|
If the stance on Bestiary feats has changed, I would hope it would get a more vocal "attention" that just a passive update in the resources listings. Since this would dramatically change how AC's are being utilized currently. However, I guess I agree that a quick response from Hyrum/Mark is in order.
|
Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source.
Those feats are on the animal companion's feat list in the core rulebook,
Though I'm not either of these august gents, it seems to me that those feats are covered by "another legal source". You could not take Awesome Blow for your ape, for example.
Those two feat that you mentioned are perfectly acceptable and legal.
JP
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The intent with this expansion is to bring PFS "houserules" more in line with the baseline game. Thus, Hyrum and I do not feel it necessary to make this restriction. If you have a class feature granted from any legal source that uses these feats, you may do so. This means that PCs can't take Improved Natural Armor, but their animal companions can. As we continue to release more archetypes and PrCs and such with each subsequent rulebook, having this extra rule to consider with each and every one makes more work for us and serves as a barrier for new players trying to understand the differences between PFS and the core rules as written.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We'll be sending out an email soon to inform everyone who either has a PFS number or who has downloaded the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play of the updates to the Additional Resources page.
I hope to make these updates a monthly occurrence to keep up to date with new releases as they become available to subscribers.
|
This means that PCs can't take Improved Natural Armor, but their animal companions can.
What about Natural Weapon rangers and the Bestiary feats? They are PCs who are granted this ability from a legal source. Would this be one of the aforementioned exceptions and therefore be allowed as a player choice?
|
|
This means that PCs can't take Improved Natural Armor, but their animal companions can.What about Natural Weapon rangers and the Bestiary feats? They are PCs who are granted this ability from a legal source. Would this be one of the aforementioned exceptions and therefore be allowed as a player choice?
By definition, yes.
|
|
IMO, this apears to be a simple matter of our leadership (Hyrum/Mark) removing a PFS restriction to be more in line with the core rules. Normally, PC's cannot take feats from the Bestiary. However, if a "specific" rule (such as animal companions) grants access to those feats, then it is legal just as in a non-PFS game. If a PC gets a class ability that fulfills the requirements of a Bestiary feat, I would expect they would also be granted access.
Just remember the language of the rules. Improved Unarmed Strike does not grant Natural Weapons and, therefore, does not provide access to feats with that requirement. A sorcerer's(draconic) claws, a druid using Beast Shape, even a half-orc with the claws and/or bite traits should qualify for said feats.
Of course, If I am wrong, please correct me.
|
|
Just remember the language of the rules. Improved Unarmed Strike does not grant Natural Weapons and, therefore, does not provide access to feats with that requirement. A sorcerer's(draconic) claws, a druid using Beast Shape, even a half-orc with the claws and/or bite traits should qualify for said feats.Of course, If I am wrong, please correct me.
You are wrong. The only reason that this opens up any access is because the Core Rulebook specifically lists these feats as applicable for animal companions and the Advanced Player's Guide specifically opens up access for the shapeshifter ranger. This does not allow access to any other character that does not already specifically list it.
|
|
You are wrong
Guess, I asked for it :-)
So a half-orc ranger with claws and a bite attack can take the natural weapon combat style and select Imp Nat Weapon or Multi-attack (because they are specifically listed), but not Imp Nat Armor (because it is not).
And a druid using Beast Shape gains no access, because those feats are not specifically called out in their class description, nor the spell affect.
Got it. A little weird, thematically, but okay. Sorry, if I confused anyone.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So a half-orc ranger with claws and a bite attack can take the natural weapon combat style and select Imp Nat Weapon or Multi-attack (because they are specifically listed), but not Imp Nat Armor (because it is not).
And a druid using Beast Shape gains no access, because those feats are not specifically called out in their class description, nor the spell affect.\.
Exactly. This will be included in the FAQ we currently have in the works.
|
|
Exactly. This will be included in the FAQ we currently have in the works.So a half-orc ranger with claws and a bite attack can take the natural weapon combat style and select Imp Nat Weapon or Multi-attack (because they are specifically listed), but not Imp Nat Armor (because it is not).
And a druid using Beast Shape gains no access, because those feats are not specifically called out in their class description, nor the spell affect.\.
Thank You!
For both the common sense application of the core rules and for including it in the FAQ.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
*sits and waits for the cries of those wanting to change previous feats taken from before this update to feats that are now available to their character or companion*
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
*sits and waits for the cries of those wanting to change previous feats taken from before this update to feats that are now available to their character or companion*
No rebuilds. You'll get another feat in a few levels.
--runs for the hills to avoid the inevitable mass hysteria as people cry to the heavens, "But I WANNA have my rebuild!"--
|
|
No rebuilds. You'll get another feat in a few levels.
What about people who are nearing retirement? They won't have that opportunity.
I'm no fan of rebuilding at the drop of a hat either, but when the APG came out there seriously needed to be a rebuilding period; especially with the limited amount of modules you guys have produced.
|
|
What about people who are nearing retirement? They won't have that opportunity.Did "those people" have fun playing their first 11 levels? If not, why were they playing?
They did at the time, but after such a huge power change they now find themselves out-shined by nearly every other character, thereby making the game much less fun from their perspectives when we play our high level characters.
Try this: play a falchion/bull rush barbarian up to level 8 while telling yourself "of course they have to fix the rage mechanic, the class is broken right now but I love them anyway" only to find that their "fix" was to charge you a feat. Now you're stuck with only two possible feats left and having to choose between raging vitality, improved critical, and greater bull rush (all three mandatory to your character concept at this point) while stuck with "filler" feats toughness and step up. See how much you resist playing when everyone breaks out their high level characters, leaving you on the sideline because your only high level character can never achieve their goals without running a much greater risk of dying than any other character.
That's not even mentioning all the new rage powers that completely replace the old ones. Those only come into play when another barbarian sits at your table and laughs at your tears while you watch what could have been. But at least you can heal yourself marginally once per day while those other barbs are dealing 30 DPR more than you, right?!?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We release new rulebooks three times a year (one is usually a monster book, so let's say twice annually). I have no interest in setting a precedent of rebuilding when new material is added to the campaign. If we actually changed an existing rule (like making a 3.5 feat different when updating it to PFRPG) then a rebuild is required, but when new options become available, they are additions, not exchanges.
If someone's nearing retirement, then they only have a few scenarios to go before they're playing a new character anyway.
|
|
We release new rulebooks three times a year (one is usually a monster book, so let's say twice annually). I have no interest in setting a precedent of rebuilding when new material is added to the campaign. If we actually changed an existing rule (like making a 3.5 feat different when updating it to PFRPG) then a rebuild is required, but when new options become available, they are additions, not exchanges.
If someone's nearing retirement, then they only have a few scenarios to go before they're playing a new character anyway.
With all due respect that's just a lame excuse. If you're not power creeping then allowing rebuilds isn't necessary. If you are power creeping then you have bigger problems anyway. The APG was used to fix some serious problems with a few core classes. I might (doubtful, but possible) agree with this if there were enough mods produced to be able to start an 8th or 9th level character over without severe repercussions, but that scenario doesn't exist so the argument is moot.
|
|
With all due respect that's just a lame excuse. If you're not power creeping then allowing rebuilds isn't necessary. If you are power creeping then you have bigger problems anyway. The APG was used to fix some serious problems with a few core classes. I might (doubtful, but possible) agree with this if there were enough mods produced to be able to start an 8th or 9th level character over without severe repercussions, but that scenario doesn't exist so the argument is moot.
I disagree that the APG was a ground for "fixing" serious problems. The classes in the CRB work just fine. The APG was an introduction to new options, including those relating to existing classes.
Personally, I like the no-rebuild rule. It is constant. If you allow a rebuild of the AC, then what other rebuilds are okay? Can my 10th level ranger/rogue go back and rebuild using alternate archetypes? It just opens pandora's box.
|
|
They did at the time, but after such a huge power change they now find themselves out-shined by nearly every other character, thereby making the game much less fun from their perspectives when we play our high level characters.What about people who are nearing retirement? They won't have that opportunity.Did "those people" have fun playing their first 11 levels? If not, why were they playing?
Not me. I leveled my first character so fast that he's had to sit on the sidelines for months. When pulling him out for his last 11th-level scenario recently, I played with a lot of people who had built their characters with APG rules. I didn't feel outshined. If anything, I feel like I outshined them.
I think there is some power creep in the APG, but I think that a well-built CRB character won't necessarily sit down and weep when next to APG characters, as you describe.
|
|
I think there is some power creep in the APG, but I think that a well-built CRB character won't necessarily sit down and weep when next to APG characters, as you describe.
It's very dependent upon what character you're running and where you were at when the APG came out. Barbarians, rogues, monks, melee bards, and crossbowmen were affected differently than most characters.
|
|
It's very dependent upon what character you're running and where you were at when the APG came out. Barbarians, rogues, monks, melee bards, and crossbowmen were affected differently than most characters.
I think there is some power creep in the APG, but I think that a well-built CRB character won't necessarily sit down and weep when next to APG characters, as you describe.
11th level monk here. I agree that it's very dependent upon a lot of factors, including how well I play, how well my tablemates play, the adventure itself, the DM, etc., etc. But I don't expect to feel sidelined going through the 12th-level arc, regardless of my tablemates for that. I will post back here if I experience any shame or sadness in my CRB monk build.
|
|
11th level monk here. I agree that it's very dependent upon a lot of factors, including how well I play, how well my tablemates play, the adventure itself, the DM, etc., etc. But I don't expect to feel sidelined going through the 12th-level arc, regardless of my tablemates for that. I will post back here if I experience any shame or sadness in my CRB monk build.It's very dependent upon what character you're running and where you were at when the APG came out. Barbarians, rogues, monks, melee bards, and crossbowmen were affected differently than most characters.
I think there is some power creep in the APG, but I think that a well-built CRB character won't necessarily sit down and weep when next to APG characters, as you describe.
Maybe I should clear up some confusion. The specific person I'm referring to doesn't feel that the character is useless by any means. The problem is that their character is extremely optimized for front line damage (barbarian) and yet constantly gets overshadowed by moderately built rangers (that has a near-death experience EVERY mod, mind you) and even the occasional optimized APG monk/sorcerer.
Now this isn't really a huge problem, but what about other characters in similar situations that AREN'T optimized? I can see myself in that situation and I wouldn't be happy in the least. In fact, I'd be rather disheartened.
|
|
11th level monk here. I agree that it's very dependent upon a lot of factors, including how well I play, how well my tablemates play, the adventure itself, the DM, etc., etc. But I don't expect to feel sidelined going through the 12th-level arc, regardless of my tablemates for that. I will post back here if I experience any shame or sadness in my CRB monk build.It's very dependent upon what character you're running and where you were at when the APG came out. Barbarians, rogues, monks, melee bards, and crossbowmen were affected differently than most characters.
I think there is some power creep in the APG, but I think that a well-built CRB character won't necessarily sit down and weep when next to APG characters, as you describe.
Maybe I should clear up some confusion. The specific person I'm referring to doesn't feel that the character is useless by any means. The problem is that their character is extremely optimized for front line damage (barbarian) and yet constantly gets overshadowed by moderately built rangers (that has a near-death experience EVERY mod, mind you) and even the occasional optimized APG monk/sorcerer.
Now this isn't really a huge problem, but what about other characters in similar situations that AREN'T optimized? I can see myself in that situation and I wouldn't be happy in the least. In fact, I'd be rather disheartened.
|
|
Now this isn't really a huge problem, but what about other characters in similar situations that AREN'T optimized? I can see myself in that situation and I wouldn't be happy in the least. In fact, I'd be rather disheartened.
Based on your descriptions, it's pretty clear that you define the usefulness of a character by it's combat skill, primarily its damage output. While combat does represent a portion of PFS, it is not all of it. Unless, of course, that is the type of game provided by your GM's. Since it sounds like you are in the Texas area, and it being the grounds of a few well known, and competent board posters, I know that is not the case. As I am sure there is a large portion of the community that plays those classes you describe and are not disheartened in the least. I enjoy playing my non-optimized bard who focuses on knowledge skills, languages, and out-of-combat solutions to challenges. Or my 4th level cleric, who's claim to fame is a 2d6 channel vs. undead. And my Barbarian-8/Rogue-3, optimized for damage, has had little problem avoiding death due to the HP loss when dropping out of rage.
EDIT--It is interesting that of the five registered characters that you have, four of them have Heirloom weapon. I think that says it all, IMO.
|
|
(Pot to Kettle moment) You sound pretty riled up Twilight, obviously you don't feel slighted by the lack of ability to change but some people do and maybe I can make a point in a different way. (If my bananas fail to disarm you, feel free to eat them while I run)
Now lets say I want to build a character that's awesome at juggling bananas. I've got a plan to do it, and it requires taking levels in wizard (for the arcane bonded banana) and rogue for the ability to disarm the banana and bard for the social/performance skills to make it worth it.
To make this concept work I sacrifice BAB and higher level spells but I get a tasty shtick. Now the APG comes out and I find the banana juggling archetype for bard and think to myself gee, that archetype lets me do everything I want and gets me full bard song and caster level.
Now my example there is pretty extreme but the missing out on new content isn't always about some theoretical maximum damage output but is about using the tools at hand to best represent one's vision of a character. When there's a feat/spell/class feature out there that would better describe my character then one I picked I at least find it quite frustrating.
That said, I am against rebuilding for the most part. I would have liked to see limited rebuild come with the APG since the amount of new material it had that could have been applied to existing character, and probably would have been if available at the time was quite staggering.
If I was in charge I would have allowed PCs to choose an archetype for existing PCs and the ability to change out 1 feat at that time. There is the slippery slope problem but I doubt Paizo will release another book anytime soon with so much content for everybody.
Obviously I'm not in charge so I've got to play by the Paizo's rules along with everyone else, but I think we should be careful about attacking people who propose rules changes we don't agree with, even if they do it in ways we find rude or offensive.
|
|
(Pot to Kettle moment) You sound pretty riled up Twilight...Obviously I'm not in charge so I've got to play by the Paizo's rules along with everyone else, but I think we should be careful about attacking people who propose rules changes we don't agree with, even if they do it in ways we find rude or offensive
You're right, and after re-reading my posts, it definitely sounds like it. But I am human and when someone tells me my opinion is wrong, I take offense to it. To say, "I disagree" and provide reasons why, is a reasonable stance to take. But to say, "You are wrong" when discussing a non-game mechanic issue, is IMHO, asinine. Since I was attacked on a personal level, I lashed back rather than take the high road. I guess I'm bit more towards chaos than I'd like to think, despite 'neutral' being written on my player sheet. :-)
Despite my tone, the point still stands, and has been supported by nearly all the posters after mine. There may be some minor issues with the CRB classes (based on build), but the "perception" that they are seriously lacking is not supported by most posters on this, or other, boards, nor have I seen it during my convention play. I have also not seen anything to indicate that the APG was released to fix the CRB. Yes, it adds new options, and may allow some specific builds to become more powerful or "optimized," but it is no different than any other book that has been published with additional or alternate rules.