Andrew Nevin's page

I would suggest that you give build examples such as an archer, mounted and standard melee build. I am playing an archer build at the moment using Divine Hunter archetype. It is far more powerful this way with what you gain with the archetype than the much weaker teamwork feats for archery.

I believe Sean K Reynolds has said it before the Vestigial Arm discovery was intended as a resource to have different options to them as indicated by the example. It was not intended to provide additional arms for combat, but arms to do other things like use potions and other items.

There are people that have posted on both sides of the conversation however some are more vocal than others. I know there are both points of view, that's why the post went up initially to look for an appropriate answer from someone with authority.

I appreciate your opinions, I am saying they are not the opinions I am seeking at this point. That's not meant to be taken as offensive I am looking for a source point to answer as it puts a definitive end to the conversation. If I am wrong I am wrong, that's fine and I don't mind that I just want an end to result that isn't questionable either way.

You can still fight with 4 arms and 2 2Handed Weapons. Just you can never lesson in PFS the penalties for doing so.

Okay PatientWolf there is the 1 point you are not understanding that I have said multiple times now.

The text of Vestigial Arm does not refer to the FEAT Two-Weapon Fighting, it refers specifically to the section of chapter 8 in the core rule book on page 202 titled Two-Weapon Fighting.

The FEAT "Two-Weapon Fighting" only reduces the penalty as per the rules within the Two-Weapon Fighting section of chapter 8. If the character has more than 2 arms they can not take the FEAT Two-Weapon Fighting they have to take the FEAT Multiweapon Fighting.

Please refer to the MWF Special section, how you are saying it's not an overruling feat I don't know, it states exactly what it does clearly. TWF and MWF only apply reductions to the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting. Once again this being the section from chapter 8 in the core rule book on page 202 which is what the part of Vestigial Arms is referring to not the FEAT "Two-Weapon Fighting".

Can we please steer away from the extra attacks section as it isn't relevant to the rules question at hand.

PatientWolf I posted here for an Official clarification above my own ruling. As easily as you are saying that my own agenda applies here as may your own.

MWF is an overruling feat, there is no 2 ways to argue around that. Vestigial Arms says it uses TWF which refers to chapter 8 of the core rule book. Which is a completely and utterly separate from the TWF feat which is immediately overruled by MWF once you have 3 or more arms.

I am not here to argue with you I am here for a direct answer from the Design team as your opinion is your opinion not a ruling.

Because they have taken the wrong feat, if they have 3 arms and are taking TWF that's an illegal feat choice, the character has to take MWF instead as per the special ruling part of MWF. If they already have TWF and gain a third arm like all other feats that you violate the prerequisites for by losing them or falling under a different ruling the feat becomes suppressed until the condition causing it to become illegal is removed.

MWF still replaces the TWF regardless of the text in the Vestigial Arms description because of that.

PatientWolf what you don't understand is in the vestigial arm text when is says using two weapon fighting it refers to the rules for two weapon fighting in chapter 8 of the core rule book not the feat.

Yes that is exactly what you are reading. As the special of MWF states. Anything with more than 2 arms requires it rather than TWF.

It's banned in PFS play, that does not mean that is ceases to exist.

It's Special: This feat replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat for creatures with more than two arms.

Clearly states exactly what it does. Refer to the additional Resources page.

I have an ongoing discussion with a player who believes because the Multiweapon Fighting feat from the Monstrous Feats part of Bestiary 1 is not legal for play, Two-Weapon Fighting is used for his 4 armed character.

His argument is because it's not legal Two-Weapon Fighting is never subject to the special component of the Multiweapon Fighting feat. I have told him that just because it's not legal for play doesn't make it non existent. The feat is still there and still replaces the Two-Weapon Fighting feat it simply means that in Pathfinder Society nothing with more than 2 arms can use 2 weapons within PFS.

Becoming Even More Fearful: Fear effects are cumulative.
A shaken character who is made shaken again becomes
frightened, and a shaken character who is made frightened
becomes panicked instead. A frightened character who is
made shaken or frightened becomes panicked instead.

The description of stacking fear effects from the core rule book.

The smaller problem that's involved with the paper chronicle statement is that for instance I'm Australian and I play with people from all over the world, even sending a letter overseas costs us $3+ depending on where they live so if I have a table of 6 people that's an $18 overhead to mail everyone paper chronicles and I don't think that's a reasonable expectation on GM's.

For the existence of the Online play and for it's continued growth this is a necessary ruling coming from Mike and the team.

For me this is very simple and is a little similar to the choice to not allow crafting within PFS. It's made because of the minority that would seek to take advantage of the situation and to maintain uniformity across a platform designed to be compatible wherever you go.

For transparencies sake I've had to have one of my online sheets reissued because of this ruling after going back and verifying all of my sheets where legal.

Another +1 here if you need someone to look over sheets etc to verify that they are in order. Contact me via PM.

The following from Prepared Spell Retention says that components must be used to complete the spell. My interruption of that line of text would denote the completion of a cast time.

Prepared Spell Retention: Once a wizard prepares a
spell, it remains in his mind as a nearly cast spell until he
uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it
or until he abandons it.

The monk class has a clear indication of the limitations to the choices for the feats not just as combat feats but at specific levels that would indicate and associate with HD rather than BAB.

The Warpriest doesn't suffer these restraints as it gains open access to choose from anything listed as a combat feat. This to me indicates that it is written as intended and cannot qualify for combat feats he does not have the prerequisite BAB for. Even in saying this most of the bonus feats are gained at levels with appropriate BAB for combat feats at +4, +6, +9, +11 etc.

It would be really nice to see the Warpriest levels to stack at either 1 to 1 or 1/2 Warpiest level for the purposes of qualify for Fighter feats such as Weapon Spec etc as BAB is not associated with those feats.

Do bear in mind ekibus that because you treat the BAB as full when attacking with your Focus and Deity weapons this does mean Power Attack functions as if you where a full BAB character so take away some +'s.

From my point NZ couldn't have much better leadership than these guys I think anyone on your tables will be extremely lucky after the quality of role-playing you guys brought to PaizoCon Oz earlier this year as players it makes me envious of the players on your tables.

Although I haven't had the pleasure of meeting Paul or playing with him I have no doubt he is equally awesome.

Definitely congrats Shadow Stalker, it's incredible to see such a dedicated youngster in our ranks. Keep having fun and providing fun for those you play with.

Now if you'll excuse me I have some local players to go inform that a 9 year old girl isn't scared of gming so they should give it a go. Maybe you will inspire them.

Hey you leave my yammering out of this! You guys like my yammering in the channel from time to time, plus besides you're finally getting your series you've been begging for me to run.

Decided if you will be coming up in November yet?

Hey whats another case of insanity in our city really going to do anyway Daniel?

Thank you for the privilege to share something I enjoy and help it grow.

Hello All

I've been making the round seeing how I can get this moving. I've contacted both @PaizoOrgPlay and @PFSOPC on Twitter, along with making a Reddit thread to discuss the benefits and flaws of allowing the Monster Tactician in PFS.

I was told to post something to the "Pathfinder Society general discussion" board to help move this along. Not sure how this works so I'll just state my case.

I love the idea of the Monster Tactician because of it being a Divine-based summoner essentially. While I like the Summoner well enough, I wanted something that's more focused on Buffing/Supporting with some skill versatility, which frankly is often lacking at any PFS table you sit at. The more we can encourage classes/archetypes with skill versatility, the less likely tables are to get "stuck" in certain skill based challenges.

I also understand the flaws of allowing this class. The Inquisitor is already a complex class with a lot of moving parts. Adding to that the inclusion of a SLA Summon will further exacerbate that issue. Often the worry is about a single player burdening the game with taking too long on their turns. There's also the concern about the class being too "powerful" with the addition of the SLA ability summons in addition to the summons getting the Teamwork feats. To that end I'd like to address each of these points as part of my respectful petition.

Flaws
1: Burden of Complexity
While I certainly understand and share these concerns, I also find it a little odd that this particular archetype gets shunned for that aspect when there are plenty of other classes that share the same level of complexity, if not more so. Take for instance any of the Animal Shaman archetypes for the Druid.

The Druid is already a complex class, but on top of that you're introducing 3 additional templates players have to manage for their summons (Which also turn into Standard Actions at level 5 with Spontaneous Summons) and making Wild Shape (Already a very complex class feature) even more complex by working at different effective levels. I don't know how anyone could play this build without the assistance of Hero Lab. Now I'm not saying all complex classes and archetypes should be banned, I just don't see it as being a good reason to ban this archetype. Honestly, if the player doesn't take a Domain that grants an Animal Companion, then it will operate a lot easier and this isn't really a concern.

Perhaps there could be a minor restriction with allowing the Archetype, that the player just can't take the Animal/Fur/Feather domains (Just spit balling here).

2: Too Powerful
To begin with, I completely agree that SLA Summons are a very powerful class feature. Summoners can’t even use it without dumping their Eidolon. People then argue that combine that with the Inquisitor’s Bane feature, and the class will be a power house. I argue that the Archetype forces a very difficult decision on the player.

Basically the Summoner can either go Eidolon focused, dumping all their feats to buff the Eidolon, or SLA focused by investing their feats into their Summon feature. Much like Ranged combat, Summoning comes with a feat requirement. To be effective, you HAVE to take Spell Focus: Conjuration and Augment Summoning just to begin with. Later, so your summons are still effective despite DR, you’ll need to gain access to Moonlight/Sunlight/Starlight Summons to help stay relevant in Combat, else any kind of DR will drastically reduce the effectiveness of your summons.

This same “Sophie’s Choice” (I’m dating myself) would also apply to the Monster Tactician. If they want to keep being effective as either a Martial combatant or their SLA Summons, they’ll need to make some tough choices. Ranged Combat is right out the window. Point-Blank Shot and Precise Shot in Combination with Spell Focus: Conjuration and Augment Summoning means that you won’t be fully up and running in either category till level 7, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg with both those categories. Sure, the Bane feature will “help” but as a class that’s already at a Medium BAB, the Bane feature won’t help as much to bypass potential -8 attack rolls if you’re missing those key feats. Yet if you invest in those key feats, your summons will drastically suffer, and even worse at later levels they won’t really be able to do much if they can’t bypass DR. They just become another Warm body on the battlefield.

Melee is a bit better, but now we expose ourselves to Concentration checks since the Summon feature is a Spell Like Ability. Also remember though, Melee has its own level of feat requirements to stay effective, like Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Vital Strike, etc... All this continues to detract from your SLA Summon feature and makes you tepid in either category.

Benefits
1: Skills skills skills
I don’t know about you guys, but all too often I’ve been sitting at a table and there’s been a significant lack of relevant skills amongst the player base. I totally get this is more of a regional problem, but it’s still a problem. As the Seasons march onwards the skills challenges are becoming more varied and even more important. I know the Archetype doesn’t add anything specific to the skills of the Inquisitor, but getting players to run more skill versatile classes only helps the tables.

2: Increasing quasi-healers at the table.
As with skills, there tends to be a lack of people who can cast cure spells on a reliable basis. This is actually one the primary draws for me of this class because I love the idea of a support build (If approved I plan on going with the Defense domain) that can buff, cure, and support while also dropping beefy summons on the table to help allies. That, to me, fits the name of “Tactician”. It’s actually one of the reasons why I’m not attracted to the Summoner, because I’m not a fan of their spell list. While they do have Haste, and some other okay spells, they’re an arcane caster so their spells are going to be more offensive just by their very nature.

Of course Summoners don’t get access to Fireballs or many of the powerful Evocation spells, but we all know that being a powerful Arcane caster isn’t always about the Evocation spell school. Summoners get access to the Pit spells, and many other of the very powerful Conjuration spells that can really turn the tide of battle, like Grease or Cloudkill! So while the Inquisitor may have more powerful class features (Like Summon Tactics) I argue that the Summoner has much more powerful offensive capabilities just from their Spell List alone in comparison to the Monster Tacticians class features.

If you stuck with me this long, thank you. I’m very sorry I ranted this long because honestly I have no idea what this post was supposed to look like to get the Archetype approved. I just think it’d be a fun Archetype to play. I know many people argue that I should just play it in a home campaign but due to real life issues PFS is my only outlet for RPing right now, so I’m just doing what I would in a home campaign. I’m appealing to the person(s) who run the show to see if they’ll let me play what I’d like to play.

Thank you,
Ben

Who do I need to contact to get my Pathfinder Society Accounts combined? A long time ago I played 1 module under the PFS number 28863 -1 and I've recently got back into playing under PFS number 72911-1 (It's the same character for both numbers).