|
. The paradigm I "HAVE to follow" is ruling in a way that I feel comfortable in ruling
No. You don't. You can get out of your comfort zone, recognize that your paradigm is questionable, and recognize that the need of players (because that's why we're here, for the players) to be able to play their characters comes before a need to pedantically dissect and overanalyze the tea leaves of grammer until the words go against their stated intent of letting someone charge with a lance.
|
. The paradigm I "HAVE to follow" is ruling in a way that I feel comfortable in rulingNo. You don't. You can get out of your comfort zone, recognize that your paradigm is questionable, and recognize that the need of players (because that's why we're here, for the players) to be able to play their characters comes before a need to pedantically dissect and overanalyze the tea leaves of grammer until the words go against their stated intent of letting someone charge with a lance.
BNW: I almost completely agree with you. There are a great many things that I think are broken where I still follow the rules in PFS.
Almost.
[Probably pedantic mode on]
But, at some level, I'll override the rules if I think it necessary to either preserve my sense of reality or to keep the game slightly balanced.
For example, I'll not allow Snow Cone wish machine under any circumstances. I think it is probably legal RAW but I just don't care. It isn't happening at any table I run. And yes, I'm willing to die on that hill and stop running PFS if somebody with authority calls me on it.
And I modify the perception rules outdoors. I just cannot play in a world where one can't see the sun or watch a football game (please lets not argue whether that is the right interpretation. I THINK it is and am WILLFULLY ignoring it). Again, a hill I'm willing to die on and stop running PFS before changing my ruling.
There is a limit to how "silly" things can get before the GM just can't function. The definition of silly and where that limit exists is going to vary wildly by GM but many (probably most, possibly all) of us have SOME limits.
[/Pedantic Mode]
|
oh, I certainly have a limit. But despite many of my posts on these boards over the last 6+ years leaning toward more conservative rulings, in practice I like to err on the side of the player. I post that way because when giving suggestions or commentary on rules, I feel its always safer to err on the conservative side, that way you don't lead someone into a potentially weird or frustrating table variation circumstance. But in practice, I prefer to let things work.
But my limit is when I get so completely shut down, that I may as well not even be there as the GM.
|
|
Yeah, I'm not sure what the perception example is all about. There are some things where no roll is necessary. Unless you specifically have bad enough eyesight to need glasses and don't have them, you can always watch a football game. You may need to make a perception or other roll to discern specific things about the game, however.
|
|
Given that I'm about the only person supporting Thomas at all I want to reiterate that I think the above is going WAY too far.Any people saying to ignore the rules of the game and to just "houserule" working mounted combat shouldn't GM PFS since that needs to follow the rules and official clarifications of those rules, which we have for mounted combat.
(Posting cause it's not about the topic)
Yeah, it that part was in response to this post.It would be dishonest of me to phrase this any less strenuously:
If you would rule at the table that it is impossible to charge on horseback with a lance, do not GM in Pathfinder Society.
That since they were going so strongly in stating that all or nothing view that I responded likewise to try and prove a point that his view and comment seemed rather silly and clearly not a true comment. Probably didn't come across like I intended. And I didn't directly quote since that post was kinda in response to lots of them at the time and I don't like doing multi-quotes if I can help it.
real view is, GMs are fine to rule on things as they see fit and feel is correct as long as there's no official clarification (which includes actual current book text) proving otherwise that is brought up. And most of the time anyone that "should not GM in Pathfinder Society" due to viewing a ruling a certain way, makes for a great and fine GM for PFS.
If anyone wants to try explaining via rules how it's legal to mounted charge with mismatched reach I'm willing to hear it and discuss via PM. Like I've said, my view is just how I feel the rules work with my understanding and that can change.
|
|
The sun is a light source and is thus autospotted.I really don't want to get into this. But I failed my will save.
No appreciation for the pun? Not even a groan?
You cannot hide in an area of bright light= autospotted.
So you think a candle can be seen from, say, 20 miles away? As can a firefly? I disagree.
No, you'll hit curvature of the earth golarion and gain total cover at that point...
Or you'll run into the more reasonable encounter distance rules
The rules will give you silly and (more importantly) CONTRADICTORY answers depending on which rule you start with, how you read it, and what line of logic you use to that conclusion. If i have to, i can start with the common sense answer and rules lawyer my way backwards through to the rule that gets me the answer i want (and 90% of the reason to do that would be as a joke and 10% would be as a rules exercise because i MIGHT have to give a rules smackdown to a rules lawyer questioning the answer)
But even for PFS when the rules don't cover something well I'm just going to eyeball it*. If i need to know how far away i can see a firefly from Im going to say a football field or two. A mile for a candle on a good night.
*Probably. I mean someone might have a character built around a weird rule, I'll probably go with it then as long as it's not too exploitative.
|
|
The sun is a light source and is thus autospotted.I really don't want to get into this. But I failed my will save.No appreciation for the pun? Not even a groan?
You cannot hide in an area of bright light= autospotted.
Sorry, I sincerely didn't get that was meant as a joke. Flew right past me.
The rules will give you silly and (more importantly) CONTRADICTORY answers
That was actually MY point :-). The perception rules for outdoors encounters at reasonable distances are completely and utterly broken to the point that just about every GM just ignores them and makes stuff up. Reasonable stuff, by and large.
But I've moved this from one silly argument to another. For which I apologize. We should get back to the mount stuff ;-)
|
|
That was actually MY point :-). The perception rules for outdoors encounters at reasonable distances are completely and utterly broken to the point that just about every GM just ignores them and makes stuff up. Reasonable stuff, by and large.
The irony is when you make a reasonable judgement call, that judgement call is MORE likely to be the right rule (or at least right according to A rule) than hyper analyzing the rules minutia.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be dishonest of me to phrase this any less strenuously:
If you would rule at the table that it is impossible to charge on horseback with a lance, do not GM in Pathfinder Society.
Any people saying to ignore the rules of the game and to just "houserule" working mounted combat shouldn't GM PFS since that needs to follow the rules and official clarifications of those rules, which we have for mounted combat.
That since they were going so strongly in stating that all or nothing view that I responded likewise to try and prove a point that his view and comment seemed rather silly and clearly not a true comment.
Sure, tu quoque is fair play or whatever, but the difference between my claim that ruling lance charges are impossible shows poor judgement and your apparent claim that the opposite does is that literally[1] everyone but you rules that lance charges are possible.
If anyone wants to try explaining via rules how it's legal to mounted charge with mismatched reach I'm willing to hear it and discuss via PM. Like I've said, my view is just how I feel the rules work with my understanding and that can change.
Tallow's got a good one in the middle of the first page of this thread.
1) I'll retract the "literally" based on evidence that anyone else rules this way, but I've not seen any.
|
Q: Can the mount move, READY action to move again after rider full round attack? This will circumvent the -4 penalty. By right, Eidolon uses a separate initsNo. Seperate initiatives are separate AND sequential. 'Ready' is an action (readying an action) unto itself. The Mount can do this but it will occur in the following round. Yes, that seems confusing. It is the GMs job to interpret what the players ask for and adjudicate fairly, faithfully trying to do what they request within the rules. You can say, "yes, your ready will likely go off next round."
This is incorrect, per the Mounted Combat rules in the Combat section your mount acts on your initiative. This is very clearly stated. Link to PRD
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the other solution within PFS is to use the FAQ on Animals.
** spoiler omitted **If it is a mount it may only take move actions, not ready an action.
If it an eidolon or 'active pet' it has a separate initiative score.
Absolutely not. This is not what the rule says or how it works.
Your combat animal can be a mount. The FAQ absolutely 150% did not invalidate every mounted combat build by equivocating mount "the thing you ride" to "mount, can only take move actions."
You get one combat critter. It has its full action alotment nothing prevents you from riding this.
You get one pretty pretty pony. This creature can only take move actions.
You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.
|
|
please read above where
It was read. It was considered. It was dismissed with extreme prejudice on it's merits. The problem is neither my attentiveness nor my reading comprehension.
The problem is that you're invalidating peoples builds with a wonky as hell overly literal meaning and rules lawyering. Not the rules. Not what it says. Your personal interpretation and argument about what the rules say.
The issue is it is an eidolon acting AS a mount.so you can not have it both ways. So you get one of the following;
If an active creature is acting as a mount it has a separate initiative and the above rule conflict resolves due to that fact.
If it is a mount it cannot ready an action and the above rule conflict resolves.
This is patently untrue. You can in fact have it both ways. In fact eidolons have abilities specifically to make them usable as combat mounts.
You CAN designate the eidolon as your combat critter. If you ride on it, it will act on your initiative.
What you can't do is designate your eidolon as a combat critter, have it run around the battlefield, and then charge into battle on a trained war tiger.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why druids can't have ranks in profession: personal trainer.I once played with another player whose pocket scorpion was actually a codpiece scorpion, it helped motivate him to act faster.
You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.
Chad the Druid: Not saying I will turn into a large bear and maul you if you do not give me another 10 reps, but I am a level 12 Druid, you do the math.
|
|
you have 3 animal tiers
full companion
thing that takes move actions
sir not appearing
now the labeling of these tiers with the move action one called "mount" has no correlation to what you have an how you use it in game other than the actions it can do.
So you full companion can be a mount like it always could be and you just don't have a "mount" tier companion.
Just because same words are used doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing.
|
|
Q: Can the mount move, READY action to move again after rider full round attack? This will circumvent the -4 penalty. By right, Eidolon uses a separate initsNo. Seperate initiatives are separate AND sequential. 'Ready' is an action (readying an action) unto itself. The Mount can do this but it will occur in the following round. Yes, that seems confusing. It is the GMs job to interpret what the players ask for and adjudicate fairly, faithfully trying to do what they request within the rules. You can say, "yes, your ready will likely go off next round."This is incorrect, per the Mounted Combat rules in the Combat section your mount acts on your initiative. This is very clearly stated. Link to PRD
Your mount acts on your initiative count as you direct it. You move at its speed, but the mount uses its action to move.The issue is it is an eidolon acting AS a mount. It either has separate initiative(eidolon) or not(mount), not a mixture. That decision should be made at the start of the game which is why I said "Seperate initiatives are separate AND sequential."(spelling)
My point is that if character A is on mount M at initiative count I, Mount M takes a move and then readies an action (standard action) and its round is over. Taking the readied action lowers M's initiative(be it a standard action, move action, or free action), IMO in this case to I-1. The confusion comes in as A & M act together, and the initiative rules assume each initiative is separate and sequential. Acting on the same initiative count is not a delay and that is the penalty for a readied action, thus the minimal delay is 1 in the initiative count. Next round if A and M wish to act together on initiative I-1, A must Delay.
Slavishly applying just part of the rules would...
I don't agree with this. If a creature is being used as a mount, it uses the mount rules. It doesn't matter if its an eidolon, animal companion, mount class feature, etc.
|
|
the other solution within PFS is to use the FAQ on Animals.
** spoiler omitted **If it is a mount it may only take move actions, not ready an action.
If it an eidolon or 'active pet' it has a separate initiative score.
I think I know what you are trying to communicate. But you are doing so in a very confusing way.
You keep saying that a mount can only take move actions.
But that isn't strictly true. I think you are using the term mount, to refer to a purchased animal that's only purpose for existence on your character sheet item list, is that you ride it around.
But when you use it in this sort of conversation, it makes it feel like you are saying that any animal companion, mount class feature, eidolon, etc. would be restricted to move actions only if you used that creature as a mount.
Can you clarify and please use more clear terms in the future?
|
|
please read above wherethe other solution within PFS is to use the FAQ on Animals.
** spoiler omitted **If it is a mount it may only take move actions, not ready an action.
If it an eidolon or 'active pet' it has a separate initiative score.
Absolutely not. This is not what the rule says or how it works.
Your combat animal can be a mount. The FAQ absolutely 150% did not invalidate every mounted combat build by equivocating mount "the thing you ride" to "mount, can only take move actions."
You get one combat critter. It has its full action alotment nothing prevents you from riding this.
You get one pretty pretty pony. This creature can only take move actions.
You get one pocket scorpion. It sits in your robes and gives you a small static bonus.
The issue is it is an eidolon acting AS a mount.so you can not have it both ways. So you get one of the following;
If an active creature is acting as a mount it has a separate initiative and the above rule conflict resolves due to that fact.
If it is a mount it cannot ready an action and the above rule conflict resolves.GMs allow mounts that are active creatures to act with their rider as we don't want to hamper game flow (duh). There are times you need those rules to say no and the above Ready action on a simultaneous initiative is such a case.
This does not work this way. You are conflating a PFS FAQ to clarify what types of creatures you can have active at any given time, and how mounted combat works.
|
|
you have 3 animal tiers
full companion
thing that takes move actions
sir not appearingnow the labeling of these tiers with the move action one called "mount" has no correlation to what you have an how you use it in game other than the actions it can do.
So you full companion can be a mount like it always could be and you just don't have a "mount" tier companion.
Just because same words are used doesn't mean they are talking about the same thing.
this is a rare moment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm noting this for review in one of our upcoming organized play team meetings.
I think that would be very helpful. Some of the issues in which I have table variation where it might be helpful to have a Campaign Clarification (or, even better yet, a Pathfinder supplement like a Mounted Combat Toolbox), are the following:
1) What happens when the rider has reach and the mount does not? The answers I have seen are: a) the rider attacks and the charge stops, so the mount does not attack; b) the rider attacks at reach and the mount continues to move until it can also attack; and c) neither may attack because they cannot complete the charge simultaneously.
2) How is this affected by Ride-By Attack and can a mount also attack and continue to move after the rider takes a Ride-By Attack? The answers to this I have seen are a) the rider may attack when he has reach, the charge continues until the mount may attack, and then stops; b) the rider and mount may both attack as soon as each is able to reach the target and then they can continue movement after the attack; and c) only the rider may attack if there is going to be movement after the attack.
Frankly, these are really issues that are not PFS-specific, so it would probably be better if the Development team issued a FAQ, as has been requested before. Thanks for your help in getting this addressed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the game breaks something as mundane, straightforward, and realistic as charging someone with a lance that's on the game.
No, no it's really not. If your interpretation of the ambiguity in the rules is so rigid that it breaks something that the rules obviously imply is possible, then it's the interpretation that's wrong. And that's on you.
|
If your interpretation of the ambiguity in the rules is so rigid that it breaks something that the rules obviously imply is possible, then it's the interpretation that's wrong.
^ a thousand times this.
Related to that point is THIS related thread over in the Rules Forum.
TLDR; original poster believes that it's impossible for a Fighter riding a horse to ever charge with a lance, and then claims that it's "very problematic and unrealistic".
Would be much easier to assume it works rather than argue an extreme interpretation that assumes it's broken.