RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So what do we do about GMs won't enforce your (good, admittedly) points? Yes, that lays out what *should* happen. But I haven't been with a DM that doesn't let the pet classes slide in *every case*.
I think the solution to encountering a GM like that would be to follow the standard formula of being nice, informing them why you believe it should be ruled otherwise, and directing them to your evidence. It's the same path you'd follow for a GM that thinks that grease is flammable.
You tell him that it's not (politely). Lets say he disagrees. You tell him that you read an FAQ that clarified grease is specifically non-flammable. He then says he will rule it his way for now. You say ok, and allow the game to move on. Afterwards, you present him with the facts. Whether he chooses to accept it or not, you've done your part. If you see him ruling against the FAQ in the future, inform your VO and allow them to take action. As a player, your duty has been done.
I'd say the same is true of ACs. Open up your CRB handle animal, ask the druid what their tricks are, and let all parties present know how pushing an animal works, and that you'll probably need to do that to do whatever crazy action they want. Remind them that, in the Opparan Opera House, mangy wolves are not permitted to attend (I had a PC wait outside in the hallway during that adventure, since he didn't want to be separated from his wolf). Kindly explain that a cougar does not, by nature, understand how to operate a rowboat, and likely isn't going to dive in the water to engage in combat with those sharks.
Be polite and accurate, the rest is up to them. You can't change personalities, but you'll find that a majority of the time, people are just poorly informed.
|
I never once said that the animal companion could out damage a fighter of the same level. What I'm claiming is that as a class feature, they are too strong.
I was playing a cleric in that adventure, so I don't know the specifics, but the ape had more hp than that, did more damage than that, and had a better AC that. The GM didn't audit the character in question, and neither did I.
All I do know is that I healed once the entire game and spent most of it watching the ape kill everything. It was large, so it was even hard to get involved in the combats.
|
|
I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. To me, shield other is designed to assist glass cannons in the group, or anyone else that might need some additional protection for an encounter.
I've seen pets roll way too many PFS scenarios, and putting in a mechanism that let's them take half damage is way too much, imo.
Shield Other is designed to do exactly what any other buff spell does - provide an adventage for the target. It's a little different because it is cast by a different PC - it's not a Buff spell you cast on yourself. So in this way it's a group buff from one member to the group to another - except we need to exclude from this group any character that relies on a creature that does not have a magic ring slot. So, if you have a riding dog, you can have me cast mage armor, shield of faith, protection from evil and Infernal healing - but not Shield Other on it.
A player (me) decides to cast shield other ON A DIFFERENT PC. Before going into the adventure (and sometimes during the adventure) I prepare to cast this spell on selected targets. My PC gives them rings. Perhaps he has special rings cast (paying 100 gp each set). Until resently these targets were:
1) each PC in my party (they each get a different ring - and my PC wears the mate for each of those rings).
2) ACs and any special animal someone was worried about (wizards familiar?)
3) Pack animals transporting valuable items.
4) any NPC we are guarding or worried may be attacked while my PC is with them.I have now been told that the target for this spell is NOT "one creature" as I had thought until now, it is "one creature able to wear a magic ring". Only maybe not, as it appears Hand of Glory doesn't apply. And I'm OK with that, really. It's the GMs call and he made it. I just need to understand a few minor corner cases of his call, and how they are going to be run by Judges whose tables I play at.
Can my PC wear more than two focus rings at one time - and be able to use them?
Can my...
I understand how this ruling could be frustrating from this angle. I guess just let the damn ACs get blow up; they get another for free by next scenario anyway!
|
|
I never once said that the animal companion could out damage a fighter of the same level. What I'm claiming is that as a class feature, they are too strong.
I was playing a cleric in that adventure, so I don't know the specifics, but the ape had more hp than that, did more damage than that, and had a better AC that. The GM didn't audit the character in question, and neither did I.
All I do know is that I healed once the entire game and spent most of it watching the ape kill everything. It was large, so it was even hard to get involved in the combats.
All I did was check Ape animal companion stats at lvl 6. If it was doing more damage than that, someone needs an audit. Often, pet classes (Especially you, Summoners!) have been built incorrectly and GM's don't bother to double check how they got to be that good.
|
|
So what do we do about GMs won't enforce your (good, admittedly) points? Yes, that lays out what *should* happen. But I haven't been with a DM that doesn't let the pet classes slide in *every case*.I think the solution to encountering a GM like that would be to follow the standard formula of being nice, informing them why you believe it should be ruled otherwise, and directing them to your evidence. It's the same path you'd follow for a GM that thinks that grease is flammable.
You tell him that it's not (politely). Lets say he disagrees. You tell him that you read an FAQ that clarified grease is specifically non-flammable. He then says he will rule it his way for now. You say ok, and allow the game to move on. Afterwards, you present him with the facts. Whether he chooses to accept it or not, you've done your part. If you see him ruling against the FAQ in the future, inform your VO and allow them to take action. As a player, your duty has been done.
I'd say the same is true of ACs. Open up your CRB handle animal, ask the druid what their tricks are, and let all parties present know how pushing an animal works, and that you'll probably need to do that to do whatever crazy action they want. Remind them that, in the Opparan Opera House, mangy wolves are not permitted to attend (I had a PC wait outside in the hallway during that adventure, since he didn't want to be separated from his wolf). Kindly explain that a cougar does not, by nature, understand how to operate a rowboat, and likely isn't going to dive in the water to engage in combat with those sharks.
Be polite and accurate, the rest is up to them. You can't change personalities, but you'll find that a majority of the time, people are just poorly informed.
Just to show you where I'm coming from, I have never once seen a "trick" referenced, or a handle animal roll made. No DM wants to mess with it. They literally run around like a 2nd PC. Of course those same DMs wonder why the scenario was so easy.
If that's how they are going to work, those classes should be charged appropriately for that class feature.
|
|
Just to show you where I'm coming from, I have never once seen a "trick" referenced, or a handle animal roll made. No DM wants to mess with it. They literally run around like a 2nd PC. Of course those...
Well, if the GM isn't running the game by the rules, then we can't discuss the class being a problem. That is like a lvl 3 wizard casting Wish as an immediate action, and then calling the class broken.
|
|
Also. At 6th level, an Ape AC will have a +3 will save. Excuse me while any spell wipes out your AC.The AC's will is probably better than the Fighter's, especially versus enchantment.
True. I just don't see an AC as the ultimate class ability. I've never seen one hold up to high level play. AC's are good for direct damage. As soon as you throwing anything as unorthodox as a *rope* into the game, they get wrecked.
Umm...don't ACs get 'share spell'? Why not just cast Shield on the AC?
Anything he can cast on himself he can cast on the AC...right? Or am I missing something?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Must be nice to play with handle animal enforced. Never seen it done, even at Origins. Maybe PFS scenarios are just too straight forward.........
Rather than have a negative attitude towards it, I'd recommend speaking with your repeat GMs and informing them of how some rules work. Or judging some tables yourself and correctly enforcing the handle animal rules.
In your GMs's favor, though, I should mention that the rules regarding ACs/mounted combat are dense and remind me of the old 3.5 grappling rules... so cut them a bit of slack.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
What kind of action is ordering an AC? It's never come up, so I don't even know that.
"Action.. Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while “pushing” an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.)
|
|
They can attack whatever you tell them to if you spend 2 tricks, and with a CHA of 8 it requires only 3 ranks to make Handle Animal an auto-success. Players mostly just do the attack trick anyway.
The rules are silent as to who gets to drive (player or GM), but in my experience it's mostly limited to charging in and making full attacks or setting up flanks. Is the animal smart enough to recognize an ally and set up a flank with it? Pack predators certainly are. Also if you bump the AC's Int to 3 I'm fairly certain you can dispense with the whole trick thing but that can be contentious.
Also, how are Animal Companions "completely ruining" scenarios? Are you angry at being outshone?
|
|
Yeah, I'm pretty angry at being rendered ineffective by a "class feature". I thought that the DC to attack was 20, but I see that's to train to attack. The DC for these trick is 10. Really? 10?
As per the FAQ, 3 int animals just get 3 more tricks. They are still animals. For what it's worth.
I think that ACs need nerfed, particularly at lower levels. But whatever.
I agree but it calls out a slot which horses won't have. Its one of those things I would prefer to just have clarification on.Yes, horses, and only horses may wear horseshoes. Pigs, or any other hoofed animal, may not wear horseshoes.
Thank you very much for responding and clearing this up. Would it be safe to assume for now that an item called out to be used by a specific animal is usable by it regardless of slot? Can't think of another right now but who knows what might show up down the line.
|
Thank you very much for responding and clearing this up. Would it be safe to assume for now that an item called out to be used by a specific animal is usable by it regardless of slot? Can't think of another right now but who knows what might show up down the line.I agree but it calls out a slot which horses won't have. Its one of those things I would prefer to just have clarification on.Yes, horses, and only horses may wear horseshoes. Pigs, or any other hoofed animal, may not wear horseshoes.
Yes
Thank you again for your time.
|
Wait a second ...
There's an on-topic post at the end of the 130 posts? What on Oerth?!!! O.o That's the strangest thing that I think I have ever seen. When I logged in, I assumed that the "47 new" were going to be either a.) silliness gone awry and completely off-topic, or b.) a debate on something tangental to the OP, and mostly off-topic. there was a bit of the latter ...
But, thanks, Mike, for putting us back on track to follow the OP, mostly! And that's a great clarification in what we should expect the items/animals arena.
Realize that Shield Other can still be cast on the AC,.. it just requires that it be cast from a Wand or with a scroll - so that the Focus is not needed (already used in some way). It's target is still "one creature".
Or pay someone in town 150gp to cast Anthropomorphic Animal. Have were-kitty put on the rings for a moment, then you put on the rings for a moment, then put them in your spell component pouch with all your other focus items. A one-time expenditure, and you now have a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target.
I think the rings must be worn at the time the spell Shield Other is cast, though maybe I'm wrong on that.
Shield Other: "Components V, S, F (a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target)"
Do you have a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target? If so, then you have the focus needed to cast the spell.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Realize that Shield Other can still be cast on the AC,.. it just requires that it be cast from a Wand or with a scroll - so that the Focus is not needed (already used in some way). It's target is still "one creature".Or pay someone in town 150gp to cast Anthropomorphic Animal. Have were-kitty put on the rings for a moment, then you put on the rings for a moment, then put them in your spell component pouch with all your other focus items. A one-time expenditure, and you now have a pair of platinum rings worth 50 gp worn by both you and the target.
Isn't that a bit of a liberal interpretation of *worn*?
Like *worn at any point in the past by both you and the target*
Isn't that a bit of a liberal interpretation of *worn*?
It's exactly what the focus specifies.
Freedom of Movement can be cast as a touch spell. As such, the charge can be held. However, the material component "(a leather strip bound to the target)" needs to be manipulated as part of casting, which you can't do if you need to be actively binding it to the target at the time of casting. Past tense is the only way it makes sense.
Terrain Bond treats the terrain you're in as a favored terrain, but requires "(a pinch of earth taken from your most favored terrain)" If it must be taken at the time of casting, then you can only cast it while in your favored terrain, and thus it does nothing.
Dust Form requires "(a pinch of dust gathered from a gravestone or sacred shrine)" which means if you must gather it at the time of casting, you can only ever cast it in a graveyard or shrine.
Protection from Spells says "F (One 1,000 gp diamond per target. Each subject must carry the gem for the duration of the spell. If a subject loses the gem, the spell ceases to affect him.)" which seems like a much better wording if the intent is for the subject to have to wear the ring(s) for the duration of the spell.
I haven't done the research you have, I've just never seen it interpreted this way.
It's completely ridiculous. But if it lets some weird cleric protect his cat without having to use scrolls to avoid the strict item slot limitations of a mostly-fluff focus description, I'm OK with that.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I haven't done the research you have, I've just never seen it interpreted this way.It's completely ridiculous. But if it lets some weird cleric protect his cat without having to use scrolls to avoid the strict item slot limitations of a mostly-fluff focus description, I'm OK with that.
So I'm lost.
You want things interpreted this crazy (for lack of a better word) "lawyeristic" way? While admitting that it's ridiculous? Because that makes more sense than saying a cat can't wear a ring in an organized play format?
How does this solve any problems? Doesn't it just create more?
So I'm lost.
You want things interpreted this crazy (for lack of a better word) "lawyeristic" way? While admitting that it's ridiculous?
What the rules say, what the rules were intended to say, and what's best at a table are not always the same thing.
I think there's sufficient evidence shown that the state of a focus item can be referred to in the past tense, that the preparation (not manipulation) of those focus items doesn't have to happen as part of casting the spell. (RAW)
I think whoever wrote Shield Other probably never considered using it on something without humanoid fingers, and didn't fully address it in the spell text. (RAI)
Further, if the ring must be worn by the target at the time of casting, how are you manipulating his ring at 30' away? (Shield Other has a range of close, and to cast a spell you must manipulate the material components or focus)
I think if one of my players wanted to shield a pet, or a polymorphed PC, or whatever, there would be more enjoyment at the table if it was allowed, rather than restricted based off one interpretation of tense in a mostly-fluff material component description.
Because that makes more sense than saying a cat can't wear a ring in an organized play format?
Well, yeah. If the cat can wear a ring on its tail, why not a magic ring? Rules broken. But since it just says 'worn by the target' then if the target has worn the ring, then you have a ring worn by the target. It's correct English, it's RAW, and it might be RAI.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
What the rules say, what the rules were intended to say, and what's best at a table are not always the same thing.
Regardless of the first two points, you and I don't get to decide what rules we want to follow and which we don't for PFS. This isn't a home game. A Paizo employee (Mike Brock) decides whats best for the "overall" table that is PFS. And he did.
"As to the other arguments, rings must be worn on fingers. When you see an item listed simply as a ring of "whatever", it means it is to be worn on a finger. If it is a different ring, such as an earring, the item will advise that."
That's just how it is.
I think if one of my players wanted to shield a pet, or a polymorphed PC, or whatever, there would be more enjoyment at the table if it was allowed, rather than restricted based off one interpretation of tense in a mostly-fluff material component description.
And that's your opinion, and one that I actually share. But we can't make rules loopholes to bypass decisions we don't like. Because that can result things like "ok, new rule: ACs can no longer wear anything, period. Even when a spell is cast on them that makes them humanoid."
I love your argument for shield other. It's elegant and well defined. But it's like arguing with the cops when you're already getting a speeding ticket. Lets just pay for a wand or scroll of shield other and call it good, rather than get put in jail.
But we can't make rules loopholes to bypass decisions we don't like. Because that can result things like "ok, new rule: ACs can no longer wear anything, period. Even when a spell is cast on them that makes them humanoid."
But it's like arguing with the cops when you're already getting a speeding ticket. Lets just pay for a wand or scroll of shield other and call it good, rather than get put in jail.
That's a depressing metaphor for organized play.
Lots of people assumed the spell had a requirement that it doesn't have, a requirement which is nonsensical and makes the spell unable to function at the listed range.
If Michael Brock wants to make a PFS-specific ruling to prevent this spell from working on anything that usually doesn't have fingers, he's certainly able to do so. I'd rather have a solid ruling than a bunch of GMs breaking the rules at the table. Further, I trust the campaign coordinator to only make the changes that are needed, rather than overreacting and crippling a class feature to punish people who tried to use a spell in an unorthodox manner.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I think Walter is the 4-star GM for this reason :)
Only for GMing over 100 games, nothing more.
That's a depressing metaphor for organized play.
I don't know, I guess it can be considered that way. I think that "lets try and jank these rules to get around a decision we don't like, rather than trying to persuade the people in charge to change things" is rather depressing too.
I think that it's been made fairly clear as to what you can and can't do with shield other
You can shield an ally wearing a ring, if you too are wearing a ring
You cannot put a ring on an AC
You can put the ring on an neck item that grants the AC an extra ring slot
I don't think that anything else, like asking for a clarification on how the focus for shield other works (wearing vs. worn), belongs in these boards.
