|
As with the pre-gen/replay discussion, only one or two Venture-Captains or Paizo staff will pop in if there needs to be any clarification. I want to make sure to get feedback from the fanbase without undue influence.
2) In organized play, only the animals listed are permitted for selection and cannot be "re-skinned" to appear as something they are not."
Is this supposed to be a new rule? I thought that was the existing rule. Or maybe this is just a clarification?
My two cents: I like the idea of re-skinning stuff, but I can see why it's not suited for organized play.
On the other hand, I'd support opening up the ranger and cavalier animal companion lists with some of the "GM's discretion" companions from the Bestiaries. But that's not what you asked. ;-)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As with the pre-gen/replay discussion, only one or two Venture-Captains or Paizo staff will pop in if there needs to be any clarification. I want to make sure to get feedback from the fanbase without undue influence.
2) In organized play, only the animals listed are permitted for selection and cannot be "re-skinned" to appear as something they are not."
Why? Who Cares? (I do, a lot).
If I want to have an Elven Hound for my elven ranger, run all the stats as a Cheetah, and place my green painted dog mini on the table, why not? Who is it hurting? It adds flavor. It's fun for me. It makes my character a little special flavor-wise without giving me any benefit rule-wise.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
-1
Mechanics and fluff in this case are connected. For example, Totem Druid are restricted to certain animal companions.
Also, as someone that has suffered through having a bear AC (one of the worst in the game) it would irk me to no end to see pouncing bears (big cats reskinned as bears) and tripping bears (wolves reskinned as bears).
If you want to be special flavor-wise make it happen yourself by pursuing interesting mechanics no one/few others use. Using dime-a-dozen mechanics and just calling it something else is not special.
Leave reskinning to LFR please.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
2) In organized play, only the animals listed are permitted for selection and cannot be "re-skinned" to appear as something they are not."
Are we to assume you're referring to animal companions, mounts, familiars, etc?
I have two and a half thoughts on this:
1a) Does this same line of thinking apply to other areas of fluff as well, or just animals? (See 1b, below.)
1b) There's a local player with a half-orc PC (a fun one, I might add) who's said to be an ex-slave who still wears the remnants of his shackles. The player describes his character as (if memory serves) swinging his chains around in combat. As long as he has spent the appropriate gold on legal combinations of heavy flails and locked gauntlets and whatnot, and mechanically uses them as such (occupying his hands, etc), is there any reason he shouldn't be able to say he's swinging his slave chains around?
2) I can see this potentially being a problem with over-enforcement. Can I shave my horse and glue antlers to his head and call him Naked Doom Stag, and tell people he's a demonic deer? Or is that a case of illegal re-skinning despite strictly adhering to normal horse stats? If I draw a picture of my PC for the purpose of more engaging introductions but draw him in a nice outfit instead of full plate armor, do I need to play him as though he's not wearing full plate because otherwise I'd be re-skinning?
My main point is this: as long as what's actually being mechanically executed is 100% legal and made clear to the GM and other players, I see no reason to say you can't pretend it's something a little different. I can only assume that the goal of this rule is to prevent people from eeking out unfair advantages through clever reskinning, but if the reskinning is completely non-mechanical, what's wrong with a little imagination?
Observations: I pretty much personally agree with Swiftbrook above, though if the rule goes thru it´s not the end of the world.
I´m not sure of all the examples, but Paizo has in some cases published some creatures with the line ´use stats of X´ (can´t remember specific example off hand). In that case, if X is a valid companion choice, should you be able to re-skin it as the same creature that Paizo has? (this may require bringing that source with you as proof and/or PFS compiling a basic list of such official re-skins)
Assuming the rule goes thru, it seems like any player can still run their character as constantly referring to their companion as X creature instead of Y (the actual stats), i.e. hunting dog vs. wolf, etc, just as they could refer to themselves as the King of Absalom. Same goes for using mini pieces that fit their vision, since there´s no rules for what minis you can use. Per the proposed rule change, NPCs or other PCs could/should perceive the animal as it´s RAW type, but if the two creatures are very close and the player´s character is saying another thing, pehaps they could just go along? Certainly depending on a Sense Motive vs. Bluff / Diplomacy check... Just exploring the boundaries of this rule change.
Also, as someone that has suffered through having a bear AC (one of the worst in the game) it would irk me to no end to see pouncing bears (big cats reskinned as bears) and tripping bears (wolves reskinned as bears).
I can DEFINITELY see why this could be troublesome/problematic, and a rule making it illegal to reskin something as a LEGAL, EXISTING creature type seems more than reasonable. ...At a different level, I could also see abuse in somebody picking Tiger-stat Companion but ´re-skinning´ it as some non-dangerous looking pet, to avoid social problems with said pet. If any re-skinning is allowed, perhaps there should be a note that anybody can just as easily determine the pet´s general abilities (i.e. base abilities, not un-noticeable Feat abilities) such as Tiger Pounce, etc, as if the Companion was ´conventionally´ skinned... I.e. the re-skinning doesn´t affect perception of it´s capabilities, and thus Tiger re-skinned as Albino Sloth is still provoking reactions to a dangerous pet/weapon...?
Perhaps it would be helpful to know what exact PROBLEMS have been found with re-skinning, or what potential problems are envisioned by the PFS staff? The person who mentioned re-skinning as existing/legal Companions brought up a VERY valid issue, but that seems fix-able with a rule barring re-skins which ALREADY ARE COVERED by existing Companions...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Assuming the rule goes thru, any player can still run their character as constantly referring to their companion as X creature instead of Y (the actual stats), i.e. hunting dog vs. wolf, etc, just as they could refer to themselves as the King of Absalom. Same goes for using mini pieces that fit their vision, since there´s no rules for what minis you can use. Per the proposed rule change, NPCs or other PCs could/should perceive the animal as it´s RAW type
This makes me think we need a clearer definition of what "re-skinning" is for the purposes of this rule. See, I interpreted the rule to mean that no, you can't keep referring to your AniComp as X instead of Y, nor can you call yourself the king of Absalom.
Similarly, I've read parts of the threads that led to this issue (like the thing about the "pig" at GenCon). What tends to go round and round is this:
Person1: What's the harm in reskinning if it doesn't have a mechanical benefit?
Person2: Because it has a mechanical benefit!
We really, REALLY need to make it crystal clear in this thread whether we're talking about re-skinning that has some mechanical effect or re-skinning that is 100% effect-free. Otherwise, this thread is going to accomplish absolutely nothing.
|
|
This makes me think we need a clearer definition of what "re-skinning" is for the purposes of this rule. See, I interpreted the rule to mean that no, you can't keep referring to your AniComp as X instead of Y, nor can you call yourself the king of Absalom.
We really, REALLY need to make it crystal clear in this thread whether we're talking about re-skinning that has some mechanical effect or re-skinning that is 100% effect-free. Otherwise, this thread is going to accomplish absolutely nothing.
I agree.
If the re-skinning is pure fluff, taking an existing legal animal and giving it the name and appearance of an animal that is not allowed to any class and the size is the same, then I have no problem with it. I would not allow a class with a restrictive list to take an animal that is legal for them and call it an animal not legal for them but legal for another class, as that would cause confusion in various ways.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
We can all think of ways that reskinning could be taken to extremes. ("I'm playing a half-ogre. I'll just use the half-orc stats.")("I'm riding a small dragon. Use the statistics for a camel.")
I don't want to play in a group with a psionic angel who fell to earth, the goblin who passed the Test of the Starstone, a Warforged who fell through a reality rift from Eberron, and a talking ochre jelly. (Even if they are treated, mechanically, as a human, a halfling, a half-orc, and a dwarf.)
So, if we allow some some re-skinning, we should have a clear demarcation as to what's allowed and what isn't.
cannot be "re-skinned" to appear as something they are not
=
anybody passing relevant perception/knowledge checks expects an accurate result
so saying re-skins are disallowed means the accurate result corresponds to the stats, not what the player ´prefers´
´appearing as (they are)´ does not imply any prohibition on what PCs can state in-world,
as that would be a prohibition on what you can communicate, as well as on usage of diplomacy/bluff.
pretending to be something that you are not is kindof a core aspect of what is possible in the game... and there are mechanics for that.
but with the proposed rule, what the PC ´prefers´ to view their animal as would not be something that is shared by other PCs/NPCs who accurately perceive the animal... obviously, if a PC goes around referring to things that average people don´t find correspond to reality, other NPCs/PCs will treat said PC as if they are crazy/delusional.
I assume Diplomacy (if the PC believes it, i.e. they ARE crazy) or Bluff or Disguise (if they don´t really believe it) would continue to work per RAW under the new change/clarification (SINCE THAT WASN´T BANNED, SAME FOR CRAFT: LEATHERWORK, i.e. ACTUAL SKINNING), but those options somewhat go against players who want a ´flavor X´ pet with Y stats, and who don´t want to be crazy/con-artists, i.e. breaking the ´illusion´ they ´really´ have X pet. As stated, this is just a clarifaction more than a change, in that when the rules say ´Warhammer´ you really are using a Warhammer that corresponds to the rules description of such, and not a Chainsaw that happens to have the same stats.
2) I can see this potentially being a problem with over-enforcement. Can I shave my horse and glue antlers to his head and call him Naked Doom Stag, and tell people he's a demonic deer? Or is that a case of illegal re-skinning despite strictly adhering to normal horse stats? If I draw a picture of my PC for the purpose of more engaging introductions but draw him in a nice outfit instead of full plate armor, do I need to play him as though he's not wearing full plate because otherwise I'd be re-skinning?
I don´t see a problem with this... Unless you´re a REALLY fast draw, any picture you may have won´t correspond to the actual state of your PC at any moment. You can say you have a picture that is what your PC looks like when they´re relaxing in Absalom, but when other PCs ask what your character looks like (or NPCs reactions), the Gm will elaborate based on actual stats and what you´re wearing... e.g. like that guy in that picture, except with 10d6 acid damage and wearing heavy armor.
That´s not what this proposed rule is about... It´s about players getting to determine what all character´s (PCs/NPCs) perceive when they make an ´accurate´ assesment of what that animal following the party around actually is.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Unfortunately, Quandary, your certainty of the reasonable definition of re-skinning will be of little use if other people in the thread (especially Michael Brock) read and respond to people's comments with other definitions in mind. Hence my request for definitive clarification.
|
|
I don't want to play in a group with a psionic angel who fell to earth, the goblin who passed the Test of the Starstone, a Warforged who fell through a reality rift from Eberron, and a talking ochre jelly. (Even if they are treated, mechanically, as a human, a halfling, a half-orc, and a dwarf.)
That party sounds rad. Send them to my table!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That sounds like a good PFS T-Shirt: I passed the Test of the Starstone, and all I got was some hairy feet.
Quandary,
From the way I understand it, and the way I have seen it talked about in other threads, is that the re-skinned animal is seen by everyone the way the player describes it, so long as the GM at the table allows it, but that the animal mechanically functions by the legal animal's stats. It is not an illusion or trick or disguise. From an earlier poster's example, if your legal animal is a wolf but it is re-skinned to have the appearance of an elven hound, then it is an elven hound to everyone else, PC or NPC. And if you were to run into a real elven hound, then it would also treat your wolf as an elven hound because that would be the fluff.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We really, REALLY need to make it crystal clear in this thread whether we're talking about re-skinning that has some mechanical effect or re-skinning that is 100% effect-free. Otherwise, this thread is going to accomplish absolutely nothing.
First, this is a rules discussion to get thoughts from the general playerbase. This isn't set in stone that it is or is not going to happen. The very reason I put these out here is to hear what the fanbase has to say about the issue and it helps me, and the Venture-Captains, to go back and discuss everyone's input. From there, I am able to try and make the ruling that is best for the campaign.
What I don't want to see is "stormtrooper armor" and "lightsabers" that were bought in Katapesh as relics of Numeria. They have the same stats as existing items but they look like something else entirely. Neither of these change items mechanically but they are a huge problem.
From Michael´s above post, should it be taken that this is a broader clarification than just for animal companions, e.g. including all aspects of the rules (PC/NPC races, equipment, spell descriptions, etc)?
again...
Perhaps it would be helpful to know what exact PROBLEMS have been found with re-skinning, or what potential problems are envisioned by the PFS staff? The person who mentioned re-skinning as existing/legal Companions brought up a VERY valid issue, but that seems fix-able with a rule barring re-skins which ALREADY ARE COVERED by existing Companions...
|
|
Perhaps it would be helpful to know what exact PROBLEMS have been found with re-skinning, or what potential problems are envisioned by the PFS staff?
The problem is consistency. If I say "no, you can't have a pig, it's not permitted", and you say "yes you can have a pig" it creates stress against my personal GM style and causes me to have to be adversarial to the player in question.
In a home game a lot of things can be allowed, in Society play consistency is key.
Now I'm breaking my own rule and I apologize for that. I want this to be an open ended discussion for all, not me trying to steer everyone one way or another.
|
|
I think this is getting into territory of creating too many rules.
I'd be happy with something like this:
b) In organized play, non-magical animals can be reskinned as different non-magical animals for character backstory reasons.
For example, a character can ride a pig and use the stats for the riding dog. A character cannot ride a hellhound and use the stats for a riding dog.
Where a character class (totem druid, totem barbarian) explicitly mentions the species of the animal companion or familiar species choice, this companion cannot be reskinned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the reasoning against re-skinning. Most of the reason people want to re-skin something is for fluff reasons. Because said animal is not created stat-wise yet, or is not available in alternate resources yet.
I'd suggest, should you choose to go forward with this rule, that the Bestiary 2 & 3, and other sources (like the Kingmaker AP that has a couple AC options in it) be vetted and incorporated as allowed resources for animal companions. This will give more options, and cause less need for re-skinning for fluff reasons.
If you choose to allow re-skinning, I'd suggest you disallow re-skinning into something that already has stats. Such as re-skinning a wolf into a bear to get a tripping bear or other such options noted above.
In my case, I'm the one Jiggy is talking about with Bbauzh.
I paid for two locked gauntlets and a set of manacles at 1st level to go along with my Heavy Flail. I used the alternate racial trait for half-orcs that basically replaces their racial weapons with flails and it says that they often use the chains they were enslaved with.
If a GM has a problem with me saying that Bbauzh leaves the chains shackled to his wrists with a heavy ball attached at the end and basically use the stats of a heavy flail, then I just play as though one of Bbauzh's hands is using a locked gauntlet.
It offers no additional mechanical benefit either way, and is cool fluff.
I think people are way too worried about the minority of players who use the "re-skinning" to gain ludicrous benefits or to introduce some roleplay aspect not appropriate for the setting.
I'm against limiting something for everyone because of a few bad apples. It sets a precedence of negativity.
My suggestion:
1) Re-skinning is allowed as long as there are no mechanical benefits of doing so and as long as the GM feels your re-skin fits within the theme of the setting.
This will allow for SOME table variance, but for the most part I think most GM's will not allow silliness to abound. And if they do, any other right-minded GM will not allow it right away.
There should be some guidelines though, as to what is not fitting within the setting. Like Michael noted, light sabers and mecha warrior outfits are anachronistic and definitely do not fit the setting.
A pig isn't out of theme. But some GM's might choose to take a very hard-core view of what they feel is in theme or not in theme. (Chris, I'm not singling you out here, I was merely using that as an example).
|
|
As a side note, with the soon-to-be released/approved Bestiary III, druids will have 69 different animal companions available to choose from.
I'd suggest, should you choose to go forward with this rule, that the Bestiary 2 & 3,
That's a ton of animal options to choose from. If someone really needs to "re-skin" when they have 69 options, then perhaps they should play GURPS instead.
|
|
As a side note, with the soon-to-be released/approved Bestiary III, druids will have 69 different animal companions available to choose from.
I think there's no question that druids will have a wide variety of choices. The pig reskinning that we all remember from the big thread was over a cavalier, however. I'd recommend adding a few more options for the cav and/or ranger (from the list of 'may be allowed with GM's discretion') to counterbalance cutting down on reskinning.
Sidenote: Fearless leader, the VCs are telling me in this thread that I will need your approval to get my account activated without the card code. When you get a chance, if you could help with that or forward to someone who can, that'll let me report >10 mods.
~RE
|
|
I want this to be an open ended discussion for all, not me trying to steer everyone one way or another.
What really bugs me is that we need a ruling. It seems like I should be able to go to my GM and say, "I've got an Elven Hound as and animal companion and I'm using the cheetah stats." He's read the adventure and there are no issues so he says "sure". At another table, a prayer brings his animal companion bear and states he's using the tripping wolf stats and that the GM must allow him to use it. It's sad that someone would actually might do that. I saw major abuse in Living Greyhawk with someone who had a huge elemental as a bonded familiar or animal companion or something. Spoiled many games for many people.
I disparately want to be able to bring an Elven Hound with my ranger as I believe it is well within the spirit of the rules. The Elven Hound adds a lot of flavor and background for my character and doesn't effect play. How do you write a rule that allows me to do that and stops the big abusers? I just don't know.
I really hate that you have to write a rule for this.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
|
I'd recommend adding a few more options for the cav and/or ranger (from the list of 'may be allowed with GM's discretion') to counterbalance cutting down on reskinning.
That is an entirely different topic saved for another day. We aren't going to touch this one yet as I am trying to balance read feedback with work.
Sidenote: Fearless leader, the VCs are telling me in this thread that I will need your approval to get my account activated without the card code. When you get a chance, if you could help with that or forward to someone who can, that'll let me report >10 mods.~RE
Let me see what I can do.
|
|
I want this to be an open ended discussion for all, not me trying to steer everyone one way or another.What really bugs me is that we need a ruling. It seems like I should be able to go to my GM and say, "I've got an Elven Hound as and animal companion and I'm using the cheetah stats." He's read the adventure and there are no issues so he says "sure". At another table, a prayer brings his animal companion bear and states he's using the tripping wolf stats and that the GM must allow him to use it. It's sad that someone would actually might do that. I saw major abuse in Living Greyhawk with someone who had a huge elemental as a bonded familiar or animal companion or something. Spoiled many games for many people.
I disparately want to be able to bring an Elven Hound with my ranger as I believe it is well within the spirit of the rules. The Elven Hound adds a lot of flavor and background for my character and doesn't effect play. How do you write a rule that allows me to do that and stops the big abusers? I just don't know.
I really hate that you have to write a rule for this.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
I am unfamiliar if the Elven Hound is a stat'd creature or not.
But the word "hound" would lead me to believe it is some kind of dog, no?
You wouldn't need to re-skin anything if you said that your ranger has a riding dog animal companion (which I believe is on the ranger animal companion list) and just claim that its breed is "elven hound".
|
Everyone knows my opinion about re-skinning, I am firmly in the not allowed category.
It opens up too many cans of worms
There is no "Rule" for it and solely belong in the Home Game category
It opens up to people requesting Re-Skinning beyond ACs, Mike example of ""stormtrooper armor" and "lightsabers" that were bought in Katapesh as relics of Numeria", if one is allowed that does not mechanically change anything why not the other?
And unlike what some People think you can still make a RP character without the re-skinning and calls that it ruins his PFS experience are ridicules.
I could go on, but I don't want people flaming me.. ;)
As a side note, with the soon-to-be released/approved Bestiary III, druids will have 69 different animal companions available to choose from.
This is Good.
|
|
I'd recommend adding a few more options for the cav and/or ranger (from the list of 'may be allowed with GM's discretion') to counterbalance cutting down on reskinning.That is an entirely different topic saved for another day. We aren't going to touch this one yet as I am trying to balance read feedback with work.
That's completely fair--mostly just brainstorming. All our group's cavs and rangers (well, all 1 of them I guess) seem to be doing fine with the current list so far.
Let me see what I can do.
Sidenote: Fearless leader, the VCs are telling me in this thread that I will need your approval to get my account activated without the card code. When you get a chance, if you could help with that or forward to someone who can, that'll let me report >10 mods.~RE
Much thanks!
|
|
I am unfamiliar if the Elven Hound is a stat'd creature or not.
But the word "hound" would lead me to believe it is some kind of dog, no?
You wouldn't need to re-skin anything if you said that your ranger has a riding dog animal companion (which I believe is on the ranger animal companion list) and just claim that its breed is "elven hound".
"Elven Hound" or "Chooshe" are taken from WotC Races of the Wild. I believe they are copyrighted names that cannot be legally used by Paizo/Pathfinder. In 3.5, it is a dog like Magical Beast. In PFS I've just played it as a green dog using the cheetah stats. I've played at a few tables with VCs before the ruling came out and IMO it didn't even raise an eyebrow. I'm an Elf Ranger with an Elven Hound. Makes sense. Nice fluff, no mechanical advantage.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am unfamiliar if the Elven Hound is a stat'd creature or not.
But the word "hound" would lead me to believe it is some kind of dog, no?
You wouldn't need to re-skin anything if you said that your ranger has a riding dog animal companion (which I believe is on the ranger animal companion list) and just claim that its breed is "elven hound".
"Elven Hound" or "Chooshe" are taken from WotC Races of the Wild. I believe they are copyrighted names that cannot be legally used by Paizo/Pathfinder. In 3.5, it is a dog like Magical Beast. In PFS I've just played it as a green dog using the cheetah stats. I've played at a few tables with VCs before the ruling came out and IMO it didn't even raise an eyebrow. I'm an Elf Ranger with an Elven Hound. Makes sense. Nice fluff, no mechanical advantage.
-Swiftbrook
But there is a mechanical advantage/disadvantage.
Small Cat's (cheetah,leopard), while allowed on the Ranger List are a different breed of animal than a dog is. They also have a higher rate of speed. After looking at Races of the Wild, the Elven Hound has the 50 feet of speed and the sprint ability as the Cheetah does.
The advantage/disadvantage is that in some modules, you may run into creatures that have a particular dislike of some animals, and as such, ruin any diplomacy chance for your group.
Now I'm sure you personally wouldn't do it, but it would be real easy to say in such a module that since your Elven Hound is a reskinned cheetah, that those creatures don't hate your dog.
The other thing is, that if your change is for fluff only, and there are dogs stat'd out, you could use the dog and just call it whatever breed you want.
What you are doing is reskinning a cat to be a dog (which is already stat'd) to get the cat's special speed and sprint ability.
If you just want it for fluff reasons, then you don't need the 50' of speed and the sprint ability. Use dog stats and call it an Elven Hound breed and say its green with long claws.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As a side note, with the soon-to-be released/approved Bestiary III, druids will have 69 different animal companions available to choose from.
I'd suggest, should you choose to go forward with this rule, that the Bestiary 2 & 3,
but rangers, paladins, and cavaliers are stuck with the original 8 or so in their class write ups :(
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
This is one of those things that has huge debate on forum's and need to be simplified.
No to Re-skinning period. (Makes rules easier)
"BUT"
More approved AC's for classes with AC's. Paizo need to make more reasons to buy more books! AC's in the player companion series and more in the various Monster Manuals.
|
|
But there is a mechanical advantage/disadvantage.
Small Cat's (cheetah,leopard), while allowed on the Ranger List are a different breed of animal than a dog is. They also have a higher rate of speed. After looking at Races of the Wild, the Elven Hound has the 50 feet of speed and the sprint ability as the Cheetah does.
The advantage/disadvantage is that in some modules, you may run into creatures that have a particular dislike of some animals, and as such, ruin any diplomacy chance for your group.
Now I'm sure you personally wouldn't do it, but it would be real easy to say in such a module that since your Elven Hound is a reskinned cheetah, that those creatures don't hate your dog.
The other thing is, that if your change is for fluff only, and there are dogs stat'd out, you could use the dog and just call it whatever breed you want.
What you are doing is reskinning a cat to be a dog (which is already stat'd) to get the cat's special speed and sprint ability.
If you just want it for fluff reasons, then you don't need the 50' of speed and the sprint ability. Use dog stats and call it an Elven Hound breed and say...
Actually, if you read the Elven Hound in Races of the Wild, it has a base speed of 50' and the Sprint ability. That is why I chose the Cheetah. As for a creature that hates dogs or cheetahs in the scenario, the GM should see that there may be a problem and simply not allow the elven hound if there is not an easy work around. It is in the end only fluff.
FWIW I've been using a cheetah animal companion named Choosee.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
More approved AC's for classes with AC's. Paizo need to make more reasons to buy more books! AC's in the player companion series and more in the various Monster Manuals.Slightly off topic, but one thing that really should be allowed in the rules is that the Ranger Beastmaster archtype be allowed to have access to any druid animal companion. The PFS FAQ currently state:
As a ranger, what list of companions can I select my animal companion from?
As a ranger, if you choose an animal companion for your hunter’s bond, you may only select one of the animals listed on page 66 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. There is no expanded companion list for rangers.
The list needs to be expanded at least for the Beastmaster, and possibly for the general ranger as well.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
The list needs to be expanded at least for the Beastmaster, and possibly for the general ranger as well.-Swiftbrook
Swift, As far as I can tell the Beast master is allowed in PFS with no restrictions, if the Beast master says "a beast master’s choice of animal companion is not limited to a subset of all possible animal companion choices—he may choose freely among all animal companion choices, just as a druid can.", which it does say, then he can.
The limitation on Ranger Companions is built into the Ranger class itself, the PFS rule just confirms that. The Beast Master archetype just opens that up and removes that class limitation.
Ranger Companion restrictions is not a PFS thing but a class thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I DO think `re-skinning` should just be banned.
It`s basically one player making a decision that they get to interject to the normal functioning of the rules.
And nowhere in the rules is there anything suggesting that you can actually do anything like it*, for either Companions, Equipment or whatever. Players coming from a perspective where any and everything that doesn`t have a mechanical counter-part is A-OK may not see the problem, but there really isn`t any hard line of what has `actual effects` in an open-ended game... What happens when there`s a scenario where NPC X is allergic to cats, but the `re-skinner` player has reskinned their cheetah to an Elven Hound or whatever? Just because something isn`t tied into a unique stat doesn`t mean it can`t have in-game effects.
...And basically, it`s just a band-aid for the Companion Lists being small.
IMHO, apart from the issue of approving more Companions to be on the `small` Companion lists (Ranger, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin if that wording is ever `fixed` to actually match the apparent intent rather than actually being as open as it is, etc...),
the best `fix`, parallel to banning completely-player-controlled `re-skinning`, is putting out an official PFS re-skin list. Those specific re-skins would be OK... Nothing else. This keeps all the flavor under control as well... If Pandas haven`t been introduced to the game as Companions maybe there`s a reason for that, and re-skinning a Bear as a Panda is undercutting the world consistency in that case. As I mentioned, Paizo themself have published some re-skins... Maybe checking with James Jacobs could yield the standard language they use for that, which can be used as a key-word to go thru their material looking for those... And it`s pretty easy to think of some easy re-skins that would expand the types of available creatures in a reasonable way.
* Except that Paizo themselves do it for Equipment (remember when Katana used to just be Bastard Swords) as well as creatures. Of course, that is very different than the idea that each an every player has the right to do this and show up at any PFS game saying `well Fluffy has always been a dwarf giraffe even though she has Wolf stats, i`m not going to change it NOW, that would be against my CHARACTER`. I think it`s reasonable to say that PFS and PRPG just don`t model every option, whether dwarf giraffes or jedi warriors, and the idea of a cohesive world demands that the player `play along` by not insisting on bypassing the rules. If somebody can`t think of another character idea that DOES fit in the rules, maybe role-playing isn`t for them...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is getting into territory of creating too many rules.
I'd be happy with something like this:
b) In organized play, non-magical animals can be reskinned as different non-magical animals for character backstory reasons.
For example, a character can ride a pig and use the stats for the riding dog. A character cannot ride a hellhound and use the stats for a riding dog.
Where a character class (totem druid, totem barbarian) explicitly mentions the species of the animal companion or familiar species choice, this companion cannot be reskinned.
I like this. Sorry, no reskinning just sounds counter-creative.
Is it clear enough how multi-classing affects Companion choices?
AFAIK, dipping in Druid should give just about everybody full Companion choices (from animals),
since most all Classes say something like `can choose from...` which when given more choices, those are just as valid, and all Companion Class Levels Stack. The same goes for Familiars, e.g. m-class Serpent Bloodline Sorceror (snake familiar) and Magus with Familiar Arcana and all levels should stack for level of (any) Familiar. Cases where specific Companions/Mounts gain special abilities aren`t as clear if those abilities would apply to a Companion who was `allowed` via a different class (depends on the exact wording), but `normal` Companion functions should stack, and gain the broadest access possible, without any problem.
I don`t know if that is PRPG FAQ-worthy, or PFS FAQ-worthy....?
|
|
To try to stamp it out smacks of pettiness and being ill-suited for the position...I appreciate the open forum. At the same time, I am absolutely baffled at some of the abuses of the mechanics that are being discussed as though that is what it means to re-skin something.
Speaking of pettiness, let's talk about your post. It doesn't seem like you appreciate this open forum at all, especially with this type of language. Re-skinning is a hotly debated topic, as most recently highlighted with the GenCon pig incident that had hundreds of posts. Clearly something that needs some clarification and understanding as there is nothing too definitive about it currently. Seeing this issue affects the entire community, he and the VCs are trying to get some feedback so they can build a consensus on how to move forward.
How would you feel if he just came out and stated, no warning, no re-skinning is allowed, period? He could easily do that, but instead he wanted to open the forum discussion up to us, the player base, to get our input. I greatly appreciate the transparency and welcome the discussion, even if it may delve into the ridiculous. It shows that Mike is right for Paizo and right for the position because he's turning to the community he manages and serves to get an idea on how to take this campaign to greater heights.
|
|
Some "reskinning" is cool. Creativity is admirable.
Let's not squash creativity.
Note that PFS is an arm of Paizo's marketing department. If a player is drawn into PFS because of getting to play some concept that involves reskinning (which the player of the pig in question was), then allowing reskinning is aligned with the objectives of Paizo's marketing department, and is thus aligned with the mission of PFS.
-Matt
|
|
As a side note, with the soon-to-be released/approved Bestiary III, druids will have 69 different animal companions available to choose from.but rangers, paladins, and cavaliers are stuck with the original 8 or so in their class write ups :(
...and this, in a nutshell, is my principal disagreement with the "no re-skin" rule.
I understand why it's there, conceptually. I just don't agree with it for the above reason.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
This is one of those things that has huge debate on forum's and need to be simplified.
No to Re-skinning period. (Makes rules easier)
"BUT"
More approved AC's for classes with AC's. Paizo need to make more reasons to buy more books! AC's in the player companion series and more in the various Monster Manuals.
I agree with both the point and counter-balance. I understand that there are players who will use "re-skinning" for pure fluff; I applaud those. Unfortunately, for every player using it for flavor, there are twenty Rules Lawyers ready to break any allowances to gain a mechanical advantage 9as noted above by many posters). It is far easier to just say no for consistencies sake.
That said, the current rule hampers those classes that have an AC other than the Druid... an unfair balance, when the rules for "What can be an Animal Companion?" from various official sources (Bestiary 2, for example) is constantly expanded for the Druid and all other classes get left behind.
Besides, opening up those sources to Rangers and Cavaliers helps sell more books, right?!