Core Combat Maneuvers?

[SCPRedMage]

I did read that, and there are two issues with using that to back your claim.

1. The term is "character option", not "option". While the term "character options" is never actually defined, the only times I have ever seen it used is in the context of character building. Putting skill ranks into Fly is a character option, taking Azlanti as a language is a character option, taking the Power Attack feat is a character option, using the Attack action to punch someone in the face is NOT a character option, it's an action.

2. That is superseded by the newer language in the latest version of the Guide, making the definition of "character option" moot. The Guide says "while building their characters", so that is the language that matters.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Wow, really didn't think this one would go on for so long.

So first, Steven, your statements are hostile and your quotes are not addressing the issue at hand. There may be rules against this, but, so far, they have not been quoted.

Second, obviously, with this much back and forth, I'm not about to try this in-game, just because of how much resistance there is on this thread. Not because I think I'm wrong or right about using these maneuvers in Core, but because arguements like this are not productive in play.

Third, regarding the PFS guide and campaign clarifications, I am not seeing anything that says you can't use rules for actions in game, which are not found in the CRB. I very much understand that this may be the intention of the CORE rules, but I am not seeing it written down as such. Perhaps this needs an FAQ to clarify the intention.

[Steven_Evil]

I wasn't trying to be hostile, I was trying to get a point across. The opposition began to become hostile, so I replied accordingly. I already stated to one of the opposition that I am more than willing to agree to disagree until we get an official ruling.

I agree we need a clarification, and I would love to have one. Like I said when I quoted the blog, that's the best either side of the debate will get as far as proof until we see something from the design team.

I also was not accusing you personally of trying to pull a fast one in a game. Your opening post was just an idle curiosity, and honestly, a good one. Corner cases like this need to be found and discussed so we don't have debates like this at a table. Nothing is worse than a player/GM argument at a table. I avoid them at all costs, and if this was the issue at hand and it became a debate, I would just rule in favor of the player and move on. However, this is what forums are for, for having these discussions outside of play.

As far as the intent and the written of the rules, the design team has, time and time again, ruled in favor of intent on these subjects. (Anyone remember the "empty hands" fiasco? I do.) That is one of the main reasons why I don't allow non-core actions at my tables, because Core is based on intent, and the design team backs that up almost every single time. Animal companions, mounts, summon rules, etc.

Nothing I had to say was directed at you. As far as I'm concerned, this is not a hostile discussion, it's a healthy, logical debate. The rules aren't clear for my argument, and my opposition doesn't have anything clearly saying that you can so for now, we are all at a standstill.

Until we see an official ruling, happy gaming everyone! May your dice not try to kill you!

Now, I'm going to go finish prepping for my event this weekend that I'm the sole coordinator of.

[Todd Morgan]

Players attempted to steal, throw sand in enemies faces, drag them, etc. long before the APG came around. Before the APG, we just had to wing it. APG just codified and simplified what players were already trying to do. I personally don't think it's best practice to limit something that players have already been doing for years just because they finally codified the rules in a book.

[TriOmegaZero]

When a player wishes to steal an item from an enemy or throw sand in their face, I tell them to roll a CMB check and use the rules for the appropriate maneuver to adjudicate the results.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Had a GM use the Steal Maneuver in Core recently. One of the players got a torch out to placate the goblins we were tasked with watching (Frostfir Captives). A bit later, we got distracted, and the goblins stole the torch, proceding to set fire to everything......it was funny, but it did make think about this thread.

I didn't say anything about it, mostly because it was really funny, but I don't think the GM even considered that certain Combat Maneuvers might not be allowed in Core. I do not own that scenario, so it may have been part of it.

I really do think that using combat maneuvers from AVP is fine for Core, you just can't build a character around it. I suppose if the GM is really opposed, we could not use them, but I've not met the GM this is so very bothered by those maneuvers (and by the free bonus attacks his NPCs get to make against players who lack the feat access to deny the AoOs from these maneuvers).

[Red Metal]

Steven Stewart wrote:

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:

For players participating in the Core Campaign, only the Core Rulebook, Character Traits Web Enhancement, and Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play may be utilized for character creation.

At no time may any trait, feat, equipment, magic item, skill, animal companion, familiar, or any other character option come from a source beyond these three resources unless it appears on a Chronicle sheet. Race boons found on Chronicle sheets may not be used in the Core Campaign.

Actions are options.

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:

If a Core Rulebook option advises that something found in the Core Rulebook is clarified in the Bestiary 1, then the player uses that specific option out of the Bestiary 1 to meet the requirement set forth in the Core Rulebook. That would include, but is not limited to, animal companions, special abilities, summon spells, etc... Only the Bestiary 1 is available for these extra options outside of the Core Rulebook.

John has stated this multiple times, over a variety of things. Yes, this debate is a new one. But the precedent stands. If it isn't in the allowable books, then it isn't allowed.

Until John comes in and says otherwise, that's how it's going to be at my events.

There's also this line from the blog you're citing.

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:

Game mechanics outside of the Core Rulebook, such as reposition and dirty trick, are not allowed unless a Chronicle sheet specifically opens it as a character option.

I feel like that would have been the pertinent line to quote in this discussion.

[Murdock Mudeater]

Red Metal wrote:

Core Campaign Announcement Blog wrote:

Game mechanics outside of the Core Rulebook, such as reposition and dirty trick, are not allowed unless a Chronicle sheet specifically opens it as a character option.

I feel like that would have been the pertinent line to quote in this discussion.

Found here, for the record.

And yeah, found this one only recently. The clarity issue here is that this blog post is from 2015, and the PFS guide is from 2017. In addition, the use of blog posts is somewhat unclear if they are a legal source for the core campaign, given that they aren't one of the listed legal sources of information.

I suppose you recall our somewhat lengthy thread regarding clerics of pharasma being allowed to use the blog modified death domain? Thread is here. Basically the conclusion was indirect, but the FAQ for PFS mentions that specific blog for deity selection, so the assumption is that the blog was a legal source for core since the PFS FAQ is a legal source. Not really a proper answer, but it was enough.

Back to this topic, I'm not sure if the ban on non-core mechanics is intended in the current season, or not. I think it's odd that they mention that players can use them if a chronicle sheet allows it, but they don't specify how GMs are supposed to handle non-core mechanics.