Walking away from the table


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away.

I have a small blog read by almost nobody (not linked to, because I'm really not trying to drum up site traffic). I wrote a post for it a couple of weeks ago talking about my frustration with PFS, and how similar frustrations led me to walk away from LFR. Mainly the problems I have had centered on rules changing out from under players. And how whenever LFR or 4e would get a new program manager, that manager would immediately change the rules of the game to suit his vision of how the game or campaign should be. And that eventually, the fact of constant rules changes made it more and more difficult to keep interest in a character, because that character was not the same character that it was before each change.

There were other issues, like how rules changes in LFR were coming out as blog posts and tweets, and not as actual changes to the document which is supposed to contain the rules of the campaign. I expressed in my post my hope that Paizo was not walking down that same path.

Somehow Hyrum happened to read the post, and said something like “hey, let's discuss it”. And as timing is never good in my life, this week I happen to be out of town on business all this week. And I said, something like “How about when I get back in town?” and he said something like “Sounds good”. But then this week happened.

My first PFS character (who still has not hit the level 11/12 cap) started as a Druid. When Season 1 hit, I asked Joshua specifically about the rule where an animal companion with a 3 INT could take any feat. And I specifically asked about weapon proficiency feats. And I got an answer. And in the next printing of the Guide to Organized Play, there was a specific section dealing with and answering that question, that yes – animal companions with a 3 INT that can physically wield a weapon can take weapon proficiency feats. That section has been in the Guide for over a year and a half, and through multiple editions of the guide.

Yesterday, Mark made the statement that “the author” (not referring to Josh by name, which might be a Paizo thing, but really ended up sounding more like a slam) made a mistake on that ruling. He didn't say that he disagreed, and was changing the rule, which would have seemed to me like a much more civil way to phrase things, but that simply that the author made a mistake. A mistake that went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for somewhere like a year and a half.

This week, we also saw another major rules change. It is a rules change because for a long time (almost two years), the standard answer on the rules forum about animal companions was that handle animal checks can effectively be ignored if you invest a point of intelligence in your animal companion. This would seem to be supported by the rules that open up every feat and every skill in the book to an animal companion with a 3 INT, whereas 2 INT critters are limited to just a few skills and feats. The advice on the rules forum went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for a similarly long time period.

Anyway.

This week, with these two rulings, my 8th level cleric (nee druid) with an ape animal companion who wields a weapon (who was specifically discussed in rules threads on both the rules forum and the PFS forum after he showed up at a local gaming convention, and who no-one at Paizo stepped up then to remark that he was not legal) has suddenly become an illegal build.

And the reaction from the “usual crowd” was pure schadenfreude. Supposedly I, and anyone else who saw the versatility of such a build should have known better, even though I specifically asked and was specifically answered by the Paizo manager in charge of the program, that such a build was borderline, and it was only right and just that I be smacked down.

Anyway.

I've got a choice. I can either keep playing a character that is effectively castrated, and play my other characters, at least one of which was somewhat hit by ruling as well, or...I can simply stand up and walk away from the table. I'm choosing to do the latter.

I've spent a fair amount of money on the game. I have the Core rules, both Bestiaries, the APG, the GMG, the Inner Sea Guide (which I just got last weekend). I bought the complete Legacy of Fire adventure path. I've bought several (or a bunch depending on how you number it) of PDF's.

But I will not be spending any more of my money at Paizo.

I will go to DriveThruRPG or Amazon or somewhere else. I'm left with the distinct feeling that my money and my custom are not appreciated, and that perhaps it would have been money better spent elsewhere.

I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”

Wishing everyone all the best with their game.

5/5

*waves* Good luck with your future gaming.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Wow. take a week off from reading boards and the whole PFS, gets turned upside down. Im tired of studing so much. Im losing a really fun player, because he is fustrated with rules CHANGING, not being defined better. I gm for a small group 7-10 people and im tired of feeling i need to spend hours a day on these threads just to keep up.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
*waves* Good luck with your future gaming.

Why does this feel like sarcasm? To someone who loves the game, but is fustrated with the at times chaos.

5/5

jjaamm wrote:
I gm for a small group 7-10 people and im tired of feeling i need to spend hours a day on these threads just to keep up.

You don't really need to. Not every GM can be expected to stay current with every change all the time. If you're going to GM at a convention you should be as up to date as possible, but for a local group, if you're a few months behind on a rules clarification, so what?


Well I don't play PFS and I haven't read the rules docs but what I gather from your post is that you feel your character has been made into something you no longer want to play based on recent rules changes. Because of this you choose to stop playing the game and do something else with your time and money.

Well, good for you. This is exactly what you should do. You voted with your feet and wallet. If Paizo feels your loss they will change, if they don't, they won't.

5/5

jjaamm wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
*waves* Good luck with your future gaming.
Why does this feel like sarcasm? To someone who loves the game, but is fustrated with the at times chaos.

Because that's the way you want to interpret text from the internet.

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
jjaamm wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
*waves* Good luck with your future gaming.
Why does this feel like sarcasm? To someone who loves the game, but is fustrated with the at times chaos.
Because that's the way you want to interpret text from the internet.

Than I appoligize for thinking the worst from you. this did suprise me since i have come to respect your posts, but it was me. Thanks.

The Exchange 5/5

jjaamm wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
*waves* Good luck with your future gaming.
Why does this feel like sarcasm? To someone who loves the game, but is fustrated with the at times chaos.

If he's that frustrated then he's doing the proper thing in stepping back, however, stepping back w/out taking advantage of the offered discussion with the program director is taking the easy way out.

Frustration happens. But take advantages of the opportunity to ease that frustration if offered..

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd hardly call clarifying this rule as "changing the face of PFS gaming".

I'd go with Hyrum on this and agree that the original ruling WAS a mistake. It has to do what what the essential difference between a regular animal and an Awakened one, basically an animal that has been given sentience.

As I see it it was a cascade mistake from something that's not been fully addressed even by Hyrum's move.

Animals are defined as creatures with an Int score of 1-2. An Awakened Animal gets a 3d6 roll in mental attributes and becomes effectively sentient. What should have been defined clear off is that an unawakened Animal can not have it's INT stat raised to sentient levels.

If your character is "effectively castrated" because your ape can't wield a weapon any more, what was he beforehand? Was he that weak a Druid that he couldn't stand on his wildshaping, spells, and the other tricks a Druid alone brings to bear? Not to mention the standard natural attacks an animal companion DOES have, such as rend, tear, and grapple. You were (pun intended) monkeying with the rules in a way that pushed them to borderline. That's the price of walking on the edge.... occasionally you're going to slip off.

I'm not advocating that you change your mind, if so much depended on this rather cheesy manipulation of the rules, you're probably going to be happier elsewhere. But your post needs to be looked at with the proper perspective.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Out of interest, would it be possible to allow characters affected by a rules change to be re-specced? I am not sure that would make much of a difference in this particular instance but I assume that if an Animal Companion can suddenly not take Weapon Proficies then those feats can be re-chosen - can that be taken further?

The Exchange 5/5

DigitalMage wrote:
Out of interest, would it be possible to allow characters affected by a rules change to be re-specced? I am not sure that would make much of a difference in this particular instance but I assume that if an Animal Companion can suddenly not take Weapon Proficies then those feats can be re-chosen - can that be taken further?

There is a sticky in the General PFS boards I believe that details when a character can be rebuilt

edited to add the link;

rules changes

Shadow Lodge 5/5

DigitalMage wrote:
Out of interest, would it be possible to allow characters affected by a rules change to be re-specced? I am not sure that would make much of a difference in this particular instance but I assume that if an Animal Companion can suddenly not take Weapon Proficies then those feats can be re-chosen - can that be taken further?

Mark clarified that animal companions that have weapon or armor proficiency can have those feats, and only those feats, retrained. You may also sell back the animal companion's weapon for full price rather than 1/2 price.

Edit: Here is the link to Mark's Post

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DigitalMage wrote:
Out of interest, would it be possible to allow characters affected by a rules change to be re-specced? I am not sure that would make much of a difference in this particular instance but I assume that if an Animal Companion can suddenly not take Weapon Proficies then those feats can be re-chosen - can that be taken further?

This particular case has been addressed. the relevant feats can be respecced and weapons bought for such animals can be resold at full value. Checked the stickied post for more details.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

I think the old adage, "You can't please all the people all the time," applies here. I find myself frustrated at times as well, but I temper that with knowing the Paizo leadership is trying to be good stewards of the game for tens of thousands of players. IMO, they do a great job of thoroughly play-testing material before it is released. However, sometimes, we still find adjustments that should be done. This is even more apparent in PFSOP where you are trying to create an equitable game for thousands of players thematically playing at the same table.

Another thing that Paizo staff are known for is listening to their players and making adjustments based on that feedback. Many of us are frustrated at the way most animal companions are being used by players. The idea that an companion is disposable is ridiculous, IMHO. And the image of a weapon-wielding animal can be just as distasteful, to some, as gunslingers are to others.

The PFS leadership typically allows some form of rebuild when a rule changes that impacts existing characters. So, it doesn't have to be a player-screwing. Just take a few minutes to rebuild a small portion of the character and move on. It's happened to me twice.

So the guidelines for PFS were adjusted. Will it happen again, sure. Is it out of control? I think not. IMO, the biggest issue is the waiting for the updated guidebook. But since Mark/Hyrum have stated that it is a nearly complete rewrite, most are granting the time to do it right. We can only hope that when it is final released all the issues that require clarification have been addressed.

So, I guess what my ramblings mean, I hate to see any PFS player abandon ship, especially since it's not actually sinking. Hopefully, after a few days/weeks you'll change your mind. Treat this as just an emotional reaction to something you are passionate about. If not, good luck in your future gaming and I hope you at least continue playing PFRPG in a non-PFS environment.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jjaamm wrote:
i have come to respect your posts

Oh boy, that's a mistake!


Brother Elias wrote:
I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”

I sympathize 100% on disliking the idea that rules can change from week to week based on something someone posted on the message boards which contradicts something someone else posted earlier (e.g.).

But I have to admit that whenever I see a "I'm leaving this place...forever!!" post on an internet message board, it always strikes me as a little melodramatic.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
jjaamm wrote:
i have come to respect your posts
Oh boy, that's a mistake!

+1 :P

5/5

Mark Garringer wrote:
+1 :P

ALL THE WAY TO 11 GARRINGER! RAWR!

*power attacking*burning diseased claw*burning diseased claw*REND*burning diseased bite*

The Exchange 5/5

hogarth wrote:
Brother Elias wrote:
I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”

I sympathize 100% on disliking the idea that rules can change from week to week based on something someone posted on the message boards which contradicts something someone else posted earlier (e.g.).

But I have to admit that whenever I see a "I'm leaving this place...forever!!" post on an internet message board, it always strikes me as a little melodramatic.

Agreed .. there is something to be said for knowing that you're taking the stand and doing it... posting about it just means you want attention and someone to say "awwwwwwwwwww... your feewings were hurt, we're so sowwwy!!"

5/5

Thea Peters wrote:
...

*pats the liddle gnomey on her head*

Grand Lodge 2/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Mark Garringer wrote:
+1 :P

ALL THE WAY TO 11 GARRINGER! RAWR!

*power attacking*burning diseased claw*burning diseased claw*REND*burning diseased bite*

Wait, wait! I have Fire Resist 10! I remembered!

The Exchange 5/5

Kyle Baird wrote:
Thea Peters wrote:
...
*pats the liddle gnomey on her head*

*nose wiggles*

Dark Archive

Kyle Baird wrote:
*power attacking*burning diseased claw*burning diseased claw*REND*burning diseased bite*

I think I dated this chick in college...

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Ryan Bolduan wrote:
DigitalMage wrote:
Out of interest, would it be possible to allow characters affected by a rules change to be re-specced? I am not sure that would make much of a difference in this particular instance but I assume that if an Animal Companion can suddenly not take Weapon Proficies then those feats can be re-chosen - can that be taken further?

Mark clarified that animal companions that have weapon or armor proficiency can have those feats, and only those feats, retrained. You may also sell back the animal companion's weapon for full price rather than 1/2 price.

Edit: Here is the link to Mark's Post

I'd assume that other weapon related feats can be changed - such as weapon focus as well.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I don’t see how it castrates your Druid that your monkey can’t wield a sword. That sounds like a bit of a drama queen reaction to me.

Since you can retrain the feats your monkey no longer can use (weapon and armor) I don’t see why multi-attack wouldn’t be a good option for your monkey and still make it fairly versatile.

The Exchange 5/5

Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

Technically Paizo has stated that if you know about the rule and it's been made offical (such as the new replay rules) you are bound by those...

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Sorry to see you go, But to tell you the truth, after I saw marks post on this, I knew this was going to happen with you.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Thea Peters wrote:
Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

Technically Paizo has stated that if you know about the rule and it's been made offical (such as the new replay rules) you are bound by those...

Technically, all the PFS-specific rules should be in the manual.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

This might work for your local group, but if you play at conventions it could result in your PC being illegal. And that could be an issue if the table is being held up as you adjust your character.

If you are GM'ing, IMHO, you are doing your players a disservice. If they are unaware of the rules, it could have a negative impact if/when they play under a different GM, who is following the most recent updates. This would be magnified if their PC is build around an illegal concept and have gained numerous levels. It would paint the GM in a poor light if the players find out that s/he was aware of the changes and chose to ignore them because they were not in the "right" form.

Remember that players/GMs/organizers, by playing PFS agree to follow the guidelines. And that includes implementing rules changes once you are aware of them. We all agree that the guidebook is a bit chaotic at the moment, but many of the changes that have occurred on the boards are needed, or at least reasonable. You have a responsibility to use them and ensure your players are as well.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Brother Elias wrote:
Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away. . .

I feel your pain. I know it sucks when rules changes take away from the complete fun factor of a character build. I had the same thing happen when bladed scarves changed from a weapon you can reach with into two handed short swords (without the crit range) that you can trip with.

That was my fun factor, and now the character is less fun, and I play with that character much less and get annoyed by rules changes more when I play him. (BTW by rules change I may mean clarification or alteration or something else that comes from on high that changes the way that we play the game, so lets not get nit picky.)

I actually feel that you are right to be put off by the change.

But consider what you actually get out of the game. I've been considering what really is the difference between tabletop and online gaming for a good long time and there's more to it than the rules or the combats or the system. It's the ability to share the experience with others that you can relate to, that understand the rules and the passion for gaming. I think that your group of Judges and Players would be compassionate and help you work with your build so that they can still enjoy your company at the table.

The real difference between Pathfinder and 4th is that Pathfinder is a bit more of a thinking game, it has lots of crunch and ways to do neat things in interesting ways. I feel that the community is a bit stronger as well and more close knit. Since the let down I've created other fun characters that currently work within the boundaries of the rules . . . for now. If the character is defunned I'll vent to my friends at the table talk about how stupid it is and maybe feel better.

Give it some time, you have contributed a great deal to the community.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Skeld wrote:
Technically, all the PFS-specific rules should be in the manual.

Possibly it should - in the perfect world - but unfortunately, Mark/Hyrum have been trying to get caught up on lots of work and have stated that they don't have time to get the guide out as quickly as they would like. They've asked us to use the forums until that point. Is it ideal? No, but it's what we have to deal with.

I don't think anybody is going to throw the book at you for not following a specific minor rules announcement embedded in a forum post somewhere, but I do know that the replay rule has been stated over extensively and I'd suggest that if you're in violation of that rule, you really should switch over. As has been stated, you are bound by that decision, and it's a pretty major impact to the way PFS works.

The Exchange 5/5

Skeld wrote:
Thea Peters wrote:
Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

Technically Paizo has stated that if you know about the rule and it's been made offical (such as the new replay rules) you are bound by those...
Technically, all the PFS-specific rules should be in the manual.

Old arguement -- see other posts and move on at this point, it's being update, it's been discuseed and it's a dead horse.

The Exchange 4/5

Brother Elias, you've got to realize that Paizo is not doing this to neuter your character specifically. It isn't a personally attack, it is just clearing up a problem that was brought to light.

Now, I do think Paizo has been too much in the habit of making changes to things on the whim. Whether it is how intelligent animals are handled or PrCs like Hellknight, it is not right to hold the expectation that things change immediately, and only on a very limited basis. These changes don't take into account all the other things players do with their characters to make them eligible to take certains classes / feats / etc. Even though this isn't likely to happen, if Paizo decided without any notice that the Holy Vindicator PrC was going to change in big ways, I'd be all about a revolt. I planned my character to take that specific PrC since level 1, and changes like that without any prior notice would definitely not be appreciated, since I've nurtured this character for over half a year now.

Paizo needs to take a look at instituting some grandfather rulings. The more changes that come about, especially so suddenly and with the limited scope of character recreation, the more disgruntled people you'll see. That, or these changes need to be better publicized and/or with lots of prior notification and character rebuilding needs to be a bit more open for affected players.

1/5 **

Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

For the record, I completely agree about forum-posts-as-updates. Unfortunately, behaving as you are may well result in illegal tables, reporting problems, and ultimately to players not getting credit. I believe you run the risk of doing your players a disservice, an outcome that I find unacceptable.

Liberty's Edge

I'm going to attempt to put a few things into perspective here/wrap a few roaming thoughts together regarding the mechanics and rulings.

First off, whether obvious or not, per RAW (Bestiary, p307, Animal entry), an animal cannot still be an animal with an INT of 3, as has been said. And since animal companions are....animals. An INT of 3 should have never been allowed, even if Frost said it could be.

Secondly, per the same RAW entry: animals are "proficient with its natural weapons only" and are "proficient with no armor unless trained for war". I will admit the second half of this could be confusing, as an animal companion could be considered being trained for war, but the first half is pretty straightforward.

Thirdly, per RAW (Core Book, p.52, Feats) "Animal companions can select other feats, although they are unable to utilize some feats (such as Martial Weapon Proficiency)." Frost's answer or not - this kinda bluntly states an AC can't use a weapon.

Fourthly, per RAW (Core Book, p.53, Animal Feats), there are a limited list of feats available to ACs. This same entry also states, however that "ACs with an INT of 3+ can select any feat they are physically capable of using." This reference also is a part of the skills entry. Now, this, as written poses a conflict, as the Feats/Skills entries is pretty obvious about the potential for an AC to be able to get an INT of 3...but the Animal entry from the Bestiary states an animal is not an animal with an INT of 3.

-----

Now, all that said, is this really all that big of a deal when it comes to damage?? (Note - I am not discussing armor, because you either will get your AC dropped or if you can consider your AC a mount, then you just have to pay more for barding.)

Take the ape, with 3 natural attacks at full bonus.

At 3rd level:
Total STR bonus of +4
Avg per atk - 6.5 damage
Potential total - 19.5 damage (9.75 taking into consideration an overall 50% miss)

With Improved Natural Attack:
Avg per atk - 7.5 damage
Potential total - 22.5 damage (11.25 taking into consideration an overall 50% miss)

At 4th level:
Total STR bonus of +9
Avg per atk - 12.5 damage
Potential total - 37.5 damage (18.75 taking into consideration an overall 50% miss)

With Improved Natural Attack:
Avg per atk - 13.5 damage
Potential total - 40.5 damage (20.25 taking into consideration an overall 50% miss)

Now, if we look at the same range with a Lucerne Hammer (1d12):
At 3rd level:
Total STR bonus of +4
Avg damage - 11.5 damage

At 4th level:
Total STR bonus of +9
Avg damage - 16.5 damage

So, if I did my math right, for 3 levels, you do slightly worse avg damage over time, unless you take the INA feat, then it's basically equal.

From then on out, you're doing slightly better, even more so with INA.

So you don't get a +2 bump to sunder armor...big deal. And now you're following the rules as written and in spirit...and no one has to walk away from the table.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Thea Peters wrote:
Skeld wrote:
Thea Peters wrote:
Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

Technically Paizo has stated that if you know about the rule and it's been made offical (such as the new replay rules) you are bound by those...
Technically, all the PFS-specific rules should be in the manual.
Old arguement -- see other posts and move on at this point, it's being update, it's been discuseed and it's a dead horse.

A dead horse that he has brought up on several occasions, getting the same responses, and apparently not caring enough to change his view, despite being on the boards frequently enough to post about it multiple times.

The Exchange 3/5

bugleyman wrote:
Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

For the record, I completely agree about forum-posts-as-updates. Unfortunately, behaving as you are may well result in illegal tables, reporting problems, and ultimately to players not getting credit. I believe you run the risk of doing your players a disservice, an outcome that I find unacceptable.

And for the love of whatever God(s) I pray to, you can find a compiled (though currently draft) version of all the rules updates from the forums in this document, linked and documented:

Google Doc Draft PFS Guide (takes a while to load)

If there are things missing, please add them to the Community Update of the PFS Guide thread.

At a certain point, *WE* have the power to fix this problem.

-Pain

The Exchange 5/5

Painlord wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Skeld wrote:

While I read some of these PFS rules discussion/clarification threads just to keep up on what people are thinking and what changes might be coming, I don't implement anything that shows up in a forum post. I GM "by the book," meaning the latest published/downloadable PFS guide. Keeping up with all the "official" messageboard traffic of who said what is too disorganized for organized play. When it shows up in the guide, I'll treat it as official. Until then, it's just forum noise.

-Skeld

For the record, I completely agree about forum-posts-as-updates. Unfortunately, behaving as you are may well result in illegal tables, reporting problems, and ultimately to players not getting credit. I believe you run the risk of doing your players a disservice, an outcome that I find unacceptable.

And for the love of whatever God(s) I pray to, you can find a compiled (though currently draft) version of all the rules updates from the forums in this document, linked and documented:

Google Doc Draft PFS Guide (takes a while to load)

If there are things missing, please add them to the Community Update of the PFS Guide thread.

At a certain point, *WE* have the power to fix this problem.

-Pain

*pictures a vein popping on Pain's forehead*

awwwww

*gives gnomey soothing noises and rubs his forehead*

1/5 **

Painlord wrote:

At a certain point, *WE* have the power to fix this problem.

-Pain

I commend your efforts. Unfortunately, many people still don't think there is a problem, going so far as to say so (loudly and aggresively) in the very threads that are clear evidence to the contrary. Like, say...this one.

But yeah...dead horse. :P

The Exchange 5/5

bugleyman wrote:
Painlord wrote:

At a certain point, *WE* have the power to fix this problem.

-Pain

I commend your efforts. Unfortunately, many people still don't think there is a problem, going so far as to say so (rather aggresively) in the very threads that are clear evidence to the contrary. Like this one.

But yeah...dead horse.

if you're referring to me; yes I agree there is a problem... have I acknowledged that I know they working on it and am willing to give them time to work on it with their work-load.

Do I think that repeated harping on the boards about is going to change anything .. nope

Do I think what Pain is doing is a good thing ... yep

Can we let it go now?

1/5 **

Thea Peters wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Painlord wrote:

At a certain point, *WE* have the power to fix this problem.

-Pain

I commend your efforts. Unfortunately, many people still don't think there is a problem, going so far as to say so (rather aggresively) in the very threads that are clear evidence to the contrary. Like this one.

But yeah...dead horse.

if you're referring to me; yes I agree there is a problem... have I acknowledged that I know they working on it and am willing to give them time to work on it with their work-load.

Do I think that repeated harping on the boards about is going to change anything .. nope

Do I think what Pain is doing is a good thing ... yep

Can we let it go now?

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, largely because I'm too lazy to go back and check the threads. However, shooting the messenger when people new to the discussion bring up the issue doesn't seem like "letting it go."

*shrug*

Liberty's Edge 1/5

As they allow you to respec this isn't perhaps as bad as I thought, but obviously still frustrated, especially if you are very limited in what you are allowed to respec (e.g. if the player had known that is ape Animal Companion was not going to be allowed to weild martial weapons he perhaps would have chosen a different animal completely).

As for post re rules updates, I must admit I tried to read such posts but found I couldn't see content for all the non Paizo Staff posts in the thread. Are such threads now made so that only Paizo staff can post to them?

BTW that google doc sounds like what is needed, unfortunately trying to access it killed my IE browser :(

I am gald I don't have to GM PFS at the moment if there is so much change to the rules that haven't made it into the Organised Play guide.

Dark Archive 4/5

DigitalMage wrote:

As they allow you to respec this isn't perhaps as bad as I thought, but obviously still frustrated, especially if you are very limited in what you are allowed to respec (e.g. if the player had known that is ape Animal Companion was not going to be allowed to weild martial weapons he perhaps would have chosen a different animal completely).

As for post re rules updates, I must admit I tried to read such posts but found I couldn't see content for all the non Paizo Staff posts in the thread. Are such threads now made so that only Paizo staff can post to them?

BTW that google doc sounds like what is needed, unfortunately trying to access it killed my IE browser :(

I am gald I don't have to GM PFS at the moment if there is so much change to the rules that haven't made it into the Organised Play guide.

They are currently working on completely re-vamping the guide in addition to their other PFS work, so for now there is the online additional rules page and now the community driven google doc. Not really that much change per se, just a longer time frame between updates creates that illusion.

The Exchange 3/5

DigitalMage wrote:
BTW that google doc sounds like what is needed, unfortunately trying to access it killed my IE browser :(

It didn't kill your browser, but it was taking a long time to load. :(

Anyhoot, THIS LINK will work much better and quicker.

-Pain

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Painlord wrote:
It didn't kill your browser, but it was taking a long time to load. :(

Well I allowed the "script causing IE to run slowly" to continue a few times before giving up, so it was sort of slowly strangling it to death :)

Painlord wrote:
Anyhoot, THIS LINK will work much better and quicker.

That is excellent and I assume the stuff in red are the changes, yes? If so that is perfect! Thanks!

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Brother Elias wrote:

After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away. ..eventually, the fact of constant rules changes made it more and more difficult to keep interest in a character, because that character was not the same character that it was before each change.

This. I quit LFR for exactly the same reason and stopped buying WotC products as a result.

It's not about builds, or rules, or combat effectiveness, it's about continuity and how we visualise our characters. I'll even retire a character if ambiguities in their class abilities (like Touch of Law) lead to DM variation. It's too frustrating to bother with.

There are several ways to get an animal with high Int; levelling them as a Druid, Eye for Talent and Oracle of Nature. The assumption has always been (since 3.0 at least) that intelligence of 3+ was sentient. If you couldn't use the options mentioned above (if it wasn't your companion for example) then you'd need to cast Awaken, which works on any animal. The end result though is the same. The only reason I wasn't affected by this particular change was that I never started my Human Oracle of Nature, who had a horse that was more intelligent than most barbarians... I would be just as upset as Brother Elias if I had done.

Preventing druids from raising their animal companion's intelligence is not a fix. The Nature Oracle's mount is specifically listed as having an intelligence of 'at least 6' and functions in the same way as a druid's companion. By 9th level my Oracle's horse would have had an intelligence of 'at least 10' and be just as smart as a peasant. A default Wisdom of 13 makes it wiser than the average peasant too, whilst Charisma 7 is accounted for by the fact people ignore it when it wants attention 'because it's a horse'. It would still have been as charismatic as the party barbarians.

The Exchange 4/5

Stormfriend wrote:


This. I quit LFR for exactly the same reason and stopped buying WotC products as a result.

I'll be right behind you guys (along with quite a few of my three groups) as soon as the new organized play document is updated to include gunslingers. The rules were fine the way they were when we all started; tinkering with them is just frustrating and infuriating the populace.

Grand Lodge 4/5

*shakes head at all the people stomping their feet, taking their toys, and going home.

By the way, and I am not trying to be a smart ass here, if you really do intend to quit, I would like to buy some of your books at half price so I can take them to various conventions to let new players use them.

1 to 50 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Walking away from the table All Messageboards