Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Utrecht
|
When I GMed it, I allowed the Druid's crocodile to participate in most of the challenges he was capable of, in a case-by-case basis. I'd give him some penalties for not fully understanding it, but the Druid made his Handle Animal checks to push the croc and did about half the challenges anyway.
As for the eidolon situation, I'm inclined to say the curse sticks on him. Failing the save is a consequence of the game, and ignoring it would mean ignoring in-game actions.
As for positive boons, I'm not sure. I'm guessing it should be done on a case-by-case basis. For instance, the Shades of Ice, Part 3 boon:
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...really? That sounds rather anti-'Wheaton's Law'-ish.
"Sure, you can play that particular character. Don't worry, I won't let your character use their primary class feature but I won't tell you that until after play starts."
For what it's worth, I want to empathize that both the gm and player are good people. I just think the GM in question had never dealt with a skill monkey eidolon and thus didn't get how much he was screwing the summoner.
But the point is, when you decide what an Eidolon can or can't do consider how the character presents itself and react accordingly.
You know, just a bit off topic but, I never did get the hate for building 'lion tamer' characters. Where the 'lion' is the star attraction and the PC is merely the guy with the taming skill. IE, skill monkey eidolon builds or the like. Or just people with useful talking familiars.
It's mechanically viable but you see rules that apply a mystical understanding to the universe such that everything knows, 'Ah ah, you're just a class feature, you don't really matter.'
I just don't think it should matter which of your characters attempt a task, since they are both the player's characters.
|
From the Guide to Organized Play 7:
Under Conditions, Death, and Expendables (p.23) it states "All conditions gained during an adventure, except for permanent negative levels, ability drain that does not reduce an ability score to 0, and conditions that provide no mechanical effect, must be resolved before the end of the
session; if these are not resolved the character should be reported as ‘dead.’Under Spells (p.25-26) it states "All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario with the following exceptions: ... Afflictions and harmful conditions obtained during a scenario remain until healed and carry over from scenario to scenario (except in specific instances as noted [above]).
I therefore conclude:
1. Andrew Christian is right. The general rule is to handwave the good stuff and keep the bad stuff.
I hate to agree because I think it sets up an unfair equation (cannot keep the good, but gotta keep the bad), but the RAW seems to support it
2. If an eidolon doesn't resolve conditions, it is reported as "dead." Since death doesn't have a long term effect on an eidolon, it can effectively handwave conditions between scenarios.
Not exactly. You do not report class features as dead, only primary characters. In the case of Belimarius' Curse, there is no time limit, it remains in effect until cured, and it is an exception to the normal rules for curing a condition immediately. I was unable to find a rule that would support a curse ending as a result of the eidolon being "killed" and sent back to their home plane. AFAIK, when it came back, it would still have the curse.
3. As Lorewalker (and others) stated, eidolons do not receive anything printed in the body of a chronicle.
While I can appreciate this position, I cannot find any RAW to support it. The way the Guide is written it would seem that if an eidolon (or other companion creature) ate the sigil wafers, they would receive the boon. However, it would end when the session ended. The curse OTOH would be permanent until cured.
|
|
From the Guide to Organized Play 7:
Under Conditions, Death, and Expendables (p.23) it states "All conditions gained during an adventure, except for permanent negative levels, ability drain that does not reduce an ability score to 0, and conditions that provide no mechanical effect, must be resolved before the end of the
session; if these are not resolved the character should be reported as ‘dead.’Under Spells (p.25-26) it states "All spells and effects end at the end of a scenario with the following exceptions: ... Afflictions and harmful conditions obtained during a scenario remain until healed and carry over from scenario to scenario (except in specific instances as noted [above]).
I therefore conclude:
1. Andrew Christian is right. The general rule is to handwave the good stuff and keep the bad stuff.
I hate to agree because I think it sets up an unfair equation (cannot keep the good, but gotta keep the bad), but the RAW seems to support it
2. If an eidolon doesn't resolve conditions, it is reported as "dead." Since death doesn't have a long term effect on an eidolon, it can effectively handwave conditions between scenarios.Not exactly. You do not report class features as dead, only primary characters. In the case of Belimarius' Curse, there is no time limit, it remains in effect until cured, and it is an exception to the normal rules for curing a condition immediately. I was unable to find a rule that would support a curse ending as a result of the eidolon being "killed" and sent back to their home plane. AFAIK, when it came back, it would still have the curse.
3. As Lorewalker (and others) stated, eidolons do not receive anything printed in the body of a chronicle.While I can appreciate this position, I cannot find any RAW to support it. The way the Guide is written it would seem that if an eidolon (or other companion creature) ate the sigil wafers, they would receive the boon. However, it would...
1) It is true by RAW that negative conditions on a companion need not be dealt with or count as dead as you can't 'report them dead'. Also, death does not clear conditions and raising does not clear magical diseases or curses.
2) Yup, no to the boon but yes to the effect as is described in the scenario.
The companion character does not gain any benefit or disadvantage from a chronicle sheet since none are applied to them(Unless otherwise explicitly noted). Thus, while they can pick up a curse that is described on a boon(which is an event that unlocks a boon on a chronicle sheet for characters the sheet would apply to) during a session and the curse would stay with them afterwards, they do not have the ability to follow any special instructions on the boon-curse itself. Only what the scenario describes of the curse.
So, if the scenario gives no cure condition but the boon does, it would then be uncurable for companions. Also, say the PC does not get cursed and the companion does... the boon is not unlocked on the chronicle sheet but the companion is still cursed.
As well, any positive effects would be cleared away at the end of the scenario as only boons can give them permanence between sessions unless on the very short list in the guide. And, as I've said, companions do not gain chronicle sheets and thus do not gain boons from them. So, sigil wafers are a definite no by RAW as a permanent effect.
3) Sad but true, RAW does take the winds out of the sail a bit here as companions are more biased toward negative effect permanence than positive effect.
|
|
So.... question that merits asking towards background on this:
Are companions covered under the rule of 'You can't clear other people's conditions' since it's been resolved that they 'aren't people' yet they get penalized 'like people'?
ie, if an apppropriately grateful party chipped in, could they have resolved that condition as a table for the eidolon in question, since it's not a fellow player and therefore exempt from the rule, just as if they were clearing it for an NPC?
Just curious.
|
|
So.... question that merits asking towards background on this:
Are companions covered under the rule of 'You can't clear other people's conditions' since it's been resolved that they 'aren't people' yet they get penalized 'like people'?
ie, if an apppropriately grateful party chipped in, could they have resolved that condition as a table for the eidolon in question, since it's not a fellow player and therefore exempt from the rule, just as if they were clearing it for an NPC?
Just curious.
Another good question to go with that... since you can't use prestige to help another character... does that also mean you can't use prestige to clear a companions conditions?
Contributor
|
Yeah... according to the people in this thread (who I'm not necessarily saying are incorrect in their interpretation), if something bad happens to your eidolon, it's permanently and incurably penalized - thus potentially ruining a character. :(
This is a highly unpleasant way to go about reducing the effectiveness of summoners. If they aren't wanted, campaign leadership should just ban the class and be done with it.
|
Yeah... according to the people in this thread (who I'm not necessarily saying are incorrect in their interpretation), if something bad happens to your eidolon, it's permanently and incurably penalized - thus potentially ruining a character. :(
This is a highly unpleasant way to go about reducing the effectiveness of summoners. If they aren't wanted, campaign leadership should just ban the class and be done with it.
I think that last paragraph of yours is unneeded. I do not think that Compton and LZP (authors of that, besides this trap, VERY GOOD SCENARIO) are attempting to use a single event in a single scenario to say 'lets break summoners!'
This single event has a situation that must be resolved with prestige. Every other one could be resolved through scrolls or other spellcasting that can be paid for with gold.
You save gold for a scenario or happen to travel with a cleric? Cool, pay the spellcasting to cure the companion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... according to the people in this thread (who I'm not necessarily saying are incorrect in their interpretation), if something bad happens to your eidolon, it's permanently and incurably penalized - thus potentially ruining a character. :(
This is a highly unpleasant way to go about reducing the effectiveness of summoners. If they aren't wanted, campaign leadership should just ban the class and be done with it.
I think that last paragraph of yours is unneeded. I do not think that Compton and LZP (authors of that, besides this trap, VERY GOOD SCENARIO) are attempting to use a single event in a single scenario to say 'lets break summoners!'
This single event has a situation that must be resolved with prestige. Every other one could be resolved through scrolls or other spellcasting that can be paid for with gold.
You save gold for a scenario or happen to travel with a cleric? Cool, pay the spellcasting to cure the companion.
First of all, I don't doubt the scenario's excellence, nor did I mean to trash-talk leadership. Sorry if it sounded that way. ^_^
I don't know all the PFS scenarios - I only read them if I'm running them. So as far as I knew, this could be a trend.
Besides, I was more referring to the "negative boons only" policy. If they've decided that eidolons can get potentially crippling negative effects, but can't benefit from positive ones, then that seems like a specific penalization of the summoner class. If they're going to apply a penalty to the summoner class specifically, whether for balance reasons or whatever other purpose, I think it bears questioning.
At the very least, I'd appreciate an explanation of why they've decided to penalize this class in this way. (However, I understand that I am not entitled to receive such an explanation.)
Am I making sense? ^_^
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, I was more referring to the "negative boons only" policy. If they've decided that eidolons can get potentially crippling negative effects, but can't benefit from positive ones, then that seems like a specific penalization of the summoner class.
As far as I'm aware, there is no such policy. There is one person who most certainly does NOT speak for Paizo (that is NOT a criticism, he has never claimed to speak for Paizo, just a statement of fact) strongly pushing that position and a couple of other people weakly pushing it.
Most people on this thread seem to be more of the opinion (which I share) that both positive and negative boons affect Eidolons in the same way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, I was more referring to the "negative boons only" policy. If they've decided that eidolons can get potentially crippling negative effects, but can't benefit from positive ones, then that seems like a specific penalization of the summoner class. If they're going to apply a penalty to the summoner class specifically, whether for balance reasons or whatever other purpose, I think it bears questioning.At the very least, I'd appreciate an explanation of why they've decided to penalize this class in this way. (However, I understand that I am not entitled to receive such an explanation.)
Am I making sense? ^_^
Sorry if it seems like I'm disagreeing with you often this week - purely coincidence, I promise.
I think there are plenty of positive things that can be used on eidolons and some that can't. A few of the things in question are specifically boon effects - the effect is purely in the boon itself. I don't think they should apply to Eidolons, even if they're effects that happen in the scenario.
My justification for such: some of these boons have a line on them where you write the effect. There simply isn't one for animal companions/familiars/eidolons.
As much as I would like my improved familiar who speaks many languages and has amazing diplomacy to get a boon from a scenario, it simply doesn't have the ability.
On the other hand, some similar effects are listed as 'items' on a scenario. What would keep them from getting those? Nothing, I think.
The 'curse' in question is listed on a Chronicle in the form of a boon - that'll cause confusion. The way it's written in the scenario, there's nothing that would prevent them from getting it and I don't think anything preventing you from fixing it. I'd see that as a consequence of having it. I'd also apply it to an animal companion, a familiar, anything else that met the conditions.
On another other other hand, Linda Zayas-Palmer, who is one of the authors of the scenario in question, is very responsive on the GM discussion of the scenario and has clarified multiple points. Maybe someone just needs to bring it up in the right place and clear out this example?
Edit: I also must admit, we're still out of range of 'intuitive' here. Making a list of every boon and whether it could effect a companion or not? Gross.
Saying all of these things get wiped at the end of a scenario? Also gross.
Ignoring effects that could last past a scenario on companions? Grosser.
Allowing us to apply all boons to companions and players? Table variation for some, I'm sure.
Developer
|
| 23 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, let me lead off with a quick word regarding the rules-as-written (i.e. RAW) approach. RAW is often the principal means of understanding existing rules, and it makes a solid starting point when interpreting other rulings based on past precedent. However, it need not be the be-all and end-all because we're not operating in a vacuum. Not only do we have the Pathfinder Society team who can weigh in on issues; we are also empowered to assess whether the current campaign policy is working and revise it if necessary.
Let's unpackage this and understand some of the arguments.
It's currently unclear as to whether or not eidolons, animal companions, familiars, phantoms, and any other class feature entities (just going to refer to these as CFEs for now) are affected by boons of any kind—positive boons or negative. I'm seeing a few different approaches and arguments.
Absolute Simplicity: CFEs cannot benefit or suffer from any boon that does not otherwise reference its effect on a CFE. One example I can think of is the Season 4 convention boon Sinscarred, which specifically grants the same bonus to one's CFE.
Negatives Only: CFEs cannot benefit from any positive boon that does not otherwise reference its effect on a CFE. A CFE that fulfills the conditions to gain a negative boon does suffer its effects.
Boons for All: CFEs can benefit from any boon the PC has earned through play.
Exception-Based: This functions as one of the above approaches, but there are exceptions regarding some boons that don't apply or others that do.
The Curing Caveat: Not so much an approach as it is a concern, it's unclear how a CFE might remove a negative condition—including one that can only be removed by expending Prestige Points. A PC cannot spend PP to clear another person's conditions, but can she spend PP to assist her class feature or anything else that's a part of her character sheet?
—————
I'm sure there are some other approaches that I might be glossing over, but these are the ones the team considered when we recently discussed this issue.
The Absolute Simplicity model is pretty clean and easy to adjudicate. However, it has one major flaw: it facilitates reckless use of CFEs that drastically diminishes the risk to the associated PCs. "Is that fountain cursed? Meh, just make the tiger drink from it; I can replace it at no cost, after all. Oh, it would have granted a negative boon? Sorry, but my animal companion is immune to all boons, so it doesn't happen." This kind of reasoning doesn't sit well with me, and I don't think this kind of policy is the right fix.
The Negatives Only approach does mitigate the non-chalant use of CFEs as guinea pigs. However, it's also quite punitive because it only punishes and never rewards. What's more, there's not an especially easy way to track that the eidolon has a criminal record in Magnimar, yet the summoner is an upstanding citizen—at least not in an organized play setting.
That said, it doesn't introduce as many difficulties as the Boons for All approach might. In full recognition that this is a slippery slope argument, I must voice my concerns that this would result in players wanting to apply half a dozen convention boons (not earned through play) to their tyrannosaurus rex. It also raise questions of whether these boons are transferable in the event that the player dismisses the t-rex and then gets a badger. Knowing that all boons could appear on CFEs adds an extra level of consideration and balancing when Linda and I write boons, and it might mean that some boons just don't happen because of their possible ramifications when applied to CFEs. Certainly we could make exceptions, but that leads to the next issue.
Exception-Based boon distribution for CFEs means that the team needs to rule on each boon as it comes out to say whether it does or does not apply. Even in a best case system in which all boons are considered illegal or legal for CFEs unless otherwise noted, that still means the team needs to chime in regularly. Alternatively, we could leave the exception-making power in the hands of the GMs. While I appreciate options that provide the community's capable GMs more flexibility when running adventures, this type of authority would likely lead to some very upset players when one GM said yes, and another said no.
—————
No, it seems we need something else. After discussing the options in-house, we're strongly considering what I'll call the Player Character Responsibility solution: A PC can acquire a boon (negative or otherwise) through the actions of his CFE. If the effect would have an in-game effect that triggers before the end of the adventure, the creature that triggered it still experiences that effect until the end of the scenario, at which point the PC gains the boon (and the CFE is no longer affected).
Consider the following hypothetical examples that involve a CFE and a situation that grants a boon on the Chronicle sheet.
This route does introduce some minor narrative hiccups, but it also prevents the use of animal companions as minesweepers and eidolon as cole mine canaries.
—————
This is not a final ruling. I'll leave this up until about Tuesday of next week so that folks can get back from any weekend travel, comment, raise concerns, voice support, or the like. If we don't see any alternate proposals or revisions that we want to incorporate, we'll go forward with the "Player Character Responsibility" model above.
|
|
Wow, yeah, that's concise and on the mark. Heck, I'm inspired to make a summoner now. Or a druid, or a something with a CFE...
Benefits of the PCR Route:
Consequences get visited on the player character instead of the proxy.
Proxies (CFE) gain more 'weight'. No longer are they SCUD missiles to be sent willy-nilly to clear the way for the party, but important parts of this Pathfinder Society Adventuring Crew.
Player characters who have CFE haven't lost anything, and have gained the opportunity to advance options via their proxy with the understanding that they will ultimately benefit.
Drawbacks of the PCR Route:
By definition, does that make any sort of Area of Effect attack in which a CFE is in (not a PC) PvP?
If a player does not want to endanger their CFE (perhaps because they don't want to eat a curse or whatnot), are they violating the spirit of 'Explore, Report, Cooperate'?
Table Variation: How does this 'grandfather' in to previous situations (such as the one brought forth by the OP?)
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PCR route looks very attractive. Much better than any of the absolutist routes.
One thing I suggest gets added to the language:
Each character can only be affected once per boon.
That way they won't double dip bad or good.
Agreed. Because it's quite possible that both the summoner and pet get exposed to the same thing.
As for angelburgers, I am starting to feel a bit peckish.
|
|
The PCR seems sensible, though as Andrew mentioned, an elaboration for situations where chronicle sheets have an A/B choice. To continue the above example, if there's one boon for not eating the angelburger (say +2 on diplomacy with good outsiders) and another for eating it (+2 on Profession(Cook) when using celestial animals), maybe you get neither? All the boons of that sort that immediately come to mind are based on party actions, not individual, though.
Also, in the wake of all this angelburger discussion, the Compsognathus/soon-to-be Cassian Angel who co-manages a restaurant chain with my Paladin will be paying a lot more attention to her suppliers from now on.
|
|
The PCR seems sensible, though as Andrew mentioned, an elaboration for situations where chronicle sheets have an A/B choice. To continue the above example, if there's one boon for not eating the angelburger (say +2 on diplomacy with good outsiders) and another for eating it (+2 on Profession(Cook) when using celestial animals), maybe you get neither? All the boons of that sort that immediately come to mind are based on party actions, not individual, though.
Also, in the wake of all this angelburger discussion, the Compsognathus/soon-to-be Cassian Angel who co-manages a restaurant chain with my Paladin will be paying a lot more attention to her suppliers from now on.
My interpretation of your hypothetical would be that either the character or the companion eating the angelburger would cause you to get the eating it boon. In effect, you would be saying that the player ate it. That said, other boons might not be so clear-cut.
|
Developer
|
The PCR seems sensible, though as Andrew mentioned, an elaboration for situations where chronicle sheets have an A/B choice. To continue the above example, if there's one boon for not eating the angelburger (say +2 on diplomacy with good outsiders) and another for eating it (+2 on Profession(Cook) when using celestial animals), maybe you get neither? All the boons of that sort that immediately come to mind are based on party actions, not individual, though.
Also, in the wake of all this angelburger discussion, the Compsognathus/soon-to-be Cassian Angel who co-manages a restaurant chain with my Paladin will be paying a lot more attention to her suppliers from now on.
I am inclined to default to only gaining the boon that most applies to the PC. That is to say, the druid would get the bonus on Diplomacy checks for abstaining, not the Profession (cook) bonus her boar would have otherwise earned.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thought out stuffs with an idea
I would disagree with this.
Honestly I would strongly argue they get in-game boons like anyone else. If they are capable of the act they get the effect. No convention boons. Anything in the game that happens to them should happen to them. Boons people get as an out-of-game reward should be for players only.
Also PCs forcing their pets to suffer or do evil actions, should be an evil action, and the PCs must pay the price for that as well. Atonements for being a jerk to your pet is not cheap as a jerk tax. What your pet has a nasty boon, dismiss it to live a crippled life in the wild. Yeah not cool. A creature that trusted and loved you and you send it off. That should be evil.
What is wrong with writing on the chronicle pet XYZ has this too/only? This is something the players should present to their DMs. Should not take extra time. IF they ignore it and cheat. Well cheaters gonna cheat. There is no difference between a player refusing to tell about their pet or themselves. The same exact actions to cheat or prevent cheating.
This also gives the PFS team more control over boons. You can write specific instructions that say for PCs/pets only.
|
|
One angelburger with cheese please...That's not kosher.
Angels are traif?
More seriously, though, I would like to see added a caveat that the PC could only have the boon (positive or negative) once, not twice. Suppose both the Ranger and Companion went through that door, because it is the only way forward, and they both failed the save?
|
|
Also PCs forcing their pets to suffer or do evil actions, should be an evil action, and the PCs must pay the price for that as well. Atonements for being a jerk to your pet is not cheap as a jerk tax. What your pet has a nasty boon, dismiss it to live a crippled life in the wild. Yeah not cool. A creature that trusted and loved you and you send it off. That should be evil.
Counterpoint: Druid sees their companion suffer again and again. Poisons, stat drain, multiple trips to Stabilization Station. Let the poor thing retire and save it future suffering and pick up something more suited to enduring.
Your opinion is a vary valid one, though. ACs suffer just as hard as PCs do and the idea of just dumping one on the street because it "broke" is a high tier jerk move.
As for this new ruling? For eidolons and familiars it makes sense, especially curses. It is a magical bond, and I could see a potent ailment transferring to the "source" after some time. Maybe, maybe through the AC bond as well. There is a subtly mystic aspect to it, though it pales in comparison to having your souls bonded together like the summoner-eidolon relationship.
Still, it would be odd and way too much work though a game design perspective to write special subrules for each specific CFE, nevermind figuring out where the Spiritualist fits into this. So I understand.
|
|
Counterpoint: Druid sees their companion suffer again and again. Poisons, stat drain, multiple trips to Stabilization Station. Let the poor thing retire and save it future suffering and pick up something more suited to enduring.
Well fine set him free since he is stressed, but fix that curse, stat & level drain, and such first.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Semi off topic:
As for the Curing Caveat, the Pathfinder Society team feels comfortable ruling that although a PC cannot spend Prestige Points to assist another PC, he can spend his Prestige Points to benefit any of his gear, CFEs, or other elements that appear on his character sheet. Need to cure your eidolon's feeblemind? Sure, spend the PP to have someone cast heal? Want to recover the corpse of your beloved warhorse? Sure, spend PP for body recovery. Long to resurrect that loyal guard dog you bought at 1st level and recently took a disintegrate spell to the face? I salute your expenditure of 32 PP. Need to repair your broken sword? Go for it; I can't imagine any other reason that make whole appears on the list of prestige awards.
Does this mean that CFEs can be retrained following the retraining rules in Ultimate Campaign?
Starting a new thread to discuss this. Please do not derail this thread.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
No, it seems we need something else. After discussing the options in-house, we're strongly considering what I'll call the Player Character Responsibility solution: A PC can acquire a boon (negative or otherwise) through the actions of his CFE. If the effect would have an in-game effect that triggers before the end of the adventure, the creature that triggered it still experiences that effect until the end of the scenario, at which point the PC gains the boon (and the CFE is no longer affected).
John, my only concern is the one raised by Finlanderboy: the fact that in some situations this would effectively double the risk of a PC contracting a negative boon (AKA a bane, to borrow a PACG term) if both the CFE and PC are exposed to a save-based effect.
Otherwise I think that this is a great solution.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
John, my only concern is the one raised by Finlanderboy: the fact that in some situations this would effectively double the risk of a PC contracting a negative boon (AKA a bane, to borrow a PACG term) if both the CFE and PC are exposed to a save-based effect.
Otherwise I think that this is a great solution.
Is this a problem?
Remember they also have a double chance of contracting a positive boon and the CFE gets personal immunity to long term consequences.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
I think that having double the chance of earning a negative boon might quell some of the hostility that I see towards animal companions and other CFEs. I've had a lot of people talk like Pumpkin was a no-cost meat shield, ignoring the investment I had to put into him: 1 trait, 2 of my feats, 25% of my skill points, money for equipment and the arcana / bloodline powers I could have taken if I had chosen another bloodline.
Other players have even asked that I run him into traps because I could "always get another one." (This is an idea that I can't even fathom. You don't do that to your buddy.)
If I'm taking double the risk, maybe this will cause others to keep speaking of my disposable, risk-free "death kitty." It could change fundamentally how CFEs in PFS are perceived.
I welcome this change, actually.
Hmm
