|
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.I can certainly agree with that.
Likewise I think that you can agree that if something isn't solving anything, then there's no reason for it to be there at all.
What is the reason behind (/what does it solve by):
1. Limiting the number of tricks an animal can be taught between sessions.
2. Disallowing training for a purpose.
3. Changing the number of tricks that can be trained from 1 to CHA mod, irrespective of Handle animal skill ranks?If you could lend light on any of these that would be helpful to me.
Others have stated that they think 'infinite' animal companions are 'broken', but I don't really understand what they mean by it and they haven't ever explained themselves.
As to the LGC document I can find copies of the before and after if you'd like. In my anecdotal experience its helpful to see what mistakes other campaigns have made in the past so that you don't do likewise. I've seen other campaigns do just this when the administration involved had enough experience with prior campaigns to know better.
-James
I don't think that I can actually answer that to a point that will satisfy you or anyone else. i say this because I just don't make choices like this in a vacuum. Until I can see everything that could be affected by a change like this, I'm just not going to go there.
And I'm sorry I can't help you with the explanations I think if you can go back and read them you might see their points, but i don't think that you all actually agree with them. But hey, Golarion is a great big world, not everyone in PFS has to agree with everything.
Thanks for the offer for the LGC doc, but I really do believe you that it was truly large. I think i had a PF of it once somewhere.
So I have to ask James, Why did you stop playing PFS? Are you planning to restart. I know that there will be some PFS at Hurricon this month. Dominic Transgretti is heading up that and I'm sure he would like to get more people to his tables.
|
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.
Michael,
I have reported it, I GM and play PFSOP.
One thing I have seen in my area, which is across teh country from your area, is that there are very few Druids in PFS.
I have one, which only has GM credits, which raises a whole new issue for the training thing, by the way; and a player running a high-level Druid which doesn't have an AC, at all.
So, by the total lack of Druids, I would have to say that there is a serious negative impact to Druids in PFS play. Back when I played LG, there were a fair number of Druids around. A significant number more than the two (total!) I know of in lcal PFS.
On to the specific issues:
Basing training animals for a number of tricks based off of Charisma just double-dips into a stat that is less than optimal for many classes, including Druids and Rangers.
Suggestion:
Base the number of tricks trainable on something that is not so wildly variable, where the animal friends don't take a penalty, while those who use animals as throw-aways don't gain an advantage because of unrelated cklass effects.
So, set it up something like Stunning Fist, if you really have to limit the number of tricks trainable.
1/level for classes that have animal companions as a class feature, including Cleric-types with the Animal DOmain who have taken the animal companion feature from it.
1/4 levels for other classes.
Although I don't see the need to limit animal handling training, myself.
Marty, Las Vegas area 1-star GM
Making new, variant rules would just complicate things in an area that is marginal to begin with, i.e. bloat the PFS rules.
It seems pretty reasonable that if PFS is assuming 1 month passage of time for Paladin mount renewal, that it would assume the same for other aspects of Animal Companions... Even if for other reasons, 1 month of time doesn´t pass in general (i.e. for Afflictions), having a consistent application within the Animal Companion category seems pretty uncontroversial and simple to effect. ON the other hand, having Paladins need to wait until level-up to gain a replacement Mount doesn´t seem out of whack either, for the other side of the consistency coin.
|
|
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.Michael,
I have reported it, I GM and play PFSOP.
One thing I have seen in my area, which is across teh country from your area, is that there are very few Druids in PFS.
I have one, which only has GM credits, which raises a whole new issue for the training thing, by the way; and a player running a high-level Druid which doesn't have an AC, at all.
So, by the total lack of Druids, I would have to say that there is a serious negative impact to Druids in PFS play. Back when I played LG, there were a fair number of Druids around. A significant number more than the two (total!) I know of in lcal PFS.
On to the specific issues:
Basing training animals for a number of tricks based off of Charisma just double-dips into a stat that is less than optimal for many classes, including Druids and Rangers.Suggestion:
Base the number of tricks trainable on something that is not so wildly variable, where the animal friends don't take a penalty, while those who use animals as throw-aways don't gain an advantage because of unrelated cklass effects.So, set it up something like Stunning Fist, if you really have to limit the number of tricks trainable.
1/level for classes that have animal companions as a class feature, including Cleric-types with the Animal DOmain who have taken the animal companion feature from it.
1/4 levels for other classes.
Although I don't see the need to limit animal handling training, myself.
Marty, Las Vegas area 1-star GM
Thanks for your input Marty. Feedback is good.
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.
A druid constantly callously treating their animal companion as nothing more than a meat shield and not a true companion should soon be facing warnings and perhaps punishments from whatever deity or other source their powers come from in a home game. Unfortunately, PFS GMs do not have the authority to enact this unless this would be considered an evil act. Hm, this could go in that other thread about GMs having the authority to shift character alignments for evil acts.
|
|
Well first of all James, good luck on that PHD. That's a lot of work, but I'm sure your just as passionate about ti as you are Pathfinder.
As for everything else, I think you've made your points. They're clear and concise.
Right now as for PFS, as you can see we're going to try and see if what we have works. In order to really understand that, we need results from tables. Which is why I was Asking if you had any plans returning to PFS, your reports from the table are what really helps Paizo address concerns.
As clearly as you have made your points, they are just speculation. What we need is results from the table.
Nothing is going to work like proof.
I'm sorry that your online play is not getting reported, that's something you should look into. If you run or play, you should get the credit your entitled to. But you can see where the rest of us, the VCs are coming from though. Your very vocal, and yet not active. Which is a shame since you seem very capable.
We would like you to keep up with PFS, and look forward for your return. Your thoughts on this concern have been noted. We will be watching this situation as time goes on.
Thanks!
|
Just to add my short opinion... I personally think the rule would work fine as a houserule for PFS, however I don't necessarily agree with it, since it does unfairly punish a druid.
From my GMing/playing I've never actually seen a druid (or cavalier, or paladin, or ranger) that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield. I have however seen quite a few animal companions die. Once I even saw a raise dead paid for to bring said animal companion back to life (this was before the raise animal companion spell). A scenario later it died again. The gnome druid had to wait 2 levels to bring the animal companion back to full speed, despite having 14 charisma and full ranks in handle animal. A scenario after she finally fully trained it... it died again.
I understand the fact that it isn't a huge deal, and her animal companion wasn't really that bad because of the bonus tricks. So like I said initially, I actually think the houserule works fine for PFS, but I also think if there was a change, it could just be changed to a flat 4 tries per scenario, to simulate the ~month between each scenario.
Edit: I'd like to note that this animal companion also had quite a bit of armor from gear, great saves, Toughness, and I believe Iron Will. Frontline animal companions just tend to die alot (especially in some of the deadly games that we tend to run/play with our group).
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.To which I also come back with, how many tables that you run or play with have a problem with this.
See above.
|
|
See above.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.To which I also come back with, how many tables that you run or play with have a problem with this.
Thanks Hogarth, I can find these all by myself.
|
|
A druid constantly callously treating their animal companion as nothing more than a meat shield and not a true companion should soon be facing warnings and perhaps punishments from whatever deity or other source their powers come from in a home game. Unfortunately, PFS GMs do not have the authority to enact this unless this would be considered an evil act. Hm, this could go in that other thread about GMs having the authority to shift character alignments for evil acts.
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.
In game there's nothing callous about it. It can be role-played as a druid that travels around by himself, and the gods of nature provide for him a companion in whatever area he happens to get into a scrap of trouble. a panther in the jungle, a bear in the frigid north. he doesn't have to kill his companion, he can dismiss it as he moves on to the next area. there's thematic in game reasons to want to play a character the way you want to play it, and there's game rules out of game for what happens when you do that.
Nowhere in the core rules does it state that a new animal companion doesn't come fully trained. there's also nowhere that it says they DO come fully trained. PFS just standardized it, and i feel they standardized it poorly.
I'm just saying that their restrictions don't stop someone from playing an animal companion druid/ranger that way, if that's how the player is dead set on playing their character. and there's nothing evil about it. hey if the animal dies, its part of the circle of life and it served its purpose.
The society does seem to deter druid characters, from the rules on training and the evidence in the lack of animal companion druids in gaming tables. I play in NY and the only druid i know of, was a 3.5 carry over who reached high levels before Pathfinder went into year 1, and my own Ranger who did the same. I helped 2 new characters make first level druids. One didn't want an animal companion because of the problems with training them, the other hasn't switched animals yet, though I know he wants to try out other animal companions, so it hasn't come up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so we agree. This is your opinion based on the rules. It's your perspective based on...
Is there a place online that we can report our thoughts to local venture captains? i thought that's what these forums were for.
regarding animal training, most of the consensus I see is a disagreement over the previous and current system for training animal companions. I see one venture captain who is unconnected to the FAQ process rebuffing other forum members who are citing that they're not happy with the society guide.
The evidence that there's a problem with druids would seem to be that not many people are playing them. shying away from a class because of restrictions that people don't agree with. so they play something else.
If there's a problem by the time its at the table, then things can get heated and out of hand. its nicer to go into a game knowing that your opinions have been stated and that the developers are listening and considering what everyone has to say.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you can pay NPCs to upgrade your enchanted gear between modules, I don´t see why you can´t do the same to ´upgrade´ the training of animals, which Animal Companions still are. If people are buying combat trained mounts, NPC animal training is obviously allowed, it´s just a matter of applying it to Animal Companions.
What are the RAW rules for paying NPCs to train animals?
Is it based on the per day cost for ´trained hireling´? Is animal training more costly than other hirelings? Possibly with cost of stabling added per day/week?
But trained horses, dogs, etc, seem to be +50% of base cost (creature type) to have ´combat training´...???
Certainly it seems reasonable if you have a horse or dog (listed on the table with trained prices) that you can pay the difference in price for trained/non-trained, but it isn´t so clear for other animal types what you should pay...???
|
|
Ok, so we agree. This is your opinion based on the rules. It's your perspective based on...
Is there a place online that we can report our thoughts to local venture captains? i thought that's what these forums were for.
regarding animal training, most of the consensus I see is a disagreement over the previous and current system for training animal companions. I see one venture captain who is unconnected to the FAQ process rebuffing other forum members who are citing that they're not happy with the society guide.
The evidence that there's a problem with druids would seem to be that not many people are playing them. shying away from a class because of restrictions that people don't agree with. so they play something else.
If there's a problem by the time its at the table, then things can get heated and out of hand. its nicer to go into a game knowing that your opinions have been stated and that the developers are listening and considering what everyone has to say.
I don't think the lack of Druid's has anything to do with the rules on animal companion training to be honest.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Druid's are no longer the most powerful class in the game. That wildshape was seriously nerfed (not sure if this was in 3.5 or in Pathfinder).
Druids are, in my experience, a class that notoriously gets overlooked. They are hard to play in a typical campaign, whether it be home or OP. Why? Because really they don't have much reason to partake in any adventure other than wilderness ones, and it takes some work to mold a believable motivation for a Druid to be a Pathfinder.
So to say that people aren't playing druids because of the training rules is silly.
You might see some meta-gamers and power-gamers that have stopped playing their Druids because of the new PFRPG rule about intelligence and animals not being able to take weapon feats.
But that isn't a PFS thing, that's a PFRPG thing.
I agree Druids are probably less common because of flavor reasons.
Why is a Druid working as an agent of some group tracking down ´artifacts´ for their museum?
I mean, Paladins and most Clerics really have similar issues, but at least they are ´of civilization´ (potentially),
while MOST Druids are flavored as not having as much to do with civilization (not necessarily true, but the tendency)
|
Why is everyone talking about how this effects druids.... I've found it much more an issue with rangers whom choose a companion over druids. my companion died due to one well placed spell before it moved due to the lower level of the ranger companions. This is the 3rd time a single spell has killed him in surprise rounds or the first round.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we say druids, but we mean rangers and druids. both are classes that don’t usually have high charisma characters ( as there is no ability other than wild empathy that gets any benefit. and wild empathy is a terminally useless ability ).
who really suffers with the rules as they stand?
* sorcerers? they don’t get animal companions. they just buy a riding dog. if it dies they spend 150gp and get a new one. beyond 3rd level they’ll just be used as mounts for small characters anyway.
* paladins? they get an animal companion at 5th level. bypassing lower levels without tricks. if it dies, they get a -1 to attack/damage. not a huge deal. in most situations the mount won’t even be out during a dungeon crawl so its safe. if it does die, it gets minimum 2 bonus tricks and a paladin can probably safely train it for 3 tricks per game in downtime.
* cavaliers? their mount is always combat trained + gets bonus tricks. if it dies, it can be replaced in a week, and wouldn’t normally get link/ saves etc. but in pfs we hand wave that it wouldn’t get these abilities until the cavalier levels up.
* clerics? with the animal domain they don’t get a companion until 4th level. and then its a 1st level companion. knows one trick... this animal isn’t going to be going near the center of combat. it’ll probably just be guarding the cleric. but at least if they die, the cleric might have a decent charisma for channeling positive energy.
* druids/rangers? there’s no reason to have a charisma. druids don’t even get Diplomacy as a class skill. the only skills they require charisma for is handle animal. So druids and rangers have no reason to have a charisma. they can’t afford to put higher than a 13 in Cha. which would still only net them 1 trick per game if their beloved Fluffy meets his end during a game. they take no penalty, and could get their companion back in game if they have 24 hours to spend chanting and burning leaves.
so they all have their ups and downs. cavaliers have it the best in pfs play.
druids/rangers the worst. in terms of what happens when you have to replace your companion. is it so hard to see why someone new to the game might be averse to druids? or why an experienced gamer might drift to something simpler like the summoner, where you don’t have to take a skill to control your pet, you can “skin” your pet to look like anything, don’t have a restricted list of what you can/ can’t take. and if he dies, comes back the next day without losing any skills/abilities ?
i don’t understand why there needs to be regulation about animal companion tricks. i’ve never seen a game ruined because Fluffy knew how to heel, or because Old Silver knew how to attack.
its rare that it comes up in tables, and it will be rarer , until management stops regulating something that doesn’t need it.
|
|
Ok, so we agree. This is your opinion based on the rules. It's your perspective based on...
Is there a place online that we can report our thoughts to local venture captains? i thought that's what these forums were for.
regarding animal training, most of the consensus I see is a disagreement over the previous and current system for training animal companions. I see one venture captain who is unconnected to the FAQ process rebuffing other forum members who are citing that they're not happy with the society guide.
The evidence that there's a problem with druids would seem to be that not many people are playing them. shying away from a class because of restrictions that people don't agree with. so they play something else.
If there's a problem by the time its at the table, then things can get heated and out of hand. its nicer to go into a game knowing that your opinions have been stated and that the developers are listening and considering what everyone has to say.
The Venture Captains are all connected to the FAQ process and we are tasked with explaining and clarifying the rules, so I'm not sure what your getting at Seraph. All of the VCs report back what they see at their tables and what their GMs report back to them as well. It seems to me that your being dismissive of the Venture Captains. But the internet is a funny thing, sometimes you can't get someone's full understanding.
I didn't rebuff James, I did take in his feedback. A few others have done the same. You may say that there is evidence of a problem, but I and the rest of the VC don't have enough evidence of this issue. You make an inference that not many people play them, where are you drawing that information from. Just going through the message boards isn't going to give you that information.
If things are getting heated and out of hand at a table, then that should be reported. So far I haven't heard of a single incident of someone getting heated and out of hand on this issue. ActuallyI have heard from almost everyone I've talked too how much they like the system.
If you feel there is a problem, lets have the specific that your seeing at your table. Hypothetical issues aren't helpful, we really need specifics.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The society does seem to deter druid characters, from the rules on training and the evidence in the lack of animal companion druids in gaming tables. I play in NY and the only druid i know of, was a 3.5 carry over who...
The rules on training don't affect most people beyond the first couple of levels. And maybe one or two other times in their character's progression. The rules do discourage disposable companions which I don't think is the typical druid player (though I have seen a ranger who numbered his companions). If anything it discourages rangers who also have a low charisma but get their companion much later in the game and have a far weaker companion who is more likely to get killed.
The low number of druids in organized play is a reflection of the low number of druids in the game in general. In spite of all the talk that druids are super powerful, it's a very complicated class to master and many players just don't invest that much time into the game.
When the summoner came into play things suddenly there's another pet class. It has a customizable pet and an easier to work with spell list. Which makes it far more attractive for the players who found the druids spell list difficult and working with the other class features.
In my experience the druid was never super popular class but now it's even less common, but that has very little to do with PFS specifically. Curiously, in spite of the fact that they get hit worse no-one is complaining about rangers getting screwed.
|
|
we say druids, but we mean rangers and druids. both are classes that don’t usually have high charisma characters ( as there is no ability other than wild empathy that gets any benefit. and wild empathy is a terminally useless ability ).
who really suffers with the rules as they stand?
* sorcerers? they don’t get animal companions. they just buy a riding dog. if it dies they spend 150gp and get a new one. beyond 3rd level they’ll just be used as mounts for small characters anyway.* paladins? they get an animal companion at 5th level. bypassing lower levels without tricks. if it dies, they get a -1 to attack/damage. not a huge deal. in most situations the mount won’t even be out during a dungeon crawl so its safe. if it does die, it gets minimum 2 bonus tricks and a paladin can probably safely train it for 3 tricks per game in downtime.
* cavaliers? their mount is always combat trained + gets bonus tricks. if it dies, it can be replaced in a week, and wouldn’t normally get link/ saves etc. but in pfs we hand wave that it wouldn’t get these abilities until the cavalier levels up.
* clerics? with the animal domain they don’t get a companion until 4th level. and then its a 1st level companion. knows one trick... this animal isn’t going to be going near the center of combat. it’ll probably just be guarding the cleric. but at least if they die, the cleric might have a decent charisma for channeling positive energy.
* druids/rangers? there’s no reason to have a charisma. druids don’t even get Diplomacy as a class skill. the only skills they require charisma for is handle animal. So druids and rangers have no reason to have a charisma. they can’t afford to put higher than a 13 in Cha. which would still only net them 1 trick per game if their beloved Fluffy meets his end during a game. they take no penalty, and could get their companion back in game if they have 24 hours to spend chanting and burning leaves.
so they all have their ups and downs. cavaliers have it the best in pfs play.
druids/rangers...
Well I was speaking primarily of Druids, but I suppose at some point it might apply to a Ranger as well.
I am sure you are not intending to sound like a power gamer or a meta gamer. I can see your passion for your character that you feel has been gipped. I get it. I’ve been there in other situations (not PFS).
But it comes across as very meta-gamey or power-gamey when you talk about tanking Charisma for a Druid or Ranger simply because the the stat’s mechanical effects to class skills and such. There are many ways to build a character and optimization doesn’t have to be the primary way to do so. An animal companion is not specifically supposed to be the primary ability of a Druid. But if you choose to build your Druid that way, then Charisma is a logical choice, and you just accept that you will have to sacrifice elsewhere. That’s the way of designing classes with so many options.
Optimized building is lazy in my book.
|
|
The more likely end result is that it narrows down the number of people that will make noise because it directly impacts their characters. Now a paladin gets a mount back with 5-7 tricks the next session. If this is acceptable (and I don't see a problem with it) then the same should hold for the druid and ranger (especially the ranger who with an less advanced companion will have them die more frequently)
Well, it's kind of hard for a horse to hold a greatsword without opposable thumbs.
(Toss-up to the crowd: Are there any objections to mounts/ACs learning multiple or all-entitled tricks quickly which are not related to the weapon-wielding-critters issue?)
|
|
Let's see, in my local area, I know of only one or two Rangers, and one of those is a single level dip to get feats in line with level to acquire a specific feat at a specific level, and needed a full BAB dip, and Ranger was the least awful, not the best.
Druids in my area? One that I know of, at 8th level. Not sure how much of that is from GM credit, either.
Optimized building is lazy in my book.
Really? Truly? I have to admit that, yet again, I cannot fathom your thinking processes.
Optimization takes a lot more effort than putting together a junk character with junk stats and junk feats, traits, etc.
One of the players in our area decided not to get his 7th level Wizard raised after the last failed module, because it was too unoptimized, and started to feel worthless to him.
Heck, optimization takes more effort than role playing a character. Much more. B8ut maybe I'm biased, with a theater background, and a computer programmer background....
|
|
cavaliers have it the best in pfs
Cavaliers, as the mounted class, should have the best mounts in the game -- because they're weak without them. (A cavalier is what you have left when you start with a paladin and hobble/rename Smite to Challenge, take away swift-healing ability, and remove god-like saving-throws.)
|
|
(Toss-up to the crowd: Are there any objections to mounts/ACs learning multiple or all-entitled tricks quickly which are not related to the weapon-wielding-critters issue?)
There no longer is a weapon-wielding-critters issue :)
EDIT: Gonna answer a question with a question:
Can any other class features be completely rebuilt between every scenario without expenditure?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who doesn't have a horse in this particular race, I'll say this.
People complained about the animal training rules in PFS. The organisers listened, and have changed the rules in an attempt to answer these complaints.
How about we give this new rule a bit of time to bed in and see what the response from the tables is before we theorycraft it to death?
I'm sure if the players of PFS don't think this rule solves the problem, they will make their opinions known in time through con reports and through talks with their GMs, and these reports will filter up to the Venture Captains and beyond.
I can see a small and vocal group of people decrying this new rule immediately, and I'm not saying that their concerns aren't valid, but I am saying that they do not speak for the entirety of PFS. Let's give the community a chance to make their opinions known at the table before we write this change off.
|
|
(Toss-up to the crowd: Are there any objections to mounts/ACs learning multiple or all-entitled tricks quickly which are not related to the weapon-wielding-critters issue?)There no longer is a weapon-wielding-critters issue :) EDIT: Gonna answer a question with a question:
Can any other class features be completely rebuilt between every scenario without expenditure?
A summoner's eidolon -- if it's killed, the summoner just needs to wait a day...which could be within the scenario. (Its features are set between scenarios, but it can be rebuilt entirely at every leveling.)
-- I'm just trying to figure out what the objection is to druids replacing lost/dismissed AC with new fully-trained ACs (if one remains now that weapon-wielding critters are dealt with).
(Disclosure: no PFS characters with ACs, and none in the works.)
|
|
Optimized building is lazy in my book.
Really? Truly? I have to admit that, yet again, I cannot fathom your thinking processes.
Optimization takes a lot more effort than putting together a junk character with junk stats and junk feats, traits, etc.
One of the players in our area decided not to get his 7th level Wizard raised after the last failed module, because it was too unoptimized, and started to feel worthless to him.
Heck, optimization takes more effort than role playing a character. Much more. B8ut maybe I'm biased, with a theater background, and a computer programmer background....
Let me explain:
Front end, I agree with you, it takes more work to optimize.
But what you often end up with is a table full of soulless (see other thread about a bakery where personality and soul were determined to be synonymous) automatons.
I think it takes much more work and can be much more fun and rewarding, to create a well rounded, or interesting character. This starts with the stats. If all you are doing is trying to optimize, then you start with the stats, and your mindset is set to build something awesome from a mechanical standpoint. But if you like to create a character instead of a page full of numbers, you create the personality and backstory first. Then try to fit the stats to that. In this case, a Druid based on handle animal would definitely have a higher charisma than a purely optimized handle animal druid might have.
This may make things a little tougher later on in some circumstances, but you roleplay through it. Interesting things and hilarity can happen at the table.
With a table full of optimization, the tables can be boring.
|
|
cavaliers have it the best in pfsCavaliers, as the mounted class, should have the best mounts in the game -- because they're weak without them. (A cavalier is what you have left when you start with a paladin and hobble/rename Smite to Challenge, take away swift-healing ability, and remove god-like saving-throws.)
You quoted the wrong person, I certainly did not say that.
|
|
...
From my GMing/playing I've never actually seen a druid (or cavalier, or paladin, or ranger) that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield. ...
I have seen that.
Poor leprous Rodolfo the Baby Elefant. I fear his tusks ended at the Kaer Maga Downmarket as well.Then came Apeolf the Gorilla; who stopped being of use to his master, when it forgot how to use his heirloom halberd.
Now there is Liger (his master does not care if he is lion or tiger) who may jet have the best chance to please his whimsical master.
...
From my GMing/playing I've never actually seen a druid (or cavalier, or paladin, or ranger) that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield. ...I have seen that.
Poor leprous Rodolfo the Baby Elefant. I fear his tusks ended at the Kaer Maga Downmarket as well.
Then came Apeolf the Gorilla; who stopped being of use to his master, when it forgot how to use his heirloom halberd.
Now there is Liger (his master does not care if he is lion or tiger) who may jet have the best chance to please his whimsical master.
Ah yes, the No True Scotsman Argument
Unless players play how you want them to play, they are less worthy than you.
I've seen druids use animals at meat shields. Depending on deity, it might fit the character. Druid of Asmodeus? Sure, the animal is a tool, granted by the deity to be used to accomplish a goal.
I've also seen druids play characters who had a strong emotional bond with their companions, to the point where the character refused to get a new companion for a long time after the previous companion's death.
Every player plays the game their own way.
By implying that some players are playing wrong by doing things differently than you would, you are doing the game a disservice.
|
Every player plays the game their own way.By implying that some players are playing wrong by doing things differently than you would, you are doing the game a disservice.
By implying that people are 'discussing' things wrong by writing posts differently than you would, you are doing this message board a disservice.
By implying that people are 'discussing' things wrong by writing posts differently than you would, you are doing this message board a disservice.
Every player plays the game their own way.By implying that some players are playing wrong by doing things differently than you would, you are doing the game a disservice.
Well, the converse, that I should simply say "Well, your total lack of logical argument has me convinced of the correctness of your opinion" just seems to lack sincerity.
|
|
...
From my GMing/playing I've never actually seen a druid (or cavalier, or paladin, or ranger) that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield. ...I have seen that.
Poor leprous Rodolfo the Baby Elefant. I fear his tusks ended at the Kaer Maga Downmarket as well.
Then came Apeolf the Gorilla; who stopped being of use to his master, when it forgot how to use his heirloom halberd.
Now there is Liger (his master does not care if he is lion or tiger) who may jet have the best chance to please his whimsical master.Ah yes, the No True Scotsman Argument
Unless players play how you want them to play, they are less worthy than you.
I've seen druids use animals at meat shields. Depending on deity, it might fit the character. Druid of Asmodeus? Sure, the animal is a tool, granted by the deity to be used to accomplish a goal.
I've also seen druids play characters who had a strong emotional bond with their companions, to the point where the character refused to get a new companion for a long time after the previous companion's death.
Every player plays the game their own way.
By implying that some players are playing wrong by doing things differently than you would, you are doing the game a disservice.
Fozzy Hammer, if you took the time to read my post you would understand the following:
- Alizor said "I've never actually seen a druid that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield."
- I said "I have seen that."
I play with players who's druid characters use their animal companions as meat shields. I don't care that they do it, or why they do it. We actually all have a good laugh about it. I do not pass judgement on their style of gaming and I do not care for you telling me that I do.
Please don't me again.
Hiding your attacks behind rethoric theory makes them no less personal.
...
From my GMing/playing I've never actually seen a druid (or cavalier, or paladin, or ranger) that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield. ...I have seen that.
Poor leprous Rodolfo the Baby Elefant. I fear his tusks ended at the Kaer Maga Downmarket as well.
Then came Apeolf the Gorilla; who stopped being of use to his master, when it forgot how to use his heirloom halberd.
Now there is Liger (his master does not care if he is lion or tiger) who may jet have the best chance to please his whimsical master.Ah yes, the No True Scotsman Argument
Unless players play how you want them to play, they are less worthy than you.
I've seen druids use animals at meat shields. Depending on deity, it might fit the character. Druid of Asmodeus? Sure, the animal is a tool, granted by the deity to be used to accomplish a goal.
I've also seen druids play characters who had a strong emotional bond with their companions, to the point where the character refused to get a new companion for a long time after the previous companion's death.
Every player plays the game their own way.
By implying that some players are playing wrong by doing things differently than you would, you are doing the game a disservice.
Fozzy Hammer, if you took the time to read my post you would understand the following:
- Alizor said "I've never actually seen a druid that callously treats their animal companion as a meat shield."
- I said "I have seen that."
I play with players who's druid characters use their animal companions as meat shields. I don't care that they do it, or why they do it. We actually all have a good laugh about it. I do not pass judgement on their style of gaming and I do not care for you telling me that I do.
Please don't ...
I apologize for misconstruing your examples of animal companions treated callously as being disapproving of that practice. I will strive to not misconstrue your posts in the future.
|
I have read this thread and I am having a hard time trying to decide what my opinion is.
In the last three years of running PFS as the local Event coordinator I think I have seen two druids. Rangers are much for common compared to druids for us in Virginia.
The animal companion for the druids wasn't a meat shield but the animal did die a few times and the same mostly goes for the rangers.
To be honest I don't really see Druids being used that much as it doesn't mesh well in the PFS play style. Many games are just not allowing to druid to use many of the class features outside of the spell casting (Which is the druid's main feature) which makes it hard to judge the limitation of the animal companion.
1. Is the idea of a animal companion being fully trained when it is replaced overpowered? I don't think it is but I haven't seen druids enough to be sure.
2. The summoner is a better pet class which is way more customizable which I bet is a small reason why druid is less popular in PFS.
3. Does it matter if the Druid treats his AC as disposable? The summoner can send his eidelon into certain death repeatably with little to no issues.
4. I for one would like to see more druids being played.
My two CP's
|
|
I play with players who's druid characters use their animal companions as meat shields. I don't care that they do it, or why they do it.The amusing thing is that for players simply wanting this out of their companion, by 3rd level they have attackx2 and are set.
The rule doesn't do anything to mitigate this, while it really hits rangers that aren't using their companions that way, but get so easily nuked.
It really brings up, why should we bother with animal training in PFS? Simply require that a Druid's take 10 could train it, or that they pay a small x gp per trick and be done with it.
If the player is suiciding their animal companion then they won't bother with even a small gp price, and won't get millage out of it if they did.
Looking for alternatives, I ask:
Do you think it would make more sense and be better for ballance if there was a flat rate of 10 or 25 gp for each trick tought to an animal, but nu limit on how many could be tought between scenarios?or
Should there be a set down time between scenarious, e.g. 15 or 30 days?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Looking for alternatives, I ask:
Do you think it would make more sense and be better for ballance if there was a flat rate of 10 or 25 gp for each trick tought to an animal, but nu limit on how many could be tought between scenarios?
I like the suggestion that some others have brought up: allow the druid PC to train the animal, for free, as her Charisma bonus allows, but also allow her the option to hire an NPC trainer at 50 gp per trick (an expert, 5 gp fee per day, for 10 days)
The following occurs to me: if a 12-Charisma druid has just finished an adventure with, say, a summoner, and that summoner has a +4 headband of alluring charisma, the the summoner could temporarily loan the druid his headband. It takes 24 hours for the druid to acclimatize to the headband, and then she has a Charisma score of 16, for all intents and purposes. She trains her animal 3 tricks and hands the headband back to the summoner, all before the players leave the table.
I play with players who's druid characters use their animal companions as meat shields. I don't care that they do it, or why they do it.The amusing thing is that for players simply wanting this out of their companion, by 3rd level they have attackx2 and are set.
The rule doesn't do anything to mitigate this, while it really hits rangers that aren't using their companions that way, but get so easily nuked.
It really brings up, why should we bother with animal training in PFS? Simply require that a Druid's take 10 could train it, or that they pay a small x gp per trick and be done with it.
If the player is suiciding their animal companion then they won't bother with even a small gp price, and won't get millage out of it if they did.
Looking for alternatives, I ask:
Do you think it would make more sense and be better for ballance if there was a flat rate of 10 or 25 gp for each trick tought to an animal, but nu limit on how many could be tought between scenarios?or
Should there be a set down time between scenarious, e.g. 15 or 30 days?
I always thought that the concept of time units that LG used was fairly well balanced. You had 52 units per season. If you wanted to use some of them for training, sure, go for it.
I've been troubled with the concept that the alchemist has unlimited time between scenarios to create potions, but the druid does not have unlimited time to train his animal companion. Introducing some concept of time (and maybe not even going so far as to introduce Time Units, but something simpler. A flat 2 weeks between session, or something like that) would provide a rationale for imposing limits on druids (if limits are desired, I'm not sure that they are) and alchemists (again, not sure that they are).
I think what I would like to see is that whatever concept of time is used, it's used across the board. If an alchemist has unlimited time, so should the druid. If the druid has limited time, so should the alchemist. I'm not certain that any one class should have a claim to more use of down time than another.
Training fees? I wouldn't have a problem with this. I could see some characters feeling that they would not outsource animal training, but do it themselves, while others would have no problem purchasing a fully trained friend/battle buddy. Creating the option probably would not harm anyone.
Really. I don't think giving a replacement animal max tricks is game breaking. I haven't seen any indication that it's a problem in any game I've ever been in, or DM'd.
I for one don't want one more thing that needs accounting. I hated the LG time units.
I always thought that the concept of time units that LG used was fairly well balanced. You had 52 units per season.
I can understand people not wanting to add another layer. And I know other people who weren't happy with TU's.
So we're back to the concept of unlimited time versus limited time. Is there a reason to favor one over the other?
The big negative with Time Units, as I understand it, is that what they primarily ended up doing was limiting play. A character with no TU left in the current period was, for all intents and purposes, just as dead as one eaten by a dragon until the TU refreshed.
PFS works on a fundamental philosophy of encouraging play as often as possible. This is what the old "Play, Play, Play" doctrine really meant - an instruction to coordinators to do everything they could within the rules to find anyone who shows up a legal seat.
An LG-style Time system, then, seems to run counter to the fundamental philosophy of the campaign.
I can buy that argument. I kind of wish that Play, Play Play still part of the campaign doctrine. (It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the Guide.) I'll pretend for now that it still exists, and somehow the core philosophy didn't disappear leaving behind a vacuum. (Yes, I realize that sounds snarky. That's me. Maybe I should grab the alias Snarky Hammer)
So, assuming that we want players to play, you are right. TU's would limit that. So we're again back to what I see are three choices.
1) Undefined time between modules. Players can do as much as they want to in that period.
2) Defined time between modules. Players can only do what they could do in that time period.
3) Different ambiguous time periods depending on what class you happen to be in, or what you happen to want to do between modules.
Of the three choices, number three seems to me to be the least desirable, the most arbitrary, and the most prone to players feeling that their class might have been slighted.
Of the remaining two, I personally like having a defined time between modules. It eliminates the "infinite" possibility that leads to "brokenness". ("I can do X infinite times, and then Y happens, yea!")
|
|
The big negative with Time Units, as I understand it, is that what they primarily ended up doing was limiting play. A character with no TU left in the current period was, for all intents and purposes, just as dead as one eaten by a dragon until the TU refreshed.
PFS works on a fundamental philosophy of encouraging play as often as possible. This is what the old "Play, Play, Play" doctrine really meant - an instruction to coordinators to do everything they could within the rules to find anyone who shows up a legal seat.
An LG-style Time system, then, seems to run counter to the fundamental philosophy of the campaign.
I can buy that argument. I kind of wish that Play, Play Play still part of the campaign doctrine. (It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the Guide.) I'll pretend for now that it still exists, and somehow the core philosophy didn't disappear leaving behind a vacuum. (Yes, I realize that sounds snarky. That's me. Maybe I should grab the alias Snarky Hammer)
So, assuming that we want players to play, you are right. TU's would limit that. So we're again back to what I see are three choices.
1) Undefined time between modules. Players can do as much as they want to in that period.
2) Defined time between modules. Players can only do what they could do in that time period.
3) Different ambiguous time periods depending on what class you happen to be in, or what you happen to want to do between modules.
Of the three choices, number three seems to me to be the least desirable, the most arbitrary, and the most prone to players feeling that their class might have been slighted.
Of the remaining two, I personally like having a defined time between modules. It eliminates the "infinite" possibility that leads to "brokenness". ("I can do X infinite times, and then Y happens, yea!")
Okay so theoretically if they had a defined time between scenarios and stated that you can only train your animal a number of tricks equal to your Charisma modifier in that defined time, that would be a better rule than it is now?
Okay so theoretically if they had a defined time between scenarios and stated that you can only train your animal a...The big negative with Time Units, as I understand it, is that what they primarily ended up doing was limiting play. A character with no TU left in the current period was, for all intents and purposes, just as dead as one eaten by a dragon until the TU refreshed.
PFS works on a fundamental philosophy of encouraging play as often as possible. This is what the old "Play, Play, Play" doctrine really meant - an instruction to coordinators to do everything they could within the rules to find anyone who shows up a legal seat.
An LG-style Time system, then, seems to run counter to the fundamental philosophy of the campaign.
I can buy that argument. I kind of wish that Play, Play Play still part of the campaign doctrine. (It doesn't appear in the latest edition of the Guide.) I'll pretend for now that it still exists, and somehow the core philosophy didn't disappear leaving behind a vacuum. (Yes, I realize that sounds snarky. That's me. Maybe I should grab the alias Snarky Hammer)
So, assuming that we want players to play, you are right. TU's would limit that. So we're again back to what I see are three choices.
1) Undefined time between modules. Players can do as much as they want to in that period.
2) Defined time between modules. Players can only do what they could do in that time period.
3) Different ambiguous time periods depending on what class you happen to be in, or what you happen to want to do between modules.
Of the three choices, number three seems to me to be the least desirable, the most arbitrary, and the most prone to players feeling that their class might have been slighted.
Of the remaining two, I personally like having a defined time between modules. It eliminates the "infinite" possibility that leads to "brokenness". ("I can do X infinite times, and then Y happens, yea!")
I personally think so. I think it would be better than the current situation of Druids have a set limit on tricks that they can teach between scenarios, while Alchemists can make all the alchemical items they want.
I'm struggling to find a reason why the time limit should apply to one, but not the other.
Admittedly this isn't a huge thing either way. It's just one of those annoyances that seems like it would make a more consistent rule set if there were a rule that were applied equally across the board.