Remeber, things will be switching up come 1.2 when Pathfinder goes live. I believe the term was 'talents' instead of feats.
Or "traits"?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Remeber, things will be switching up come 1.2 when Pathfinder goes live. I believe the term was 'talents' instead of feats.
Is it now the case that 1.2 won't be coming out till GenCon?? I have players that keep waiting to be allowed to use their faction shirt re-rolls, and they'll have to wait till August?? Gaarrr!
|
Is it now the case that 1.2 won't be coming out till GenCon?? I have players that keep waiting to be allowed to use their faction shirt re-rolls, and they'll have to wait till August?? Gaarrr!
Wait... You're denying your group faction rerolls just because it's not written in the guide? If you're using *any* of the MB rulings this should be the one!
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Is it now the case that 1.2 won't be coming out till GenCon?? I have players that keep waiting to be allowed to use their faction shirt re-rolls, and they'll have to wait till August?? Gaarrr!Wait... You're denying your group faction rerolls just because it's not written in the guide? If you're using *any* of the MB rulings this should be the one!
Yeah. That's been said enough places that it seems justified. Especially since those players have invested money to get their reroll. It's not like they're waiting to find out if their fighter legally gets a d20 instead of a d10 hit die. It's not gonna break the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Wait... You're denying your group faction rerolls just because it's not written in the guide? If you're using *any* of the MB rulings this should be the one!
Yeah. That's been said enough places that it seems justified. Especially since those players have invested money to get their reroll. It's not like they're waiting to find out if their fighter legally gets a d20 instead of a d10 hit die. It's not gonna break the game.
Yep. Josh's philosophy has been: keep things fair among tables. For example, don't use the critical / fumble deck or any of the alternative class features in the Campaign Setting because other tables don't have access to those products, even if players invested money in them.
So, in line with that principle, I use official rules: the 3.5 Core Rulebooks, the equipment and gods of Golarion, and the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. (That list has been written in stone, and there's no "messageboard scuttlebutt" addendum.)
DMs and players who don't scour these boards don't know about the special rules for raise dead, or the t-shirts, or the limit of only one familiar/ animal companion / trained animal. I would be happy to use these, and I'm looking forward to the 1.2 PFS rules, when they become official and my players don't have to take my word on them.
(If there were a closed thread on this topic: Official PFS rule changes, which stated, in one place, unambiguously, all the rulings that will be coming out in 1.2, and that Josh would like us to implement now, that would work, too.)
Likewise, PFS is no place for my house rules, or for rules from the Pathfinder Beta that I think are particularly cool. Same principle.
And don't rewrite scenarios to make the combats easier or tougher, or to give away cooler magic items. Same principle.
The exception is in cases where the official rules are silent. Faction feats show up first and only in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and the rules don't say one way or the other whether faction feats are available for normal 1st level feats. In that case, I look here for the ruling. Likewise, there's no published guide to how fast animals can learn tricks, so I use the ruling presented here: one trick per scenario. That is to say, I think it's right for me to use the boards to clarify ambiguous situations, but not to go against the rules.
I realize that, on some level, this makes me a dink, but I honestly don't know any other way to be fair to both my players and the OP environment.
The exception is in cases where the official rules are silent. Faction feats show up first and only in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and the rules don't say one way or the other whether faction feats are available for normal 1st level feats. In that case, I look here for the ruling.
That bit I don't get. What it says in the PFS guidelines seems pretty clear to me: you can take one whenever you can pick a new feat, which includes picking new feats at level 1. The only place it says you can't do that is on this message board.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That bit I don't get. What it says in the PFS guidelines seems pretty clear to me: you can take one whenever you can pick a new feat, which includes picking new feats at level 1. The only place it says you can't do that is on this message board.
I think that's a reasonable default interpretation, hogarth.
Let's pretend I'm in an arguing mood. In that case, I'd reply with:
I suppose that I've never seen the word "new" applied to any aspect of beginning characters. Their strength score isn't their "new Strength", their armor isn't their "new armor", and their feats aren't "new feats". The word only seems to apply to things that change as the character progresses.
But, really, man. If I didn't know that Josh makes a distinction here between starting feats and acquired feats, I would agree with your interpretation without a second thought.
But, really, man. If I didn't know that Josh makes a distinction here between starting feats and aquired feats, I would agree with your interpretation without a second thought.
I guess it's the difference between instituting a new rule (e.g. T-shirt = reroll) and clarifying an existing rule (e.g. when can I take a faction feat?). But it still seems strange (to me) that you would rely on the message board for one and not the other.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Fair enough; I may not be explaining myself well. If a player asks about how long it would take to train an animal her character purchased, I look around for some guidance, and --all things being equal-- I should use the guidelines listed here.
Rule changes are different.
But let's say she's playing a wizard /druid and already has both a familiar and an animal companion. Her previous DM hadn't read the rules that say she's only allowed one animal, and so she bought the third critter and invested money and time in training it.
She knows that the only rules in effect are (all together now) the 3.5 Core Rules, the equipment and gods of the Campaign Setting, and the GtPFSOP. However, if I follow the rules changes I see here, I impose new restrictions on her character, with nothing to back it up other than "I read it on the internet." I ask her which she wants her character to keep: the familiar or the animal companion. (And whichever one she dismisses, she'll have to wait a full year to summon a replacement.) I tell her to cross off the other one and I write in her chronicle that she no longer has the animal she purchased.
Or, should I implement only those rules changes my players like, and ignore the ones that place them at a disadvantage?
Or, should I implement only those rules changes my players like, and ignore the ones that place them at a disadvantage?
If I were DMing, I would either go with (1) my best judgment based on the document only, or (2) whatever ruling I read on the internet, but not both. YMMV, of course.
|
|
I ask her which she wants her character to keep: the familiar or the animal companion. (And whichever one she dismisses, she'll have to wait a full year to summon a replacement.) I tell her to cross off the other one and I write in her chronicle that she no longer has the animal she purchased.
I think I see your problem. You're having a problem interpreting the rules as Mr. Frost has clearly said that it's one fighting animal. Technically a character can keep the familiar, the companion, and additional animal as long as only one is involved in fighting. Most often familiars aren't combatants and not subject the the rule.
In my groups some of the people look to the boards and ask me about rulings, and if I don't have a satisfactory answer I come here and look, or ask, then come back with a final ruling.
Incidentally this has lead to a couple players asking about where to find Onyx...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
NotMousse, before I address your posts, I wanted to express my appreciation for the care you and hogarth --and y8mh-all have put into patiently trying to explain your position and the courtesy that you've shown. It's nice to have people disagree with me while still demonstrating what respectful discourse looks like.
Oddly enough the rules are silent on if anyone gets free rerolls for owning faction shirts. I'd suggest allowing them as Josh had said in another thread..
This strikes me as a "new rules" rather than a "rules clarification" question. If you were to ask me where I draw the line, I'd point to something like "Sage Advice". If someone were to have asked the Sage about how fast an animal can be trained, and the Sage replied "one trick per scenario", that would be a plausible rules clarification. And clarifying rules is what "Sage Advice" was supposed to do..
If, on the other hand, someone were to ask, "What's the deal with blue dice?" and the Sage replied, ex nihilo "Anybody rolling blue dice gets an untyped +1 bonus to all saves," then I think that would be a new rule for the game, rather than a clarification.
Shirts are more like that.
I think I see your problem. You're having a problem interpreting the rules as Mr. Frost has clearly said that it's one fighting animal. Technically a character can keep the familiar, the companion, and additional animal as long as only one is involved in fighting. Most often familiars aren't combatants and not subject the the rule.
That's not the ruling from Josh I have on the screen in front of me. I must apologize; one of us is working from incorrect information. Which, better than anything else, proves my point. If you were the player in question, if I were trying to follow rules I've read here, as best I could remember them, I would have forced you to - dismiss your familiar (which you would not be able to resummon for a year), and lose your purchased attack dog, and you would have had to trust me, because I "read it on the internet"; and, as you understand the ruling, I would have been wrong.
As an aside:
If I were a player and were told that my animal companion or familiar could no longer participate in combat, I might justifiably want to exchange my current viper familiar / wolf companion for a different animal to better fit the new role. Again, that takes a year and a day. If the trained heavy warhorse were killed, then would the wolf suddenly come back? Does the player decide on an act-by-act basis which animal is allowed to fight?
To some extent, yes, I'm having a problem interpreting the rules. The rule that I'm choosing to follow is principled and fair and clearly spelled out: the DM follows the Core Rules, the gods and equipment section of the Campaign Setting, and the GtPFSOP.
|
|
I'll skip the Sage Advice comments; he's been considered wrong by far too many people I trust on the rules to take him seriously. But just so you know Mr. Frost has explicitly stated rerolls are allowed.
The t-shirt "system" will be codified in the next update. But, yes, if you wear your faction's shirt you can re-roll one dice roll before the result is determined per scenario session.
That quote can be found here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/shirtBonus
Of course there's no PFS nazis running around telling you how to run your game and you can do as you please. Personally I think it'd a prick move, especially if it's widely known for this feature, and several got their shirts just to do so.
That's not the ruling from Josh I have on the screen in front of me.
Here's the intent: You can have one animal with you in combat. The rest have to be non-combatants.
That quote can be found here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/nonBoundAnimals&page=last
...dismiss your familiar (which you would not be able to resummon for a year)...
This issue will be addressed in v1.2, but there are no penalties for losing a familiar or animal companion (including the Paladin's mount). Since the time between scenarios is typically mercurial, you are able to acquire a new familiar, paladin mount, or animal companion between scenarios without time loss, XP loss, etc.
That quote can be found here: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/dismissedDeadFamiliarsHowToMeasureAYearAndADay
because I "read it on the internet"; and, as you understand the ruling, I would have been wrong.
And we being reasonable adults would come up with something on the spot, then each research our arguments to convince the other. Granted in my scenario I'd be right because I keep tabs on these.
The great thing about this forum is that it's open to all, even those without access to the books.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
NotMousse, you're terrific. In particular, I really appreciate the way you cite specific sources. If more people did that on the internet, well, it probably wouldn't be the internet.
I'll skip the Sage Advice comments; he's been considered wrong by far too many people I trust on the rules to take him seriously. But just so you know Mr. Frost has explicitly stated rerolls are allowed.
My reference to Sage Advice was to illustrate what I meant by a "rules clarification". It didn't have much to do with the column's accuracy.
Of course... you can do as you please. Personally I think it'd a prick move, especially if it's widely known for this feature, and several got their shirts just to do so.
Fair enough. You got the same kind of heat regarding your position on PCs creating undead a while ago, so I know you can appreciate the fact that I don't take this lightly. As I stated upthread, I would really like this to be somewhere official, so I can implement it.
Your next quotation is an excellent example:
Here's the intent: You can have one animal with you in combat. The rest have to be non-combatants.
The rule I was looking at was in the same thread, at the top, where Josh noted that animal companions and familiars did indeed count against the one-animal limit.
Later on in the thread, he posted the passage you quoted above. And then, in the last post in that thread, Josh comes on again and says that the matter deserves some more thought and consideration.
NotMousse, there is not currently a definitive ruling on this topic. Sure, we can agree to disagree, but if I'm the GM, and require you to give up your bought-and-trained animal because of what I think are the rules, you still walk away from that session with a note on your chronicle sheet, and your next GM may have read the same post I did.
For an Organized Play environment to work there needs to be a well-defined set of rules reference documents, and official rules can't be hidden throughout over a hundred threads on these message boards.
And right now, there is a well-defined set of rules reference documents. It doesn't include the alternate class features in the Campaign Setting. It doesn't include the cool stuff in the SRD. It doesn't include a lot of very nice changes from the Pathfinder Beta ruleset. And it doesn't include new rules on the messageboards, which may or may not be current or superseded by other rulings. In the ruleset that the GtPFSOP tells us to use, the rule is: buy as many animals as you care to spend money on.
This issue will be addressed in v1.2, but there are no penalties for losing a familiar or animal companion (including the Paladin's mount). Since the time between scenarios is typically mercurial, you are able to acquire a new familiar, paladin mount, or animal companion between scenarios without time loss, XP loss, etc.
Thank you again for both the quotation and citation. It seems like a good rule change, which I look forward to using as soon as possible. (Presumably familiars would still need to be summoned, which costs 100 gold; this, to serve as a brake against arcane casters mixing and matching to get just the right familiar to benefit a particular scenario.) (And presumably, any new animal companions a druid gains know only their 1 or 2 bonus tricks.)
|
|
NotMousse, you're terrific. In particular, I really appreciate the way you cite specific sources. If more people did that on the internet, well, it probably wouldn't be the internet.
Hey man, you're killing my rep.
As I stated upthread, I would really like this to be somewhere official, so I can implement it.
I suppose I can see that. I was hoping the MB rulings thread would get some support from Mr Frost, or help from others who saw their own questions answered.
Later on in the thread, he posted the passage you quoted above. And then, in the last post in that thread, Josh comes on again and says that the matter deserves some more thought and consideration.
I'm sure he's talking about the comments below his penultimate post, asking for more lenient restrictions, and that what I posted are his final comments on the matter till August.
Sure, we can agree to disagree, but if I'm the GM, and require you to give up your bought-and-trained animal because of what I think are the rules, you still walk away from that session with a note on your chronicle sheet, and your next GM may have read the same post I did.
The handling of 'not kosher' items is perhaps an issue unto itself. Personally I offer the character full gold for anything they've accidentally purchased. As for dismissing familiars and companions it's a lot easier if you accept Mr Frost's comments as above.
As I stated upthread, I would really like this to be somewhere official, so I can implement it.
Amen! Even an official FAQ posted on the website would be extremely useful.
|
|
What happens if you get a disease or something similiar? My character failed his fort save in PFS #13 and we don't have a cleric high enough yet to cast remove disease. How is stuff like that handled?
Three options. One, if the party has a PC with ranks in the heal skill they can attempt a heal check to treat your disease at the end of the adventure. Consult the Heal skill in the Player's handbook. Now diseases typically have to incubate for a number of days before they take effect. It's assumed that this PC healer would have to have a reason to give long-term care to your PC. My Taldan bard caught filth fever but she's such a nasty shrew that our party's cleric told her to get bent. She had to use option two, which is to go to a temple or shrine and pay an NPC cleric 150GP to cast 'remove disease' on her. She deserved it though. A third option would be to suffer through the disease until it runs its course. That has never been tried to my knowledge :)
|
|
Also, in reference to the disease question I wanted to expand and clarify my answer:
Your DM should make a notation on your Chronicle sheet that you contracted filth fever, along with how many days pass before it becomes evident you're diseased. If you want to play really honestly, you would have to suffer a day's worth of ability damage before you realized there was something wrong. By then you might be headed to your next Pathfinder Society mission. I think that would be really good role-playing, to start a Scenario suffering through filth fever... No one is going to want to get near you. You should get a circumstance bonus to Intimidate if you cough on people. But I digress...
Filth fever causes 1d3 Dex damage and 1d3 Con damage *per day*. Each day after the initial outbreak (i.e. after the damage is suffered) you have to make another Fortitude save. If you fail the save, you take an additional 1d3 Dex and 1d3 Con damage. If you make the save you don't lose any ability points but you're still diseased. The next day you have to make a Fort save again. If you make it, you've made two saves in a row and you've successfully fought off the disease (DMG 292). If you can't make two saves in a row you will continue to lose Constitution until you find yourself touring Pharasma's Boneyard.
Even receiving long-term care from a healer isn't a sure thing. Per the DMG, the Heal check is made simultaneously with your daily saving throw. That way if the healer fails the check you still have a chance to recover on your own, although the healer will probably still claim the credit. Either way there would have to be two successful Heal checks/saving throws in a row to definitively treat/recover from the disease. Does that make sense?
Points lost to ability damage are regained at 1 point per day (or 2 points with complete bed rest) to each ability. Make sure that whoever the DM is makes a note on the appropriate Chronicle that you recovered from the disease. And if he ever mentions it in front of anyone else you can report him for a HIPAA violation.
Is the rule about one animal companion/familiar/fighting animals a valid ruling or just something that will be included in the 1.2 PFSG? Are any of the posts by Mr. Frost considered binding or do we wait until the 1.2 rules come out?
Yes. =)
|
|
Is the rule about one animal companion/familiar/fighting animals a valid ruling or just something that will be included in the 1.2 PFSG? Are any of the posts by Mr. Frost considered binding or do we wait until the 1.2 rules come out?
Till the rules are written this is just clarification of intent. You may or may not use them as you see fit.
We really need Mr. Frost to do an errata/new rules/rules clarification thread.
Or, even better, a FAQ that isn't buried inside a message board post...
|
|
NotMousse seems to be up on the rules changes and the errata and his MB thread is actually short, sweet and to the point.
Enough people have a problem with me (one wanting to come to AZ and protest me as a GM) that my thread's not getting the blessing of jack squat. I agree there should be a single location for the info, it would lend a great speed to the info digging process.
BTW From my understanding 1.2 was due at GenCon, but I could be misremembering.
Being the only one at Paizo working on the Society has its ups and its downs. Among its downs is how I prioritize the order in which issues get tackled. v1.2 has had to be at the bottom of that list since I need to get scenarios out on time and I need to also put on my other hat and get Paizo prepped for PAIZOCON and Gen Con. In all likelihood, v1.2 is most likely to be simply v2.0. I still intend to use the GMs who volunteered to offer their eyes for a read-through of the next rules update for the Society, but I'll be using their services later than I wanted. I've tried to never put a hard date on the release of v1.2 since I simply don't know when I can get to it. Rest-assured I read these boards daily and keep a running word document with every issue that needs to be addressed in the next update. I've been compiling this document since day 1. In the end, it's important to remember that Season 0 is our *playtest* season and no one should expect us (and by us, I mean me) to get everything right the first try in a playtest season. Hopefully, I'll get nearly everything right with Season 1 and the new rules set. :-)
|
|
Hopefully, I'll get nearly everything right with Season 1 and the new rules set. :-)
Josh
You will find there is no 'right' way to do things. As with all 'Living' games an evolution will take place. You have covered a number of issues and it is shaping up nicely. Keep up the good work
Rich
PFS in NYC
Co-coordinator
Hopefully, I'll get nearly everything right with Season 1 and the new rules set. :-)Josh
You will find there is no 'right' way to do things.
Hence the smiley face. :-)
The work that would go into a thread like that might as well just be used to write v1.2 or v2.0. Once I have the next rule set established, I *will* sticky a FAQ in this forum. For now, though, I need to find a baseline and that baseline is going to be the next official rules update.