Adjudicating Rules Interactions Options: Aasimar Lunar Oracle

PFS does not allow house rules.

PFS does however allow GMs to adjudicate a rules interactions.

So, in the case of an Aasimar with a favored class oracle:

Using the ARG alternate favored class benefit for oracle, they can have an effective oracle level of 150% their true oracle level for one revelation.
By choosing Lunar Oracle, they can gain an animal companion as a revelation.

By RAW, they can have an animal companion at 150% power.

Obviously in PFS a GM cannot house rule that players cannot have an animal companion calculated at an effective class level higher than your actual character level.

However a GM is still allowed to 'adjudicate rules interactions'. It's generally considered permissible (at PFS tables) to disallow Dhampirs from being healed by a paladin Lay On Hands, even though the "By RAW" argument there's no reason they couldn't be (LoH is never mentioned to be positive energy). In fact, the "By RAW it's legal" argument is seen as being rules lawyer-y on behalf of the player rather than a GM overstepping his bounds by 'changing the RAW rules".

I'm not trying to rehash that argument; I bring it up because it's precedent that a PFS GM is not required to agree to strict RAW, especially when the GM is insisting that the RAW suffers from omission of a reasonably assumed relevant caveat or clause.

So, is PFS GM within his authority to adjudicate the rules interaction of aasimar oracle favored class and animal companion revelation RAW rules as 'clearly omitted an intended caveat/consideration' about effective oracle level not exceeding true character level?

If not, is a PFS GM then authorized to disallow such an aasimar lunar oracle from being played at a table when his animal companion is appropriate to a character level that is out level for the scenario?

This has already been answered, but it has yet to be added to the FAQ.

This has already been answered, but it has yet to be added to the FAQ.

I found it unlikely that noone had asked about this particular interaction before but couldn't find anything about it.

Thanks for the link.

Check the CRB FAQ on the LoH, as it has been clarified to be positive energy. Dhampirs can not be healed by it.

In regards to the animal companion, search John Compton's post, as he made a ruling in regards to that some months back. I can't remember exactly what the ruling was, but I know it did allow a slight bump above actual level though I'm not sure where the limit was set.

EDIT:

Ninja's on the one, but here's the FAQ for LoH.

Check the CRB FAQ on the LoH, as it has been clarified to be positive energy. Dhampirs can not be healed by it.

Ah, they finally added that? I like to think I had a hand in that finally getting on the FAQ

Still, I think my example remains. When RAW is 'obviously' missing a caveat or limiting consideration, even if only in the eyes of the GM(s), it's still legal in PFS OP to add that RAI to the RAW even before it's formally errata'd/faq'd.

Or to say it another way, a player riding that "but technically/RAW it's legal.." razor's edge has to expect table variation rather than expecting that the GM has to go along with it.

Unfortunately, I believe that as long as its RAW we can't as individual GMs change/disallow it even if we know it isn't right RAI. We can ask the player that since it seems an obvious abuse of the rules to tone it down/not use it, but we can't outright ban/change it at our tables.

Just like the Mysterious Stranger/Pistolero guntraining loophole that existed for so long. It was technically legal RAW, but anyone with common sense knew it shouldn't be. If something is really badly screwed up RAW, make sure the VOs/Mike/John are informed about it. We do point them out and changes have been made because of it.

Still, I think my example remains. When RAW is 'obviously' missing a caveat or limiting consideration, even if only in the eyes of the GM(s), it's still legal in PFS OP to add that RAI to the RAW even before it's formally errata'd/faq'd.

Or to say it another way, a player riding that "but technically/RAW it's legal.." razor's edge has to expect table variation rather than expecting that the GM has to go along with it.

No, that's not the takeaway here. Rather, what we've learned is that if something is suspicious, the Design Team might make a FAQ/errata. And if something is overpowered, PFS leadership might throttle it down.

Note how in both cases the resolution involved something official, not individual GMs deciding that X should work differently than it says it works.

So basically, the opposite of what you're saying.

Note how in both cases the resolution involved something official, not individual GMs deciding that X should work differently than it says it works.

So basically, the opposite of what you're saying.

Table rulings had to be made in the interim Jiggy. The fact that rulings might be made does not mean the GM cannot make a ruling in the meantime.

Majuba,

You're right. But consider this: if table GMs make table rulings that the RAW cannot possibly mean what they say -- and that's certainly been the case here and there (see penalty for shooting while prone) -- and the game goes smoothly, then it's less likely that a stink will get back to the development team, and the issue adjudicated or "clarified".

So, if you apply the rules, even when you think they're wrong, that puts more force behind the decision to fix them. If you modify the rule, then you're "releasing steam" and cooling down an issue, slowing down the revision process.

I'm not entirely convinced of that argument, myself. It sounds like "Well, it sucks that you, my friend, are a victim of this ruling, but once we pile enough victims on the altar of Rules Forum FAQ Resquests, we will be able to call the attention of the Development Gods with our sacrifice."

One other issue: if you revise the rules, and the next table GM revises the rules, then the player will naturally expect the rules to be sort of revised. So you're making it a lot harder on the GM next month, who is doing his best, but adheres to the letter of that law, because that's what he understands is expected of PFS GMs.

I have some experience with this.

Good points Chris - raising a stink over strict readings of the rules (often senselessly strict, but not always) can help get things done. Fortunately, we have hard-nosed players/GMs who will insist on it, while the rest of us can enjoy common sense until it's ruled (whether toward or from common sense).

I have some experience with it myself, and always make as clear as possible to everyone witnessing it both what the issue is, and what my ruling is. Can be time-consuming though.

Jiggy wrote:

Note how in both cases the resolution involved something official, not individual GMs deciding that X should work differently than it says it works.

So basically, the opposite of what you're saying.

Table rulings had to be made in the interim Jiggy.

Did they?

What part of the aasimar oracle's FCB was sufficiently unclear that a PC would require a table ruling in order to function? If a GM didn't make a table ruling, would the PC not have been able to be played?

Sometimes, there are topics that really do require a table ruling:
"Did that count as interacting with the illusion?"
"What can I ask this charmed guy to do without granting another save?"
"Is this particular enchantment blocked by protection from evil?"

Those are all things where you have to have an answer in order to continue the game at all, and the answer is not clearly given by the rules. That's when you need a table ruling.

But the aasimar FCB is not such a case. It's an ability that is 100% clear in how it works. Lots of people didn't like it, but that is not sufficient cause to make a "table ruling".

A table ruling is for filling in gaps in the rules so the game can proceed. A table ruling that simply overturns a clear rule because the GM doesn't like it is a house rule and is inappropriate for PFS.

To put it another way, a GM who (prior to John's PFS adjustment) decided they didn't like that FCB and declared it to work differently than written; and a GM who (after John's PFS adjustment) decided they didn't like John's adjustment and declared it to work as written; both GMs are applying houserules, not making "table rulings", and neither GM is behaving appropriately for sanctioned PFS events.

what is so difficult with run as written?

Honestly I can understand mistakes, misreadings and vagueness, but why do people feel they need to make changes?

To answer the original question...

No, you cannot house rule Aasimar Oracles (or any legal build you dislike) out of PFS.

For reference, here is the exact text from the GtoP:

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and

responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the
rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure
everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not
mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in
this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com.
What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right
for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

You can make any necessary calls, when there is an absence of rules one way or the other. If there is a rule, you cannot say "that isn't what they meant to say" and change the rule. However, If you felt it would be more fun for the table, and it didn't go against the proscribed tactics, you could have enemies focus their heavy damage attacks against the wall o meat companion who could absorb them. Or you could have enemies spread out so that it takes the slice-o-matic companion longer to go through them, leaving more targets for the other players.

(I would just like to point out by the way, that as a player, I like having someone else at the table play a sliceomatic kill bot. Then I can play one of my less optomised but more roleplay intensive characters and have a lot more fun at the table. So I would like it if GMs would stop complaining about how the power gamers are taking my fun away, cause they aren't)

.....

(I would just like to point out by the way, that as a player, I like having someone else at the table play a sliceomatic kill bot. Then I can play one of my less optomised but more roleplay intensive characters and have a lot more fun at the table. So I would like it if GMs would stop complaining about how the power gamers are taking my fun away, cause they aren't)

this is so true for me too....

If a player at my table has a PC that can kill the beasties in 0.666 melee rounds, it'll give me more "bar-maid time". And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for them! I'll run the investagater that does the Gather Info rolls, that removes the traps that warns the BBEG we're coming, that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it.