I have an encounter coming up in my next session and I'd to see what others' opinions are of Rules as Written regarding Reach, Improved Grab, and the Grabbed condition.
Situation:
Beastie with 15 foot reach has an attack with the improved grab rider. So if it hits, target is auto grabbed. There is no provision in this attack that says the target is moved adjacent to the beastie.
Assume the beastie hits and grabs the target 15 feet away. The target now has the grabbed condition, so its flat footed, immobilized, and has a flat check to fail manipulate actions.
Rules as Written, would the grabbed character, with a reach of 5 feet, be able to melee attack the creature that has them grabbed? Based on what I've read, the answer is no.
Please note, while I certainly appreciate any "Here is how I would rule it..." type posts, I am looking for definitive 'Rules as Written'. I've not been able to find anything that contradicts my understanding, but I could be wrong.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 474, where size and reach are explained, suggests not running this in a clearly illogical manner.
The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature’s space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot-by-10-foot space (4 squares on the grid). Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature. A Small or larger creature or object takes up at least 1 square on a grid, and creatures of these sizes can’t usually share spaces except in situations like a character riding a mount. Rules for moving through other creatures’ spaces appear below.
RAW yes, you're right...
But if you told me that I couldn't attempt to stab a creature that was grabbing me I would probably be very upset as a player.
Most people consider the feat that lets you ready an attack against a creature with reach from PF1 (the name of which I've forgotten) to be a horrible feat for setting such a precedent and promptly ignored it.
Basically because it's nonsense that you can't attack something touching you because it's out of "reach".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Page 474, where size and reach are explained, suggests not running this in a clearly illogical manner.
The Space entry lists how many feet on a side a creature’s space is, so a Large creature fills a 10-foot-by-10-foot space (4 squares on the grid). Sometimes part of a creature extends beyond its space, such as if a giant octopus is grabbing you with its tentacles. In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature. A Small or larger creature or object takes up at least 1 square on a grid, and creatures of these sizes can’t usually share spaces except in situations like a character riding a mount. Rules for moving through other creatures’ spaces appear below.
I was hoping for something more definitive, but this section in the rules does address it somewhat.
More of an editorial, I am disappointed how often they've chosen to burden the GM with "Usually, you as the GM can just make a decision..."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW yes, you're right...
But if you told me that I couldn't attempt to stab a creature that was grabbing me I would probably be very upset as a player.
I can certainly agree, and its why I asked about it. I could see my players getting annoyed fast. I've been clear to my table at the outset that I play "Rules as Written" not "Rules as we think they should be interpreted".
Basically because it's nonsense that you can't attack something touching you because it's out of "reach".
There is a lot of nonsense in the PF2e rules set unfortunately. At least this one has some guidance on the issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hiding behind RAW is a bad thing to do in my opinion.
All words have to be interpreted to have meaning, and PF2 even has things written in the rule book encouraging GMs to use common.
Trying to run this game as RAW is LAW type game is bad.
And honestly, PF2 probably has less nonsensical situations than PF1 had. This situation was present in both versions with PF1 being mostly silent on the topic until they released the Strike Back feat which allowed you attack an enemy with greater reach as a readied action.
Of course PF1 did have you automatically move adjacent when grappling so this specific situation wouldn't happen.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a lot of nonsense in the PF2e rules set unfortunately. At least this one has some guidance on the issue.
Ironically, I find the large numbers of 'the GM can interpret this in different ways' to actually solve a large number of weird situations that PF1's rigid rules never did. Having flexibility in approach acknowledged and built into the rules is a good thing, imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW yes, you're right...
But if you told me that I couldn't attempt to stab a creature that was grabbing me I would probably be very upset as a player.
I can certainly agree, and its why I asked about it. I could see my players getting annoyed fast. I've been clear to my table at the outset that I play "Rules as Written" not "Rules as we think they should be interpreted".
There is a lot of nonsense in the PF2e rules set unfortunately. At least this one has some guidance on the issue.Basically because it's nonsense that you can't attack something touching you because it's out of "reach".
I think the GM has to work it out. If you are being held at range by an arm, then clearly you can attack the arm. If you are being held at range by say a Bill Hook then maybe you can't reach anything to attack except the weapon. So the GM should allow Disarm attempts and maybe attacks at the weapon as an object.
Either way you can still attempt to escape so what really is the player's problem?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
reading the rules and being able to apply them verbatim ... is what I expect of every well written rule book
doubly so when some form of regulated organized play is involved
leaving it up to the GM is fine when it’s just me chuckleheads gettin togethers for a weekend sess
when it is us attending an organized PFS event at a convention ... no, this is a bug, not a feature
it is poor form to have organized play which doesn’t use the same foundational basis across the board
if the designers’ intent/s cannot be readily discerned with trivial effort, then there has been a failing of conveying
for reasons I don’t comprehend++, the sentiment that rules should be clear and comprehensive has fallen along the wayside in many circles; as has that poor form is unacceptable in organized events
++ feel free to call me out on this, because I have a wee bit of experience in this regard ...
queue the laughing raccoon
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the problem is that we tried that in PF1 and that just resulted in all sorts of weird corner cases that could be abused and exploited.
So with edition change the tried to walk it backwards some.
I think everyone agrees that clear rules are good, but I think even more people agree the not abusing the rules to overpower a character's options and leaving the GM still open to make reasonable calls is important.
To be honest, I personally find concerns about organized play to be unimportant (because I don't do organized play).
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I play "Rules as Written" not "Rules as we think they should be interpreted".
This statement is an oxymoron, because reading is an interpretive activity. Two people can read the same passage, and come to drastically different conclusions.
Besides, the Designers have told us time and again that the text of their rulebooks is not meant to be scrutinized with a Masters Degree in English.
It's equal parts fluff and crunch, with a helpful Traits glossary, room for GM discretion, acknowledgement of typos, a power level assumption, an online community that often knows more than the Designers themselves, and in/frequent Errata and FAQ postings to clarify some of the noise.
Even the Organized Play Developers continue to remind us that "RAW" interpretations have no place in the Campaign, and you'll never see any "RAW" requirement in any Guide to Organized Play.
So I just have to ask...
Is playing Rules as Written anathema to most RPG crowds these days? Is 'RAW' considered taboo or a pejorative? The judgement and negative posts really feel like folks are calling me out for playing 'wrong' because I play by the rules at my table.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any question about "most" RPG crowds isn't going to get a meaningful answer without a large dataset.
"Playing Rules As Written" can also mean different things,based on who's saying it. There's a fairly large sliding scale from "I don't like houserules" all the way to "if something isn't explicitly defined as an option in the game mechanics, there is no flexibility to ever allow it".
The extreme end of that scale doesn’t make for a good game to me, but I only speak for myself. How far along that scale is reasonable to be is a decision that needs to be made on a group by group basis. Even in Organized Play there isn't, and never will be, a completely standardized universal level of comfort with handling the fuzzy edges of the system.
The closest thing to a universal answer is that trying to play the game closer to full Machine Mode (GM as strict interpreter of the rules only, the most extreme implementation of RAW) than the system itself assumes can be a real problem in terms of having the game handle things well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is for [semi-]professional sports, so whether it’s a ball game in Cheney Stadium or Polar Park, the exact same game, following the exact same criteria, is what’s being played
that’s called organized play and no, it’s not for everyone nor does everyone follow such nor care about that
but if you are to have organized play, then, by definition, you can’t have the same set of circumstances have two different results because of some vague generalities or ambiguities being tossed around as foundational aspects
of course, just like organized play is not for everyone, having consistently across a wide range of venues isn’t either
I don't think so. You need to play by the rules as closely as you can. Don't spend too much time looking up rules during the session.
Do expect that you will have to make judgment calls.
Don't play with a RAW ruling if it is going to seriously hurt your game.
I appreciate Nefreets points and I do accept that there are some rules that are just not clear. Also is is true that two people can read the same sentence and come up with different meanings. Most of the time this is resolvable with a bit of thought or judgement. Strict RAW may be impossible in some cases.
Take for example the recent discussion on the Grovel ancestry feat for Kobolds. The difference in that is whether you apply a broad or a narrow interpretation to a sentence. I choose to apply a broad interpretation because I felt that otherwise the power was disfunctional. Others say it is too strong and to apply a narrow interpretation.
There is no actual provable right answer. But I think my answer is better.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The judgement and negative posts really feel like folks are calling me out for playing 'wrong' because I play by the rules at my table.
I do feel the need to call out that this is a loaded statement.
Everyone plays by the rules using their own interpretation. That's all anyone can do. Some people have a broader approach, and some people have a more narrow one.
One GM can say that the giant octopus grappling you at range can't be attacked back. Another GM can say you can. Both are correct.
What gets people's hackles up is when one of those GMs says the other is wrong "because RAW".
"RAW" is not a reason. It's just one method of interpretation. People holding up "RAW" on a pedestal as the one true interpretation are the ones who stir up animosity in Forums.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is for [semi-]professional sports, so whether it’s a ball game in Cheney Stadium or Polar Park, the exact same game, following the exact same criteria, is what’s being played
Professional sports seems like the worst possible example to bring up for the argument of unshakable RAW, given the complete ubiquitousness of spectators, commentators, players and referees arguing over penalty calls or non-calls or dozens of other rules nuances is across pretty much every kind of sport there is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder, like many other RPGs, is an open game. Players and GMs are only limited by their imagination, and this creates countless situations that the rules cannot adjudicate. Playing 'strict RAW' would lead to nonsense a lot of times, even if you had a rulebook that was ten times bigger.
That's why we have a human GM and, conversely, computer RPGs have to heavily limit the players' freedom.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just have to ask...
Is playing Rules as Written anathema to most RPG crowds these days? Is 'RAW' considered taboo or a pejorative? The judgement and negative posts really feel like folks are calling me out for playing 'wrong' because I play by the rules at my table.
Ironically, there are different ideas about what "rules as written" itself means. Exactly for this reason, Pathfinder Society actually has to define what it means in the context of PFS, and it mostly comes down to "don't contradict what's written, but fill in the blanks with your best judgement".
Fanatical adherence to RAW, even when it doesn't make sense or simply doesn't cover the situation, gets some negative reactions. And I think this thread is a decent example.
The CRB explains an edge case and gives the GM a good handhold for how to deal with it. And yet you get people complaining that because it's written as "usually", these written rules apparently weren't carved deep enough into stone to satisfy.
There's also the matter of the First Rule of Pathfinder:
THE FIRST RULE
The first rule of Pathfinder is that this game is yours. Use it to tell the stories you want to tell, be the character you want to be, and share exciting
adventures with friends. If any other rule gets in the way of your fun, as long as your group agrees, you can alter or ignore it to fit your story. The
true goal of Pathfinder is for everyone to enjoy themselves.
The First Rule says that you can suspend or alter other rules as necessary to achieve the primary aim of the game (fun). So doing so IS playing by the first rule as written.
It's the fetishization of specific other rules as if they were immutable divine commandments while trampling the First Rule, that makes RAW looks dumb. In fact, refusing to change a rule that's impeding fun would actually be a violation of the First Rule and therefore clearly not RAW.
That doesn't mean that you have to be constantly changing the rules or ignoring them or making house rules. The CRB rules do a good job of setting up a framework that covers the majority of situations, and gives you a good basis for coming up with extensions to cover any edge cases that may arise. If you're grabbed by a long tentacle then reasonably you can attack the tentacle. What's the AC for the tentacle? We just extend the existing rules to say it's the same as the AC of the main monster. The existing rules are really useful for coming up with even-handed rulings for the edge cases that they don't quite cover. Especially in this edition where DCs are so well calibrated that it's easy to come up with a reasonable DC for an unexpected check.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder, like many other RPGs, is an open game. Players and GMs are only limited by their imagination, and this creates countless situations that the rules cannot adjudicate. Playing 'strict RAW' would lead to nonsense a lot of times, even if you had a rulebook that was ten times bigger.
That's why we have a human GM and, conversely, computer RPGs have to heavily limit the players' freedom.
Exactly. If you compare Pathfinder to say, Chess. Chess is a very closed world game. There are only so many pieces and they all move in strictly delineated ways. The purpose of chess is not to explore wild worlds of your imagination. The rules exist to provide a fair challenging game between two players. In Pathfinder however the goal is to have a collective field trip in imaginationland. The rules provide a framework for that but because the goal is for the adventures to be new and exciting, it's inevitable that edge cases crop up and people try weird things that aren't covered by the central framework. They're supposed to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just have to ask...
Is playing Rules as Written anathema to most RPG crowds these days? Is 'RAW' considered taboo or a pejorative? The judgement and negative posts really feel like folks are calling me out for playing 'wrong' because I play by the rules at my table.
It's this exact attitude that we (or at least I) have a problem with.
Your post is loaded, implying the rest of aren't playing by the rules and are lesser for doing so.
My original point was that all rules are interpreted, so saying "I'm playing "Rules as Written" (RAW)" is firstly a misunderstanding and misguided statement at best.
You have to interpret the rules when you read them, and many people can have different and valid interpretations of the rules.
And that's what chafes and rubs me the wrong way about your question.
Your whole premise was that because the rules didn't appear to explicitly cover the situation, that you weren't going to allow it.
To me, that is a problem. It's not being done to facilitate balance or fun game play. It's purely a fanatical adherence to your idea of "RAW".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. If you compare Pathfinder to say, Chess. Chess is a very closed world game. There are only so many pieces and they all move in strictly delineated ways. The purpose of chess is not to explore wild worlds of your imagination. The rules exist to provide a fair challenging game between two players. In Pathfinder however the goal is to have a collective field trip in imaginationland. The rules provide a framework for that but because the goal is for the adventures to be new and exciting, it's inevitable that edge cases crop up and people try weird things that aren't covered by the central framework. They're supposed to.Pathfinder, like many other RPGs, is an open game. Players and GMs are only limited by their imagination, and this creates countless situations that the rules cannot adjudicate. Playing 'strict RAW' would lead to nonsense a lot of times, even if you had a rulebook that was ten times bigger.
That's why we have a human GM and, conversely, computer RPGs have to heavily limit the players' freedom.
The question is, where do you draw the line in between edge case not covered by the rules for obvious reasons and common cases not covered by the rules due to a gap and/or colloqial writing? For example our own GM (!) complained that with PF2 he had to make his own rulings or adjucate existing rules far too often for his liking and even for common occurances and play situations.
Obviously all of this is based on subjective impressions and style of game mastering and play. A GM used to work with systems light on rules may adjucate everything on the fly and seemlessly, however in our party who usually is accustomed to systems with a "crunchier" set of rules it usually goes like this:
Player A: I want to do X, how does it work mechanically?
*GM who is new to the system looks up the relevant rules section but finds the rules covering this not-too-uncommon case ambigous at best*
GM looks at me: Anything in the FAQ/Errata or the forum?
Me: Nothing in the FAQ/Errata and the forum is 50/50 on this topic.
*GM rolls his eyes and makes a call*
I think when the rules formerly say "your GM may decide..." then you really shouldn't be looking at a forum or FAQ in the first place. If it is just a confusing or ambiguously phrased rule without that sentence, then it isn't really relevant to what we are discussing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question is, where do you draw the line in between edge case not covered by the rules for obvious reasons and common cases not covered by the rules due to a gap and/or colloqial writing? For example our own GM (!) complained that with PF2 he had to make his own rulings or adjucate existing rules far too often for his liking and even for common occurances and play situations.
Obviously all of this is based on subjective impressions and style of game mastering and play. A GM used to work with systems light on rules may adjucate everything on the fly and seemlessly, however in our party who usually is accustomed to systems with a "crunchier" set of rules it usually goes like this:
Player A: I want to do X, how does it work mechanically?
*GM who is new to the system looks up the relevant rules section but finds the rules covering this not-too-uncommon case ambigous at best*
GM looks at me: Anything in the FAQ/Errata or the...
Experience definitely plays into this. But it also helps to be unafraid to try things, decide you got it wrong the first time, and come up with an improved ruling if it comes up again. This isn't like an expensive certification where you lose your course fees if you don't pass the exam.
I think PF2's rules are very suitable for GM extension in these cases. Let me give you an example.
A player found a cursed magic item, and wants to remove the curse. Looking at the Remove Curse spell, the GM sees that it only removes curses from creatures. Since the new printing, Dispel Magic doesn't remove curses anymore either so there is no clear rule saying how this could be done. But since this is a high fantasy game, it should probably be possible somehow.
Now what you could decide is that removing curses is similar to crafting a fresh magic item, and that it might be a downtime activity similar to Crafting. The appropriate skill would probably be Religion or Occult, because that sounds like the domain for curses. Who laid this curse? A night hag who corrupted a dreamstone? Well, those are Fiends, so let's go with Religion.
Now we also need a DC, and since we have a creature to blame for the curse, we'll use the level based DC chart and use the level 9 (night hag) DC of 26.
Since we used Crafting as a template for this ruling, should removing the curse cost anything? Well the player might end up with an extra magic item so that doesn't seem so strange. We'll say that the costs are the same as those for a regular version of the original item, but that instead of using Crafting to reduce the costs with downtime, you use Religion. Do we need a formula? Nah, the item is already there. But just like some crafting projects may need you to supply a spell, we'll say that you do need access to a Remove Curse spell to work on this project.
And voila, we have a ruling for a case that wasn't covered by existing rules, but that's nicely grounded in existing rules. We used the framework to figure out DCs and costs and all that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And voila, we have a ruling for a case that wasn't covered by existing rules, but that's nicely grounded in existing rules. We used the framework to figure out DCs and costs and all that.
Don't get me wrong, for corner or other rare cases I have absolutely no problem with the GM coming up with rules that did not exist before, however I really dislike when the rules are not clear on common cases. Something along the lines of "how many hands for battle medicine", "can I pass through diagonally aligned opponents", "do I need a formula in order to transfer runes", "do handwraps of mighty blows still work while polymorphed" or "how exactly does golem antimagic work"? And this is the point where we started thinking, well when even beginners stumble across those points they must have come up during testing, so why were those not nailed down?
Our GM allows attacking out of reach creatures while grabbed by the way, as per "In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature.", which was a big help for making this decision.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And voila, we have a ruling for a case that wasn't covered by existing rules, but that's nicely grounded in existing rules. We used the framework to figure out DCs and costs and all that.Don't get me wrong, for corner or other rare cases I have absolutely no problem with the GM coming up with rules that did not exist before, however I really dislike when the rules are not clear on common cases. Something along the lines of "how many hands for battle medicine", "can I pass through diagonally aligned opponents", "do I need a formula in order to transfer runes", "do handwraps of mighty blows still work while polymorphed" or "how exactly does golem antimagic work"? And this is the point where we started thinking, well when even beginners stumble across those points they must have come up during testing, so why were those not nailed down?
Our GM allows attacking out of reach creatures while grabbed by the way, as per "In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature.", which was a big help for making this decision.
Those are great examples where the rules can be read different ways, and depending on where an individual puts emphasis can arrive at different conclusions. Those are places where it would be good to get other people's opinions and make a decision for home games, and hope that Paizo will official address it eventually.
But that's not really what was at play here.
Professional sports seems like the worst possible example to bring up for the argument of unshakable RAW, given the complete ubiquitousness of spectators, commentators, players and referees arguing over penalty calls or non-calls or dozens of other rules nuances is across pretty much every kind of sport there is.
this made me laugh, out loud, literally
but I’m always amused when a straight forward analogy is twisted into some weird bananas to wing nuts comparisonis anyone arguing what the effect is when a runner steps out of bounds?
no, everyone agrees what that result is
do people say ‘was not out!’, ‘was too!’, ‘was not!’
yeah, sure
but do these boisterous spectators have any effect on the result?
no, of course not
they’re jus jibbering
which, as we all know, is why the signal:noise ratio is so degraded
doesn’t change the fact that, for example, the rules are crystal clear on what a fair catch kick is, how it is handled, and how play proceeds if one side exercises that option
and that clarity is irrelevant of whether anyone watchin likes that rule or not
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me following rules is not a literal reading of them. You have to add precedent, intention, experience, what makes sense and players having fun into account.
If there is a conflict between some of these, then I make a ruling to the best of my knowledge and if in doubt in favor of my players. Well - not always - but it takes a lot to do it against them.
Unfortunately my own experience with playing by RAW is rather disappointing lately. In a recent AP one player forced a very, very stupid decision on the rest of the party. I openly said - if you do this, then you suicide the whole party.
Background: The party had made a deal with some evil guys for free passage but then once inside the stronghold the paladin found suddenly a conscience that hadn't been there for a long time and insisted to an all out fight.
During the night we had a VERY difficult discussion about one ruling I made. Four players fought fighting tooth and nail against one GM because he was accused not following RAW. Ignore the fact that I told them they would die if the go that way. So for once I ruled against the group as I was sure my understanding of RAW was the correct one.
Edit: What I dislike is RAW as the battle cry of players to have the right to overrule the GM while being Hypocrites following RAW if it is in their disfavor and the GM doesn't notice it
I looked it up the day later - the rules discussions I found here were 50:50. Yes - I could have decided either way - that didn't make my ruling against RAW as I was accused.
But what really got me - reliving the night I discovered 4 serious rules mistakes done by the players. One - a shadow walk done in plain daylight that allowed two of them to escape when the bad stuff finally hit the fan as I told them (one had escaped just before that using teleport, one was left dead behind).
I didn't hear a single complain that I hadn't followed RAW in this case or the three other cases and should recon it and just kill the two as well - including the paladin who started it.
If I would have followed RAW they would have died even earlier - but I didn't notice some edge cases against the players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike when the rules are not clear on common cases.
But that's not really what was at play here.
I think that is exactly what is in play here
ordinary, mundane (dare I say banal?) situations which could/should readily/easily be unambiguously covered in the rules yet for whatevs reas, t’aint¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I started this thread to see if I missed a rule, and I wasn't interested in starting yet another RAW vs RAI debate that often rages in the Rules Discussion sub forum, nor was I soliciting a lecture on The First Rule of RPGs.
In anticipation of an upcoming session I wanted to familiarize myself with a creature that has both reach and improved grab. After looking at the grabbed condition and the rules for the Grab ability, I noticed an odd dynamic, yet thought it had to be covered more clearly in the rules somewhere. Failing to find it, I reached out to this gaming community, figuring this would be a great place to ask questions. I may not post much, but I read a lot of the posts on the forum daily.
I am fully capable of making decisions on the fly, but given I have time before I play again, I saw no reason to reinvent the wheel; why not instead see if that wheel is rolling on down hill already?
What appeared to be a common situation wasn't covered under the rules in any clear and unequivocal manner. Sure there is some guidance in the rules for size, space, and reach (not where I thought to look for it; Thanks Hammerjack for the assist!). But I'm still surprised and disappointed the best answer that can be found for this situation is "GM, you can usually just... [fill in the blank random vague generalities here]"
At this point, I think we can safely say the question has been 'Asked and Answered' in terms of what I was looking for. For those who took the time to answer my question, thanks, its appreciated. For those who took the time to lecture, uh well considered me lectured.
No, no one is arguing what the effect is when a runner steps out of bounds, but also, no one is arguing about the effect of having an attack roll lower than a targets AC. There is plenty of argument over what constitutes PI, a catch, targeting. What deserves a technical and what is travelling. And guess what, different referees (GMs) call it differently and at different times during the game.
wow
strawman much?“There is plenty of argument over what constitutes PI”
this is a misrepresentation of my argument, which you then attack
wow
are you in any doubt as to the effects/consequences of pass interference?
no
why is that?
because the rules are unambiguous
which is my point
PI happens, here are the effects
Grapple happens ... uh, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
that is the proper analogy
not this
did grapple happen? version being espoused as my post
but I’m sure someone will go
hold my beer
and toss on an arguing the antecedent, a post hoc, or some other informal (I’m hoping for another strawman!)
or perhaps they’ll go full bore and do actual formal, like a non squituroh wait, that’s already happened in this thread
my bad
At this point, I think we can safely say the question has been 'Asked and Answered' in terms of what I was looking for. For those who took the time to answer my question, thanks, its appreciated. For those who took the time to lecture, uh well considered me lectured.
Its not all about the original topic. Almost every thread gets highjacked and goes off in different directions. Often two directions at once. We are more often than not just talking to the poster a few above us.
But rehashing your question. Sorry if this is offensive but maybe I'm talking to everyone else instead.
Some people think that being held out of reach where they can't attack is OK, some people don't and improvise something. It is perhaps an oversight in the rules, or its working as intended. So the forum can't really help here with anything definite. Opinions are divided.
On whether this is a RAW issue or not? Some people won't do anything that is not enumerated in the rulebook, other people will improvise as the book recommends. But it is a spectrum and the line between these is in a different place for different groups.
Insisting on playing hard RAW is not reasonable, but some people like quirks and enjoy a paradoy element to the game. I would recommend that you improvise or change only where you really need to, just so you can have a nearly consistent experience as everyone else. I think coming on line and checking what other people do is a good start. As often as not, there is a reasonable solution already in the game.
But I have gone totally off system in the past and had a lot of fun with it - talk with your group first.
Finally, each character can use up to one reaction during a round. This special type of action can be used even when it’s not your turn, but only in response to certain events, and only if you have an ability that allows it.
I am unsure if that is sufficient to satisfy the “I have not yet had my turn, do I get a reaction this round before my turn?” query
yet I’d argue that is quite definitive
Insisting on playing hard RAW is not reasonable, ...
the vast majority of my gaming life has been ‘hard RAW’, as you call it
mostly because that’s how the groups in which I play rollyet more importantly, it is because the people I play with want to know at least as much as I do:
what is the designer’s intent?
and then play by their vision of their game and see how we like it
we aren’t really interested in being the designer (ok, part of the peeps I play with are, and have such credits to their name - if you look in the right places) or in playing a here is an incomplete vision I have, what do you think? kind of gamebut some people aren’t interested in all that and are fine with incompleteness and filling in the blanks
it is why paint-by-number sets sell so well - people like something incomplete they can doodle with until it looks like they want it to look
not my cup of tea - I’ll either paint the entire thing from scratch or go see an art exhibit - but many do like that sort of ‘finish it yourself’ deal and more power to them
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, each character can use up to one reaction during a round. This special type of action can be used even when it’s not your turn, but only in response to certain events, and only if you have an ability that allows it.I am unsure if that is sufficient to satisfy the “I have not yet had my turn, do I get a reaction this round before my turn?” query
yet I’d argue that is quite definitive
I think the two key lines are as follows:
Once your first turn begins, you gain your actions and reaction. You can use 1 reaction per round. You can use a reaction on anyone’s turn (including your own), but only when its trigger occurs. If you don’t use your reaction, you lose it at the start of your next turn, though you typically then gain a reaction at the start of that turn.
So any time after your first turn in a combat you either have access to a reaction or you've already used it that round.
As for before your first turn ever:The GM determines whether you can use reactions before your first turn begins, depending on the situation in which the encounter happens.
RAW is the GM gets to decide, basically based on how they perceive the scenario playing out.
Insisting on playing hard RAW is not reasonable, ...the vast majority of my gaming life has been ‘hard RAW’, as you call it
mostly because that’s how the groups in which I play roll
yet more importantly, it is because the people I play with want to know at least as much as I do:
So how hard?
Would your group cast Burning Hands on the BBEG sitting at his desk in his study. With papers loose on the desk and open flasks of alchemical fire - but insist only the BBEG was burned as Burning Hands only affects creatures?
Would you insist that the Druid in his large ape battle form could not attempt to Escape when grabbed by the weakling Wizard? Because that would be an Attack (and other attacks are banned)
Would you insist that Snakes can not grapple because they don't have a free hand?
Woudl you as a consequence would you have all Snakes die of hunger and therefore go extinct in your game world?
Not allow a Vulture Animal Companion to use his Feast on the Fallen power as Animal Companions don't have reactions?
Just checking....
:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, as others have pointed out, RAW is not machine code; it's written in common language instead, and there have been several cases of threads opened to ask how to interpret certain pieces of that common language. Guess what? There is never an agreement on what 'RAW' really is.
And further, most pieces of rules start with a description of what's happening in the game world that sometimes clash with the 'crunch'. But that's written in the book, so what is RAW and what is not?
After all, Pathfinder is an RPG. You have to asbtract a lot, but unless you abstract everything there will always be some cases where your imagination is in contrast with how the rules say things should go.
Take the OP example. In the fantasy world the monster grabbing the PC is doing it with some kind of appendage that clearly must be within the character's reach, and thus attackable. To rule that the PC can't attack means that you are reducing the monster to an abstract entity occupying some space 15ft far, and making the tentacle/claw that is grabbing the hero completely irrelevant.
Does you character swing a sword when they strike, or are they just making an abstract Strike, no fantasy attached? I mean, everyone chooses how much they want to use their imagination and how much they want to abstract, but going 100% on either is just impossibile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insisting on playing hard RAW is not reasonable, ...the vast majority of my gaming life has been ‘hard RAW’, as you call it
mostly because that’s how the groups in which I play roll
yet more importantly, it is because the people I play with want to know at least as much as I do:
So how hard?
Would your group cast Burning Hands on the BBEG sitting at his desk in his study. With papers loose on the desk and open flasks of alchemical fire - but insist only the BBEG was burned as Burning Hands only affects creatures?
Would you insist that the Druid in his large ape battle form could not attempt to Escape when grabbed by the weakling Wizard? Because that would be an Attack (and other attacks are banned)
Would you insist that Snakes can not grapple because they don't have a free hand?
Woudl you as a consequence would you have all Snakes die of hunger and therefore go extinct in your game world?
Not allow a Vulture Animal Companion to use his Feast on the Fallen power as Animal Companions don't have reactions?
Just checking....
:)
The burning hands question is actually a pretty close parallel, since the relevant rule takes the same form. "Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects."
Also, as others have pointed out, RAW is not machine code; ...
long, long ago I coded in machine language ...
it was a useful tool for creating a solid foundationand I cannot strongly enough recommend the invaluable benefits of having a solid foundation in every aspect of life, not just the ones mach-c benes
Also, as others have pointed out, RAW is not machine code; ...long, long ago I coded in machine language ...
it was a useful tool for creating a solid foundation
and I cannot strongly enough recommend the invaluable benefits of having a solid foundation in every aspect of life, not just the ones mach-c benes
As a software engineer, I can't disagree. But try to write a rulebook in machine code and see how many people will want to read it.
Would you insist that Snakes can not grapple because they don't have a free hand?Woudl [sic] you as a consequence would you have all Snakes die of hunger and therefore go extinct in your game world?
The Bestiary covers this aspect. Constrictor snakes have the Grab ability on their attacks. Viper snakes have venom to allow them to subdue prey.
Not allow a Vulture Animal Companion to use his Feast on the Fallen power as Animal Companions don't have reactions?
I'd say it was a poorly edited animal companion, but probably the result of the Age of Ashes Adventure path being written concurrently with the final Core Rule Book. As such, the module author didn't have full access to the rules at the time. The result is an animal companion having an ability that is not allow via the Minion trait.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And voila, we have a ruling for a case that wasn't covered by existing rules, but that's nicely grounded in existing rules. We used the framework to figure out DCs and costs and all that.Don't get me wrong, for corner or other rare cases I have absolutely no problem with the GM coming up with rules that did not exist before, however I really dislike when the rules are not clear on common cases. Something along the lines of "how many hands for battle medicine", "can I pass through diagonally aligned opponents", "do I need a formula in order to transfer runes", "do handwraps of mighty blows still work while polymorphed" or "how exactly does golem antimagic work"? And this is the point where we started thinking, well when even beginners stumble across those points they must have come up during testing, so why were those not nailed down?
Our GM allows attacking out of reach creatures while grabbed by the way, as per "In that case, the GM will usually allow attacking the extended portion, even if you can’t reach the main creature.", which was a big help for making this decision.
Yeah I think that "usually" is exactly the right rule. Sometimes it won't make sense to be able to counterattack, usually it is. So carving in stone that you can always counterattack wouldn't be ideal.
Would you insist that Snakes can not grapple because they don't have a free hand?Woudl [sic] you as a consequence would you have all Snakes die of hunger and therefore go extinct in your game world?
The Bestiary covers this aspect. Constrictor snakes have the Grab ability on their attacks. Viper snakes have venom to allow them to subdue prey.
But they can't otherwise grapple and all snakes should. No the stand out example is the Animal compnaion Snake which can constrict but has no Grab attack - at all.
Not allow a Vulture Animal Companion to use his Feast on the Fallen power as Animal Companions don't have reactions?
I'd say it was a poorly edited animal companion, but probably the result of the Age of Ashes Adventure path being written concurrently with the final Core Rule Book. As such, the module author didn't have full access to the rules at the time. The result is an animal companion having an ability that is not allow via the Minion trait.
There are quite a few of these. The very latest ones do have extra wording to cover this. Its almost as if the designers read the forums now and then.
Many area effects describe only the effects on creatures in the area. The GM determines any effects to the environment and unattended objects.
truly horrendous
awful, just awfulhey Billy, who’s the person that is most burdened in an RPG bunch, from a time & tasks so the group can play perspective?
uh, that’s the GM, has more to do than the rest of the table combined, duh - do you also need me to tell you the grass is green? water is wet? or state some other incredibly obvi thing to you?
no, no, I’m good - and that’s exactly what I thought; cause I’m gonna pass a bunch of my work onto them and call it a day - wanna binge that new season tonight so leaving early
all good, spank, I long ago copped that lesson from those p-ster peeps and do that all the time - gotta over burden the already most burdened if I’m to ever get anything done in my pers life; I mean, really, who has time to think up “Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them.” and add that to the text? I mean, I sure as Aroden’s bloated corpse do not!
I know right! As if Is wants to spends me times drafting “A character can extinguish burning items in 1 square as a three-action activity.” newp - I gots more impo designs stuffs to do. Like how do you feel about this for the favour text of that nerfed pseudo-overland flight deal I ran by you earlier ...