| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GM FIAT is a last resort rule for when all else fails. That's all it is, and nothing more. A band-aid for when the developers don't (or rather, can't,) anticipate certain rules interactions.
Though I readily admit that the definition of "GM Fiat" may greatly vary whomever you may be asking in my opinion adjucating actually existing rules or interaction of existing rules is only a small part of "GM Fiat". A large part of "GM Fiat" is to also provide judgement for any type of rules-are-not-existing situation.
For example consider that we are told exactily nothing about the intelligence of a familiar in the CRB. So under one GM a pet raven (a rather intelligent corvid) that picks up speech could still be limited to animal like intelligence and simple sentences like "Krah hunger; Krah cold; bad thing ahead" and may in large parts still behave much like the animal, while at another table a pet rock that happens to have flight and speech slapped onto could literally be the next Einstein.
Another topic that many do not consider covered by hard rules is that at one table enemies could always "auto-identify" your scouting familiar, resulting in initiative being rolled and immediate retaliation, wheras at another table the familar is allowed to act as the perfect scout, constantly providing the party with an information advantage.
The GM deciding one way or another is not dependent on the existance of rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Table variation is a thing. One GM will rule X. Another will rule Y. If Y is a houserule, whereas X is RAW, I will expect to play the game with X every time, as most games with the Y houserule I will be aware of ahead of time. This is why GM FIAT is not an acceptable rules answer unless there is absolutely nothing else to go on. And in this case, there is.
Remember that whatever the PCs do, the bad guys can do as well, it's all fair game. If PCs can break down doors or walls with axes, so can the bad guys. You can bet when a player uses smart tactics against the module that they have changed the game in a way they may not expect. Players are much more likely to cry afoul when a GM uses PC tactics against them, which is why GMs don't do this, or let PCs do it, especially if it's built into the balance of the game.
I suspect that if Paizo made RAW about it, it wouldn't be particularly different compared to what we already have available to us with shield rules, material rules, etc. It's not that striking objects can't be adjudicated, it's that one GM's adjudication will be different from another's, which is bad for rules consistency between tables, something I would expect a PFS player like yourself to be familiar with.
To me, familiars in PF2 never will fulfill the fantasy appropriately, even if they are as fleshed out as PC classes are. They're just so bad with their options that it's just not worth the investment unless you really just want to mess around. Even with clarifications and added options with each book, they just don't measure up to any sort of value that I can't already do with a feat or spell of some sort. They are RP options and little else.
First, applying RAW is GM fiat. When a situation arise, the GM determines if a rule can be applied or must be applied, what rule to apply and if the rule can be applied as is. As such, the GM is 100% accountable for applying RAW the way he did.
For example, if my wizard is stuck in front of a wooden door and I decide to melt it with Acid Splash, a GM forbidding it because it's not RAW will break the verisimilitude of the world. For me, it's weak GMing. You may consider it good GMing, as people will love different experiences. But overall, the GM is 100% responsible for the way he handles the game rulewise and applying RAW is neither objective nor above critics. And in this case, I would not be surprised to learn that the most applied ruling is not RAW, as such it's RAW that generates the table variation.Remember that whatever the PCs do, the bad guys can do as well, it's all fair game. If PCs can break down doors or walls with axes, so can the bad guys.
Not at all. You consider that if the GM applied a ruling in one specific case then this ruling has to be generalized to every similar case. This is not true. Humans have a great ability to feel nuance and can understand the difference between 2 very similar situations.
For example, if the evil wizard keeps blocking the barbarian's attacks with his quarterstaff and the barbarian player tells me that he wants "to show the wizard what happens when you block a greataxe with a wooden stick" I will 100% accept the barbarian to sunder the quarterstaff. In this case, and only in this very specific case. Because it's hyper logical, because it's part of the barbarian fantasy. The next fight, if the barbarian wants to sunder the soldier sword my answer will be no. Different cases, different rulings.Also, I don't have to use this rule for the bad guys. Bad guys do what I want.
It's not that striking objects can't be adjudicated, it's that one GM's adjudication will be different from another's, which is bad for rules consistency between tables, something I would expect a PFS player like yourself to be familiar with.
Then you'll be happy to learn that around every table I've played in striking an object has been handled the very same way with absolutely no variation. Because a rule doesn't have to be written precisely to be applied. The rule "When you die, you can't act" is the embodiment of how this mindset leads to crazy rulings. Every DM all around the world have always ruled death the same way. Why do you need to write a rule that is obvious to everyone and that everyone applies without variation?
To me, familiars in PF2 never will fulfill the fantasy appropriately, even if they are as fleshed out as PC classes are.
And it hasn't been my case. I'm quite satisfied with my familiars to the point where I consider Familiar feats to be among the best feats you can get at level 1. This is a fantastic feature for such a low level feat.
For example consider that we are told exactily nothing about the intelligence of a familiar in the CRB. So under one GM a pet raven (a rather intelligent corvid) that picks up speech could still be limited to animal like intelligence and simple sentences like "Krah hunger; Krah cold; bad thing ahead" and may in large parts still behave much like the animal, while at another table a pet rock that happens to have flight and speech slapped onto could literally be the next Einstein.
I've played my familiars around a few tables and GMs don't care about this level of details. This is just my familiar fantasy. If I want my rat to be a specialist in theoretical physics I don't see a GM intervening, because it has no impact on the adventure. And if the situation ever arise where knowledge in theoretical physics can be useful, then it's in general a good moment of gaming to see the rat theoretical physicist stepping forward to solve it (as long as I've payed my Familiar Ability to get Lore (Theoretical Physics)). But that's once in a campaign situations in general so it won't imbalance the game at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played my familiars around a few tables and GMs don't care about this level of details. This is just my familiar fantasy. If I want my rat to be a specialist in theoretical physics I don't see a GM intervening, because it has no impact on the adventure. And if the situation ever arise where knowledge in theoretical physics can be useful, then it's in general a good moment of gaming to see the rat theoretical physicist stepping forward to solve it (as long as I've payed my Familiar Ability to get Lore (Theoretical Physics)). But that's once in a campaign situations in general so it won't imbalance the game at all.
I guess you took my considerations far too literal. My reference to the famous physicist was wordplay more than anything else. However my point still stands that the level of complexity for tasks and/or conversations that the familiar is able to conduct is still very much depending on the GM, i.e. will your dog familiar be easily distracted by squirrels, can not distinguish well in between colors, can only communicate in crude sentences or has it full human-like intelligence and eloquence and can solve complex tasks or explain complex factual circumstances? Usually fully up to the GM.
I've played my familiars around a few tables and GMs don't care about this level of details. This is just my familiar fantasy. If I want my rat to be a specialist in theoretical physics I don't see a GM intervening, because it has no impact on the adventure. And if the situation ever arise where knowledge in theoretical physics can be useful, then it's in general a good moment of gaming to see the rat theoretical physicist stepping forward to solve it (as long as I've payed my Familiar Ability to get Lore (Theoretical Physics)). But that's once in a campaign situations in general so it won't imbalance the game at all.I guess you took my considerations far too literal. My reference to the famous physicist was wordplay more than anything else. However my point still stands that the level of complexity for tasks and/or conversations that the familiar is able to conduct is still very much depending on the GM, i.e. will your dog familiar be easily distracted by squirrels, can not distinguish well in between colors, can only communicate in crude sentences or has it full human-like intelligence and eloquence and can solve complex tasks or explain complex factual circumstances? Usually fully up to the GM.
Your examples speak of what I would consider an adversarial GM. If the GM wants to screw my familiar abilities by either considering my familiar failed at its task because it has been distracted by squirrels or that my Speech ability is unusable as my Familiar will know less than 100 words I don't find the GM is making legitimate rulings. He has this right, but the GM can ruled whatever he wants anyway.
I've honestly never been in a situation where handling a complex task has caused issues. Mostly because I've always asked the GM when something was not obvious like in my last adventure where there was a portculis to open. The GM told me that my Familiar was having the strength to pull the lever, but I would have accepted the opposite ruling equally. Allowing the GM to do his job is not bad per se. It doesn't feel like table variations actually because the case of the portcullis lever is one of a kind.Also, when I bring my Familiar around a table, I don't expect my rat to solve the adventure on his own. If a DM tells me that for him everyone recognizes a rat familiar when they see one then I won't send my familiar to scout. But for me it's the same thing than when my spell fails because the enemy rolls a critical success. What is important is not the worst case that can happen, but the average case. And on average, GMs have given me enough leeway for my familiar to be enjoyable to play and use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey look! It's the Rabbit hole!
Now we're questioning the fundamental nature of rules and if there can ever be an objective set of procedures by which the game can be played... rather than accepting that Valet and Independant don't interact.
Ok, let's get back a little bit in time:
Well, I can take time to answer. But as people are complaining and because it doesn't seem to lead anywhere, I'll stop speaking about that. But I clearly disagree with you.
Show us why though!
We have a rules based argument to oppose your idea, but so far you haven't presented a rules based counter point.
Don't just say you don't agree, show me why I might be wrong!
So, should I explain why I disagree with you or not? Can't I disagree with you on a fundamental level? Or is it Twitter where I just have 80 characters to make my case?
You should question your motivations in asking me to explain myself if you don't accept my explanations afterwards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... rather than accepting that Valet and Independant don't interact.
You mean your argument that Valet is only accessible if you actively command your familiar? Well let me tell you that without Independent *ANY* familar action is only accessible if you actively command your familiar.
So if I anyhow need to Command a familiar to use its actions to Stride or Strike but he can use either with Independent I find it most reasonable to conclude that even if I usually need to Command a familar to use its actions for Valet he can also use it via Independent.
Note that this is a pricipal issue not only for Valet but for any future special Commands that may be published in any upcomming rules supplement. Do special Commands add special familiar actions that can be accessed via Independent OR can Independent ever only access basic familiar actions like Stride or Strike?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like something for an FAQ.
I remember legends of long, long ago in the before times when FAQ's existed and people could mark a post for it to be looked at... Truly magical times... All we have now is errata that comes out with a book is reprinted or 'ask your DM'... ;P
So if I anyhow need to Command a familiar to use its actions to Stride or Strike but he can use either with Independent I find it most reasonable to conclude that even if I usually need to Command a familar to use its actions for Valet he can also use it via Independent.
I noted the difference in my previous posts: Stride and other actions ONLY require actions and the most common way to get those is through being commanded for a familiar but they can also get it through independent. As such, there is 0% issue with general actions that don't require being commanded. There is a difference between being commanded to grant actions and being commanded do a specific action: Stride doesn't require a command while Valet does as one requires a command while the other just requires an action be available.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Table variation is a thing. One GM will rule X. Another will rule Y. If Y is a houserule, whereas X is RAW, I will expect to play the game with X every time, as most games with the Y houserule I will be aware of ahead of time. This is why GM FIAT is not an acceptable rules answer unless there is absolutely nothing else to go on. And in this case, there is.
Remember that whatever the PCs do, the bad guys can do as well, it's all fair game. If PCs can break down doors or walls with axes, so can the bad guys. You can bet when a player uses smart tactics against the module that they have changed the game in a way they may not expect. Players are much more likely to cry afoul when a GM uses PC tactics against them, which is why GMs don't do this, or let PCs do it, especially if it's built into the balance of the game.
I suspect that if Paizo made RAW about it, it wouldn't be particularly different compared to what we already have available to us with shield rules, material rules, etc. It's not that striking objects can't be adjudicated, it's that one GM's adjudication will be different from another's, which is bad for rules consistency between tables, something I would expect a PFS player like yourself to be familiar with.
To me, familiars in PF2 never will fulfill the fantasy appropriately, even if they are as fleshed out as PC classes are. They're just so bad with their options that it's just not worth the investment unless you really just want to mess around. Even with clarifications and added options with each book, they just don't measure up to any sort of value that I can't already do with a feat or spell of some sort. They are RP options and little else.
First, applying RAW is GM fiat. When a situation arise, the GM determines if a rule can be applied or must be applied, what rule to apply and if the rule can be applied as is. As such, the GM is 100% accountable for applying RAW the way he did.
For example, if my wizard is stuck in front of a wooden door...
Would've replied sooner, but suffered some deadly website cookies. Anyway...
Not really. GM FIAT is the same thing as houseruling. Being able to make a strike at a creature within range isn't any more GM FIAT than a 1st level spellcaster with spell slots remaining to be able to cast 1st level spells. There is obvious intention behind those things. For your Acid Splash example, this is also true, as doors aren't creatures, therefore it would fail to target the door and the spell would just do nothing. The general rule is that effects do not affect objects unless they are unattended or specifically target objects, and for good balance reasons.
The Barbarian example doesn't hold up because he could have had that same exact stance on something else (such as the sword you mention later) and it would still fit the apparent theme they're going for. This is just player favoritism being rewarded just because. Plus, who's to say the Wizard can't just argue his primitive weapons pale in comparison to true magic and just Disintegrate his weapon as a counterplay? There are reasons well beyond sensibility and thematics for why effects like those shouldn't come to pass. One reason is it messes with WBL expectations. Another is it messes with encounter balance.
PFS has its own rules separate from the original game, and GMs have specific coding they have to follow when running creatures, meaning there is literally no GM FIAT they can rely on, it's the equivalent of fighting a computer in a versus game. You can have any items etched and done for cost at basically any time you want, compared to having players sinking skill feats and ranks into it, you get access to numerous things players from other game types wouldn't, and some things you automatically get access to compared to them having to actually adventure for it. Much like its PF1 counterpart, it's houserule city. Whether it's better or worse or not is irrelevant, point is that it's basically a completely different game compared to any other non-PFS table that it warrants the discussion of table variation, even if there is no variation between every PFS table.
I mean, if you enjoy the familiars as they are, then good for you. But I never will. They were niche before in PF1, and between the tight math and intentional restrictions they put over them in PF2, I find them unplayable and not worth the effort. It's literally the #1 reason why I'd never play a Witch: a lot of their "power" from hexes, which was their real M.O. and iconicism, got stripped in favor of what I find is a dead feature. I don't care if they get more familiar powers and special interactions compared to others. You polish a turd, it's still a turd. The worst part is a more hex-based Witch is now off the table as a result of this poor balance choice Paizo made.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would've replied sooner, but suffered some deadly website cookies. Anyway...
I got the same here.
Not really. GM FIAT is the same thing as houseruling. Being able to make a strike at a creature within range isn't any more GM FIAT than a 1st level spellcaster with spell slots remaining to be able to cast 1st level spells. There is obvious intention behind those things. For your Acid Splash example, this is also true, as doors aren't creatures, therefore it would fail to target the door and the spell would just do nothing. The general rule is that effects do not affect objects unless they are unattended or specifically target objects, and for good balance reasons.
And your ruling is not universal. I expect a lot of GMs allowing a wizard to melt a door with Acid Splash as many people consider that the coherence of the world is more important than a specific rule. You may even discover you're not on the majority and as such generating table variation through your ruling, which is the exact definition of GM fiat.
PFS has its own rules separate from the original game, and GMs have specific coding they have to follow when running creatures, meaning there is literally no GM FIAT they can rely on, it's the equivalent of fighting a computer in a versus game.
This is a description of a GMing style. Clearly, I don't want my players to think they are playing a computer game, ever. And considering it's the only way to play the game is far away from reality.
Also, I play a lot of PFS and there is a lot of table variation. And by table variation I don't mean the way of handling rule X or Y but the way of handling the game as a whole. Unfortunately, and I agree with you on that, there are tons of GMs handling PFS adventures like video game adventures. Finding a GM who's able to give a personal vibe to his game within the constraints of PFS is hard.Much like its PF1 counterpart, it's houserule city.
It's funny to read that. Because if there is a place where houseruling is hard, it's PFS. But it looks like our definitions of houserule and GM fiat are not in line.
Would've replied sooner, but suffered some deadly website cookies. Anyway...I got the same here.
Not really. GM FIAT is the same thing as houseruling. Being able to make a strike at a creature within range isn't any more GM FIAT than a 1st level spellcaster with spell slots remaining to be able to cast 1st level spells. There is obvious intention behind those things. For your Acid Splash example, this is also true, as doors aren't creatures, therefore it would fail to target the door and the spell would just do nothing. The general rule is that effects do not affect objects unless they are unattended or specifically target objects, and for good balance reasons.And your ruling is not universal. I expect a lot of GMs allowing a wizard to melt a door with Acid Splash as many people consider that the coherence of the world is more important than a specific rule. You may even discover you're not on the majority and as such generating table variation through your ruling, which is the exact definition of GM fiat.
PFS has its own rules separate from the original game, and GMs have specific coding they have to follow when running creatures, meaning there is literally no GM FIAT they can rely on, it's the equivalent of fighting a computer in a versus game.This is a description of a GMing style. Clearly, I don't want my players to think they are playing a computer game, ever. And considering it's the only way to play the game is far away from reality.
Also, I play a lot of PFS and there is a lot of table variation. And by table variation I don't mean the way of handling rule X or Y but the way of handling the game as a whole. Unfortunately, and I agree with you on that, there are tons of GMs handling PFS adventures like video game adventures. Finding a GM who's able to give a personal vibe to his game within the constraints of PFS is hard.It's not universal because of houserules, but it's certainly RAW that spells and effects do not affect objects unless it specifically calls for them, though, because the rules outright say as such. The point wasn't that it's universal anyway. The point is that it's RAW, and the GM has the burden of explaining that to the players.
As another example, players using High/Long Jump activities without Striding 10 feet prior to the check or possessing the Quick Jump feat means they automatically fail the check, no questions asked. It's not houseruling, that's literally what the rules say happens when those conditions are met. That is RAW. Houseruling would be handwaving that or saying he has enough training ranks to do it regardless, or some other notion. Obviously, a GM might not know that particular rule, but that's not the intended target of my statement. Houseruling is intentionally changing an existing, obviously intended rule, usually for the betterment of the table's desired gameplay.
The reason they handle it like a video game is because overt changes in gameplay without a listed reaction caused by player activity means a blatant difference of experiences that are probably not intended. It's a matter of being able to play the same character at different tables that are meant to function under this "universal" ruleset that causes the staleness of gameplay between tables. Frankly, the characters I have (and others have) between both tables I game at currently would be incompatible under the other table's ruleset. This is because of table variation between houserules or other unclear interpretations that each GM is comfortable with letting happen at their table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@SuperBidi: It's not universal because of houserules, but it's certainly RAW that spells and effects do not affect objects unless it specifically calls for them, though, because the rules outright say as such. The point wasn't that it's universal anyway. The point is that it's RAW, and the GM has the burden of explaining that to the players.
As another example, players using High/Long Jump activities without Striding 10 feet prior to the check or possessing the Quick Jump feat means they automatically fail the check, no questions asked. It's not houseruling, that's literally what the rules say happens when those conditions are met. That is RAW. Houseruling would be handwaving that or saying he has enough training ranks to do it regardless, or some other notion. Obviously, a GM might not know that particular rule, but that's not the intended target of my statement. Houseruling is intentionally changing an existing, obviously intended rule, usually for the betterment of the table's desired gameplay.
The reason they handle it like a video game is because overt changes in gameplay without a listed reaction caused by player activity means a blatant difference of experiences that are probably not intended. It's a matter of being able to play the same character at different tables that are meant to function under this "universal" ruleset that causes the staleness of gameplay between tables. Frankly, the characters I have (and others have) between both tables I game at currently would be incompatible under the other table's ruleset. This is because of table variation between houserules or other unclear interpretations that each GM is comfortable with letting happen at their table.