"Ribbons, you're my bestest friend and soulmate, but I'm going to send you to be torn to pieces first thing every day and then replace you with no-name animals."
Except it`s clear that the Eidolon is not in fact a discrete/independent entity with which one would form sentimental attachments, it`s the temporary and shifting PROJECTION of amorpheous ¨powers¨ which the Summoner taps into/ forms according to his will. I don`t usually hear Wizards cry when their Fireball`s expire after 1 round. I would say that the design intent is for the Eidolon to not be kept in a backpack until it`s tougher, because no rational Summoner would have a problem with using their Eidolon (focused energy) until it ¨dies¨ (if that best protects the summoner themself), i.e. not much different than a Wizard expending their highest spell slot.
The fact that it to some extent models after Animal Companions is meta-gaming as to it`s party role, not a model for how one relates to it (which is your invention/preference anyways, Animal Companions are easily replaced, i.e. the design is not discouraging you from using them as expendable cannon fodder - I say that as somebody who usually plays PC`s with Companions in a reasonably protective way).
Anyhow, clearly a complaint with the design of the Core Rules themselves, not something specific to PFS which Josh needs to spend his time answering. PFS is based on PRPG. If you can`t stand PRPG, you probably won`t like PFS, and that isn`t going to change.
I think it's fair to assume that the eidolon will function flavor-wise as the player wishes it to. My summoner in Sean's game, for example, sees his eidolon as nothing more than a tool. In fact, in his back-story, it took 20 tries to get his eidolon and so his eidolon is named 20. He cares not a whit for his eidolon's feeling's or anything of that sort--he's just a tool, like fireball is a tool.
It's totally acceptable for a player to take the reverse position and say, "My eidolon is my best friend" and treat his eidolon as such.
Neither of these flavor choices have any impact on the RAW for the eidolon and the summoner, though, and this element of the discussion has escaped the bounds of the FAQ.
Back to the original point: you calculate an eidolon's HP the same as an animal companion. Average die (5.5 for the eidolon) + Con modifiers + relevant feats/spells/etc.
|
Stuff about eidolon's...I think if you play around with eilodon builds a bit more you'll discover that there's little not to like about them--unless you're the frustrated GM whose monsters are being annihilated ;)
I find this interesting, in the sense that my experience as a GM I have had the opposite experience. We have a player whose summoner's eidolon gets one round in before I destroy it and he loses it for the day. Not intentionally, just works out that way.
Aaahhh, Good times!
|
Eidolons spend a good chunk of the early levels, in my experience, as glass canons.Is that intentional? I've never liked the concept of the glass cannon, it tends to be almost impossible to balance due to bad statistics. Bodaks, for example, are just horrible game design IMHO.
Anyway, for the summoner, I would have expected the eidolon to be something like his constant companion, like the druid's animal companion, with the difference that the druid is a full caster and therefore less reliant on his pet. One could argue that the eidolon is expendable because it regenerates and can be substituted with the SM ability, but where is the flavor in that? "Ribbons, you're my bestest friend and soulmate, but I'm going to send you to be torn to pieces first thing every day and then replace you with no-name animals." Surely it's not intended that eidolons should be kept in the backpack like familiars until they grow Large?
Having played a summoner for awhile and seen another player at my PFS group play a Summoner up to 8th (perhaps 9th by now) level, I beg to differ. The eidolon is still a great deal more flexible and autonomous than an animal companion even at first level, especially now that Unfetter is in play. I'm not going to go into full discussion of builds here because this is not the place. However, from experience, I assure you an Eidolon with thought put into its build is perfectly viable at low levels in PFS.
It is not going to be fully on par with a fighter/paladin/cavalier/armor-jockey-of-choice in terms of tanking all on it's own; doing so would be insult to PCs of those classes trying to fill said role.
|
Sorry to derail the thread, and thanks for answering my question.
Eidolons are individual, persistent entities rather than a momentary projection of energy. From the APG, page 55:
A summoner begins
play with the ability to summon to
his side a powerful outsider called
an eidolon. The eidolon forms a link
with the summoner, who, forever after,
summons an aspect of the same creature.
Anyway, I think I will play with the best friend mindset. The character's parents died when he was a child, and he fled into an "imaginary friend" fantasy focused on his rag doll monster Ribbons. He was about to be sent into an asylum until other people starting seeing "visions" of Ribbons. Turns out the kid's raw arcane potential attracted an outsider's attention...
Eidolons spend a good chunk of the early levels, in my experience, as glass canons.
Since eidolons grow at the same rate as the summoner and don't have a bunch of HD to start, unlike some animal companions and familiars, shouldn't they at least get the max HP at first level the same way our characters do?
On a non-eidolon note, is the Pathfinder sign language which appears in Prince of Wolves a legal choice for a bonus language in PFS?
As it doesn't appear in a currently legal for play source, no. :-)
|
On a non-eidolon note, is the Pathfinder sign language which appears in Prince of Wolves a legal choice for a bonus language in PFS?As it doesn't appear in a currently legal for play source, no. :-)
It is mentioned on page 25 of Seekers of Secrets...
Pathfinders have a variety of gestures used to communicate silently in dangerous situations, or subtly across a crowded room. Though rarely as versatile as a naturally evolved sign language, these gestures can prove invaluable, and every Pathfinder picks up a handful during training, most relating to combat, directions, and hazards,
often varying with the cohort of initiates to which a given Pathfinder belonged.
If it is rarely developed to the versatility of a naturally evolved sign language, then it does exist at that level.
I'm not sure where the post is, but it's just assumed Pathfinders know this. It's not a complete language (not even close), it's more akin to baseball signs or football hand signals or military hand signals for maneuvers and scouting and I can't imagine that taking a skill rank to select it like Undercommon would take, for example.
|
|
I'm not sure where the post is, but it's just assumed Pathfinders know this. It's not a complete language (not even close), it's more akin to baseball signs or football hand signals or military hand signals for maneuvers and scouting and I can't imagine that taking a skill rank to select it like Undercommon would take, for example.
Fair enough, I figured that the common gestures are known by all Pathfinders, but if you spent a point in linguistics you could develop it to a more comprehensive sign language. It does seem to imply that there is a much larger range of signs than most Pathfinders learn individually, based on the fact that different Pathfinders tend to pick up different gestures.
I'm not sure where the post is, but it's just assumed Pathfinders know this. It's not a complete language (not even close), it's more akin to baseball signs or football hand signals or military hand signals for maneuvers and scouting and I can't imagine that taking a skill rank to select it like Undercommon would take, for example.
Here is your post on this:
I don't see the slang of the lodge as a separate language. I see it as colloquial Common slang that most Pathfinders get. It has no mechanics, it's just flavor.
And the link to the post from back at the end of June.
And Josh, since you were not planning on being out of commission for a while after GenCon, how far behind schedule are the 3.1 version of the Guide and the official APG pregens?
The APG pregens should be up any day now and 3.1 is soon, but I'm not sure how soon.
A GM can still get credit for a scenario even if all of the players use pre-gens, correct?
A GM can still get credit for a scenario even if all of the players use pre-gens, correct?I should qualify my answer. Are you talking about GM credit for reporting a session, or for claiming a Chronicle as a GM Reward?
I'm interested in both, naturally.
|
A GM can still get credit for a scenario even if all of the players use pre-gens, correct?I should qualify my answer. Are you talking about GM credit for reporting a session, or for claiming a Chronicle as a GM Reward?
That is a very good question..
You should be allowed to Get GM Scenario Chronicle Credit for your Character even if everyone is a Pre-Gen, but you just report your character if the players don't want to keep the Pre Gen.
For Credit towards Stars....ummmm... If you can't claim credit for your character because you already claimed credit previously, and there are no reportable characters, I don't see a way you can add it into the system...
|
For Credit towards Stars....ummmm... If you can't claim credit for your character because you already claimed credit previously, and there are no reportable characters, I don't see a way you can add it into the system...
Which is a good limitation to note of the system. Regardless to how you feel about the GM PC credit system, the GM should always get their star credit if they successfully ran a game. What happens to the Gen Con GM who gets the table of all pregens (I had one table that was nearly this)?
|
|
A GM can still get credit for a scenario even if all of the players use pre-gens, correct?
I'd say yes to both considering that those players could potentially continue playing level 1 pregens past the first scenario you ran. Whether they do or not doesn't matter. Part of DMing for me is giving new players the little "ticket" with a new PFS #, so I'd simply do that for them and write down who took which numbers and report for that.
This does beg the question of "How/If you report a pregen above 1st level?" (I'd venture you still should report it, somehow)
|
Ok, I don't think people will like the answer to this, but here goes.
Report the game and report your GM reward for that game and you will get the count for your star.
I already know what your thinking.
1) It is a situation ripe for abuse. But that's how you do it.
2) What happens if you do have a character that's the right tier? Don't have an answer for you.
|
|
For Credit towards Stars....ummmm... If you can't claim credit for your character because you already claimed credit previously, and there are no reportable characters, I don't see a way you can add it into the system...Which is a good limitation to note of the system. Regardless to how you feel about the GM PC credit system, the GM should always get their star credit if they successfully ran a game. What happens to the Gen Con GM who gets the table of all pregens (I had one table that was nearly this)?
I had this happen at Paizocon 2009, I didn't think much of it and just ate the scenario. I wasn't really doing much PFS at the time though.
You can report the scenario "empty" and get credit. If the PCs played level 1 pregens and took numbers, go ahead and report them in case they play again.
And while reporting empty may be seen as ripe for abuse, I keep a very close eye on my 2-star or higher GMs and if I see someone rocket to the top with a bunch of empty sessions ... well, I'll deal with that if it happens. :-)
|
|
Josh, a question.
I noticed that the 1/2 orc racial trait "Brute" now has two versions (three actually,). The first from Taldor: Echoes of Glory gave the 1/2 orc +2 to intimidate. The second is in the APG and gives Intimidate as a class skill and only a +1 to the skill.
ON building new characters, which should now be used? (If the character was built before the APG it should be the Taldor version.)
The third version is in Orcs of Golarion, and not legal for play yet.
The Brute trait from the Taldor book and the Brute trait from the APG are supposed to be the same trait. Remember that the Taldor book was written early in the days of the traits system and it was also written in the 3.5 days of Paizo. I would say that the APG version is an official revised version of the trait. This makes me wonder now what other traits may have been adjusted in the APG. Also, the Brute trait in Orcs of Golarion was probably just a naming mistake and is meant to be a totally separate trait, seeing as how it is available to both half-orcs and full orcs and does something totally different from the other Brute trait.
|
|
Okay, I know the APG has been out for awhile but I finally sat down and flipped through its Uber goodness and discovered a trait I would like to pick up for my monk. Only question; is it legal to trade out one trait for another since he is 5th level right now. I'm going to say yes since there is no comment on this within the current edition of Organized Play Rules.
Waiting on Josh to rubber stamp this or bring the smackdown on this lowly player
|
|
Okay, I know the APG has been out for awhile but I finally sat down and flipped through its Uber goodness and discovered a trait I would like to pick up for my monk. Only question; is it legal to trade out one trait for another since he is 5th level right now. I'm going to say yes since there is no comment on this within the current edition of Organized Play Rules.
Waiting on Josh to rubber stamp this or bring the smackdown on this lowly player
Does the guide really need to say you can't rebuild a character after it's been created?
No, this is not legal at all. It falls under the rebuild heading and has been discussed in several different threads. After the character has been created and played you cannot 'swap out' points, skills, feats, etc that have been allocated when new material comes out.
Traits are picked at character creation, so you cannot change it after the fact. If you wanted I believe you could take the feat 'Additional Traits' and pick up this trait that way when you reach 7th level though.
|
|
Okay, I know the APG has been out for awhile but I finally sat down and flipped through its Uber goodness and discovered a trait I would like to pick up for my monk. Only question; is it legal to trade out one trait for another since he is 5th level right now. I'm going to say yes since there is no comment on this within the current edition of Organized Play Rules.
Waiting on Josh to rubber stamp this or bring the smackdown on this lowly player
As Josh has noted here as well as a couple other places, no rebuilds of any sort are allowed. Zizazat is correct though, you could chose the additional traits feat next time you hit an odd level and get two more instead of a feat.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
With the addition of the APG (and future sources), I think it may be time to add an additional line to a Chronicle. On that simply reads as follows:
Level Up? No or Yes If yes, list class and level___________________
The reason I suggest this is for tracking when/if a class/archetype was added to a character for legality purposes. I know Pathfinder Society operates as a whole on the honor system, but with multiple sources soon to be added (albeit, or the next year), now may be the time to consider this.
Thoughts?
|
|
With the addition of the APG (and future sources), I think it may be time to add an additional line to a Chronicle. On that simply reads as follows:
Level Up? No or Yes If yes, list class and level___________________
The reason I suggest this is for tracking when/if a class/archetype was added to a character for legality purposes. I know Pathfinder Society operates as a whole on the honor system, but with multiple sources soon to be added (albeit, or the next year), now may be the time to consider this.
Thoughts?
Things aren't quite as easy as this would indicate. At the time I finish a module I may not have decided what to spend my level-up on. There is really no way to capture this at the end of the session because it's completely reasonable a player won't know.
Come up with a better way and I'm all for it, but "leveling up" to me consists of the first time you play that character at that new level.
|
|
Ok, I'm definitely glad that you can apply your correct type of attribute. Good.
As far as point 2 goes (the situation where a wizard spell is added later over a paladin spell)- it sounds stupid, but it COULD happen.
Chris, you misunderstood- I didn't list bless (cleric 1), I listed bless weapon (paladin 1). By the current ruling, you can buy bless weapon as scribed by a paladin- there's no cleric version. It's pretty cheap too, over the field of all spells, as you need a 4th level caster and it's a 1st level spell. But if it was available as an 8th level wizard spell, to sorcerers and wizards, in a future splat book, that very availability would implicitly eliminate the ability to get the paladin version, based on how it's worded in the Society document.
Here's the relevant blurb:
All potions, scrolls, wands, and other consumables are made by wizards, clerics, or druids in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The only exceptions are spells that are not on the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list. For example, a scroll of lesser restoration must be purchased as a 2nd-level scroll off the cleric spell list and may not be purchased as a 1st-level scroll off the paladin spell list.Bless Weapon can be bought. It's a paladin spell, not a cleric, wizard, or druid spell. But if something later added it as one of these, at some absurd level for completeness or to thematically show that high level arcanists have some ability to duplicate the simpler versions of the magic of the Gods- then this rule would require fast revising. The only reason I don't think it's a big deal is that, in the event that this happened, it would get fixed before it went live.
No, as written, it does not. It says that the only exceptions are the spells that are not on the wizard, cleric, or druid spell list. Cure Light wounds is on the cleric and druid spell...
It already does. The rule only controls the PRICE you purchase the scroll at, not the TYPE.
Bless weapon appears on the Cleric Domain Good Spell list.
Domain spells do not count for this rule if they do not also appear on the standard spell list that all clerics have access to.
|
|
...I didn't list bless (cleric 1), I listed bless weapon (paladin 1). By the current ruling, you can buy bless weapon as scribed by a paladin- there's no cleric version. It's pretty cheap too, over the field of all spells, as you need a 4th level caster and it's a 1st level spell...
Maybe I'm missing your point, but a 4th level Paladin is only a 1st level caster, so it is the same as a cleric-1 and a 1st level spell.
...But if it was available as an 8th level wizard spell, to sorcerers and wizards, in a future splat book, that very availability would implicitly eliminate the ability to get the paladin version, based on how it's worded in the Society document.
Do you have an example of this occurring already? I cannot imagine that Paizo would create such a direct conflict between the arcane and divine casters (3.5 was rampant with type of abuse), but if they did, Josh could either rule those spells out of PFS or update the rules to accommodate them. Either way, I think you're speculating on an unlikely "what if."
|
|
Do you have an example of this occurring already? I cannot imagine that Paizo would create such a direct conflict between the arcane and divine casters (3.5 was rampant with type of abuse), but if they did, Josh could either rule those spells out of PFS or update the rules to accommodate them. Either way, I think you're speculating on an unlikely "what if."
I believe the Witch has cure light wounds on their spell list (arcane) but it would have to technically be a divine created by a cleric?
The wording could be better on this, however it's a rare case of 'everyone' should understand the intent of this rule but are standing on the RAW to make noise. IMO.
|
|
That said, in core rules clerics with domain spells not on the standard cleric list who have scribe scroll certainly CAN scribe these spells.
Oh, I must be confusing that with they can't memorize those spells into additional slots. My bad.
It is NOT clear whether or not a CL1 divine scroll of bless weapon is PFS legal for purchase to me.Also it's not clear whether or not a CL1 arcane scroll of cure light wounds is PFS legal to purchase or not.
Finally, it's not clear what this rule was intended to accomplish to me.
This comes from someone who typically is very much RAW subscriber. I prefer RAW over intent, but at some point you must acknowledge intent. What it seems to me is that you've taken every opportunity to disregard the intent or pretend like you don't understand the intent. Clearly a 1st level witch can buy a 1st level (arcane) CLW scroll for 25g. Why is it clear? Otherwise we pretty much jump right off the rails into the ridiculous. Because we acknowledge that buying something commonly a 2nd level spell (lesser restoration) as cast by a corner case 1st level (paladin) is abusive, particularly as a wand. I don't believe Josh has the 'authority' to move it to a 2nd level spell thus he made the change which was most appropriate to accomplish the goal.
Better solution? 'Abusive' scrolls cost 1 PA? Well, that doesn't help 'abusive' wands that fall under the same blanket...
|
|
Well I don't understand the 'intent' pure and simple. I'm not pretending. I've asked what the intent was and gotten some guesses by posters, but never a direct answer. I have my own guesses, but I'd like to know as the rule falls short for all of my guesses.
The intent was to remove the very easy available loophole in terms of PFS play. Under the particular rules around organized play, house rules as you keep calling them, it's almost trivial for everyone to walk around with a wand of Lesser Restoration. This can take the teeth out of ability damage after 1 successful season 1 mod.
In both cases this has been the case since the start of 3rd edition.
Standing on history doesn't really help in this case. Increasing the version number and letting time pass doesn't mean that there aren't bugs waiting to be uncovered. Neither is being obtuse when it comes to understanding this rule. Some logic and intent must filter in. Witches can buy scrolls of CLW that they are able to cast at the end of the day. The rule wasn't put in place to cripple casters from buying stuff off their spell list, the rule was put in place to stop a 'free, 2PA purchase' of a Wand of Lesser Restoration. The change should have probably gone directly at these cases. I haven't looked over the spell lists enough to know how many others may fall into this case, but I'd guess the number is low.
I guess that it boils down to there is some list of spells that some people (evidently you and Josh included) find 'abusive'.
When a hyper minority case could be responsible for a hyper majority of market share, you have to ask yourself why that is.