Guide 4.3 reworded it. Even if it is a non-con damaging affliction, the Society will not send you on a mission if you are diseased, have a poison wracked body, or are cursed in some way that makes you nearly non-functional or potentially dangerous to your team.
You must clear these afflictions before the end of a scenario, or you are reported as dead.
Only if you are replacing an AC.
If its the first iteration of the AC, they come fully loaded.
Here is something to contemplate as a player:
A bit of my history
When I started GM’ing for Living Greyhawk, and indeed was one of the co-coordinators for Living Dragonstar as its developer, I learned a huge lesson. The job of a GM is to tell a cooperative story with the players, and the job of the monsters, traps, plots, and npcs is to be beaten by the player characters.
If a player is playing in a style that players often play with when the dynamic is GM vs. Player, I will often try to direct that player back to the cooperative storytelling attitude. It does break some of the tension and/or verisimilitude to say things like, “don’t worry, you’ll figure it out, or you aren’t screwed,” when they start freaking out like I’m out to get them. But sometimes you have to calmly let them know that this is just the angst part of the story, and eventually they will figure it out and have a good shot at surviving and being the heroes of the story.
So while I do write very tough encounters (or modify existing encounters—I have to anyways, as I’m running 8 players with 25pt buys through Kingmaker), and sometimes the players have to think of unique ways to survive, they don’t have to twist the rules and intent of spells and/or items to do so. How should I respond to a player who wants to use a camping item outside of its intended use to completely derail an entire campaign? “Hey, ok guys, you win. Who wants to GM the next one?”
So saying all that, if I write into the plot (or the AP or module I’m using already has it, and it makes good sense and ties to the plot well) a camping ambush, then it isn’t me as the GM trying to screw over or screw with the players. And any over-the-top actions the players take to make such a thing impossible (setting guards or alarm spells should be SOP, so I’m not considering that), is playing with the attitude that they are trying to win or beat the GM rather than play a cooperative story telling venture. Over-the-top actions would be anything above and beyond what they would normally do. Spells like rope trick and the various magnificent shelter/mansion are not what I’m talking about.
My players can be very creative. But generally they don’t go over-the-top with their creativity because they know I’m not out to get them. And unless the dice are just unfriendly, I won’t create situations specifically to off one of their characters. That isn’t to say that I haven’t killed a character or two, here and there, but overall I take care of the characters for plot purposes, and they know that (don’t read this as I softball. I don’t.)
I don’t want things to be easy or without danger. I want to sit on the edge of my seat and wonder if my character is going to survive, and then somehow pull it out at the end.
I only ever start making over-the-top creative use of items, when I’m playing with GM’s who feel they need to beat the players (i.e. when there is a GM vs. Player dynamic).
Glad you liked Terminus Island. That one was a lot of fun to write!
Andrew Christian wrote:
So, I know there are a ton of names I forgot on that list, so if there is anyone who met me, and wants to share that moment so I remember, that would be fantastic!
Ack! How do I forget Kyle Baird and Ogre!
We had a fantastic conversation Saturday evening and ate lunch/dinner together Thursday evening. Those two getting together and chatting about writing and playing and GM'ing is a masterclass in exactly that!
I briefly also met Pirate Rob, but didn't get much of a read on him as he was playing in a game at the time I think.
Well even in the olden times, there were ways to change hair color. You could use dye or a wig or whatever.
As for eye color, roleplaying wise, I'd like to see you have a reason for it. Like your horrific experience being eaten by a dragon and then resurrected. Or perhaps just a simple teleport spell didn't sit well with your body chemistry.
As for sex?
I don't know. I guess I am a bit of a purist. Unless there is a roleplaying reason for making fluff changes to your character, I'd prefer to not see it. But there is nothing in the rules that says no. As long as class/level/hit points/skills/feats/traits et. al. all remain the same, I wouldn't stop you from doing it in PFS. In a home game, probably.
However, an explanation could be as simple as.
Bob the Knight was really a woman disguising herself as a knight because she was afraid of prejudice against women in that particular order. But now that she's a Knight-Captain, she reveals she's a woman and really named Bobina.
I met so many cool people: Excellent players, GMS, V-O's, and Paizo Staff.
I dabble with patronage to Open Design/Kobold Quarterly stuff, so I had some meetings and such with Open Design folk Including:
Richard Pett (guest of Open Design)
I always like to chat with Paizo staff when they have 30 seconds to let me say hello:
Sean K. Reynolds (great guy, fun to talk to)
My fellow venture officers were fantastic to meet and put faces to the names that I constantly converse with here and other places:
Nani & Kyle Pratt were both very gracious to meet me, and although we didn't get much chance to chat as we were all very busy, I could see would be fun to talk to, GM for, or play for. They both had roles at the Convocation and I felt did a fantastic job.
Matthew Starch (or was it Benjamin? Why did the Wisconsin V-L's have to have the same first name?) Who ran me through a fantastic session of Rats of Round Mountain Part I. I also roomed with Matthew, and because he chose to sleep on the floor, I got one of the double beds all to myself... yeah!
Alistair Rigg who I got to play Rats of Round Mountain Part I with. I had a fantastic time playing at the same table as Alistair, and we seemed to riff really well off each other's roleplay, which was fun.
Jason Leonard who I mostly just chatted with as we fell asleep or woke up in the mornings as I was rooming with him. Great guy, fun to chat with. Wish I'd had a chance to be at a table with him though (although his guy was one of only two first prize winners at the event I ran at the Convocation!)
Sean Hanlin was also one of my roomies and someone I've worked with before at Con of the North. Sean was awesome on Friday when he did a food run for Alistair, Matthew and I, as Rats of Round Mountain Part I ran really long due to our character's inability to deal with one of the obstacles. Otherwise Matthew, Alistair, and I would have gone like 9 or 10 hours without food (or on vending machine crap).
Michael Azzolino: just got to say howdy and bye at the last minute as we were heading out the door Sunday evening. Seems like a great guy though!
J.P. Chapleau: He is fun to chat with when he's tossed back a few beers. I hope all the fires and such get fully contained and there are no more worries for you and your family J.P.!
John Compton: Very nice guy and got to have a good talk with him about all kinds of cool PFS things.
Todd Morgan: He did a lot of work helping the game room registration desk for GMs. I didn't really get much a chance to chat with him at all though, which was a shame, as the initial plan was that he, Bob Jonquet and I were going to drive together to Seattle. As it turned out though, it ended up being cheaper for us to fly since Bob ended up not being able to go.
Ryan Bolduan: Who is this crazy cat!
Alex Greenshields & Todd Tepper: Got a chance to play Chasm of Screams with both of them. Go trignomvirate Go! (although Alex wasn't playing a gnome, so he didn't get to participate in the wonder triplet powers activate) I didn't fault Alex for not having a gnome... much.
David Woodfin: Really nice guy. Didn't get to talk much about pathfinder stuff, but since I lived in Austin for a year, we did get to chat about how the city has changed since I lived there.
Walter Sheppard: Very nice guy, and very genuinely helpful. He seems to bring the same excitement to pathfinder society that I try to bring everytime I play or GM a table.
Chris Jarvis: Is a very much larger than life personality and unfortunately I didn't get much of a chance to chat with him. But he seems like a guy I'd really get along with and have a blast at the table as GM/Player or Player/Player.
Kyle Elliot: This man was running crazy in helping to pull off the event itself and the Grand Convocation. He also helped to coordinate picking folks up from the airport. Kudo's goes to Kyle Elliot for a good job.
I'm sure there are one or two V-O's that I met that I forgot that I met... but I'm still in the Monday after haze.
I wanted to give a special shout-out to the GM's I played under.
Matthew Starch - Rats of Round Mountain Part I - Fantastic GM, I had a lot of fun at his table.
Trevor Burroughs - Rats of Round Mountain Part II - Fantastic GM. As a matter of fact, Trevor gave me one of my best experiences at Paizo Con, and is a GM that I would LOVE to play at a table with where there were no real time restrictions. He did a fantastic job of keeping the game on task and on time, but his roleplay and characterizations were so spot on and interesting, that I'd love to enjoy a table with him as the GM where we weren't worried about 4 or 5 hours. Plus he gave us chocolate dice! Won some brownie points from the Fiancee with those! Thanks Trevor!
Ryan Bolduan - Chasm of Screams. He's my V-C so I get to play at his table or GM for him all the time. We had fun with the trignomvirate giving him a hard time!
Other players. I met so many new faces as a GM and as a player, that there is no possible way that I can remember all the names. So I will touch on a few that stood out to me.
Painlord bought me a beer and we chatted for quite some time! He's a fantastic guy and a really nice fellow. Thanks for the beer!
Shivok and I had a lot in common with our history, so we had a bit to chat about over that beer that Painlord bought me.
W. Kristopher Nolan and I played at Matthew Starch's table of Rats of Round Mountain Part I. He was so excited that his Living Monolith died at the table, because then he had the chance to become a Risen Guard.
Stonecunning played at my table of Quest for Perfection Part I on his wedding day. Dude, are you crazy!?
Mattastrophic played at the Chasm of Screams table, and his taldan lady character refused to help dig out our friends from some rubble that was suffocating them. So the trignomvirate shunned her for awhile.
There was a player, who I think was named Sean or Shawn, that I played with at Trevor's table of Rats of Round Mountain Part II (and he may have also been the guy who took charge of the special mechanics in Quest for Perfection Part III that I ran) who I had a really, really fantastic time with. We seemed to riff off each other's characters and roleplay really well, and just wanted to give a public shout out to him on how much of a fantastic time I had with him.
Overall folks, Paizo Con was absolutely fantastic!
but that is what he said. He even created two new tricks that don't exist in this thread and then likened it to allowing creative uses of skills
Chris Mortika wrote:
It literally boggles my mind how you cannot consider creating a new trick with your own mechanics, that can change on a whim, as not creating something new.
Because I've already shown it.
Chris even actually helped my argument by "creating" a new trick with the mechanics of the train DC and all that.
It would be akin to creating a new trait or feat.
It is an element not already part of PFS, that doesn't exist, requires mechanics assigned to it, that are not already part of the CRB, and then you expect other GM's to abide by your creation.
Chris saying he wouldn't allow some trick that created the seige engine aiming is essentially opening the door to other GMs not allowing the flanking trick that he created. Or changing them to something else.
Anytime "common sense" and "reasonable" have to be applied to the creation of something new, then you open things up to abuse.
It becomes an actual game element the same as a feat or trait.
Allowing the heal skill to be used in certain ways, or allowing the handler to push an animal companion in a certain way are creative uses of skills. That's covered under the rules. But it doesn't create a new game element.
You can't create new spells, new feats, new traits. Why should you be able to create new tricks? They are as much a hard coded element in Pathfinder as those other elements.
I totally get what he's saying.
And adjudicating something that's ambiguous or not explicitly stated is one thing.
Creating an entire new thing that doesn't already exist is completely another.
I'm actually surprised that people don't see the difference and actually advocate creating something new that requires new mechanics.
What if as a GM I determine the DC of training Menance should be 25? But you determined it as 20?
Chris Mortika wrote:
So Chris, let me get this straight.
Boiled down to brass tacks.
You feel that creating a new trick that has no mechanics or rules to back it up (essentially creating new rules and mechanics) is ok in PFS?
Because that's what you are doing. What DC should training the AC to do this new trick be? How long doesn't matter in PFS, but that is another variable that would normally need to be considered.
How exactly does this training work? And where do you draw the line?
If you allow training for flanking, are you going to allow a special trick to command your AC to reaim a siege engine, or intimidate someone? I'm sure there is a list of a hundred different ideas a Player could come up with that would break the game. And who's to declare what is reasonable and what isn't?
Sure, you and I could probably do an ok job of allowing only reasonable new tricks. But what about newby GM who's also new to Pathfinder and maybe even roleplaying? Or Golarion God's forbid, what about that GM/Player combo that is a bit unscrupulous and they create something new that's ridiculous?
Do you see where I'm coming from with the creation of new tricks?
It isn't just about the Flank thing. If you allow that one, you have to allow the consideration of any new trick.
What happens if at Gen Con you allow someone to create a Flank trick for his Boar. And you set the DC at 25. You write this on their chronicle sheet.
But the guy goes home, his AC dies, and now he has to retrain his AC. So his GM's at home (or any other GM that isn't you) would have to abide by the new mechanic for training the AC to flank that you created? Does that seem like a good idea for PFS to you?
Seth Gipson wrote:
Definitely. Just because it understands your language and what you are saying, doesn't mean it understands your instructions.
I got my black belt in Karate a few years ago, and I pick up Kata fairly quickly. It always amazed me though, how some folks would consistently forget how to do a Kata or get steps wrong. And these are intelligent people with capacity to think like people.
So just because your animal companion understands what you are saying, doesn't mean it will automatically know how to apply it in the heat of combat.
Player 1: Dag-nabbit! Fred, you were supposed to bring piece 4!
Player 2: Sorry Hubert, I forgot, jeesh!
Player 3: But Fred, without his head, we won't have a game today!
Player 2: Fine, I'll go home and get Kyle's head!
Player 1: Be snappy about it, the store closes at 6pm and its already 12:30!
Player 2: Fine! But if I get in a car accident, its your fault! Especially if I kill Kyle's head!
Player 3: Just put a seatbelt on him!
Player 2: ?!
Saint Caleth wrote:
That is true. And as you stated not allowed in PFS.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
I agree. I don't know why I sometimes allow myself to get sucked into the tete-a-tete arguments that result in nothing useful.
I am completely open to taking this discussion to the V-O's and see if we can find a common ground.
However, interestingly enough, I'm not sure this issue warrants a FAQ or mention in the Guide. I believe the rules already cover everything that needs to be covered, and that the ambiguity that is there should result in table variance.
1) I feel that creating new tricks is clearly not allowed by the precedent in PFS of not creating new things with no existing mechanics to support them. Perhaps mention of this in the Guide along with no crafting is necessary. But not sure that it is.
2) I feel that what is, and is not allowed by the attack trick is too small of an issue to require even a FAQ entry, and should be up to GM discretion. If a GM wants to allow an AC to use all the tactics a PC can use, then that's up to that GM. But if a GM wants to insert common sense into what an AC can do, that is up to that GM. Neither of them is wrong, as the rule is not entirely clear here. I've simply stated on which side of the fence I would sit on this issue.
Saint Caleth wrote:
We agree on two points here.
1) That you can manipulate tactics in such a way that you can in effect create a flanking situation, without commanding your animal to flank, or allowing the animal companion to use intelligent battlefield tactics.
2) That the rules really aren't ambiguous as to creating a new Trick. I believe the rules quite explicitly disallow such a thing in PFS.
And for the record, my rules interpretation is not about balance. Its about what I believe the rules support and what makes sense to me where the rules are a bit ambiguous.
I believe the rules are a bit ambiguous in what exactly an animal can do when you command it to attack. I believe common sense should apply, but everyone's opinion on what common sense is in relation to this issue, is apparently different.
I made the mistake of applying mostly GM credit to an alchemist/cavalier. I played him like 3 times total between 1st and 6th level, and then 3 or 4 times between 6th and 9th. He's a very complicated build with a lot of fringe rules (mounted combat, splash weapons, etc.)
Took me too long to figure out how to play him. And now that I finally have, I'm burnt out on him.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I don't require that you agree with me. Just that you respect that we BOTH have the right to disagree with one another on ambiguous interpretations without either of us being badwrong.
Mike Mistele wrote:
You are correct Mike, that's how I answered it in the first response to this thread.
Spontaneous Casters cannot research spells. They get what they get when they gain a level.
I also have a bone to pick here.
Just because my opinion differs from yours...
Can we please dispense with calling folks bad GMs because they choose to use their own opinion and interpretation of ambiguous rules?
I got the V-L spot partially because so far most people (can't please everyone) that I GM for enjoy their time. My job is to make sure players enjoy their time. So telling me that I'm a bad GM because you disagree with my interpretation of an ambiguous rule and enforcement of my interpretation is insulting.
Saint Caleth wrote:
I don't believe I'm correcting a perceived imbalance by DM fiat.
I'm interpreting the rules the best I'm able. Both RAW and PFS house rules.
And then I'm being nice by allowing certain tactics (pack hunters) where it makes sense. If a player can make a quick convincing argument why it would make sense for their animal to perform a particular tactic, then I'd probably allow it.
If you allocate resources (feat) to gain a particular type of tactic, then yeah, you can use that feat to its best facility with your AC.
Not insisting on granular tactics.
Simply saying that an animal is not smart enough to use tactics (unless it is in their nature--pack hunter--up to GM discretion) at all.
If commanded to do something, it will use the most direct methods to do so.
Unless the AC has an Int 3 and a feat that gives it a new tactic. Consider the feat a trick the AC can choose to use on its own if you want.
Matthew Morris wrote:
There is not an exhaustive list of flanker animals. There isn't a list. It is up to GM discretion.
All those things you listed that allow for creation are exceptions to the rules that are explicitly allowed by the rules. They also come with mechanics for how they work, how much they cost, and mechanics for how to do the creation. You basically have a list of choices, and you add those choices to your thing. You do not have the option to create something brand new that doesn't have rules within the CRB.
Creating a new Trick is creating something new that doesn't have mechanics or rules within the CRB.
You must not read my entire posts.
I have said numerous times, that if the AC has a feat because of an Int 3, it should be allowed to make full use of the feat.
This is a different situation than a standard Int 2 AC.
Chris Mortika wrote:
I've already given those examples 3 times. Those examples appear in the FAQ.
No Item creation.
No different mounts for Paladins/Cavaliers or AC's for Rangers (unless Archetypes allow) despite the list being non-exhaustive in the CRB.
There was another, but I don't remember what it was, its upthread somewhere.
There are mechanics for how to build an eidolon, and it is a class feature that isn't disallowed.
There are mechanics for what masterwork tools grant and how much they cost.
With a Trick, you are essentially saying a player can create their own thing that doesn't exist, and create their own mechanics for how that trick works. I'm curious what precedent you think would allow this?
Chris Mortika wrote:
Sure, and frankly I believe that I'm providing that middle ground. If it makes sense for the animal (pack hunter), it will probably choose to flank if able. If the AC has a feat that requires flanking, and it has a 3 Int to get that feat, then it will most likely try to flank to make use of said feat.
Otherwise, if you want your AC to do more than just run up and attack the creature in most direct way, you will need to push it.
I'm not the only one arguing this particular stance.
And if someone has a 3 INT AC, and they've taken a feat, then of course the AC will make full use of the feat. A feat is greater than a trick, and as such, they would be assumed to know how to make full use of the feat.
However, if they have a 2 Int, and the only way for the master to get them to attack is the Attack Trick, then flanking is not part of that depending on of course circumstances or the creature in general (i.e. wolf vs. boar).
You can continue to take everything I say as a black and white statement and hyperbolize it to death if you want.
But the fact of the matter is, RAW in PFS indicate you cannot create new things that don't already exist. So you cannot create a new flanking trick.
If as a GM you want to allow your players to use their animal companions as if they are tactical geniuses, that is of course your choice.
Your "aside" conversation with Shifty about GM's being Richards, was directly a result of your and my conversation about our differences in interpretation of the Handle Animal rule.
Your judge did not run the mountain trail correctly. There were no acrobatics checks necessary while walking along the trail, as long as you actually found the trail.
Not all mounted characters charge. Mine is a Luring Cavalier, so actually prefers to stay at range with the archers.
The GM disagreeing isn't a conditional factor making them a jerk, but being a jerk might be a conditional factor in them disagreeing with you :)
But having a different interpretation of an ambiguous rule, and ruling at the table based on their interpretation or understanding of the rule, in and of itself, is not being a jerk.
And yet Nosig has implied on more than one thread, that if a GM wants to interpret things that aren't in agreement with his interpretation, that they are a jerk.
Just because a GM disagrees with you on how to interpret an ambiguous rule, does not make them a jerk.
Among the Gods:
1) The path is fairly wide (definitely wide enough for a large creature) and only narrows to "two arm spans" for the 1st trap. Now two arm spans is kinda ambiguous. If my recollection is correct, one arm span is from finger tip to finger tip when you hold your arms outstretched, which is roughly 5 to 6 feet. two of them is roughly 10 to 12 feet. Even so, a mount can squeeze, and there isn't a fight until there is a 20 foot by 40 foot alcove. Sure, you can't charge, but the mount can be there.
2) The first major fight is not on a cliff side trail, but rather in an area where while charging may have been difficult to say the least, a large mount could easily move about. The fight with the ghouls and the Berbalang is in an area that can be moved about in fairly easily.
3) The mausoleum, sure, the mount probably won't fit down there to fight. So you leave it outside. Not sure that the main badguy is going to get his ghouls killed trying to kill a full grown large axe beak. But even so, the creature could squeeze down and be standing inside the mausoleum somewhere, even if it is at the top of the 5' wide staircase.
4) Final fight, Axebeak can easily take part.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Andrew, I think your GM was being kind to you and your large mount in Among the Gods. A couple of encounters are inaccessible, and if I were running the table, and you left it alone when you went into [redacted] it would be dead when you came out.
You do know that Large creatures can squeeze right?
Real good question.
Typically, any animal not in the CRB that is available for an animal companion, lists out that little stat block under the animal in question.
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the Ape is the animal companion version of the Ape, Gorilla.
As such, reach at large size is reasonable to assume.
However, all special abilities that the AC's get are noted in the AC's mini-stat block. So as such, it would also be reasonable for a GM to not allow 10' reach for a Large Ape AC.
I hate to say it, but this may be a table variation issue unless something gets clarified.
I personally would lean toward allowing the 10' reach.
Michael VonHasseln wrote:
That would be great, and if a GM signs off on something on a chronicle, and the rules support the signing, then yeah...
But if my interpretation of the rules does not support what that GM signed off on, then I can't consider it.
Some people consistently complain about how things are way too easy in PFS. And some people complain consistently about how Animal Companions are way too overpowered.
Its an easy enough solution to actually go by the rules as written, and adjudicate how animals act in combat based on common sense and rules.
If the AC is a wolf, I'd probably let it flank. If it is a boar, most likely not without a push.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
The issue is creating new things in PFS. Precedent has been set that you can't do it.
Whether you agree on animals being able to be commanded to flank with the existing list of tricks or not (and Nosig and I wholly disagree here)...
You can't create new things that aren't in the book in PFS. Precedent has been set on this with no crafting rules and no GM discretionary mounts, must choose a Deity if you are a divine caster that depends on a deity, etc.
I have a gnome cavalier on a large mount.
I have had a couple scenarios where I've had to leave the mount behind.
But I've also had several scenarios where I was able to use the mount quite effectively.
Wrath of the Accursed, not many problems.
Among the Gods, some, but not many problems. Actually worked out well when all was said and done.
Realm of the Fellnight Queen, through 90% of the module, no problems. Couldn't use the mount for the final dungeon.
Lost at Bitter End, Mount very effective
Frostfur Captives, some mounts can be very, very good, see Nosig's spoiler above for what problems might arise.
Perils of the Pirate Pact, disagree with Nosig.
Among the Gods, disagree with Nosig.
I would say its roughly 75% of the scenarios where you'd have trouble if your mount wasn't medium, and then there will be some issues if your mount is medium and climbing is required.
Jonathan Cary wrote:
As a GM, I would certainly allow for some real life knowledge to seep into animal tactics.
But if you have a bear, lion, or chimpanzee, chances are they won't be flanking unless you push them to do so.
One example of a pack hunter and allowing certain actions on a circumstantial basis does not a rule make.