|
It always was a magical beast, and the line at 11th level doesn't say what those people believe that it does rather it merely alters what the mount is treated as for purposes of spells. Until 11th it is treated as an animal for purposes of spells, but this changes at 11th where it is treated as the magical beast that it always was.-James
No where does it say it is a Magical Beast before level 11
|
|
Also, once again from Mark:
"We're not pulling rules out from under anyone. The rule hasn't changed, only been clarified in light of the recent attention the FAQ blog instigated. A paladin needs to make Ride checks when riding her mount and Handle Animal checks when not (until 11th level, when the mount changes type to magical beast). If you have a build that was optimized for a different interpretation of the rules, you may still make Handle Animal or Ride checks untrained, and have the opportunity to put skill ranks in either with your next level; this is not an occasion to warrant a rebuild."
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/guidanceOnPaizoBlogOnIntelligentAnimalsRequested&page=1# 22
|
|
Well I don't know if you're willfully ignoring Mark's specific ruling on the matter or not. In any case, good luck.
"We're not pulling rules out from under anyone. The rule hasn't changed, only been clarified in light of the recent attention the FAQ blog instigated. A paladin needs to make Ride checks when riding her mount and Handle Animal checks when not (until 11th level, when the mount changes type to magical beast). If you have a build that was optimized for a different interpretation of the rules, you may still make Handle Animal or Ride checks untrained, and have the opportunity to put skill ranks in either with your next level; this is not an occasion to warrant a rebuild."
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/guidanceOnPaizoBlogOnIntelligentAnimalsRequested&page=1# 22
Also, once again from Mark:
"We're not pulling rules out from under anyone. The rule hasn't changed, only been clarified in light of the recent attention the FAQ blog instigated."
doubleplusgoodspeak!
|
|
Just some rules quotes, to remind people of what is being discussed:
The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the
service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal
steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount
is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony
(for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts,
such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This
mount functions as a druid’s animal companion, using
the paladin’s level as her effective druid level. Bonded
mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6.
...
At 11th level, the mount gains the celestial template (see
the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) and becomes a magical beast
for the purposes of determining which spells affect it. At
15th level, a paladin’s mount gains spell resistance equal to
the paladin’s level + 11.
So, actually, it is not a magical beast until 11th level. Equally, however, since it starts with an Int of 6 or higher, it cannot be an animal, either. Nor do I see anything which says it is treated as an animal until 11th level, just that it is not treated as a magical beast.
So, it is not an animal nor a magical beast between levels 5 and 10, inclusive. Like a familiar, it looks like a normal animal, but, also like a familiar, it starts outside the normal range of abilities for an animal.
Aberration?
An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities,
an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.
No.
Animal?
An animal is a living, nonhuman creature, usually a
vertebrate with no magical abilities and no innate capacity
for language or culture.
...
Intelligence score of 1 or 2 (no creature with an Intelligence
score of 3 or higher can be an animal).
Definitely NOT
Construct?
A construct is an animated object or artificially created
creature.
...
No Constitution score.
No.
Dragon?
A dragon is a reptile-like creature, usually winged, with
magical or unusual abilities.
No.
Fey?
A fey is a creature with supernatural abilities and
connections to nature or to some other force or place. Fey are
usually human-shaped.
Unlikely, but within the extreme limit of possibility.
Humanoid?
A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one
head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids
have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but
most can speak and usually have well-developed societies.
No
Magical Beast?
Magical beasts are similar to animals but can have
Intelligence scores higher than 2 (in which case the magical
beast knows at least one language, but can’t necessarily speak).
Magical beasts usually have supernatural or extraordinary
abilities, but are sometimes merely bizarre in appearance or
habits.
Other than the rules' text quoted above, I would have said yes, since it fits, in general.
Monstrous humanoid?
Monstrous humanoids are similar to humanoids,
but with monstrous or animalistic features. They often have
magical abilities as well.
No
Ooze?
An ooze is an amorphous or mutable creature, usually
mindless.
Definitely not.
Outsider?
An outsider is at least partially composed of the
essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane
other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as
some other type and become outsiders when they attain
a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.
Possibly, but then they should become outsiders at 11th, rather than magical beasts.
Plant?
This type comprises vegetable creatures. Note
that regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens
and fields, lack Wisdom and Charisma scores and are not
creatures, but objects, even though they are alive.
No
Undead?
Undead are once-living creatures animated by
spiritual or supernatural forces.
...
No Constitution score.
No
So, they don't really match any of the creature types from the Bestiary. So, what are they? They cannot be animals, given the standard rules for animals.They don't become magical beasts until the Paladin reaches 11th level.
So, are they Fey? Or maybe Outsider?
And I am not going to raise the corner case where a Druid can, actually, start with a so-called Animal Companion with an Int of 4 at 1st level. Or the higher-level Druid needs to replace an Animal Companion because of death, so the newly received "Animal" Companion comes fresh out of the box with an Int of 3 or higher...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James,
I just spoke with Jason about this in order to make sure we're all on the same page.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use Handle Animal on them until they become Magical Beasts at 11th level.
That's the official Pathfinder ruling and we'll be making it as clear as we can in every document going forward.
Hyrum.
|
|
James,
I just spoke with Jason about this in order to make sure we're all on the same page.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use Handle Animal on them until they become Magical Beasts at 11th level.
That's the official Pathfinder ruling and we'll be making it as clear as we can in every document going forward.
Hyrum.
Thanks Hyrum. I was wondering how long this would go on.
Satisfied James? Although I suppose it's possible the post confirming the first post was also made in error.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I would suggest you post this inquiry in the RPG rules forum and mark it as a FAQ for Jason or the rest of the design team to answer when they get to it. We've answered the questions that directly pertain to PFS here. Any further questions should be put in the correct forum.
Thanks.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
These are the core rules as the Pathfinder Society team interprets them.
Paladin mounts are animals. They require Handle Animal checks. They never change type, regardless of Int or the paladin's level. At 11th level, they are treated as magical beasts with regard to spells, and thus can't be affected by spells that specifically affect only animals.
Please stop nitpicking this. When it actually becomes a problem at the table for a GM who can not make their own interpretation on the rule, whether they use our clarification of our interpretation and the rule's intent or not, they are free to ask for further clarification. And at the next table you GM or play at, you're also welcome to make whatever interpretation you think is appropriate.
|
James,
I just spoke with Jason about this in order to make sure we're all on the same page.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use Handle Animal on them until they become Magical Beasts at 11th level.
That's the official Pathfinder ruling and we'll be making it as clear as we can in every document going forward.
Hyrum.
As far as I know if they become Magical Beasts, as per the Handle Animal skill, you can still make Handle Animal checks but at minus 5 penalty. So by becoming Magical Beasts they become HARDER to control? Please add an "augmented" subtype and let's call these suckers Type Animal (augmented) and call it a day already...
|
|
You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5.
Mind you for creatures with higher INT (that aren't animals) such checks are unneeded.
-James
Exactly. This means that for creatures with higher INT that ARE animals, you still need Handle Animal. They really need to fix the Animal type and remove the higher than Int 2 exclusion. It's been a problem since 3.0 in the year 2000. None of you guys will fix anything here: you'll just run in circles until you get fed up with the argument.
As far as I know if they become Magical Beasts, as per the Handle Animal skill, you can still make Handle Animal checks but at minus 5 penalty. So by becoming Magical Beasts they become HARDER to control? Please add an "augmented" subtype and let's call these suckers Type Animal (augmented) and call it a day already...
I was finishing up my blog for tomorrow (Gen Con Volunteers Needed!) and typed too quickly in the interest of saving time. Here's the official ruling for PFS, which will go into the next version of the Guide.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use the Handle Animal skill on them. At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.
In regards to the INT higher than 2 rule, that's primarily there for GMs creating new monsters. Jason will be updating the text in the next reprinting to make it clearer that animals are still animals even if their INT goes up.
Hyrum.
|
|
As far as I know if they become Magical Beasts, as per the Handle Animal skill, you can still make Handle Animal checks but at minus 5 penalty. So by becoming Magical Beasts they become HARDER to control? Please add an "augmented" subtype and let's call these suckers Type Animal (augmented) and call it a day already...I was finishing up my blog for tomorrow (Gen Con Volunteers Needed!) and typed too quickly in the interest of saving time. Here's the official ruling for PFS, which will go into the next version of the Guide.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use the Handle Animal skill on them. At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.In regards to the INT higher than 2 rule, that's primarily there for GMs creating new monsters. Jason will be updating the text in the next reprinting to make it clearer that animals are still animals even if their INT goes up.
Hyrum.
Well done Sir, well done! :)
Call me impressed by your problem resolution skills! :)
|
|
I was finishing up my blog for tomorrow (Gen Con Volunteers Needed!) and typed too quickly in the interest of saving time. Here's the official ruling for PFS, which will go into the next version of the Guide.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use the Handle Animal skill on them. At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.In regards to the INT higher than 2 rule, that's primarily there for GMs creating new monsters. Jason will be updating the text in the next reprinting to make it clearer that animals are still animals even if their INT goes up.
Hyrum.
Does this ruling and clarification extend to animal familiars?
|
Does this ruling and clarification extend to animal familiars?I was finishing up my blog for tomorrow (Gen Con Volunteers Needed!) and typed too quickly in the interest of saving time. Here's the official ruling for PFS, which will go into the next version of the Guide.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use the Handle Animal skill on them. At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.In regards to the INT higher than 2 rule, that's primarily there for GMs creating new monsters. Jason will be updating the text in the next reprinting to make it clearer that animals are still animals even if their INT goes up.
Hyrum.
The rules on Familiars specifically state that they are Magical Beasts. Further, it starts with an 'empathic link' with its master, which none of the other pets have.
The rules on Familiars specifically state that they are Magical Beasts. Further, it starts with an 'empathic link' with its master, which none of the other pets have.Does this ruling and clarification extend to animal familiars?I was finishing up my blog for tomorrow (Gen Con Volunteers Needed!) and typed too quickly in the interest of saving time. Here's the official ruling for PFS, which will go into the next version of the Guide.
Paladin mounts are animals and players must use the Handle Animal skill on them. At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.In regards to the INT higher than 2 rule, that's primarily there for GMs creating new monsters. Jason will be updating the text in the next reprinting to make it clearer that animals are still animals even if their INT goes up.
Hyrum.
No.
"A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar."
The question is still open as to whether the communication is an effect which depends on it type, or an effect that depends on its cognitive ability, or really whether communication is an effect at all. Normally one would not think of speech as an effect, but as an ability, or trait. Since low Int is specifically called out in the PRD as an animal Trait (and thus the low cognitive ability that is unique to this specific type), there is no reason that this would change should it become a familiar.
Mark has pronounced the houserule for PFS that it is the lack of cognitive ability that drives the requirement for a handle animal check. He has also stated that raising its Int later won't give it any more ability to simply follow directions outside of handle animal. Since the animal which becomes a familiar starts as an animal, and later has its stats changed, it should still fall under the rules requiring handle animal.
If the designers wanted the familiar to actually be a magical beast, they would simply say that it is now a magical beast. They didn't. They made a specific qualification which keeps it an animal, with animal traits. There is nothing which gives it magical beast traits.
Further, empathy is the reception of emotions, not thoughts. It's not even sense motive.
Even under the "Magical beast for effects that depend on type", Mark stated for Paladin mounts: "At 11th level they become Magical Beasts in regard to spells but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used." So we have a parallel here:
A paladin's mount becomes a magical beast for spells that depend on type, but are still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.
A familiar becomes a magical beast for effects that depend on type. It follows that nothing has modified the "but still regarded as Animals and Handle Animal must still be used.
I'm sure all the wizards who didn't bother to take handle animal can catch up in a level or two. Just another caution against min-maxing.
|
|
*A raven familiar can speak one language of its master's choice as a supernatural ability.
Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help.
Also I don't think these rules discussions were campaign specific rules for PFS, but clarifications of core rules.
Speak with Master (Ex): If the master is 5th level or higher, a familiar and the master can communicate verbally as if they were using a common language. Other creatures do not understand the communication without magical help.
Druids have Speak with Animals. They are still required to make handle animal checks, including the high DC handle animal checks for pushes.
Some folks are forgetting a major difference between familliars and animal companions. Unlike the latter famillirs specifically gain not only a higher intelligence but also the skill ranks of the master.
Think of it this way. Animals have the brain of a calculator or a punch card device, basically programmed by instincts. Some are more clever but they are still just as instinct bound. Familliars gain something else other than intelligence... they gain sentience. The only way for an animal to gain sentience regardless of it's int score is for it to be Awakened which at that point, it becomes a magical beast for true and gains that sentience.
Sentience gives a creature true self awareness. An animal looks at itself in a mirror. No matter how clever it sees in it's mind another animal. Sentient creatures on the other hand become aware of the concept of a reflection as self-portait, and as far as we know only a couple of animals on real life Earth display that quality, dolphins and gorillas.
There is nothing in the description of a familiar that states that they are awakened or sentient. They are still animals, though they are treated as magical beasts for effects that depend on type. None of the druids or paladin loving arguments about high int score change the fact that they started life as animals. If familiars were meant to be regarded as sentient or awakened, I'm sure the designers would have included that in their description.
If you want a sentient familiar, take Improved Familiar and get an imp, or quasit. And then watch your back.
|
|
They do start with an Intelligence score orders of magnitude above the animal level being argued for all of the other types in this thread. They don't try to rise above animal level intelligence by adding a single point to their Int score when leveling up, but begin play as low human level intelligence and eventually become smarter than the majority of all humans. They obviously are not operating under the same parameters, but yes- it will probably take another line of errata or FAQ here too to put this nitpicking to rest.
They do start with an Intelligence score orders of magnitude above the animal level being argued for all of the other types in this thread. They don't try to rise above animal level intelligence by adding a single point to their Int score when leveling up, but begin play as low human level intelligence and eventually become smarter than the majority of all humans. They obviously are not operating under the same parameters, but yes- it will probably take another line of errata or FAQ here too to put this nitpicking to rest.
No.
They start as normal animals. "Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar."
Once they are selected as a familiar, they gain intelligence 6. Oh, look. That's the same as a Paladin's mount. Do Paladin mounts require handle animal? Why, yes. Yes they do.
We have the precedent in the PFS Houserule that Paladin mounts (at int 6) require a handle animal check. There is nothing in the rules to indicate that wizard familiars do not, no matter how much some might wish it so. Just as the Druid/Cleric/Paladin minmaxers who decided to save skill ranks by not putting into handle animal have to suck it up and spend a few levels getting it right, so too must the Wizard minmaxers.
I don't have a lot of sympathy. Wizards are already one of the most powerful classes (if not the most powerful class) in the game.
No there's nothing that says sentience. But did you miss the point on how familliars gain ALL of the master's skills, which would seem to me to be a mark of sentience. Including the fact that familliars can actually communicate, one of them, the Raven can actually talk. I think I'm fairly grounded in inferring sentience from that.
There is nothing in the description of a familiar that states that they are awakened or sentient. They are still animals, though they are treated as magical beasts for effects that depend on type. None of the druids or paladin loving arguments about high int score change the fact that they started life as animals. If familiars were meant to be regarded as sentient or awakened, I'm sure the designers would have included that in their description.
If you want a sentient familiar, take Improved Familiar and get an imp, or quasit. And then watch your back.
I'm not sure how the use of a skill that is granted through the Wizard-Familiar bond equates to sentience. It sounds more like wishful thinking.
Familiars actually gain the ability to communicate 5 levels later than the druid's animal companion (as the druid has speak with animals) so this doesn't really enter into the equation.
Another telling point is that in 3.5, familiars specifically became magical beasts. In Pathfinder they do not. This implies a conscious decision by the devs to limit familiars back into the category of animals.
|
|
No.
"A familiar is an animal chosen by a spellcaster to aid him in his study of magic. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but is now a magical beast for the purpose of effects that depend on its type. Only a normal, unmodified animal may become a familiar."
Hmm.. I was mistaken in just classifying them as Magical Beasts. Mea Culpa.
However, the language that you have bolded is different from that used for mounts - "purpose of spells" vs "purpose of effects that depend on its type".
I guess the question is whether Handle Animal is an effect that depends on type.
|
The following post is full of my feelings and opinions on a subject that still significantly bothers me.
The bit that still really bothers me about the whole thing is that it isn't a change, it's just a clarification.
I feel like I'm being told that I've been playing this wrong for 8 years*. That the 3.5FAQ was wrong, and the Joshua Frost was wrong, and that I'm wrong, and my friends are wrong, and because we were all wrong I don't get to fix my character.
Story time:
The weekend before this ruling showed up I has just played through The Heresy of Man at SACCCON on my Druid going from the beginning of 6th to the beginning of 7th level. I had been feeling a little down about PFS for a couple weeks heading up to it but Heresy of Man really got me re-energized. I really loved the set of mods, I finally understood Painlord's comments about mods being sacred snowflakes. It had interesting challenges, interesting and unique rewards, and it made sense for Pathfinders to be there rather than just random thugs to kill orcs and take their pie.
My Druid, as is probably obvious by now has no ranks in handle animal along with an int/cha of 7 (Yes I'm also an evil power-gamer/optimizer) I made this decision consciously, having lots of experience with D&D. I suffered through my first few levels when my pet wouldn't listen to me most of the time, I focused on putting my GM chronicles on this character so I could get over the hump where this wouldn't be a problem any more. I was really enjoying playing my character, I was finally getting him more personality than just a few memorable tics and I was enjoying the amount of damage he could put out in the right circumstances.
Then I got home and found the ruling, and I thought oh good it'll be nice to have this worked out firmly since the rules weren't incredibly clear on the subject. Oh, Jason's ruling doesn't make sense with the rules, ahhh found his statement in the comments that this is a rules change.
Fast Forward to PFS Land:
For no reason that I can fathom, this is considered a clarification, rather than a rules change. I tried and tried to understand how that conclusion was come to and was eventually told by multiple people that the campaign staff doesn't need to justify their decisions, go away.
So, now what do I do with my druid, I've got 3 adventures to go until I level. I currently have a +2 to handle my Animal, who at least gets to know my 3 bonus tricks. I was trying to imagine having fun roleplaying my companion as completely uncooperative but realized that would just me me venting at my table over the rules change and would be unfair to my GM/fellow players. So instead the PFS message boards get to hear my complaints instead.
I'm sorry for those of you that are tired of this topic but it really grinds my gears and I don't feel as though it's been adequately resolved. If you're tired of hearing about it I suggest you stop reading the thread, rather than telling those of us who are unhappy to just go away.
*
...reasonable things...
AxeMurder0,
The thing that you need to remember about organized play in general (and PFS specifically) is that the choices you make for your character are always subject to review. And you are subject to having any or all of those choices overturned by anyone along the line that convince the campaign management to make a ruling. Er, clarification. (Is that the word we're using now?)
What you need to do is run a plain vanilla something. And play it in the most conservative manner, so that you don't offend anyone at any table you might be at. And if you are very careful, and very lucky, then just as your character starts to become powerful enough to actually affect the world, he can "retire". Because we wouldn't want characters to actually stand out.
It's like communism, but without the benefit of having previous campaign managers kept stuffed in a glass box to file past while respectfully viewing. (Well, unless you equate Josh to Trotsky, or Khrushchev, then the parallel is even better.).
None of this is to be construed as a criticism in any way. I think the Great Leaders are, well, GREAT!!!
For those with linguistics:
Was goodchoice. Now badchoice. All choices peoplechoice. All characters commoncharacters. Work for commoncollective. Oldleader unpeople. Newleaders doubleplusgood!!!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
What you need to do is run a plain vanilla something. And play it in the most conservative manner, so that you don't offend anyone at any table you might be at. And if you are very careful, and very lucky, then just as your character starts to become powerful enough to actually affect the world, he can "retire". Because we wouldn't want characters to actually stand out.
Fozzy, what you're "describing" here (there may be rules changes, there's a level cap) isn't new, and isn't likely to change. Given the high level of snark you've infused into all your posts, I'm guessing you don't much care for the Pathfinder Society Organized Play environment. Certainly, the way you're describing things doesn't sound like much fun at all. I'm in this to have fun, and things like level caps don't get in my way.
What you need to do is run a plain vanilla something. And play it in the most conservative manner, so that you don't offend anyone at any table you might be at. And if you are very careful, and very lucky, then just as your character starts to become powerful enough to actually affect the world, he can "retire". Because we wouldn't want characters to actually stand out.Fozzy, what you're "describing" here (there may be rules changes, there's a level cap) isn't new, and isn't likely to change. Given the high level of snark you've infused into all your posts, I'm guessing you don't much care for the Pathfinder Society Organized Play environment. Certainly, the way you're describing things doesn't sound like much fun at all. I'm in this to have fun, and things like level caps don't get in my way.
I'm reasonably certain that at least three of my posts were entirely snark-free.
Rest assured, I self-snark as much as I extro-snark.
|
|
Stuff
I know it sucks but it sounds like you are reaping what you sowed with your admitted min/maxery. You super tanked your int/cha in order to eek as much power as possible out of your character and now an aspect of gameplay that you thought you could circumvent has come into play. Can you really blame the campaign admins?
Maybe next time you'll opt for just one 'dump stat'.
|
|
alot of stuff
OK, lets be honest here. Its a DC12 if the AC is hurt. So with your 7 cha, you really only need 6 ranks to auto succeed on anything your pet is trained to do. As a druid with a 7 int, you get 2-3 skill points a level. So at most it will take you 2 levels(less if your human and you put your favored class bonus into skill points). And thats with tanking both your int and cha(shame on you). Its not the end of the world, people. It only takes a few ranks to handle your animal. Get over it and please let this thread die. The PTB have said what their ruling is, so we should just adapt and deal with it.
|
|
The difference though, is a difference of optimizing your character along a certain theme or concept so that you are the absolute best trip fighter or heal cleric or whatever and being extremely suboptimal for your particular concept or theme so you can exploit a “feature/loophole” at a later level.
There’s a line here somewhere and a ton of shades of gray. Personally, and anyone can choose any way they like, I choose to draw the line right between these two and basically say one is just optimizing, and the other is exploitation. Should it be punished? Not sure I’d go that far. I mean if it is there to be exploited, then it’s there to be exploited. But if suboptimal choices are being made front-end so that a power surge can happen later on that is beyond what typical leveling can accomplish, AND also counteracts the suboptimization.
If the 7 charisma never matters or hinders you with your animal companion because of an exploited loophole, then that is exploiting a loophole, not just optimization.
|
|
StuffI know it sucks but it sounds like your reaping what you sowed with your admitted min/maxery. You super tanked your int/cha in order to eek as much power as possible out of your character and now an aspect of gameplay that you thought you could circumvent has come into play. Can you really blame the campaign admins?
Maybe next time you'll opt for just one 'dump stat'.
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: (Tearing down the Straw Golem)
I'm not complaining that the rules changed.
I'll say that again:
I'm not complaining that the rules changed.
Rules change, I understand that. I even think it's good that the rules changed in this case since there was obviously some confusion.
Different people play RPGs for different reasons, one of the bits I enjoy is building efficient characters, I also enjoy expressing my creativity and imagination through roleplaying and occasionally silly voices.
I feel like you're saying following the rules isn't good enough.
I understand the issue with how playing by the edges might cause you to fall off but this doesn't feel like an edge case to me. I actually try and avoid edge cases because I want my characters to be built on rock and not just a teetering plank balanced between two outcroppings. I don't feel like the animal companion with int3 was on the edge though It's something that was settled years ago in the 3.5 FAQ.
I avoided Apes with PoleArms, I didn't buy Elephants from the Armory, I didn't get into Mystic Theurge early thanks to Imbue with Spell, I didn't go infinite like Pun Pun, what I did is: I built a character based on a long established rule and was then told that I was doing it wrong and that's too bad.
On a different note: Fozzy Hammer's snark was bothering me, and I felt like he was annoying people rather than adding to the discussion but I do feel some empathy for him.
On a different but related note: I found the
"Maybe next time you'll opt for just one 'dump stat'." offensive.
I felt like (I have lots of feelings today) Gallard Stormeye was intentionally ending his post on a rude note to try and emphasize his point that my troubles are all my own fault. Can we please try and avoid any more snarky comments like that, Even if Mr. Stormeye didn't mean to be a jerk it sure sounded like an attack to me.
The difference though, is a difference of optimizing your character along a certain theme or concept so that you are the absolute best trip fighter or heal cleric or whatever and being extremely suboptimal for your particular concept or theme so you can exploit a “feature/loophole” at a later level.
There’s a line here somewhere and a ton of shades of gray. Personally, and anyone can choose any way they like, I choose to draw the line right between these two and basically say one is just optimizing, and the other is exploitation. Should it be punished? Not sure I’d go that far. I mean if it is there to be exploited, then it’s there to be exploited. But if suboptimal choices are being made front-end so that a power surge can happen later on that is beyond what typical leveling can accomplish, AND also counteracts the suboptimization.
If the 7 charisma never matters or hinders you with your animal companion because of an exploited loophole, then that is exploiting a loophole, not just optimization.
Agree. The same works for the Wizard who dump stats CHArisma, but wants a familiar to be at his beck and call.
"He's my best friend ever."
"Why? You have low charisma, you took no ranks in handle animal, and you've never taught him a single trick."
"Did you ever think that he's simply plotting when it will be the best time to kill you in your sleep, and then eat the tasty parts?"
|
|
I really loved the set of mods, I finally understood Painlord's comments about mods being sacred snowflakes. It had interesting challenges, interesting and unique rewards, and it made sense for Pathfinders to be there rather than just random thugs to kill orcs and take their pie.
:)
They are sacred snowflakes, aren't they?
PFS scenarios are rare and special and the first running of such should be a point of emphasis for all of us to make the best for ourselves and fellow players.
:)
-Pain