|
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think; for the most part, that anyone does. But the ones that blatantly ignore the information as it's presented are essentially breaking the rules. The Paizo staff knows that what has been going on is not ideal and are working on fixing it and making the necessary changes.
We have a community updated guide to use while the "real" one is being worked on -- so we do have something that is updated and accurate.
|
Except the core rules say nothing about companions being treated like animals for the purpose of spells. That was in JJ's post.
I'm still looking for a citation other than the Animal type having Int of 1-2.
EDIT: And, by your own logic, if a paladin mount is always a Magical Beast, why spell out when it is affected by spells as a Magical Beast?
|
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.
I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think; for the most part, that anyone does. But the ones that blatantly ignore the information as it's presented are essentially breaking the rules.
The problem is; how do you prove which players are ignoring a rule, and which are totally unaware of it?
The players in my home game rarely come to this site, and I suspect the same is true of many players in the PFSoc, who create an account just to register their PC, but never come back except to check their games got reported (if at all).
People like me, who come here every day, are not normal (my parents have been saying that for years, ho,ho).
If you set a precedent, that players have a choice between visiting the Paizo boards and getting their PC gimped; or staying away from the boards and playing a perfectly 100% RAW, 100% PFSoc Guide-legal character they actually want to play, then you're not giving much incentive for people to become involved members of the community.
What you are doing is driving people to use the 'Admiral Nelson Gambit', where they put their telescope to their eyepatch, and reply 'I really did not see the errata'. To call them on that, it's your word against theirs.
If a new rule were in the actual errata document, and/or flagged in the Guide to Organised Play (or in one place, to which players are directed by the Guide), there can be no claim of ignorance.
There's also the problem of the practicalities of enforcing this at the table:
If you sit down to GM at a table that includes two druids/rangers, one of whom is using an Int 3 gorilla ninja bodyguard, who acts on its own initiative, and the other uses an Int 3, but otherwise vanilla wolf, who licks its bum until ordered otherwise, what do you do?
Do you leave it alone, and have both players play under different conditions?
Do you relax the rules for the wolf-druid, tell him his animal can act alone?
Do you call out the ape-wrangler, tell him to start making Handle checks? Do you shame him into rewriting his AC (and PC if he needs more Handle ranks)?
What if he says no?
Because he could just turn round and refuse, tell you that you're wrong, and that your supposed ruling is unsupported by anything in the Core Rules or Players Guide. And he'd be right.
Do you ban him from the slot?
Does the slot get delayed, while the player finishes his changes?
|
|
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.I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think; for the most part, that anyone does. But the ones that blatantly ignore the information as it's presented are essentially breaking the rules.The problem is; how do you prove which players are ignoring a rule, and which are totally unaware of it?
The players in my home game rarely come to this site, and I suspect the same is true of many players in the PFSoc, who create an account just to register their PC, but never come back except to check their games got reported (if at all).
People like me, who come here every day, are not normal (my parents have been saying that for years, ho,ho).If you set a precedent, that players have a choice between visiting the Paizo boards and getting their PC gimped; or staying away from the boards and playing a perfectly 100% RAW, 100% PFSoc Guide-legal character they actually want to play, then you're not giving much incentive for people to become involved members of the community.
What you are doing is driving people to use the 'Admiral Nelson Gambit', where they put their telescope to their eyepatch, and reply 'I really did not see the errata'. To call them on that, it's your word against theirs.
If a new rule were in the actual errata document, and/or flagged in the Guide to Organised Play (or in one place, to which players are directed by the Guide), there can be no claim of ignorance.
There's also the problem of the practicalities of enforcing this at the table:
If you sit down to GM at a table that includes two druids/rangers, one of whom is using an Int 3 gorilla ninja bodyguard, who acts on its own initiative, and the other uses an Int 3, but otherwise vanilla wolf, who licks its bum until ordered otherwise, what do you do?
Do you leave it alone, and have both players play under different conditions?
Do you relax the rules for the wolf-druid, tell him his animal can act alone?
Do you call out the ape-wrangler, tell him to start making Handle checks? Do you shame him into rewriting his AC (and PC if he needs more Handle ranks)?
What if he says no?
Because he could just turn round and refuse, tell you that you're wrong, and that your supposed ruling is unsupported by anything in the Core Rules or Players Guide. And he'd be right.
Do you ban him from the slot?
Does the slot get delayed, while the player finishes his changes?
Over analyzation of what people say leads to a lot of assumptions. Home-games have (from what I remember) always been GM rules if you choose to go with 100% RAW and not deviate based on what is on the boards; however, if you attend a con you are expected to know the most up to date rules -- which includes the stickies with changes. Now that Painlord and several members of the community and given us a temporary sanctioned updated guide there should be no reason for people to have out of bounds characters.
If you, as a GM organizer, don't tell your players about the rules changes -- even just to notify them that things have changed, if you don't give them the community guide. Who is the one really doing a dis-service to the player? As GMs at a con we are obligated to uphold the rules by the company that makes them, but yet chastized by the players that don't take or can't be bothered to be familiar with the most up to date information.
Please don't paint con GMs as the bad guys, we are merely the ones stuck between the company and the players and have an obligation to both to provide a fun and accurate game. Personally I expect players to have the knowledge if they are sitting down at a con table, you don't know who your judge is going to be, and you don't know what they are going to end up allowing or not. Call me hard-hearted but if you don't want to know that up to date rules then be prepared for changes at a con table.
hrmm .. yes I'm tired of people complaining about the guide.. there is a community updated one that has been sanctioned by Mark/Hyrum; the official one is in the works .. why then are we still complaining about it not being updated?
|
|
Just to be clear, I'm not affected by this specific case, as my current PFSoc PC is a summoner, whose eidolon is specifically called out as sentient (albeit, still a bit thick).
But it does ring alarm bells, when players have made PCs and support-creatures, by the RAW, and had them vetted by the previous leader of the Society, to have those builds declared retroactively illegal or unworkable.
I made the decision early on not to make some bloodthirsty combat-eidolon, partly because I think that's boring, partly so as not to ruin the fun for any martial PCs, partly as an experiment, and partly due to the nature of PFSoc play, where you have no idea who will be at the table.
I don't want to fail a mission for the sake of a locked door or trap, or inability to use the McGuffin, or have a TPK for the lack of a healer, so I made literally a 'skill-monkey' with ranks in Disable Device and UMD.
As well as discussing it in person with Josh, who saw it in action, and gave no indication that it was illegal, cheesy or stupid, I got a virtually unanimous positive response from all the GMs and players I gamed with. (The one dissenter was worried I would steal his trapfinding thunder, until I swore I would restrict myself to Aid checks and keeping his rogue alive with the cure wand.)
So, am I in danger of logging on one day, to find my eidolon declared retroactively illegal? That from now on, my imaginary friend can no longer be Batman, but has to play 'Hulk Smash'?
Because I can tell you now, that would kill my interest in the class, and if that appears in a blog, I will simply state ' I saw no errata', and it'll be up to the organisers to prove me wrong.
A blog post is exactly that, a blog post, random musing, untested suggestions, thinking aloud, and I'd no more allow it to change my game than the one from Friday, saying we're all able to play goblin paladins.
|
|
Just to be clear, I'm not affected by this specific case, as my current PFSoc PC is a summoner, whose eidolon is specifically called out as sentient (albeit, still a bit thick).
But it does ring alarm bells, when players have made PCs and support-creatures, by the RAW, and had them vetted by the previous leader of the Society, to have those builds declared retroactively illegal or unworkable.
I made the decision early on not to make some bloodthirsty combat-eidolon, partly because I think that's boring, partly so as not to ruin the fun for any martial PCs, partly as an experiment, and partly due to the nature of PFSoc play, where you have no idea who will be at the table.
I don't want to fail a mission for the sake of a locked door or trap, or inability to use the McGuffin, or have a TPK for the lack of a healer, so I made literally a 'skill-monkey' with ranks in Disable Device and UMD.
As well as discussing it in person with Josh, who saw it in action, and gave no indication that it was illegal, cheesy or stupid, I got a virtually unanimous positive response from all the GMs and players he gamed with. (The one dissenter was worried I would steal his trapfinding thunder, until I swore I would restrict myself to Aid checks and keeping his rogue alive with the cure wand.)
So, am I in danger of logging on one day, to find my eidolon declared retroactively illegal? That from now on, my imaginary friend can no longer be Batman, but has to play 'Hulk Smash'?
Because I can tell you now, that would kill my interest in the class, and if that appears in a blog, I will simply state ' I saw no errata', and it'll be up to the organisers to prove me wrong.
A blog post is exactly that, a blog post, random musing, untested suggestions, thinking aloud, and I'd no more allow it to change my game than the one from Friday, saying we're all able to play goblin paladins.
All that is totally your choice, however, I'm going to state that if you sat at my con table with a character that didn't fit the most up to date rules -- including those on the boards, you would be asked to change it to fit in with the rules that I would be juding under.
meh .. time to walk away from this thread again...
|
But it does ring alarm bells, when players have made PCs and support-creatures, by the RAW, and had them vetted by the previous leader of the Society, to have those builds declared retroactively illegal or unworkable.
Its an Organized Play campaign. This WILL happen. It's part of the buy-in that you understand this. In the best run campaigns, this happens very little. In the worst it happens a lot. In this case there is already a build up of player frustration from a dated guide. The question is not IF this happens again but WHEN.
Frankly, I dealt with this issue at the local game day on Saturday. It had no noticeable affect on game play. I understand the frustration on getting rules handed down that don't match play styles or are a change to the previous status-quo. Any more than that sentiment seems to me a lot of thunder with no lightning.
I sympathize with those who are upset at the rule change. But not with those that seem to think this is somehow a game changer. In the end, it really is very minor.
BTW, its not up to the Organizer to prove you wrong at a Con. You refuse to follow the rules, there's the door.
|
|
Now that Painlord and several members of the community and given us a temporary sanctioned updated guide there should be no reason for people to have out of bounds characters.
You mean with the exception of the probably over 10,000 players that have never set foot on the forums and as such don't know that the guide exists, right?
Who is the one really doing a dis-service to the player?
Whoever changes rules on a whim and doesn't update the organized play guide in a timely manner to show for it?
Please don't paint con GMs as the bad guys, we are merely the ones stuck between the company and the players and have an obligation to both to provide a fun and accurate game.
Please don't paint con GMs as helpless bystanders. The GMs and players are what make this game what it is. Without us there is no game. Some of us actually try to take a stand and force changes so that the game we love never degenerates into what Living Forgotten Realms has become instead of throwing up our hands and feigning helplessness.
|
|
Please don't paint con GMs as the bad guys, we are merely the ones stuck between the company and the players and have an obligation to both to provide a fun and accurate game. Personally I expect players to have the knowledge if they are sitting down at a con table, you don't know who your judge is going to be, and you don't know what they are going to end up allowing or not. Call me hard-hearted but if you don't want to know that up to date rules then be prepared for changes at a con table.
That's not my intent; I mostly GM these days, so have the utmost respect for anyone willing to give up their own time to run a slot.
I think they should never have to be in this situation, of being caught in the middle of such a dispute between players and publishers.I do expect players to turn up with a legal PC, but that requires that the guidelines for creating a PC be open, transparent, and available within one or two clicks of the mouse. And not have players penalised because they failed to take into account 'comment#xxx' from a 10-page thread.
|
|
Please don't paint con GMs as the bad guys, we are merely the ones stuck between the company and the players and have an obligation to both to provide a fun and accurate game. Personally I expect players to have the knowledge if they are sitting down at a con table, you don't know who your judge is going to be, and you don't know what they are going to end up allowing or not. Call me hard-hearted but if you don't want to know that up to date rules then be prepared for changes at a con table.That's not my intent; I mostly GM these days, so have the utmost respect for anyone willing to give up their own time to run a slot.
I think they should never have to be in this situation, of being caught in the middle of such a dispute between players and publishers.I do expect players to turn up with a legal PC, but that requires that the guidelines for creating a PC be open, transparent, and available within one or two clicks of the mouse. And not have players penalised because they failed to take into account 'comment#xxx' from a 10-page thread.
I agree with you Snorter in that the guide is woefully outdated. Thea does too. But that's been an issue for over 6 months and as Thea tries to point out, is a dead horse. Till then, I grind my teeth about the issue and keep quiet.
I've known very few players who, when presented with how things have changed, refused to do so in an amicable way, even if it was bad for their character. I see more forum posters who seem to like to make these changes a make or break issue.
The situation sucks, but we're all here to play a game. Let's play and move on. Hopefully lessons have been learned all around.
|
|
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.
I guess I always consider that when something is altered from the direct core mechanics of a game system for use in play that there is always a real risk that the rule will 'revert' back.
The thing I find most perplexing was that it was sanctioned to begin with.
|
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.I'm not disagreeing with you, I don't think; for the most part, that anyone does. But the ones that blatantly ignore the information as it's presented are essentially breaking the rules.The problem is; how do you prove which players are ignoring a rule, and which are totally unaware of it?
Is a person who brings loaded dice to a game any less a cheater if you don't prove it?
Edit: You cannot enforce honesty in this sort of environment, either people approach the game with the attitude of keeping within the tenets of the system or not.
|
|
This is what happens when a system strives to be "fair and balanced."
When the proverbial pendulum swings back the other way and gamers once again realize that the fun in gaming is not in "fair and balanced," but rather, "unfair and unbalanced," then I will play that edition, until then, I will stick to the old-school games. And yes, I do realize that "fair and balanced" makes gaming companies alot of dough in rulebooks.
Side note: I have played in numerous 3.+(includes Pathfinder) and 4E games, and I have noticed a disturbing gaming quality with gamers: The idea of retreat never enters their minds. It's an amazing thing to see. If retreat is necessary, they all scream that the game isn't "fair and balanced."
To the originator of this thread: I do understand your decision to walk away.
Mighty Thoth has left his mental signature.
|
This is what happens when a system strives to be "fair and balanced."
When the proverbial pendulum swings back the other way and gamers once again realize that the fun in gaming is not in "fair and balanced," but rather, "unfair and unbalanced," then I will play that edition, until then, I will stick to the old-school games. And yes, I do realize that "fair and balanced" makes gaming companies alot of dough in rulebooks.
Side note: I have played in numerous 3.+(includes Pathfinder) and 4E games, and I have noticed a disturbing gaming quality with gamers: The idea of retreat never enters their minds. It's an amazing thing to see. If retreat is necessary, they all scream that the game isn't "fair and balanced."
To the originator of this thread: I do understand your decision to walk away.
Mighty Thoth has left his mental signature.
Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on retreat. My players learned that I build trees of encounters and that I they do have the very real capability to stumble into something much tougher than them. Being gamers it took them a bit to figure out that retreat is a viable option for survival, and some deaths.
|
|
Which is why all the 'rules' need to be in an easy document that's updated on a regular schedule (even if the update is 'no change'). Admins can say 'such and such a rule is coming' but hearsay or forum posts shouldn't be a basis for rules until they make it into the regularly scheduled update for the campaign rules.
I've just read today's blog (or in my case, yesterday's blog, since I'm 9 hours out of synch with most of you).
This does seem to be what the community has been asking for.I agree on the need for a 'last updated xx/yy/zzzz' statement, and a 'last checked xx/yy/zzzz-no change'. Those allow a player to log on, and see that there's been no change since their PC was last levelled.
I also like the idea of flagging the upcoming changes, with a countdown of the amnesty period.
A lot of the exasperation has been due to posters feeling the changes have been sprung on them.
Either they feel it cripples their PC, or they hate the idea of sitting down at the con, being pulled up for an illegal PC, and having all eyes on them as they try to frantically rewrite it.
A section should be set up, to hold messages in the form 'On xx/yy/zzzz, [rule A] will change to read [rule A2], all PCs will need to comply by that date.'.
This allows players to get some games in, or run games for GM credits, so they can level up, buy the skill ranks and feats they didn't need before, learn an alternate spell to replace one that no longer stacks, etc.
I think if this were done, most of the posts in this thread would be moot.
And this thread dear people is why I will never play anything other than vanilla fighters in PFS.
And this thread dear people is why I will never play anything other than vanilla fighters in PFS.
You don't play anything other than vanilla fighters in PFS because people argue on the internet? I admire your spirit of sacrifice, but I'm not sure you're going to stop it!
And this thread dear people is why I will never play anything other than vanilla fighters in PFS.You don't play anything other than vanilla fighters in PFS because people argue on the internet? I admire your spirit of sacrifice, but I'm not sure you're going to stop it!
Let me clarify my statement.
I play vanilla fighters because the day they can be seriously nerfed by minor rules changes is the day that I will stop playing PFS.
Let me clarify my statement.
I play vanilla fighters because the day they can be seriously nerfed by minor rules changes is the day that I will stop playing PFS.
Ah...that I understand. I try not to try anything too weird, and even so, I realise that nerfs can come from any direction at any time.
|
|
I have to say, hearing and reading just a fraction of these posts, turns me off from ever wanting to participate in organized game play with people who I don't know. Just sounds like people have to get into really stupid and boring rules arguments that are highly un-fun. Wow. Tedious stuff. And this is how people spend their free time. Sounds like W-O-R-K not P-L-A-Y... yikes...
The rules arguements are generally held away from the table to be honest with you.. very very few players (that I've played with) have these kinds of detailed arguements while in the middle of a game. The caveat to that is that there are people out there that like to have detail oriented converstions in the middle of the game and from there it's a matter of how the GM wants to deal with it.
What you see on the boards are a fraction of the community that is very passionate about the smaller nuances of the game and tend to get into rather heated discussions with eachother.
Basically, a change control policy for pathfinder society should be implemented that the developers and players adhere too, so updates are consistent, approved, documented and distributed appropriately. Most of these arguments can be addressed in a policy and a pathfinder society handbook, and the arugments will subside.
|
|
Basically, a change control policy for pathfinder society should be implemented that the developers and players adhere too, so updates are consistent, approved, documented and distributed appropriately. Most of these arguments can be addressed in a policy and a pathfinder society handbook, and the arugments will subside.
And that is something that in other threads they've commented on that they are working on and towards as well as working on EVERYTHING else that they need to work on.
And like we posted a few days ago, anything you read on the boards from us is either a clarification or a hint at the direction things are moving rules-wise. No ruling is official until it's either in the Guide to PFS or a FAQ.
Hyrum.
|
|
Ah...that I understand. I try not to try anything too weird, and even so, I realise that nerfs can come from any direction at any time.Let me clarify my statement.
I play vanilla fighters because the day they can be seriously nerfed by minor rules changes is the day that I will stop playing PFS.
I have absolutely ZERO worries about my characters getting nerfed by the proverbial lines in the sand getting moved because I don't play near the lines. I don't think you have to play vanilla fighters to stay well clear of the lines, I have characters all over the board right now and I'm not at all worried about them getting nerfed by rules changes because it's so easy to make fun, viable characters well within those lines.
|
|
I have to say, hearing and reading just a fraction of these posts, turns me off from ever wanting to participate in organized game play with people who I don't know. Just sounds like people have to get into really stupid and boring rules arguments that are highly un-fun. Wow. Tedious stuff. And this is how people spend their free time. Sounds like W-O-R-K not P-L-A-Y... yikes...
Well keep in mind a few very vocal people can make a lot of noise on a forum. That doesn't necessarily reflect what's going on in the society as a whole for the majority of people.
|
I have absolutely ZERO worries about my characters getting nerfed by the proverbial lines in the sand getting moved because I don't play near the lines. I don't think you have to play vanilla fighters to stay well clear of the lines, I have characters all over the board right now and I'm not at all worried about them getting nerfed by rules changes because it's so easy to make fun, viable characters well within those lines.
Yep. You won't found your character 'made useless' if you aren't trying to push the envelope all the times. Play well within the spirit of the rules and you'll be fine 99% of the time.
That said, some people claim that they have literally no idea what is intended by the game/campaign designers. Do this next time you're unsure: Ask yourself, 'Does this seem to good to be true?'
I don't understand why it can't simply be decreed that "if clarification/change X isn't in location Y then the older mechanics apply".
Uh...by definition, if you have a clarification of a rule, then the older version of the rule wasn't clear to one or more people. So saying "the older mechanics apply" doesn't help, does it?
I wonder: where exactly are those lines?
Well, some lines are pretty clear to me. For instance, it was clear to me that the 3,000 gp metamagic rod of Persistent Spell was mispriced in the APG. I steered well away from that one, no matter how tempting!