|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
What is this "making scenarios hard again?" I never understood this. Go play a core season zero and tell me it has challenging combats with its 1st level warrior mooks with straight 10s for stats and nothing but a short sword and padded armor. And the tier 4-5 version just had 3 more warrior levels. Old scenarios were easy when they first came out. Core is supposed to be about reducing the money and rules barriers for entry of new players as well as letting old players be nostalgic. It was never claimed to be an attempt to balance or make anything more difficult.
I've just heard some talk about "getting rid of power creep".
Yeah, that's fine. Just drags things out.
Why would a druid ever use their AC for minesweeping when they get a ton of summon spells as another class feature? When I say fire-and-forget, I mean against an NPC foe. An NPC foe, by the way, that the math says the AC will likely shred trivially. Where does god-mode end, and disposable begin? If the animal does somehow die, just point out that is massacred the last 200 NPCs you sent it after. I think it's hard to cause a druid to fall with those kinds of numbers.
This is true. Gaseous form potions are quite useful. Even in non-CORE.
Chris Mortika wrote:
It's really just a subset of the claims of "balance" and "making scenarios hard again". With animal companions, neither of these are happening. The druid furor has mostly subsided at my tables. However, I'm sure they'll be the hotness in CORE once again. I'll pass.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
The line *should* be drawn by the player, roleplaying a devout lover of nature properly. If they don't, it is up to the GM to remind them of the possible consequences.
I think the heart of the matter is that most GMs probably know that most scenarios aren't a significant threat to an animal companion. This brings about the lax attitude with all parties and people stop paying attention. I mean the first thing the cat usually does is attack an NPC FIVE times with no TWF penalty because of the magic of natural attacks.
Does the druid still get punished if the cat kills everything despite being treated like a tool? If so, where is the line?
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I suppose it depends on when you "use up" your animal companion - being an ex-druid for the rest of the session may be a problem.
You are also assuming something happens to the animal companion. Do they still get punished if the animal solos everything? Certainly possible in season 0-3. I mean is it really putting the thing in danger if the BBEG needs a "20" to hit it?
As I said, I have never even seen this considered. Many GMs I know aren't confrontational enough to do this. Great for you guys, I suppose.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
It would be much more consistently enforced if there was a mathematical detriment to it, instead of a GM-dependent if-come-maybe detriment that will not be enforceable in the next session.
Until next PFS session, that is.
Actually, there aren't. At least not in RAW. I've seen animal companions named "Meat Shield" and no one batted an eye. Except me, but whatever.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
Then write in a mechanic for that. Until then, he's 100% correct that animal companions are fire and forget cruise missiles if necessary.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Yeah. That was the point of my post. They are going to dominate games and all the GMs that expected "balance" are going to be crying in their beer.
I always point out rules errors. I honestly have seen very, very few errors in the players' favor, however.
" it can be retconned if necessary"
It's almost always easier to figure out during the game. If there's no threat of time out, then it's well worth even 15-20 min of game time to hash it out to avoid having to involve litigious processes.
I always let the table vote, because the rule is going to work the same for NPCs. So to me, it is a game of mutual consent.
This issue is why I try to get a feel for a gm before the table gets going. Gms with obvious attitude problems get walked away from before the game starts. Gms that hand down bogus rulings during the game are tolerated to get the sheet and not sat with again. There's no reason for a power struggle just vote with your feet.
I will say that when I GM I dont consider myself outranking players, as judgement calls should be minimized and acceptable to the table.
It's because people are 99% desensitized to the Stormwind Fallacy.
Any griefing of players on knowledge checks just makes the power combat builds more desirable. Two hander power attack barbarians and clustered shots Zen archers don't care about DR in anyway. Their "knowledge" is pure, raw damage which very few Bestiary monsters can stand against regardless of defenses.
I don't think it's wimping out in a finite-resource campaign. That and people playing pregens have nothing to lose; that's one half or maybe a third of the problem with them.
I'm more inclined to be willing to play with a pregen in a season 0-2 7-11, but even those sometimes will throw out a random glabrezu, against which the level 7 pregens are basically useless. At least for dpr.
Pregens directly contributed to failures on the part of the PCs when I GMed King of Storval Stairs and also Fabric of Reality. Oloch didn't hit anything when fighting the harpy archers.
We nearly wiped on Sealed Gate because pregens couldn't contribute and they massively underperformed in Assault on the Wound, too.
I didn't tell others to leave. Go ahead and play all you like with them.
DM Beckett wrote:
Summoners can affect them because share spell ability explicitly says they can. The problem with this is that the summoner is stuck casting a one round spell for the privilege. No potions here.
"but the thing about the Summoner is they already have a mechanic for building their Eidolon as they want."
That's not really a justification for ruling it different for them. I will note, however, that I have enlarge person on my summoner, but I only use it very specific circumstances. Nothing more annoying than fat pet in tight situations.
Dorothy is correct. Enlarge person cast from the summoner herself will affect an eidolon. It's not abuse, it's the correct interpretation of the Share Spell ability.
"A summoner may cast spells on his eidolon even if the spells normally do not affect creatures of the eidolon’s type (outsider)."
There are no qualifiers to this text at all. It is, therefore, universally true.