Helping a 2e player get over his 2e bias while playing pathfinder

[MonkeySage]

It seems like very other session, he's calling out some aspect of pathfinder that he doesn't understand, and constantly comparing the game to 2e. Two major ones are initiative, and archery.

He doesn't understand why archers need feats to fire more than one arrow per round, until high levels.

He doesn't understand individual initiative rolls... he says that the way he did it, the dm would roll initiative once, and the players would roll against him.


Side note: This player has been making use of a 'tinderbox' to light the arrows of his allies every single round. I'm trying to find ways to limit it's use, but he keeps finding ways to "justify" it... It's been a deciding factor in a lot of battles, made them too easy. It's a wild card and I'm not sure how to control it. I don't even know how he got a hold of such an item.

[torrasque666]

Direct him to the d20pfsrd so he can learn the new rules.

As for the tinderbox thing.... considering all a tinderbox really is is a box containing flint, steel, and the tinder, it would probably be the standard flint and steel. to limit its use is easy, make it a full round action and maybe include a craft check. You're not always going to get something to catch on fire the first time you try. Alternatively rule that since its such amount of nonmagical fire(it IS nonmagical right?) it adds either no damage, or that the opponents get a base reflex save to avoid the damage since nonmagical fire doesn't deal damage right away. How exactly is he using it to the groups advantage?

As for the bows... tell him its because the feats involve represent extensive training to do so. After all, unless you ACTUALLY PRACTICE shooting multiple arrows at once, it is difficult to knock, draw, aim, and fire multiple arrows in a row within 6 seconds.

[nyjastul69]

How long does a flint and steel take to light in PF? In 3.5 it takes a full round action to light a single torch. Lighting anything else is at least that long.

[MonkeySage]

Every time his turn comes round, he lights the arrow of the archer standing next to him. He's gotten 1d6 damage on hit, and 1d6 over time. Last session I averted this using wind and rain. I can present to him the new ruling next time.

He's been treating it as a zippo.

[torrasque666]

that... no. that's just wrong. there's no reason that a fire small enough to go on an arrow, which could only be achieved by dousing the arrowhead itself in some flammable substance lest you burn the wood of the shaft, thereby weakening it and massively reducing its range, would deal 1d6 worth of damage on impact. Next time he tries it asking HOW he's lighting the arrow. An arrowhead made of metal wouldn't catch. And if its lighting the shaft perhaps rule that it does NO damage past its first range increment as the arrow either burns up, is put out by moving so fast, or falls apart due to a weaker structure. In fact, even if he's dousing the arrowheads, you might still want to rule that as its not unreasonable to say that the heat would spread, weakening the arrow.

[Eldan]

Plus it's way too much damage. Even a torch only deals 1 fire damage.

[nyjastul69]

I just checked and a PF flint and steel takes a full round action too. This is to light a torch which are especially easy to light. An arrow head would have to be prepped before hand to easily take flame. It'd probably have to be wrapped in something that would hold an oil or tar. I can't see lighting the tip of a standard arrow doing any extra damage.

[Taelas]

It sounds like he doesn't understand the concept of iterative attacks. There is not much to do except tell him that this is how it is.

[HighWater]

Flaming arrows are more than just Arrows+Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_thermal_weapons#Flaming_arrows.2C_bolts.2C_s pears_and_rockets)

The arrows need to be wrapped with twine soaked in oil, resin or tar. A tinderbox is nearly useless in igniting even a prepped arrow (it is completely useless on an unprepped arrow, the shaft simply will not catch fire from a few sparks), it will be quite difficult to do and should take at least as much time as lighting a torch (full-round). An already burning torch would be a much more feasable way of igniting a prepped arrow, he should set a torch alight and then use the torch to set a prepped arrow aflame. Lighting an unprepped arrow on fire is difficult, and once it starts burning it becomes essentially useless as the shaft isn't designed to fulfill that function.

Historically, flaming arrows don't make very good anti-personnel weapons (except for perhaps fear effects), being less accurate and the fire being generally not very effective "damage-wise". This bit, I think, should not hold you back too much as a lot of stuff in DnD doesn't make 100% sense. If your player switches his tactic from tinderbox to burning torch and he and his archer buddy start paying for oil and preparing arrows that can actually be ignited, I think the extra damage bit should fly, but not quite as effective as you've been giving him. Compare this 3rd level spell (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Flame_Arrow) to what he's doing. Granted, that is a quite useless 3rd level spell in almost any situation, but it does less than 1d6 on round 1 and 1d6 on round 2. A flaming arrow should not set someone alight unless that person is covered in extremely flammable materials (such as being soaked in oil). I think giving it +1d6 fire damage (Ref save for half) would be much more acceptable.


As for the other problems: tell him you're playing 3.P, not 2e. He should forget 2e rules, 3.5 and Pathfinder are quite a different beast and he really just needs to learn the rules. Archery is a bit feat heavy sadly, but if you've ever actually used a bow, you'll now that firing accurately AND fast is pretty difficult. Now try doing this at someone clad in armor, or covered in tentacles, who is quite motivated to kill you... That's why you need to practise, and feats are the mechanical expression of that.

[Mnemnosyne]

One of the biggest things he might need to remember is that rounds in 2nd Edition were 1 minute long and represented a considerable amount of battle activity within that one minute. While you still only got a couple of attacks, it's presumed the attacks you rolled for are just the only real attacks within an entire minute of moving around, feinting, probing, etc, the enemy's defenses. He is presuming that things which would be reasonable to do within that span of time are still reasonable to do in one round, while 3rd Edition (and by extension, Pathfinder) brings rounds down to a mere six seconds.

And while it can be argued a lot whether or not certain things were superior in 2nd Edition or not (personally I prefer the 1-minute rounds and the initiative system, although it sounds like your guy wasn't using the full initiative rules even for 2nd Edition) it doesn't mean he should just act as though he's still playing it.

[Gildedragon]

Note that there are fire arrows in PF (and 3.5 too) they are separate things to normal arrows and cost (in PF) 10 gp vs the 1 gp for normal arrows. improvising fire arrows means you take improvised weapon penalties.

[Kurald Galain]

He doesn't understand why archers need feats to fire more than one arrow per round, until high levels.
Because balance. But if you feel the need to out-argue him, point out that a 2E archer can fire two arrows per minute (at level one) whereas a PF archer can fire one arrow per six seconds.


He doesn't understand individual initiative rolls... he says that the way he did it, the dm would roll initiative once, and the players would roll against him.
Here he actually has a point. I believe that in 2E the default rule was "group initiative" and "individual initiative" was optional, although it may have been the other way around; subsequent editions only have the individual version. The main advantage of group initiative is that it plays faster: there's a "player turn" in which all players act, and a "DM turn" in which all monsters act, and the two alternate. There's now no need for "delay" rules and most kinds of "ready", and it makes cooperation between characters easier.

Of course there are downsides as well, but if combat speed is an issue for you then this is worth a try.


Side note: This player has been making use of a 'tinderbox' to light the arrows of his allies every single round. I'm trying to find ways to limit it's use, but he keeps finding ways to "justify" it... It's been a deciding factor in a lot of battles, made them too easy. It's a wild card and I'm not sure how to control it. I don't even know how he got a hold of such an item.
Ok, how much more damage are you having these flaming arrows do? Because in 2E logic, the answer would be "one more point" which is not exactly a big deal.

Possible counters include (1) give a -2 to hit penalty because arrows with straw around them are less aerodynamic; (2) on a natural one, you set your bow on fire (no, I'm not generally in favor of critical fumble rules, but bear in mind that poisoning your weapon does use a similar rule); (3) have them fight water elementals; (4) have an enemy throw alchemist fire at them; or (5) note that to pull off this trick, the PCs have to be standing next to each other, making them easy pickin' for any area effect spell.

[Kurald Galain]

Every time his turn comes round, he lights the arrow of the archer standing next to him. He's gotten 1d6 damage on hit, and 1d6 over time. Last session I averted this using wind and rain. I can present to him the new ruling next time.
Well, there you go. If that's his sole contribution to combat, then I'm not particularly worried. But hey, toss a Sleep spell on them: you'll have a pretty good chance that either he drops and can't set things on fire, or that his archer drops and he has to do something else now. If they're too high-level for Sleep, well, there are equivalent spells at higher levels.

[Angelalex242]

The reason it's unbalanced is that you're giving him a magic item for the cost of a tinderbox.

If the archer wants flaming arrows, he should pay 8k to make his bow +1 flaming. If he pays 18k to make it flaming burst, so much the better, because x3 crit makes 3d10 fire damage when it goes off.

[JusticeZero]

Wait, so all he is doing every round is lighting one arrow on fire (-4 to hit, +1 point fire damage as a torch, as I recall from 2e and I doubt it's changed much)? What class is he that that's a bigger contribution than acting normally?
2e had a Cleric spell that lit arrows on fire. It added 1 point of fire damage per arrow.

[Sir Chuckles]

Up and tell the guy that round are 6 seconds. That should held shift his outlook. If it doesn't, explain that it's not "six seconds per person" it's "six seconds in which everyone moves at similar but not the same time". I had that come up in a recent session

As for the tinder thing, yeah, what. 1d6 damage s too much, and lighting an unprepared arrow on fire would actually make it useless, as the whole arrow would be on fire. And bow strings of a non-modern era were either plant material or sinew. So bows did not like fire.


Wait, so all he is doing every round is lighting one arrow on fire (-4 to hit, +1 point fire damage as a torch, as I recall from 2e and I doubt it's changed much)? What class is he that that's a bigger contribution than acting normally?

The one were he's in a different mindset than the 3.5/3.P one, in which elaborate military stratagems were staple, because the Wizard wasn't pseudo-divinity and the Warblade with the ability to "freeze" time did not exist.

[MonkeySage]

He's a halfling rogue... and he's been given a very generous point buy(honestly, too high but too late to take it back).

He's level 5, and believes that his greatest contribution in combat is lighting arrows or disabling traps. His role play is fine, his understanding of the rules is frustrating. Any time I tell him that we've been doing something wrong(and considering I'm still learning the system, that happens a lot.) he calls "bull****" and gets angry.

I'm of the understanding that no game can accurately simulate a real life experience, but rules keep things balanced and consistent. He's of the mindset that rules should be thrown out the window when the players don't like them.

"It's called a dungeon master's *guide*" he says... countless times i've told him "Yes, it's a *guide* as you say. It's also very consistent, I'm OCD, and I happen to like what they've presented so far. So I'm going to use it."

[Sir Chuckles]

Sounds like a strong case of "Playing the wrong game", if you ask me.
Pathfinder, 3.5, 3.0, 4e, and really any such iteration involves far less "real-life" applications than anything you could possibly imagine.

And if he uses the whole "guide" argument, tell him that the player's handbook is a handbook, and that it dictates that a Halfling Rogue should be in the shadows attempting to sneak attack, not lighting arrows in a manner that's nigh-impossible.
Then tell him that, while deviating from the rules is ok to do, throwing them straight out the windows defeats the purpose of owning the book in the first place. Remind him that you are also learning the system.

[Slipperychicken]

As for the tinderbox thing, I think that it's fair to give him -4 to hit, +1 fire damage, plus giving the opponent a reflex save (DC 10?) to avoid catching fire. If the opponent catches fire, use normal rules for being on fire. That is assuming he has his fire source set up so he can quickly and easily set fire to his arrows without using extra hands.



He doesn't understand why archers need feats to fire more than one arrow per round, until high levels.

I kind of feel him on this one. Archery takes way too many feats to function in 3.X.

Also, he doesn't technically need feats to fire multiple arrows per round: All he needs is BAB +6 or higher, and Rapid Shot just increases the number of arrows he can fire per round by one.

[RedMage125]

He's of the mindset that rules should be thrown out the window when the players don't like them.
That's funny.

I'm of the mindset that Jerkbag Players should be thrown out the window...


He's level 5, and believes that his greatest contribution in combat is lighting arrows or disabling traps. His role play is fine, his understanding of the rules is frustrating. Any time I tell him that we've been doing something wrong(and considering I'm still learning the system, that happens a lot.) he calls "bull****" and gets angry.
I assume you are the DM, yes?

Part of being a "Good" DM is understanding when you've made a mistake or a bad call and dealing with it well. That means doing what is both A)best for the game and B)fair to the players. That does not mean "best for the players". If you've been ruling something one way, and realize you've made a mistake, you need to discuss it with your group either before or after a session (do not interrupt the session to have these metagame discussions). Acknowledge that you have made a mistake, which, if your players understand that you are learning the system too, should be understandable. Then explain how you would like to manage that particular issue going forward. If your players feel "cheated" by this change in ruling, try to find a compromise that will not affect game balance, and still allow your payers some fun. If the mistake you made was seriously unbalancing, you may need to explain that issue and lay down the DM Lawhammer, but that's something you should strive to only do sparingly, if ever. If the issue isn't particularly game-breaking, and the players liked it the way your ruled it before, continue ruling it the "wrong" way, and correct it the next time you start a new campaign. If it doesn't harm game balance, and your players like it, what's the harm? Deviating from RAW is not "doing it wrong".

Even if you start a new game and some of the players from this one join it, you can tell them '"hey, remember that way I ruled x? That was wrong, and I'm doing it by the book this time". As it is not changing things mid-game, this should brook no arguments.

Changing the way things work, mechanically, in the middle of a campaign can be frustrating to your players. And even if the change IS necessary, please try to understand that.


I'm of the understanding that no game can accurately simulate a real life experience, but rules keep things balanced and consistent.
That's a good way to look at things. Rules are meant to be balanced and consistent. Keep in mind, if you've been ruling something wrong to the point that it is not balanced, changing it to balance makes that rule not consistent to your players. I'm not saying don't correct your mistake and rule by the book going forward, just be conscious of that fact.


"It's called a dungeon master's *guide*" he says... countless times i've told him "Yes, it's a *guide* as you say. It's also very consistent, I'm OCD, and I happen to like what they've presented so far. So I'm going to use it."

Honestly, your player sounds like a jerk. Some old grognards can be that way. He's playing in your PF game, which shows a lot more open-mindedness than most grognards I know (I've met people that thought 2e was too "dumbed down", wouldn't play 3e, and acted like 4e was infected with Super Zombie Leprosy AIDS X).

People have addressed the flaming arrows. It sounds like he is trying to use simulationist mechanics (light an arrow on fire) to imitate a magical effect (a flaming arrow) while avoiding the cost. Keep in mind that 1e and 2e games rewarded that kind of innovative thinking. Those days were before we had comprehensive Skill Lists and prescribed DCs for certain tasks, including the disarming of traps. Back in the day, adventures were designed with no pre-determined way to disable/bypass the trap. If the players weren't creative and inventive, they didn't get any further in the dungeon. 10-foot poles were carried by almost every dungeon delving party, and a donkey if you could get it in the door.

You should talk to him one on one without any other players in earshot about the fire arrow thing. Don't embarrass him in front of the group. I recommend that going forward, his trick should only work on specially prepared arrows. As has been suggested, the specially prepared lit arrows should only do 1 point of fire damage above the normal damage for the arrow, not 1d6.

-Side note: I found an old 3rd party sourcebook back from the 3.0 days. It mentions fire arrows, but they have to be specially crafted as such, they can burn for 1d6 rounds after being lit, and do regular bow damage, but the damage is fire, not physical. So...that's an alternative.

That's not the beginning and end of his Jerkbag behavior, though. In all honestly, you have a Problem Player, but one who can probably be salvaged. I suggest talking to him out of session, again, out of earshot of the other players, about how his behavior has been disruptive. Try to find some common ground, you are both learning a new system.

If his disruptive behavior continues, however, it does need to be dealt with. As I said, better dealt with out of session, but when he disrupts a session, it's okay to shut him down immediately. Since he's from an old-school mentality, use his arguments against him. The next time he says "it's called a Dungeon Master's Guide", riposte with "Right, and I'm the Dungeon Master, not you. Last time I checked that made it my call to make". Pre-3e systems ABOUNDED with the idea that the rules were kind of a "suggestion" and the rules were ultimately up to the DM.