There’s a line in the “Deceive or Lie” section of the Diplomacy rules that’s near and dear to my heart. It reads, “Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).” This is why Sir Bearington is more of a funny concept than an actual concern at the table. It does raise an interesting question of GM philosophy though. Namely, when is it appropriate for a GM to simply say, "You have no chance to succeed at that action?"
You obviously can't jump to the moon with a simple Acrobatics check. But are some creatures impossible to Intimidate because "subject to GM discretion?" What about obscure creature lore that no wizard would know? Animals that cannot be ridden? A style of sleight of hand so subtle a normal Perception check can't ever succeed?
In other words, when is it OK for a GM to declare an action impossible?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, this is why we need GMs: hard limits would be pointless.
For instance, if you had the cool Desnan gear that lets you survive in space and had +5000 to jump, then maybe...
I mean, a simple commoner can't intimidate a dragon, until he throws the heads of twenty great wyrm dragons onn the floor and says 'you're next'...
simple answer, GM's can say something is impossible whenever they please.....
...are some creatures impossible to Intimidate because "subject to GM discretion?" What about obscure creature lore that no wizard would know? Animals that cannot be ridden? A style of sleight of hand so subtle a normal Perception check can't ever succeed?
Yes, yes and no. Some beings could simply not understand fear, or the apparent difference in power level is too great for the target to ever feel threatened.
Some information is lost to time or has just never been witnessed/recorded by anyone before.Any time you've deemed one party's actions to be feasible enough to justify a roll, opposing that action should also be feasible enough to justify it's own.
To answer the broader question: when you've deemed an action impossible. The rogue can't flap their arms and fly no matter how high the d20 result is. The fighter can't split the world in half with a coup de grace no matter how big their sword is. You can't knock down a door with arrows, cut a rope with a club or climb a ladder when you're polymorphed into a dolphin.
Of course, I do like to stretch that a bit at a certain point. Sort of a way to give non-spellcasters some cool, pseudo-paranormal options: climbing a tall pane of glass (or a waterfall), tracking someone across the open sea (or through the sky), etc. But that's just to reward investment at higher levels, not to allow absurdity and cartoon logic into a gritty and serious game.
I guess that's another part of it. What kind of a game are you running? How silly do you want things to get? The more like a Saturday morning cartoon you want it to be, the less you have to deem impossible.
when it serves the game and/or story is about as hard a line I can draw for that question. Or the player is being a pain in the crotchtoral region!
I think the limit depends on the campaign, among other things. If you GM an AP with a tight and predefined story, you don't want people to jump to the moon. Because it distracts from the story.
If you GM something homebrew where the story is driven by players (completely or partially), IMO there is nothing wrong with such a jump. Because then players are expected to contribute objectives. Heck, it can even make sense to let them fail the jump (DC would be huge, after all) and come up with a trip to the moon next session. Conquering a crashed spaceship from hostile aliens, jury-rigging it to start and landing on the moon would make a better story than a straight-forward Acrobatics check, anyway. But the check was the initial spark, so it deserves some respect...
Speaking from a player and a GM perspective... It is always OK for a GM to declare an action impossible, given that all parties are behaving and acting in a reasonable manner. The GM is the story teller and the player has the reigns of a character in that story There are limits for the player (and thus the character) to influence and effect the narrative of that story (this is contained within the mechanics of their character design and permissive rules [the rules tell you want you CAN do, for the most part, not what you can't do. That's GM territory]). There are no such limitations for the GM.
Now, ask me if I will play with a GM and/or player that is not behaving in a reasonable manner?
There is a difference between when I decide an action is impossible and when I tell my players such an action is impossible. There characters have sometimes no idea that what they are attempting cannot succeed.
To use examples above, trying to intimidate someone of whom you have misunderstood the mental state, trying to recall a piece of information that has never been made available to anyone so far, those are impossible but I wouldn't tell my players as it would make sense that their character do try to said actions.
I'd let the players know when their character would know better than the players.
There’s a line in the “Deceive or Lie” section of the Diplomacy rules that’s near and dear to my heart. It reads, “Note that some lies are so improbable that it is impossible to convince anyone that they are true (subject to GM discretion).” This is why Sir Bearington is more of a funny concept than an actual concern at the table. It does raise an interesting question of GM philosophy though. Namely, when is it appropriate for a GM to simply say, "You have no chance to succeed at that action?"
You obviously can't jump to the moon with a simple Acrobatics check. But are some creatures impossible to Intimidate because "subject to GM discretion?" What about obscure creature lore that no wizard would know? Animals that cannot be ridden? A style of sleight of hand so subtle a normal Perception check can't ever succeed?
In other words, when is it OK for a GM to declare an action impossible?
1. It's OK for a GM to declare an action impossible when the game mechanics are clear that it is impossible (succeeding at a skill check where nat-20 does not meet the DC.) Note that it's equally ok to allow the check, and then to reveal its impossibility. (I almost DIED OUTRIGHT to one of these: the GM asked me to roll Perception as I entered a room. Nat 20 = 26. Not good enough, so I set off a Flame Strike rune for 8d6, failed Reflex, and luckily only took 24; any roll in the 40s would have killed me instantly, while 24 was only a painful stare. Rip the library though. ): )
2. It's OK for a GM to declare an action impossible if some explicit description declares it impossible and the party has reason to be aware of it (a sufficient Arcana check to know that an adult Aurumvorax cannot be tamed.)
3. It's ok for a GM to declare an action impossible if it violates table rules. (Rolling Perception in a library to search for specific religious materials that we'd agreed would NOT be allowed.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...maybe there is an archer out there who has a high-strength compound bow, an impressive knowledge engineering check, and maybe some kind of trick arrow...maybe that character in that moment could make the shot at the one weak point of a door to make it fall down.
If you've got blunt adamantine arrows for some reason and can do enough damage in one shot to reduce a door to 0 hp, then sure. Shoot the top hinge so hard it knocks the pin out the bottom, which in turn hits the middle pin so hard it knocks that one out, which knocks out the bottom one and the whole door just falls out of its frame.
Or I guess a bunch of adamantine arrows to punch through the wood around the bolt and the hinges. Like that carnival game where you have to shoot the star out of the paper with the BB's.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Latching on to one example from above; maybe there is an archer out there who has a high-strength compound bow, an impressive knowledge engineering check, and maybe some kind of trick arrow. Admittedly this would all take some absurd checks and a very lucky called shot; but maybe that character in that moment could make the shot at the one weak point of a door to make it fall down.
Weirdly enough, also relevant comic
I like the notion that it's down to campaign style. One of my other favorite games is Exalted, and that's the kind of setting where punching a river in half or jumping to the moon isn't out of the question.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. There's a system for dream combat in Changeling: the Lost that can be fairly crazy. Pulling all of the grief and rage out of your heart, forging it into a chain, then harpooning one of the larger constellations to make a metaphysical/cosmic flail you can beat people over the head with, etc.
I would say that the "normal" tone for a game of Pathfinder (the one that seems to be set by the source material, AP's, and so on) is... just a few shades lighter/wackier than "The Lord of The Rings". That is to say, still fairly serious and "real", but with maybe a bit more room for brevity and humor than the rather somber novel.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When is it OK for a GM to declare an action impossible?
Actually, the answer to this is pretty simple:
*When the action is impossible*
Not trying to be snarky or anything. But nothing obligates a GM to allow a roll for an impossible attempt at something. If the GM knows that it is impossible - well then, it's impossible.
For the clearly futile, I would straight up tell the player, that the PC realizes the attempt could never succeed.
"No, you're heavily encumbered, level one character, with no magic and a 10 strength, knows that they can't broad jump over the 40 foot city wall."
And if there are reasons a PC might NOT know it's impossible, then maybe allow for an ability check, or maybe a relevant skill check, to realize it.
The task remains impossible - it's just to give them a chance to realize that, so they don't so something foolish or waste time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Arrows can't reasonably take down a door because their area of damage is simply too small. I don't care how hard you hit it, you only punch a small hole.
Structural damage is poorly modelled in Pathfinder. What matters is coherence, even more so than verisimilitude, particularly because verisimilitude while magic is involved is very fuzzy. I know what an arrow shot from a longbow at a thick wooden panel, such as a door, looks like, driven in or bouncing or breaking.... I am not sure I know what a +3 arrow shot from a +4 composite bow of strength looks like.
The door is resistant to piercing damage, sure, but to negate it entirely, I disagree. If stone can be destroyed with the blade of a sword then a wooden door can be destroyed by arrows.
...but to negate it entirely, I disagree. If stone can be destroyed with the blade of a sword then a wooden door can be destroyed by arrows.
Again, I think it depends on the tone established by the setting. Is this Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings? A Song of Ice and Fire or World of Warcraft?
In one of my settings, I don't care if you have a +5 mighty composite Hornbow of impact and Str38. It's an arrow. You can't knock down a door with an arrow any more than you can use Climb to move up the social ladder.
In another...hey, if your damage is high enough, I'll let you shoot the clouds open so it starts raining, or clear the fog away with the galeforce winds created by your arrow's flight
As long as you are coherent with elements such as Stone Shield, in which a table made of stone can be crushed to smithereens by a measly hit of 23 damage, then all is fine.
I find these elements to be prevalent enough that the tone of a game using the Pathfinder rules is to be set in rather narrow range if coherence between these elements is to be a maintained, with said range more towards super heroes than vigilantes.
Yup. Arrows can't reasonably take down a door because their area of damage is simply too small. I don't care how hard you hit it, you only punch a small hole.Structural damage is poorly modelled in Pathfinder. What matters is coherence, even more so than verisimilitude, particularly because verisimilitude while magic is involved is very fuzzy. I know what an arrow shot from a longbow at a thick wooden panel, such as a door, looks like, driven in or bouncing or breaking.... I am not sure I know what a +3 arrow shot from a +4 composite bow of strength looks like.
The door is resistant to piercing damage, sure, but to negate it entirely, I disagree. If stone can be destroyed with the blade of a sword then a wooden door can be destroyed by arrows.
I think this is part of the reason you get lines like the "ineffective weapon" clause in the damaging objects rule:
Ineffective Weapons
Certain weapons just can’t effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
The problem is that you're still open to interpretation there. That's why you'll find raging arguments about whether or not an adamantine spoon can "carve through stone like butter" or if you still need and adamantine pick to get away with expedited tunneling.
