I am just starting in PFS and I was wondering if anyone knows if Trench fighter is a legal archetype in PFS.
It doesnt seem to be mentioned anywhere in what I found to be the "ban list" but i wanna make sure.
Rasputin must die.
It's not allowed in additional resources, so no.
Oh. I thought its allowed unless otherwise stated. That PDF is confuuusing
Can I get perhaps one more vote on this?
Awww
Is there an easier (player compiled) list of things that are banned or things that arent?
|
Awww
Is there an easier (player compiled) list of things that are banned or things that arent?
Archives of Nethys do a pretty good job of putting the glyph of the open road symbol on the PFS legal things. things. See how there's a funny symbol next to most weapons but not the 3 bladed katar? That funny symbol means its pfs legal.
You are NOT getting a machine gun. Gunslingers with yo yos fire fast enough as it is..
I think the general rule is don't expect any non gunslinger firearm archetypes.
|
Archives of Nethys do a pretty good job of putting the glyph of the open road symbol on the PFS legal things. things. See how there's a funny symbol next to most weapons but not the 3 bladed katar? That funny symbol means its pfs legal.
You shouldn't rely on it though, as there are errors. For example, the APG campaign traits have the glyph next to them on AoN, but are not PFS legal. To know for sure, you need the book/PDF and the Additional Resources page.
Oh... I dont want the gun :D
I want the DEX to dmg that stacks with gunslinger and pistolero
Why wouldnt you? Its untyped.
Edit:
"He gains a bonus equal to his Dexterity modifier on damage rolls when firing that type of firearm."
No mention of it being a specific bonus type. So unless there's a RAW rule that says "no" then it should stack.
I seen people say that. But can you please point me to official source? I tried asking for one before, but no one gave it.
I mean the pistolero + gunslinger
Well, I did look in places. And I am NOT "feigning ignorance". I seriously dont know if someone actually released an errata saying that Pistol Training replaces Gun Training.
This thread I found, seems to indicate that its Rules legal more or less http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ow7c&page=3?Mysterious-StrangerPistolero-l egality#146
I would REALLY appreciate it if someone actually clarified this for me with a link to an official ruling.
Edit: Ninja'd. Reading links
Edit Edit: Well, I see he clarifies about it not being able to stack. But is that counted as official PFS ruling or?
So... DID they close the loophole?
And all I actually want is a Pistolero that gets x2 DEX to dmg. No mysteriousness
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then there's this.
Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.
The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don't generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus of a given type works. Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
So if you have your BAB + your dex + your dex +weapons enhancement bonus your dex and your dex are the same source and don't stack.
|
|
So... DID they close the loophole?
And all I actually want is a Pistolero that gets x2 DEX to dmg. No mysteriousness
The loophole has not been closed. Mike Brock has stated that exploiting the loophole constitutes a "cheesy build," and that should the loophole be closed at a future date, corrective rebuilds will not be allowed. One would assume that getting the same x2 Dex to damage from another source would be regarded similarly.
Now, with the retraining rules, you might be able to wiggle your way back out of it, but at potentially considerable expense.
Or you could follow the spirit of the campaign coordinator's words on the subject and avoid the issue completely.
|
|
Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source.
So if you have your BAB + your dex + your dex +weapons enhancement bonus your dex and your dex are the same source and don't stack.
Excellent work, BNW.
Regarding the pistolero + mysterious stranger (or gun training + pistol training) issue, is it worth someone creating a clear question about it in a new thread in the rules forum, then everyone 'FAQ-bombing' it, so we can get an final answer on it?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is errata territory so probably won't be FAQ'd. They generally don't FAQ something that is errata. They won't have errata until Ultimate Combat gets a reprint.
All that being said. I really hate the whole attitude, "I know its a loophole but since this is PFS I'm going to be an asshat and exploit it anyways."
|
All that being said. I really hate the whole attitude, "I know its a loophole but since this is PFS I'm going to be an asshat and exploit it anyways."
It's okay, when you see that attitude just start doing your own asshattery and make it your personal goal to end that character.
And before I hear the rant of how I shouldn't dictate how others have fun or badwrongfun, I GM because I enjoy GMing, people bringing that level of cheese to the table ruin my fun. It often ruins the fun of other players at the table when their characters might as pull out a blanket and rations and start having a picnic because combat is over so quickly with no threat to anyone.
|
Archives of Nethys do a pretty good job of putting the glyph of the open road symbol on the PFS legal things. things. See how there's a funny symbol next to most weapons but not the 3 bladed katar? That funny symbol means its pfs legal.You shouldn't rely on it though, as there are errors. For example, the APG campaign traits have the glyph next to them on AoN, but are not PFS legal. To know for sure, you need the book/PDF and the Additional Resources page.
There are certainly errors, though these get corrected much quicker if someone lets me know by e-mail about them. :) As it is, I don't catch every update to the Additional Resources page (though I try), and do miss things.
In the case of these Traits, consider the error corrected.
|
|
All that being said. I really hate the whole attitude, "I know its a loophole but since this is PFS I'm going to be an asshat and exploit it anyways."It's okay, when you see that attitude just start doing your own asshattery and make it your personal goal to end that character.
And before I hear the rant of how I shouldn't dictate how others have fun or badwrongfun, I GM because I enjoy GMing, people bringing that level of cheese to the table ruin my fun. It often ruins the fun of other players at the table when their characters might as pull out a blanket and rations and start having a picnic because combat is over so quickly with no threat to anyone.
I couldn't agree more.
Its one thing if its a legitimate mistake. Not knowing that something is a loophole. This typically happens with players new to the system. They find something they think is cool that just happens to be a loophole. In most cases, they ask the question first on whether it works the way they think it works.
But those who look at something like this, and baldly admit that, "yeah, I know its a loophole, but this is PFS, so nyah nyah, you gotta allow it," really rankle.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
In one more level my pistolero will get pistol training. When I sit at the table I plan to tell the judge that I can either add my dex once as makes sense or I can add my dex twice per RAW. Leave it up to him. My build doesn't change either way, it's just more damage per hit.
BNW, they aren't the same source. Pistol training and Gun training are different sources. *Sigh - that I'd really like to see fixed, despite helping me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
thistledown... if you asked me at my table, which I'd prefer, I'd tell you that I prefer you play it the way you know it should work. If you start doubling it up, then we'd have a conversation about the way you know it should work.
Meanwhile, I'd roll my eyes.
As a responsible person and player, you should simply default to the way you know it should work, instead of trying to get by with some cheese because some GM's may not be aware of the fact its cheese.
|
|
thistledown... if you asked me at my table, which I'd prefer, I'd tell you that I prefer you play it the way you know it should work. If you start doubling it up, then we'd have a conversation about the way you know it should work.
Meanwhile, I'd roll my eyes.
As a responsible person and player, you should simply default to the way you know it should work, instead of trying to get by with some cheese because some GM's may not be aware of the fact its cheese.
It's not like thistledown is trying to use that fact to change his build (via pistolero/mysterious stranger or the like). He's giving full disclosure to the GM. I've done this before with tables with unfamiliar GMs on other topics than this one.
My spiel goes something like this "The RAW has been confirmed as saying STUPIDTHINGX but many people, including me, agree that it should be SANETHINGY instead. I'll leave it up to you which one you want to use, and please if you pick STUPIDTHINGX and want to change your mind at any time partway through the game and go with SANETHINGY, I will not mind in any way. All I ask is that if you decide to go with SANETHINGY that you post about this issue or mention it to your local VO so we can get more voices and work to make it official. Together, we can get this changed."
|
|
thistledown... if you asked me at my table, which I'd prefer, I'd tell you that I prefer you play it the way you know it should work. If you start doubling it up, then we'd have a conversation about the way you know it should work.
Meanwhile, I'd roll my eyes.
As a responsible person and player, you should simply default to the way you know it should work, instead of trying to get by with some cheese because some GM's may not be aware of the fact its cheese.
It's not like thistledown is trying to use that fact to change his build (via pistolero/mysterious stranger or the like). He's giving full disclosure to the GM. I've done this before with tables with unfamiliar GMs on other topics than this one.
My spiel goes something like this "The RAW has been confirmed as saying STUPIDTHINGX but many people, including me, agree that it should be SANETHINGY instead. I'll leave it up to you which one you want to use, and please if you pick STUPIDTHINGX and want to change your mind at any time partway through the game and go with SANETHINGY, I will not mind in any way. All I ask is that if you decide to go with SANETHINGY that you post about this issue or mention it to your local VO so we can get more voices and work to make it official. Together, we can get this changed."
A valid and diplomatic way to handle things.
But in general, if as a player you know one way is STUPIDTHINGX and the other is SANETHINGY, and you know that GMs in general don't really pay that close attention to character numbers (to hits, damage bonus, et. al.), then why even bring it up? Just go with SANETHINGY.
|
|
thistledown... if you asked me at my table, which I'd prefer, I'd tell you that I prefer you play it the way you know it should work. If you start doubling it up, then we'd have a conversation about the way you know it should work.
Meanwhile, I'd roll my eyes.
As a responsible person and player, you should simply default to the way you know it should work, instead of trying to get by with some cheese because some GM's may not be aware of the fact its cheese.
It's not like thistledown is trying to use that fact to change his build (via pistolero/mysterious stranger or the like). He's giving full disclosure to the GM. I've done this before with tables with unfamiliar GMs on other topics than this one.
My spiel goes something like this "The RAW has been confirmed as saying STUPIDTHINGX but many people, including me, agree that it should be SANETHINGY instead. I'll leave it up to you which one you want to use, and please if you pick STUPIDTHINGX and want to change your mind at any time partway through the game and go with SANETHINGY, I will not mind in any way. All I ask is that if you decide to go with SANETHINGY that you post about this issue or mention it to your local VO so we can get more voices and work to make it official. Together, we can get this changed."
A valid and diplomatic way to handle things.
But in general, if as a player you know one way is STUPIDTHINGX and the other is SANETHINGY, and you know that GMs in general don't really pay that close attention to character numbers (to hits, damage bonus, et. al.), then why even bring it up? Just go with SANETHINGY.
Two reasons (1 is the main reason)
1) To increase exposure and awareness. This has two subgoals
a) Next time that GM sees this, she is aware of it, and she will be less likely to have a player pull the wool over her eyes and do STUPIDTHINGX without asking
b) She might post on the forums or work to make a change. More voices from more places increases the chance for a change.
2) Some GMs really really really want to follow only the RAW. I've actually had a good number insist that we go with STUPIDTHINGX, so that tells me that they wouldn't have been happy if I had just said nothing and done SANETHINGY, even if it was a nerf.
|
|
<blink> there are GMs out there like that? (re: Item 2.) That seems odd.
The overall goal of trying to get things changed quickly, are going to run into a problem:
Generally the design team doesn't FAQ things that are errata bait. If its going to be errata, they wait until the book needs a reprint, and then make the change in the book itself. No idea when Ultimate Combat will get its reprint.
|
|
<blink> there are GMs out there like that? (re: Item 2.) That seems odd.
The overall goal of trying to get things changed quickly, are going to run into a problem:
Generally the design team doesn't FAQ things that are errata bait. If its going to be errata, they wait until the book needs a reprint, and then make the change in the book itself. No idea when Ultimate Combat will get its reprint.
As I said, mine was for something different, and it did eventually get fixed. Even point (1a) is, I believe, enough reason to bring it up to a GM anyway.
Yes, there are GMs like #2. Some of them have a lot of stars. They are good people and good GMs. That's just how they roll.
|
|
Would you find it acceptable for players to do the same thing in cases where it's a buff for the player? Like say if an oracle were to apply their charisma modifier to spiritual weapon instead of their wisdom modifierA valid and diplomatic way to handle things.
But in general, if as a player you know one way is STUPIDTHINGX and the other is SANETHINGY, and you know that GMs in general don't really pay that close attention to character numbers (to hits, damage bonus, et. al.), then why even bring it up? Just go with SANETHINGY.
I expect players to be responsible with their choices. I expect them to use common sense as defined by the community, not by the individual. I expect them to make choices based on interesting concepts and to some degree optimal choices in build, not on loopholes they can exploit.
In other words, I will trust a player to do the right thing until they prove to me otherwise. I often show a lot more frustration than I might have otherwise, if I approached it as though all players are cheaters until proven otherwise. I refuse to work that way though.
So if you come to my table, and for whatever reason, it seems that your numbers for spiritual weapon are off, I'll ask you about it. Most players have to do the math at least the first time they cast the spell, every session. Because they don't write down what their bonus is. So I usually (as a player or GM) help them add it all up so we can keep the game moving. But regardless, lets assume I know your level, I know your Wisdom was tanked (because you've been talking about your crap Will save all session) and then you roll a 5 and get a 20 to hit. I'm going to be like, "Wha?! How'd you get a +15." When you explain it, I'll indicate that in PFS it doesn't work like that, recalculate your roll with your Wisdom not your Charisma, and we move on. If you cheat (yes, your spiritual weapon example would be cheating, because in PFS you have to follow RAW, not a FAQ suggested GM allowance), and you get it by me, bully for you. In this instance, only you really know if you are cheating or not, and you have to live with that.
But if you knowingly choose to use a loophole, that has been openly declared an abuse of said loophole, because "RAW says I can, nyah nyah," I consider that malicious intent to break the game. And at that point my trust in you as an honest player goes to zero. Now everything you do and say, in my book, is suspect, and I will treat you as such.
If, as a player, you honestly don't understand something, or want something clarified that is truly ambiguous and has table variation, I'm more than happy to oblige with my opinion. And will usually treat that player just as well as I treat any other player. I take it at face value that they honestly don't know all the ins and outs of said rule and any clarifications. I try to educate them to the ins and outs and show them where they can find the clarifications for future reference. But you gotta do better than the spiritual weapon issue, because that's not ambiguous for PFS.
|
|
Its a hell of a lot less sketchy than adding your dex bonus twice, not to mention evading RAI in the first place.
Its just as raw as the other way of reading it, and falls in line with intent. If t DM wants to go with it they have more than enough rational for it.
If someone wants to abuse loose wording, corner cases, overly legalistic interpretations and bald faced chicanery to ignore the blatantly obvious intent to overpower a character into the stratosphere they shouldn't be surprised when someone uses "close enough for state work +a developers statement" as a standard to knock them back to earth.
|
|
So if RAW says doubling Dex is fine but the developers say it's not cool, we go with the developers. If RAW says only Wisdom on spiritual weapon but the developers say Charisma is reasonable for Oracles, then we go with RAW.
Makes perfect sense. [/sarcasm]
I disagree that RAW says that doubling DEX is fine.
I believe that ability modifiers are typed bonuses (even though it isn't one of the ones called out specifically as a typed bonus).
I'm trying to get that clarified.
If the developers say that ability modifiers are typed bonuses, then that's telling you what RAW is.