Director of Brand Strategy
|
We are certainly paying attention to all the feedback here, including that regarding our processes and communication. We've already got a few changes to how we'll be doing things going forward in the works, but aren't above altering them further if we feel there's a better way to manage the campaign. There are tons of threads about how many people is too many at a table (most say more than 8) but very few with advice on how to run a campaign of thousands. Both Hyrum and I believe there's still lots of room for improvement in all areas of Pathfinder Society, and campaign administration is among them. Thanks for the feedback and the trust that we'll continue to make this a better and better campaign.
|
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.
If someone had posted, on the forums, a question directed at someone "official," and that person had not only answered, but posted in the guide that the demoralize action of intimidate can stack with itself, then it would be a similar situation.
What happened with a lot of "intimidate" builds did involve a grey area, but it had to do with the fact that you have a really hard time finding the rules expressly state that the same effect can't stack with itself, unless the effect is "damage," but its the assumed way things work (and why you can't Ray of Enfeeble and have it stack).
What happened with the animal companion was much different. I can't find anywhere where anyone at Paizo, let alone someone running Pathfinder society, said that you could stack the same effect with itself to allow someone to demoralize someone into being frightened or panicked.
Also, I apologize for choose a poor turn of phrase. He was experimenting to see if he liked the character, his companion, and how they played. There was no experiment regarding rules once Josh said it was okay.
|
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.
I think you are onto the bigger point here. I'll stop being part of the distraction :P
|
|
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'm not quite sure how an ape swinging once with a pole arm is worse than him doing a claw claw bite attack routine. I'm not trying to be a pain, but I'm not seeing the distinction. Unless what you mean is that wielding a weapon is something that only heroic characters should do, and thematically them using a weapon is a blurring of the line.
But again, not so much the point as how the rules change happened.
|
|
Callarek, the only change to the OPG was the weapon training, not Handle Animal.
I would also like to point out that, while I don't like speaking for Brother Elias, I do know that when the FAQ first went live, he wasn't talking about "taking his toys and going home." He was discussing how to still have his character work while having to make Handle Animal checks, and what kind of tricks would have to be known to make it work.
It was the fact that almost immediately someone calls for a "what about animals with weapons" ruling, even though one was already in the guide, and the weapon/animal companion rules were changed.
In other words, he didn't even have time to figure out what he was going to do within the system, when another major change occurred, and one that was a reversal of a previous ruling.
I'm just concerned because, from my point of view, this is a procedural problem that goes beyond what rules were actually changed, but I fear that some people, especially those that might have become frustrated with perceived "power gaming," are looking at this as "fixing those power gamers."
|
Callarek, the only change to the OPG was the weapon training, not Handle Animal.I would also like to point out that, while I don't like speaking for Brother Elias, I do know that when the FAQ first went live, he wasn't talking about "taking his toys and going home." He was discussing how to still have his character work while having to make Handle Animal checks, and what kind of tricks would have to be known to make it work.
It was the fact that almost immediately someone calls for a "what about animals with weapons" ruling, even though one was already in the guide, and the weapon/animal companion rules were changed.
I don't know if this is referring to my Guidance Requested thread, but a couple of points:
1) I initially asked for guidance as an open question without reference to what the issues were.
2) When Mark asked for more details, I spelled out the three issues of language, Handle Animal, and Weapon Proficiency. I specifically made mention that that Weapon Proficiency had already been ruled on and seemed to be on firmer ground. I attempted to guide that toward a reinforcement that Weapon Proficiency was still valid due to the "who's the GM" factor.
If I'm over-reacting to this, my apologies. But I'm reading your characterization that includes "immediately," "what about animals with weapons," and "even though one was already in the guide" to be presented in negative light and provides allusion to motivations that are not there.
|
|
I don't know if this is referring to my Guidance Requested thread, but a couple of points:
1) I initially asked for guidance as an open question without reference to what the issues were.
2) When Mark asked for more details, I spelled out the three issues of language, Handle Animal, and Weapon Proficiency. I specifically made mention that that Weapon Proficiency had already been ruled on and seemed to be on firmer ground. I attempted to guide that toward a reinforcement that Weapon Proficiency was still valid due to the "who's the GM" factor.
If I'm over-reacting to this, my apologies. But I'm reading your characterization that includes "immediately," "what about animals with weapons," and "even though one was already in the guide" to be presented in negative light and provides allusion to motivations that are not there.
Any frustration I'm feeling is coming from how decision are made and posted, and with people saying, basically, "he got what he deserved." I apologize if my general crankiness seeped into my characterization of anything you might have posted. I honestly didn't mean to do so.
|
|
Any frustration I'm feeling is coming from how decision are made and posted, and with people saying, basically, "he got what he deserved." I apologize if my general crankiness seeped into my characterization of anything you might have posted. I honestly didn't mean to do so.
Understood and sorry if I read too much into it. The frustration seems pretty common and I'm glad to see Mark's earlier post regarding being reflective and gaining insight about communication and process.
Ok I have a question about how PFS works...I don't play it so I really don't know.
I have seen season mentioned...which I am guessing are campaign arcs. In which if you play a character for 1 season he is done and leveled out of PFS play.
Now if this is true why not implement rules changes between seasons?
Or if I am completely wrong here why not adopt a model similiar in design the arcs. Which will allow people to actualy play out there characters without rules changes that destroy their concepts...and will allow the judges actualy have a decent period of time to see the rules in play.
Just a thought...
On the other hand...in my home games...if I allow you to play something and it proves to be broken...or just can't see happening like a ape using a pole arm...(sorry I just don't think it is feasible that a wild animal would use such a complex weapon...also I think their arms a built wrong to use it well)... all my players know they might have to cvhange a aspect of their characters if they do something I am iffy on. Though....I am very free with rebuilds...and my players usualy don't play characters so focused on one aspect that removing it destroys the character.
That is the thing I just can't understand...why suddenly a druid's animal companion not being able to use a weapon destroys the character? I mean is this just a 'weay' to leagle play a animal PC?
That is the thing I just can't understand...why suddenly a druid's animal companion not being able to use a weapon destroys the character? I mean is this just a 'weay' to leagle play a animal PC?
There was a TV show back in the sixties called Mister Ed, about a talking horse. That was the point of the TV show and the horse was the star. Now imagine if the TV company decided that a talking horse wasn't realistic enough and decided Mister Ed couldn't talk any more. It would then be a show about a normal horse that couldn't talk. It wouldn't be Mister Ed any more.
Or how about Lassie, who sees little Timmy fall down a well and get knocked unconscious? Lassie runs all the way back to town and manages to summon help. But the studio execs decide that dogs just aren't that intelligent and as there was no one around to use Handle Animal Lassie would just go chasing rabbits instead. It wouldn't be Lassie any more, now would it?
It's about personality and characterisation. If you change the rules that make the character who he is then you change the character.
Besides which, we're playing a game where people can transform into animals, or walk across a bridge made from moonlight, and yet some people think a talking ape is too unrealistic... :-)
|
Besides which, we're playing a game where people can transform into animals, or walk across a bridge made from moonlight, and yet some people think a talking ape is too unrealistic... :-)
The animals couldn't even speak as they're physically incapable in most cases, they were just able to understand spoken commands. Some domesticated animals come dangerously close to that even in real life!
|
|
Mark and Hyrum,
How about this for a solution to all of the issues:
1) (You have already done this one.) Allow people with weapon-wielding animal companions to sell the weapons back at full price and to change the weapon-proficiency and weapon-related feats on their animal companions.
2) Allow any players with an animal companion to move a number of skill points up to their HD from any other skills into Handle Animal if they so choose (especially those Paladins and Oracles who started with an INT6 Bonded Mount and assumed due to the interpretation provided by James Jacobs that they would not need Handle Animal checks at all).
3) Please clarify whether an INT3+ animal which spends a skill point in Linguistics(Common) can have the "tricks" given to it clarified with more complicated commands (such as "don't step there" or "power attack" or "move to a flank").
I think this would fix all of the issues people are having.
|
I am a bit surprised that Power Attack might be considered a complicated command that required a common language in order to convey. Power Attack is one of the feats that animals with an intelligence less than three are permitted to take.
I would assume that if your animal companion has a feat, you can command them to use it or not use it even if you both don't speak the same language. If it were otherwise, then I would think that feats like Power Attack and Spring Attack would be odd options for normal animals.
|
|
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.
1) RAW is that an animal can only have an Int score of 1-2. If the Int is raised, through any fashion, past 3, it is no longer an animal.
The RAW was changed in a blog post, not via an errata to the rules.
2) Why penalize players at all? Penalizing players does not encourage them to return and play more, and, in the course of things, buy more books.
3) No, they didn't. Nowhere near, really. And the higher level the characters are, the more likely it is that you run into the burgeoning number of actions to be handled on both sides.
Even at 1st level, you can get dedicated summoning characters. That can be 3-4 additional action sets during a game, per summoning character.
Even at 1st level, you could get a party of 7 PCs, legal per campaign rules, each with a 25 GP combat-trained animal or combat animal class feature, even before any of them casts any sort of summoning spell. That is, legally, fourteen (14!) sets of player-side actions. Even if some of the PCs are spending their move actions to control the animals, you still have several classes who can do it as a free action.
That comes to a possible 14 attacks on the player side alone each round.
Add in that Wizard, Cleric, Ranger, Druid, Summoner, etc. who actually has the ability to cast Summon Animal or Summon Nature's Ally, or, even worse, wands or scrolls of that same spell, and you can get into the ridiculous area of 21 targets on the PC side, and only a few enemies to soak the attacks.
4) Cheese? Still plenty left, this got rid of something that could, just as easily, have reduced the "cheese" factor of certain kinds of ACs.
Let's go simple, and say compare an AC with hands at 4th level with and without weapon:
Ape
N Large animal
Init +2; Senses low-light vision, scent; Perception +5
============================================================
DEFENSE
============================================================
AC 13, touch 11, flat-footed 11 (+2 Dex, +2 natural, -1 size)
hp 26 (4d8+8)
Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +2
============================================================
OFFENSE
============================================================
Speed 30 ft., Climb 30 ft.
Melee bite +8 (1d6+5), 2 claws +8 (1d6+5)
Variant 1:
Melee with Power Attack: bite +7 (1d6+7), 2 claws +7 (1d6+7)
Variant 2:
Melee by weapon (e.g. Spiked Chain +8 (2d6+7)
Space 10 ft.; Reach 10 ft.
============================================================
Statistics
============================================================
Variant 1:
Str 22, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 2, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +3; CMB +10; CMD 22
Variant 2:
Str 21, Dex 15, Con 14, Int 3, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +3; CMB +9; CMD 21
Feats (2)
Variant 1:
Combat Reflexes, Power Attack
Variant 2:
Combat Reflexes, Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Spiked Chain
Skills: (4) Acrobatics +6, Climb (Str) +10/+9, Perception +5, Swim +10/+9
============================================================
Looks like the weapon is less cheesy than the natural attacks, really.
Ok I have a question about how PFS works...I don't play it so I really don't know.
I have seen season mentioned...which I am guessing are campaign arcs. In which if you play a character for 1 season he is done and leveled out of PFS play.
Since I see that there was no answer given to you for this, I will take care of it. Pathfinder Society Organized Play is in it's second Season and each Season lasts for a year, so they could have been called Year One, Year Two, etc, as well, but they are not a season like in sports. A character is retired once reaching 12th level and the experience earned toward this can come from any of the scenarios released in any of the Seasons. There is no overall continuity so far for Seasons Zero, One and Two, other than small story arcs of 2-4 scenarios within the Seasons and no overall Campaign arc, though Season Two has had a bit more with the dealings of the Shadow Lodge. And from the hints given by those in charge, Season Three may have much more continuity and a Season-long story arc, though previous Season's scenarios will still be playable for anyone not having been through them yet.
|
|
We are certainly paying attention to all the feedback here, including that regarding our processes and communication.
I think the best way to fix communication is to personally give every PFS member a Phone call before you make any changes, therefore communicating with everyone in PFS so we all are aware of the changes and everyone has the chance to give their opinions of the change before it happens..
That seems reasonable right?..
;)
|
And yet a wizard's familiar, which is practically an afterthought, can.
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.
Animal Companion (no matter the Int score)= Animal
Familiar= Magical BeastThere lies the difference.
Looks like the weapon is less cheesy than the natural attacks, really.
Cheesy in thius case is not about the fact that it can do too much dmg with a weapon vs its bite/claw/claw combo, but the issue of it using a weapon in the first place, opposed to its natural weapons.
|
|
Animal Companion (no matter the Int score)= Animal
Familiar= Magical BeastThere lies the difference.
I understand the difference in rules technicalities. What I don't understand is why the rule was made like this (or, more precisely, allowed to stay like this) if it was just going to cause problems later.
There is no reason for a wizard's familiar or paladin's mount that are both practically afterthoughts in most campaigns to consistently increase in intellect while a druid's companion who is often more important than the druid itself continues to be an unintelligent animal. What, exactly, makes a wizard's toad more intelligent than a druid's wolf? Magic? The druid gets magic also, so that's still no excuse.
|
|
There is no reason for a wizard's familiar or paladin's mount that are both practically afterthoughts in most campaigns to consistently increase in intellect while a druid's companion who is often more important than the druid itself continues to be an unintelligent animal. What, exactly, makes a wizard's toad more intelligent than a druid's wolf? Magic? The druid gets magic also, so that's still no excuse.
But perhaps the companion is not supposed to be more important than the character.
|
|
Yeah, I don't blame anyone for splitting. It's an arbitrary change made because some people's sensibilities are offended for one reason or another -- even though Golarion is full of "cheesy" improbable things.
I'm not going to sit at the table and make Handle Animal checks every round and then a bunch of 1d4 or 1d6 attacks while everyone else waits their turn.
I'd rather just retire the Druid that I started PFS play with than change it at this point.
|
|
Animal Companion (no matter the Int score)= Animal
Familiar= Magical BeastThere lies the difference.
I understand the difference in rules technicalities. What I don't understand is why the rule was made like this (or, more precisely, allowed to stay like this) if it was just going to cause problems later.
There is no reason for a wizard's familiar or paladin's mount that are both practically afterthoughts in most campaigns to consistently increase in intellect while a druid's companion who is often more important than the druid itself continues to be an unintelligent animal. What, exactly, makes a wizard's toad more intelligent than a druid's wolf? Magic? The druid gets magic also, so that's still no excuse.
\
The difference is that Paladin is limited to like 4 options, and it really only serves one main purpose, to be a mount.
The familiar is limited, generally, to 12ish tiny sized creatures that arent very good in combat, as they have low hp.
The animal companion a druid chooses comes from a choice of dozens of options that can serve all different kinds of roles, and becomes considerably more powerful in combat than a Paladin's mount or a familiar. Why give the druid one more added benefit (when its already one of the best classes in the game) by making his AC a magical beast opposed to an animal (hence the need for Handle Animal) when he already has so much else going for him. Maybe thats the game's way of making it a little bit more balanced to be on par with a Paladin mount of a wizard animal compaion.
Not to mention the fact of losing a Familiar costs you something in the game, opposed to just having to train a new companion which costs nothing except time.
That is the thing I just can't understand...why suddenly a druid's animal companion not being able to use a weapon destroys the character? I mean is this just a 'weay' to leagle play a animal PC?There was a TV show back in the sixties called Mister Ed, about a talking horse. That was the point of the TV show and the horse was the star. Now imagine if the TV company decided that a talking horse wasn't realistic enough and decided Mister Ed couldn't talk any more. It would then be a show about a normal horse that couldn't talk. It wouldn't be Mister Ed any more.
Or how about Lassie, who sees little Timmy fall down a well and get knocked unconscious? Lassie runs all the way back to town and manages to summon help. But the studio execs decide that dogs just aren't that intelligent and as there was no one around to use Handle Animal Lassie would just go chasing rabbits instead. It wouldn't be Lassie any more, now would it?
It's about personality and characterisation. If you change the rules that make the character who he is then you change the character.
Besides which, we're playing a game where people can transform into animals, or walk across a bridge made from moonlight, and yet some people think a talking ape is too unrealistic... :-)
It seems to me that people are playing summoners via the druid. If you want a weapon wielding play a summoner...but I think people want the druid spell list instead of the summoner's...
Anyway all of this does not matter.
What does is that there are people who find animal wielding animals to be too silly or unrealistic. Sure the world contain fantasitic elements
but not everything should be. A druid animal companion is still a animal...making it something it is not...just seem to betray the intent and breaks the 4th wall for me.
Now in home games you can regulate and find people who have the same desires in the game as you do...so you can have your kung-fu weapon weilding ape...and not have issues. But with organized play....well there is a reason why i don't play organized play and that is we are pretty much stuck with rules as RAW and the whims of the what the majpority thinks are either 'realistic' or 'cool'. If I play organized game it is to find new players to recruit for home games.
|
|
Yeah, I don't blame anyone for splitting. It's an arbitrary change made because some people's sensibilities are offended for one reason or another -- even though Golarion is full of "cheesy" improbable things.
Actually it was made because there was a blog post about the topic that brought the situation to light and people started asking for clarification about the topic. There was no huge outcry about it.
I'm not going to sit at the table and make Handle Animal checks every round and then a bunch of 1d4 or 1d6 attacks while everyone else waits their turn.
Umm, as has been pointed out, if you expect your animal companion to act like an animal and have 2-3 ranks in handle animal you don't have to. If you want them to do more complicated stuff you do but nowhere near every round.
What does is that there are people who find animal wielding animals to be too silly or unrealistic.So, an ape dual-wielding wielding nunwoodchucks would not get past you?
Depends on the game I am running for a homebrew...or if the ever come out with organized play for Toon.
But homebrew are alot easier to...get everybody on the same page...as you have to keep what maybe 20 people most happy.
But for some reason PFs and it's ilk have to keep everything at a baseline. Personaly I would rather see the PFs become less organized and more of a tool to meet people and a GM resouce...but that is another topic completely.
|
|
No it just means that the PC has invested even more to have the critter up to par.Boon companion erases that.Of course, the OP's character was actually a cleric with the animal domain, not a druid. Which means he already was penalized with a weaker animal companion.
No.. actually it does exactly what I said it does. It erases his animal being "weaker" per your statement. It makes no statement as to whether or not the character has invested more to get the AC to the same level as a Druid.
|
This gets even more silly when one considers the Paladin bonded mount that has an INT score of 6.Which, again, is a magical beast, not an animal.Really? Care to show me a reference to that?
Now I agree with you simply because with an INT of 6 it can no longer be an animal, so it has to be a magical beast.
-James
It becomes a magical beast at 11th level. Up until that point, however (which is most of the play time for PFS characters) it is a standard animal.
|
|
It becomes a magical beast at 11th level. Up until that point, however (which is most of the play time for PFS characters) it is a standard animal.Not true.
It -is- a magical beast, simply because it's INT is too high to be an animal.
However as it uses the druid rules for animal companions it is treated as an animal for purposes of spells.
At 11th level when it also picks up the template it is now treated as a magical beast for purposes of spells.
Please note the wording for both is that it is treated as for the purposes of spells rather than saying it is of that type.
-James
To quote the most recent Paizo blog:
"Note that while the monster guidelines talk about a maximum Int for an animal, this only applies to the creation process. Giving an animal a higher Intelligence score does not somehow transform it into a magical beast, unless the effect says otherwise, such as in the case of awaken. Animals can grow to have an Int higher than 2 through a variety of means, but they should not, as a general rule, be created that way."
While not going into how, from a roleplaying perspective, it is absolutely silly for a DRUID to not have any ranks in handle animal, It's 3 modules at most before you can level up and dump all your skill points into handle animal and fix the problem.
If you're that concerned about it, either find a group of people who are willing to play down a few modules, or eat 3 modules and use your DM rewards to level and do the same. Or just cast Speak with Animals. It says right in the spell description "If the animal is friendly, it may perform a favor or service for you." It'd be hard to a DM to argue your animal companion isn't friendly towards you.
I can understand the frustration, but honestly, this is something that is going to happen in organized play environments as either new content is introduced, rules loopholes are exploited, or it is discovered that people are just not playing how the game is intended to be played. Calling it an error was probably not the best choice of words or best decision, but even the most glib occasionally roll a natural one on diplomacy checks.
The problem is that if they grant players a rebuild on this sort of thing, they're opening a door that shouldn't be opened. Players would start demanding rebuilds on everything that changes, gets amended, or gets altered - no matter how small. Really, this change is not earth-shattering - just think outside the box a little bit for a few modules.
|
|
Maybe because the OP stated that he had a cleric with the Animal domain.
How did this conversation go 4 pages long before someone brought this up? I feel a little dumber now. Thanks, Neil, lol.
Sorry, JR. I was not referring to the OP with this, but responding to some of the people who have taken the conversation outside of the original posting.
I've had Elias at my table, and enjoyed meeting you at the first PFS GenCon. You are both reasonable guys.
None of my comments were meant to say that people have been playing wrong, only that I understand and support the new interpretation, and that it is not as crippling as some make it out to be.
EDIT: and by new interpretation, I mean that companions are still animals, regardless of Int. The weapon part is the only actual rule change.
|
|
Sorry, JR. I was not referring to the OP with this, but responding to some of the people who have taken the conversation outside of the original posting.I've had Elias at my table, and enjoyed meeting you at the first PFS GenCon. You are both reasonable guys.
None of my comments were meant to say that people have been playing wrong, only that I understand and support the new interpretation, and that it is not as crippling as some make it out to be.
EDIT: and by new interpretation, I mean that companions are still animals, regardless of Int. The weapon part is the only actual rule change.
Sorry, that was just my general frustration at all the different directions this conversation has gone, often at the expense of the original situation outlined.
Again, thanks for being a calming influence.
|
|
Technically Paizo has stated that if you know about the rule and it's been made offical (such as the new replay rules) you are bound by those...
I've said it before and I'll say it again: this is an uneven and terrible way to run an organized play campaign. Forcing people to scour messageboards to learn rules updates is bad. Punishing people that do so because they found a new "rule landmine" they are then bound to follow seems to make incentive run the wrong direction, toward willful ignorance.
|
|
So a paladin's mount doesn't fit this bill. It is created with a 6 INT. Not to mention that this rules change supposedly isn't a rule for PFS, right?
A core rule clarification is likely to be used by PFS GMs, unless countered by the orgs.
Also it never states anywhere that the paladin mount becomes a magical beast at 11th level. Please check the wording.
At 11th level, the mount gains the celestial template and becomes a magical beast for the purposes of determining which spells affect it. At 15th level, a paladin's mount gains spell resistance equal to the paladin's level + 11
As to animal companions, they are animals if their INT score is 1 or 2 so the handle animal is appropriate. If they are smarter than this then they no longer need tricks and handle animal to have them do things. If language is a barrier I'm sure it would suffice to get them to understand your desire.Here's the real question: If they were always animals, why have the language saying that they count as animals for the purposes of spells? If anything would be redundant and stupid that would!
On the other hand:
Why clearly spell out when Familiars and Paladin Mounts become Magical Beasts? Why call them Animal Companions? Why get a bonus to Handle Animal with them? Why don't they include other Magical Beasts on the list at higher level? Why was James Jacobs asked the original question if it is so clear?And the "redundant" language you refer to is in James' post, not in the Core Rules.
Another question and I guess I should start a thread over on another section for this- how much INT makes one sufficiently sentient? Technically an animal companion could have an INT score of 16. Are people claiming that such an 'animal' would need to be 'handled'?
To be clear, most beople are talking about Int 3 or 4, or maybe 6 in the case of a Paladin Mount. But to be clear, the Handle Animal becomes moot once an Animal Companion is sufficiently intelligent to learn all of the tricks. And I would expect a GM playing a monster or NPC with Int of 3 appropriately, ie barely more intelligent than a typical smart animal.
|
|
Rule zero is that the GM has the final say on the rules. That's a given. A player can either accept the GM's ruling, or walk away from the table. After two and a half years of playing in Pathfinder Society, I'm standing up and walking away.
... I'm trying not to say this in a spirit of pettiness, I've seen enough of that on these boards from players and VC's alike. I'm trying to say it in the spirit of “my gaming dollars are going to go somewhere, and I'm choosing to spend them someplace that is not and has not caused me so much frustration of late.”
Wishing everyone all the best with their game.
It saddens me to see you abandon the game over this. I have always regarded you as an outstanding player and member of the community - and still do.
If you change your mind and give H&M a chance to show what they have in store for the next season, I believe you will think it more than makes up for your disappointment with the Animal Companion ruling. No one likes to have the rug pulled out from underneath them, but in this instance I think it was necesary, as gorillas with heirloom fouchards and Combat Reflexes are a threat to game ballance and thereby the fun other players have at the table.
I for one hope you reconsider; you have been an asset to the Society.
|
|
To be clear, most beople are talking about Int 3 or 4, or maybe 6 in the case of a Paladin Mount. But to be clear, the Handle Animal becomes moot once an Animal Companion is sufficiently intelligent to learn all of the tricks. And I would expect a GM playing a monster or NPC with Int of 3 appropriately, ie barely more intelligent than a typical smart animal.
You will find no girallon phalanx at my table... wait, that's not a bad idea :D
|
|
Says clear as day on Page 52 that AC's can't take Martial Weapons.
Kinda have to take everything with a grain of salt when people then say 'the rules were changed under them'.
To be fair, Shifty, on this matter the PFS rule was changed.
It was in the Guide to Org Play that ACs could use weapons. And Org Play does have exceptions to Core Rules.