It's a very weird house rule that imho doesn't solve much.
Exactly.
"Good news, everyone! We replaced one bizarre house rule by a slightly different bizarre house rule! Now this argument will be put to rest forever."
;-)
|
While I'm not sure this is what they were thinking, you can sort of justify this OOC.
Think about the animal trainers at Sea World or a Zoo. All of them have some force of personality. Animals respond to this better than the personality of Joe Shmo who lives in his parents' basement and doesn't get out very often. Look at Cesar Milan or any of the other dog shows. They all would have a above average Charisma in-game.
Again, you always get a minimum of one trick per scenario, this just rewards those druids that are 'friendlier'.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Copy spells (monetary cost, Spellcraft check required, failure prevents copying until next level) - unlimited
Alchemical crafting (monetary cost, Craft (alchemy) check required) - unlimited.
Animal Training (no monetary cost, Handle Animal check required) - 1/session.Each of these has at least two costs if we include time as a commodity. Pathfinder Society Organized Play does not use time as a commodity.
So is it OK for people to pay NPCs to Train their Companion for them?
Problem would be solved right?, and right in line with the rationale for other Class Abilities.Given that you can buy war-trained mounts, etc, other people training an animal seems to be pretty standard (not to mention how it works in the real world), and just because you get bonus Tricks for having an Animal Companion wouldn´t seem to change that option...
Probably not all the flavor everybody wants, but there´s no reason you can´t SAY you trained it yourself,
and shrug your shoulders that mechanically that´s not what happened and say ´that´s how PFS works´.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I guess I would point out that there is a reason the people who do the shows at Sea-World, etc are actual animal trainers and not actors or stage performer who rely on someone else's training. In fact, I think every single good animals act I've seen has involved trainers.
I do think it would be a bit better if it was tied to the Handle Animal skill rather than straight Charisma though. And/ or at least was a little nicer to those CHA 12 druids :D.
But really ask yourself, why is this restriction even here and what is it solving?
Simple. Because there is no tracking of time passage in between scenarios. This is not a home game where a player can have their druid take a year off in between adventures and train their animal companion in every trick available.
|
How do you figure a YEAR? I'm seeing 6 weeks. And that's from scratch so to speak.
And really, what's the problem in any case?
Is having animals that are trained that much of an unexpected advantage for a druid with an animal companion?
Silliness.
-James
If an AC is central to the character concept, then the character should probably have a decent Cha. A 14 Cha druid can now fully retrain their AC in 2-3 scenarios, pretty comparable to the 6 weeks you referenced, on average.
Having infinite disposable Animal Companions is definitely a problem for a campaign that relies on balanced, trackable assets. It's for the same reason that Leadership isn't used, animate dead expires, items are limited to set choices,... Every other class faces some sort of setback if they lose something central to their class, even if it is a simple re-purchase. Why should druids be different?
As Enevhar said, there is no tracking time between scenarios. Frequently, enough time would pass between scenarios for a complete re-train. Usually not. And there are specific linked scenarios which assume an almost immediate continuation. Without tracking of time, you cannot rule on extremes, so some sort of standardized middle rule must be used.
james, you have made your dislike of PFS campaign rules obvious with your many posts. There are many rules of PFS which vary from my home games. However, at some point I think that you will have to accept that the PFS Organized Play campaign is going to have some rules which are different from the games which you play.
|
I guess I would point out that there is a reason the people who do the shows at Sea-World, etc are actual animal trainers and not actors or stage performer who rely on someone else's training. In fact, I think every single good animals act I've seen has involved trainers.
I do think it would be a bit better if it was tied to the Handle Animal skill rather than straight Charisma though. And/ or at least was a little nicer to those CHA 12 druids :D.
Then again, why would you create a CHA 12 Druid that was of a type that is animal companion dependent?
You want to be great with animal companions, then sacrifice somewhere else.
|
|
I dislike rules that complicate the system that don't serve a point, or don't solve the point that they are supposed to be fixing.
Additional rules for a shared campaign should be minimal and to the point. A few rules in PFS fail at that, and this is one of them.
It throws a needless wrinkle where everywhere else things are smoothed over. It feels like someone was harmed by a druid in their early...
But you haven't played since early Sep 2009. At least that is the last PFS game you DMed/played is showing. If you don't play PFS, I don't understand why you even care.
If you were a player or DM in anything past Season 0, maybe I would understand why you dislike rules that complicate the system. However, you haven't played any Season 1, 2 or 3 scenarios. These rules don't roll over to a home game. They are only PFS which you apparently no longer participate in. So, why do you continue to argue against a system that is put into place for a organized play you don't even participate in?
I apologize if you have a different reason for your arguments, but it appears you are arguing just to argue. I am not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to gain an understanding why you are in disagreement with quite a few rulings when it doesn't affect you. Please try to help me understand.
If you have a +29 handle animal you don't need to bother with training your animal, you can just push it every single round.
Of course, pushing takes a longer action than regular handling (either full-round vs. move, or move vs. free for an animal companion), so it's not perfect.
I dislike rules that complicate the system that don't serve a point, or don't solve the point that they are supposed to be fixing.
Another +1. I especially don't like house rules that smack of "I saw a cheesy PC I didn't like once but he was perfectly legal so here's some PFS-specific pseudo-errata to make that PC illegal instead".
|
|
A druid and a paladin both lose their companions in a session. Say they are level 10. The druid has 10 ranks in Handle animal and the Paladin has 1 rank. The paladin brings in a new one next session full trained, while the druid spends 1-2 levels retraining his.
And what's gained here?
Are trained animals that unbalancing to the campaign?
-James
The paladin takes a penalty for the rest of the session, on top of losing the mount. Assuming he took a mount and not a bonded weapon.
Trained animals are not unbalanced. Unlimited trained animals are.
|
|
Another +1. I especially don't like house rules that smack of "I saw a cheesy PC I didn't like once but he was perfectly legal so here's some PFS-specific pseudo-errata to make that PC illegal instead".
It isn’t a PFS specific response to a single cheesy character, but rather PFS’s response to PFRPG’s Blog post, which seemed to be a response to characters being created that break the intent of the original rules. That animals should always be animals while carrying the type, regardless their intelligence.
As such, the campaign required specific rules for how to handle the training.
A fully trained animal, when looked at solely as a trained animal, is not too powerful or cheesy or whatever.
However, when players metagame their druids instead of roleplay them, and animals become disposable meat shields that just get fully replaced by the next scenario, then it does become a power problem.
It isn’t a PFS specific response to a single cheesy character, but rather PFS’s response to PFRPG’s Blog post, which seemed to be a response to characters being created that break the intent of the original rules. That animals should always be animals while carrying the type, regardless their intelligence.
Another +1. I especially don't like house rules that smack of "I saw a cheesy PC I didn't like once but he was perfectly legal so here's some PFS-specific pseudo-errata to make that PC illegal instead".
To be fair, my comment applies more to other PFS house rules than to this particular one.
|
|
I dislike rules that complicate the system that don't serve a point, or don't solve the point that they are supposed to be fixing.
Additional rules for a shared campaign should be minimal and to the point. A few rules in PFS fail at that, and this is one of them.
It throws a needless wrinkle where everywhere else things are smoothed over. It feels like someone was harmed by a druid in their early...
But you haven't played since early Sep 2009. At least that is the last PFS game you DMed/played is showing. If you don't play PFS, I don't understand why you even care.
If you were a player or DM in anything past Season 0, maybe I would understand why you dislike rules that complicate the system. However, you haven't played any Season 1, 2 or 3 scenarios. These rules don't roll over to a home game. They are only PFS which you apparently no longer participate in. So, why do you continue to argue against a system that is put into place for a organized play you don't even participate in?
I apologize if you have a different reason for your arguments, but it appears you are arguing just to argue. I am not trying to be argumentative, I'm just trying to gain an understanding why you are in disagreement with quite a few rulings when it doesn't affect you. Please try to help me understand.
^
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you have a +29 handle animal you don't need to bother with training your animal, you can just push it every single round.Of course, pushing takes a longer action than regular handling (either full-round vs. move, or move vs. free for an animal companion), so it's not perfect.
I dislike rules that complicate the system that don't serve a point, or don't solve the point that they are supposed to be fixing.Another +1. I especially don't like house rules that smack of "I saw a cheesy PC I didn't like once but he was perfectly legal so here's some PFS-specific pseudo-errata to make that PC illegal instead".
Ultimately it's kind of a silly argument. It affects a druid for 2-3 levels when they get started, then when they kill off their pet. It's a whole lot of fuss over something which shouldn't be an issue. If the hypothetical 12 CHA druid kills his companion a lot... then investing in the headband or Ioun stone is a small price for someone who values optimising over role-playing.
I find the 12 CHA druid unlikely, it's a 7 CHA druid because Charisma is a pointless stat for a druid (or so I gather from the optimizers). So the headband isn't going to help regardless. It's hard for me to garner too much sympathy for people who dump the primary stat for Handle Animal then complain that they can't train their animal.
I find the 12 CHA druid unlikely, it's a 7 CHA druid because Charisma is a pointless stat for a druid (or so I gather from the optimizers). So the headband isn't going to help regardless. It's hard for me to garner too much sympathy for people who dump the primary stat for Handle Animal then complain that they can't train their animal.
I have no sympathy for wizards with 7 (or 5) Strength either. So by that reasoning, we should make up a PFS house rule that punishes them, correct?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I find the 12 CHA druid unlikely, it's a 7 CHA druid because Charisma is a pointless stat for a druid (or so I gather from the optimizers). So the headband isn't going to help regardless. It's hard for me to garner too much sympathy for people who dump the primary stat for Handle Animal then complain that they can't train their animal.I have no sympathy for wizards with 7 (or 5) Strength either. So by that reasoning, we should make up a PFS house rule that punishes them, correct?
Previously you could train exactly one trick.
Now you can train exactly one trick.
How are they being punished?
|
|
I find the 12 CHA druid unlikely, it's a 7 CHA druid because Charisma is a pointless stat for a druid (or so I gather from the optimizers). So the headband isn't going to help regardless. It's hard for me to garner too much sympathy for people who dump the primary stat for Handle Animal then complain that they can't train their animal.I have no sympathy for wizards with 7 (or 5) Strength either. So by that reasoning, we should make up a PFS house rule that punishes them, correct?
You know, Druid’s stat-wise, are one of the hardest classes to create (with maybe respect to the Paladin) in that they actually need almost all their stats for one reason or another.
A wizard dropping Strength to 7 or 5 cannot be abused because of a loophole.
Druid’s with a 7 charisma were abusing a loophole with the 3 Int animal companions. Basically until 4th level, they could hardly control their animal and then after upping the Int to 3, the animal suddenly became sentient and didn’t need handle animal.
Paizo has said that for the ENTIRE PFRPG, not just PFS, that handle animal is needed with all animals regardless of Int.
So Druid’s are not being punished by PFS. PFS just had to come up with some rule on how training works since time between scenarios is ambiguous.
|
|
To be fair, my comment applies more to other PFS house rules than to this particular one.It isn’t a PFS specific response to a single cheesy character, but rather PFS’s response to PFRPG’s Blog post, which seemed to be a response to characters being created that break the intent of the original rules. That animals should always be animals while carrying the type, regardless their intelligence.
Another +1. I especially don't like house rules that smack of "I saw a cheesy PC I didn't like once but he was perfectly legal so here's some PFS-specific pseudo-errata to make that PC illegal instead".
I don’t see that PFS comes up with bizarre house rules. What I see is, when there is a PFRPG rule that is ambiguous, and probably needs a campaign specific ruling on (GM’s call so to speak) they make a ruling they see as best for the campaign.
I don’t see this as bad as the same people who whine about these rules are also whining about too much table variation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Previously you could train exactly one trick.
Now you can train exactly one trick.
How are they being punished?
Huh? They were being punished with the previous house rule and they're being punished by the current house rule. As far as I know, for every other purpose you can pretend you have unlimited time between sessions.
So why don't we say that the number of spells that a wizard can scribe per PFS session is determined by his Str modifier since (a) in a regular campaign, scribing spells is limited by time and (b) carrying supplies back and forth probably requires Strength and (c) wizards who dump their Str score are unscrupulous scoundrels anyways?
I don’t see that PFS comes up with bizarre house rules.
|
|
I don’t see that PFS comes up with bizarre house rules.
I don’t see that really as all that bizarre. In PFRPG the standard clergy would be a Cleric/Druid and the standard Arcanist would be the Wizard/Sorcerer. As such, it is pretty easy to assume one of those would always be available to purchase a potion from. Other than perhaps a Bard, it really is unreasonable for anyone to assume you could easily or readily find a Paladin, Ranger, Oracle, or Inquisitor that has an item creation feat.
In a home campaign, I would probably rule that you’d have to actually go find such an oddity.
In PFS, they’ve determined they are rare enough that a pathfinder would not have time to find one between sessions.
This is the same argument with the training of animals and PC’s having item creation feats. Its about what amount of time do you have between scenarios? It is just ambiguous enough that you don’t have time to do these things.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So why don't we say that the number of spells that a wizard can scribe per PFS session is determined by his Str modifier since (a) in a regular campaign, scribing spells is limited by time and (b) carrying supplies back and forth probably requires Strength and (c) wizards who dump their Str score are unscrupulous scoundrels anyways?
Wizards are limited because they have to pay for the scrolls and for scribing. There is no such limiting factor with animal tricks and ultimately you need less than 6-10 tricks for the life of your character while most wizards wind up buying 3-4 spells or more per level so they both have limiters. Did you notice the new FAQ explicitly states you have to buy scrolls to pick up spells unless they are on chronicles or you bump into other PCs? That 12th level druid's wizard buddy can scribe as many scrolls as he wants at ~2000 gold a pop.
I suppose training costs are a possibility but then you have fixed costs which are either too expensive at low level and too cheap at high level or some kind of house ruled set of scaling training costs which people would complain about as much as this or more.
Other than perhaps a Bard, it really is unreasonable for anyone to assume you could easily or readily find a Paladin, Ranger, Oracle, or Inquisitor that has an item creation feat.
[..]
In PFS, they’ve determined they are rare enough that a pathfinder would not have time to find one between sessions.
Except you can find potions made by paladins, rangers, inquisitors, etc...just not if they're also available on the cleric, druid or wizard list. So that's not the explanation, obviously. But the argument's been beaten to death multiple times, so there's no point in starting it up again. I concede defeat. :-)
|
|
It certainly seems like punishing here.
James, It seems like the information is simply circumstantial rather than anecdotal. I'm not certain how many druid characters you have played, or how many druid characters have played at the tables that you have run. But from what I can tell, this isn't recent.
You have made you position clear and I say this with no intention of insulting you.
Please go back to running a table and see if any of your players have any problems with this. How many players are avoiding playing Druids because of this issue? Because right no all you are doing is arguing your position based on opinion.
It's hard to take someone at their word if they don't participate in the society. So when you express upset with the rules, I think it is safe to say from the rest of the VCs, we really don't want to see that happen. But we have more than just yourself to worry about. Since you haven't reported a game in quite awhile, all we can assume is that you just represent your opinion.
I run games with people who play with pets all the time. No one seems to complain. I get complaints plenty of other stuff. Never on this topic.
|
|
James, It seems like the information is simply circumstantial rather than anecdotal.
Its not anecdotal, it's simply from a rules' perspective.
You could require, as Hogarth suggested, limitations on wizards copying spells into their spellbooks based on their STR score or how many ranks in rope use that they have.
Perhaps you would hear a large cry about it, and perhaps you would not. Your hearing from your players does not make this a good or bad rule. It is a silly rule regardless and you really shouldn't need someone else to tell you that...
Do you, personally, think that a Paladin with 1 rank in handle animal should be 5 (or more) times the animal trainer as a Druid with the same handle animal modifier?
Is the rule even needed? I've argued this since the limitation was there. If other things that take a month or longer happen between scenarios, why not letting a druid try to train their companion-
1. Once for each trick slot available. Failing means they have to wait until after the next scenario.
2. For as many tricks as they can achieve on take 10 (personally if its required this would be my choice as you then don't need a GM to witness a ton of rolls while they're finishing up a slot).
3. For what they could do over a 6 week period (to allow for all the training for a purpose options).
4. For what they could do over a 4 week period (in keeping with lost Paladin mounts and magic item recharges that are allowed).
5. One trick themselves, then hire a NPC trainer for as many other slots as they desire.
I don't understand where people claim 'infinite' animal companions, and other such hyperbole. What's really gained if a druid can start a scenario with a fully trained animal companion after they've lost one? Is it any more 'unbalancing' as a PC that gets to use a 1/month magic item in each scenario?
-James
Ok, so we agree. This is your opinion based on the rules. It's your perspective based on evidence.
I don't refute your points. But more than a few people have tried to bring to your attention that you seem to be conflating the issue. For most of us who run tables, not only do we not have a problem with this issue, but our players don't seem to have an issue with this.
It would seem that you seem to have a point of view, that seems to state, that you find the design philosophies so out of step with the rest of the Pathfinder RPG. I can understand that, you've presented you're case.
But if I want to be persuaded, I and others need to see anecdotal evidence to see this is a problem.
I think that we can agree that you find some of the rules annoying and silly. Run some tables and bring us back some experiences, then get your reports in. You seem to have put a lot of thought into PFS, see what happens in practice.
I'm not trying to shut you down, I'm just saying give things a chance and report back what happens.
|
|
A druid and a paladin both lose their companions in a session. Say they are level 10. The druid has 10 ranks in Handle animal and the Paladin has 1 rank. The paladin brings in a new one next session full trained, while the druid spends 1-2 levels retraining his.
And what's gained here?
Are trained animals that unbalancing to the campaign?
-James
The paladin takes a penalty for the rest of the session, on top of losing the mount. Assuming he took a mount and not a bonded weapon.
Trained animals are not unbalanced. Unlimited trained animals are.
how is the druid getting unlimited trained animals? that sounds like what the paladin is getting.
And the druid takes a penalty during the game too: their animal companion is dead and gone, unless they can take 24hours to perform a ritual to summon a new one.
there's penalties in both cases. and the paladin here seems to be suffering from an unlimited stable of wartrained mounts.
I don't refute your points. But more than a few people have tried to bring to your attention that you seem to be conflating the issue. For most of us who run tables, not only do we not have a problem with this issue, but our players don't seem to have an issue with this.
My experience has been that no one has had a problem with it, but my experience has also been that enforcement of tricks, training, etc. has been almost non-existent. In fact, there have been cases where the GM was surprised that my animal wasn't acting and I had to explain that my animal isn't trained and therefore won't do much on its own and won't attack unusual creatures in any case, etc.
All that aside, "I don't think anyone will complain about it" is terrible if it's the only criterion being used when adding a new house rule. Personally, I think there should be:
- a real problem;
- that is a PFS-specific problem, not an error in the rulebook;
- that has a solution that improves the play experience for most players
before a PFS house rule is added. YMMV, of course. For instance, I'm perfectly happy with having no crafting in PFS; I think that's a great house rule.
|
|
I don't refute your points. But more than a few people have tried to bring to your attention that you seem to be conflating the issue. For most of us who run tables, not only do we not have a problem with this issue, but our players don't seem to have an issue with this.My experience has been that no one has had a problem with it, but my experience has also been that enforcement of tricks, training, etc. has been almost non-existent. In fact, there have been cases where the GM was surprised that my animal wasn't acting and I had to explain that my animal isn't trained and therefore won't do much on its own and won't attack unusual creatures in any case, etc.
All that aside, "I don't think anyone will complain about it" is terrible if it's the only criterion being used when adding a new house rule. Personally, I think there should be:
- a real problem;
- that is a PFS-specific problem, not an error in the rulebook;
- that has a solution that improves the play experience for most players
before a PFS house rule is added. YMMV, of course. For instance, I'm perfectly happy with having no crafting in PFS; I think that's a great house rule.
So basically just as I stated before, you seem to have an issue with design philosophy. To which I also come back with, how many tables that you run or play with have a problem with this.
We can argue about what is right or wrong forever, but sometimes we just have to go back to our tables and see what happens when changes are made.
|
|
we play this game for fun. in society for fun.
the arbitrary rule of how many traits a replaced animal companion can start with doesn't change what a higher level character can do with a disposable animal companion. as long as they can start the game with 2 bonus tricks, most builds can be pushed to have their animal on "guard" , and take two attack tricks for combat. the rule does not prevent abuse of the class ability.
the rule stifles creativity and fun for new characters who want to try out having a different animal companion for a few sessions, or who want an animal companion that's more suited to the climate they'll be adventuring in.
give me a high level druid. I'll give him a 5 charisma, and have a druid with a throw away animal companion every game. The guide or the FAQ can't stop me from playing my character the way I want to play him. PETA be damned.
Hell, give me a summoner and I'll give him a low charisma, and get an even STRONGER animal companion, one that i don't need a skill to train.
the guide and the game can't balance that. so stop trying.
If the guide / faq developers take issue with whats ambiguous in the time between sessions: fix the time between sessions rather than arbitrarily penalizing classes. LG had a fine system for time units and what could be done with them between games.
|
|
how is the druid getting unlimited trained animals? that sounds like what the paladin is getting.
And the druid takes a penalty during the game too: their animal companion is dead and gone, unless they can take 24hours to perform a ritual to summon a new one.
there's penalties in both cases. and the paladin here seems to be suffering from an unlimited stable of wartrained mounts.
A paladin takes a penalty above and beyond the absence of the mount.
So is there any rule anywhere that suggests that you CAN´T purchase NPC Animal Training services?
By the Core Rules, it seems like the ´normal´ standard would be 3 tricks per week if that matters.
(at 9 hours day of training, maybe the standard should be 2 tricks/week, but more re-attempted rolls should probably be allowed in that case)
Normal Hireling services seem under-costed, but whatever. The Equpment prices for combat-trained horses/ponies/dogs seem to indicate that combat trained´ results in 50% higher price - though if you are bringing your own mount (and accepting the chance that they will fail the Handle Animal checks), I suppose you could get a discount (i.e. normal NPC hireling rate).
I would say that it seems VERY CURIOUS that PFS DOES seem to be making the assumption that 30 days has passed re: the Paladin´s Mount, but not for any other aspect related to Animal Companions. (not to mention that the 30 days for the Paladin´s Mount conflicts with no time passing for Afflictions) To be most consistent, Paladins should probably have to wait until they level up to regain the services of a Mount, since that is the time-independent function of their Mount ability.
Probably the lack of Elephants is more damaging to the game though... ;-)
|
|
.
What don't they have an issue with? And what don't you have an issue with?
The current state of rules for Druid animal companions.
You don't find it strange/odd that a summoner, paladin, or sorcerer with the same handle animal modifier as a druid is significantly a better animal trainer?
No I don't. But I feel that if enough people reported it being a problem. Then either there would be a change in the Pathfinder RPG, or in the PFS. Which is why I suggest going back to your table and observing if this problem exists with other people you play with.
Or its just 'its not worth bothering to fix'? I can understand this thought to some extent, but seeing as the coordinators are putting out new versions of this.. they are putting time into it, needed or not.
Anything is worth fixing if broken, but time is a finite thing and if you are going to make a correction, then you want to do it just once. Player experiences play into that. YOu can give Paizo better feedback through experiences run at a table, rather that just giving your POV. Consider PFS kinda like a play test (my opinion, not Paizo's) the more evidence you give, the better they can use it.
You didn't answer me before, did you play LG, Arcanis, Blackmoor, Living City, or any of the other living campaigns that predate PFS?
Played some Living Greyhawk. Never held any leadership roles.
There can be a large number of 'rules' that aren't going to end the world, but really have no reason for existing.
Not sure where your going with this. But this is true in a general sense.
Do you see this limitation on handle animal as solving anything? What does it add to include it rather than something else?
I don't like changing rules without enough though put behind it. I'm sure that you feel that your position is right, but I and others feel that its going to take information to change it. Plus I also hate it when people hate it when the say things to me like; "So what's the rule for this today, and what will be the rule tomorrow."
Do you see this latest 'fix' to the prior handle animal limitation as worth the effort involved?
Again I can understand the 'if it's not broke don't fix it', but on that same coin is the 'you are going to fix it so why not fix it right?'.
I recall when one LG coordinator overhauled the LG campaign document. It was a mammoth undertaking as these rules had accumulated for no real reason much like clutter can occur in one's room. The spring cleaning was delayed so long that it had become difficult to walk around there. People had trouble honestly understanding all the rules therein and they presented as much difficulty as more obscure core rules do for everyone. I did pretty much the same thing for Blackmoor (with the help of another or two) and it too was way more work than it needed to be.
-James
I can't recall the LGC document, but I think that I can take your word for it. On the flip side, you certainly make the case for what I'm talking about. Changes need vetting. Get your feedback from your players and report often.