Brother Elias's page

Fixing errors is not free. issuing errata costs time and money. Yes, it should be done, or at least 'officially patched' online. However, it comes down to spending money to fix a small problem people can patch over, or fixing money to make money.

Businessmen who like to stay in business and keep their people employed go with the latter.

As for the example above, note that a fire spell of 0 level, tossed out by a level 10 caster, is healing 5 hp/rd for the cost of a feat...and at RANGE, no less. With unlimited healing, resource management takes on a completely different tone, especially for melees where it is their main scarce resource. The only attrition becomes for the spellcasters, and the PC's will always enter every fight with full hit points.

It's a major game changer. Sure, it may be a fun change, and even thematic. But if that's so much fun, why don't you just spend a feat that allows a Paladin to heal a number of HP equal to her Lay on Hands burstin dice (ditto other clerics), essentially replicating the same thing for all characters? 1 to 9 hp/rd for all divine healers for a feat...which is exactly what this represents.

Unlimited healing is valuable, which is why it is priced so high, and why you have to burn resources to stay healthy. If you like to video game where healing is really fast, different play style, less realism, more action.

It's also a "Wolvering" style game, where you play where you can afford to get hit because you know there's ALWAYS healing available.

===Aelryinth

So then I assume that wand of Cure Light Wounds or Infernal Healing is equally a game changer, as they also provide virtually unlimited out-of-combat healing - which is what we're really talking about. At level 5+, 2-5 hp for one character in a round is not going to keep the fighter or the rogue from dying to the BBEG. It's going to help him mop up later so that the 15 minute work day isn't the standard by which adventures are set.

Again. It's a game balance opinion issue. Obviously somebody at Paizo felt that this was balanced when it went out the door. And now others at Paizo are disagreeing.

As I've stated in the thread, even if available, I would not take this feat/spell combination, as Craft Wand is probably a much more powerful feat at that level, and through the rest of the character's career. And it reduces cost of the Wand of CLW down to only 375gp, which at level 5+ soon becomes a trivial expense. And it opens up every other wand to cheap exploitation. Ant Haul, Protection from Evil, Unseen Servant, Lesser Restoration all become "Hey, reach into the haversack and grab desired wand as a move action. Command word out appropriate level 1 spell. Lather, rinse, repeat".

Re: your argument that "Businessmen who want to stay employed...", yep. That's why no company in the world has a warranty against defects. If you buy a new car and the engine has problems, well it's your problem, not Ford's. Oh. "Wait a minute. Strike that. Reverse it.".

Shoddy work is shoddy work. Instead of simply pressing on to release more shoddy work, repairs are often necessary.

Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away.

I have a small blog read by almost nobody (not linked to, because I'm really not trying to drum up site traffic). I wrote a post for it a couple of weeks ago talking about my frustration with PFS, and how similar frustrations led me to walk away from LFR. Mainly the problems I have had centered on rules changing out from under players. And how whenever LFR or 4e would get a new program manager, that manager would immediately change the rules of the game to suit his vision of how the game or campaign should be. And that eventually, the fact of constant rules changes made it more and more difficult to keep interest in a character, because that character was not the same character that it was before each change.

There were other issues, like how rules changes in LFR were coming out as blog posts and tweets, and not as actual changes to the document which is supposed to contain the rules of the campaign. I expressed in my post my hope that Paizo was not walking down that same path.

Somehow Hyrum happened to read the post, and said something like “hey, let's discuss it”. And as timing is never good in my life, this week I happen to be out of town on business all this week. And I said, something like “How about when I get back in town?” and he said something like “Sounds good”. But then this week happened.

My first PFS character (who still has not hit the level 11/12 cap) started as a Druid. When Season 1 hit, I asked Joshua specifically about the rule where an animal companion with a 3 INT could take any feat. And I specifically asked about weapon proficiency feats. And I got an answer. And in the next printing of the Guide to Organized Play, there was a specific section dealing with and answering that question, that yes – animal companions with a 3 INT that can physically wield a weapon can take weapon proficiency feats. That section has been in the Guide for over a year and a half, and through multiple editions of the guide.

Yesterday, Mark made the statement that “the author” (not referring to Josh by name, which might be a Paizo thing, but really ended up sounding more like a slam) made a mistake on that ruling. He didn't say that he disagreed, and was changing the rule, which would have seemed to me like a much more civil way to phrase things, but that simply that the author made a mistake. A mistake that went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for somewhere like a year and a half.

This week, we also saw another major rules change. It is a rules change because for a long time (almost two years), the standard answer on the rules forum about animal companions was that handle animal checks can effectively be ignored if you invest a point of intelligence in your animal companion. This would seem to be supported by the rules that open up every feat and every skill in the book to an animal companion with a 3 INT, whereas 2 INT critters are limited to just a few skills and feats. The advice on the rules forum went un-contradicted by anyone at Paizo for a similarly long time period.

Anyway.

This week, with these two rulings, my 8th level cleric (nee druid) with an ape animal companion who wields a weapon (who was specifically discussed in rules threads on both the rules forum and the PFS forum after he showed up at a local gaming convention, and who no-one at Paizo stepped up then to remark that he was not legal) has suddenly become an illegal build.

And the reaction from the “usual crowd” was pure schadenfreude. Supposedly I, and anyone else who saw the versatility of such a build should have known better, even though I specifically asked and was specifically answered by the Paizo manager in charge of the program, that such a build was borderline, and it was only right and just that I be smacked down.

Anyway.

I've got a choice. I can either keep playing a character that is effectively castrated, and play my other characters, at least one of which was somewhat hit by ruling as well, or...I can simply stand up and walk away from the table. I'm choosing to do the latter.

I've spent a fair amount of money on the game. I have the Core rules, both Bestiaries, the APG, the GMG, the Inner Sea Guide (which I just got last weekend). I bought the complete Legacy of Fire adventure path. I've bought several (or a bunch depending on how you number it) of PDF's.

But I will not be spending any more of my money at Paizo.

I will go to DriveThruRPG or Amazon or somewhere else. I'm left with the distinct feeling that my money and my custom are not appreciated, and that perhaps it would have been money better spent elsewhere.

I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”

Wishing everyone all the best with their game.

Brother Elias wrote:

There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level.

No idea what you are talking about. Well, I have an idea.

I think you are taking "Character Level" (a well known defined game term) and interpreting it as "class level."

If you are a 5 th level character (1st druid/4th fighter) and you take Boon Companion, then you have a 5th level AC. If you are a 5th level Druid and you take it, you still have a 5 th level AC (no bonus.) If you are a 20 th level character with 19 levels of fighter and 1 level of druid, you have a 5 th level AC.

Brother Elias wrote:

Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?

There is no rule allowing for it, and since Boon Companion is the only "AC Boosting" effect I know and it explicitly limits to your Character Level, there is no Paizo written way to get a 20 th level AC at 19 th Character Level.

Brother Elias wrote:

Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.

Oh I see. You got it flipped around. I'm not sure how.

It grants a static bonus of 4, which is capped at whatever is required to take it to your character level.

Just read the feat. Quote the feat. Don't just spout off on what you think the feat says or doesn't say. It's quoted in the thread. NOt hard to read. Small words even.

None of it says what you think it says. It says something else entirely, for which the author of the feat apologized for the crappy wording, as the wording has no relationship to the actual "intent" of the feat.

Just RTFF.

Leaving the messageboards for a while now. Too many people who spout off as authorities on rules without bothering to actually quote the rules.

I don't expect to ever see an Actual fix to the feat since it is not in a PF RPG book, since they only Errata when they do reprints, and the only book that happened for that was not a PF RPG book was the Adventurer's Armory, and the Errata did not even make it into the book because of a Mistake!

Yeah I know. Doesn't make me any happier to know, but yeah - I know.

but the Druid description says the animal companion has as many hit dice as the druid has class levels.

Um. No.

Boon Companion gives the animal companion a level bonus equal to the difference between druid level and total character level up to a max of +4.

Not as printed. As printed it gives a level bonus equal to the character level, up to a max of +4.

It's bad enough that the rules are using awful horrible terrible wording that doesn't mean what they actually state. Please. Please. Do not simply make up rules and claim that they are in core. If you can find them in the core, and can quote them, I'll gladly bow to superior rule-search fu. But I've been playing a Pathfinder Druid since season 0, and I've been looking hard for the rules to actually mean what they say.

As I said, the characters that I have that use boon companion are not using the rule as written. They use the 3.5 version, which did cap at character level. The boon companion feat as written has no such cap. (I wish that it did, because then it would mean that I would be playing by the actual rules, instead of trying to kludge together a semi-consistent rule set by reading tea leaves, casting bones, and examining troll entrails to ascertain what the designers might possibly mean in the absence of something resembling errata or FAQ.)

Hey guys,

One of my players in our weekly PFS game wants to purchase some armor for her boar animal companion. I'm not sure what, if any resource this is in (its on the srd http://www.d20pfsrd.com/equipment---final/armor) and if its legal.

Anyone mind clearing this up for us? Is it doable and if so, how does it work?

Thanks,

Jeremy

There are two ways you can approach this.

1) Buy armor for your pig that has a zero Armor Check Penalty. As long as there is no penalty, you don't have to worry about proficiency. (I have a large ape that has no proficiency with armor, but wears a mithral shirt.)

2) Take the armor proficiency feats in order to not worry about Armor Check penalty. (I have a bear animal companion whose two feats are Light and Medium Armor Proficiency.)

The animal companion can also never be a higher level than your total character level.

Though I have looked very hard for such, I have never seen any rules text which states this. Do you have a cite, or are you simply making this up?

Brother Elias wrote:

I'm not certain that it's possible to take Boon Companion twice.

Yes, you can. It is written in the text. Hmmm, Cavalier/Cleric of Gozreh with the Animal and Growth domains...

oh. duh. And I posted the text above... <going back to hitting myself in the head with a hammer...>

Brother Elias wrote:

Not specifically a PFS issue, but I think that it is clear that the RAI was that the animal companion's level is capped by your character level. Anything else, seems broken.

From the feat itself, there's no way to divine intent. I agree that as written, the feat is broken. Which is why I refer to it as horribly worded. And why I put forth my own interpretation of what I felt would be a better writing of the feat, if that is the intent. As the feat has never received errata, of inclusion in a FAQ, it's difficult to discern exactly what the intent was.

Please ref this conversation on the Paizo forums.

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/archives/boonCompanionDruid&page=1&source=search#0

[sorry - seems this doesn't work. do a search for 'Boon Companion, druid' & look for Russ Taylor's post. Seems he's the author of the Boon Companion feat]

About a quarter of the way down the page, the author of the Boon Companion feat chimes in with the following comment...

Here's the authority: it caps at your character level.
So a 6th level druid / 2nd level bard can have an 8th level companion.
Wrote the feat, sorry about the strange wording.

[noticing that you left out his smug wording about how we are all supposed to know exactly what he meant, however he might have worded it...]

Yes, I agree with you. If one is willing to wade through thousands of random messageboard posts, one might actually find a short 23 word clarification of the rule buried somewhere by the original author of the feat.

However, if one actually looks at the published material, one has only the actual words used to determine intent.

[hangs head in chastisement, and walks penitently away...]

Brother Elias wrote:

Stuff

Not specifically a PFS issue, but I think that it is clear that the RAI was that the animal companion's level is capped by your character level. Anything else, seems broken.

Daniel Moyer wrote:

but you would then have 2 animals, both somewhat ineffective

Not sure if they would be considered ineffective, but the PFS guidelines do state that no matter how many companions you have, only one can be designated as a combatant for a given mod. So if you were a Druid-4/cavalier-4 with Boon Companion twice, you would have to designate which one would be actively participating in the mod. Although, depending on the environment of the mod, this could help alleviate the problem of having an ineffective mount. Select two different types of creatures and use the one that is more applicable. You would be an 8th level character with two, eighth level companions.

From the feat itself, there's no way to divine intent. I agree that as written, the feat is broken. Which is why I refer to it as horribly worded. And why I put forth my own interpretation of what I felt would be a better writing of the feat, if that is the intent. As the feat has never received errata, of inclusion in a FAQ, it's difficult to discern exactly what the intent was.

I'm not certain that it's possible to take Boon Companion twice. Nothing in the feat description states that it may be taken twice, and the general rule is that you may only take a feat once. Hmm. Looking at the PRD, I don't see any rule stating that you cannot take a feat twice. <shaking head..., thinking about what doubly taken feats would be broken. Skill focus? Weapon Focus? Boon companion as a Druid1/Something8?>

Hey, all. I had a similar question to one posted in another thread, and thought it better to make a new thread of it.

The situation is: there is one PC within threat range of a BBEG, and the BBEG has three attacks. With the first hit, the PC is still standing, but barely. With the second hit, the PC is dropped deep into negative hps. You have a third attack left, and using it against your only available target (the downed PC) will definitely kill the PC. Do you have the BBEG take the attack?

I say yes. I anticipate that most DMs would also say yes. But some DMs and players would consider this needlessly cruel or vindictive. Thoughts?

Yes.

I have long maintained that any adventure in which your character does not stand a real chance of dying is merely a grind. This means that characters in bad situations die. It reminds players that playing smart is important. (If you are in trouble, then you need to do something about it - now.)

I've had characters die.

I've also had fights where the entire group pulled out of a room, knowing that they couldn't win the fight that was going on at the time, and that leaving, and coming back later was much better than dying.

As I said on the other thread. One of the operative words in BBEG is EVIL. That monster, or boss, or demon, or whatever does not care about playing fair. And you don't get to be the BBEG by disregarding the fact that fallen fighters sometimes get up. Or sometimes they are playing dead.

There is no such thing as a "fair fight". Anyone who thinks there is, is wrong.

As a side point. How often do adventuring parties leave unconscious monsters and go adventuring elsewhere?

Paladin: "well, we've shown the ancient red dragon who the boss is. Let's leave him to lick his wounds and ponder changing careers. To kill him now just wouldn't be fair." <dusts off hands>

Rogue: "Forget that! I want some dragonhide boots!" <slice slice>

I know I saw a similar thread a couple months ago but, what is the general attitude towards this situation?

Here's the situation:

BBEG is surrounded by three PCs and an animal companion. One character is very hurt the others are moderately hurt. This is tier 8-9.

The BBEG's turn comes. He has a claw/claw/bite attack routine.

Judge: Claw #1 hit AC XX for YY damage.

Very hurt character: Okay, I'm down.

Judge: Claw #2 hit AC XX for YY damage.

Very hurt character: Um, okay. I'm more down.

Judge: Bite hit AC XX for YY damage.

Very hurt character: ...okay. I'm more down.

The very hurt character is obviously very dead. He is level 6. The others are 7, 8 and 8.

Has anyone else experienced a judge that ran their game like this? What would you do in this situation? Would you play with this judge again?

Hmm. a few questions.

1) Previous to this particular point in time, had the DM been splitting attacks? Or were all iterative attacks generally against the same target? (I personally tend to roll all my iterative attacks at the same throw with multiple D20's, against one opponent, whether I'm playing a PC or as DM.)

2) From your description, you had a very hurt character who also happened to be somewhat out-of-subtier in melee against the BBEG. Given that it was the BBEG's swings, had that character had any opportunity to withdraw from melee on his own turn? If so, then why was he still in the fight? In fact, if you had 2 other PC's and an animal companion surrounding the BBEG, then why wasn't the lower level character protected by the party?

3) Did the very hurt lower level PC happen to be the owner of the animal companion? I know many DM's who will specifically target an animal companion's owner, especially with any monster that is intelligent or wise enough to evaluate the situation. In taking out the AC's owner, you also take out the AC. It's the much more efficient attack.

4) The party level is 29/4=7.25. This places you in the capability of playing either 5-6, or 8-9. The chances of player death while playing up are considerably higher than playing down. Did any conversation take place at the table about this possibility?

5) Given that the lowest player at the table was the one who died, did anyone offer to contribute to his Raise Dead? Or did the table just leave him hanging? If nobody at the table contributed, then I guess my question about the situation would be, if it were you, would you play with this group again?

General comments:

A) The monsters are trying to kill you. If they aren't then you are simply grinding through levels. You might as well be gold farming, or whatever.

B) If the tactics that you use leave you open to dying (being the lowest level character, very injured, and still in melee), then complaining about dying seems petty.

C) I recently had a character go from full hit points to fully dead in one iterative attack, while staying at the back of the party trying to stay out of melee. (BBEG came from behind and took me down.) I had an animal companion, and the best strategy for the BBEG was to take me out to take my formidable AC out as well. Given the 8-9 tier, I could pay for the Raise Dead from my treasure and still have a couple of gp left. (No, nobody offered to kick in. I accept that convention play is like that. At store play, I've kicked in on one player's raise dead.) I don't fault the DM for playing BBEG's as big and bad and EVIL.

D) As I said before, I generally roll my iterative attacks all at once against a single opponent. I wouldn't fault anyone else for doing so. If the DM was rolling separate attacks and splitting them previously, and for this one attack sequence deliberately kept hitting you after you were down, then I would ask the DM privately what might have sparked a change in his normal behavior.

James Risner wrote:

Can't you just be a 1st level Druid, take Boon Companion (it works on Druids?) and have a 5th level Mount?

Boon Companion and it's 3.5 predecessor, Natural Bond, only provide a benefit up to your character level, but not exceeding it. Boon Companion is up to 4 levels, Natural Bond was only up to 3.

The benefit of the feat is primarily for multiclass druids, paladins or cavaliers and rangers who want to remove the -3 restriction. Boon Companion also works on Familiars, but not on Eidolons as written.

Well... due to the horribly bad wording of Boon Companion, this is not strictly true.

Boon CompanionP

Source Seekers of Secrets 16

Your bond with your animal companion or familiar is unusually close.

Prerequisites: Animal companion or familiar class ability.

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your class were four levels higher, to a maximum bonus equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.

Special: You may select this feat more than once. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a different animal companion or familiar.

The operative phrase, "to a maximum bonus" indicate that a 1st level druid would gain a 1 level bonus (thereby having an animal companion as if 2nd level). A 2nd level druid would gain a 2 level bonus (thereby having an animal companion as if 3rd level). According to the actual wording of the feat, a druid (or other character) of 4th level or higher would gain a 4 level bonus. There is no wording that restricts the effective druid level to character level.

That said - I do not take any bonus that would gain me an effective druid level higher than my character level for any of my characters for whom I have taken boon companion. I do this for the simple reason that while the feat is horribly worded, and has yet to see any errata, most DM's generally view the feat as if it were the 3.5 version, which did carry that restriction. There's some old thread here on the boards where one of the developers said that they viewed it as that as well, regardless of the actual wording.

A much better wording of the feat would be:

Benefit: The abilities of your animal companion or familiar are calculated as though your effective level in the appropriate class (druid in the case of animal companion, or wizard in the case of familiar) were four levels higher, to a maximum effective level equal to your character level. If you have more than one animal companion or familiar, choose one to receive this benefit. If you lose or dismiss an animal companion or familiar, you may apply this feat to the replacement creature.

The Pathfinder world is a very pluralistic world. Even more so than the heart of Europe where people regularly speak 3 or 4 languages. I'll admit, here in the states I've had very little need or interest in learning another language, but if I grew up with more people speaking a variety of languages, I could have picked one or two up.

If you grew up learning a couple of languages, and were thrust into a world where knowing another language could mean the difference between life and death, poverty and wealth, I bet you would be motivated to try really hard... and if you had a knack for it developed in childhood, I bet you could.

I seriously don't think that one skill point is excessive, especially considering that to be emulative, a lot of level one peasants with only half a dozen skill points half to be able to speak three or four languages. A skill point represents a HUGE investment in time.

I went to high school in Mexico, at an international school populated mainly by kids of diplomats and foreign corporate transferees.

I had several friends who had traveled so much growing up that they already know six or more languages, and picking up Spanish to the point of being able to converse took a matter of a few weeks for them.

When you know French, Italian, and Portuguese, another language with similar roots isn't that big of a deal. (And the speaker of Swedish, Norwegian, English, German and a couple others also picked it up just about as quickly.)

Of course, I've met my fair share of native English speakers whom I wouldn't consider proficient in the language. On both sides of the Atlantic.

It does not say animals can't have int above 2...it says unless specificaly stated in the animal description there is a limit of two. So it is possible for a animal companion to be one of those animals with a higher int. That is why having rules say it what to do if a animal int score above three in regards to skills and feats is not to me atleast proff that all animal companions can get increased int.

That is where my position was. Before reading James Jaccob answear to the question....which states the intent...and yes than you guys are right and I am wrong.

Though Iwould still like to ask this directly of Pazio but can't figure out how...

Interestingly, Hyrum himself asked about this very topic several months ago (while he was still at Super Genius Games).

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/rules/animalCompanionsAndAnIntOf3

Seeing as no official answer came of it, perhaps now, he's in a position to answer his own question.

Brother Elias wrote:

I have a PFS character (ex-druid cleric) that worships Zarongel. It might be nice to know his subdomains.

Thanks!

Zarongel: Ash, Exploration, Fur, Smoke

Awesome. Thanks.I

MaxAstro wrote:

Having just read through Lost Cities of Golarion, I would love to know Nurgal's subdomains. Or Nuuru'gal's. Either one, really. :p

Nurgal: Ash, Day, Demon, Smoke

I have a PFS character (ex-druid cleric) that worships Zarongel. It might be nice to know his subdomains.

Thanks!

Since I didn't want to derail the other thread, I noticed in Hyrum's message that faction PA / factions will matter more in the future. As he mentioned how replay skewed the data, is there a specific way in which we should be reporting replay?

I've currently been adding the character to the list as per normal, reporting that the person played, however I simply give 0 PA. Is this the correct method? Should they not be listed at all?

For Hyrum/Mark an example of replay is this event, session 1, character 6399-5. Hoping that this is done correctly or if there's another way that it should be reported.

I've been thinking about this whole "Factions matter" concept.

Originally we were all told that "Factions Matter", and that there would be an accounting.

Then we were told that there would be no accounting, and that if one wanted to replay a scenario, one had to do so with a character in a different faction.

• You may not replay a scenario with the same faction

that you played it with before.
• You may not replay a scenario with the same character
that you played it with before.

And now we're again being told that "Factions Matter".

Personally, I have multiple PFS characters who are only in their faction because of the replay rules as quoted in the PSGOP.

I would like to place those characters into the factions that I would have originally wanted them in, given that the replay rule has now changed to "Replay for no credit, but in any faction you want".

Is there a mechanism (or will there be) whereby I can re-faction my PFS characters? Or should I simply retire them if I do not want them contributing to whatever faction war might now be announced now that once again, "Factions Matter"?

And at the same time, is it too much to ask that rules be stable? There was a certain other RPG that I gave up on because every new product or campaign manager decided he wanted to redo the rules to match his vision of what the game should be. As a result, the rules ended up with hundreds of pages of errata, and it was impossible to actually play a character without the rules shifting out from under it. I'd really hate Paizo and PFS to wander down that path.

Yes, I'm being cantankerous today. Shifting ground tends to annoy me.

Question 4:

Could you use "Perform (Fight)" to use some form of Kung-Fu style while fighting, thus inspiring your enemies?

(Probably not very useful, but i'm wondering :) )

I have a bard character who usually uses Perform(stage fighting) in a Council of Thieves campaign. He has a masterwork rapier that he uses to demonstrate superior swordsmanship to his allies. The sword has never actually touched an enemy.

So, in summary:

Most "fantasy" settings don't include gunpowder. Some do. Paizo has decided Golarion does. Some of us (myself included) don't particularly care for that, but it's a matter of opinion, and not one that is in danger of killing the campaign any time soon.

Did I miss anything?

Hmm. Absent actual evidence (say a survey of all known fantasy settings), I'd actually call it:

Some "fantasy" settings include gunpowder. Some do not. Paizo has decided that Golarion does. Some people wish that it did not. Current playtest reports indicate that as built, the use of guns don't appear to endanger the campaign at this time.

Aubhel Reghorn wrote:

Brother Elias wrote:

...

From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.

It's not just _my_ notion of fantasy. Fantasy was a well defined genre a long time before I ever discovered it. Like any genre it expanded and has fuzzy edges, but most of us know the difference between fantasy, old west, sci fi, etc., notwithstanding crossovers like dark tower etc. I think the crossovers have their place, but some of us want to play fantasy, not crossover.

However, I also understand that there has to be some give and take. As others have mentioned it would be much more palatable if the guns were presented as early European or Asian matchlock, musket, or blunderbuss primitive technology rather than industrial revolution / American west.

Ah, but it is your notion of fantasy. Fantasy has been defined, not all that well, for many years. Some fantasy includes guns, up to and including revolvers, machine guns and various other ways of causing loss of life and limb.

And you do know that one of the major problems with the guns presented to us for the playtest is that they are, indeed, very early technology, rather than the type of gun used in the American west. These are single shot weapons, with significant (game-time) reload times, not the archetypical wild west 6 shooter.

Indeed, one of the issues that will hit the class, whatever name it finally ends up with, is making them balanced both with the single shot, full round reload weapon and the 6 shot revolver, and/or any of the various varieties of machine guns that could be created with the same technology as each of those weapons.

Right now, the gunslinger is on a par with a weak crossbowman. And by weak, I mean badly built, rather than even moderately optimized. And the crossbowman will still be a LOT cheaper to run, and do more damage earlier, than the gunslinger will. Cheaper to enchant, easier to...

I agree with your post almost entirely. As presented, guns are somewhat of a hodgepodge between old and new. They are single shot, yet reload much much faster than a musket or other barrel loaded weapon. Given the british army used to use 3 shots per minute as a standard, a "realistic" reload time should be on the order of 3-4 rounds. Rifles took much longer (you needed to wrap the bullet in a leather patch to grab the rifling, which also made it harder to drive down the barrel) somewhere around 2 shots per minute, or 5 rounds of game time.

Compare to a six shooter, or M1 or other semi-automatic weapon, which should conceivably be able to be fired somewhat accurately 2-3 times per round. Compare to a fully automatic weapon which might be fired somewhat less accurately 30 times in that six second round.

Somewhere in this whole mix the designers need to figure out where Golarian guns fit. For game terms, anything more than a full-round reload will be very hard to make playable as a class. At the same time, I'm guessing that anything more than 2-3 shots per round will seem to be much more powerful than other game mechanics.

Good example, I concede the "Day Job" argument is spurious. However it is still important to consider all the jobs you mentioned existed in medieval times, that's the important bit.

Why?

The only reason that i can come up with is that it fits your conception of what a fantasy setting should be. If you were the game designer or creative director, that might be relevant. But neither of us is. The setting has existed for over two years now.

Really, given that the setting has always had guns, it should be a non issue. From my perspective, the only real class that might justifiably be arguedas not part of the setting is thesummoner class. But even then,it could be argued that summoner is just some exotic mage.

From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.

BTW, I actually was a "Cowboy", I worked as a paid ranch hand. Consider how you would feel if your day job were introduced into a game that is supposed to be an escape?

Perhaps similar to a cop who sees that the game contains paladins and inquisitors. (I know a couple of these.)

Perhaps similar to a priest or pastor who sees that the game contains clerics. (Met one or two of these.)

Perhaps similar to a locksmith, or private investigator who sees that the game contains rogues. (Know one of these - thrown in ex-burglar on that one.)

Perhaps similar to park service workers who see that the game contains rangers. (Not met any of these yet.)

Perhaps similar to a chemist or other scientist (look - that's me) who sees that the game contains alchemists.

Perhaps similar to any number of current or past servicemen (look - me here too) who sees that the game contains fighters, cavaliers and paladins.

Ok, along those lines. Should a DM work to 'fix' an accidental sabotage?

Spoilers for Silent Tide
** spoiler omitted **

Now admittedly that was the first scenario, but it still sticks in my mind.

Having had more than one mission requiring the procurement of one poison or another, I've generally fallen back on the line "so that my associates might research an antidote to this poison". Seems to usually work, even if there might be some "nudge, nudge, wink, wink - say no more." about it.

Brother Elias wrote:

Stuff

I am still confused..

The rules for Adjusting Characters for the mod are as such

This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp.

That is the rule, the other thing you quote has nothing to do with it... This is the rule for "Adjusting for the Module"

That is the rule for normal play, this is not normal play and is an adjustment to address that.

This might seem obvious to you, but it isn't to me. Part of the reason that it is not obvious is that my 8th level character does not have sufficient TPA to purchase a 16,500 gp item per Table 11-2. So it would seem odd (and slightly less-than-fair) to me to show up at a table with an actual character who has leveled to 8th level, and have players with newly created characters sit down with better gear than I can purchase.

Again. I'm asking what the rule actually means. Because what it says does not say that the "Always Available"/Table 11-2 rules do not apply. The rule as written simply appears to make an additional limitation on the character that any gear it has (within legal limits) can also cost no more than 16,500gp.

Brother Elias wrote:

Stuff

I am still confused..

The rules for Adjusting Characters for the mod are as such

This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp.

That is the rule, the other thing you quote has nothing to do with it... This is the rule for "Adjusting for the Module"

That is the rule for normal play, this is not normal play and is an adjustment to address that.

The "No single item worth more than 16,500 gp" does not say that table 11-2 does not apply. Even with table 11-2 applying, this could simply mean that a character cannot have +1 adamantine full plate, as (even though it is on the "always available" list, it would cost (15000+1500+1000) 17,500 gp and thus be over the 16,500 gp limit.

So the question is. Does the "no single item" imply that Table 11-2 and "Beyond the gear noted above, your character is restricted to purchasing additional items from his accumulated chronicle sheets (see Chapter 9, Step 3), or through his PA with his faction (see Chapter 11). Weapons, armor, equipment, magic items and so on that are outside of these lists are not available for purchase at any time." do not apply, and that any allowed content item can be purchased, even though the character has no PA?

WelbyBumpus wrote:

*Okay, I care a little bit, in that I increasingly see deeper darkness being used as an environmental effect to hinder PCs, and I find darkness effects entirely Not Fun in Pathfinder.

Huge amount of hate for darkness/ deeper darkness in our local group. Just way over-done in PFS.

If the group has the counter it's generally a trivial encounter and horribly weak. If they don't have the counter the encounter takes three times longer to run and is much nastier than it needs to be. Either way it's just not a fun encounter.

Deeper Darkness has been especially irritating. Recent encounters I've been in have generally dealt with it through the use of the Scent special ability (Companion creatures), though this tends to leave the actual characters standing around with their thumbs up their bodkin.

Brother Elias wrote:

Can I ask for a clarification here?

With 0 PA, it would seem that (assuming a new character built for the campaign) the character would be limited to a +1 weapon, +1 armor, and virtually no other magic items.

Is this correct?

(I have no problem with the rule either way, I'm just trying to clarify what the rule is.)

Thanks!

I am not sure I understand the question..

This is the rule for Adjusted Character from the new rules for the Mod.

Quote:

A player may also create an 8th-level version of an existing Pathfinder Society character for use in the module. This character may have up to 33,000 gp in total wealth, with no single item worth more than 16,500 gp. Such a character is considered to have no Prestige Award.

I am assuming the No PA rule is so they can't use stuff from Chart 11-1 in the PFS guide.

Beyond the gear noted above, your character is restricted

to purchasing additional items from his accumulated
chronicle sheets (see Chapter 9, Step 3), or through his
PA with his faction (see Chapter 11). Weapons, armor,
equipment, magic items and so on that are outside of these
lists are not available for purchase at any time.

Without PA, a character could have "Always Available" items, such as mithral or adamantine weapons or armor, but could not buy anything not "Always Available". (As Table 11-2 would still seem to apply.)

TwilightKnight wrote:

Honestly, I do not think there are many GM's that will deny you a permanent light source on your holy symbol. Considering we already have everburning torches, glowing weapons, and wayfinders with Light at will. I'm not a big fan of a lot of exceptions in the OP Guide, but this one does not seem to disrupt the game. Maybe it should be added to the next version. Adn don't forget, it can still get dispelled. Be careful if you grace one of Kyle's tables. Just sayin' ;-)

I'm just paranoid of all those scenarios where someone is casting deeper darkness, ya know? I've been caught empty handed before and it was NOT pretty.

Of course, that brings up the question as to whether Continual Flame is considered a 3rd level (cleric) spell or a 2nd level (wizard) spell for purposes of overriding Deeper Darkness, a 3rd level cleric spell.

Kyle Baird wrote:

How does one go about creating an appropriate level version of an existing character for a mid-to-high level PFS legal module such as Cult of the Ebon Destroyers?

Using CotED as an example:

I assume that I could use an existing level 10 character and go back to what they were like at level 8. How does this work if you don't have anything higher than level 6? How do you handle wealth and item access?

We've updated the pdf to explain how to do so for an 8th level character. Wealth for an adjusted PC is based on page 399 of the Core Rulebook, with max cost per item set at 1/2 total wealth. An adjusted PC is assumed to have no PA, and uses only the wealth per level table to determine item access.

Can I ask for a clarification here?

With 0 PA, it would seem that (assuming a new character built for the campaign) the character would be limited to a +1 weapon, +1 armor, and virtually no other magic items.

Is this correct?

(I have no problem with the rule either way, I'm just trying to clarify what the rule is.)

Thanks!

Mok wrote:

If someone seriously complained about the presence of a gunslinger, ninja, or samurai at a PFS session I'd likely just laugh. If they walked away from the table I'd just feel sad for the poor person caring far too much about how other people have fun.

Nobody cares how you have fun. We care how WE have fun. If you enjoy playing pretend cowboys and indians then we're ecstatic for you, we just ask that you do it in a game meant for cowboys an indians, not our sword and sorcery game, because sword and sorcery is how WE'RE trying to have fun.

Now you may say, "but the fact that they put cowboys and indians in YOU'RE PFS game means that PFS IS intended to be a cowboys and indians game," and you'd be right. I guess that's really the problem here though, isn't it? That we've been wasting our time thinking we were in a sword and sorcery game when all along we were stuck with hidden cowboys and hidden indians all around us.

I guess my first question is: Did you ever actually read the campaign setting? At all?

Golarion is a very diverse world, containing everything from swords and sorcery to guns to robots with (for all we know) frickin laser beams.

None of this was "hidden" from you. It's been part of the same campaign world for over two years now.

It seems churlish to complain about the campaign including elements that have been part of the campaign setting since the very beginning.

Brother Elias wrote:

So. Here's my proposal to you. Instead of arguing that you should be able to play up whenever you desire, perhaps you should instead be arguing that the calculate APL actually be a reflection of the strength of the party so that the APPROPRIATE level can be played.

The problem is that pure level of the party is not really a true measure of the characters' power.

Just as an example, in our local area, we have several different Fighter builds. Some of them are great at their job, and count as their level of higher for APL. Others, however, are barely competent at their job, and might not count as their level for ability, much less if they are the sole fighter in the party.

And it is not always easy to judge how "good" a build is, much less how well it will work in certain party compositions.

I have a Str 12 Fighter who, in the right party, is quite effective. But, in other parties, his low Str will cause him to be less than effective. My fighter is a tripping build, so if there is someone to deliver damage, he works well, but if he is the primary damage dealer, things will run slowly, if at all.

Again, your APL calculation, like the current one, only counts the number of PCs and their levels, not the effect of party mix, or build capability.

For your consideration:
Party of 7 level 4 Bards. APL 5 under the current rules, I think; APL 7 or 8 under your calculation, but, to be honest, a "good" Bard build is going to be great, as a support character. If you are relying on a party of all Bards to take down opponents, even 7 of them will take a long time to take it out.

In similar wise, a party consisting of all melee types, or all ranged types, will have their own issues.

YMMV

Excellent point. Hmm. There's no perfect system. I just wonder if we put our heads together if we can't possibly figure out a not-perfect, but better system.

Remember that these things are not necessarily the same across the board. This is how I *as a DM* see it:

Eidolons: Eidolons are a special case in terms of player control, since they are equally an aspect of the PC and of that 'universal outsider'. More so than any other secondary character, the PC has complete and total control over their Eidolon (exactly as though it were their PC). The reasons for this are twofold; firstly, the Summoner depends so much on the Eidolon that it would be more fair to treat the actual Summoner as the 'pet' part of the class. Considering how easy it already is to disable an Eidolon and severely nerf the Summoner, "Charizard ignores you" is never acceptable. In terms of fluff, the Eidolon is immortal and tied to the Summoner- as long as the Summoner is alive, the Eidolon can't die. In this case, having your Eidolon do something blatantly suicidal to protect you is absolutely ok. He'll be better tomorrow.

Summon Monster X: The summoned monsters are outsiders from other planes, compelled by magic to aid the caster. Since the magic compels them, they should obey absolutely, as long as the action fits their (your) alignment. Since Summoned Monsters instantly return to their home plane at 0 HP, suicidal actions are generally ok.

Summon Nature's Ally X: Unlike Summoned Monsters, Nature's Allies are from the material plane, and so do not get to safely reform if terminally injured. Thus, sending your summoned bear to go find the landmines is an Evil act.

Animal Companions: Generally, you use the various 'tricks' your companion knows or Wild Empathy to get it to do what you want. It stands to figure that your companion wouldn't automatically perceive constructs or incorporeal creatures as 'threats', but you can always just command it to attack. In general, the DM should never keep your animal companion from serving in a COMBAT role because "it's just an animal".

Other things like Familiars and followers generally ought to be convinced or else pre-appraised of the situation. A...

Your distinction between Summon Monster and Summon Natures Ally have no basis in the rules.

Conjuration - Each conjuration spell belongs to one of five subschools. Conjurations transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling); create objects or effects on the spot (creation); heal (healing); bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or forms of energy to you (summoning); or transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation). Creatures you conjure usually—but not always—obey your commands.

Summoning: A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower, but it is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can't be summoned again.

Thus no summoned being is actually subject to real death. They are all simply manifestations of creatures, which if "killed" will reform after 24 hours.

Similarly, your description of the intimate bond between summoner and eidolon has no basis in the actual rules. They are not granted a telepathic connection. There is a rounds-per-day (equal to summoner level) sensory link that the summoner can activate as a standard action, beyond that, they both speak the same languages. Thus an eidolon outside of the summoners control (in a different room, for example) would be acting on volition, not that of the summoner. In this instance, it is a perfectly reasonable expectation that the DM might step in to act as its controller.

Thod wrote:

My appology if I doubted you - will have to look it up. Haven't seen one in play - but my groups I GM are mainly low level.

But it clearly shows why a huge level gap is a problem. And I'm not surpised about your experience as not being fun in these circumstances.

Thod

No problem! I love my channeling cleric! 6d6, 9 times a day with a DC 19 will save (undead do not get bonuses to will, wish outsiders would too :P) at 7. At level 9 and onward, he will go straight Holy Vindicator and get his AC up to 35+ with full plate + Vindicator's Shield ability! :)

/Come to think of it, using this EXACT build but a negative channeler would be SICK. 6d6 damage DC 19 for half at level 7 against all those scenarios with living folks would be BEASTLY. And you could take more extra channels since you wouldn't need to take the channel ability that allows you to deny smart undead channel resistance.

Actually, Brother Elias (7th level) had a DC22 Will save to his negative channel.

(1/2 level) = 3
(22 Cha) = 6
(Improved Channel Feat) = 2
(Sacred Conduit Trait) = 1

Brother Elias wrote:

(Total of all character levels)/4

Thus, by the same example

4 players at level 4 = APL 4
5 players at level 4 = (4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4)/4 = 20/4 = APL 5
6 players at level 4 = (6 x 4)/4 = APL 6
7 players at level 4 = (7 x 4) = APL 7 Thus indicating that the correct sub-tier for this group is probably the 6-7 range.

That seems like a good idea on the surface. But what if 6 or 7 level 4s want to sit down at a tier 1-5?

The same thing that happens now. They play upper subtier, but have a general idea that the module is probably not going to be as challenging for them as a 1-7 on high subtier would be.

My proposal had nothing to do with rewriting modules, or reworking tiers. It simply had to do with how the DM should calculate APL so that the party is place in a subtier most appropriate from those available in the module.

I'm even not suggesting any modification to the no playing up more than one sub-teir rule. I think that is a great way to make sure that lower level characters aren't placed entirely out of their depth.

Doug Miles wrote:

I think that many players want to 'play up' as a result of too many players at the table. Demand for PFS is high compared to the number of GMs available, at least in my area. When I play with 5 other players at the table, quite frankly I am bored. My contributions are less significant at a 6-player table than at a 4-player table. Often when there's a single opponent to face, he's going down within 10-12 player turns at a 6-player table. That means I get one or two chances to contribute and then we're out of initiative. The opponent only got to attack once or twice as well. It is no wonder that players feel they have to play up in order to have a challenge.

At a 4-player table, the opponent is going to get more turns as well, thus more chances to take out a PC. It is certainly more significant when a PC drops at a 4-player table than at a 6-player table. It is also more exciting. Suddenly the way I decide to make use of a Move action after casting a spell becomes much more important.

If you want to have more fun at the game, then try to play with three other players. Suddenly playing within-tier is a lot more interesting.

I can't begin to count the ways I agree with this. PFS is growing so rapidly in my area, and we don't have enough GMs, especially who are prepped, to run games. I consistently run games for 6-7 people. And the thing is, I never want to turn folks away from playing and getting into PFS. And it gets really hard when you don't have enough space to even add an extra table if you wanted because you're sharing space on weekends at a gaming place where 5081571 other things are trying to happen at the same time.

So here's what I'm seeing.

1) you've made almost no case whatsoever for playing up whenever you want to. "Because I want to" really doesn't fly as an argument.

2) you, and some others have identified a problem that exists - at a high player count, the scenario can become much less challenging. I believe this may be a valid point.

The current system (average the player level, and add one level if there are six or more players) does not really give an indication of party strength.

Example:

4 players at level 4 = APL 4
5 players at level 4 = APL 4
6 players at level 4 = APL 5
7 players at level 4 = APL 5 Really. At this point you are almost two entire parties, both at APL 4. There's pretty much no way that you won't cake walk through a 4-5 mod. At this point, I understand the frustration, and the desire to play up.

Long, long ago (Season 0), I suggested to Josh that there was a better way to calculate APL. Given that most adventures seem to be written for a 4 character party, and I've never seen an adventure scale up as the size of the party scales up, that it would provide a more accurate measure of party strength if APL were measured by:

(Total of all character levels)/4

Thus, by the same example

4 players at level 4 = APL 4
5 players at level 4 = (4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4)/4 = 20/4 = APL 5
6 players at level 4 = (6 x 4)/4 = APL 6
7 players at level 4 = (7 x 4) = APL 7 Thus indicating that the correct sub-tier for this group is probably the 6-7 range.

One further example, this time more diverse.

Character A - 4th level
Character B - 3rd Level
Character C - 3rd level
Character D - 5th level
Character E - 6th level
Character F - 4th level
The dreaded seventh player, Character G - 4th level.

Players ABCD sit down. Their party level is (15/4)=3.75.
Player E sits down. Party is now (21/4)=5.25
Player F sits. Party is now (25/4)=6.25
Player G sits (oh noes!!!). Party is now 29/4 = 7.25

Under the current system, the respective party levels would be 3.75, 4.20 and (25/6 + 1) 5.17, and wait for it...(29/7 +1) 5.14 Yes,the seventh 4th level player actually made the APL go down under the current system. This is entirely counterintuitive. I believe that this actually results in a lot of your desire to play up.

So. Here's my proposal to you. Instead of arguing that you should be able to play up whenever you desire, perhaps you should instead be arguing that the calculate APL actually be a reflection of the strength of the party so that the APPROPRIATE level can be played.

Brother Elias wrote:

I don't see any reason why a commitment for this can't be a precondition to having my lower level character play up. If they won't agree to it, then I simply won't agree to play up.

Thoughts?

I like it. It would help ease my mind if I were the low man at the table. Of course I also feel like I have no problem telling the table no in the first place ;) But this is a good risk mitigation device.

of course, I can see:

Player A: we want to play up!
Players B-D: Oh yeah (like Kool-Aid guy)
Player E: I don't know. I'm a bit low-level to play up. I guess I would play up if you all commit to paying for any raise dead if I die.
::crickets::

MisterSlanky wrote:

If even one of those factors had not been there, we would have been in a world of hurt and were on the road to a TPK.

Look at it from a different perspective, though. Had the GM not been easy on you and allowed a TPK I bet the group members would be more inclined to play down and not bully the third level character anymore!

I wonder how it would affect people's desire to play up if before doing so, all party members had to agree to fully fund raise dead (or resurrection, if required) for any members who die during the mission.

Next time I'm the low player at a table that wants to play up, I'll try this.

You are also permitted to spend your character’s gold to help a party member purchase spellcasting services such as raise dead

or remove disease.

I don't see any reason why a commitment for this can't be a precondition to having my lower level character play up. If they won't agree to it, then I simply won't agree to play up.

Thoughts?

Joseph Caubo wrote:

Stuff and analysis...

I somewhat agree. Gold doesn't matter (especially not when compared to roleplaying, character, and having fun).

Not sure I agree with your analysis (Euan nails it nicely), Joseph, but that doesn't really matter if you believe it to be true.

If so, would you be fine with just asking your judge (if it were legal via PFS rules) to run you at the higher tier (for challenge), but accept the correct/lower tier's gold?

After all, gold doesn't matter, right? You should be willing and happy to have that happen, if gold doesn't matter.

I suspect not, as gold DOES matter.

-Pain

Yeah. Really. If you really want to play up, and your argument is that gold doesn't matter - then it's pretty simple. Ask your judge to run the module at the higher tier for the challenge, but only get the gold for the tier you are allowed to have. That way, you can have your challenge, without unbalancing the game for the rest of us.

So, let's look at Average Gold from the different subtiers:
Tier 1-5
Subtier 1-2: 497
Subtier 4-5: 1488

Tier 1-7
Subtier 1-2: 507
Subtier 3-4: 1282

Just looking at your numbers. Assume a player plays up from 1-2 to 4-5 for all of first and second level.

Gold for playing at-tier = 6 x 497 = 2982gp
Gold for playing up = 6 x 1488 = 8928gp
Difference between the two = 8928 - 2982 = 5946gp

If the player gets full PA for all missions, he should have 12 PA at this point. One more mission should get him to 13TPA, which is enough to spend 3000gp on an item.

So the player who did not play up, can have bought a +1 weapon and a +1 armor (approximately 3K gold).
A player who has played up for every mission can buy the same +1 weapon, and +1 armor. He can also buy a +1 cloak, a second +1 weapon (for ranged, or two handed) maybe some +1 armor for his companion/familiar, and have enough money left over for several wands.

Your argument about TPA being a limiting factor is not valid. Just because the player cannot buy high cost items does not mean that he is not better equipped than the player who has played at level.

Several people have pointed this out to you, along with other excellent reasons why playing up should not be allowed, but you seem to simply be ignoring all arguments that you don't like.

The argument "because I want to" really doesn't convince me.

I generally consider them to be NPC's that the DM allows to direct in most situations. (Whether I am the DM, or somebody else is DM'ing me and my animal companion.)

I definitely expect the DM to step in at times when the companion is being told to do something blatantly suicidal, or when the companion is outside of the direct control of the PC. (Another room, dimension, PC is incapacitated, etc).

Generally though, I would view at companion as a fiercely loyal friend who operates in sync with the PC under most circumstances. If the companion has 3+ intelligence, and something close to PC level wisdom, I would have no problem with it using whatever tactics the player comes up with.

There has been a lot of good advice in this thread, however, I do think that the assumption of five hours versus four hours is going to make shaving a whole assumed hour out of a session can be problematic depending on the scenario, especially at higher levels.

Plus, while people should know what they are doing, not disrupt the game, and GM should be prepared for what might happen . . . its a hobby, and people aren't going to be "on" 100% of the time. Some joking around or a few moments to breathe shouldn't be something that throws off a time table.

It's obvious we thoroughly disagree, so I'll just point to what I think is the most glaring problem with your answer.

Balance is already built into the system with TPA limits on amount of purchases. There is not a whole lot of good having more gold is going to give you without having the TPA to purchase items.

Assume a character has a TPA purchase limit of 5000gp.

Do you really believe that there is no power difference between a character able to buy 3-4 4000gp items and a character only able to buy 1?

I know that my 8th level character has really never bumped hard against the TPA limit. What holds down his power level is available gold.

Kyle Baird wrote:

Brother Elias wrote:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg

That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)

Darn, just checked and your right, dont know how missed that. APOLIGIES to all those who played.

Unnecessary. Thank you for running the game!

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

It's very, very, very important to note that you cannot simply choose to just play up. You only get to play up when the Average Party Level (APL) of your group is between sub-Tiers. Then, and only then, the group can decide to play up to the higher sub-Tier.

Other than that, this is awesome. Stickied.

I don't understand why you can't decide to play up if you want to as a party. If the party understands that death is more of a certainty for the increase in gold and potential loot you can buy, I say why not! And it's not like the increase in gold is going to do anything but sit there. They might get to buy +1 weapon or armor earlier than their peers, but they are still beholden to the PA spending limit.

Some scenarios I've played through have been absolute cakewalks at levels 1-2, and that's with having only 4 people at the table. I definitely could've gone up to play a subtier higher and still come out A-OK.

Why not "just play up"?

1) Balance - Treasure and XP for any given module are intended to be balanced to the level of the party playing. If you consistently play up, the character will gain an unbalanced amount of treasure for the campaign. While this might be a great thing for you, the fact that your character has much more bling than other characters of the same level at other tables will give a sense of unfairness to others. Besides that, if your character consistently gathers more bling than his level should, he becomes unbalanced for any future encounters, making it that much more difficult to provide a challenge to you that doesn't kill you outright.

2) Peer Pressure - Sure you say "everyone wants to play up". But what if nobody wants to be "that guy" that speaks up for himself ans says that he'd rather not have his character die just so you can get more treasure? Or, he'd rather not just sit on the sidelines being useless while you run out and do everything fun that he can't do because he's way out of his tier?

3) Time - Yes, you might be able to complete an out of tier adventure. But the time given for the adventure is based on characters being of the appropriate level. What happens when every combat runs long because it takes 25-50% longer to grind down the enemies as it should because you aren't doing damage appropriate to the tier?

4) Character deaths - A DM should feel that monsters are actually trying to kill the characters. What happens when the DM starts feeling like he needs to pull punches because fighting to win would kill most or all of a party? Suddenly the DM has a whole lot harder job, and what might have been a fun challenge to him becomes a let down? And have you really completed the adventure if the DM had to pull punches to keep you alive? I personally think I have more pride than that. (Of course my mother never let me win any game she ever played with me when I was a child. She said that if I wanted to win, then I needed to actually win.) (This last weekend, I suspect that a judge pulled punches in order not to kill our party. Yes we were playing up. If I were the DM in that instance, I'd be seriously pissed off for being put in that position, and I'd probably have done my best to actually kill the party.)

It could help with DPR actually, since it'll be easier to get magical enhancements. Hit bonuses make a HUGE difference in DPR calculations.

Heirloom could work. It's a mystic *artifact* that the ape clan has been worshipping for centuries. Being the *smartest* family of the tribe, his family got to sit around it and grunt a lot.

But... traits taken with the additional traits feat seem to bypass the starting requirement.

So, seems legal from a raw standpoint.

I like your imagining. I was simply considering each of the cleric's new companions to be a new generation, with the previous companion leaving the weapon in the cleric's care until a new companion arrived. (Why am I suddenly thinking that there must be a large closet in the Tardis that serves a similar purpose. Heirloom clothing, waiting for the next companion... and don't get me too far along that tangent in a PG rated thread. <g>)

With your explanation, I'm more thinking about a sliding door found in a very large monolith that happened to contain a very large hammer. Eventually one of the apes stops using a bone to beat its fellows senseless, and figures out how to use the hammer.

Brother Elias wrote:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg

That's really unfortunate that your GM didn't print that map out to scale. :-( (1-sq = 10-ft on that map)

Hmm.

Were all the corridors 10' wide as well? If so, that would address my (and most of our group's) only real complaint about the scenario.

Of course I would allow it. Claw/Claw/Bite for the fourth level ape is doing 3d6+24 with power attack. With the hammer, he is doing 3d6+12 with power attack. (I think) And he needs room to swing that 15' hammer, which he didn't have in that picture. So, being awesome in this context is awesome style, not better DPR.

And he has invested time in the mini...

What was his other trait? (Come on Cosmopolitan...) Edit: Awe, I back read and saw the Armor Expert. The Share Language spell and Cosmopolitan could have been fun.

And he could have always simply taken Martial Weapon Proficiency instead straight from the book. This way has flair.

Does it help with the style points that the ape has 2 ranks in Linguistics (Chelaxian [yes, yes, I know - some upstarts refer to it as Taldan], and Pathfinder Sign), has a rank in Knowledge(Local) and carries a chalkboard with chalk?

and the mini is real cool

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=409534&id=100000914980359&fbi d=182224898484675

Here's a more publicly accessible copy of the photo.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/6645605/MisterChuckles.jpg

The somewhat matching figure to the left of Mister Chuckles (ape) is Brother Elias.

Mister Chuckles is a DDM Large Dire Ape mini that I modded with (Underwater epoxy putty) to add leather armor. The lucerne hammer is made from a 3/16" brass rod, and a 1/8 inch thick piece of PVC.

Brother Elias is an DDM Executioner that I modified by changing the axe to a skull-head club (again with epoxy putty, along with some static grass that I painted black for shrunken-head hair). You can't see it in this photo, but Brother Elias is wearing 4ss-less chaps, with a symbol of Cheliax on the right butt cheek.

He's gonna run into problems when he gets to size large at level 4 as the bonus's are not transferable and i don't know a way to make his hammer bigger.

It was my Ape. Large Ape. Large Hammer.

Not a Druid. Cleric (Zarongel).

Ape has the feats: Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Additional Traits (Heirloom Weapon (Large Lucerne Hammer), Armor Expert).

PRD: "Animal companions with an Intelligence of 3 or higher can select any feat they are physically capable of using."

Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play: "Can I improve my companion’s Intelligence to 3 or higher and give it weapon feats?

Yes. Following the guidelines for animal companions as established on page 53 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, this is legal. Your companion must be physically capable of wielding the weapon (no tigers with longswords, for example). Bear in mind, however, that an animal’s natural attacks nearly always yield better results than spending feat slots and gold pieces to equip your companion."