|
Just FYI, it was me that brought the advanced purple worm against Kyle and party. He had given up at one point but then got back into the game when he remembered a certain scroll his character had in her possession.
I think it was a pretty good time.
Also, everyone's opinion is irrelevant except mine :P
I delayed my turn because there was literally nothing that came to mind that I could even do (other than be digested).
Todd is an amazing GM when he's drunk, and still decent sober. Of course he did kill Thea's Willow with a Tree when he was sober. Man that was priceless.
|
It's okay. That one was evil. Now purple bunnies on the other hand...*sacrifices a pink bunny*Nooo not the pretty pink bunny!!!!
The purple ones are just chaotic so you never know which is the good one or which is the evil one until they try to bite you.. but the good ones are super cute and cuddly and are cute
*fluffs her purple pom-pom*
Mark and I read just about every PFS related post on this site and talk about what's going on a lot. Just because we might stay silent on something, or make a decision that's different from what you'd like us to make doesn't mean we don't listen.
Hyrum.
And we appreciate that; it's why we're complaining! I just walked away quietly from LFR as it was too far gone to bother with.
With regards to changing the rules it's not that we don't like the new rules necessarily, it's that they're changing after we've invested in them (character wise). For example I don't care what rules you eventually decide the Magus will use; once you've finalised the class I'll take a look at it and decide if I want to play one or not. I just don't want the rules to change after I've subsequently played one for a year and committed time and energy into building her personality.
|
|
I'll be right behind you guys (along with quite a few of my three groups) as soon as the new organized play document is updated to include gunslingers. The rules were fine the way they were when we all started; tinkering with them is just frustrating and infuriating the populace.
This. I quit LFR for exactly the same reason and stopped buying WotC products as a result.
By populace do you mean yourself and a few people from your three groups :P
I believe Mark had posted that there are tens of thousands of players active in PFS. The people that number themselves as opposed to rules changes at any given update are a few tenths of a percent of the total. Even if you include people that actually post on these forums, your 'populace' is still just the vocal minority.
Plz be more accurate with your opinions. I grow weary of correcting you.
I'm sorry, you're right. There couldn't POSSIBLY be more people upset about recent changes than just the two people in this thread and the good 40% of gamers that I've spoken to in the HOUSTON METROPOLIS REGION. Obviously the other 13,980 players that haven't spoken up for whatever reason are all in complete agreement with you.
The fact is that there's not a single person that would have been upset with this campaign if new classes weren't added. On the other hand there's a decent percentage of the population that is. Now I don't have a doctorate in business or anything, but I do have an IQ over that of most optimized barbarians (which is all it would take to see what a bad idea this is from a business perspective).
|
You have been weighed and measured and found lacking. Which aside from what I find an entertaining line means: there are far more people here ready to go along with Mark, than oppossed, because most of us either A) Don't care you can have a weapon wielding monkey, B) Don't like the idea of it, or C) have long ago accepted the reality that unless you're the one in charge, your voice matters not.
I'm B & C. Had I known RAW would have allowed it I would have found it distasteful, now that I do I'm opposed to it, and lastly I know I have no say but I like the roller coaster anyways so ride on.
|
|
On a side note, I checked and none of those saying they are going to quit and talk with their dollars have canceled their subscriptions. Until that is done, it just sounds like constant whining.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizo/customerService/subscriptions3xt ax&page=1&source=search#0
You obviously didn't check very hard. While you're on that page why don't you look at the date it was posted.
I'll remind people to be civil to each other. This is obviously a topic that pushes some of our buttons, with strong opinions on either side, but that is no reason to deride each other's opinions and choices.
We've stated it before, but it bears repeating: We are listening. We may not be able to enact changes as quickly as we'd like, but we do listen to feedback from our players.
Since it's Friday, everyone step back from the thread, take a deep breath, have a cookie and relax.
PIZZA!!!!!! That is all.
You know, I'm not part of Society play. But I have nothing positive to say about anybody whose priorities in life are so out of whack that any of this is such a gigantic big deal to him.
Then again, there was that one time I quit my best friend's game because he would not let me permanently shove a rolled-up carpet of flying up my camel's butt.
|
You know, I'm not part of Society play. But I have nothing positive to say about anybody whose priorities in life are so out of whack that any of this is such a gigantic big deal to him.
Can we PLEASE get a dang *Like* button on these boards so I can Like this comment?
Personally, I think a lot of people who wind up feeling like this are the 'we are being ignored' crowd, and dont realize its not that they are being ignored cause their opinion isnt the rule. Its just that the powers that be disagree with your opinion.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
The fact is that there's not a single person that would have been upset with this campaign if new classes weren't added.
Speaking as the publisher who created the campaign, manages its staff, and controls its budget, I would certainly be upset if new classes weren't added.
But I admit, I am just one guy. :)
|
|
The fact is that there's not a single person that would have been upset with this campaign if new classes weren't added.Speaking as the publisher who created the campaign, manages its staff, and controls its budget, I would certainly be upset if new classes weren't added.
But I admit, I am just one guy. :)
I suspect there may be a few more, otherwise no one would be playing characters that upset people.
|
|
The fact is that there's not a single person that would have been upset with this campaign if new classes weren't added.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. =)
|
The other major issue, especially with this change, is that people were not attempting to "abuse" the rules.
I think this is a rather disingenuous statement.
To abuse the rules requires that you actually follow the rules rather than break them, but use the rules in such a way as to create a game breaking situation.
Having a dual wielding or halberd wielding Ape that can kick more butt than many fighters can is game breaking. Especially since that monkey is your character's animal companion, not your character.
Giving your Ape a random sword to help you out with, because you think its cool and flavorful to have an ape wielding a long sword is one thing.
But to spend all your loot to deck out your monkey is actually an abuse of the rules.
Taking anything so far to the extreme, that it causes issues at the game table, and raised eyebrows from other players... that is abusing the rules.
|
|
Post got eaten, re-try.
This may be counter to my goal of increasing the player base of PFS, but:
Taking a break from Society play is not a bad idea for those who are feeling upset by things like this.
I'm not trying to drive people away here, just saying that life is too short to be consistently angered by something that is supposed to be fun. Also not trying to stifle healthy debate: it's good to get feedback on what people don't like, but everyone has to realize that we are not always going to get specific things we want.
Maybe if you take a break, you will re-discover what you liked about org play in the first place, or the actual direction of the new season will be more to your liking than you thought, or things will change, or....
I took a break from PFS myself. For a while, I found that I just wasn't enjoying running the scenarios any more. When I took a break, ran some APs and came back, I found that I appreciated Society play that much more.
Have some fun.
|
1. The GtOP would be formatted in such a way that it could easily be updated. The shiny is nice, but form follows function.
2. The GtOP would be updated once a month, on the same day every month (though many updates would serve only to expand the material legal for use in the campaign). Versions would be numbered by month (for example, ver 2011.3 for this month).
3. Each new season would continue to see a major annual revision.
4. The GtOP would include a comprehensive change log that stretches back to the last major annual revision.
5. Changes would not be legal until they appeared in the GtOP. Ever.
6. I'd also give the Society a blog. One of the regular updates would be all changes in the monthly release of the GtOP.
7. The GtOP would remain comprehensive. Splitting it into player and GM documents simply serves to underscore a distinction that the Society should be trying to downplay.
Nice list.
Also, I've seen several people pooh-pooh the idea of vetting changes with the community before they go "live" because it will take too much time and drag into endless discussion. What about having some kind of "Board of Directors" or something - basically a small but diverse group who would review proposed changes before they are released to the public? Even if 100% of the decision making authority stayed with Mark and Hyrum, it would give them an opportunity to trouble shoot and get an outside perspective. I'm sure there are plenty of opinions at Paizo, but like any group, after a while, most of its members can start looking at problems in the same way and can get blind-sided when someone from the outside thinks outside the box. A bit of external review would help avoid that. And I think you already have a smallish, diverse group in your Venture-Captains. They have more player contact than anyone else. Start looking to them for a bit of insight and "governance" of the Society.
Finally, back to the above list, anything that can be done to regularize communication, especially about rules changes, and make access to the same information easier would only make the PFS healthier.
|
|
Basically, it's easy to come up with the IDEAS but look at it realistically. Neither Mark nor Hyrum are ONLY working on PFS. They both have full time Paizo jobs IN ADDITION to PFS.
While I'm sure it is true that both Mark and Hyrum have plenty of other duties at Paizo, I think it is inaccurate to say they do PFS "in addition" to their full time jobs. I'm sure their both swell guys. But they are not running PFS as volunteers. They are Paizo employees. Paizo has decided to create an organized campaign to go along with their RPG (and I'm glad they did). They've put people in charge of it. Running the Pathfinder Society well is part of Mark and Hyrum's jobs. I cannot accept the argument that they (or anyone else at Paizo) is too busy to do their job. If the workload - between PFS and other Paizo products - is such that Mark and Hyrum don't have the time to do it right, then Paizo needs to decide where its priorities lie and allocate resources to those priorities. If PFS is a priority, give the gentlemen the time to focus on it. And if it's not, find a way to involve the community in running it. Just don't use "not enough time" as an excuse. [Note: This post is in response to other posters' arguments; I have never seen Hyrum or Mark claim that they can't do something because they are pulled in too many directions at once.]
I look forward to the continued evolution of the Pathfinder Society and hope that next week's announcements begin to create better systems for communicating with the community and disseminating information.
I guess this seems extremely odd to me. If you earnestly think that things like this are not going to get changed, that new classes/abilities/etc aren't going to be added, that things that are broken (and yes, pole apes were broken, I saw enough of them while wandering through cons shaking my head) aren't going to get banned, I am completely floored.
Here, I'll counter with things like this - Things like pole apes and the popular conception that int 3 druid companions did not needing handle animal checks were actually keeping me from getting serious about PFS.
|
|
I guess this seems extremely odd to me. If you earnestly think that things like this are not going to get changed, that new classes/abilities/etc aren't going to be added, that things that are broken (and yes, pole apes were broken, I saw enough of them while wandering through cons shaking my head) aren't going to get banned, I am completely floored.
Here, I'll counter with things like this - Things like pole apes and the popular conception that int 3 druid companions did not needing handle animal checks were actually keeping me from getting serious about PFS.
+1
Monkey's with poles makes me think of Dragon Ball Z, and that level of seriousness is not what I want in my D&D soup.
|
Essentially, if you insist on gaming in the gray areas of the rules you are eventually going to get burned. The similarities between this and the Intimidate based characters that complained when they got burned by the Errata are too similar.
If you insist on pushing the limits of the rules you shouldn't be too surprised when they occasionally push back.
|
|
A few comments.
1. To everyone that was "offended" by the sheer existence of a weapon wielding animal companion, not mechanically, but from an immersion standpoint:
An ape with a polearm is immersion breaking, but someone with a joke name or silly description for their eidolon doesn't bother you? Should there be guidelines on naming conventions for characters or parameters for how eidolons are described?
Other people derive enjoyment in different ways that I do. In an organized play setting (since many people have been hammering home that this is, indeed, organized play), you are going to see lots of people with different play habits than your own.
I can understand if people complain that because of X type of character the rest of the party doesn't get to do Y, or mechanically this is always going to be the best option, etc. But just based on what someone else enjoys?
2. There is at least some thought that this build (with the polearm) was actually done solely for power gaming. I have personally been present when discussions about the character turned to the fact that he could have much better damage output without the weapon, and if he was going to take advantage of being a weapon wielder, going summoner with eidolon would probably have been better.
The build was effective, but it was essentially trying to take a concept and see if it could be done. It was an experiment that the player enjoyed.
3. For people that really are worried about the mechanics of the character, the most challenging aspect of the character is that the creature is large and has reach.
If the issue is a large creature with a reach weapon, then it still exist in the form of a large eidolon, which can probably be created to be more dangerous with a weapon than an ape.
4. After getting all of the above out of the way, I think some of the OP's frustration is getting lost in the sea of people so glad to see an obvious cheesy power gamer's fun ruined.
This would not have bothered him half so much if the following had happened:
This rule had not come up, once again, as a response to a forum post instead of being presented in a nice, obviously official organized play document.
This rule had been expressed as a rules change, and not a mistake by someone that previously had authority to make these decisions. By saying that this wasn't a rules change, it implies that you should be able to ignore the Organized Play organizers if they are obviously wrong about something. Which then means you actually don't have organized play coordinators.
Also troubling: The build was banned first, and eventually some comments were made about how to rebuild the character. This, to me, comes across as projecting that it was far more important to get people to stop playing those characters than to make sure they had an equitable means of rebuilding the character. It also smacks of making a knee jerk decision.
5. There seemed to be a bit of "taking cover" going on when the ruling was made. The initial post by Jason did not say that animal companions could not wield weapons, it said that generally they would not, and it would be up to the GM to determine.
Which means, this wasn't a mistake, or some de facto rule that was always in place but was misinterpreted. One GM allowed it (Josh) and another GM banned it (Mark). That is a rules change, and Mark can do that, but it is, indeed a rules change that he made, not a ruling from on high that he could do nothing about.
6. There was a comment earlier in the thread that effectively said that the poster just assumed Mark had never read the part of the guide that made the character legal.
I don't know if this is the case or not, but what does it say if one of the coordinators does not know the guide, especially after having written scenarios and acted as a GM in the OP structure?
7. Finally, I've seen some comments to the effect that "this is just a game." That's fine. If this is just a game, why did the change have to be made, immediately, in a forum post? It is, after all, just a game.
Now, I do wonder, if we had been told "I'm looking at the animal companion rules and we'll revisit them when the next guide goes live," would there have been as much of an issue with how this was presented?
|
|
The fact is that there's not a single person that would have been upset with this campaign if new classes weren't added.Speaking as the publisher who created the campaign, manages its staff, and controls its budget, I would certainly be upset if new classes weren't added.
But I admit, I am just one guy. :)
Yeah, I simplified here where simplifying gave a new meaning. I shouldn't have done that.
Sure, there will probably be some people who are disappointed, but I can't imagine anyone leaving the campaign over it. On the other hand, I can imagine adding too much stuff causing a mass exodus.
Personally (and yes, this is just my opinion), I think if you really want to add stuff you should start creating prestige classes again. I understand your reasoning for not wanting to do so, but those of us who play society play never actually get to see most of the things that were added to the classes to entice us to forget about prestige classes due to the level cap. We would, however, get to see a few levels of a prestige class which would allow us to feel more closure with our retiring characters. I would have a much more tolerant view to this over completely changing the way I view fantasy by constantly adding base characters from fringe areas.
|
|
The new classes might not be to your liking. And honestly, I don't know how many I will like for my home game, I will have to see the final versions. And it stretches immersion to have new things added to the campaign while it is underway.
However,
I think you are mistaken that people will no be upset if new things are not added. Look at the number of posts that come up every time a new supplement is released asking when they will be legal for play. Probably most would not be upset enough over feat x or class y to stop playing, but some would. And some would never start.
And honestly, do you really expect them to not include elements out of the new hardcovers they are trying to market?
|
|
Just a few comments in no particular order:
Things that can cause major changes in characters should have, IMO, either:
1) Rebuild rules included as part of the change (playtest to published class changes, as an example)
2) Lead time built-in to allow the player to look at how to "fix" issues caused by incomplete/partial rebuild rules.
If something is going to cause potentially major issues to higher level character builds, like the change that animals with Int 3+ still require that Handle Animal still needs to be used, and this can affect characters that have been used from the start of OP, and could affect 12th level characters, it needs to be more than just a "Sorry, you can rebuild the AC, but your PC is not allowed to make any of the required associated changes."
Legitimate concerns that have been bypassed by the now-changed rule need to be properly addressed. Things like ACs coming without any training but the few (very few) bonus tricks.
To be honest, while I have no PC who is seriously affected by this change, I was building some experimental PCs that are no longer valid because of this change. Heck, this change does not work well with official, OP authorized Paizo Pathfinder content, like the Human alternative Racial trait "Eye for Talent" from the APG, which is, according to the latest version of the Additional Resources document online, is legal for PFSOP, and allows the +2 to any of your companion's stats, which also includes Intelligence....
So, for giving lead-time for changes that can affect higher level characters, I would vote yes. For making sure that it doesn't do an immediate contradiction of earlier published OP rules without warning, I would vote yes.
Now, just as a reminder:
Balance is impossible, even if you hunt down all cheese and melt it away, since you will always have players who can build characters that can be at the tip-top of effectiveness and players who can build characters who are at the abysmal bottom of ineffectiveness.
There are, currently, no rules disallowing someone from making any specific stat a 20, whether it is Strength for a Fighter or a Wizard, or Charisma for a Sorcerer or a Monk, whether the 20 helps the character work well, or is in what is normally a dump stat where it serves very little purpose.
|
|
A few comments.
+1
I think this is a rather disingenuous statement.
The thing is that this was NOT a gray area before. The Guide to Organized Play specifically calls this out as being LEGAL. This is not a "clarification" of the rules; it is a rules change. Some people might have been trying to abuse the rules here, but the previous PFS leadership allowed it. If the PFS leadership wants to say "we're nerfing weapon-wielding animal companions, they're unbalancing," they should come out and say that.
A few other comments:
1) To me, this seems to create two tracks for Intelligence. The Wild Empathy/Handle Animal vs Diplomacy distinction is gone. If these rules apply, I better not see any INT-drained fighters using weapons or combat tactics. After all, humans aren't born with weapon proficiency.
Yes, I'm being facetious. My point is that Intelligence has been and should be the measure of how smart a creature is, NOT its type. If 3 is the barrier for sentience, which it has been in D&D, removing this should not selectively apply to animals.
2) I personally don't like weapon-wielding animals, but I haven't seen it break the game. A large creature with reach is obtainable using a 1st level spell (Enlarge Person). Add in the abilities of Eidolons and the inability to bring Large animal companions into many situations (as the Druid cannot resummon them), and I think that they are not game-breaking.
3) The big issue for me is language for animals. If an animal spends a skill point to learn a language, it should know the language. The blog post allows for this based on the GM's call and some time passing; this has been left up in the air, since we do not use Time Units.
Even if intelligent animals require Handle Animal checks to "Attack," are we allowed to specify "Attack, but stay back" (use Lunge) or "Attack, and go for the kill" (use Power Attack)? Can we tell an animal to "Fetch, the one that looks like a small badger?" Or does the presence of the Linguistics skill not affect an animal at all?
I asked this question in a separate post, and it got moved out of the PFS forum. However, the blog post leaves this up in the air, so an official PFS answer would be nice. If an animal gains a high intelligence score, can we treat it as being intelligent even if it requires tricks? The table-to-table variation avoided by a ruling on this would be very helpful.
|
|
Just a few comments in no particular order:
I also agree that PCs should be allowed to redistribute skill points. People were not making up the "INT3 requires no handle animal" interpretation. This was asked on the forums, and Paizo staff stated that tricks would not be required, and that you could communicate fully with the animal.
People did not invent the now-changed interpretation of INT3 animals, which is another reason why they are unhappy.
Another rules change that might be needed is a clarification of the Nature Oracle and Paladin bonded mounts. Even though they are technically animals, they are described as:
"unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal mount"
and start with INT6. Are handle animal checks required on these INT6 creatures? Are they capable of following more complex orders?
Also, Oracles of Nature should have "Handle Animal" added as a class skill...
|
|
And honestly, do you really expect them to not include elements out of the new hardcovers they are trying to market?
No, I don't expect that at all, which is why I'm so fractured on the gunslinger. I can appreciate it being included in a book. Plenty of people may want a gun class for a home campaign set in Alkenstar. I don't want Alkenstar characters flocking out of that country so fast that canon is flat out ruined for organized play either, though.
On the other hand, my wife has been wanting to play a Harrower for over a year now. Unfortunately her work schedule prevents her from being able to play in our home campaign and PFS doesn't allow it. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. I think the class is actually pretty weak to be honest. The only thing I can imagine is that it's believed drawing a card on occasion from a harrow deck will cause some huge delay in the game. That's just my imagination, though. Using a harrow deck will most assuredly not cause a noticeable delay in the game.
Thus my problem; why do smart animals (minus weapons, perhaps, but the rule affects ALL smart animals) and a perfectly good prestige class that fits entirely within the average player's vision for a fantasy game get banned from organized play while something as polarizing as gunslingers are fine?
What's that, Lassie? Timmy jumped in a well because you just got banned from society play? Flipper, stop antagonizing your GM!
Essentially, if you insist on gaming in the gray areas of the rules you are eventually going to get burned. The similarities between this and the Intimidate based characters that complained when they got burned by the Errata are too similar.
If you insist on pushing the limits of the rules you shouldn't be too surprised when they occasionally push back.
I agree, although personally I don't think that rules clarifications belong in the guide to organized play. I'd rather leave rules clarifications up to individual GMs. If that meant your pole-dancing ape isn't legal at Joe the GM's table, you'd just have to grin and bear it.
|
|
I suspect that the Harrower was disallowed due to the Harrow reading itself - it would require GM knowledge of the deck and a fair bit of time for each reading. But I'm just guessing. It was probably not a question of imbalance, but convenience.
I just want to reiterate: the only change from the Org Play Guide is the weapon use.
The question of increased Intelligence and Handle Animal is due to a clarification of the core rules.
And I've said it elsewhere, but mechanically it really shouldn't be that big of a change.
For your AC to have an increased Int, the druid is probably at least 4th level (even if a stat item has been given to the AC). If the druid really depends on their AC, they have maxed ranks in Handle Animal. Disregarding Cha, the druid has a +11 bonus to get their animal to do a trained trick, as a free action DC 10. The animal has 9 tricks based on Int and 2 bonus, for a total of 11. There are 11 tricks in the core rules, so the animal knows them all.
So by 4th level, a druid with an increased Int animal is still able to get them to do any trick as a free action.
The only place this breaks down is when an AC is killed and you have to train it up again.
|
|
My opinion, is this:
While I have said that an AC with a weapon could be game breaking...
The main reason I think the rule on the sword-wielding AC's has more to do with the AC acting as another character at the table and supplanting the actual character.
If every time they clarified a rule, the let rebuilds happen, that would only foster more gray-area builds.
If you are in charge of a group of power-gamers, and you want to dissuade them from constantly going too far with their builds, then you set up a system that actually can penalize them in some minor way for going too far.
In this case, they determined that the AC's with weapons (it doesn't matter of a previous regime ok'd it or not, or if it was in the guide or not, the game rules don't allow for it, and so the new regime is instituting the game rules) was outside the game rules.
So they achieved a few things:
1) They brought PFS back to RAW, rather than as wrongly interpreted by someone else.
2) They minorly penalized the power-gamers that were pushing the envelope.
3) They got rid of the "nth" character at the table issue.
4) They got rid of cheese.
|
|
I suspect that the Harrower was disallowed due to the Harrow reading itself - it would require GM knowledge of the deck and a fair bit of time for each reading. But I'm just guessing. It was probably not a question of imbalance, but convenience.
This is a good point. I hadn't thought of it from that perspective. If this is the reason, though, it should still be allowed with a small, printed explanation just like any other non-core option is, though. But again, the lack of the Harrower's inclusion hasn't caused my wife (or probably anyone else) to cease playing the campaign, which was my original point. It would still be nice to see this revisited (and by revisited I mean agreeing with me unequivocally).
I just want to reiterate: the only change from the Org Play Guide is the weapon use.
The question of increased Intelligence and Handle Animal is due to a clarification of the core rules.
And I've said it elsewhere, but mechanically it really shouldn't be that big of a change.
What you wrote is technically correct, but I'm not worried very much about succeeding on handle animal checks with known tricks, I'm more concerned about pushing an animal to do things it doesn't have tricks for.
I'll modify my wife's situation a tad and use it as an example for a worst case scenario of how this rule will affect players. My wife is currently level 6 with an ape companion (it never had weapon proficiency, though). She knew that she was planning on increasing her animal companion's intelligence at level 4 so she never "wasted" points in handle animal because the second she switched companions from bear to ape the ape was able to understand commands without using handle animal. Before that she just made due with the bonus trick of attack.
As of last week, though, she's now level 6 with an ape companion who knows no tricks (aside from the three bonus tricks which she'll now "teach" it) and no way to learn tricks. Even if she were maxed out on handle animal it would take her an average of 8 mods (or almost three levels) to teach her companion the tricks that she didn't need to teach earlier.
Now compound that with the ease of changing animal companions previously. First, one of the GMs we regularly play under refuses to allow unusual animal companions during city mods. As such she kept two suits of barding and would switch between a dog and ape depending on the scenario which is allowable by the rules. However, now she can't effectively do that because of the handle animal intelligence change. That means we'll either have to stop playing under that DM (and any like him) or she'll lose half of her class ability every time a mod features a city.
Secondly, what of the people who trade out animal companions at levels four and seven? All of a sudden I'm a 7th level druid that has a tiger animal companion I can barely control because my new companion hasn't had time to learn tricks and can no longer understand common.
These may not seem like very big issues individually, but since Mark took over these types of issues have been popping up with far too much frequency. I won't even mention the PR storm that should have happened when he changed the animal companion rules three times in about an hour the other day. Combine the bad communication, poorly thought-out rules "clarifications" (laughable), and the overzealous refusal to allow for characters to adapt to these seat-of-the-pants changes and you have the makings of a far larger campaign implosion than apes with poles or gunslingers could ever cause.
|
|
The build was effective, but it was essentially trying to take a concept and see if it could be done. It was an experiment that the player enjoyed.
It was an experiment so the fact that it didn't work out shouldn't be a huge shock.
Look back a couple months ago this same exact thing happened when people built characters around using intimidate to frighten enemies and the same kind of complaints cropped up. It also happens whenever the beta rules change. If you don't want the rules pulled out from under your character then stay away from the gray areas at the edge of the rules. The reason there isn't much sympathy is because it's an easy enough situation to avoid.
|
|
Look back a couple months ago this same exact thing happened when people built characters around using intimidate to frighten enemies and the same kind of complaints cropped up.
Woah... what complaints about intimidate characters? I hope like hell I didn't miss something that's going to cause another one of my family's characters to be nerfed before he ever even gets really started. :(
|
|
Woah... what complaints about intimidate characters? I hope like hell I didn't miss something that's going to cause another one of my family's characters to be nerfed before he ever even gets really started. :(
Look back a couple months ago this same exact thing happened when people built characters around using intimidate to frighten enemies and the same kind of complaints cropped up.
The latest errata says specifically that shaken doesn't stack with itself so you can't intimidate someone twice to make them frightened.
|
|
I'll modify my wife's situation a tad and use it as an example for a worst case scenario of how this rule will affect players. My wife is currently level 6 with an ape companion (it never had weapon proficiency, though). She knew that she was planning on increasing her animal companion's intelligence at level 4 so she never "wasted" points in handle animal because the second she switched companions from bear to ape the ape was able to understand commands without using handle animal.
I'm sorry, but expecting an animal companion to do anything the druid desires when the druid has never taken a rank in Handle Animal is probably what motivated the clarification in the first place.
|
|
The latest errata says specifically that shaken doesn't stack with itself so you can't intimidate someone twice to make them frightened.Woah... what complaints about intimidate characters? I hope like hell I didn't miss something that's going to cause another one of my family's characters to be nerfed before he ever even gets really started. :(
Look back a couple months ago this same exact thing happened when people built characters around using intimidate to frighten enemies and the same kind of complaints cropped up.
Ok, good. That won't affect his halfling rogue taunt, dazzling display, shatter armor, lunging glaive-guisarm, combat reflexes combo at all!
|
|
I'll modify my wife's situation a tad and use it as an example for a worst case scenario of how this rule will affect players. My wife is currently level 6 with an ape companion (it never had weapon proficiency, though). She knew that she was planning on increasing her animal companion's intelligence at level 4 so she never "wasted" points in handle animal because the second she switched companions from bear to ape the ape was able to understand commands without using handle animal.I'm sorry, but expecting an animal companion to do anything the druid desires when the druid has never taken a rank in Handle Animal is probably what motivated the clarification in the first place.
And yet a wizard's familiar, which is practically an afterthought, can. Don't get me wrong, neither myself nor my wife have any problem with the rule itself (and I doubt anyone else in this thread really does either). Our only concerns are that the rule was changed overnight with no recourse to adapt the character in light of those changes.
I think far too many people in this thread are letting their disdain for the freedom animal companions have previously experienced override the issue that these rules changes in and of themselves, no matter what rule is being changed at the time, are deteriorating the sanctity of the campaign. Most of these protests could easily be resolved by not making spur of the moment rules changes, communicating rules changes that do pop up better, and, most importantly, allowing more flexibility in dealing with said rules changes. Trying to deceive the populace that your rules changes are not rules changes and telling them, essentially, to "suck it up" every time their invested characters get nerfed to oblivion without any recourse is just bad business.
The latest errata says specifically that shaken doesn't stack with itself so you can't intimidate someone twice to make them frightened.Woah... what complaints about intimidate characters? I hope like hell I didn't miss something that's going to cause another one of my family's characters to be nerfed before he ever even gets really started. :(
Look back a couple months ago this same exact thing happened when people built characters around using intimidate to frighten enemies and the same kind of complaints cropped up.
Technically, that's not what it says. It says "THIS Shaken condition doesn't stack with other Shaken conditions to make an affected creature Frightened." under the Intimidate skill entry. Shaken conditions from any other source then the Intimidate: Demoralize skill still stack as before.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, neither myself nor my wife have any problem with the rule itself (and I doubt anyone else in this thread really does either). Our only concerns are that the rule was changed overnight with no recourse to adapt the character in light of those changes.
The rule was changed regarding weapon proficiency feats. The rule was not changed regarding Intelligence/Handle Animal. Rather, what constitutes a typically expected interpretation has changed. The fact that the previous interpretation was firmly grounded in the mechanisms provided for how we have been told to arrive at our understanding of the rules (follow the normal rules, the prior interpretation was provided by a voice of authority in the form of the product's Creative Director) may cloud that distinction.
Players, given the limited direction they have received, made reasonable choices about where to invest their character's resources, such as skills and animal attribute bumps. However, to anyone familiar with the issues of building PCs in a shared campaign subject to table variance gave at least passing acknowledgement to the fact that it would be a risk. It is unfortunate that the Don't Be a Jerk guideline/rule has the effect of essentially being Bow to Peer Pressure at times. That peer pressure has likely limited the willingness of experienced players to help others realize the risk.
I think far too many people in this thread are letting their disdain for the freedom animal companions have previously experienced override the issue that these rules changes in and of themselves, no matter what rule is being changed at the time, are deteriorating the sanctity of the campaign. Most of these protests could easily be resolved by not making spur of the moment rules changes, communicating rules changes that do pop up better, and, most importantly, allowing more flexibility in dealing with said rules changes. Trying to deceive the populace that your rules changes are not rules changes and telling them, essentially, to "suck it up" every time their invested characters get nerfed to oblivion without any recourse is just bad business.
Personally, I support the change in interpretation. I don't support the way it has taken place. It was entrenched. It was supported by an authoritative voice (who distances himself from that role in the matter). It was supported by Bow to Peer Pressure... oops ...Don't Be a Jerk.
I disagree with you about it being a rule change, but I understand that the distinction is cloudy. I agree that it is being handled poorly regarding the lack of recourse.
My deeper concern is a matter of confidence in the structure of a campaign that is not adequately employing a reasonable process of "peer review" from those who may have a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the campaign. Mark initially didn't realize that the No Weapons for Apes decision was a reversal of prior campaign rule. He's referred to the prior campaign FAQ on the matter as "an error." I find the lack of knowledge about the campaign's FAQ ruling on it disturbing in a minor way. But, people are people and I give him credit for correcting himself and providing a retrain for the Weapon Proficiency matter. However, it is further compounded by Hyrum's misstatement that animal companions gain a bonus trick per HD. Hyrum's misunderstanding would lead to a minimizing perspective as far as how much this impacts affected characters. The two in combination start to paint a picture that the total response is based on incomplete knowledge about the campaign and game rules. I'd like to see input and review from players be given more value; while doing so takes a more structured effort, it ultimately takes pressure off just two people to have the best answer all of the time.
|
|
My deeper concern is a matter of confidence in the structure of a campaign that is not adequately employing a reasonable process of "peer review" from those who may have a deeper understanding of the dynamics of the campaign. Mark initially didn't realize that the No Weapons for Apes decision was a reversal of prior campaign rule. He's referred to the prior campaign FAQ on the matter as "an error." I find the lack of knowledge about the campaign's FAQ ruling on it disturbing in a minor way. But, people are people and I give him credit for correcting himself and providing a retrain for the Weapon Proficiency matter. However, it is further compounded by Hyrum's misstatement that animal companions gain a bonus trick per HD. Hyrum's misunderstanding would lead to a minimizing perspective as far as how much this impacts affected characters. The two in combination start to paint a picture that the total response is based on incomplete knowledge about the campaign and game rules. I'd like to see input and review from players be given more value; while doing so takes a more structured effort, it ultimately takes pressure off just two people to have the best answer all of the time.
Thanks Howie23.
This is the actual issue. It's about communication and leadership and learning how to manage a intelligent and passionate community. I hope that they realize that they can either work with the Community to get the best possible format/rules/updates for the Campaign or keep doing what they were doing.
I hope that these incidents lead to a better process.
-Pain
I'm surprised there is so much viciousness aimed at someone who is expressing their opinion about something that frustrated them.
Why is there an issue with weapon wielding apes? Apes in real life have been seen using tools and weapons. This guy looks awesome. That isn't cheese.
|
|
This is the actual issue. It's about communication and leadership and learning how to manage a intelligent and passionate community. I hope that they realize that they can either work with the Community to get the best possible format/rules/updates for the Campaign or keep doing what they were doing.
I hope that these incidents lead to a better process.
There is a Japanese industrial adage that a mistake is a gem to be treasured because it provides the opportunity for recognizing an opportunity for improvement. Maybe this is more poignant at the moment given current events.
I'm not the best at it, but it a useful lesson to learn that giving authority to others is empowering for the giver. It makes the person delegating that authority, or who is accepting the advice of others, stronger rather than weaker.
I am not a PFS player but if the feat is spent on proficiency for the weapon I don't see why the animal can't use it. It does not step on the toes of awakened animals since they can class levels while animal companions can't.