|
Really?Let's look at the actual rule, shall we? It's been posted twice in this thread and has been almost ENTIRELY ignored by those who are engaging in what might be described as sophistry to support a decision which neverthelesss contributed to a couple walking out on a game during their vacation. I might add that the very purpose of that vacation was (in whole or in part) to play Pathfinder Society. That's not a small paint, either.
The RULE, from page 34 of the APG
A Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.
I will let some one else explain this one to steel wind
|
I'll give this thread one more page before it's locked, at the rate this is going.
If you re-skin or choose to play a non-standard mount as a cavalier, expect table variations among GMs. Just because one GM allowed it doesn't mean every other one will. If you are flexible and realize that this is potentially the case, then this shouldn't be the issue.
|
I'd be curious how some of these DMs saying "No" to the pigskin would handle my gnome...
Disregarding the changes to the heirloom weapon trait, he has (had) a ripsaw glaive (Gnomes of Golarion) that was an heirloom weapon via the trait. In character, he only ever saw it as a tree pruner, one that was handed down through the generations because his family was one of gardeners. He told people it was a tree pruner; he used it in-game to cut back loose brush from camp sites and to carve bushes (he has both Craft(topiary) and Profession(gardener) as skills). In combat, however, game-mechanically it is a ripsaw glaive and has always been treated as such in combat
So -- am I not allowed to use my tree pruner in your mod?
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
The RULE, from page 34 of the APGA Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.
In a home campaign the GM can indeed approve other animals, but in a global campaign like Pathfinder Society the campaign staff is the only one that can allow this. As the campaign staff has explicidly disallowed other animals no table GM can override this.
|
|
It's been stated, but not in the Guide or in the FAQ apparently. Would I allow it in a non-PFS game? Almost certainly, but not in PFS.There's a many other nuances to making Magic Missile into icicles than just the Spellcraft. What about cover? What about cold resistance? What about armor? Unless the player is always saying they cast Magic Missile, as a PFS GM that might only encounter that player once I may not allow it (even without the re-skinning statements by Mark). It gets even more confusing when some of their other spells actually DO change their energy type.
I think you misunderstood my original post (or I didn't convey my intent). If the player says "I cast Magic Missile. Two shards of ice fly from my fingers and hit the Troll." and to all other PCs and NPCs it is functionally a Magic Missile, even being identified as such by a Spellcraft check, what difference does it make if the player wants to describe it as shards of ice hitting her target?
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
I think you misunderstood my original post (or I didn't convey my intent). If the player says "I cast Magic Missile. Two shards of ice fly from my fingers and hit the Troll." and to all other PCs and NPCs it is functionally a Magic Missile, even being identified as such by a Spellcraft check, what difference does it make if the player wants to describe it as shards of ice hitting her target?
It's been stated, but not in the Guide or in the FAQ apparently. Would I allow it in a non-PFS game? Almost certainly, but not in PFS.There's a many other nuances to making Magic Missile into icicles than just the Spellcraft. What about cover? What about cold resistance? What about armor? Unless the player is always saying they cast Magic Missile, as a PFS GM that might only encounter that player once I may not allow it (even without the re-skinning statements by Mark). It gets even more confusing when some of their other spells actually DO change their energy type.
When my Irrisen Icemage converts a magic missle to an ice missle that's exacly what happens. But the energy descriptor changes from force to cold. It doesn't deal full damage to incoporeal and cold resistance/vulnerability applies. So when you say you shoot shards of ice when you actually are casting magic missle you're just making things unclear.
If you really like purple, I don't mind if you say the bolts of enery are purple though.
|
|
In a home campaign the GM can indeed approve other animals, but in a global campaign like Pathfinder Society the campaign staff is the only one that can allow this. As the campaign staff has explicidly disallowed other animals no table GM can override this.
The RULE, from page 34 of the APGA Small cavalier can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or a dog if he is at least 4th level. The GM might approve other animals as suitable mounts.
The Guide to Pathfinder Organized Play was not amended to address this issue in the manner that you seem to think it was -- although Paizo has had several opportunities to do so (and has elected not to). The matter is not addressed in the new Field Guide, either.
You are treating a message post on these forums by Joshua Frost (someone who is no longer engaged by Paizo, I might add) as an explicit rule of PFS for all time. That is not what we are supposed to do concerning message posts. We are, instead, directed to treat such posts as guidelines until such time as the rules may be formally amended. Until that time, we are permitted to NOT follow those guidelines, if it appears to be necessary in all of the circumstances.
This is for the very good reason that snap decisions are frequently made before posting an answer to questions on these message boards. Those snap decisions are frequently made without the benefit of further reflection and consulation among Paizo staff and its designers.
I would highly doubt that in ths circumstances of this case, that Paizo staff would seek to promulgate an interpretation of the rules which results in people walking away from a PFS table during Gencon. Such a result is antithetical to the entire purpose of Organized Play. I'm sure that we can at least agree on that, right?
|
|
You are treating a message post on these forums by Joshua Frost (someone who is no longer engaged by Paizo, I might add) as an explicit rule of PFS for all time. That is not what we are supposed to do concerning message posts. We are, instead, directed to treat such posts as guidelines until such time as the rules may be formally amended. Until that time, we are permitted to NOT follow those guidelines, if it appears to be necessary in all of the circumstances.
Without getting involved on the discussion on whether reskinning is allowed or not, I think it is worth nothing that regardless of Josh's current position (or lack thereof) within Paizo, at the time of that post (and many, many other posts still referenced to this day) he was in charge of Pathfinder Society. His statements as head GM do still carry as much weight today as they did then, unless specifically overwritten by Hyrum (who we could also note is not here anymore) or Mark. You cannot expect current campaign staff to constantly go back and confirm previous statements that have been made for the good of the campaign. Until those statements are overwritten, they are just as valuable today as they were then.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A couple questions, if you don't mind, steel_wind.
You suggest that the GM should have used his discretion to allow the lady in question to choose some other mount. (This is a different situation than suggesting a pony or wolf in a pig-suit.) What animal would you recommend? Not a Medium boar, which really isn't allowed till 4th level.
Are you suggesting a Small pig (-5 to Ride skill for being the wrong size; 1-4 hp bite; 20' movement when encumbered)?
You are treating a message post on these forums by Joshua Frost (someone who is no longer engaged by Paizo, I might add) as an explicit rule of PFS for all time. That is not what we are supposed to do concerning message posts. We are, instead, directed to treat such posts as guidelines until such time as the rules may be formally amended. Until that time, we are permitted to NOT follow those guidelines, if it appears to be necessary in all of the circumstances.
Not for all time, no. But for two years, Josh was making decisions and isuing ruling through the message boards. It seems unfair to require him to be foresightful enough to also issue them through an as-yet-nonexistent FAQ. Recently, in light of a ruling about spiked armor, Mark declared that his posts on these boards be considered as recommendations rather than rulings. But I doubt he meant to invalidate three years' worth of rulings in a thunderstrike.
One last note, and maybe this will post correctly this time. The couple involved have explained that the pig ruling was not why they left the table, and I'll take them at their word. But let's say it was. There are all sorts of reasons that people refuse to play; in my limited tenure as a GM, I've had people who (a) wanted to use their boyfriend's PC in proxy, (b) wanted to play a drow, (c) wanted to start at 2nd level. I GM under the policy that I want people to have a good time, and I want new players to feel welcome playing PFS. But in one particular or another, those folks don't want to play PFS. And if that's their line in the sand, then I think we are "promulgat(ing) an interpretation of the rules which results in people walking away from a PFS table during Gencon."
Peace be upon you.
|
|
I see this as a useful case for a double-shot of 'ignore it'.
A) Since there is support in RAW for a pig-mount, it probably should have been allowed to pass. Remember, the core trumps message boards every time unless specifically marked out as errata. Mr Frost's post was summed up by his last statement:
"So, in so far as Pathfinder Society is concerned, if you select a horse, it's a horse."
As a GM, simply agree to disagree and rule the entire module as though it were a wolf. Again, since we're being sticklers for the rules 'wolf' <> 'dog' does it? Does the word 'wolf' appear in the goblin text at all? I mean either we're using discretion or we're not, yes? :)
B) The gnome in question could have simply ignored the GM, right? Say 'okay Mr Type A Personality, call it whatever you wish' and keep playing. One module later, it gets switched right back to a pig, providing the GM at that table permits it. In the realm of shared imagination, there's absolutely room for more than one image of what's going on in-game. If the GM insists that she's crazy, and she insists she's not, it will cease to make any difference at all at the end of the module.
So the whole mess could have been avoided by the GM ignoring what the player said and the player ignoring what the GM said. None of it would have had any impact on play whatsoever. Unless I'm missing something.
|
Are you suggesting a Small pig (-5 to Ride skill for being the wrong size; 1-4 hp bite; 20' movement when encumbered)?
You've made the claim that size matters concerning mounts a couple times now and I've yet to see your justification for that rule. A pig is not "too small" as there is no "too small" rule anymore. And almost *all* mounts will be encumbered when being used as a mount. Yeah, 20' move isn't great, but it's better than a gnome in medium/heavy armor would be moving normally. A pig isn't the greatest of mounts, but if someone wants to ride one, it is perfectly legal to do so.
|
|
The problem with those references is that it was made clear by Mark that the boards are guidelines. Official rules are in the PFS FAQ and the PFS Guide to Organized Play. EVERYTHING regarding companions was removed, leading to this very situation
Well there are no rules saying you can't ...Actually, there are. It was ruled on by the head of the PFS at the time. I don't know if it ever made it into the FAQ threads, but here is the post:
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For Pathfinder Society “With DM Approval” to move beyond the listed options under a given rule comes from either – The Pathfinder Society Guide to Organized Play or a Chronicle Sheet granting the option.
Really? Well, that would be nice if it were true. Except it isn't; or at least, it wasn't until a week ago.
There is no longer, as of one week ago, ANY section in the new Guide to Organized Play which deals specifically with this issue; however, let's look back at the Guide that existed before August 2nd, shall we and see what it says?
As a paladin, what mount can I have?
As a paladin, your divine bond mount must be at least one size category larger than you starting at 1st level. If you’re a Medium PC, your mount must be Large. If you’re a Small PC, your mount must be at least Medium. Your mount must have four legs and must be viewed from a commonsense perspective as being suitable as a mount.Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play p.20
The Guide was never updated for Cavaliers, but I don't think it was ever intended that that the Rules for Paladins were intended to be LESS restrictive than they are for for Cavaliers. Can we agree on that?
It is abundantly clear that the mount that a Paladin can obtain from his class ability was fully left within the purview of the GM to make a judgment call within the above guidelines as part of PFS play. So I'd say you're wrong on this point.
Clearly, the rule for Organized Play for many years granted to GMs the right to make the very judgment calls as are under discussion here. Like the Paladin's mount, the Cavalier's mount cannot be purchased and cannot be sold and it cannot be given away. It comes as a class ability - a perk for playing the class.
You will note that the Core Rulebook does not even explicitly allow a GM discretion to allow a different type of mount for a Paladin. But the Guide for PFS play granted it.
In contrast, the APG explicitly grants to a GM the discretion to substitute new animals for the Cavalier. The previous Guide granted the same discretion to Paladins but was never updated for Cavaliers. Does that mean Paladins get more flexibility in PFS play than they do in the Core rules, but the Cavalier gets LESS? Is that a reasonable interpretation of the rules?
So... in light of the above, are we REALLY breaking from the rules for Organized Play by allowing a 2nd level gnome cavalier a mount with stats that corresponds to the Pony or the Wolf, which is medium in size, has four feet and it otherwise appropriate as a mount? Does a pig meet this condition?
Given that a boar, (with special attacks and abilities that a pig doesn't have) is available at 4th level, I submit the Pig DOES meet this test.
And should there be any doubt on the matter, let's look here to see what happens when there is no specific rule:
While the goal of the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign is to provide an even, balanced experience to all players, doing so would require all PCs to be exactly the same and all GMs to be restricted to a stiflingly oppressive script. As such, we understand that sometimes
a Game Master has to make rules adjudications on the fly, deal with unexpected player choices, or even cope with extremely unlucky (or lucky) dice on both sides of the screen.As a Pathfinder Society Game Master, you have the right and responsibility to make such calls as you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this
document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources.Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play p.24
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game Mastering is about being creative.
Your #1 goal is to make your player characters happy.
You failed at both these things.
|
|
Cool I wanna have a DRAGON mount! I'll use stats of a dog but it's really a dragon!
For a home campaign resin how you want. This is not a home campaign. Which means creativity has to sometimes take a backseat to the shared campaign. I can imagine my healing spells using all kinds of flames and such to do its stuff for my cleric of Asmodeus, but that is my imagination, in my head and not shared.
I understand their confusion and wanting to play a really cool concept, but I want to play a god, doesn't mean I get to.
The way I would have handled it is explain that I was pretty sure that it was not allowed by the rules, but for now we would run with it and suspend disbelief (it's a fantasy game after all) in order to be inclusive. But afterwards we would find an official ruling. In a non GenCon setting, where we do not have access to the Powers That Be, I would have told them to come to the website and join in the discussion I would create on this topic. They would have to abide by whatever ruling, if any, that was made by any official powers that be. Non-Powers That Be comments would not be binding. Until we had a real ruling they could go with it.
In essence, the ultimate rule for me is be inclusive and have fun. Worry about mechanics later. However, personally I am against reskinning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tales of similar situations like this are what kept me from getting into D&D until a couple of years after I got into gaming. It isn’t whether the ruling was right or wrong, but the fact that there’s enough material rules-wise to adjudicate this kind of issue to this extreme of a degree. A small matter like this should really be decided by the GM’s common sense alone; no rules required. Differences of opinion will occur, as this board has shown, but that’s life.
Chris, you are an awesome person for how you’ve handled things on this board (unless I missed the post where you finally flipped out ;p). You made your decision in good conscience, and had the presence of mind to question if that decision was the correct one. I greatly respect your call, even if it’s not the one I would have made.
|
|
I hope people aren't forgetting that since other mounts are subject to GM approval and this sort of table variation is also subject to GM approval, that this GM did entirely the right thing as he saw it at the time. No one can fault a GM for exercising their right to run their own table. You may not agree with it, but so what? Insulting or flaming him on this thread does nothing positive for the campaign. He asked for constructive criticism. Fine. Give that. Don't tell him he's wrong and push your opinions on him as if they are facts.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope people aren't forgetting that since other mounts are subject to GM approval and this sort of table variation is also subject to GM approval, that this GM did entirely the right thing as he saw it at the time. No one can fault a GM for exercising their right to run their own table. You may not agree with it, but so what? Insulting or flaming him on this thread does nothing positive for the campaign. He asked for constructive criticism. Fine. Give that. Don't tell him he's wrong and push your opinions on him as if they are facts.
But my opinions ARE fact! Besides, someone has to win this thread, right?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
ShadowcatX,
There's not as much of a fallacy in that argument as you might think. People want all sorts of cool stuff for their characters. "I'd like to be a goat rider." "I think it would be cool to have a bear as a mount. That's certainly no more bizarre than a boar." "I have a PC from the Realm of the Mammoth Lords. How about a young mammoth? People in my homeland ride mammoths."
Whether we talk about "re-skinning" a horse so that it's wearing a bear disguise, or just allowing a player to take a bear as a mount, I think there needs to be a clear line of demarcation: you can do this, but not that.
Otherwise, a GM will have to explain to a player why it's okay for the lovely lass across the table to take a mammoth mount, but his PC can't have the lion mount that he want.
Right now, the line for PFS OP is "no re-skinning". Until the FAQ comes out with guidelines, the line is "no odd choices". Could you propose an equally clear and unambiguous line? Perhaps one tied to a PC's Fame?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Insofar as I am learning stuff, I am winning the thread.
Excellent way to look at it.
I hope my response would have been : "Table, I'm not 100% but I think riding a pig steps outside the rules. Since it's part of the character flavour, I'm minded to allow it with the understanding from everyone that it's not going to confer any mechanical benefit, and might cause problems if your foes are hungry for bacon. Everyone ok with that? Cool, lets move on."
|
|
Insofar as I am learning stuff, I am winning the thread.Excellent way to look at it.
I hope my response would have been : "Table, I'm not 100% but I think riding a pig steps outside the rules. Since it's part of the character flavour, I'm minded to allow it with the understanding from everyone that it's not going to confer any mechanical benefit, and might cause problems if your foes are hungry for bacon. Everyone ok with that? Cool, lets move on."
+1 to Chris. It is an excellent way to look at it.
'I hope my response would have been' is also very good. We don't always respond at our best, we all have our pet peeves and off days. I think it's a very good thing to remember. The only thing we can hope for and work for is gaming to the better angles of our nature.
|
|
Whether we talk about "re-skinning" a horse so that it's wearing a bear disguise, or just allowing a player to take a bear as a mount, I think there needs to be a clear line of demarcation: you can do this, but not that.
Otherwise, a GM will have to explain to a player why it's okay for the lovely lass across the table to take a mammoth mount, but his PC can't have the lion mount that he want.
Right now, the line for PFS OP is "no re-skinning". Until the FAQ comes out with guidelines, the line is "no odd choices". Could you propose an equally clear and unambiguous line? Perhaps one tied to a PC's Fame?
Actually, the clear and unambiguous line is the stats of the creature. If will not impact the outcome of the module then it should pass. If it has identical stats/abilities, then it should pass.
A 'dragon' that cannot fly, breathe fire, cast spells, claw things, etc, isn't going to ruin anything. Especially for a single session with a player you're not likely to ever see again. It could be a 'bear', or a 'camel', or purple, or translucent. So long as nothing in the module actually changes, the effort to discuss it is opportunity cost against the group's common goal.
'No blood, no foul', as it were.
As as for the 'at convention it should be tighter', I have yet to hear WHY this is the case. Again, this is a one-shot deal. The real players in this case got up and walked away and nothing bad happened. Had they completed the adventure would anything bad have happened? Likewise, had they gotten up and walked from a local game, would they not need to be replaced?
No, I think you could be more lenient at a con, due to the non-persistent impact of your choices, as well as the limited amount of time to deal with issues.
|
|
I think there is a divide here like there often in gaming. In my local area there are me and a few other players who tend to come up with the more offbeat character concepts, whether is be an Oracle whose origin is tied to a module (she went to the Opera. Her brother died and started to talk to her), a sorcerer with an arcane bloodline whose familiar is smarter than they are, or an oriental Paladin.
As a player, I notice that some GM's give such players just a little more scrutiny, like they're looking for something to find fault with. They tend to be the ones who are sticklers for the rules and sometimes a bit insecure. They try to 'clamp down' on other players, by taking 10 minutes to look very closely to see if a player is really playing by the rules or get annoyed at the most minor reskins (my short sword is a wakisashi), or as a GM subconsciously resents when the Boss fight is a walk through and are not welcoming. It's the first thing I think of when I meet a GM who would object to the pig (and it doesn't mean Chris is that person).
On the other side there are players who play too fast and loose with the rules, to the annoyance of everyone at the table, or maybe just one or two people.
I think there is a level of jealousy and resentment on both sides of this issue and related issues and all of them have been played out in the pig controversy.
|
|
Actually, it is a rule. Just because it didn't make it in the guide changes nothing. Josh was asked about reskinning in Society Play and as his role as head of Society Play, he said it wasn't allowed. One of my pet peeves with Josh was that he would make a ruling, say it would be in the next update, and then not include it. I know I had to bug him to get some things included in the Guide.
And what about those people that don't have the time and/or the inclination to go through the forums every day looking for new "rules updates" from the campaign staff? All they have to go on is what is in the guide, so if it's not there, how would they even know it was pronounced?
We ran into the same problem in the Living Greyhawk campaign (and I suspect the other living campaigns experienced it as well), and it was one of the things I hated as an administrator, namely how many hoops we had to jump through to get something in print...
|
|
But it doesn't matter because all of Josh's random postings are not rules if they are not in the Guide (or the FAQ). How do I know this, because the guide says exactly that.
That is absolutely correct.
We must all realize too, that campaign management have a huge job keeping up with messageboards while they juggle the 3,723 other funktions they have at Paizo.All rulings that are meant to staill will hopefully reach the FAQ - in time.
Until then former rulings by Joshua Frost are still to be considered clarifications and guidelines. For the sake of the campaign and consistent gaming experiences, players and GMs should take those advices into serious consideration.
While the rules as writen are important to the game so is the intention behind the rules - those intentions we get from the clarifications and guidelines Paizo staff provide on these boards.