Familiarity: “Very familiar” is a place where you have been very
often and where you feel at home. “Studied carefully” is a place you
know well, either because you can currently physically see it or you’ve
been there often. “Seen casually” is a place that you have seen more
than once but with which you are not very familiar. “Viewed once” is a
place that you have seen once, possibly using magic such as scrying.
Yes i know its for teleport but very familiar is something you have seen often and know a lot about. So familiar would be something you have seen frequently once or twice a week maybe. It would seem that more than a knowledge check would be involved and yes the more rare a creature is the less likely the druid could become it.
Yeah but your Druid from who lived his whole life in ustalav claiming his knowledge nature skill makes him familair with polar bears and T-rexs would be a bit much.
So what qualifies as "familiar" to you?
Having seen one with one's own eyes?
What if you only saw it for 15 seconds?
What if you studied it for years but only with books and talking with experts?
What if you used a scrying spell on one?
And, more importantly, if the skill that determines whether or not you're familiar with any given animal doesn't let you be familiar with animals, what's the point of that skill?
The issue isnt optimazation the issue is something that is clearly a loophole. Yes knowing to prep calcific touch against a dragon is a wonderful move even better if you can empower or maximize. However looking for ways to get something that is cleary an exploit isnt optimazation its Munchkining
There are a lot of people who would disagree with you, and argue that Calcific Touch against a dragon is clear munchkining. Therein lies the crux of the argument.
I removed an unnecessarily vulgar post.
I removed an unnecessarily vulgar post.
And yet...
In my mind, there is a brief moment of silence. Scott and Ciretose stare deeply into eachothers eyes, each smouldering with anger. And then, dear readers, as if drawn by the mutual passion of a thousand flaming moths, they lock arms and lips, and a furious make-out session commences. Their lust is so potent, so illicit, that they are both near-instantly offered jobs in the adult film industry. The go on to find wealth and happiness, and it was all thanks to their argument about... wait... what was it about again?
...remains.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed an unnecessarily vulgar post.And yet...
In my mind, there is a brief moment of silence. Scott and Ciretose stare deeply into eachothers eyes, each smouldering with anger. And then, dear readers, as if drawn by the mutual passion of a thousand flaming moths, they lock arms and lips, and a furious make-out session commences. Their lust is so potent, so illicit, that they are both near-instantly offered jobs in the adult film industry. The go on to find wealth and happiness, and it was all thanks to their argument about... wait... what was it about again?...remains.
Well, you can't censor a work of art like that masterpiece.
Both of the people who could be offended by it have favorited it.
HA! So it is, I hadn't actually checked the names. Good sports, both of you. ;)
"We're not so different you and I..."
And as a gaming group, the GameMaster is the final arbiter, RAW, RAI, whatever, once the person running the game makes a decision, GMR. GameMaster Rule.
If the player uses a hound archon to create hundreds of everburning torches, fine, now the market will be glutted and now you have everburning torches with a value of 12 cp. Because no one needs them. Most times GMs don't worry about economies, but sometimes, you need to.
Most times I will have discussions with my players about rules, but always maintain the final word.
|
This thread has given me an amusing idea of a Paizo board campaign.
Start a normal PF campaign with 5 players, 1 DM.
Each of the 5 players are actually a collection of posters. Same for the DM role.
And then every action taken is debated for 1 day. Especially rules.
Watch the antics.
Profit.
Although this is just a silly idea, if we actually took a vote on these rules debates, we can figure out how most people think and interpret these rules. Like if Freedom of Movement, pleasant rail gun, etc.
Man, since I read that druid-armored companion thing, it has been bumping around in my head.
Those against it, what is your position?
A. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities for 24 hours.
B. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities on the animal companion for 24 hours.
C. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, it immediately explodes.
D. Other result.
Also, I have been thinking, how would such an interpretation effect arcane casters with familiars? A wizard casting (spells with somatic) in armor has a percent chance of failure. Let's say the wizard isn't wearing armor, but his familiar is wearing armor/barding. What would happen in that case?
A. If the familiar wears metal armor/barding, then the wizard has to roll a spell failure chance whenever he casts a spell (with a somatic component).
B. If the familiar wears metal armor/barding, then the wizard has to roll a spell failure chance whenever casting a spell on or sharing a spell with the familiar.
C. Other result.
I know, you may feel that the expansion of the interpretation to the wizard might not be as immediately obvious, but I would point out that wizards are even more tied to their familiars than druids are to their companions (a familiar at a location counts as the wizard observing the location for things like teleport).
|
I removed an unnecessarily vulgar post.And yet...
In my mind, there is a brief moment of silence. Scott and Ciretose stare deeply into eachothers eyes, each smouldering with anger. And then, dear readers, as if drawn by the mutual passion of a thousand flaming moths, they lock arms and lips, and a furious make-out session commences. Their lust is so potent, so illicit, that they are both near-instantly offered jobs in the adult film industry. The go on to find wealth and happiness, and it was all thanks to their argument about... wait... what was it about again?...remains.
It was necessarily vulgar :)
I thought I didn't really have anything constructive to say, but I did think of something.
GitP forums seem to have posters that use a much higher level of optimization than I'm used to, maybe even higher than the Den. It makes it harder to enter discussions over there. Maybe I've just mellowed about RAW/RAI and DM Fiat? I don't know.
But it is certainly wierd to be on the side arguing for monks and tanking over there.
*belated*
GitP are definitely on the same identifiable level of optimization as the WotC 3.5 optimization boards before they sacked the site for 4E
An excellent case in point are the endless threads on Vital Strike + charge.
One camp (including Jason Bulmahn) says "OMG IT'S CHEESE DON'T LET ANYONE DO IT OMG!"
Another camp (including James Jacobs) says "What's the problem? It's not in any way game-breaking, and it allows normal people to get some use out of an otherwise lacklustre feat." In this instance, there's no question of whether the RAI were obvious, because the game designers themselves disagree over the interpretation.
What are you talking about? James wasn't a "game designer" - Jason is the rules designer.
(It continues to be inexplicable to me that James kept getting called out in the Rules forum. Jason is the person that should have always been requested. W3rd.)
2. Spell Turning: Ray spells are effect spells. It says spell turning doesn't turn effects. I learned that James Jacobs in Paizo games allows spell turning to turn ray spells. But the wording in ray spells and the spell turning spell made me unsure if it would turn rays.
I'd been not allowing it to turn rays for some time. Now I reversed that decision because of clear guidance from the developers as to intent.
Whoops on your part.
Man, since I read that druid-armored companion thing, it has been bumping around in my head.
Those against it, what is your position?
A. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities for 24 hours.
B. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities on the animal companion for 24 hours.
C. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, it immediately explodes.
D. Other result.
A., but now very much considering moving to C.
...then who do you cast it against?
Keep in mind that I'm not one of those people arguing that using it against dragons is munchkin-ish. I'm not even really familiar with the spell.
The reason James keeps getting called out is because he responds to more of these type of questions than Jason does.
For most, it's less about what the designer intended, but more about getting a ruling from an official representative of the company.
The fact that the ruling may contradict what the designer intended is irrelevant to most as long as the ruling comes from an official representative of the company.
Huh. No wonder I'm so confused (and will continue to be). I don't understand that at all.
(Especially when the ruling from some random Paizo guy who answers more than the rules guy turns out to be incorrect, as already shown in an example on this thread!) Yeah, I'm sticking with w3rd.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Those against it, what is your position?
A. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities for 24 hours.
B. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities on the animal companion for 24 hours.
C. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, it immediately explodes.
D. Other result.
E. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the animal companion can't cast druid spells for 24 hours. Or ever, really, since it's an animal.
I like that one the most.
What are you talking about? James wasn't a "game designer" - Jason is the rules designer. (It continues to be inexplicable to me that James kept getting called out in the Rules forum. Jason is the person that should have always been requested. W3rd.)
Of the two, James is the better designer, in my opinion. When his interpretation differs from Jason's, I actually give his opinion more weight, comparatively speaking.
Of the two, James is the better designer, in my opinion. When his interpretation differs from Jason's, I actually give his opinion more weight, comparatively speaking.
How much of the rules did James create? My understanding is: very little. Is this incorrect?
|
How much of the rules did James create? My understanding is: very little. Is this incorrect?
In the absence of an answer from the main designer (whoever that may be in each individual case), an answer from a seemingly random Paizo staffer is still seen as valuable by many, since that staffer is very likely to be playing in one of several games, in or out of work, run by, hosted by, or alongside the intended designer. Therefore, if that person replies with the clarification of how the rule is used at that table, it's seen as having the blessing of the designer, who may be too busy (say, preparing for Gencon) to hang out on forums all day.
(Of course, that only holds as long as the designer doesn't come on the thread and trump them.)
If the poster is prepared to swear that 'every GM of the lunchtime staff playtest runs Rule X as Y', then I don't care if they're the office cat.
How much of the rules did James create? My understanding is: very little. Is this incorrect?
How much of the rules set did Jason create? My understanding is: very little; he modified the 3.5 edition rules, which were in tuirn based on Monte Cook's, Jonathan Tweet's, and Skip Williams' 3.0 edition rules (which were markedly different from 1e/2e). Is this incorrect?
Anyway, James Jacobs has continuously been doing active game design since 2000, for Paizo (when they had the magazines) and Wizards of the Coast. Whether he wrote a specific rule is of comparatively little interest to me, compared to his overall body of work.
This is why we need a real errata system instead of someone going "we don't need no stinkin' errata system, man."
This is why we need a real errata system instead of someone going "we don't need no stinkin' errata system, man."
I agree. The Pax Interneticus requires it, else all will devolve into barbarism.
The Pax Interneticus requires it, else all will devolve into barbarism.
You mean it hasn't already?
The Pax Interneticus requires it, else all will devolve into barbarism.You mean it hasn't already?
Times like these demonstrate just how tenuous the Great Truce is.
Give Atilla the Pwn a bunch of gold.....maybe he'll go away.....
Scott i listed my defination of familar above.
As to Calcific touch a character (not player) who knows nothing about dragons using it would definatly be metagaming if they never used/prepped till coming up against a low dex enemy.
However using the best spell for the job is not munchkining if i know your a caster is grappling you munchkinging or being smart?
|
|
Those against it, what is your position?
A. If the animal companion wears metal armor/barding, then the druid can't cast spells or use spell-like abilities for 24 hours.
Also, I have been thinking, how would such an interpretation effect arcane casters with familiars? A wizard casting (spells with somatic) in armor has a percent chance of failure. Let's say the wizard isn't wearing armor, but his familiar is wearing armor/barding. What would happen in that case?
C. In that case I kick you out of my game for bringing up the possibility of cat barding. There are so many problems with that.
And cats would be the easiest to put barding on other than goats. But barding on a...toad? Hedgehog? A viper?
How about barding on a thrush? A little 3 ounce bird wrapped in tin foil. ::thumbs up::
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
C. In that case I kick you out of my game for bringing up the possibility of cat barding. There are so many problems with that.
That is possibly the cutest thing I can imagine.
<.< >.>
I have two cats and a roll of foil at home, and the day off of work tomorrow. I think I just found out how to entertain myself.
What about improved familairs i can see some of those wearing armor.
And as far as animal companion armor dont see the problem the RAW states the druid is prohibated from wearing the armor nothing about the companion the druids bond with its companion is not much more in depth than that he might have with his spouse so if a druid marries a fighter who wears full plate would you bar him from spells for that?
Man, since I read that druid-armored companion thing, it has been bumping around in my head.
I think this deserves its own thread.
Scott i listed my defination of familar above.
So your definition of familiar is to interpret it in such a way that the familiarity rules for teleportation also apply to a druid's ability to turn into an animal.
And you don't believe that people have reasonable disagreements over RAI?
Oh, also (and far more importantly), if the skill that determines whether or not you're familiar with any given animal doesn't let you be familiar with animals, what's the point of that skill?
As to Calcific touch a character (not player) who knows nothing about dragons using it would definatly be metagaming if they never used/prepped till coming up against a low dex enemy.
And if they say, "Nonsense, I studied Calcific Touch in the Academae as closely as any other spell I know, I just haven't had cause you prepare it until I learned that we might be facing a creature as clumsy as a dragon," what would your reaction be? "No, your entirely reasonable explanation is invalid because I say so,"? Furthermore, why does the player have to justify his choices to you to begin with?
However using the best spell for the job is not munchkining if i know your a caster is grappling you munchkinging or being smart?
It's being smart. Depending on who you ask, you might also hear it called "munchkining".
Note that i said KNOW NOTHING ABOUT DRAGONS which would imply that he doesn't know they are clumsy.
sorry for caps have no idea how to bold.
And my point on the skill is that it shouldn't allow familarity but people will argue it does.
And i have said reasonable arguements do exist please reread my post i am saying that claiming simple knowledge of a subject counts as familair would not be reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have two cats and a roll of foil at home, and the day off of work tomorrow. I think I just found out how to get the everloving crap clawed out of my arms tomorrow.
FTFY.
Note that i said KNOW NOTHEING ABOUT DRAGONS which would imply that he doesn't know they are clumsy.
sorry for caps have no idea how to bold.
Ah, indeed you're correct. Sorry, I missed that bit in your post. Yes, using knowledge from a read-through of the monster book to gain an advantage in the game is pretty much a textbook example of metagaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have two cats and a roll of foil at home, and the day off of work tomorrow. I think I just found out how to get the everloving crap clawed out of my arms tomorrow.FTFY.
Probably. One cat would probably enjoy the attention. The other...one needs riot gear to approach without a handful of cat treats at the ready.
This has led to a new rule for my games tonight: if you can get my cat to wear a tinfoil helmet without you yourself losing a finger/eye/life, your familiar can wear barding.
Hell I would think if you knew about dragons (high arcana) and knew the spell you better have a low wisdom (IE common sense) not to use it you wouldn't call the fighter a munchkin for breaking out his Disruption mace to fight a lich. Sure the lich might make the save but enough hits and he will roll a one eventully.
I have two cats and a roll of foil at home, and the day off of work tomorrow. I think I just found out how to get the everloving crap clawed out of my arms tomorrow.FTFY.Probably. One cat would probably enjoy the attention. The other...one needs riot gear to approach without a handful of cat treats at the ready.
This has led to a new rule for my games tonight: if you can get my cat to wear a tinfoil helmet without you yourself losing a finger/eye/life, your familiar can wear barding.
My plan involves catnip, a laser pointer, and a child's fishing pole.
C. In that case I kick you out of my game for bringing up the possibility of cat barding. There are so many problems with that.
I present evidence to the contrary as regards cat barding. ^_^
I removed a post and a reply to it.
Try to remain civil and polite.
|
C. In that case I kick you out of my game for bringing up the possibility of cat barding. There are so many problems with that.That is possibly the cutest thing I can imagine.
<.< >.>
I have two cats and a roll of foil at home, and the day off of work tomorrow. I think I just found out how to entertain myself.
I demand pictures!