If as a druid I hear that mufasa isn't allowed into the bar I transform into a lion and ask why.
No jacket
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If as a druid I hear that mufasa isn't allowed into the bar I transform into a lion and ask why.
The sign clearly says "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service."
I addressed that already if you actually read my post. If an animal is actually exotic anyone who isn't a ranger, druid, hunter, or similar won't have one tame.
..."Tame". Animal Companions are tougher, and more receptive to training and commands. There's no mention of "tameness". If you mean trained, then you're just wrong; 500 gp for a trained tiger can be an excellent investment.
Only to the extent that you're playing magical tea party and completely ignoring the rule book. If you actually pay attention to the rule book, then the rules themselves provide a partial but objective standard for "realism."
Reverse engineering the rules to explain how the game world operates sets a dangerous precedent.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only to the extent that you're playing magical tea party and completely ignoring the rule book. If you actually pay attention to the rule book, then the rules themselves provide a partial but objective standard for "realism."Reverse engineering the rules to explain how the game world operates sets a dangerous precedent.
But a less dangerous one than not bothering to figure out how the game world operates at all. The first can lead into finding writing holes. The second only leads to empty headedness and eventually to a career in politics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fine example would be in the equipment chapter where it strait up tells you where you can find spellcasting services to purchase. That says something about the game world, in the same way being able to purchase swords tells you something about the game world. It tells you, quite clearly, that something funny is going on if you find a bunch of mages to sell you spells in a thorpe and something equally funny is going on if you cannot find them in a city.
It also tells you that swords are really common, 'cause you can buy that junk most anywhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement". Pathfinder is a ruleset to adjudicate actions in and out of combat. Whether magic is common enough to be sold in every little thorp is a matter of which SETTING you use. The descriptions of available equipment, magic, how settlements work, even which races and classes are available, are guidelines and vary between settings, and you would still be playing Pathfinder even if they changed radically from the CRB.
Just as an example, the price of a tun of water will not be the same if you play in Dark Sun as in Golarion.
I don't have a major problem with it. Golarion is very high magic, and thus a people have strange humanoids, monsters, spells, so a ranger with a bear...is 'meh' for the average person in a town. A big city you just run into the problems of 'space' as well as moving anywhere undetected.
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement". Pathfinder is a ruleset to adjudicate actions in and out of combat. Whether magic is common enough to be sold in every little thorp is a matter of which SETTING you use. The descriptions of available equipment, magic, how settlements work, even which races and classes are available, are guidelines and vary between settings, and you would still be playing Pathfinder even if they changed radically from the CRB.
Just as an example, the price of a tun of water will not be the same if you play in Dark Sun as in Golarion.
In Pathfinder (and 3.5 before it) wealth and equipment are an integral part of a character's power levels. There are specific expectations that at level X a character will have equipment Y.
Even in 3.5 equipment and spellcasting services availability were a part of that general idea. The rules for those things has not changed much in the port to Pathfinder. They are basically independent of the setting unless the setting specifically changes things (such as Dark Sun would but that was pre-3.X anyhow).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement".
I would guess that people that say that tend to play APs and modules where things are fixed.
Based on my experience on these forums, it seems as if a lot of people don't even bother determining item availability, they just assume you can get your hands on any item in the books as long as you have the money. Some add in a component of ordering the item from some far away merchant, or hiring someone to craft it for you, but its mostly hand waved away.
Different style of game play than I am used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to be the person in the party with item crafting feats. Availability is seldom my problem :(
If a GM pushes the availability rule too hard, more people take crafting feats, which results in increased availability at reduced cost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No one is going to care about a bear or a dog or an anklyosaurus, etc when they see it every day in Golarion or most high fantasy worlds using the PF ruleset. Otherwise Absalom would be full of angry druids and town guard duels every day, and we know it's not. The authorities would make sure the animals were under control, and charge more for toll entries on larger creatures. Anything of extreme size or destructive power, like an animal growthed T-rex, would either be not let in or would be suggested to be turned into a statue via carry companion. For your richer societies, they could even have wands etc of carry companion to allow for easy carry, and could geas or lesser geas people that enter to not unleash their animal companion unless in self-defense if it's that threatening.
^ that in a nutshell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An elephant costs 10,000 ruples to buy.
But thats the cheap part.
If you want to cause a man problems, give him an elephant
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement". Pathfinder is a ruleset to adjudicate actions in and out of combat. Whether magic is common enough to be sold in every little thorp is a matter of which SETTING you use. The descriptions of available equipment, magic, how settlements work, even which races and classes are available, are guidelines and vary between settings, and you would still be playing Pathfinder even if they changed radically from the CRB.
Just as an example, the price of a tun of water will not be the same if you play in Dark Sun as in Golarion.
It actually has nothing to do with the GP limit of the town. By default, according to the equipment chapter of the book (the same section that discusses buying things like ROPE), it clearly tells you what size towns are required to get spellcasting services.
If your campaign deviates from the standard rule, that needs to be explained up front in the same way that Eberron explained its changes to the alignment system, or how Darksun explains the differences between its magic and normal magic.
I did this in another campaign I did as a short-shot with a group, where the frequency of spellcasters are significantly lower than in the standard game (alternatives were implemented), but the differences were explained up-front and not sprung on anyone by surprise.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, Pathfinder is not simply a ruleset to deal with actions. If that were true, there would not be things like experience progressions, treasure values, costs for items, and so forth. They just wouldn't exist. Pathfinder is, by default, a whole and complete game. It's a highly moddable game (even so far as to explaining how to adjust dials in the system itself to achieve different flavors) but it is in and of itself a standalone game.
If you change certain things about the game to fit a specific campaign, that's a house rule and should be discussed ahead of time, as any other house rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement".I would guess that people that say that tend to play APs and modules where things are fixed.
Based on my experience on these forums, it seems as if a lot of people don't even bother determining item availability, they just assume you can get your hands on any item in the books as long as you have the money. Some add in a component of ordering the item from some far away merchant, or hiring someone to craft it for you, but its mostly hand waved away.
Different style of game play than I am used.
It's not that, but many of these discussion are of high level play so you can just teleport to a metropolis.
Someone can say well what about adventures with hard time limits, but most of these discussions try to go strictly by the book to avoid playstyle argument because once you bring that in the entire game can change.
As an example if I teleport into a city one GM might have me make a knowledge local check while another might have me make a gather information(diplomacy) which takes 1d4 hours. The latter might significantly affect my ability to complete the mission.
I know an item has a 75% chance to be found if it is under the purchase limit , but that is a good chance.
*Personally I do handwave cheap items as compared to the city cost, unless they are very specific such as a wand with 25 charges, but the more expensive ones do get rolled for.
*This varies by group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement". Pathfinder is a ruleset to adjudicate actions in and out of combat. Whether magic is common enough to be sold in every little thorp is a matter of which SETTING you use. The descriptions of available equipment, magic, how settlements work, even which races and classes are available, are guidelines and vary between settings, and you would still be playing Pathfinder even if they changed radically from the CRB.
Just as an example, the price of a tun of water will not be the same if you play in Dark Sun as in Golarion.
It actually has nothing to do with the GP limit of the town. By default, according to the equipment chapter of the book (the same section that discusses buying things like ROPE), it clearly tells you what size towns are required to get spellcasting services.
If your campaign deviates from the standard rule, that needs to be explained up front in the same way that Eberron explained its changes to the alignment system, or how Darksun explains the differences between its magic and normal magic.
I did this in another campaign I did as a short-shot with a group, where the frequency of spellcasters are significantly lower than in the standard game (alternatives were implemented), but the differences were explained up-front and not sprung on anyone by surprise.
'In general'. 'Reasonably assured'
And does a certain sized town being required to get a certain level of spell casting mean that all towns that size have that level of spell casting - or that you are just unlikely to find it in a smaller town?
Guidelines are not rules.
The point was that people will assume the book is being followed unless told otherwise, so if you step outside of the assumed standard it is nice to let the players know. As for it being a rule or guideline that is secondary to the point of "Don't surprise the players".
As an example if you show up, and I am using diety's not in the core book then I should have mentioned it before the game started.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still don't get argument that "in Pathfinder, spellcasting services are available in every hamlet, just look at the GP limit of the settlement".I would guess that people that say that tend to play APs and modules where things are fixed.
Based on my experience on these forums, it seems as if a lot of people don't even bother determining item availability, they just assume you can get your hands on any item in the books as long as you have the money. Some add in a component of ordering the item from some far away merchant, or hiring someone to craft it for you, but its mostly hand waved away.
Different style of game play than I am used.
Using the item availability rules and the crafting rules, it's very very easy to get pretty much anything you want. Once you get to higher levels, teleporting to a metropolis becomes possible and then you're set. Super easy to sell your items and load up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, still say treating those are rules rather than guidelines is a mistake.
The rules for Settlements (which include item availability rules) explicitly use the word "rule" repeatedly to describe these rules. They're optional rules, sure, but they're used extensively in published materials.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...What's your point? "Optional rules" are till rules. Not guidelines, as you said. It's in the name. "Rules".
You can choose whether to use them or not, but they're pretty concrete about what happens when you DO use them.
"Would you like ketchup on that hotdog?"
"Do I have to?"
"No, it's optional."
"Aha! I knew it! Ketchup isn't really a condiment! it's optional!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'In general'. 'Reasonably assured'
And does a certain sized town being required to get a certain level of spell casting mean that all towns that size have that level of spell casting - or that you are just unlikely to find it in a smaller town?
Guidelines are not rules.
Yes, and if they generally aren't available, and it's not reasonably assured that there are casters in appropriately sized towns, something weird is going on.
Just like I said something weird is going on when you're finding a lot of casting services in thorpes (this is also aberrant).
The rules are written in a way as to say while not absolute, it is the norm. Which means if it's not the norm, something weird is going on, or you're house ruling.
As I said before, that says something about the world via the game, which is a reasonable extrapolation, as opposed to a mess of chaos.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because we're not talking about optional rules, we're talking about a standard guideline. As in "not absolute, but expected". It's not absolute that you will find casters to cast X level spells for you in Y size settlements but it is expected, and if you fail to with frequency, something is wrong.
It's foolish to think that when the rules say "generally" and "reasonably assured" that it means anything other than you can typically find them available. Even the use of the term reasonably assured means that it is reasonable, as in good reasoning, to expect that you will be able to find such services. You can be reasonably assured that if you visit a small town or larger you will find someone that can cast spells on your behalf.
Here's the actual text, so we can break it down.
Spellcasting: The indicated amount is how much it costs to get a spellcaster to cast a spell for you. This cost assumes that you can go to the spellcaster and have the spell cast at his convenience (generally at least 24 hours later, so that the spellcaster has time to prepare the spell in question). If you want to bring the spellcaster somewhere to cast a spell you need to negotiate with him, and the default answer is no.
The cost given is for any spell that does not require a costly material component. If the spell includes a material component, add the cost of that component to the cost of the spell. If the spell has a focus component (other than a divine focus), add 1/10 the cost of that focus to the cost of the spell.
Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster.
In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.
So what does it say here?
"In general";
Idioms
12. in general,with respect to the whole class referred to; as a whole:
He likes people in general.
as a rule; usually:
In general, the bus is here by 9 a.m.
"...to be reasonably assured of";
Reasonably
adjective
1. agreeable to reason or sound judgment; logical:
a reasonable choice for chairman.
2. not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive:
reasonable terms.Assured
adjective
1. guaranteed; sure; certain; secure:
an assured income.
2. bold; confident; authoritative:
His art was both assured and facile.
"...even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th level spells."
Guaranteed
noun
1. a promise or assurance, especially one in writing, that something is of specified quality, content, benefit, etc., or that it will perform satisfactorily for a given length of time:
a money-back guarantee.
2. an assurance that another’s obligation will be fulfilled, or something presented as such security; guaranty (defs 1, 2).
3. something that assures a particular outcome or condition:
Wealth is no guarantee of happiness.
The bit about the metropolis and 9th level spells being the exception proves the rule for sub-9th level spells, as this specific need to call out the 9th level spells to be unlike 8th and lower level spells as not guaranteed, strengthens the sentiment and understanding that in their respective communities, these spells are assumed and are more or less guaranteed with few exceptions (as noted by the phrasing in the first part of the paragraph).
To argue that it is unreasonable to expect to have access to these things as it describes in the manual is in itself factually unreasonable. The rules clearly say that it is reasonable and nonconformity to that fact is a deviation from the rules (and thus the game) in itself.
If your campaign deviates from the standard rule, that needs to be explained up front in the same way that Eberron explained its changes to the alignment system, or how Darksun explains the differences between its magic and normal magic.
Agreed - I use a blanket statement that says "All rules are guidelines." I don't disagree that the standard rules assume or imply that many things are easy to obtain, but I do wonder if the fact that I don't play that way might be a contributing factor behind why I don't experience a lot of the problems people typically talk about.
Even things like Craft feats - When someone takes Craft Wondrous Item - do you assume that their character is knowledgable of all wondrous items? As in, they can just scan through the items and decide to create any of the ones that they meet the prereqs for?
Even things like Craft feats - When someone takes Craft Wondrous Item - do you assume that their character is knowledgable of all wondrous items? As in, they can just scan through the items and decide to create any of the ones that they meet the prereqs for?
It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]
It doesn't just make some mechanic cumbersome or unbalanced, it puts all of the math out of alignment.
Clearly an Evil act. If you disagree with me over any aspect of alignment, it's because of the decaying morals of society. Anyone who messes with alignment is really just playing an MMO. Alignment is also the primary topic of this thread.
Settlements are places where a lot of roleplaying happens. My table will use the rules regarding what you can buy but the highest casting level is a suggestion while the modifiers, danger, and the rest of that crap are ignored since all they do is get in the way of roleplaying and force unnecessary bookkeeping for the GM. Note that we almost never play on the main setting with any of the public adventure paths so we have to make our towns from scratch.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even things like Craft feats - When someone takes Craft Wondrous Item - do you assume that their character is knowledgable of all wondrous items? As in, they can just scan through the items and decide to create any of the ones that they meet the prereqs for?It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]
Yeah, I always assumed that part of the Spellcraft check involved in craftng a magic item is knowing how to make it. The skill itself says:
Spellcraft is used whenever your knowledge and skill of the technical art of casting a spell or crafting a magic item comes into question.
Seems fairly clear-cut to me. If you beat the spellcraft DC, you know how to make the item and have the skill needed to do so. I suppose you could make it two separate rolls, but since it's the same skill with the same target that seems a bit pointless. Especially since crafters almost always aim to be able to take 10 on their crafting rolls.
If we move into restricting crafting by GM fiat of knowing how to make items, we're pretty much in "The GM will only allow you to craft if you buy pizza for the group first" territory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise, the assumption that a caster must know everything about a magic item beforehand is a little questionable. While I suppose there could be a setting where there are clear-cut blueprints for creating magical items, it seems far more likely to me that an artisan would set out to make a magical item that does a thing, such as "make someone stronger".
For example, humans, orcs, elves, kobolds, and goblins can all craft magical items that do the same things assuming their relevant skills are the same. However, nothing about this suggests that the items are necessarily identical, nor that they all follow the exact same formula to arrive at the intended result.
In much the same way goblin wizards may write their spells in fingerpaintings or drawings and elven wizards may have a complex and elaborate set of formulas that theirs are frequently written in. The point is not "do you know the formula to cast spells?" it is "do you cast spells?", because there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's.
If you can craft the magic item, you clearly have at least some idea how to go about doing the thing you set out to do. If that thing is "make someone stronger" and you can hit the DC for something like gauntlets of ogre strength, well, guess what...you know how to make gauntlets of ogre strength or something of identical purposes.
Animal companions are autonomous, you can command them but the dm plays them. This means that they are npcs
No, they are class features. Player plays them. Commands and stuff are roleplaying your mechanics.
Rheydn, the rules disagree with you.
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions— such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they’re GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rheydn, the rules disagree with you.
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions— such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they’re GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.
Most animals go up to a 3 int rather quickly, and by the next paragraph go back to the player.
In practice its pretty rare for the DM to directly control the critter. Every time i've seen it its been the player with the occasional veto or imput from the DM.
The player builds the animal companion, selects its feats, skills, abilities, gear etc. That dictates a lot of what it does in combat: a velociraptor with dragonstyle should charge into combat, an ankylosaurus with defensive fighting abilities should curl into a ball and protect the squishies.
Also the dm has enough things on their mind, the last thing they need is another one thats as if not more complicated than some player characters.
BigNorseWolf, there has been debate on whether or not an intelligence of 3 allows an Animal Companion to fall into the second paragraph.
Sentient Companions: A sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won’t necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.
So on the one hand we have the statement that Animal Companions fall into the first paragraph.
On the other we have the statement that creatures with a 3 intelligence fall into the second but NO corresponding statement that animal companions are exempt from the first paragraph and thus fall into the second.
Then, we have the previous Dev statements (and blog) that even a 3 Int Animal Companion requires Handle Animal. That again, puts it back into the first paragraph.
Ultimately, whether it is first or second paragraph is a GM ruling.
As for it being rare, I agree. And that is where Ultimate Campaign p141 talks about how GMs may still assign control of the AC to a player.
In any case, none of this changes that Rheydn's statement is incomplete at best and that by default rule, ACs are controlled by the GM.
After that point the GM may rule that an AC with an int of 3 falls into the second paragraph or the GM may choose to assign control of the AC to the player for ease of gaming. But the player should understand that the GM can assert control over the AC anytime because...that is the default rule.
Likewise, the assumption that a caster must know everything about a magic item beforehand is a little questionable. While I suppose there could be a setting where there are clear-cut blueprints for creating magical items, it seems far more likely to me that an artisan would set out to make a magical item that does a thing, such as "make someone stronger".
For example, humans, orcs, elves, kobolds, and goblins can all craft magical items that do the same things assuming their relevant skills are the same. However, nothing about this suggests that the items are necessarily identical, nor that they all follow the exact same formula to arrive at the intended result.
In much the same way goblin wizards may write their spells in fingerpaintings or drawings and elven wizards may have a complex and elaborate set of formulas that theirs are frequently written in. The point is not "do you know the formula to cast spells?" it is "do you cast spells?", because there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's.
If you can craft the magic item, you clearly have at least some idea how to go about doing the thing you set out to do. If that thing is "make someone stronger" and you can hit the DC for something like gauntlets of ogre strength, well, guess what...you know how to make gauntlets of ogre strength or something of identical purposes.
They are likely to arrive at the same design for their formulas anyways, in the same way that real engineers often arrive at the same solutions for the same problems. I mean, look at planes made by Boeing and Airbus. You would think they were two divisions of the same company, and not fierce competitors based on how they look.
Rheydn, the rules disagree with you.
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions— such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they’re GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.
You quote a splat book like it matters. GMs that are control freaks like that have few players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rhedyn, is it not a rulebook? Ultimate Campaign is hardcover, not a 'splatbook' with a number of clarifications to the rules on topics like who controls Animal Companions.
People have been asking for those clarifications for a long time.
In any case, you countered Dustyboy's comment as if your comment were the rules or the only interpretation.
The rule as it stands is that they are GM controlled BUT the GM can opt to hand off control to the player to simplify the GM's handling of the game.
As for GMs being control freaks if they run the AC, I think that is a very narrow characterization. Sometimes the GM needs to take control of the AC because the player is having the AC do things that are out of character for an int 2 animal.
Are there GMs that are control freaks? Sure, I just met one recently and left his game because of it. But that doesn't mean that all GMs who want a final say in how an NPC is run are control freaks.
By it being a rule that it is GM controlled but can be handed off it means the player cannot just have the AC do whatever he wants it to.
There is interaction there, roleplay there.
You quote a splat book like it matters. GMs that are control freaks like that have few players.Rheydn, the rules disagree with you.
Nonsentient Companions: A nonsentient companion (one with animal-level intelligence) is loyal to you in the way a well-trained dog is—the creature is conditioned to obey your commands, but its behavior is limited by its intelligence and it can’t make altruistic moral decisions— such as nobly sacrificing itself to save another. Animal companions, cavalier mounts, and purchased creatures (such as common horses and guard dogs) fall into this category. In general they’re GM-controlled companions. You can direct them using the Handle Animal skill, but their specific behavior is up to the GM.
From what I understand, unlike 3.5, splat books in the Pathfinder line are considered to be official rules, not just more guidelines that can be tacked onto the core rules.
PS: Most GM's do not bother with controlling animals companions, and I don't think Gauss was advocating doing so. He is just saying it is a rule. As a GM it is not worth the extra effort IMHO, especially when the player knows the animal better than the GM in most occasions.
|
I can't cite any rules, but I do have some personal experience and I've played with a fair number of GMs.
I can't say that I'd enjoy a GM assuming that the specifics of my minion/AC/whatever is entirely within their control during combat. That's taking direct control of a central feature of my class, and a core aspect of my character.
As a primarily PFS player, I'm delighted in the fact that none of the many GMs I've played with have tried such a thing. At the absolute worst, they RP'd some of my Eidolon's reactions for me. Even that would have been grating were it not for the GM being a friend who had a basic understanding of the character dynamic.
Also, after mulling over the OP's original point, I've figured that any tavern that rejects the party's more animalistic allies isn't worth their time. It's a watering hole, not a base of operations. Polite threats to take their heaps up gold elsewhere should do the trick. And if not, there are other places to relax. If nothing else, they can take the Bender route and build their own tavern and fund it with their adventuring gains.
I bet it would be a classier place anyway.
It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]
The rules for creating wondrous items say: "To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled."
If the character has never even heard of a particular item, how would they know what "sort of equipment or tools" they would need?
Personally, I think the rules are left somewhat vague so that GMs that want to place some sort of limitations around the process can easily do so.
Obviously, each group can choose how they want to play, but it seems odd to me to look at it like "there's no rule that says you can't look through all of the magical items and assume your character has knowledge of any/all of them, so you can."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]The rules for creating wondrous items say: "To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled."
If the character has never even heard of a particular item, how would they know what "sort of equipment or tools" they would need?
Personally, I think the rules are left somewhat vague so that GMs that want to place some sort of limitations around the process can easily do so.
Obviously, each group can choose how they want to play, but it seems odd to me to look at it like "there's no rule that says you can't look through all of the magical items and assume your character has knowledge of any/all of them, so you can."
The Devs have previously stated that they have made crafting as easy as possible. They did not make the rules 'vague' because they expected GMs to make something they intended to be simple not simple. They made the rules 'simple' and you are interpreting it as 'vague'.
Put another way: Any magic item in the book can be crafted by any character in the game provided you have the requisite feats and the gold to do so. This is by design. So why would the Devs then have a hidden rule that states 'oh, but you must learn how to do it first'?
Heck, if a wizard wants a spell all he has to do is pay for it from another wizard. Do many GMs houserule this out of the game by making it 'wizards dont share'? Yes, but that doesn't mean that is not how the game is written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's no assumption. The rules tell you everything you need to create items. As there are nothing mentioned about any special knowledge to make certain items, there isn't any needed. So sans house-rules, it is indeed as simple as scanning through the book and picking put something you can make. [assuming you can cover the prereq's of course.]The rules for creating wondrous items say: "To create a wondrous item, a character usually needs some sort of equipment or tools to work on the item. She also needs a supply of materials, the most obvious being the item itself or the pieces of the item to be assembled."
If the character has never even heard of a particular item, how would they know what "sort of equipment or tools" they would need?
Personally, I think the rules are left somewhat vague so that GMs that want to place some sort of limitations around the process can easily do so.
Obviously, each group can choose how they want to play, but it seems odd to me to look at it like "there's no rule that says you can't look through all of the magical items and assume your character has knowledge of any/all of them, so you can."
Even if someone wants to force the person to use the DC to identify magic items in order to know how to make it, it is not going to really slow a caster down. Identifying magic items is pretty easy, and nothing is stopping a player from taking skill focus and/or taking 10 other than house rules.