogue talents aren't very good and/or are very narrow in focus, particularly the ones in the CRB.
The Paizo design team are the same people who Published Prone shooter, a feat that gave you the ability to do something that the rules already specifically gave you the ability to do.
Lots of good Rogue Archetypes swap out Uncanny Dodge, so Ledge Walker would be slightly better for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.
Emphasis mine.
Seems to apply both the flat-footed condition, as well as denying Dexterity to AC, by RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.Emphasis mine.
Seems to apply both the flat-footed condition, as well as denying Dexterity to AC, by RAW.
I suppose that it can be read that way if you really want it to. I read it as a reiteration of what happens to your Dex to AC when flat-footed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
but I do believe the intention is to create rules that emulate reality as much as possible while not over-complicating the game.
That is not the case at all. Now in the absence of rules, you as the GM are welcome to make up any rules you wish, but you need to be aware that it might cause balance issues. Making a realistic ruling can cause other issues. I don't even like on the spot rulings because they can have unintended effects that I had not thought of, and with you having a more experienced player you should definitely not do this. If he is really good then he will find a way to use it against you. Then you will have to change the rule again. This can lead to him feeling like you are targeting him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that it can be read that way if you really want it to. I read it as a reiteration of what happens to your Dex to AC when flat-footed.Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.Emphasis mine.
Seems to apply both the flat-footed condition, as well as denying Dexterity to AC, by RAW.
Your reading makes a situational rogue talent even less useful. Barbarians and skalds also get Uncanny Dodge but I don't see why that should make them better on narrow ledges.
The other reading makes it protect the rogue's AC bonus in that case. I took it on my rogue to prevent the situational loss of AC and to turn a disadvantageous situation into an advantageous one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that it can be read that way if you really want it to. I read it as a reiteration of what happens to your Dex to AC when flat-footed.Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.Emphasis mine.
Seems to apply both the flat-footed condition, as well as denying Dexterity to AC, by RAW.
Given the number of abilities that state that you lose the Dodge bonuses to AC when you lose your Dex bonus I tend to concur.
Basic AC rules:
Dodge bonuses represent actively avoiding blows. Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses.
Dodge feat:
Benefit: You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefits of this feat.
Mobility feat:
Benefit: You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules cannot fully model reality, so applying a situational +2 or -2 to something when it makes sense is totally something a GM can do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm an old-school GM, and am a bit more free-form than many Pathfinder GMs. My philosophy is that the purpose of the game is to have fun while telling a good story collectively.
Arguing about the rules is decidely NOT fun.
When rules issues come up, my rule-of-thumb is to make a table ruling, move on with the encounter, and then look up the real rule between sessions. If I was wrong, I make a note of it for next time, but I rarely if ever retcon encounters after-the-fact, even if my interpretation was wrong.
As for interpreting the rules: I think that "rules as intended" is more important than "rules as written" and run my games accordingly. Likewise, aapplying a certain amount of common sense in a given situation is perfectly justified. And when the players come up with a situation that the rules don't address directly, my instinct is to say, "Yes, and..."
And if the player comes up with an awesome, off-the-wall idea... I invoke the Rule of Cool and say, "Go for it!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that it can be read that way if you really want it to. I read it as a reiteration of what happens to your Dex to AC when flat-footed.Check: You can use Acrobatics to move on narrow surfaces and uneven ground without falling. A successful check allows you to move at half speed across such surfaces—only one check is needed per round. Use the following table to determine the base DC, which is then modified by the Acrobatics skill modifiers noted below. While you are using Acrobatics in this way, you are considered flat-footed and lose your Dexterity bonus to your AC (if any). If you take damage while using Acrobatics, you must immediately make another Acrobatics check at the same DC to avoid falling or being knocked prone.Emphasis mine.
Seems to apply both the flat-footed condition, as well as denying Dexterity to AC, by RAW.
Your reading makes a situational rogue talent even less useful. Barbarians and skalds also get Uncanny Dodge but I don't see why that should make them better on narrow ledges.
The other reading makes it protect the rogue's AC bonus in that case. I took it on my rogue to prevent the situational loss of AC and to turn a disadvantageous situation into an advantageous one.
Bad news then, by the reading of the rule that the flat-footed condition and denial of DEX to AC while balancing under the acrobatics skill are two separate penalties, Ledge Walker does not protect your DEX to AC while balancing either. It only prevents you from becoming flat-footed.
Ledge Walker (Ex): This ability allows a rogue to move along narrow surfaces at full speed using the Acrobatics skill without penalty. In addition, a rogue with this talent is not flat-footed when using Acrobatics to move along narrow surfaces.
It's a Rogue talent that lets you move at full speed while balancing, it has a bonus benefit for a very low level Rogue that takes it, or one who swaps out Uncanny Dodge for an Archetype.
Bad news then, by the reading of the rule that the flat-footed condition and denial of DEX to AC while balancing under the acrobatics skill are two separate penalties, Ledge Walker does not protect your DEX to AC while balancing either. It only prevents you from becoming flat-footed.
Ledge Walker (Ex): This ability allows a rogue to move along narrow surfaces at full speed using the Acrobatics skill without penalty. In addition, a rogue with this talent is not flat-footed when using Acrobatics to move along narrow surfaces.It's a Rogue talent that lets you move at full speed while balancing, it has a bonus benefit for a very low level Rogue that takes it, or one who swaps out Uncanny Dodge for an Archetype.
I hadn't noticed that. Guess they changed the wording for the unchained rogue.
This ability allows a rogue to move along narrow, uneven, or slippery surfaces (such as ice) at full speed using the Acrobatics skill without penalty. In addition, a rogue with this talent is not flat-footed when using Acrobatics to move along such surfaces, and retains her Dexterity bonus to AC.
In any case, this isn't the rules forum so it is about time to drop this side-conversation.
---
To the original poster, a lot of what Haladir said above is excellent advice.
There are sections of the rules that will be unclear or even poorly worded. When there are multiple ways to interpret something, go with what seems to be the intent. Check if one interpretation seems to be significantly more powerful than what other characters are capable of at that level, or so weak as to be nearly useless.
Also, keep any rules discussion during the game short. Few things can cause players to lose interest as quickly as a rules argument.
Also, it's good to prepare notes for yourself in advance when there's a ticklish bit in an adventure where you might need a reference. I know I spend a lot of my prep time as GM studying the rules so I don't unintentionally fubar the RAW.
As an example, in my last session I had an underground encounter planned for my group of 12th level adventurers. It was a Roper, clinging to the ceiling, hiding among stalactites using them as low cover to hide as the party crossed a fast flowing underground river across a rope bridge next to a waterfall.
In this case, I had to prepare notes for the following:
Roper's stats
Rules for the Pull universal monster ability
Rules for Acrobatics to cross a wet rope bridge
Rules for climbing across ceiling
Rules for catching yourself when falling
Rules for falling into water
Swim skill rules
Environment rules for flowing water to avoid being swept away
Rules for rescuing a character in flowing water
Predicted interactions between the player's normal tactics and all the above rules
All for one encounter. I printed about three A4 pages of notes beforehand with relevant excerpts from the rules to have as reference during the game.
And even with all this preparation, I still had to make rulings on the fly. One of the players, dangling from the roper's strands over the water, declared he wanted to try and climb up the strand to reach melee distance with the roper. I made a snap judgement call and decided it was the same as a Climb check to climb a knotted rope with a +2 circumstance bonus for the stickiness of the strand.
...
One of the things that I've insisted upon from the beginning is that what the characters can do should make sense. I see the rule system as an attempt to quantify reality with the addition of magic.
...
Is it right to demand realism,... ?
The short answer is that it is NOT right to demand realism.
Realism seems like a good idea at low levels. Rogues and fighters seem to dominate, especially in combat, and most tasks the party face are fairly reality based. The problem is, the game changes drastically as the party levels up. The challenges the party face go from generally mundane at low levels to preposterous superhero stuff, and that isn't even getting into the highest levels of the game where PCs wield the power of demigods. Or to be more precise - some of the characters are like godlings (full casters), others are stuck in the world of realism (non-casters). You can't hold wizards and clerics spells to reality, you can only hold the non-casters to reality.
Here is a humorous demonstration of what that looks like in play:
The Angel Summoner and the BMX Bandit
Now, with that said, you should give up on holding the characters to "reality", but not give up on running a game that makes sense. There should be a logic and consistency to the game world, but should not be based on actual reality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we've been playing that anything that removes your dex bonus to ac makes you flat footed. It sounds, based on some of the things you guys have been saying that this is not the case.
Like many issues that can arise in the game, it is confusing and debatable. Lot's of rules are that way, and honestly, that isn't changing anytime soon. Even if every rule was crystal clear, no one could remember them all. You will always run into situations that require you to make the best decision you can, and as fast as possible. The key is to make the decisions in a way that your players will have faith in, and you will enjoy running the game. That is absolutely more important then being "right".
Here are a few things to keep in mind when adjudicating a troublesome rule:
Settle out-of-game problems out-of-game, and in-game problems in-game.
Try to be generous to your players, the story, and the "rule of cool".
Try to be consistent with your rulings and the game world.
Don't try to fix ongoing problems with on-the-fly rulings.
Be ready to admit you are wrong, and rule differently in the future.
Remember that the way you run your game is largely based on precedent. If you allow a player to argue over a ruling, you are saying that all of your rulings are up for debate. On the other hand, if you rigidly enforce a ruling that was a poor decision, that is probably worse.
In my own games, I'm fine with a player saying "but, I thought it worked differently." I will consider it, and check the book if it is vital, but then make a ruling that I expect to stand. Occasionally, something will come up that requires further discussion, but generally, any issues should be saved for after the encounter or end of the session.
Finally, some types of players/GMs are simply not compatible. Everyone has fun in their own way, and plays for their own reasons. If you have consistent, recurring problems, you might need to switch GMs, or even find a different group. Although this issue seems pretty common and you should be able to come to a resolution that works for everyone.
I feel like the game tries to be realistic in a very simplistic way, mainly low levels, but even a few levels after first it greatly decreases. Anything that doesn't make sense I usually chalk it up as a bad ruling, not them trying to make a world of weird physics.
I disagree with the notion that martial characters are only ones bound by reality. You got monks dodging and catching bullets even at low levels levels, a barbarian can throw cars or even boulders the size of cars by 12th level (or 8th if enlarged and moreso at 12th) which can easily weigh tens of tons, have arrows, bolts, and bullets bounce off their flesh, or smash the ground made up of any material to create difficult terrain.
Sure, the fighter is pretty much the class that only has "I attack" as an option in combat, but any high level fighter can fall from the sky and have a mountain smashed on them and be fine. Which I believe is a feature of the game, not a bug.
Sorry that I didn't exactly try to help the OP, but I might end up repeating what everyone else is saying.
So we've been playing that anything that removes your dex bonus to ac makes you flat footed. It sounds, based on some of the things you guys have been saying that this is not the case.
Being flat-footed denies you Dex to AC and prevents you from making attacks of opportunity. Some things that only call out denying you Dex to AC (like Feint, for example) don't make you flat-footed, so you could still make an AoO.