|
I am in favor of this rule. I think keeping a list of the available animals is a good idea. Though I would like to see an expanded list with Bestiary 2 & 3. With all the Bestiary’s, a character would have plenty of choices for animal companions.
I think reskinning can be prone to abuses unfortunately, and I think that is a case of if one person cannot have nice things, then no one can. Reskinning is just way too subjective on what would and would not be acceptable. You can easily get into a situation where at every table a GM has to decide if something is an acceptable case of reskinning, and all the arguments that could cause. Plus reskinning can actually affect how an encounter goes in certain scenarios, and so has a mechanical effect on the game.
|
I have not read the GenCon Pig Thread.
The change to Heirloom Weapon, blew up a PFS character I'd made but not yet played. I'd probably be more upset if I'd played him.
I'd used the old Heirloom Weapon rules (Masterwork bonus for free...) to buy a masterwork greatclub.
It was skinned as a dinosaur thighbone. Same stats as a Greatclub. Note that as it's made out of bone, not wood or metal, it theoretically has an advantage (heat metal and warp wood don't work on it...)
This ruling pretty much means that making flavor text changes to weapons - calling your Scimitar a Gentleman's Fencing Sabre - isn't allowed.
Le sigh.
|
|
Frankly, if this rule is put in, at any table I run I will completely ignore it.
This game is about creativity, and I am ok with that. My rule for re-skinning as always been thus: the animal will be treated as its base version or its reskinned version, whichever is *worse* for the player. If an NPC hates dogs, but you reskinned your riding dog as a riding lizard, well guess what: he hates lizards too, evidently he's alergic. As for not liking someone's fluff, well we all have players and characters we can't stand. Some people can't stand guns in their PFS. Some folks don't like undead lords, or self rightious paladins. But guess what: we play with them anyways, or we find another table. If a character said his armor was stormtrooper armor or some such, fine. Is it in all actuality full plate artfully covered in lard, sealed in resin? Certainly, and other players can believe as such.
|
I do understand the arguments for and against this proposition. I'm in favor of re-skinning (for flavor reasons only), yet I understand how some morons and idiots would abuse this to the point of ridicule.
Starting from animals I'd most likely rule that the animal must still be from the same family (scientific classification, Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family), much like it is now. You take the stats of a cheetah, the animal should resemble some animal from the Felidae family. Thus I would wish (but not enforce) for the Elven Hound to be a dog. I did, after all, find this description of it.
Though if one wants to avoid the possibilities of making immature and dumb-looking companions, the summoner will pose a problem. Since you can shape it anything you like, you could be encountering a gray cube with legs, for instance.
What I'd propose would be to not go by the lowest standard. There will be awful players who abuse the system to the max, and they will eventually find measures to do that. Prohibiting smart and reasonable players from doing things doesn't punish the abusive player as much as it punished those who behave.
|
|
Though if one wants to avoid the possibilities of making immature and dumb-looking companions, the summoner will pose a problem. Since you can shape it anything you like, you could be encountering a gray cube with legs, for instance.What I'd propose would be to not go by the lowest standard. There will be awful players who abuse the system to the max, and they will eventually find measures to do that. Prohibiting smart and reasonable players from doing things doesn't punish the abusive player as much as it punished those who behave.
Pretty much what this guy said. A guy wearing stormtrooper armor is a no-no, but a summoner who summons a walking set of genitalia is perfectly legal and sensible?
|
2) In organized play, only the animals listed are permitted for selection and cannot be "re-skinned" to appear as something they are not."
+1. I think this is worth codifying to avoid headaches.
As one poster has already stated, re-skinning is ripe for abuse (My Bear Pounces! My Cat Trips! My Wolf Has Wings!). Worse, it puts a burden on the GM to have to check Animal Companions/Mounts to see what their 'original' stats are prior to being re-skinned at each table. This works in 4th Edition because it is a primary feature of the system in the way power levels scale for everything in the game; that is not the case in Pathfinder in my experience.
|
I'd used the old Heirloom Weapon rules (Masterwork bonus for free...) to buy a masterwork greatclub.
It was skinned as a dinosaur thighbone. Same stats as a Greatclub. Note that as it's made out of bone, not wood or metal, it theoretically has an advantage (heat metal and warp wood don't work on it...)
This raises an interesting question: what do you do when the rules catch up with reskinning? If a ranger has a cat AC (mechanically) but refers to it as a red panda, what should the player/GM do if, at some point in the future, red pandas become a valid AC (with different stats)?
In this case you've taken a bone weapon when rules for them didn't exist. If, at your next PFS session when you mention you have a bone weapon, the GM whips open Ultimate Combat and says 'Ah, presumably it's fragile and gets -2 to damage then," what will you do?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This looks to me like some other priority is now being put ahead of "fun" in the name of "______".
Clarity, consistency? Some other word or dramatically important principle?
The people who play Pathfinder happen to be playing a game. Seeing as "fun" is the central premise behind playing a game, whenever you sacrifice "fun" on the altar of some other priority concerning something which is mechanically neutral, you'd better be DAMN clear about which altar and why.
My guess is that ten years or so from now, looking back, this is going to seem like a really odd idea and people are going to scratch their heads and ask "what the hell happened with that"?
At the same time something that is just fluff in some circumstance could become a difference in the game under different circumstances.
This is the crux of the issue to me. Reskinning a horse to a giant cat seems harmless, but what happens when that cat wants to climb a tree? I'm sure many (most?) GMs would put a hefty penalty on a tree-climbing horse, based solely on the horse's "fluff" notwithstanding the fact that there's nothing in the rules forbidding it. Forbidding a "cat" from climbing a tree would be on even shakier ground.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Alright, I've only been skimming this thread, but at a glance it seems like the main issue is trying to somehow balance the harmless reskinning with the potential for (intentional or accidental) abuse.
If you ban it, you curtail some very fun and harmless creativity.
If you explicitly allow it, you give dodgy players another avenue of legal abuse.
Well, what if we did neither? What if we made a rule stating that if you wanted to alter the appearance of an otherwise legal [whatever], you had to consult with the GM of your table. If the GM feels it would be a problem (either due to animal types mattering more than usual in the scenario, or because they think it's too much of a stretch, or whatever) then they have a right to veto the reskinning for that scenario.
No, this doesn't grant consistency in the sense that's been discussed so far, but the player has fair warning. It allows creative fluffing, but at their own risk and with full disclosure that it's not a right but a privilege and they go into it knowing that at some tables it won't be happening. If they're willing to accept that, then they can go ahead with it.
This way, if someone wants a lightsaber, they'll have to get it approved by each GM they play under, which (I certainly hope) means there won't be any lightsabers in PFS - so the problem of abuse is solved. Meanwhile, if someone has a genuinely harmless re-fluffing, they're likely to get it approved at most tables and can reap the emotional rewards of their creativity - so the problem of "prohibiting the harmless" is solved. And finally, if someone re-fluffs in a way that's usually harmless but can sometimes be an issue (like the not-a-dog in the presence of goblins), it can be vetoed for that scenario without banning the player from indulging that idea in future scenarios - so the "conditional advantage" issue is solved.
In my head, this sounds like a very strong solution. What does everyone else think?
|
|
This looks to me like some other priority is now being put ahead of "fun" in the name of "______".
This isn't a home game. When you are dealing with hundreds of players playing the same game and wanting to have the same experience, you have to find the balance of fun and fair. A line has to be somewhere. This discusion will help define where that line lies.
|
|
Well, what if we did neither?
The main reason this is being considered for a rule change/clarification is because one of the key elemental of organized play is consistency in application of the rules from table to table. Players should expect if their re-skinned AC is permitted at one table, it should be legal at all tables they play.
Currently, the rules seem to leave it in the hands of the GM to determine if the re-skinning will be allowed (although we cannot even seem to get a consensus if the table GM can make that ruling). That ambiguity is what fostered so much discussion regarding what is/is not legal and why we are trying to determine if (1) a rule is needed and (2) what form it should take.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jiggy,
I like the idea, in principle, of allowing GM leeway on this.
In practice, I think it would be hard.
The "re-skinning" issue at GenCon involved a nice lady who had been playing a halfling cavalier with a nebulously-statted pig mount for several sessions. I was the first GM to call her on it, and when her companion suggested that we re-skin a riding dog as a pig, I felt comfortable balking because, among other reasons*, PFS has a general principle in place forbidding the practice.**
I would have been less comfortable making that decision if the rule were "GMs might choose to ban any re-skinning, at their discretion".
So, if she wanted to re-skin a pony as a pig, I might have allowed that on my own, but then if someone else had sat down with "an owlbear" (stats of an axebeak) animal companion or the elven hound earlier in this thread, I might feel less comfortable and forbid those. Would those players have cause to feel unfairly treated? If I accept something at my table, do I have to accept everything?
--
* Both her companion and I were overlooking the fact that a riding dog would have been just as illegal as a boar. (Both are available at 4th level.) He should have suggested reskinning a pony.
** Josh made that ruling in the forums, back when Josh's rulings in the forums were considered binding.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, what if we did neither?The main reason this is being considered for a rule change/clarification is because one of the key elemental of organized play is consistency in application of the rules from table to table. Players should expect if their re-skinned AC is permitted at one table, it should be legal at all tables they play.
Currently, the rules seem to leave it in the hands of the GM to determine if the re-skinning will be allowed (although we cannot even seem to get a consensus if the table GM can make that ruling). That ambiguity is what fostered so much discussion regarding what is/is not legal and why we are trying to determine if (1) a rule is needed and (2) what form it should take.
But if we made it explicitly in the power of the GMs, then the player could choose to either play the "normal" stuff and have an easily consistent experience, or to do the extra work and accept the extra variance to be able to do something a little different some of the time. As long as they know going in that the burden's all on them and that they're going to be willingly sacrificing some consistency, is there really any harm in letting them decide whether or not their idea is worth it?
The purpose of consistency is so that players don't get a nasty surprise and to keep things fair. If the player knows ahead of time that his reskinning may or may not be allowed, there's no nasty surprise. And with the GMs having veto power on said reskinning, it also keeps things fair.
So the question is this: are we trying to make things consistent in order to prevent surprises and unfairness, or are we striving for consistency purely for consistency's sake?
|
|
Well, what if we did neither? What if we made a rule stating that if you wanted to alter the appearance of an otherwise legal [whatever], you had to consult with the GM of your table. If the GM feels it would be a problem (either due to animal types mattering more than usual in the scenario, or because they think it's too much of a stretch, or whatever) then they have a right to veto the reskinning for that scenario.
I need to make up a sign for the front of my GM screen:
NO SEVENTH PLAYER
NO RESKINNING
NO SCZARNI
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy,
I like the idea, in principle, of allowing GM leeway on this.In practice, I think it would be hard.
The "re-skinning" issue at GenCon involved a nice lady who had been playing a halfling cavalier with a nebulously-statted pig mount for several sessions. I was the first GM to call her on it, and when her companion suggested that we re-skin a riding dog as a pig, I felt comfortable balking because, among other reasons*, PFS has a general principle in place forbidding the practice.**
I would have been less comfortable making that decision if the rule were "GMs might choose to ban any re-skinning, at their discretion".
So, if she wanted to re-skin a pony as a pig, I might have allowed that on my own, but then if someone else had sat down with "an owlbear" (stats of an axebeak) animal companion or the elven hound earlier in this thread, I might feel less comfortable and forbid those. Would those players have cause to feel unfairly treated? If I accept something at my table, do I have to accept everything?
But she came to your table with (presumably) no idea that it might get rejected, thus invoking the "nasty surprise" effect that can really ruin a gaming experience. If, instead, when she had read the PFS Guide she saw that she could reskin but it might be rejected, she'd be approaching the situation ready for a rejection. It wouldn't feel nearly as bad. Or if she thought it WOULD feel bad to have it rejected, she could decide ahead of time not to bother with it.
|
|
If, instead, when she had read the PFS Guide she saw that she could reskin but it might be rejected, she'd be approaching the situation ready for a rejection. It wouldn't feel nearly as bad. Or if she thought it WOULD feel bad to have it rejected, she could decide ahead of time not to bother with it.
I WISH more players would be familiar with the Guide. The PFS Expectation is that the players have a copy. I can't even get half my people to take a free copy I've printed up for them. Those that do rarely read them.
Speaking of which, I still need to read the latest update.... time to get that done today.
Well, what if we did neither? What if we made a rule stating that if you wanted to alter the appearance of an otherwise legal [whatever], you had to consult with the GM of your table. If the GM feels it would be a problem (either due to animal types mattering more than usual in the scenario, or because they think it's too much of a stretch, or whatever) then they have a right to veto the reskinning for that scenario.
The problem I see with this is that it turns every GM who disagrees with reskinning into an unreasonable jerk. Potentially, this sort of ruling would create a situation where the GM was required to show up even earlier before the game in order to hear arguments about the reskinning. At worst, a whole group of rangers/druids shows up, all with reskinned animals, and the GM has to spend the first 10-20 minutes arguing about reskins. Placing all of the responsibility on the shoulders of the GM could lead to some hurt feelings. It would be better to have a standard to point to, so the GM doesn't feel the need to capitulate simply to avoid hurt feelings, or to get the game started.
That being said, I do enjoy some fluff reskinning in the players at my table. Completely snuffing it out could really hurt the creative aspect of this game. First, we ban reskinning animals. Next, reskinning outfits, or cloaks, or boots, or waterskins.
This is a really tough call, and I absolutely do not envy the people having to make it. Best of luck.
|
|
Again, why not use this ruling: Any reskinned animal well be run as its original type or its new type, whichever is worse for the player. Tell me how this ruling lets people get away with things in game. It still allows people to run things as they want (without being forced to play a summoner.....) but doesn't let them break the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@Pickguy: You may have a point on the "multiple druids and/or rangers" thing. I was picturing just a quick "hey, any problems if my X is reskinned as Y today?" but I guess it could easily get more complicated than that.
I don't like the idea of a blanket ban on reskinning, but it's sounded more and more like the only option...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Alexander,
It sounds like it would work in a home campaign, where the GM and player could have the luxury of time, figuring out the stats of the critter / armor / what-have-you.
I think there's too much difference in an organized play environment. There's too much potential for unpleasant surprises.
1) The image might be better than the underlying mechanics. So, I re-skin my horse mount to be a Large gold dragon. Well, everybody at the table has a good idea about how a gold dragon works; when the mount can't do any of those things, there needs to be a clear in-game reason.
2) The image might be wose than the underlying mechanics would allow. In the notorious test case, a pony re-skinned as a Pathfinder Bestiary (small) pig would take the pig's stats, since they are in all cases worse than the pony's. Encumbered by a halfling with gear, it would move 15', have 6 hp, and an attack of 1d4.
3) The results could be unpredictable. Let's say someone comes to my table with a cheetah, but insists it's a "coochee elven dog". Well, as it so happens, I have the stats for an elven dog that Tricky Owlbear drew up for Pathfinder. (Obviously, I'd use Paizo stats from an Adventure Path, or better yet, from a Bestiary volume, if there were any.) And comparing them, the cheetah drops in strength and dexterity, its BAB shrivels to +1, it loses Improved Initiative and all ranks in Acrobatics, among other serious nerfs. But only at my table.
4) It can eat time. There's a reason the animal companions are all statted out. Someone comes to my table wanting to play a "giant goat" (alias: wolf) mount for his gnome samauri. Now, Pathfinder does allow for the "giant" template to be added to a goat. And we can compare that to the worf stats and take the wose of the two in all cases. But (a) there's some art to deciding how to apply the template, and (b) all that takes time.
|
At the same time something that is just fluff in some circumstance could become a difference in the game under different circumstances.This is the crux of the issue to me. Reskinning a horse to a giant cat seems harmless, but what happens when that cat wants to climb a tree? I'm sure many (most?) GMs would put a hefty penalty on a tree-climbing horse, based solely on the horse's "fluff" notwithstanding the fact that there's nothing in the rules forbidding it. Forbidding a "cat" from climbing a tree would be on even shakier ground.
What if the player took a voluntary flaw, such as his 'cathorse' has to make a Will save to walk past balls of wool, or restrain itself from pursuing a giant rat, taking the PC with it clinging on for dear life as they both head into the horizon?
|
|
The "re-skinning" issue at GenCon involved a nice lady who had been playing a halfling cavalier with a nebulously-statted pig mount for several sessions. I was the first GM to call her on it, and when her companion suggested that we re-skin a riding dog as a pig, I felt comfortable balking because, among other reasons*, PFS has a general principle in place forbidding the practice.**
Isn't the real problem in that instance, not that she had a reskinned mount, but that its stats were 'nebulous'.
It wasn't that the stats didn't match the appearance, but that no-one knew what the creature's stats actually were?
|
Venture-Captain, Arizona—Tucson
|
If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
I haven't personally seen problems caused by reskinning. Until I encounter someone who actually causes heartburn for me (or my players), I'm in favor of allowing it.
I'd recommend that the rules allow reskinning for "color" reasons, but add that gamemasters have absolute veto power over any such changes. If someone at my table claims that his dwarf rides a war pig, he's welcome. If someone claims that she's the reincarnation of an ancient Osirian scribe and barely understands modern Common, she's welcome.
While this may cause occasional arguments over subjective calls, that's the price of stretching the envelope. If you want absolute and inflexible rules, there are plenty of computer games out there with all the solid rules one could ask for.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't see any issue whatsoever with 're-skinning' myself, and while I have never done it, I think it could be lots of fun for various reasons. Role-playing shouldn't be punished and instead encouraged. There are always going to be people who try to cheat or abuse the system. Why punish those who don't for the few that will?
If I had to vote, I'd say that allow the GM to decide on if the animal is allowed - players that choose this route will just have to understand that there is always the chance that their choice will be disallowed, even if it is only at the DM's whim. If it isn't allowed, the player should have a 'back-up' or 'normal' animal to use.
Another suggestion is, if people want a more 'unique' animal, maybe that is something that could start appearing on the adventure records as rewards? Personally, I find only find items to be really boring and this is one way to allow a little bit of variety.
-Toni
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see with this is that it turns every GM who disagrees with reskinning into an unreasonable jerk. Potentially, this sort of ruling would create a situation where the GM was required to show up even earlier before the game in order to hear arguments about the reskinning. At worst, a whole group of rangers/druids shows up, all with reskinned animals, and the GM has to spend the first 10-20 minutes arguing about reskins.
*sigh*
This entire issue has been approached on such a wrong-headed basis by so many posters that I find it so exasperating. We clearly approach these issues from a very, very different footing.
Can we please stop the conjecture and just stick to the facts please?
The so-called "problems" which have been encountered with this issue have to date, amounted to one incident at Gencon with a riding pig, which was not a problem for ALL of the GMs at Gencon involved prior to one lady's attendance at Mortika's table, that touched off this issue.
One GM and one incident does not require a formal rule change.
That's the evidence concerning the actual REAL problem - where the rubber meets the road.
Instead, the posts on this issue by many GMs discuss what they view as potential problems, with potential nightmate scenarios, which might occur at some vague and unpecified date in the future. All of this conjecture deals not with real practical problems encountered in Society Play, but with imagined ones.
While this approach may sound reasonable to you; it sounds plainly unreasonable to me. I believe that rule changes in this game that purport to respond to problems which have been identified during actual play should respond only to REAL problems, with REAL issues, encountered at REAL game sessions == all of which require REAL practical solutions to those specific REAL problems, if any.
This hypothetical reflection about what could happen in the future if we don't do X, Y, and Z now has no demonstrable basis in reality. If it DID, surely we would have seen those very issues by now that all of you are complaining about.
But we haven't seen any of that. We haven't seen reskinned cavalier hores which climb trees or reskinned swords which turn on and go whoosh like light sabers. So why are we trying to "fix" those problems by amendment to the Rules when they don't exist in the first place?
What we have is this one incident with a pig. It was harmless then -- it's harmless now -- and overtly changing the formal rules to accommodate the fears of tree climbing horses, re-skinned lightsabres and a legion of Ranger/Druids requiring an additional hour of prep time for each PFS session is not a measured, well-grounded and practical response to a real problem encountered in the field during Organized Play.
It is, on the contrary, a knee-jerk response to unjustified fears and imagined problems made up wholly out of shadows and conjecture.
|
|
stuff
I think it is an issue of closing the barn door before the horses get loose. I can see merit in all the positions on this issue. What we need to do is create a rule/clarification that allows the GM to adjudicate re-skinning without being labeled a "jerk" and that players are allowed to experience the maximum amount of fun with their character concept.
It seems that there are three main takes on this topic...
(1) Ban all re-skinning
(2) All re-skinning with the caveat that the table GM has the ability to ban a specific re-skin on a case-by-case basis
(3) Keep the rules as is
#3 is probably the least preferred option since it is clear that there is some ambiguity as to whether or not the table GM has the power/authority to allow/disallow a re-skin.
I have heard from GM's who allowed re-skinning at their table and it was mixed roughly 50/50 on it being a good/bad experience. Most of them where not really sure if the re-skinning was legal for PFS or if they had the ability to rule in favor of or against it.
|
|
2) In organized play, only the animals listed are permitted for selection and cannot be "re-skinned" to appear as something they are not."
I approve, but not strongly. While some argue that reskinning doesn't hurt anything, it isn't true and it is a somewhat aggressive action on the part of the reskinner. It effectively demands that all other players tacitly agree to the reskinner's view of how the gameworld should be different than it is understood by the other players and characters. That said, the shared world organized play environment demands a degree of willingness on the part of players to go with oddities and I think it's a minor issue.
Can we please stop the conjecture and just stick to the facts please?
...One GM and one incident does not require a formal rule change.
OK, let´s not change the rules. THe previous PFS manager ´officially´ and bindingly stated on the messageboards that this isn´t allowed. Nothing since has changed that. Anybody allowing it is doing is contra to that official statement, knowingly or un-knowingly.
If you play in PFS, you agree to play by the rules, and within the world of Golarion.
If nobody get´s porcine Companions until Level 4 Companion Level, isn´t it breaking world consitency to ´re-skin´ your Companion so YOU get to have one early? Even though you would NEVER run into any other PC or NPC with the same type of companion, since it isn´t a valid rules option? Perhaps there are even in-game reasons for the mechanical options, and NPCs/storylines will revolve around the ´un-tamable nature´ of pigs, that only the most advanced Druids can tame... Whoops, when you´ve been running around with your re-skin since Level 1. What if somebody decides to ´re-skin´ their Companion as some creatures which isn´t supposed to be generally available/known, or even plays a part in a module as some newly discovered species?
The re-skins exist COMPLETELY OUTSIDE the ´known rules´ which developers use to build adventures around... As such, they are huge potential problems at many different levels: THUS, WHY THEY ARE CURRENTLY ILLEGAL. BREAKING THE RULES like this, although MORE THAN FINE in a home game, messes with the expectations that every adventure writer thinks they can rely on: players will have access to all rules-legal sources.
This is not to mention that given there really isn´t any rules basis for allowing this in the first place, there is no rules basis to allow this but disallow a player from doing similarly with their own PC itself... There is a Feat for Half-Orcs that lets them appear as Humans (big bonus to Disguise). EVEN THAT FEAT doesn´t BYPASS the in-game mechanics for ´appearing as something else´ (Disguise), yet on the basis of ´pro-re-skinners´ position, exactly WHY COULDN´T somebody use Half-Orc stats but look indestinguishable (no Perception check can notice) from a Human?
|
|
2) In organized play, only the animals listed are permitted for selection....
Two responses:
1) I am behind the "only listed" ruling for PFS. -- I have yet to see anyone run a druid in the local area, and, given the apparently lack of interest in playing one through dungeon-crawls, I would like to see the player who finally does be rewarded by getting something unique and unavailable to any other class. (The druid player gets cheated out of that experience if he then has to watch all the rangers and paladins post-rule-change grab the same pouncekitty or rhino or whatever.)
2) That said, I support a lenient interpretation for mounts in re: this discussion here:
May a 7th-level medium-sized cavalier take a wolf mount (wolves increase in size to large at 7th)?The PFS FAQ says cavaliers can only have the mounts listed on p 33 of the APG. For medium cavaliers, this is a horse or a camel. You can have a wolf if you're small.That's lame and nonsensical -- it means that a small cavalier who drinks a potion of Enlarge Person (to become medium-sized) can ride his now large wolf at 7th+, but that a human cavalier can't! And, just to double-screw the human cavalier, he also cannot start swigging potions of Reduce Person (becoming small-sized) to begin riding a dog or other medium mount!
Ugh...let's find some way to fix that. Suggest that cavaliers can take any mount whose name appears in their class section text.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is consistency. If I say "no, you can't have a pig, it's not permitted", and you say "yes you can have a pig" it creates stress against my personal GM style and causes me to have to be adversarial to the player in question.
In a home game a lot of things can be allowed, in Society play consistency is key.
Michael,
I totally agree that consistency is important in Society play, but so is a certain level of flexibility. Table by table GM flexibility is even written right into the rules for organized play in chapter 6 under Table Variation, Rewarding Creative Solutions, and Dealing with Death. For example:
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.
...rewarding the creative use of skills and roleplaying not only makes Society games that much more fun for the players, but it gives you, the GM, a level of flexibility in ensuring your players receive the rewards they are due.
While we do not advocate fudging die rolls, consider the experience of the player when using especially lethal tactics or if a character is in extreme danger of death, especially when such a player is new to the game. Most players whose first experience in a campaign results in a character death do not return to the campaign.
Emphasis mine. The theme here is that the rules are good but they aren't perfect or all encompassing, that we want everyone to have fun, that creativity should be encouraged, and that the person running the game is officially trusted to handle the grey areas at their table. If you trust organized play DMs to accurately judge how hard to be on characters in combat, and you trust them to fairly handle players bypassing or otherwise completing encounters in an unexpected manner, then is it that much of a stretch to trust them to handle player "reskinning?"
Why not just give some guidelines and examples, establish that reskinning can only change "fluff" and can't provide any advantage, that the "fluff" can't be out of bounds with the established campaign world, remind players that the DM is the final arbiter and there is no guarantee that the character will be allowed at every table (particularly during convention play where time is of the essence), and then trust the DMs to have enough sense to handle it. If it takes more than a short sentence to describe what the player wants to do, then it probably isn't a good change.
This doesn't have to be complicated. If a player want to call his cheetah an "elven hound" that's great. For all mechanical purposes in the game it is a cheetah. It has the stats of a cheetah, it attacks like a cheetah, and is treated like a cheetah if the module presents a special situation where the species would be important (e.x. a nobleman who is allergic to cheetah fur is also allergic to elven hound fur). The player can chose not to play his cheetah to its full potential in order to better simulate the fact that it is an "elven hound", but they can't give it abilities a cheetah doesn't have or get away with anything they couldn't get away with with their regular ol' cheetah companion.
Yes, there will be people who try to use reskinning to milk some advantage from the system. Yes, there will be people who get pissed off when the DM tells them they can't reskin their wolf companion as an eagle. But those people already exist and will be jerks regardless of whether or not we have rules for reskinning. A DM isn't an "unreasonable jerk" for saying no to disruptive reskinning at their table any more than they are an unreasonable jerk for saying no to any other form of disruptive roleplaying.
And that is my personal opinion on the matter.
-Jason
|
|
This doesn't have to be complicated. If a player want to call his cheetah an "elven hound" that's great. For all mechanical purposes in the game it is a cheetah. It has the stats of a cheetah, it attacks like a cheetah, and is treated like a cheetah if the module presents a special situation where the species would be important (e.x. a nobleman who is allergic to cheetah fur is also allergic to elven hound fur).
More specifically, the nobleman would be immune to that elven hound, that had been built on a cheetah chassis.
Another PC, who'd built his 'elven hound' on a wolf chassis, should be fine, right?
|
|
The player can chose not to play his cheetah to its full potential in order to better simulate the fact that it is an "elven hound", but they can't give it abilities a cheetah doesn't have or get away with anything they couldn't get away with with their regular ol' cheetah companion.
The wider the choice available to the players, the less (perceived?) need for reskinning.
Many of the restrictions appear arbitary, to players who have been used to earlier editions of the game, eg D&D3.5 directed Rangers to use the whole Druid list, albeit at reduced level, which included all the higher-level unlocked creatures.
It's understandable that players believe that to still be the intent.
Or you are a player, wanting to play certain archetypes, like Beastmaster Rangers, whose entire schtick is to have a wider choice of companions, only to find yourself hamstrung by the general PFS rule that Ranger companions have to come from a limited list.
It's understandable for such a player to believe the archetype overrides the general rule, and to find the choice disallowed at the table makes no sense to them.
|
|
My take on this:
1) the skin will be written on their chronicle ( so it doesn't change)
2)it is an animal and is not a legal option for your character and small or medium sized
3) is part of the campaign setting (bring proof if needed)
4)The animal will be treated as the fluff animal in all npc interactions. The animal will be treated as the base animal for all character interactions,skills, feats, and combat. the fluff may encourage actions that hurt your character, do this at your own risk. ( ie rare, valuable, edible, and dangerous animals will be seen as such)
5)if the skin becomes a legal choice you must take it, it is considered a new animal.(needs to be trained etc)
6) young options are not allowed, pathfinders would not be that cruel.
Having a pig/dog is not a mechanical advantage it's a role play possibility every game, While they lose out on one possible RP chance that exists in one mod.
Sigh, with so many bullets it might be to much hassle.
|
|
After further thought, here is my idea:
1) If the animal exists in some form in some Pathfinder book, whether it be one of the Bestiaries or some other resource, then you cannot reskin another animal to be that animal. For example: If you want a Bear, then you must use the rules as written for obtaining a Bear. If a Bear is not available for your character by the RAW, then you cannot choose a wolf and call it a bear.
2) If an animal does not exist in some form in some Pathfinder book, then you may choose an animal that most closely resembles it by size and species and reskin it. For example: Elven Hound does not exist. So you can take a Riding Dog and call it an Elven Hound.
3) To reskin something, the new skin must be an animal. So no reskinning a wolf to be a baby dragon or a bear to be an owl bear or a horse to a griffon.
4) Classes with limited lists cannot reskin. You are restricted to the list your class allows. In the case of a Ranger who wants an Elven Hound, then choose a Riding Dog and just say that its breed is Elven Hound (just like many others might choose Elk Hound or Mastiff).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This looks to me like some other priority is now being put ahead of "fun" in the name of "______".
Clarity, consistency? Some other word or dramatically important principle?
The people who play Pathfinder happen to be playing a game. Seeing as "fun" is the central premise behind playing a game, whenever you sacrifice "fun" on the altar of some other priority concerning something which is mechanically neutral, you'd better be DAMN clear about which altar and why.
Damn, Rob. Well stated.
I'm pretty much instituting a new Painlord-rule as I review this and other future Revision/Modification posts.
1) If it's something that doesn't make my job easier as a local coordinator or clearly better for the players, I suggest just not making the change. (See #1 thread.)
2) If the change in some way eliminates "fun" or unreasonably inhibits a player's connection to their character (something we should be pushing), I suggest just not making the change.
Like many of the above, I have yet to see re-skinning problems at my tables. Could it happen? Yes, but I trust in my judge pool and hierarchy to work things out.
We should be encouraging players to find ways to create interesting and fun characters for them to play and I trust in the general judge populace to work these things out on a case by case basis. This is a social game and this social network can do wonders about clamping down on abuse.
This goes back to my PFS Core Tenet #1: We *want* character choices to matter and people tied into the fates of their characters. We should be focusing on ways to allow players to create characters that they are passionate about. In my mind, every PFS judge should be willing to bend over backward to accommodate flavored, appropriate re-skinning.
My thoughts:
1) Enact some small scale rules like suggested by Andrew Christain, above.
2) Have players announce their re-skins (as well as the base creature) to the judge before the mod starts.
3) The judge has right of refusal.
4) Profit.
-Pain
|
Venture-Captain, Alabama—Birmingham
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to invoke the edition wars, but I am playing Pathfinder exactly for this reason: I do not want to be fighter with dragon-lord mega-strike #4583. I want the freedom to create fleshy-squishy characters that are only limited by my imagination, not the list of 4 options granted upon me by the grand council of Wizards upon high. The freedom of character creation is what brings me to this table. This proposed ruling does nothing but squash creativity.
Unilaterally banning the non-mechanic altering of items and creatures is not preventing a slippery slope, or creating any mythical organizational consistency, it is just limiting creativity for rules sake. As GMs we are explicitly expected to reward creative thinking when dealing with puzzles and monsters inside of these scenarios, but now we are discussing banning that same creativity in character description? Not even design and mechanics, but description.
I agree with the need for rules consistency, but this is not a situation of grappling multiple combatants in the dark under water, this is a tool to make something undefined within the system work, Or gods forbid, be creative and come up with something unique.
For the record: I totally support the Pig-cavalier, Elven Dog, and wish to Irori that I had thought of that manacle-flail myself; three characters that I more than likely will never play with, and only heard of through a message board, but totally stick in my memory. I am now struggling to remember anyone else's characters that have been mentioned on the boards..... nope, not happening so far.
|
|
It is interesting that one danger of the re-skinning I have seen mentioned a few times is the tree climbing horse. I think everyone here is missing something important.
Could someone please advice me where in the rules it states that a non re-skinned horse can't climb a tree? I've never seen that in the rule book.
Rule book page 52 - Animal companions can have ranks in any of the following skills: [cut], Climb*(Str)
All the skills marked with a (*) are class skills for companions.
A level has 2 HD and 2 skill points.
Optimized tree climbers:
Ape, Cat Big (Cat small) Str. 13(12) with 2 skill ranks in climb = Climb +6 (+1 Str, +2 rank, +3 class)
Horse Str 16 with 2 skill ranks in climb = Climb +8 (+3 Str, +2 rank, +3 class)
If you like it or not - RAW the not re-skinned horse is the best tree climber of them all (at least up to level 3).
What you need is reasonable players who don't try to find ways to get unreasonable advantages. And you have to back up a GM to be able to exert his authority if necessary without repercussions.
Trying to regulate everything with rules is laudable but futile.
|
|
More specifically, the nobleman would be immune to that elven hound, that had been built on a cheetah chassis.
Another PC, who'd built his 'elven hound' on a wolf chassis, should be fine, right?
Yes, because mechanically the cheetah version of the elven hound is still a cheetah and mechanically the wolf version of the elven hound is still a wolf. If the character in the module is allergic to cheetahs and not wolves then they would still be allergic to the reskinned cheetah and not the reskinned wolf because that way the module would proceed exactly the way it would have if the companions had not been reskinned.
The player with the cheetah companion is not gaining a special advantage by reskinning (they don't avoid the wrath of the nobleman that their choice of companion would otherwise invoke) while the other players choice of companion would not normally have caused a problem.
If these players are playing at different tables then there is no issue whatsoever. If they are at the same table then the DM can just improvise a creative reason why the nobleman would dislike one and not the other ("He's not allergic to either, but your companion peed on the carpet! Same penalty that would have otherwise applied!").
Honestly though, how many modules punish one specific animal companion choice over another? Is this even a situation a player/DM will be in? If such a situation exists it will be a rare exception, not a rule, and the DM can easily and politely point out the problem to the players and ask if they don't mind the nobleman being allergic to both their companions since it makes sense in context. Most players will be adult enough to say "sure, that's fun" and go with it.