Buzzcop's page

Hello fellow pathfinders, I am currently DMing a Skull and Shackles campaign and the party is nearing level 10. One of the players, a cavalier, has expressed interest in the Mammoth Rider prestige class, but with an aquatic mount. He is currently riding a modified swordfish that he and I brewed up together, but not sure what animal would be an appropriate / balanced huge aquatic companion if he does decide to try that route. Anyone have some advice on which creatures would lend themselves to such a sweet killer concept, or should would simply "bulking up" his swordfish to huge size be the way to go? Thanks in advance!

So, it looks like some VO somewhere has decided to make up an home rule inflict it on his local players (link if you missed it). At what point folk given inordinate authority get checks placed on them?

I realize its probably not necessary in this case (assuming the unnamed VO is receptive to correction from the campaign staff), but I think it raises an interesting question. Most of the time I see any criticism of the campaign staff squashed and eddied away. I am distressed at the culture of authoritarianism I see growing.

Speaking as someone who plays in the same area as the post you are linking to, I can assure you that in no way is the VC "making up a home rule to inflict on his local players". I don't want any sort of can of worms drama, but suffice to say he is very open to people correcting his misrulings, and no one is perfect. In the past some players took advantage of that and were deliberately giving false information on rulings and so now he just makes sure that if you think he is wrong he would like you to point it out in the book or on the forums.

Buzzcop wrote:

Out of curiosity, how did you come by this philosophy, cause in the scenarios I have ran, the novels I have read, and the various NPC's I have encountered, this is 100% backwards in my PFS experience.

They're probably neutral and have made peace with (or justified) their actions. In Golarion, and therefore in PFS, Undead are always evil. Creating them is always an evil action. You can justify it to yourself however you want, but in Golarion good and evil are not subjective.

Maybe you are right about most beings in Golarion being Neutral, afterall the majority of the Iconics are, but on the other issue, I would love to see some RAW about creating undead being an evil action. Yes the zombie detects as evil, but I cannot seem to find anything about the act of creating one constituting an evil action.

Prindlemire wrote:

So it's actually Paizo itself that has inspired this bigotry against the undead? It seems a somewhat simplistic view on a complex topic.

Sure.. there are many of these creatures.. particularly those who have hungers for flesh and serve no good purposes.. that commit acts that might be construed to be 'evil' by some.. but when the dead are called upon by a goodly master.. or at least a neutral one with good tendencies... and asked to act in righteous causes. How could they then be considered 'evil'?

There are rather famous stories that make use of the dead to win the day for virtuous purposes.

The ends don't justify the means, utilitarianism is not good in PFS. Altruism is the standard of what is good in PFS.

Out of curiosity, how did you come by this philosophy, cause in the scenarios I have ran, the novels I have read, and the various NPC's I have encountered, this is 100% backwards in my PFS experience.

Very rarely is an undead creature not evil. In fact, I can think of only one undead creature that I have ever seen published by Paizo that is not evil. Skeleton and Zombie Template make the animated creatures evil. All the creatures you can make with create undead are evil. How do you make a non-evil undead as a PC? Just because a faction creates undead doesn't mean that it is not evil.

See this is where I make a distinction between "Evil" as per that zombie detects as Evil because it was raised via negative energy into an unthinking engine of destruction and "evil" as in, that is a despicable act and you are a bad, terrible person.

Slave master's in Cheliax may very well not detect as "Evil", many being Neutral, but that does not mean that slavery is not an "evil" act, one that bring far more pain and suffering then the act of raising a zombie.

Some may disagree, but there needs to be a difference between the magical character sheet stat known as "Alignment" that can be detected via spells and actual functional day-to-day evil acts. Just saying, if it is PFS legal to own a slave I would think that forcing another living thinking feeling being to do work against their will for yah is a way more heinous-evil act then getting some negatively charged compost to crack some bad guy skulls for yah. Especially when said compost detects as Evil solely due to how necromancy works and not the actions that the caster or corpse took.

Actually, Prindlemire, what you are doing is severing their soul's last connection to their body (or some variation on that, hence why animate dead prevents raise dead or speak with dead being cast on that person.) So it's not like the soul has gone on to other business.

That is one interpretation. Another one is that they cannot be raised because their body is being "Necro-jacked" by negative energy and the soul simply cannot be called back into such a vessel without being harmed. Same case with death effects, does not mean the soul has not moved on. Course none of this is official just roleplaying interpretations ;D.

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Prindlemire wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

1) raising an unholy mockery of life with the living embodiment of evil given physical form.

This really seems to be a matter of personal opinion... one man's mockery is another's tribute. Besides.. they're dead... soul is gone on to other business... it's really just the mundane earthy stuff that's involved here.

Isn't PFS set in Golarion where all undead are evil?

Nope, Juju Oracles, Various Mwanji npc's, and the entire country of Osiron disagrees with you good wolf

Buzzcop wrote:

I am not simply disagreeing with you because I am an obstinate stubborn blockhead who refuses to see the might of your infallible logic.

I had to post again, because this literally made me lol. Woke up my wife and everything. :D

My argument had neither strength nor weakness, because I was simply stating what the rule is. Your wanting it to be different, and your feeling that it should be different, does not make it so.

Personally, I hate the idea of recyclable animal companions. I personally feel that your proposed variant would lead to more recycling of animal companions, but with the added ability to pretend it wasn't happening. I'm sure my feelings on the matter colored my response, but the response would be the same nonetheless. I have made it, and you will not be swayed by it, so neither of us gains from repeating it.

Well glad I brightened your day a bit! Maybe you are right and this comes down to differing interpretations and individual variation. Have a good night.

Edit: Just noticed I'm responding to a different poster, so sorry for the confusion but my position still stands.

You're telling me there is no difference, I'm telling you there is a difference because it's not the same creature. You're telling me there is no mechanical difference, I'm telling you there is a difference in tricks known. You're telling me there is no difference that matters, and I'm telling you I'm done with this conversation.

I'm not giving you the answer you want, and you'll not accept any other.

Try reading my 3rd post. I am not simply disagreeing with you because I am an obstinate stubborn blockhead who refuses to see the might of your infallible logic. Don't try and shut down discussion by pretending someone who disagrees with you is unwilling to be flexible with their opinions or ideas. I just think your argument is weak, and so far, you have repeated the same thing in every post, with either myself or the OP posting why we disagree with your point.

If getting a new animal companion is "anti-fun" for you, then I guess you're just stuck with the current one.

If you get a new one, it can't possibly have the "memories" of the old one, because it comes to you with only its "bonus trick" tricks known. You can only teach it one trick per chronicle per rank you have in handle animal, and failed checks still count as one attempt per chronicle.

So fine, take your Fluffy II and call it Fluffy. And when someone asks why Fluffy II forgot how to _______, you can say it's because...

No you misunderstand. I don't think getting a new animal companion is anti-fun. I'm saying your attitude towards the animal keeping the memories is. If the player wants to role play that way, and it does not harm any mechanics of the game, then it is "anti-fun" of you to be so literal and rain on the players parade. I understand that after doing the whole "catch and release" thing its not the same exact animal. But why cant the player, for role playings sake, just use the catch and release rules to change what the animal is mechanically, but role playing wise, keep the memories etc?

Of course retraining doesn't change who or what you are. (Unless you're talking about the total transformation allowed prior to second level.)

And, as you say, there are no rules like that for animal companions. But, as you also point out, you can replace them for free. Now, why can you not replace your companion with itself? Because...

Edit: If you want to fight for retraining rules for animal companions, I will fully support that goal. But you can't get a new pet, name it Fluffy II, and claim that it's still Fluffy I. Because it isn't. There are people who do that in real life. Do you want to be one of those people?

This is a game of PFS and I seem to recall somewhere in the Guide to organized play something about having fun. RP wise it sounds great. Fun wise it sounds great. Changes nothing mechanically, only argument against it is "because its not the same creature". Yes, literally by the mechanical rules it is not, but well... so what.

Fun vs. Anti-fun, if it hurts no one and no one feels excluded by its inclusion then let it be and let people enjoy themselves.

EDIT: and because it changes nothing that will actually impact the game mechanically of course.

Well, this is the point. Because mechanically it makes no difference to dismiss and get a new animal companion, and "retrain" the animal companion while having it be the same individual, why can't people just do the latter?

Sorry if I ruffle some people the wrong way, but not allowing this sort of thing to me is just silly. It harms nothing, brings more fun to the game to the one person who truly cares, the player with the companion, and the only arguments I ever read against it revolve around what seems to be me, needless anti-fun.

To sum it up, no reason to not allow it.

I would like some clarification on this as well, as the poisons from the rival guide (such as cockatrice spit) would add some much needed diversity to poison users.

I don't have UC. I'm looking at the PRD. Is that in the ninja description? In either case, I still don't see why a *rogue* would be able to take a *ninja* trick.

Just one of the many new Rogue talents introduced in Ultimate Combat, no archetype required just additional talents to pick from.

Thanks everyone.

Yes, PG 70 of ultimate combat. Ninja Trick.

The subject line is pretty much the whole question. Can I use Rogue talent to pick up a ninja talent, in this case Combat Trick, if I already have Combat Trick under my Rogue Talents? Both abilities state that you can not pick a trick more than once unless otherwise noted, so I was curious if this was a legitimate way of obtaining 2 combat feats.

Well there is always Magus and it's various archetypes