|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Is there a good place to check to see if rebuilds are allowed for certain errata or FAQ that affect a character I have?
As an example I have a Maneuver Master Monk that I purchased a Mithral Chain Shirt with prior to the errata disallowing them using Flurry of Maneuvers. During character creation I had really been counting on being able to use that armor to get my AC to a reasonable level. The character has a fairly low Dex and Wis. I also had been counting on getting the Brawling enchantment but that is now a bust as well.
So, I am trying to salvage the character at this point. The questions I have basically amount to:
1. Can I sell back the Mithral Chain Shirt at full value?
2. Am I allowed a character rebuild basically to fix my stat array so I don't have such a lousy unarmored AC?
Paulicus: Heh, I never thought about communal spells with reach spell. I like that. Shamans are decent but suck at skills and don't get trapfinding.
DominusMegadeus: Honestly, not a real big fan of any of the Occult classes. They don't hrm... play well with others? I dunno. They seem like they were built for a different rules system or something. I kinda like the concept of them all just not the delivery. That being said I haven't looked at the Medium yet. I think it is the only one I haven't. So... I'll go take a look I guess.
Rashagar: Where to go to see what is allowed in PFS. I hear ya on the magical trap thing, but sometimes there are mechanics built into adventures that require "disarming magical traps" that aren't traps. Anyway, it is just something I want to be able to bring to the table. I can always use dispel magic.
cavernshark: But you offered helpful advice, he did not. I know what you mean about being able to do everything and not sharing the spotlight. However this was more for the purpose of having a character that any table would want. I would probably spend more time filling the niche that needs filling than trying to steal other's spotlight. The purpose of this isn't to do so well at everything that I outshine everyone else at what they are doing. It is more so I can fill gaps. ...its just a concept.
Herald Caller, hm? That is an interesting option. I could even take the Animal Domain and Boon Companion.
calagnar: Yeah, Reach Spell is good. I confess I haven't played many full support characters. I will give it consideration on this one too but I wasn't planning on going super deep into healing.
You think Lunar Seeker is better than going Nature Seeker then?
If I go Lunar Seeker since I can no longer take Monstrous Mount / Mastery that frees up 2 feats. Have any suggestions on what I should get? I suppose I could take Extra Revelation.
Yeah, I thought about Sylvan Sorcerer but dismissed it due to lack of skill points and healing.
calagnar: Yeah, I wanted to go the animal companion route.
Also, the Trapfinder trait is a campaign trait and thus isn't allowed in PFS. That spell is a good replacement, though. If I were looking to play a Bard then I would definitely do that.
Wonderstell: You are probably right on the title. I couldn't think of a good way to put it. I did say Trapfinding as an actual game term as I would like the character to be able to disarm magical traps.
Chess Pwn: Yeah... you are not being helpful. Can you tell me how the character that I put forward would not be filling any of the stated goals?
You know, I had always thought that Druids qualified for that feat. But I guess you are right that the wording is such that they do not. So I suppose that means that a Lunar Oracle with the Primal Companion Revelation wouldn't qualify either even if it is a Companion that is being used as a mount?
Welp, there goes another character concept of mine.
I had a character that was supposed to be a "do everything" type character for PFS. The concept was to be able to fulfill all roles in a party. I wanted to be able to fill the role of tank, striker, healer, skill monkey and party face. I don't care about blaster as I do not consider that an essential role in combat. As for ranged attacks, well... I could bring spells into play for that but that wasn't going to be a big focus here.
I was going to accomplish this concept by being a Lunar Seeker Oracle and not have very high ability scores in favor of bumping my Cha and Int up to fulfill the role of skill monkey and party face. I was taking the Primal Companion Revelation to gain a Tiger animal companion and then taking Monstrous Mount and Monstrous Mount Mastery to turn it into a Griffon. The animal companion would fill the role of tank and striker for me.
Well, that is the part that no longer works. Apparently you can't take Monstrous Mount if you are a Lunar Oracle because even though the ability gives you an Animal Companion as a Druid of the same level it isn't considered "divine bond (mount), hunter's bond (animal companion), or mount class feature with an effective druid level of 4." Personally, I disagree with that and believe that it is most certainly a mount class feature as much as any other class.
SKR has a very wordy post here on the subject. The long and short of it is that somethings that are slightly different are meant to work the same and qualify you for the same feats. Even though they are slightly different. So if a Nature Oracle can qualify with their Bonded Mount Revelation then I don't see why a Lunar Oracle couldn't do the same thing with their Primal Companion Revelation. But apparently that is how it is currently ruled and although I am likely to find several PFS DMs who agree with me I don't want to deal with table variation.
So, alas, my concept will not work the way that I have it built. I still want to do it though so I'm looking for other ways to accomplish the same thing. I considered just dropping Monstrous Mount but I really liked the idea of having a flying pouncing mount. I thought about trying to give it other means of flight such as spells, etc but it just doesn't seem the same. I was hoping I could buy an Eidolon Evolution via the Evolved Companion feat but that is a 2 point evolution so that is out. I had already been going to take the Wing Buffet Evolution but I can't do that if it doesn't have wings. So... what does that leave?
Well, I could just switch to Nature Oracle, I guess. It has 2 Revelations that are effectively the same (Bonded Mount <-> Primal Companion, Nature's Whispers <-> Prophetic Armor). I will admit that Friend to Animals is pretty appealing as well if I am going to be mounted frequently. The rest of the Revelations I find pretty meh, though. Barkskin would be nice to add to her spell list, though. I was planning on getting Improved Share Spells and it works well with the Cleric buffs.
There is Seeker Sorcerer but it doesn't have the ability to heal and wouldn't be able to fill that role. Druid apparently doesn't qualify for Monstrous Mount for the same reason Lunar Oracle doesn't and I think that is equally silly for the same reason. Doesn't matter though as a Druid doesn't get anything like Trapfinding. And before it is suggested, no, I don't want to dip a level of Rogue (or anything else that gets Trapfinding at first level).
So am I missing anything else that would work here?
In the example I provided the character was saying to another character that it is a beneficial spell as that is likely what such a character would think.
Lemme put it this way: if you were a xbow user and someone said they wanted to cast a spell on you that makes you better at shooting an xbow, would you resist the spell?
Cevah: I agree with your assessment of the way it currently works with the new ruling. I disagree with it for the same reason you point out in your last paragraph about it still being a numeric bonus but not being considered a "bonus".
CBDunkerson: That is what I was trying to point out about RD's observations. We got an answer from Mark but it doesn't make sense in the context of the rules expressed in the FAQ.
See, that is what I think too. It seems like it would have been easier to clean up the spell wording than to make some blanket ruling that has impact that could affect other things. I know you are saying it doesn't affect other things but clearly people interpret it that way. And if it doesn't affect other things then it seems better to just correct the verbiage of the spell than to make a broad ruling.
Not trying to be critical. Sorry. Thank you for posting that clarification anyway. It really does at least clear up the Fly thing.
It is company policy? Really? Is that in print somewhere? I do not disbelieve you and I'm not trying to come across as combative but that is news to me. If it is in print I would love to show it somewhere for all of the people I have spoke to that are mistaken. Also, as I pointed out before, the Roleplaying Guild Guide does not define who "campaign leadership" is. So it is entirely possible there are people mistaken about who that is.
Perhaps on the taking sides thing maybe it would be effective to pose things as a question to the community. I mean, from Developer's perspectives that is why you read the comments here, I'm sure. Maybe something like this:
*Me, roleplaying as a Dev*Well, graystone, would you tell us how you think it SHOULD work in that scenario? We would like to consider your opinion to allow us to make a sound ruling as this does seem like a complicated situation to rule on.
Then when you want to make an actual clarification you do it as the PDT account so it doesn't have your name tied specifically to it. That way the backlash isn't directed at "Mark" and it is less personal.
That's just an idea that I've thought of. ;P
Mark: Despite who is considered "campaign leadership" (because that is left undefined in the guide) I think you know as well as I do that people use Developer posts to make rulings in both home games and in PFS. So when you say they aren't "official" it really makes me confused as that is official as things get without being printed in a book. Am I really wrong here? I know I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Of course, any decision will have backlash. It is inevitable as you say. But that isn't a reason not to make decisions much less a reason not to make a post on the topic if people still have questions after a new ruling. It is really not just a personal choice but a responsibility. I'm not trying to convince you because I already know that you agree. I'm just stating it here because I personally would not be interested in supporting a product by buying it if the Developers are not supporting it by providing clarifications. That, IMO, is one of the things that makes Paizo great. So please just let me know if that is due to change ...
The only advice I can offer is don't let personal opinions rattle you. Hell, I think that goes for anyone who comes to these boards (or any boards, really). That, and I guess maybe giving meaningful replies that focus on clarification of rules rather than excuses (ok, fine... reasons) why Devs don't post. ;)
Mark Seifter wrote:
Sorry, Mark, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I think they are official. I mean, unless you are specifically pointing out that what you are sharing is only personal opinion or something...
I mean it is right there in your own guide:
Roleplaying Guild Guide (PFRPG) wrote:
There are several GMs both in PFS and in home games that take Developer posts as law. Myself included to a large extent, honestly. Can you think of a better source outside of something printed in a book to get an official answer?
On this perhaps my personal opinion comes across as harsh but you said yourself at Gencon that the rules team has recently been getting a lot of backlash at some of their rulings. Maybe there is something causing that?
On this particular topic I think this is a short sited ruling that leaves as many new questions unanswered as those it answered. My feeling is that the spell text should have just been cleaned up and perhaps "bonuses" defined. But I'm not a Dev. I just have to live by the rules that you make/change/alter even if taking an option meant to improve a character actually makes them worse.
James Risner wrote:
And a perfectly reasonable response by the player might be: "Get your meta knowledge out of my roleplay!"
After all, the player could not trying to use a buff as a nerf. He could be trying to use it as a buff not knowing the rules change in the recent FAQ. So when the character goes to use the spell which he has always known to be a buff (because that is how it works in every other situation that he has encountered) he is being completely truthful in believing that it is a buff here too.
If you are told a spell is beneficial and choose to accept the "benefits" you do not get a save. Hence my example above being perfectly reasonable:
That IS how you people think it works under the current ruling, correct? Or did I miss my mark?
Seems I firmly agree with RD here. A spell surpressing a dragons natural ability to fly is a perfect example of how this faulty rule can be interpreted. The dragon doesn't lose its damn wings, why can't it use them? Nope, sorry. That is just as silly as Imbicatus' observations (not that his observations were wrong):
A Bolt Ace with Improved Critical has a threat range of 17-20/x3. If he becomes the subject of Aspect of the Falcon, he gains a +1 competence bonus on attacks, a +3 competence bonus on perception, and his crit modifier changes to 19-20/x3.
Do no use this spell/bracers if you are a bolt ace.
The idea that you can debuff someone with a beneficial spell is silly. Ruling that such a spell actually makes you worse isn't something I can get behind and I highly doubt that was the intention. These kinds of rulings do not sit well with my interpretation of the rules team's level of rules competence.
As I posted in the other thread:
Wow, so contrary to everything else in Pathfinder where what doesn't stack takes the higher bonus this situation is uniquely opposite because the new rules team said so?
Man, this is really making me want to ignore any new rulings made. Also getting very frustrated about what such rulings mean for PFS.
I think they are honorary bears but the magic only identifies them as a bear if the happen to be carrying the special certificate of ursine authenticity. Most owlbears don't happen to carry it on their person. Er, ... on their bear. Wait, I mean on their owlbear.
Alternatively there could be a Starship Magicscan that has a bridge full of being who dish out magical energy every time someone casts an arcane spell. There is probably one of them called Info who loves scanning for life forms (pretty little life forms). Info is highly intelligent and knows how to tell the genetic differences between bears and the similar yet still genetically different owlbears.
There was actually a symposium on the topic at the interdimensional senate and it was voted on and decided that henceforth that the owlbear is not to be considered a bear for any magical purpose. Only owlbears who happen to have their certificate of bearthenticity on them AT THE TIME can be considered a bear for any other legal or rights based decision. Requiring the paperwork to be on paw/talon really helps to cut down on enforceability.
This is, of course, an entirely rules based answer. Its all right there in the books. I can't call out page numbers right now because I don't have my books on me right now. Sorry. I hope this was helpful.
I was thinking about Lithras' build. I can't think of any necromatic spell that does acid damage. Its too bad too as a cross blooded (black draconic / ghoul) with sorcerous bloodstrike could activate both bloodline arcanas and regain a use of his claws. Even without sorcerous bloodstrike (as it is kinda a crappy feat) it is a pretty strong combo. But I don't think there is a spell that fits the bill.