So the title should be enough for the question, but here's a specific example that actually came up.
1. Our party has a wand of spiritual weapon.
2. On init 23, I (a sorcerer) have a turn, and successfully UMD the wand to cast it. I don't drop the wand, so it is still in hand at the end of my turn.
3. On init 15 in the same round, the rogue has a turn, takes the wand from me as a move action, and successfully UMD the wand to cast it.
Is #3 a legal turn? If not, what should actually happen?
My thought, and I don't have a rule in front of me to quote, is that #3 is not a legal turn because everything is happening virtually simultaneously in a round, people with a higher initiative are just acting a tiny bit quicker than people with a lower initiative (the round is a total of 6 seconds, not each initiative). So the Sorcerer would be casting from the wand at virtually the same time the rogue wants to take the wand from him. Therefore #3 would not be legal.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't like it much, but I think it is RAW compliant if the first user drops the item. Not if he keeps hold of it.
Initiative 23
- the sorcerer uses the wand - Standard action
- the sorcerer drop the wand - Free action, but it has no text saying that it can be done out of turn
Initiative 15
- the rogue picks up the wand - Move action that provokes
- the rogue uses the wand
If the sorcerer keeps hold of the want the rogue has to steal it, as releasing it isn't a free action that can be taken out of turn. To do that the rogue needs to use an attack action and he become unable to use the wand.
I don't like it much, but I think it is RAW compliant if the first user drops the item. Not if he keeps hold of it.
Initiative 23
- the sorcerer uses the wand - Standard action
- the sorcerer drop the wand - Free action, but it has no text saying that it can be done out of turnInitiative 15
- the rogue picks up the wand - Move action that provokes
- the rogue uses the wandIf the sorcerer keeps hold of the want the rogue has to steal it, as releasing it isn't a free action that can be taken out of turn. To do that the rogue needs to use an attack action and he become unable to use the wand.
I don't like it either, along with several other things that happened last session. But this makes sense. Thanks!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The open question is whether you can do anything to make that steal maneuver easier, as you clearly want to let the next guy take the wand.
At least, since this is PF1, there are no major shenanigans in progress, as you are both using up charges from the wand if it works.
|
This is one of the many PF1 things that falls into the category of "there's nothing in the rules to prevent this, but a GM really, really, should limit it." Especially when you take into account the Delay option, there's theoretically no limit to the number of creatures who could use the wand in one round.
There have been several posts over the years about iterations of this plan. I seem to recall one variation that involved using the leadership feat, a wand of lightning bolt, and a line of 1st level adepts to obliterate people in one round.
It's the kind of thing I let players do if they are not abusing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it also a Move action to hand something to someone? How about:
Sorcerer: standard action/use wand, Move action hand wand to Rogue
Rogue: Move action, take wand, Standard action/use wand
I think that's also RAW, no?
Whatever the case, what's really the problem with letting 2 PCs have Spiritual Weapon running simultaneously? They now both have a 1d8 +1 Force attack that can hit foes at medium range but since they've both used their Move actions this round their attacks hit whatever initial target they cast the spell at for now.
Said attack uses these PCs' BAB (not Full BAB for either of them) and their Wis bonus; this might be super high for the rogue but maybe a +1-+2 for the Sorcerer? After that first round to switch targets they've got to spend a Move action, so either they keep pounding away at whatever is really far away from them while using Move actions for something else, or they switch targets but then have to just stand there or maybe take a 5' step. Finally, they get this special benefit for 3 rounds.
Now bear in mind... this wand likely cost, what, 4500 GP at least? This requires WBL of at least 4th level. However, then you gotta figure that this party likely has purchased other items by level 4, in order to keep bonuses up to speed and such; it might be that they had to wait til an even higher level to pick up a wand of Spiritual Weapon.
Is it REALLY game-breaking to let 2 people have this spell running in the same round?
this spell, probably not, but there are others that could certainly be used to decimate encounters...but I've always believed that what is good for the goose...
so I'd let this trick go a few times if the party really wanted to, but then they are running into a 50 person mite tribe with a wand of fireball ASAP
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a variation on the Commoner Railgun. If you have an academy of 50 1st level wizards defending a city, you can line them up on the walls and give the guy on the left a wand. 1 round and 50 fireballs later, the guy on the right discards the smoking wand.
I suspect that RAI would be that such a device can be used only once per round.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it also a Move action to hand something to someone?
AFAIK, no, not in combat. To hand something to someone, that someone should be able to spend an action to take the object. One of the two need to take a ready action to do it, and that means spending a standard action, i. e. only one of the two get to use the wand.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a variation on the Commoner Railgun. If you have an academy of 50 1st level wizards defending a city, you can line them up on the walls and give the guy on the left a wand. 1 round and 50 fireballs later, the guy on the right discards the smoking wand.
I suspect that RAI would be that such a device can be used only once per round.
The standard cure for that is: lighting bolt to the start of the line.
The guys are all waiting for the first level 1 wizard action, and are all adjacent to retrieve the dropped wand and use it, so a lighting bolt to the start of the line will char 16 of them and stop the maneuver.If you want to do it at range, a fireball will still make a nice hole in the line (and probably you can cast it from outside of the range of the wand. Or an archer, or .... plenty of possibilities.
It is not particularly overpowered, it is simply distasteful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question isn't about the actions.
If for some reasons a character were to have a second standard action in a round, could this character use the wand twice?
Or what if there are three characters coordinating, the first one using the wand then dropping it, the second one picking it up then sticking it in the hands of the third one who would then use it.
I think nothing prevents such things and for good reason, the same could be done with a sword or anything else. It is an utterly valid tactic against an enemy immune to common damage type. Say the group of adventurers only has one weapon that can damage the monster, adventurers delays to act after the monster then the first one, wielding the weapon swings at the monster using however many attacks she got then drops the weapon, the second adventurer picks it up, swings once, drops it, the third one does the same as the second and so on....
Would you rule this foul play or inventive?
|
|
Agénor, I will translate what you say in modern firearms use, then you say to me how it feels.
The characters have a belt feed MG on a tripod with unlimited ammo and a rate of fire of 600 shots/minute, the first character makes a full attack and fires 100 shots during his turn, then he loses his grip to the weapon and makes a 5' step, a second character move 5', grip the weapon and make another full attack and fires another 100 shots. The effective rate of fire becomes 1,200 shots/minute.
Inventive or foul play abusing the turn mechanics?
A Mythic character with the appropriate ability can get two turns in a round, but that is mythic play.
Now bear in mind... this wand likely cost, what, 4500 GP at least? This requires WBL of at least 4th level. However, then you gotta figure that this party likely has purchased other items by level 4, in order to keep bonuses up to speed and such; it might be that they had to wait til an even higher level to pick up a wand of Spiritual Weapon.Is it REALLY game-breaking to let 2 people have this spell running in the same round?
To clear up a few things:
- There are six of us (rogue, druid, barb, pally of Iomedae, bard, and my earth-elem sorcerer.)
- Of us, only the rogue and I have UMD; and we both have Wis 10.
- 4th level, though we certainly have enough exp to go to 5th. However, GM and I agreed that we should not confirm levels without a long rest or similar downtime. We haven't had the opportunity at a suitable session-time.
2. About the wand and our WBL:
- We haven't purchased any magic items other than a wand of CLW and a few pots - with the exception of the bard who got lucky on sports betting. However, his purchases were limited to a sleeves of many garments and a heavyload belt.
- Everything else has been found.
- The wand started with 20 charges - so technically worth 1800 gold at most, not 4500 at least.
- We're at about 30% of wealth by level for going into 5th (about 18k out of 63k expected.)
3. This particular dungeon-crawl, an ancient temple complex to pre-Earthfall Shelyn about three days southeast of Sevenarches, has been mainly Devils and Qlippoth, so it's been pretty miserable.
Anything involving evil outsiders basically shuts me down, since virtually all fiends (other than Kytons) resist acid. Summoning doesn't help much, so I've been reduced to magic missile --- which the wand seems to have been provided for me to have an option.
The last fight - the one where the rogue pulled this "I take the wand from you and cast it again" - was against a Thognorok Qlippoth, which hard-counters our rogue by having all-round vision, amorphous, DR, and fire resist. So he has no options at all. And even the wand isn't a GREAT option because the thing also has SR!
Mainly, it's me thinking on an instinctive level that there's something wrong with the sequence, and wondering what the rules actually are. And as such, this thread has been helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Diego Rossi, the example of firearms has at its crux the physical limitations of a given weapon, a rate of fire, n rounds in x seconds. Wands have no such thing and as far back as I can recall into AD&D, they never had.
I do not know mythic rules well. Can a mythic character use a wand twice per round? Can a mythic character use more times per round an item that has an internal limit on the number of times per round it can be used? Can several mythic characters have a mount move further than usual by mounting and dismounting during the round?
From what I understand, mythic characters can use a wand twice in a round because those characters can act more. If those same characters could act even more, they could use the wand even more times. If they have scrolls instead of a wand, they could use them without a problem. What now if a scroll has multiple spells on it? Can't a mythic character read more than one in a round? - not sure whether scrolls with multiple spells still exist in Pathfinder, they did in D&D3.X -
I believe a party using a wand multiple times per round is ingenious use of the rounds and initiative systems by the players, not any different than choosing which spell to cast according to their guess of the save bonuses of the monsters. They still pay each price, in action economy and in wand charges.
It is the rounds and initiative systems that are designed in such a way. Using a wand multiple times in a round isn't a bug, it is a feature. One can't remove it without dumping the core of those systems.
So is the peasant railgun now able to do an additional 50d3 acid/fire/electricity damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they can use the wand, they aren't peasants^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
then you say to me how it feels.
It feels an awful lot like this, and it honestly really cool because of it.
()(())
Ultimately the GM has two questions to answer when they're allowing something:
-1) Does this follow the rule?
In my opinion, if it can be reasonably construed to do so, it passes.
In this case, it very much so seems to pass, at least as a case of making things work out.
-2) Does this make for a better gaming experience?
And this is not only the most important question (overriding rule 1) but also where literally everyone varies the most, and it will definitely vary from table to table.
While this seems to feel weird to the player (casting this in doubt), I wonder if the over-all gaming experience would be worse for everyone (rogue included) if it was not allowed, as it seems that both players are feeling rather shut-out and shut-down by the types of foes they're facing.
In the latter case, I find myself as a GM becomes rules-lighter, if I can manage it*, in order to best allow everyone at the table to both feel useful and validated in their character choices. This isn't to say that everything gets set to easy mode, nothing challenges the characters, and everything becomes vulnerable, but it is to say that if rules-exploits like this are discovered and it actually helps the gaming experience, than it's fine. As a GM, I'd also talk to the players out-of-character and explain why I'm allowing this, and suggest that maybe it be kept so long as it feels necessary, but not beyond.
Either way, sounds like an over-all neat gaming experience!
*
I recently posted my interpretation of the rule of cool and the rule of cheese. This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray. If a player tried that im my game they would be told that they spent the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer to use the wand and hand it to them.
Adding to my previous post. If it was allowed then taking it to absurdity. An infinite number of characters standing in a line could (charges allowing):
- Pick up wand (move action)
- Use wand (std action)
- Drop wand (free action)
One after the other in the same round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently posted my interpretation of the rule of cool and the rule of cheese. This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray. If a player tried that im my game they would be told that they spent the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer to use the wand and hand it to them.
This is the rules forum.
You telling the playing they've spend the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer flies in the face of Delay Action.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recently posted my interpretation of the rule of cool and the rule of cheese. This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray. If a player tried that im my game they would be told that they spent the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer to use the wand and hand it to them.This is the rules forum.
You telling the playing they've spend the last six seconds waiting for the sorcerer flies in the face of Delay Action.
They didn't delay, they just did nothing for a round. The rule of cool and the rule of cheese are part of my pre-campaign briefing and if they don't like it they are more than welcome to leave rather than create a problem at the table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray.
Do you give people killed or incapitated before they had acted during that round their turn's worth of actions? Because otherwise characters killing or incapitating people before they acted also "[use] the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray". If say a Barbarian pounces and kills an enemy at lower initiative first round of combat, that enemy never gets to attack, if everythign in a round supposedly happens simultaneously, that can't be right.
If a Barbarian can make half a dozen attacks before their target can make even a single one despite those actions allegedly happening siumltaneously, a person using and dropping a wand before another person started to act is not any more cheesy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the rule of cool goes, tell me you can't imagine a sorcerer using a wand and a rogue grabbing it off them right after to show the sorcerer how it's done.
As far as cheese goes (rule of' or otherwise), there's not much stench of it to me. Maybe if you line up a bunch of apprentices to make the most use of a wand of magic missile, but not here IMO.
As far as RAW goes - looks like it works. If a wand was a spellcaster with a limit of 1 spell/round you'd have a problem, but it just isn't.
To me, this is using the letter of the law (RAW) against the spirit of the law (RAI). I'm with Hugo Rune on this one. I would not allow this in my game. If I have time later today I'll do a picture to show why I think this shouldn't be allowed, but you know, ultimately it is up to each DM as to what they permit / don't permit at their tables.
And if players "are feeling rather shut-out and shut-down by the types of foes they're facing" that is something that needs discussion with the DM in my opinion, rather than trying to get an advantage through stretching the mechanics of a rule.
Just my opinion...your mileage may vary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray.Do you give people killed or incapitated before they had acted during that round their turn's worth of actions? Because otherwise characters killing or incapitating people before they acted also "[use] the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray". If say a Barbarian pounces and kills an enemy at lower initiative first round of combat, that enemy never gets to attack, if everythign in a round supposedly happens simultaneously, that can't be right.
If a Barbarian can make half a dozen attacks before their target can make even a single one despite those actions allegedly happening siumltaneously, a person using and dropping a wand before another person started to act is not any more cheesy.
but can 50+ people say use, drop, pick up and say use a remote control, fire a gun, or swing the same sword in 6 seconds?
that's why this breaks down. It becomes absurd at a point and a physical impossibility to boot. I think the little loading screen message in Pathfinder: Kingmaker handles this pretty well though; "a move or a standard action each takes about 3 seconds to accomplish" which would make this nonsense a non-issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Say a might holy warrior and his young squire and battling a demon. Initiative order is holy warrior, demon then squire.
The holy warrior swings her sanctified weapon at the foul creature, the sacred words etched on the blade annihilating the very essence of the demon, leaving the monster but a thread from utter destruction. The demon then unleashes all its might at the holy warrior, overcoming her defenses, leaving her on the floor, with a terrible wound at her side, dying, her sword having fallen at the feet of the squire with a loud clang on the stone floor of the mausoleum. Can the squire grab the weapon and hope their goddess to guide his hands as he tries to transpierce the demon?
Or because the sword has been used already in this round, he has to wait six seconds?
- there is no difference besides fluff between this scenario and the one mentionned above -
If I have time later today I'll do a picture to show why I think this shouldn't be allowed, but you know, ultimately it is up to each DM as to what they permit / don't permit at their tables.
Let's see if this works. I did a picture of my interpretation of a round here.
That major point of contention on whether it's cheesy or not comes predominantly not from the question of "can it be done by rules without question" (which is what the Rules Questions are for) but entirely "I don't like it if it is taken to absurd levels" - and then arbitrarily deciding what is and is not "absurd" for various reasons.
Or,
Just my opinion...your mileage may vary.
And, it cannot be emphasized enough:
And if players "are feeling rather shut-out and shut-down by the types of foes they're facing" that is something that needs discussion with the DM in my opinion, rather than trying to get an advantage through stretching the mechanics of a rule.
I attempted to mention something like this in my earlier post, but I feel I got distracted and failed to do so clearly. The best over-all scenario is discussing something with your GM.
Maybe your earth-sorcerer gets an idea, pulls out the heart of a slain qlippoth and, binding local weird energies, uses it and its disgusting blood to anoint you all in a weird ritual (maybe to Ragatheil or something so it's not, you know... too weird), thereby letting you more readily affect your local foes for a small piece of time or something.
I'unno. Talk to your GM, basically.
Mechanically it's possible.
In the context it was used in, that's fine. Sounds good.
A number of people don't like it, and, if it's uncomfortable for your experience, the best way to handle it is to talk.
This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray.Do you give people killed or incapitated before they had acted during that round their turn's worth of actions? Because otherwise characters killing or incapitating people before they acted also "[use] the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray". If say a Barbarian pounces and kills an enemy at lower initiative first round of combat, that enemy never gets to attack, if everythign in a round supposedly happens simultaneously, that can't be right.
If a Barbarian can make half a dozen attacks before their target can make even a single one despite those actions allegedly happening siumltaneously, a person using and dropping a wand before another person started to act is not any more cheesy.
but can 50+ people say use, drop, pick up and say use a remote control, fire a gun, or swing the same sword in 6 seconds?
that's why this breaks down. It becomes absurd at a point and a physical impossibility to boot. I think the little loading screen message in Pathfinder: Kingmaker handles this pretty well though; "a move or a standard action each takes about 3 seconds to accomplish" which would make this nonsense a non-issue.
So, if I had 50 people with 50 wands, could they all line up and shoot magic missile at a target sequentially, each waiting until the previous has finished to see if the target has fallen yet?
Let's see if this works. I did a picture of my interpretation of a round here.If I have time later today I'll do a picture to show why I think this shouldn't be allowed, but you know, ultimately it is up to each DM as to what they permit / don't permit at their tables.
I get an error, I'm afraid!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There was a permissions problem with my first link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, if I had 50 people with 50 wands, could they all line up and shoot magic missile at a target sequentially, each waiting until the previous has finished to see if the target has fallen yet?This is cheese. It is using the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray.Do you give people killed or incapitated before they had acted during that round their turn's worth of actions? Because otherwise characters killing or incapitating people before they acted also "[use] the turn based nature of the game rules to disrupt the simultaneous activity they are trying to portray". If say a Barbarian pounces and kills an enemy at lower initiative first round of combat, that enemy never gets to attack, if everythign in a round supposedly happens simultaneously, that can't be right.
If a Barbarian can make half a dozen attacks before their target can make even a single one despite those actions allegedly happening siumltaneously, a person using and dropping a wand before another person started to act is not any more cheesy.
but can 50+ people say use, drop, pick up and say use a remote control, fire a gun, or swing the same sword in 6 seconds?
that's why this breaks down. It becomes absurd at a point and a physical impossibility to boot. I think the little loading screen message in Pathfinder: Kingmaker handles this pretty well though; "a move or a standard action each takes about 3 seconds to accomplish" which would make this nonsense a non-issue.
mechanically? Sure, and as has been discussed, it seems to work even if they were pulling the use/drop/pickup/use method with one wand. Even if I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
Realistically? No, not within the confines of as single round (6 seconds) for that many people.
I'm not sure the exact number that it becomes silly, but 50 is definitely it for me. Two people, three or four? I'd let that fly a few times for desperate situations and the like, but I'd discourage it's use as a habit (unless the characters put in some serious work in developing it as a teamwork feat or something) and you can bet that like I said above some clan of kobolds are going to play the same game with a wand of fireball at some point.
I'm perfectly aware that this is a fantasy game, but the rules of reality are still in place until some fantastical power changes that. Time still runs as normal until it doesn't, and nowhere in this scenario does time suddenly stop for 49 other people to fit in their own 6 seconds worth of actions concurrently after one another in the same 6 seconds of time.
So, if I had 50 people with 50 wands, could they all line up and shoot magic missile at a target sequentially, each waiting until the previous has finished to see if the target has fallen yet?mechanically? Sure, and as has been discussed, it seems to work even if they were pulling the use/drop/pickup/use method with one wand. Even if I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
Realistically? No, not within the confines of as single round (6 seconds) for that many people.
I'm not sure the exact number that it becomes silly, but 50 is definitely it for me. Two people, three or four? I'd let that fly a few times for desperate situations and the like, but I'd discourage it's use as a habit (unless the characters put in some serious work in developing it as a teamwork feat or something) and you can bet that like I said above some clan of kobolds are going to play the same game with a wand of fireball at some point.
I'm perfectly aware that this is a fantasy game, but the rules of reality are still in place until some fantastical power changes that. Time still runs as normal until it doesn't, and nowhere in this scenario does time suddenly stop for 49 other people to fit in their own 6 seconds worth of actions concurrently after one another in the same 6 seconds of time.
So, what do you do for initiative? Do you make your players declare actions at the start of the round and hold them to their choices? Do you also write down your NPC actions at the start of the turn so you won't be tempted to change them?
So, what do you do for initiative? Do you make your players declare actions at the start of the round and hold them to their choices? Do you also write down your NPC actions at the start of the turn so you won't be tempted to change them?So, if I had 50 people with 50 wands, could they all line up and shoot magic missile at a target sequentially, each waiting until the previous has finished to see if the target has fallen yet?mechanically? Sure, and as has been discussed, it seems to work even if they were pulling the use/drop/pickup/use method with one wand. Even if I disagree with them wholeheartedly.
Realistically? No, not within the confines of as single round (6 seconds) for that many people.
I'm not sure the exact number that it becomes silly, but 50 is definitely it for me. Two people, three or four? I'd let that fly a few times for desperate situations and the like, but I'd discourage it's use as a habit (unless the characters put in some serious work in developing it as a teamwork feat or something) and you can bet that like I said above some clan of kobolds are going to play the same game with a wand of fireball at some point.
I'm perfectly aware that this is a fantasy game, but the rules of reality are still in place until some fantastical power changes that. Time still runs as normal until it doesn't, and nowhere in this scenario does time suddenly stop for 49 other people to fit in their own 6 seconds worth of actions concurrently after one another in the same 6 seconds of time.
how does that even figure in to this absurd scenario? But yes, I've played quite a few systems like that. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. It's the job of the GM to keep things on track and moving while maintaining some semblance of order and fairness while maintaining internal consistency
The point is that the line between Normal and Absurd is not defined. If it's fine for time to stop for 48 people while one person fits 6 seconds worth of actions in, but not fine for time to stop for 49 people, then that's an arbitrary distinction. If it's absurd for time to stop for a number of people depending on how the GM feels about the situation, then that's unplayable. That makes every player's action begin with, "Can I...?"
If my teammate disarms a wand from an enemy wizard, can I pick it up? If I can pick it up, can I use it? Can I drop it and quickdraw my rapier afterwards? Can the enemy wizard pick up the wand after I've dropped it? If the enemy wizard picks up the wand can he use it on me? If I use my AOO to disarm the wand from the wizard, can another enemy pick it up and use it? Could one of my allies instead?
Where does too much lie? It isn't codified. This just adds ambiguity without actually providing any benefit.
everybody has a suspension bridge of disbelief, and everybody's has a different weight limit. or to put it another way;
Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story;
Everybody finds a way to shine.
It don't matter that you got not alot.
So what?
They'll have theirs, you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine!
'Cuz it takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world,
Yes it does.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Fifty people doing the same action in the same turn, with the same item is too much for me. If it's not for you, great! Have fun, make fun stories with it, recite them here for our amusement.
everybody has a suspension bridge of disbelief, and everybody's has a different weight limit. or to put it another way;
Now, the world don't move to the beat of just one drum,
What might be right for you, may not be right for some.
A man is born, he's a man of means.
Then along come two, they got nothing but their jeans.
But they got, Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.
Everybody's got a special kind of story;
Everybody finds a way to shine.
It don't matter that you got not alot.
So what?
They'll have theirs, you'll have yours, and I'll have mine.
And together we'll be fine!
'Cuz it takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world,
Yes it does.
It takes Diff'rent Strokes to move the world.Fifty people doing the same action in the same turn, with the same item is too much for me. If it's not for you, great! Have fun, make fun stories with it, recite them here for our amusement.
I'm glad you could take the time to come back and completely miss the point. Or maybe miss 49 points.
But not 50 points. That would be a silly number of points to miss.
I'm wondering how many people who think the wand sharing trick is okay, would feel the same if the GM used the same loophole against the players.
I'm glad you could take the time to come back and completely miss the point. Or maybe miss 49 points.But not 50 points. That would be a silly number of points to miss.
your point in itself was absurd. Of course the point between normal and absurd is not defined, but is a distinction made by the individual. I didn't think such really needed to be pointed out, but there you go.
If it's fine for time to stop for 48 people while one person fits 6 seconds worth of actions in, but not fine for time to stop for 49 people, then that's an arbitrary distinction. If it's absurd for time to stop for a number of people depending on how the GM feels about the situation, then that's unplayable. That makes every player's action begin with, "Can I...?"
so you want a hard number? Fine, 3. No more than three people in a single turn can perform the kind of group action we're talking about. Or, maybe we can admit that not every situation is the same and that is the exact reason the GM is there, to decide what is best for the game, the story, the narrative, etc...?
I mean if you can't see a difference between one character picking up another character's item and using it in the same turn and 50 people playing the wand shuffle game, I just don't know what to tell you. I'll just take my catchy late 70's theme song and go...
Besides that, when attempting something that is not clearly defined in the rules in which you might have a question, it's generally a good idea to start with "Can I..." if not, I imagine that kind of player is the kind that everyone else at the table actually really hates.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
everybody has a suspension bridge of disbelief, and everybody's has a different weight limit. or to put it another way;
....
Fifty people doing the same action in the same turn, with the same item is too much for me. If it's not for you, great! Have fun, make fun stories with it, recite them here for our amusement.
Everyone has a different opinion on if and where it becomes cheese. RAW it works (if the wand is dropped). RAI, it is not something that requires a hard rule, as there are situations where picking up and using an item in the same round is awesome (the paladin and friend example above) and others were, for me, the same number of actions used passing a wand between two people seems cheese.
At the end of the day, every GM will rule it at his/her table, and probably will rule differently depending on the overall situation.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you could take the time to come back and completely miss the point. Or maybe miss 49 points.But not 50 points. That would be a silly number of points to miss.
your point in itself was absurd. Of course the point between normal and absurd is not defined, but is a distinction made by the individual. I didn't think such really needed to be pointed out, but there you go.
I think it might be a good time to point out that we're on the rules section of a website that is devoted to a written ruleset of a game and you're accusing me of being absurd because I suggested that basing ad-hoc rulings on may go over poorly to players when your values of are based on whimsey.
If it's fine for time to stop for 48 people while one person fits 6 seconds worth of actions in, but not fine for time to stop for 49 people, then that's an arbitrary distinction. If it's absurd for time to stop for a number of people depending on how the GM feels about the situation, then that's unplayable. That makes every player's action begin with, "Can I...?"so you want a hard number? Fine, 3. No more than three people in a single turn can perform the kind of group action we're talking about. Or, maybe we can admit that not every situation is the same and that is the exact reason the GM is there, to decide what is best for the game, the story, the narrative, etc...?
I mean if you can't see a difference between one character picking up another character's item and using it in the same turn and 50 people playing the wand shuffle game, I just don't know what to tell you. I'll just take my catchy late 70's theme song and go...
Yeah, you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse.
Set to 3? Good. Great, even. The point is that this is a house rule and surprising players with ad-hoc house isn't a fair thing to do. If you're GMing Pathfinder and are suddenly struck by an insatiable urge for realistic dropping rules that will fly in the face of other Pathfinder rules, then good for you. Put your dropping rules out on the table before you start your dropping-based campaign.
Besides that, when attempting something that is not clearly defined in the rules in which you might have a question, it's generally a good idea to start with "Can I..." if not, I imagine that kind of player is the kind that everyone else at the table actually really hates.
That's fine. But we're not talking about players attempting something that is not clearly defined in the rules. We're talking about players attempting something that is clearly defined in the rules, being told and trying to infer the actual ruleset.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering how many people who think the wand sharing trick is okay, would feel the same if the GM used the same loophole against the players.
As a GM, the difference in giving 50 NPCs one 50-charge wand and giving 50 NPCs fifty 1-charge wands is formation, action economy, Attacks of Opportunity, initiative, and a feeling of justification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm wondering how many people who think the wand sharing trick is okay, would feel the same if the GM used the same loophole against the players.
As a player, I'd be no more bothered by it than by n spellcasters delaying to act all together, each pulling a scroll of the same spell and releasing its magic at the party, instead of passing the blunt wand around, as it changes nothing in the narration and will not create any dissonance, those are expendables we wouldn't have been able to loot anyhow.
Hence it has nothing to do with the wand and all with Delay Action.
In the worst possible case, it would be a powerful wand stolen from the party by the enemies. What would annoy me most would be them expending *our* charges of *our* wand^^ In this case, it is about the resources, those of the party that are getting depleted. Once again, it wouldn't be about the effectiveness of the combat tactic, it would be able emptying the wand as quickly as possible. Then, yes, maybe I'd find it of poor taste. Same feeling than being surrounded by rust monsters. Sundering our wand would achieve the same goal without the icky feeling.
there are situations where picking up and using an item in the same round is awesome (the paladin and friend example above)
I feel warm inside, thanks for the compliment^^
I think it might be a good time to point out that we're on the rules section of a website that is devoted to a written ruleset of a game and you're accusing me of being absurd because I suggested that basing ad-hoc rulings on may go over poorly to players when your values of are based on whimsey.
serious question; can you read, or is english not your native language? Because the rules have been settled like in the first dozen or so posts and the topic of conversation, after having settled that this is mechanically RAW legal, has shifted into; now does this make any sense? I hope that helps to bring you up to speed.
Yeah, you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse.
Set to 3? Good. Great, even. The point is that this is a house rule and surprising players with ad-hoc house isn't a fair thing to do. If you're GMing...
do you actually GM? Again serious question. Cause nothing you have said makes any sense as coming from someone with any GMing experience. Most of your job is adhoc ruling, because, surprise-surprise, no system can account for even a quarter of the things that players try and pull. DC to climb the Titan, how many halflings can I carry in one hand, what is the hardness and hitpoints of a wall of bodies, why don't moving bodies then have that? Can I shoot an arrow at someone in a fog cloud? Etc, etc, etc...
I think it might be a good time to point out that we're on the rules section of a website that is devoted to a written ruleset of a game and you're accusing me of being absurd because I suggested that basing ad-hoc rulings on may go over poorly to players when your values of are based on whimsey.
serious question; can you read, or is english not your native language? Because the rules have been settled like in the first dozen or so posts and the topic of conversation, after having settled that this is mechanically RAW legal, has shifted into; now does this make any sense? I hope that helps to bring you up to speed.
do you actually GM? Again serious question. Cause nothing you have said makes any sense as coming from someone with any GMing experience. Most of your job is adhoc ruling, because, surprise-surprise, no system can account for even a quarter of the things that players try and pull. DC to climb the Titan, how many halflings can I carry in one hand, what is the hardness and hitpoints of a wall of bodies, why don't moving bodies then have that? Can I shoot an arrow at someone in a fog cloud? Etc, etc, etc...Yeah, you're either missing the point or being willfully obtuse.
Set to 3? Good. Great, even. The point is that this is a house rule and surprising players with ad-hoc house isn't a fair thing to do. If you're GMing...
I'm sorry I hurt you. I would have taken more care to phrase things in a gentle fashion had I realized that it would affect you so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
do you actually GM? Again serious question. Cause nothing you have said makes any sense as coming from someone with any GMing experience. Most of your job is adhoc ruling, because, surprise-surprise, no system can account for even a quarter of the things that players try and pull. DC to climb the Titan, how many halflings can I carry in one hand, what is the hardness and hitpoints of a wall of bodies, why don't moving bodies then have that? Can I shoot an arrow at someone in a fog cloud? Etc, etc, etc...
@Kitty Catoblepas,
I want to signal that I thought your post made a lot of sense and had a lot of good faith in it. As both a G.M. and a player in numerous systems for more than twenty years, I appreciated a lot the way you worded things. Thank you for it. In fact, when I read your post, I favourited it.
I'm sorry I hurt you. I would have taken more care to phrase things in a gentle fashion had I realized that it would affect you so.
oh sweetie no...now you're trying too hard.