| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
plus you can't code every single thing that a person will want to try or do.
no one is asking for a unified theory grade rule book
just one which covers the sits a group will commonly run acrossand one which unambiguously covers what was selected to be covered
one reoccurring concern I have, aka consistently encounter, is best demonstrated by an example:
A cone of searing flame shoots from your fingertips. Any creature in the area of the flames takes 1d4 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 5d4). Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them. A character can extinguish burning items as a full-round action.
Gouts of flame rush from your hands. You deal 2d6 fire damage to creatures in the area.
how the former was transmogrified into the latter is a complete mystery to me
that which was clear and ambiguousCast Burning Hands on a desk with papers loose and open flasks of alchemical fire on it - but those are not burned because Burning Hands in PF2e only affects creatures?
is now an additional burden for the person at the table who is already carrying the lion share of the ‘what real life stuff needs to be done so we can play?’ burden
I dislike how common that has become between the systems
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where is the additional burden? The rule saying that flammable objects actually burn doesn't help the GM in the slightest; at the same time, not having that rule doesn't mean that the same objects must not burn.
Let's see if I can explain myself. Two groups: one likes to consider the collateral damage done by spells, while the other doesn't care about it.
Group one plays PF1, reads the rule, and the GM has to decide what actually burned up and what didn't. Same group plays PF2, the spell doesn't say anything about it, but the GM decides that of course paper will be consumed by the flames. No difference in outcome, nor in GM's burden.
The second group playes PF1: the GM will either skip the rule saying that objects should burn, or decide to apply it 'because RAW' even if they feel it's a chore. Playing PF2, this group will just do what they like and go on with the game.
Where is the additional burden? The rule saying that flammable objects actually burn doesn't help the GM in the slightest
It actually does help as the players and the DM start on the same page: they can focus on what changes they want to make and make them clear with houserules. Without a rule no one knows what the other person expects. Now is a single rule much of a 'burden'? No, but each one piles up on the next. When you don't have a static group, 'getting up to speed' is harder the more 'ask your DM' rules there are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as a GM, I don't find these things particularly burdensome. In fact, I find them quite the relief. Let's consider the example that started this thread. If you wanted to create concrete rules that actually made sense, you would need to create a rule for creatures you could attack while they had you grabbed, and another for creatures you couldn't. Now I have two rules to remember instead of one. And stat blocks need to devote precious text space to differentiate the two-- or it needs to be added onto the pile of "natural weapon vs manufactured weapons vs unarmed strike" malarkey.
Having one rule that is flexible enough for me to make a judgement call on when to apply it is swell.
|
Without a rule no one knows what the other person expects
Good. Why should everything be so clinical? You cannot predict the results of every action you take in your life so why should the PCs? A simple application of common sense in most cases is sufficient to resolve the situation. Not to mention since so many people have differing play styles it stands to reason the designers would allow flexibility in their rule set whenever possible.
|
|
I'd say it was a poorly edited animal companion...
Ahh, but that is a RAI judgement on your part. If you want to adhere to RAW militantly, you cannot make that judgement. You have to follow what is printed on the page. Strictly RAW, they gave this creature it cannot utilize within the scope of the animal companion and minion rules.
Good. Why should everything be so clinical?
It's good that people don't know what the rules are for the game they are playing...? And I'm not sure what's clinical about being on the same page so you don't have to redo things like spells, feats, ect that worked one way last game but work a totally different way this game: it's not a pleasant experience to one time burning hands in a library without collateral damage and die from a fireball because it started a forest fire in another game. Seriously, I've had games so different it feels like I'm playing a different edition and no one is using houserules... :P
|
|
To be fair, there is little reason (or frankly expectation) for all the rules to be exactly the same from one game to the next if those games are different groups, different campaigns, or different GMs. The important thing is not consistency across the entire community, its consistency from session to session within a campaign. It your burning hands destroys the library at level 2, it should also destroy the library at level 15. OTOH, just because it destroys the library in Graystone's campaign, doesn't mean it should destroy the library in TwilightKnight's campaign.
What I mean by clinical is some players seem to want an RPG to play like most boardgames where every possible rule and action is clearly defined. In a fantasy world where you can literally do anything at any time, its virtually impossible to define every rule or interaction of rules. And considering that the publisher wants the game to appeal to the largest possible audience, including a certain amount of customization and variation ensures they will reach a wider audience.
We shouldn't be afraid of variation in the rules. Its there to help you tell the story you want to tell. Remember, the creator of this hobby we all love is known to have said (or at least paraphrased), "don't let the rules get in the way of a good story." If you want to play a game with hyper-defined rules, maybe something like Chess is more your game. RPGs should allow freedom of creative expression and absolutist rules get in the way. YMMV
To be fair, there is little reason (or frankly expectation) for all the rules to be exactly the same from one game to the next if those games are different groups, different campaigns, or different GMs.
Never said there should be. What's important is everyone starts at the same place and then you can tell everyone what changed from that common start. I don't mind if someone makes houserules but I want to know about them before hand. Right now everyone is using RAW houserules but I don't know about them beforehand.
The important thing is not consistency across the entire community, its consistency from session to session within a campaign.
While that's important, so is having a common framework to work off of: When I'm playing multiple games with different groups/DM's having to work with multiple versions of RAW that are wildly different is hard to juggle. It's like trying to using 3.5 rules to play d&d 3.0 and PF1. You can see the commonalities but that's more confusing than if you where actually using 2 completely different rules.
What I mean by clinical is some players seem to want an RPG to play like most boardgames where every possible rule and action is clearly defined.
*raises hand* I want as much as possible defined. Then if a DM doesn't like that, they can make a houseule, note it on a list and make it available for everyone to see instead of having it be an invisible landmine for someone to step on.
We shouldn't be afraid of variation in the rules.
I'm not. I just don't want to end up in a laser fight wielding a spork.
|
|
Personally I think that just a lot of hyperbole. As if we are talking about fundamental rules or something. No one is suggesting that a player should expect that a sorcerer doesn't cast spells, or a fighter cannot wear armor, or that a dwarf is 10ft tall. We're generally talking about corner cases, unusual rules interactions that can be explained in multiple reasonable ways. The CRB is 638 pages. It is just not reasonable or even desirable for every rule in the book to be crystal clear in all applications. Not only would it be incredibly tedious and over-produced, it is undesirable by the masses.
We can agree there is a small edge group for whom such a thing would be desirable, but its not for everyone and clearly Paizo has decided that a certain amount of variation in the implementation of their rules is a desirable feature else they would have done it differently. In fact, much more often than not, they do not post in the message boards clarifying these RAI discussions because either they can't (the designers cannot agree on what the official ruling should be) or they won't (because they simply don't want the ambiguity clarified).
Personally I think that just a lot of hyperbole.
*shrug* It's been my gaming experience in PF2 as I play online with multiple DM. Just once, go though the book and take note of all those 'ask your Dm' parts in it and then imagine playing one game where a DM rules one way and another rules differently and you're playing in both games... Now imagine trying to make a character without knowing how those parts will be ruled as. It can be maddening.
Now if you don't want to believe me, that's your prerogative. IMO, I just don't see how replacing every one of those 'ask your dm' parts of the game with actual rules would make the game "tedious and over-produced": while you can't cover everything, at least what you DO cover can be make in a clear way where everyone knows the outcome.
We can agree there is a small edge group for whom such a thing would be desirable, but its not for everyone and clearly Paizo has decided that a certain amount of variation in the implementation of their rules is a desirable feature else they would have done it differently. In fact, much more often than not, they do not post in the message boards clarifying these RAI discussions because either they can't (the designers cannot agree on what the official ruling should be) or they won't (because they simply don't want the ambiguity clarified).
I can't disagree and it's one of the reasons I've been playing less and less of the game. In fact I spend MORE time here than playing: it's more satisfyingly talking about it than lately. My interest is more theoretical really. :P
|
|
The more I think about it, I cannot really blame someone for wanting crystal clear rules given all the conflict I've seen in org play. For my home games, I really don't care how un/clear the rules are as I modify/adapt them to my GMing style regardless of what the books say anyway. I still stand by my original comments, but I have to admit that they don't really matter in a practical sense.
The more I think about it, I cannot really blame someone for wanting crystal clear rules given all the conflict I've seen in org play. For my home games, I really don't care how un/clear the rules are as I modify/adapt them to my GMing style regardless of what the books say anyway. I still stand by my original comments, but I have to admit that they don't really matter in a practical sense.
Oh if you're someone lucky enough to have a home game with a single consistent party and DM, sure the rules can be fuzzier and you can iron them out and have a good time since once you hammer out how something works, that'll be how it works next time. I haven't been able to have home game now for 10+ years now [after 20 years of home games] and the very nature of internet games means that there is an expiration date on them, so I can understand both sides here.
Consistency is definitely a big problem with having multiple GMs. Back before I got stuck GMing almost permanently I remember having that problem a lot.
The only point I'd really quibble with graystone over though is that I'm not sure it's particularly a PF2 specific phenomena, since I remember having a lot of these problems in 3.5, PF1 and 5e too.
The only point I'd really quibble with graystone over though is that I'm not sure it's particularly a PF2 specific phenomena, since I remember having a lot of these problems in 3.5, PF1 and 5e too.
What's different from 3.5, PF1 and 5e is the sheer number of rules specifically left up to the DM: the others might have ambiguous rules or rules not covered but they generally don't shrug their shoulders and say 'figure it out for yourself' in the actual rules. So for "3.5, PF1 and 5e", if a DM said 'I'm playing RAW' except for these houserules I have a pretty good handle on what I'm getting into: even those ambiguous/unknown rules are known factors and can be avoided. [you can choose not to use 'table variance' things] Add to that that the other games mentioned actually got/get FAQ's/answers to ambiguous/unknown where PF2 the answer often is that it's meant to be ambiguous/unknown.
So for me, I'm having vastly more of these issues with PF2 than I have with other d&d's or PF1.
|
|
if you're someone lucky enough to have a home game...
Both of my home games are online and consist mostly of players I've met in just the last couple of years through org play. Certainly everyone has their own preferred features for what a home group is to them, but given the availability of digital platforms, if someone really wants an ongoing campaign and cannot join one, it is generally because they have placed limitations that interfere with it (justified or otherwise), not because there aren't any available.
|
|
So for me, I'm having vastly more of these issues with PF2 than I have with other d&d's or PF1.
That's actually kind of interesting given that one of the primary design features of D&D5E is an incredibly limited ruleset to allow the GM to adjudicate as much as possible on the fly. Often when players make a switch from 5E to PF2E, it is exactly because they want the rules to be more defined.
And while I admit I have not done a page-by-page comparison of PF1E and PF2E, the latter does not "feel" any less defined than 1E was. YMMV
if someone really wants an ongoing campaign and cannot join one, it is generally because they have placed limitations that interfere with it (justified or otherwise), not because there aren't any available.
The issue isn't joining one but having a group that stays together long term: it's inevitable that someone gains/loses a job, gets married/divorced, has exams, ect and the online format makes it easier to take time off or bail than an in person group. Over the years, I've lost count how many groups I've played with online but each one died out for one reason or another.
That's actually kind of interesting given that one of the primary design features of D&D5E is an incredibly limited ruleset to allow the GM to adjudicate as much as possible on the fly.
It's simplified for sure but at least it's defined. For instance, at least in 5e I know I can attack an object: I know the game allows me to hit a rope with my sword [it just leaves the exact ac/hp to the dm]. In PF2, I can't even Strike a rope... The 'ask the dm' part is more on the 'how it works' instead of the 'does it work' for 5e: for instance, I know my spell will damage objects even if I don't know how hard the objects are to damage. I can work around not knowing the exact mechanics but not knowing if something is possible is harder to work with.
Often when players make a switch from 5E to PF2E, it is exactly because they want the rules to be more defined.
I think more complex would be a better way to say it. For instances, most bonuses/penalties are boiled down to advantage/disadvantage with one canceling out the other and nothing for multiple advantageous/disadvantageous situations: this means once you get advantage you can stop your tactics as it doesn't help.
And while I admit I have not done a page-by-page comparison of PF1E and PF2E, the latter does not "feel" any less defined than 1E was. YMMV
I can look down the FAQ page and see it's more defined... Even encumbrance is more defined. :P
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's simplified for sure but at least it's defined. For instance, at least in 5e I know I can attack an object: I know the game allows me to hit a rope with my sword [it just leaves the exact ac/hp to the dm]. In PF2, I can't even Strike a rope...
So in 5E you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the GM decided the rope had a ridiculous amount of AC/HP so that practically, you couldn't destroy it. You could cry foul and say that that's ridiculous but you have nothing RAW for that.
Meanwhile in PF2, I don't think there's actually any rule saying you CAN'T strike the rope, just nothing explicitly saying you can. But if you bring it up with the GM they'd probably say that it's reasonably possible, and make up an AC and HP for the rope. The Simple/Level based DC framework makes it straightforward to come up with a reasonable number for AC and there are rules for item hardness/HP.
So in 5E... cutting the rope is only practically possible if the GM sets a reasonable AC/HP. And in PF2... cutting the rope is only possible if the GM rules that you can try, and sets an achievable AC/HP. So what's the difference really?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in 5E you wouldn't have a leg to stand on if the GM decided the rope had a ridiculous amount of AC/HP so that practically, you couldn't destroy it. You could cry foul and say that that's ridiculous but you have nothing RAW for that.
Sure it's possible: haven't run into it though: just like it can happen in PF2, but it's magnified by the sheer number of 'ask your dm' parts can result in multiple instances of them interacting. In this example, in PF2 you don't even get to attack the rope if the Dm wants to be unreasonable, but even if they ARE reasonable you have no idea how you'll be able to attack it so it's not something you can build for or take into consideration.
Meanwhile in PF2, I don't think there's actually any rule saying you CAN'T strike the rope, just nothing explicitly saying you can.
"Strike
Source Core Rulebook pg. 471"You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)."
As objects aren't creatures, you are unable to Strike them.
But if you bring it up with the GM they'd probably say that it's reasonably possible, and make up an AC and HP for the rope. The Simple/Level based DC framework makes it straightforward to come up with a reasonable number for AC and there are rules for item hardness/HP.
Again, it's possible but you've got more variables they have to make up like what action[s] you have to take to be able to do it in addition to it's health and defenses.
So in 5E... cutting the rope is only practically possible if the GM sets a reasonable AC/HP. And in PF2... cutting the rope is only possible if the GM rules that you can try, and sets an achievable AC/HP. So what's the difference really?
Well it's pretty clear to me, one it's explicitly allowed and one it's allowed but there is no mechanism to do so. This is a very important distinction as lots of abilities require a Strike and since Strikes are unable to target objects, those don't work if the DM makes a Smash action to attack items.
PS: I should mention that I like 5e much less than PF2 overall: I just find 5e more friendly to those that don't have a static group to play with.
EDIT: I noticed that we've been veering pretty far off topic, so this will be my last post on this detour here. If a thread starts up on this particular subject, I'll continue then.
|
|
you don't even get to attack the rope if the Dm wants to be unreasonable
I don't think that's a fair comparison because if the GM is truly "unreasonable" it doesn't matter what you want to do or what the rules say, they can deny it. Org play has taught us that unfortunate tidbit.
If your GM is reasonable, as most are, I think Ascalaphus' point is true in most cases, that both systems are fundamentally the same, at least with respect to this topic.
|
|
Source Core Rulebook pg. 471
"You attack with a weapon you're wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack)."
I hope you are aware what a literal reading by RAW of your bolded part means.
Congratulations - you just ruled out hitting swarms with melee or missile strikes.
Swarms are not one creature. They are many.
The rule book uses the term targeting one creature as that is the most common case what you do with a strike.
Think about it if I replace "targeting one creature" with "targeting one creature, or several if it is a swarm and not immune to your attack and damage used or an object depending on GM decision"
First - the rulebook would become completely unreadable. Second - I'm sure I miss some edge cases in my writing which someone might throw back at me.
And yes I'm aware of:
Swarm A swarm is a mass or cloud of creatures that functions as one monster.
Monster is not the same as creature and 'function' had been argued about in other cases to be not the same as 'is'. RAI is 100% clear to me - but I recall all the discussions that claimed Attempt a Medicine check with the same DC as for Treat
Wounds was complete different to Treat Wounds and therefore no hands were needed.Or Ravindork trying to convince people here that function like clothing isn't the same when discussing the Robe of the Archmage.
To be fair, there is little reason (or frankly expectation) for all the rules to be exactly the same from one game to the next if those games are different groups, different campaigns, or different GMs.
three letters for you
PF
S
the anathema of organized play is uncertainty/inconsistency in how a rule will be adjudicated
because it is very reasonable to expect two similar incidents at two different tables will have the same result
oh, you’re in Xin-Edasseril at the Ministry of Tithes? and you are too? both playing Burden of Envy at different tables? then yes, if you both [fill in this blank] you can expect how that will be handled will be applied the same way
yes, I know, lots here don’t do organized play, which is fine
yet given PFS is a thing, every ‘uh, peeps, this rule is not very clear’, ‘erm, this rule says GM decides and this one says GM usually ...’ is problematic
and when reviewing rules for whatever reason, like the reasons prompted by the OP in this thread, then the reality that ‘organized play is a thing’ requires that consideration be included when having a Rules Discussion (this is the Rules Discussion forum, right?)
If you successfully grapple a creature that is not adjacent to you, move that creature to an adjacent open space (if no space is available, your grapple fails).
that, like so much other goodness, like so much other clarifying stuff, like so much ‘no words of the mustelidae‘, was excised from the wording between editions
sadly, why this was so has been lost to time ...
|
Things..
Swarms are still treated as one creature for the purposes of targeting and effects.
Also, you're forgetting the fact that "Creature" is a hard-coded term just like "Item" "Rune" or "Level" and Swarm Monsters have the Creature X listing in the upper right corner of the statblock, so your theory holds no water trying to say they can't be the target of a Strike.
We're generally talking about corner cases, unusual rules interactions ...
no, we’re not
in this specific case, we’re talking about a common aspect:- creature that has reach and Improved Grab
go ahead, look through the beastiary, see how many, in total, have Improved Grab then count how many of those also have reach
this is not a corner case
nor are any of the other examples mentioned in this thread
claiming they are and rules ‘cannot cover the odd one-offs or corner cases’ is a bit disingenuous; especially for a discussion of the queries in the original post
(too much stiff that was spot on to quote it all)
you’re right - lots of vague, ambiguous, zero chance a player could read it and know how it will pan out in play without asking the GM first type stuff
recently, just this week, I was asked to create a seventh level character with the free archetype feat option in play (GMG, p194)who wouldn’t jump at this?
until I asked the GM a couple Qs about a fairly basic, straightforward option:
small ancestry, has an animal companion
“why do you torture your poor GM?” verbatim quote
uh, you’re looking in the wrong place for why you’re tortured; I used zero weasel words in my questions to you, though I did request specifics on some common, everyday types aspects of a pretty standard build
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Things..Swarms are still treated as one creature for the purposes of targeting and effects.
Also, you're forgetting the fact that "Creature" is a hard-coded term just like "Item" "Rune" or "Level" and Swarm Monsters have the Creature X listing in the upper right corner of the statblock, so your theory holds no water trying to say they can't be the target of a Strike.
solid
though I can’t help but feel this has already moved into the ‘playing chess with a pigeon’ territory
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, there is little reason (or frankly expectation) for all the rules to be exactly the same from one game to the next if those games are different groups, different campaigns, or different GMs.three letters for you
P
F
Sthe anathema of organized play is uncertainty/inconsistency in how a rule will be adjudicated
PFS Leadership acknowledges that table variation exists and is unavoidable.
It's fine so long as both sides approach the matter with a positive attitude, willingness to be flexible, and an understanding that compromise might be necessary.
The illusion that it's some insurmountable problem is only perpetuated by Rules Forum posters who don't do Organized Play.
|
|
P
F
S
The designers do not write for org play, nor should they. It is only a singular campaign. Admittedly its the biggest campaign in the Pathfinder universe, but it is still only one among hundreds, perhaps thousands. The core rules are written for a much wider audience and intentionally includes rule ambiguity and variation to assist GMs in tailoring the game to their preferences. If you are expecting the game designers to cater to PFS, you are going to be disappointed.
PFS...this rule is not very clear...is problematic
No its not. What is problematic is when the org play leadership doesn't take their responsibility to make rules clarifications for their campaign just like every other GM has to for theirs. If/when table variation creates conflict at the table, it is a failure of the org play team, not the design team.
|
|
There's a risk of getting a GM that doesn't see somethings interpretation in a similar way to me. This could make the entire character build, that I'm stuck with, useless.
This is exactly the sort of illusion I was referring to earlier. There is no character that can be rendered useless by any GM in Organized Play.
That's not to say that an edgy interpretation of a vague rule won't be allowed. I've seen plenty of that. But variation on how a GM rules an octopus's grab doesn't fall under that umbrella.
The one thing that can (and has) broken characters, though, is Errata. Or retroactively banning an option that was legal at some point and that was a focus of your character.
As someone who has lost characters to that before, it is incredibly frustrating to lose a character through no fault of your own, and I sympathize if it happens to you in the future. But I think Leadership is aware of the bad publicity it generates and has done less of it recently (and only really once so far for PFS2).
But then that can happen in any game system, and isn't really a reason to avoid Paizo's Organized Play specifically.
|
|
This is exactly my problem...
It actually doesn't come up all that often unless you intentionally build a PC that takes advantage of numerous ambiguous or exploitable rules combinations. I've been involved with well more than 1000 tables as either a player or GM and many times that as an organizer and I could count on my hands the number of times I've seen true rules conflict at the table.
