That being said, a Sunder special action created by the GM is perfectly reasonable. Base it on a strike, since that would be the "closest action" and roll with it. Would allow you to have a scenario where you have to hit an opponents "weak spot" before damaging them directly, or breaking the Macguffin of destiny out of the hands of the evil big bad just in the nick of time.
Damaging objects is important, I'll agree with that sentiment posited by most of the thread, but I don't agree that it needs to have a hard and fast rule governing it. You can easily fill in the needed action, and this gives the GM leeway in exactly how they want to fulfill the action in detail.
Cutting down a tree can be either an Athletics check with a set DC or a series of attack rolls against the tree's AC, given by the gm. Which route the GM takes is strictly up to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, the athletics skill does cover things like breaking chairs, because it says, "Athletics allows you to perform deeds of physical prowess." Breaking a chair seems to fit that pretty squarely.
The issue that can still be reasonably addressed is having a specific action designed for doing so, rather than leaving it up to the GM to have to determine how it works, especially if it is resulting in different tables having radically different versions of how to do so.
Obviously, most objects should have flat DCs that are relatively high, but not go up by level unless they are objects specifically built to withstand punishment, and the crafter's skill would be relevant in how sturdy they were (like castle walls). A lot of objects probably should require multiple checks to fully break.
A crafting skill feat for demolition could allow for using craft instead of athletics for breaking objects.
I firmly believe we will see all of this sooner than later make its way into the game, rather than seeing a MASSIVE errata that changes the way spells and strikes work against objects.
Damaging objects is important, I'll agree with that sentiment posited by most of the thread, but I don't agree that it needs to have a hard and fast rule governing it. You can easily fill in the needed action, and this gives the GM leeway in exactly how they want to fulfill the action in detail.
Cutting down a tree can be either an Athletics check with a set DC or a series of attack rolls against the tree's AC, given by the gm. Which route the GM takes is strictly up to them.
The things is that there is a fundamental difference in between forcing open something and destroying something, even if the result may be similar or even identical. And it does indeed makes sense to use either one or the other, as you would normally neither try to bash in iron portcullis with your wooden quarterstaff nor trying to force a heavily barred door using bodily strength.
If you want to force a normal door open this will usually and rightfully be governed by an Athletics check as you will use your strength, leverage and/or monumentum to typically dislodge the hinges or the lock. As described in the Force Open action the door may even survive the manoeuvre and may be used again. If however you want to destroy the door using a firemans axe or similar this should in my opinion be handled via hardness and hit points, for one as an alternative way how to handle objects and also to avoid inconsistency and logic shenanigans.
Else a greataxe wielding level 20 barbarian who for whatever reason never took Athletics as a trained skill, and who is trapped in between a sturdy door (DC30) and a Balor might find it easier to hack his way out through the monster than through the door.
(And yes the example is a of course very hypothetical. I just wanted to demonstrate that a charcter who otherwise can easily deal double and triple digit damage each round if only an enemy is involved might very well fail at damaging an object if there is no rule or just "skill" rules for doing so)
Reminds me that there was some 3.5 variant rules out there that I've since forgotten the name of (not XCrawl, a different one) that had an entire class based around doing sunder-like actions. It didn't destroy equipment, but rather the way it worked was that it was described as the character making precise attacks in order to lessen the effectiveness of armor. Say, by cutting the leather straps keeping it attached.
Stuff that didn't really damage the equipment in the long-run (5 minute repairs at worst) but which could really make the difference between a tough opponent and one that went down in a few hits.
Armor also acted as DR. Don't remember the exact stats, unfortunately, but it was pretty easy for anyone to get DR 2/- just by gearing up with mundane armor.
The things is that there is a fundamental difference in between forcing open something and destroying something, even if the result may be similar or even identical. And it does indeed makes sense to use either one or the other, as you would normally neither try to bash in iron portcullis with your wooden quarterstaff nor trying to force a heavily barred door using bodily strength.
But does the mechanic of strike really make sense against a door? Object HP is a nebulous thing anyway because creatures are perfectly functional until they are at 0 hp and then they are unconscious or dead. They are not hacked to pieces.
Functionally, Attacking the door with an axe really is about the same as trying to smash through it because in both cases your goal is to break it in a way that you can move through it. Perhaps a way to let a character use their weapon proficiency in place of their athletics check to break through the door would be necessary because they took away the level bonus to untrained, but perhaps a barbarian that wants to be able to break through objects should take the athletics skill? Otherwise they might be talented at using a weapon to hurt people, but have no skill or understanding of how to use an axe to break down a door without breaking their axe first.
And it is the hardness/hit point aspect that gets most annoying, especially because all characters are eventually just going to be getting critical hits against all objects if they have a static AC, and if they don't have a static AC, because the quality of door increases its difficulty to hit effectively, you essentially have an overlap situation between what should be hardness and what should be AC.
The more I read here, the more I become convinced that the Force Open action is the new 'hack down doors' thing.
Maybe think of it as an abstraction the way Bulk works. Initailly, I was very opposed to it as a 'dumbing down encumbrance' thing, but after making a few characters with it, it kinda grew on me. It just works well enough to get a feel for the 'weight' of your toon's gear without getting bogged down in minutiae. Force Open just abstracts all the hassle with object hardness and HP into one roll.
Of course, if someone wants to cut a rope with a well-placed arrow shot or something, you still have the object HP by thickness as guidelines. Maybe they will present some updated rules when they get another equipment book out, featuring rope-cutting arrows or somethimg.
Remember 'fantasy det-cord'?
Perhaps a way to let a character use their weapon proficiency in place of their athletics check to break through the door would be necessary because they took away the level bonus to untrained...
This is a solution I could easily get behind as some actions - e.g. Escape - already let you make use of alternative skills. So if as a general rule you could either use Athletics or use your attack modifier (when wielding a suitable weapon) or use your spell attack modifier (when using a suitable spell) for a force open / destroy object action I would consider this perfectly fine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rolling 'to hit the AC' of a door always seemed a bit ridiculous to me. You aren't going to miss a door. Much more important, for example, would be what you hit the door with. An axe is going to work, a dagger is not, for example.
Personally I've wholeheartedly switched to the succeed at a cost approach to skill rolls, at least the ones where failure is a plot-barrier. So if the PCs have to get through the door because that's where the sessions' content is, then they will automatically do so. The roll (if i ask them to make one)is to see whether it goes smoothly or not. For example, if they succeed then they break the door down quickly. If they fail, it takes a while, makes noise and perhaps attracts the attention of some monsters, or blunts the weapon used, or splinters and injures someone. etc. If there's no interesting failure state then I don't ask for a roll.
This is incredibly not simulation style rolling, and very much narrative style. The roll is not simulating 'breaking the door' from a physics point of view, but from a story one.
Rolling against AC isn't just to see if an attack connects, but to see if it connects well enough to do any damage.
Rolling against AC isn't just to see if an attack connects, but to see if it connects well enough to do any damage.This is why it has always been a poor choice to refer to attack roll results as "hit" and "miss".
Those words have definitions that people are used to using that aren't compatible with what "you hit AC X" actually represents, and it's a big part of how many people get into thinking of HP differently from how they have always been presented. The game says an attack that hits and does damage can actually represent a blow that is narrowly avoided - but the standard usage of the word hit says "what? that's crazy!"
Unfortunately, it's probably way too late to try changing this. Especially if the tendency of players with prior edition experience to say "I move" and "I attack" instead of "I Stride" and "I Strike" is any indication.
Most blows connect in PF1/3.5, just that armor deflects the blow avoiding injury (start comparing your attack roll to Touch AC to see if you connect!). I've used that particular feature before, but yes, people abstract it down to "hit" and "miss."
Gloomhaven has the same problem, the "miss" card is actually called "null" and only blanks damage not other effects.
I often try to get myself out of the "hp loss means meat damage" mentality, I greatly prefer "narrow misses and glancing blows" until someone gets hit for a big chunk of damage or loses enough hit points - that's when it's a "fatal blow".
Rolling against AC isn't just to see if an attack connects, but to see if it connects well enough to do any damage.
Yes in theory. And 'hit points' don't actually equal physical injury, the also represent 'grit, luck, fatigue etc'. But in practice the 'roll to hit' has become what it is.
From the CRB, p278, right where combat rules start (in the Equipment > weapons section, probably the wrong place for it.)
Damage Rolls:
When the result of your attack roll with a weapon or unarmed attack equals or exceeds your target’s AC, you hit your target!
It's unavoidable for historical reasons, whether we like it or not. It's a minor thing compared to spell level versus other level at least. DNA carries flaws as well as strengths.
I like DCs to deal with objects personally. Especially now checks have 4 degrees of success and failure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thought-- a game in which blasting a chair with fireball has different results because plot would break the suspension of disbelief so much that I'm not sure it can be said to actually be narrative driven, I think that line of argument is a red herring, bad writing is genuinely held to involve the rules of the world working inconsistently.
The real argument here should be what kind of guidance we need for this, hard rules, or a paragraph somewhere giving a couple of examples of how a GM can improvise the consequences consistently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ad writing is genuinely held to involve the rules of the world working inconsistently.
This is not the place to explain narrative gaming as compared to simulation. But it's extremely not what you said.
The real argument here should be what kind of guidance we need for this, hard rules, or a paragraph somewhere giving a couple of examples of how a GM can improvise the consequences consistently.
If you want to add extra 'hard rules' yes. But follow that logic and you'll need hundreds more 'hard rules'. Which is bad. So no, the "real argument" Is:
'Is adding (many) more 'hard rules' to the game for unusual situations a good thing? Or is it better to have simpler rules and let the GM decide'?
Not everyone believes more hard rules is better. I don't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We don't need hard rule for everything, just the more common fantasy tropes, of which attacking objects most certainly is one.
- Gimli attempts to destroy the One Ring.
- Edmund sunders the White Witch's wand of petrification.
- Jack cuts down the bean stalk before the giant can finish climbing down.
- Any number of heroes shooting, cutting, or breaking ropes and chains to rescue soon-to-be-executed allies, free pisoners, or to raise/lower a gate.
I'm sure their are hundreds of other examples in literature and lore.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dragging the game to a grinding halt as the gm flips around calculating the durability of objects is frankly the opposite of a good time in my book no matter how much verisimilitude it adds.And not just that, but when you put in a hard rule that covers the case of heroic arrow shot to cut a rope and the like you have to make sure that rule doesn't have any undesired consequences.
Such as the rule that makes it likely that if an adventurer takes an axe to a chair it only takes a couple wacks before its kindling, even if they are low level and not particularly awesome with an axe, making a typical fireball spell destroy an entire tavern in a flash unless even more rules (or the GM) get involved.
Though it's more likely that the hard rules would go the other way and make sure there aren't any accidental object destruction situations like that, probably in a way that makes the circumstances identical to now (not much works without the GM making it work) but with more words in the book.
What you don't want the GM to go through and make Reflex saves for each mug, chair and coaster in the bar? What kind of Table Top RPG gamer are you!?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is we don't even have guidelines on THAT!
No we don't need tables. What we need is a consistent means of managing it from table to table AT ALL.
A fantasy game in which no one knows how to destroy objects is, quite simply, incomplete.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Treating the desire for some kind of baseline rule, so that players can have a general expectation of how common actions in the world work before they get started, as being interchangeable with the nwed for a total physics simulation where no GM judgement or narrative convenience can be used is a pretty extreme strawman.
Fine. Keep dog piling. It's not going to stop me from trying to have a discussion, or coming up with a possible solution to the problem.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem here is that it feels like the rules exist half way between a number of different directions right now, so the confusion is that some spells do clearly have the ability to target objects and do a set damage to them. Do they work? Acid splash can target objects, but is nearly incapable of overcoming a pretty basic hardness 5 before it can be cast as a 3rd level spell and even then it is not going to be very reliable at it until pretty high level. Not to mention most objects don't have AC, so you have a spell that can target objects, but not a reliable and consistent way of determining how difficult that is.
If the intention was primarily to have objects over come with checks (like force open) then the spells that can target objects are in a pretty awkward place, because they don't really interact with the world that way.
If the intention was for objects generally to have hardness and HP and be dealt with by striking, then the rules need to specify that, and the issue of how to target them (ie: determining base line ACs) should be presented somewhere fairly coherently.
I love PF2.
It also seems pretty clear that something with damaging objects slipped through the cracks in the final development of the rule set, with everyone just kind of taking it for granted that they knew how this would work because it is such a basic part of role playing games, and people have been doing it their own way for years, so most of them were just going to do it their own way to begin with, regardless of what was in the rulebook.
Most tables that pick up PF2 are probably coming from some kind of background where simulating something to cover these circumstances is not a game breaking situation, but for people picking up gaming for the first time it is going to be pretty confusing to try to sort through how things are supposed to work and why.
The real problem here is that it feels like the rules exist half way between a number of different directions right now, so the confusion is that some spells do clearly have the ability to target objects and do a set damage to them. Do they work? Acid splash can target objects, but is nearly incapable of overcoming a pretty basic hardness 5 before it can be cast as a 3rd level spell and even then it is not going to be very reliable at it until pretty high level. Not to mention most objects don't have AC, so you have a spell that can target objects, but not a reliable and consistent way of determining how difficult that is.
If the intention was primarily to have objects over come with checks (like force open) then the spells that can target objects are in a pretty awkward place, because they don't really interact with the world that way.
If the intention was for objects generally to have hardness and HP and be dealt with by striking, then the rules need to specify that, and the issue of how to target them (ie: determining base line ACs) should be presented somewhere fairly coherently.
I love PF2.
It also seems pretty clear that something with damaging objects slipped through the cracks in the final development of the rule set, with everyone just kind of taking it for granted that they knew how this would work because it is such a basic part of role playing games, and people have been doing it their own way for years, so most of them were just going to do it their own way to begin with, regardless of what was in the rulebook.Most tables that pick up PF2 are probably coming from some kind of background where simulating something to cover these circumstances is not a game breaking situation, but for people picking up gaming for the first time it is going to be pretty confusing to try to sort through how things are supposed to work and why.
To add to this, in contrast with what the person who quoted me above seems to have somehow taken from my post, I don't think the rules have to be extensive-
The easiest way would be to let the GM assign a level to an object, then have a table that gives a guideline for what an object of that level can take damage wise. Then a paragraph just tells the DM to assign an object a level based off what feels right to them.
Hazards kinda work this way in the first place, albeit more complicated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add to this, in contrast with what the person who quoted me above seems to have somehow taken from my post, I don't think...The real problem here is that it feels like the rules exist half way between a number of different directions right now, so the confusion is that some spells do clearly have the ability to target objects and do a set damage to them. Do they work? Acid splash can target objects, but is nearly incapable of overcoming a pretty basic hardness 5 before it can be cast as a 3rd level spell and even then it is not going to be very reliable at it until pretty high level. Not to mention most objects don't have AC, so you have a spell that can target objects, but not a reliable and consistent way of determining how difficult that is.
If the intention was primarily to have objects over come with checks (like force open) then the spells that can target objects are in a pretty awkward place, because they don't really interact with the world that way.
If the intention was for objects generally to have hardness and HP and be dealt with by striking, then the rules need to specify that, and the issue of how to target them (ie: determining base line ACs) should be presented somewhere fairly coherently.
I love PF2.
It also seems pretty clear that something with damaging objects slipped through the cracks in the final development of the rule set, with everyone just kind of taking it for granted that they knew how this would work because it is such a basic part of role playing games, and people have been doing it their own way for years, so most of them were just going to do it their own way to begin with, regardless of what was in the rulebook.Most tables that pick up PF2 are probably coming from some kind of background where simulating something to cover these circumstances is not a game breaking situation, but for people picking up gaming for the first time it is going to be pretty confusing to try to sort through how things are supposed to work and why.
But I don't think I'm in the minority when I say that I do not want PF2 to go backwards in time and begin to add more tables for things than we already have. If that is what you want, go play The Dark Eye or Dark Heresy. Or one of the dozens of home brewed game systems based on the d20 system.
To me, leaving the exact effects for damaging an object vague enough that the GM can work it in as they see fit is fine. I would agree that perhaps there could be a section about damaging objects in the CRB that guides the GM a bit better... Oh wait.
An item can be broken or destroyed if it takes enough
damage. Every item has a Hardness value. Each time an
item takes damage, reduce any damage the item takes by
its Hardness. The rest of the damage reduces the item’s
Hit Points. Normally an item takes damage only when
a creature is directly attacking it—commonly targeted
items include doors and traps. A creature that attacks
you doesn’t normally damage your armor or other gear,
even if it hits you. However, the Shield Block reaction can
cause your shield to take damage as you use it to prevent
damage to yourself, and some monsters have exceptional
abilities that can damage your items.
An item that takes damage can become broken
and eventually destroyed. It becomes broken when
its Hit Points are equal to or lower than its Broken
Threshold (BT); once its Hit Points are reduced to 0,
it is destroyed. A broken item has the broken condition
until Repaired above its Broken Threshold. Anything
that automatically makes an item broken immediately
reduces its Hit Points to its Broken Threshold if the item
had more Hit Points than that when the effect occurred.
If an item has no Broken Threshold, then it has no
relevant changes to its function due to being broken,
but it’s still destroyed at 0 Hit Points. (See the broken
condition definition on page 273 for more information.)
A destroyed item can’t be Repaired.
An item’s Hardness, Hit Points, and Broken Threshold
usually depend on the material the item is made of. This
information appears on page 577.
This is in the book. It details how a GM can go about allowing a character to damage an object. Compound that with the following:
ADJUDICATING THE RULES
As the GM, you are responsible for solving any rules
disputes. Remember that keeping your game moving is
more important than being 100% correct. Looking up
rules at the table can slow the game down, so in many
cases it’s better to make your best guess rather than scour
the book for the exact rule. (It can be instructive to look
those rules up during a break or after the session, though!)
To make calls on the fly, use the following guidelines,
which are the same principles the game rules are based on.
You might want to keep printouts of these guidelines and
the DC guidelines (page 503) for quick reference.
• If you don’t know how long a quick task takes, go
with 1 action, or 2 actions if a character shouldn’t be
able to perform it three times per round.
• If you’re not sure what action a task uses, look for
the most similar basic action. If you don’t find one,
make up an undefined action (page XXX) adding
any necessary traits (usually attack, concentrate,
manipulate, or move).
And you get the following:
A door (or chair or lamp or rope etc...) can be attacked. Strike does not list objects as a potential target, so instead you use Other Actions to create a "Strike Object" action, then giving the target a reasonable AC, and going from there.Or, a GM has the option of scrapping that entirely and deciding that destroying the object is a Skill Check, similar to break open, using break open as a template, and modifying it as they need to get the task done.
I just don't see what is so hard about this to be honest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't see what is so hard about this to be honest.I think part of it comes down to a certain mindset that reads the rules text and sees no AC specified for objects in general and thinks that means they don't have the information necessary for an action as simple as "I hack at the door with my axe."
But there is a whole section on setting DC (which AC is just a specific example of) meant to equip GMs with the ability to assign DC in the very many places that the game hasn't already done it for them.
And that mindset hits a wall when the rules basically say "the GM will M this part of the G" instead of providing a more explicit "default ruling"
I suppose I can see that. But I just can't get on board that train honestly. The more I've played PF2, as a GM and a Player, the more I've come to realize that it's better suited to a quick on their feet GM style, quickly assigning DC's to things that by all rights don't need a hard and fast rule.
Again, I point those who would rather have a huge depth of spreadsheets and hyper specific rules to one of the dozens of systems that support that. They have their place in the TTRPG space, and PF2 has it's own.
It is a system that is at it's best when it leaves the GM able to improvise, and some of the best moments of my games have come from such moments.
We don't need hard rule for everything, just the more common fantasy tropes, of which attacking objects most certainly is one.
- Gimli attempts to destroy the One Ring.
- Edmund sunders the White Witch's wand of petrification.
- Jack cuts down the bean stalk before the giant can finish climbing down.
- Any number of heroes shooting, cutting, or breaking ropes and chains to rescue soon-to-be-executed allies, free pisoners, or to raise/lower a gate.I'm sure their are hundreds of other examples in literature and lore.
These are great examples for showing why a single (hard) rule is a problem, and giving the GM flexbility to pick from a range of tools (to help tell the story best) is desirable. Each situation you describe is very different:
- Gimli attempts to destroy the One Ring.
- Clearly neither an AC to hit roll or check here! It's entirely story driven, the GM (Tolkien) has said 'you can only damage it by throwing it into Mount doom'. That would be in the section under 'artefacts'. An entirely GM-made custom magic item with its own unique rules, in other words.
- Edmund sunders the White Witch's wand of petrification.
... The GM (the director) allowed a single successful hit to destroy what's clearly a very powerful unique magic item. Probably because it timed well with the climax of the battle. Imagine if sundering the wand had happened in round one of the combat (not what the GM / storyteller would have wanted, we've all been there when a PC shuts down the BBEG in the first round). Looking at it, he perhaps even failed his sunder attempt, but the GM gave it to him with 'succeed at a cost', and he ended up getting stabbed afterwards!
- Jack cuts down the bean stalk before the giant can finish climbing down.
Depending on how long you want the suspense to last, you might do a single successful check required against a high DC, with a limited but known number of turns until the Giant arrives. Eg: 3 rolls to make DC30. Or maybe two successful checks to make the suspense last longer.
- Any number of heroes shooting, cutting, or breaking ropes and chains to rescue soon-to-be-executed allies, free pisoners, or to raise/lower a gate.
This seems like a good situation to use the victory point subsystem, with a certain number of victory points to achieve the objective. The PCs get a range of checks to score VPs, whilst the enemy have similar checks to try to prevent them.
.
It seems to me that people ca t make up their mind on 2nd edition. Whenever I ask for a hard rule, I get a bunch of freedom from rules posters, and when I encourage a loser style of play I get the crowd that insists certain thi gs cant be done because the res dont say so.
Which is it? Is P2E rules loose or rules restrictive?
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. There is a world of options between 'no rules' and 'literal simulation rules'. There are many degrees of difference, it's not a binary 'yes' or 'no' thing.
PF2 says 'use one of the many rules system we make available to you'. Such as a check with a DC - which itself has clear rules, 4 degrees of success, bonuses and how they work etc. Or use an attack roll and AC. Or maybe a saving throw? Or a subsystem. Or just say 'sure you blow up the chairs' if its the obvious thing that should happen - if a level 20 draconic sorcerer wants to fireball a furniture store, we can probably agree the furniture is no longer fit for sale without having to roll a mountain of d6s.
I don't see anyone arguing for 'freedom from rules' here? I'm certainly not. Narrative-emphasis gaming does not mean 'ignore the rules'. That's a misrepresentation that I think a lot of people get wrong and then argue against, pointlessly (since it's a misrepresentation).
My perception is that the surfeit of rules in 1st edition led to a culture of simulation-style gaming with players too often acting as rules lawyers, restricting the GMs ability to create the stories they want to tell. Paizo appears to have stepped away from that in 2nd edition, looking to encourage more narrative gaming. For players that are used to simulation style rules, narrative is really weird and can feel like 'no rules'. But it's very far from no rules. It's just using rules in a different way. A really different way.
Blame all the players including many new ones) who prefer role play and epic drama over mathfinder and spreadsheets. I do think Paizo could have said a bit more about this in the core books, a lot of it comes through in the design decisions but is't explicitly called out and explored. But then... page count!
The GMG goes a lot further in this direction, especially with subsystems. They abstract the specific mechanics entirely and say (paraphrasing) 'use this universal framework to manage the pacing of a challenge' rather than creating specific unique rules to simulate what the challenge is about. It's why you can use the same rules for a Chase as you can for doing Research, or for gaining Influence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Long quote...
While all of this sounds most reasonable, as a player I have to admit that I hate it. I hate it simply because I don't know "how the world works" until I actually try.
* Does Fireball work on that door and if yes at which level / how much damage do I need to do?
* Does Hydraulic Push work on that door and if yes at which level, because it certainly can push creatures?
* Does Acid Splash work on that door and if yes at which level and how often do I need to cast it?
* Does Disintegrate work on that door?
.
.
.
If the goal is to have an "ask your GM minigame" until I have found a suitable solution for every object that my wizard encounters ingame, well so be it.
(example exaggerated as always, however I think you will be able get the meaning)
I have to admit that I hate it. I hate it simply because I don't know "how the world works" until I actually try.
You mean you don't like your GM having the power! But it's very clear that Paizo wanted to give GMs back that power in 2nd edition. They have said publicly the regretted GMs losing that power over the course of 1st edition. Players waving rule books about and saying 'it has to work this way' is not what they wanted any more. I'm very glad of that! It sounds like you really are not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean you don't like your GM having the power! But it's very clear that Paizo wanted to give GMs back that power in 2nd edition. They have said publicly the regretted GMs losing that power over the course of 1st edition. Players waving rule books about and saying 'it has to work this way' is not what they wanted any more. I'm very glad of that! It sounds like you really are not.
You know what I don't get about this argument? That the GM's always had the power since the dawn of time (if only they'ed embraced it), so how can you give back something that was never lost?
For example when I GM'ed Rise of the Runelords I explicitly stated: Look, guys, I know there are about 57 splat books with additional races, classes, feats and equiment, however at my table we will only use CRB and APG, and everybody was absolutely fine with this.
And as a player I have seen my fair share of GM's bending or breaking the rules for the good or bad of the story, for example faking attack rolls and damage to make easy encounters more "exiting" or faking attack and damage rolls to avoid unwarranted TPK's (GM screens for the win).
The only difference about a rule in existence or not in existence is that if there is a rule in place everybody can usually go from there and not through the "ask your GM" cycle over and over again, potentially saving a lot of playtime. I also don't usually ask the GM how to move my character, attack an enemy or cast a spell.
You know what I don't get about this argument? That the GM's always had the power since the dawn of time (if only they'ed embraced it), so how can you give back something that was never lost?
Yes you clearly don't get the argument :) You appear truly stuck in the simulation way of thinking, not seeing the other possibilities.
Try considering this:
A lot of players demand to know the exact rule that the GM is using, where is it in the book, and so on. In this situation the PC is taking power away from the GM who may have decided to run that situation in a unique way. Or simply to 'make a call' to keep the game flowing smoothly and keep things immersive - as opposed to stopping play for 5 minutes to look up rules.
If the GM says 'I'm saying its a DC25 acrobatics check, just roll' and the PC starts to go 'But i think it should be a reflex save'... then you have that kind of problem.
If the GM goes 'this door cannot be damaged by your sword' and he player grabs the book and goes 'tell me what hardness it has' ... then you have that kind of problem.
If the GM says 'I'll let you move 10 feet only because of the wind and debris' and the player goes 'But difficult terrain means i should move 15 feet' ... then you have that kind of problem.
These happen a lot for some groups. And they find it gets in the way of how much fun they have. Most people do not enjoy debating rules in the middle of a game.
I guess you do not have that problem in your game. But many others do.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love PF2.
It also seems pretty clear that something with damaging objects slipped through the cracks . . .
This is where I live. I was a huge fan of 3.X D&D who became an even bigger fan of Pathfinder. It took me maybe two sessions with PF2 to become a total convert. Which is probably why I find issues like this, where a subsystem clearly made it into the final game half baked, so frustrating. I haven’t run into one yet that ruins the game for me, and this far along I doubt seriously that I will, but they frustrate me, and the silence of the devs when these issues are discussed again and again on the boards also frustrates me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I don't get about this argument? That the GM's always had the power since the dawn of time (if only they'ed embraced it), so how can you give back something that was never lost?Yes you clearly don't get the argument :) You appear truly stuck in the simulation way of thinking, not seeing the other possibilities.
Try considering this:
A lot of players demand to know the exact rule that the GM is using, where is it in the book, and so on. In this situation the PC is taking power away from the GM who may have decided to run that situation in a unique way. Or simply to 'make a call' to keep the game flowing smoothly and keep things immersive - as opposed to stopping play for 5 minutes to look up rules.
If the GM says 'I'm saying its a DC25 acrobatics check, just roll' and the PC starts to go 'But i think it should be a reflex save'... then you have that kind of problem.
If the GM goes 'this door cannot be damaged by your sword' and he player grabs the book and goes 'tell me what hardness it has' ... then you have that kind of problem.
If the GM says 'I'll let you move 10 feet only because of the wind and debris' and the player goes 'But difficult terrain means i should move 15 feet' ... then you have that kind of problem.
These happen a lot for some groups. And they find it gets in the way of how much fun they have. Most people do not enjoy debating rules in the middle of a game.
I guess you do not have that problem in your game. But many others do.
Here's the thing though. If that's the kind of game you want to play, that's fine. You can just ignore the rules. But a lot of us want to be able to have the same outcome at multiple tables. If I'm playing the same adventure at 2 different OP tables, my actions should have the same outcome at both tables. In order to have that happen, there have to be rules.
Every time I read the Lord of the Rings the rules for destroying the Ring are the same. Without those rules, it would be different with each reading, and that lack of consistency takes agency away from the player.
If every time you shot a bow at the same object it reacted differently, eventually you'd just stop doing it, because it wouldn't be a useful and reliable action.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes you clearly don't get the argument :) You appear truly stuck in the simulation way of thinking, not seeing the other possibilities.
These happen a lot for some groups. And they find it gets in the way of how much fun they have. Most people do not enjoy debating rules in the middle of a game.
I guess you do not have that problem in your game. But many others do.
I get the argument, however this is about storytelling book style versus tabletop game style, and in the end my argument is that any TTRPG is still a game, not a book, thus it needs to have a (basic) set of rules to adminster it.
Arguing about rules in bad faith is undesired at any table in any situation, not only when you decide to run your campaign a little more on the storytelling side of things. However the GM is only human, he can forget things, he can mixed up things, he can remember old edition rules and try to apply those, so at least in our group a friendly reminder what the player thinks that the rules are can never go wrong. However nobody would ever challenge or question any "not exactly by the rules" GM decision that has been confirmed by the GM. Yes, this also takes a certain player attitude to work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not advocating for big lists of tables with item AC, Hardness and HP, to cover each individual circumstance.
I am advocating for a definition of object, and how to target one to be clear and easy to find in the book.
In the glossary we get:
"object See also item. 271–273" Page 271-273 is the equipment section and says nothing about targeting.
Item in the glossary has many listings, but not one on "targeting objects." It has one on "item damage," but that reference is back to 272-273, which never mentions how objects get targeted.
So let's look at Targeting. There probably should be rules for what you can target when the rules are telling you how to choose your target.
Glossary:
target 304, 455–456
On 304 Targets (specifically defining targeting with spells) we get:
Some spells allow you to directly target a creature, an object, or something that fits a more specific category. The target must be within the spell’s range, and you must be
able to see it (or otherwise perceive it with a precise sense) to target it normally. At the GM’s discretion, you can attempt to target a creature you can’t see, as described in Detecting Creatures on pages 465–467. If you fail to target a particular creature, this doesn’t change how the spell affects any other targets the spell might have.If you choose a target that isn’t valid, such as if you thought a vampire was a living creature and targeted it with a spell that can target only living creatures, your spell fails to target that creature. If a creature starts out as a valid target but ceases to be one during a spell’s duration, the spell typically ends, but the GM might decide otherwise in certain situations.
Spells that affect multiple creatures in an area can have both an Area entry and a Targets entry. A spell that has an area but no targets listed usually affects all creatures in the area indiscriminately. Some spells restrict you to willing targets. A player can declare their
character a willing or unwilling target at any time, regardless of turn order or their character’s condition (such as when a character is paralyzed, unconscious, or even dead).
On page 455 Targets (under the section on checks generally) we get:
Some effects require you to choose specific targets. Targeting can be difficult or impossible if your chosen creature is undetected by you, if the creature doesn’t match
restrictions on who you can target, or if some other ability prevents it from being targeted.Some effects require a target to be willing. Only you can decide whether your PC is willing, and the GM decides whether an NPC is willing. Even if you or your character don’t know what the effect is, such as if your character is unconscious, you still decide if you’re willing. Some effects target or require an ally, or otherwise refer to an ally. This must be someone on your side, often another PC, but it might be a bystander you are trying to
protect. You are not your own ally. If it isn’t clear, the GM decides who counts as an ally or an enemy.
The word object doesn't even make an appearance.
This is a mistake that creates a lot of confusion and is not necessary for all of the sections that people have quoted above about GMs being the ultimate arbitrators of the game to still be true and relevant. There are rules for targeting, but they do not interact well or consistently with objects.
Instead, we have the rules for targeting mostly appearing in specific actions and spells, which were probably written by different people at different parts of the revision process, which has left obvious gaps that send players and GMs diving through indexes, databases, and forum posts without anything close to a "here is how targeting the things that we have made elaborate rules for damaging should basically work."
The elaborate rules are already there in PF2. They just missed an important part.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Kasoh on the importance of following the right rule and with Unicore on the fact that something is missing.
Rules are generally meant to be followed.
And as a player I have seen my fair share of GM's bending or breaking the rules...
So have I.
...for example faking attack rolls and damage to make easy encounters more "exiting" or faking attack and damage rolls to avoid unwarranted TPK's (GM screens for the win).
I don't roleplay just to have my character actions not make any difference. I don't tolerate cheating GMs anymore than I do cheating players.
I get the argument, however this is about storytelling book style versus tabletop game style, and in the end my argument is that any TTRPG is still a game, not a book, thus it needs to have a (basic) set of rules to adminster it.
.
Completely agree. No one is arguing for 'no rules'. Although I notice others here keep misunderstanding 'narrative gaming' and think it means 'no rules'.
The question is: how much room should the GM have to choose which rules to use in a given situation?
Simulation gaming says 'there is a single rule for this, you must always follow it.
Narrative gaming says 'pick one from several rules options, based on how you want to play it'.
The latter allows for much more flexibility and hence aids storytelling. However it does require trust and collaboration between the players and the GM. I admit I feel sorry for all the folks here who think they need rules to control badly behaving GMs. If your GM is behaving badly your game is in real trouble and no rules can save it, imho. That kind of problem is dealt with by having face to face conversations outside of the game to get people on the same side.
So, by all means debate. But if anyone here is misrepresenting narrative gaming and my statements by saying it means 'no rules' then you've misunderstood completely.
Why isn't the answer for "I want to know in advance how things will be resolved so that I can make informed decisions" solvable by speaking with the GM?
I am especially curious to hear the answer from anyone that believes that if there were a rule to reference in the book it wouldn't be just as likely that they get surprised by a house-rule replacing it in the moment of use as it is likely that the GM-inserted resolution of the current rules would be one that doesn't mesh with the player's expectations.
Maybe I'm just having a weird moment because I was playing D&D last night and my character got attacked by multiple enemies and that was the moment that I found out that with this particular GM creatures don't provide a cover bonus to AC like I expected because that's what the rules in the book say, but it seems like literally the only way to actually know how things are going to work in advance is by talking out all the details you can think of with your GM.
As a GM, I wouldn't know how to respond "consistently" like I'd be scared of making the wrong call such that I'd want to think really hard about the answer, and it might not match up with my spur of the moment improvisation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
but it seems like literally the only way to actually know how things are going to work in advance is by talking out all the details you can think of with your GM.
There's no way to predict everything that's going to come up ahead of time. The same way that there's no way to predict every situation is going to come up in game.
Do you try to predict every situation and write a huge number of complex rules? I'm not sure what criteria you would use to say 'ok that's enough specific rules'. It seems like someone here can always say 'but no, I need a specific rule for X situation, you didn't cover it'. And so on, and more specific rules, and so on. Infinite rules being the ideal.
Or at some point do you say: that leads to too crunchy a game? Let's instead provide various options to GMs, each abstracting gameplay in some way, so the GM can manage almost all situations in a consistent and balanced way? Like role playing games always have done anyway. Let's just be a bit more mindful and open, and dare I say, modern about it.
The latter means you have to expect each GM to apply their judgement in many situations. Shockingly that means players cannot show up to the table and know exactly what to expect ahead of time. But it does not mean 'no rules' and it does not mean 'anything goes'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the thing though. If that's the kind of game you want to play, that's fine. You can just ignore the rules.
And if that’s the kind of game you want to play I can save you $30-45 by pointing you to a more narratively focused game than Pathfinder.
And if THOSE games still offer players more agency than you like, it costs nothing to invite your friends to play “let’s pretend, but only I’m allowed to pretend, and you get to listen.”
I agree with Kasoh on the importance of following the right rule and with Unicore on the fact that something is missing.
Rules are generally meant to be followed.
** spoiler omitted **
And as a player I have seen my fair share of GM's bending or breaking the rules...So have I.
...for example faking attack rolls and damage to make easy encounters more "exiting" or faking attack and damage rolls to avoid unwarranted TPK's (GM screens for the win).I don't roleplay just to have my character actions not make any difference. I don't tolerate cheating GMs anymore than I do cheating players.
I get where you're coming from, but the Oberoni Fallacy is not exactly an accepted fallacy, is it? It actually kind of goes against the spirit of table top gaming for many fans, the idea that unlike a video game or game of chance like you would find at a casino, the rules are mutable and you can bend or even break them to have fun or suite the narrative. The existence of Gods in these game systems is really just a vector to give the GM a "divine intervention" option.
I'll agree that I also tend to dislike it when a GM obviously fudges a roll, either in or out of the parties favor. But when it comes to a GM inventing a mechanic to cover a situation, that is not the same thing. That is them creating a new and unique puzzle for the party to solve really.
Imagine if you only ever used published material as is without any change to play a TTRPG. How stale would that get?
"Oh, well this is the part of the adventure where we have to find the hidden door. This is the part where we fight the Hydra. This is the part where..."
There has to be an element of GM improvisation, and PF2 facilitates that better than many systems imho.