|
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Hello Guys,
just a quick question, i want to make a dwarven brawler that uses a boulder helmet as his weapon in PFS. now in the close combat weapon description of the 3 lvl bonus damage for brawlers, the boulder helmet isnt listet as a close combat weapon. So no +1 hit and +3 damage for the boulder helmet? isnt the helmet clearly a close combat weapon?
Greetings
Grint
I told him to ask here to get a PFS binding answer, since i myself am not sure how to handle this. In my opinion it´s a close combat weapon, just as the cestus, but it´s not in that list.
Hard to imagine something being closer to combat than your skull...
|
|
It is still a Rules question, not PFS specific. Flagged to be moved.
If its not on the list, its not on the list. It doesn't matter what you think it should be.
Much like how people think Monks should be proficient in all "monk weapons," this is not the case.
"I can flurry with a rope dart, but I'm not proficient in it? What gives?"
Thanks Andrew and the others.
This is a case of exclusion due to publishing dates and not rules as written. The boulder helmet is in the ARG while the weapon categories were updated in Ultimate Combat. The designation of weapon groups is a function of the fighter class and not the weapon itself. All weapons must belong to one or more groups and as the boulder helmet is essentially weaponized armor the close group makes the most sense, as this is were other weaponized armor is categorized.
Based on the most parsimonious classification of the Dwarven Boulder Helm i would say play it without much hesitation. The table variation on this should be extremely non-existent, except maybe in Minnesota, and saying no kinda feels like a case of wrongbadfun for the sake of absolute RAW.
|
most of the newer racial weapons do not appear in any of the fighter groups. This is probably because of the line that GMs can add to the lists. This doesn't work in PFS tho as GMs are not given that ability.
Running as RAW makes no sense in this case. Like the Dwarven Double Waraxe is not listed in the Axe group, so that means a Fighter using one won't get his bonus. It clearly an axe. Same goes for the Dwarven Longhammer and Longaxe, they are polearms not in the polearm list.
So while it is a rule question it is also pertinent to PFS, as all these weapons are legal to use in PFS yet they don't belong to a weapon group. So if you are going to so strict that common sense doesn't even sway you to allow it in a weapon group, then yes it needs to be looked at campaign leaders.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This still hasn't been answered, has it?
I have a similar question about the dwarven longhammer in the Advanced Race Guide, for the Fighter Foehammer archetype (also in the ARG) that revolves around hammers.
Getting official confirmation for PFS that the really obvious weapons are part of their obvious group would be nice. ie Anything with the word "hammer" in its name is in the hammer group, anything with "axe" in its name is in the axe group, anything with reach is in the polearm group, any armor used as a weapon (like the dwarven boulder helmet) is in the close group, etc.
|
While PFS GMs have the duty to follow rules as written, they do have the power to make a table judgement on rules that are not written. Weapons that are in no fighter weapon group despite being obviously a hammer or close weapon is something that a GM would be within bounds to allow.
However, it's something that would have table variation, as another GM would also be within bounds to say "It's not on the list, you don't get the bonus".
Until it gets officially added to the list, I would not make a fighter or sohei who uses one of those weapons for PFS play, because there WILL be table variation.
|
|
This is why I revived the thread. We all know the common sense call that any home GM would make. What I'm looking for is an official response from Paizo to make the common sense answer PFS legal. Which is also why moving this thread to the Rules subforum was a mistake. This is PFS specific.
It's not, though, it's a rules question. Does it have an impact on PFS play? Yes. All rules do. This is still a rules question.
|
|
The table variation on this should be extremely non-existent, except maybe in Minnesota, and saying no kinda feels like a case of wrongbadfun for the sake of absolute RAW.
PFS GM's are not supposed to have this kinda of authority to not follow the rules as written.
We understand that sometimes a Game Master
has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with
unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely
unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.
As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and
responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not
mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in
this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.
I would say an obscure weapon from a single race that is not in UE not making it into a general list of weapons certainly sounds like a case not covered by the rules to me. Especially since it says "GMs may add weapons."
|
|
FLite's post, and the posts it was responding to, are the reason we need a PFS specific answer to this.
The non-PFS answer was already published.
Weapon groups are defined as follows (GMs may add other weapons to these groups, or add entirely new groups)
Given the line about GMs adding other weapons, there's no reason for Paizo to make a ruling on this. Every game GM can make their own ruling. And they'd have to be a pretty big prick not to include the most obvious weapons, IMHO.
The problem is that we want a PFS ruling from the top to avoid table variation at PFS games. That's why this is a PFS specific thread that should be moved back to the PFS subforum.
|
|
I suspect that if you can ever get Mike Brock's attention to this thread, his answer will be the same as his answer to similar questions:
(Paraphrased from his responses to several different questions:)
GMs, use your best judgement.
Players, use a modicum of good taste
I am giving you the freedom to be adults, if you make me regret that, I will make a ruling no one will like.
If the GM cannot be trusted to rule maturely on this topic, I don't want them running games.
(Compiled from the threads on Retraining, Masterwork tools, and the last one is from the thread seeking clarification on what the guide means when it says GMs should adapt the NPCs tactics if the players actions invalidate them, to which he pretty much said "if you need it any clearer than that, please don't run games.")
Neither John Compton, nor Mike Brock (who are the only ones who could give a really definitive answer to this) are going to get bogged down in assigning every weapon ever published anywhere to one of the weapon groups.
Especially three weeks before Gencon.
|
I agree, it is PFS specific. I also feel it is more or less a poll question or asking for advice as to how it should be handled. I'm thinking I'm the one that asked about master work tools for skills that are not cannon.
What I did is print out the thread and I use it to show GM's and in my case, the local Venture Capt', the consensus of what people posted. That way they have data as to what others sugested.
The, "All my wands are pool sticks so my master work item is a cue stick" suggestion has never failed. There are other good idea's I use with the same luck.
My two copper's worth, hope it helps, Ciao