|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo's definition is "It's up to the GM"No, that's not at all what Paizo's saying and if you do think that's what it's saying, I have no idea why you are trolling the Rules forum.
As this is the "Rules" forum, discussion here is predicated on the foundation that the rules explicitly don't allow the GM to do whatever they want.
Everyone will have a different definition, and that's fine. Threads like this are pointless in the end, unless you as a GM are just trying to get other's opinions on what should and shouldn't be considered hostile.The point of this thread is for people to discuss what the rules allow and don't allow from a formal and fact based approach. Trying to undermine that approach to the game in the "Rules" forum is inappropriate.
Organized Play has a whole section on Table Variation, and this falls under that. Some GMs will consider some actions to be hostile, and others won't, and that's totally cool under the Organized Play rules.I've seen people try to weaponize the Table Variation concept whenever someone uses PFS as a reason for requiring GMs to adhere to the actual game rules. In all cases, including yours, the people haven't actually parsed the section. Let me post the part you must have ignored.
This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.Sorry, Table Variation doesn't mean PFS GMs get to do whatever they want.
The GM is the final arbitrator of what constitutes a hostile action.
This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.Sorry, Table Variation doesn't mean PFS GMs get to do whatever they want.
While true, in practice GMs are want to do whatever they want anyways, as that rule is practically unenforceable. Short of an agregious transgression that is reported by multiple players, nothing is likely to happen.
I see such GMs making house rulings all the time, and in almost every instance, the players are more concerned about getting on with the game than standing up for the rule of RAW. In the rare instance that a GM is contradicted by a player, it is more likely that the other players will reinforce the GM's decision than not (in my experience).
2) Indirect is a hopelessly Infinite open ended abyss. How many levels of indirect cause are we going to allow here??.
I once had a GM blow my invisibility because I moved an umbrella out from over an ally, citing that it increased their chance of getting cancer from the sun. No joke, unlike that silly "indirect" rule.
(We were trying to convince NPCs that the umbrella was an animated magical item.)
Said GM also believed words could be violence too though, so I guess there was pretty much no hope of that spell ever being useful in that campaign.
|
2) Indirect is a hopelessly Infinite open ended abyss. How many levels of indirect cause are we going to allow here??.
I once had a GM blow my invisibility because I moved an umbrella out from over an ally, citing that it increased their chance of getting cancer from the sun. No joke, unlike that silly "indirect" rule.
(We were trying to convince NPCs that the umbrella was an animated magical item.)
Said GM also believed words could be violence too though, so I guess there was pretty much no hope of that spell ever being useful in that campaign.
Sounds like a very antagonistic GM.
Said GM also believed words could be violence too though, so I guess there was pretty much no hope of that spell ever being useful in that campaign.
I mean, they probably do a tiny amount of sonic damage to nearby people's molecules, so...
|
|
Said GM also believed words could be violence too though, so I guess there was pretty much no hope of that spell ever being useful in that campaign.I mean, they probably do a tiny amount of sonic damage to nearby people's molecules, so...
TBH if the invisible PC was trying to Intimidate or Bon Mot a NPC, I would likely have deemed it hostile too.
Likely because it would have felt like trying to game the system for undue advantage (for example to begin an encounter with an opponent being already debuffed with zero action cost to the PCs).
I agree with debuffs (successful or not) counting as hostile. I would avoid GMs that say so for words that have no mechanical effect, instead.