| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, your GM is severely over estimating the degree to which your anathema applies.
It means that they'll never back down from a fight where they're specifically called out, and will jump at the opportunity to test their strength in feats of endurance and might.
It does not mean that they're a moron. It does not mean that they search for traps with their face. It does not mean that they can't utilise tactics such as stealth and ambushes.
If you challenge someone to a fight and their ally then attacks your ally, that attack can be seen as a new challenge and one you can go and meet first, so long as you immediately go back to your original fight.
Your anathema is meant to make things trickier for you, not for your party.
I would even be nicer than Gentleman DM, for me, combat is no test of endurance and might. The only challenges I would consider your character should accept no matter what are arm wrestling, athletics, and these kind of things. When it comes to combat and adventuring, you do what you want the way you want.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always used anathema to give guidelines on how someone of this calling would normally act. Not a penalty I am always waiting for the first opportunity to slap someone with. Unless something was particularly flagrant (in this example something along the lines of refusing to participate in a duel or test of strength at all because you were scared, or the task look difficult, or your important seemed too buff) I would almost never invoke the anathema rules to rob someone of their powers.
If a druid fights a rampaging monster that happens to be also classified as an animal they are not violating their anathema.
If a cleric of Shelyn fights a handsome vampire they are not violating their anathema.
Making people lose their powers or be railroaded is generally not fun for the party and in my opinion should be used only in rare cases.... or if someone is claiming to be something completely at odds with the lore like a worshiper of Pharasma who is also a Necromancer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks. Can I escape from combat if I have 1-2 strikes to die, or can I exit melee and start firing at enemies from far away, or will this also mean anathema?
Yes, of course. Your character can think and apply tactics during combat. The opposite would be stupidly suicidal.
One point: The anathema requires you to face challenges of strength. It does not prohibit you from trying, losing or failing, and then giving up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would consider fleeing combat as failing a "challenge to your strength".
But it is not failing to face a challenge to your strength. You faced it, and were getting beat soundly so you backed away. It doesn't commit you to death because you faced someone stronger.
It's more that your don't shirk away from a challenge without trying.
Traps are not a challenge to your strength IMO. Nor is declaring your intent to attack one person, and then that other persons friends attack your friends. You should definitely have to try to attack the original person you declared against, but your not bound to first and only attack that individual.
It seems like your GM is just kind of using this as an excuse to remove your rage powers, which is pretty lame. The barbarian is arguably only on par with a fighter, who has no restrictions on their abilities.
Anathema is supposed to be flavorful, not a serious impediment.
And it should never force you to do obviously suicidal things.
An example, if someone challenged you to a long jump competition I would expect you to do it. If you encounter a jump over a ravine that you stood a chance to succeed at, I would expect you to do it. If the ravine is a long drop, I wouldn't penalize you for taking steps to ensure you don't die (e.g. tying a rope around yourself and anchoring it so that if you miss you don't drop to your death). But if it's a jump that would obviously require more than 20 roll to succeed* you can just say "Nope, I know I can't do that" without penalty.
*Characters should roughly know how good they are at things, that is to say players should be able to look at their skill modifiers (with applicable feats) and the DC of a challenge (if known) and make reasonable decisions about their chance of success.
Edit: Just noticed you called jumping over a gap a dexterity check, but that clearly falls under athletics which is strength based. Catching the bugs just seems like it should be an attack roll vs an AC, with the AC perhaps being increased to represent the small size of the bugs.
But GM explained to me that it means bravado.
I would entirely disagree with his interpretation. You must meet challenges of strength.
Ignoring your skilled party member's ability to disarm traps is not facing a challenge of strength.
Sneaking is not avoiding a challenge of strength. It's just sneaking.
When you challenge an enemy to a duel, and his henchmen enter the fight as well, you're dueling them both alongside your party now, not ignoring the first duel.
Your GM is being way too combative about your barbarian anathema. It's bad GMing, and you should talk it out.
It sounds like the same philosophy of assuming that paladins must be stupid, or trying to trap them in technicaliris where any choice would cause them to fall, applied to a barbarian.
It was nevery a good way to run things with paladins. It isn't any better here.
It's probably inevitable that some DMs will seize the concept of anathema to impose certain behaviors on their players, under the pretext of trying to "help them understand" how the game works.
Hopefully, the OP will show this thread to his DM and ask him patiently to relent from his overly-restrictive interpretation of anathema.