|
| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
By RAW taking both the Mysterious Stranger and Pistolero archtypes for a Gunslinger is legal. But only by a technical ommision in the rules that looks like something begging to be errated any day now.
So what is the general concensus on this combo in PFS?
Do people play it or do they shy away from it because they suspect it will eventually get axed?
From what I heard, Mysterious Stranger is a rather weak archetype, so Pistolero would counteract that.
I think this might have been asked before, but FAQing the question would be in order. I hope the combo is legal.
|
|
Since the combination is extremely cheesy due to the omission of the line "This ability replaces gun training." under pistol training I think most GMs would actually rule that under the common sense clause this combination is illegal and would not allow you to play the character.
I understand what you are saying, and in a home game you would be absolutely correct. But this is PFS and PFS GMs don't get to 'decide' the legality of a character that is otherwise legal by RAW. That is for the Decemvirate to decide and so far they haven’t said it is illegal. Now I am rather surprised they haven't and even more surprised it hasn't been errated by Paizo yet. Which makes me wonder if that was intentional.
But I am curious as to the how the general PFS population looks at this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the combination is extremely cheesy due to the omission of the line "This ability replaces gun training." under pistol training I think most GMs would actually rule that under the common sense clause this combination is illegal and would not allow you to play the character.I understand what you are saying, and in a home game you would be absolutely correct. But this is PFS and PFS GMs don't get to 'decide' the legality of a character that is otherwise legal by RAW. That is for the Decemvirate to decide and so far they haven’t said it is illegal. Now I am rather surprised they haven't and even more surprised it hasn't been errated by Paizo yet. Which makes me wonder if that was intentional.
But I am curious as to the how the general PFS population looks at this.
The leadership of this campaign assumes that you will use common sense in your interpretation of the rules.
This is the common sense clause in the Guide, and it can be used in this circumstance in the following way.
1. Common Sense dictates that the Pistol Training of the Pistolero is supposed to replace Gun Training, as otherwise all Pistoleros would have double dexterity to damage under normal circumstances. (It is common sense to assume that the missing line is supposed to be there. You yourself in the OP even mention that it is likely an omission that would make the combination legal.)
2. Mysterious Stranger replaces Gun Training.
3. Since Pistol Training replaces Gun Training by common sense, the two archtypes are not compatible.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fact that you are asking the question to begin with leads me to believe you know that this is not a legal combination, but you want the vocal minority to give you permission by fiat to essentially break the rules you know are intended.
Go with your gut and don’t do it.
The fact that you are asking the question to begin with leads me to believe you know that this is not a legal combination, but you want the vocal minority to give you permission by fiat to essentially break the rules you know are intended.
Go with your gut and don’t do it.
This is just wrong.
For all you know he is asking about someone he saw at a game, perhaps he is running a game.
All I am saying is give people some credit.
You may be 100% right, but you don't KNOW that.
|
|
The fact that you are asking the question to begin with leads me to believe you know that this is not a legal combination, but you want the vocal minority to give you permission by fiat to essentially break the rules you know are intended.
Go with your gut and don’t do it.
This is just wrong.
For all you know he is asking about someone he saw at a game, perhaps he is running a game.
All I am saying is give people some credit.
You may be 100% right, but you don't KNOW that.
It isn't wrong. Its how I feel about the situation. And I think its spot on. Whether he's talking about himself, or someone else, the way in which the question was asked lends one to believe that he knows its probably not a good idea to do it.
|
|
The fact that you are asking the question to begin with leads me to believe you know that this is not a legal combination, but you want the vocal minority to give you permission by fiat to essentially break the rules you know are intended.
Go with your gut and don’t do it.
This is just wrong.
For all you know he is asking about someone he saw at a game, perhaps he is running a game.
All I am saying is give people some credit.
You may be 100% right, but you don't KNOW that.
He's half right. I am not looking for the vocal minority to give me permission by fiat. I am trying to find out what the majority opinion is.
Do I suspect it isn't Kosher? Well, I did originally, but I can't look at a thread about the Mysterious Stranger on the Pathfinder Advice and Rules Questions forums without several people suggesting comboing it with Pistolero to cover its weakness.
That made me question my suspicion about the general attitude towards it. Hence why I asked here.
So far, though, it looks like you are confirming my initial suspicions.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure the ONLY reason to do this combination is for flavor.
Flavor is the only reason.... to not just do double dex damage all the time.
though in all honesty, those two archetypes should probably just be one archetype lol.
Pistol training is clearly supposed to replace gun training. If you want to do it in PFS you can, if it gets errata'd you'll likely have some re-building to do.
|
|
I fail to see how combining these two archetypes together is cheesy in anyway. Yes, it is completely legal, and I do believe that is both RAW as well as RAI. The rules specifically dictate that if two archetypes do not overlap in what they alter, you can apply both to a single character. The fact is that the Devs made a conscious choice to have these two archetypes not overlap, so I can only believe that it was their intention that a character could take both archetypes.
The Mysterious Stranger gives up the ability to quick clear his gun, which is actually incredibly harsh. This means that until the gunslinger gets to level 5, he will be totally unable to repair his gun after it malfunctions in the middle of battle. I really don't see how the Mysterious Stranger and the Pistolero really synergize at all, unless doing an extra bunch of damage really scares you all that much (which it should not).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) This combo is not valid, I would suggest making a change now to either Mysterious or Pistolero.
By RAW it is valid. By RAI it is questionable. It would be better to state that you recommend he change the character to one or the other as the controversial legality of the combo in PFS will likely cause problems at some point and he will problably have to rebuild it when they errata it anyway.
Of course, that in itself is a problem because since it is technically legal and it hasn't been erattad, he technically can't rebuild it by the PFS Organized Play Guidelines if he is past 1st level.
|
|
2) This combo is not valid, I would suggest making a change now to either Mysterious or Pistolero.
By RAW it is valid. By RAI it is questionable. It would be better to state that you recommend he change the character to one or the other as the controversial legality of the combo in PFS will likely cause problems at some point and he will problably have to rebuild it when they errata it anyway.
Of course, that in itself is a problem because since it is technically legal and it hasn't been erattad, he technically can't rebuild it by the PFS Organized Play Guidelines if he is past 1st level.
I hate arguments that start, “but technically…”
The entire thread has people saying, “We know what was intended, but by RAW its legal… blah blah blah.”
Well by the Guide 4.2 common sense clause, if you know what was intended, then you know this isn’t legal.
The only thing that makes this “technically” is the fact that Pistol Training doesn’t say it replaces Gun Training, when we all know it does.
It behooves you to actually not do something that you know is riding the line. That way you won’t have to deal with table variance (with GM’s not allowing this combo because the intent is clear) or a rebuild once errata happens.
Common sense says Pistolero training replaces Gun Training.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate arguments that start, “but technically…”
I feel obliged to point out technicallities when people start stating things as fact that simply aren't. I may agree with your opinion, that doesn't make it a fact.
The entire thread has people saying, “We know what was intended, but by RAW its legal… blah blah blah.”
And you just did again. I see at least 2 other people posting on this thread who thought the combo was perfectly okay. So much for an 'entire thread' saying it.
The entire reason I posted this question is the constant responses to Mysterious Stranger threads on the Pathfinder Advice and Rule Questions forums makes it seem an acceptable choice. I wanted to confirm that with the PFS crowd and it is now obvious that such a build would be far more bother than it is worth.
Well by the Guide 4.2 common sense clause, if you know what was intended, then you know this isn’t legal.
The only thing that makes this “technically” is the fact that Pistol Training doesn’t say it replaces Gun Training, when we all know it does.
But I don't 'know.' And quite frankly, neither do you. You may have strong evidence supporting your interpretation, but that is not the same thing as 'knowing.' It's one thing to say your interpretation applies to games you run or organize. It's another to suggest it is a fact that applies to all of PFS.
It behooves you to actually not do something that you know is riding the line. That way you won’t have to deal with table variance (with GM’s not allowing this combo because the intent is clear) or a rebuild once errata happens.
Now see? That's exactly what I just said in the previous post and what you should have said from the get-go.
I was never opposed to the message you are trying to deliver. Only the method by which you chose to deliver it.
|
|
I keep seeing people claiming "we know" when they mean "we think".
I haven't seen anything from dev that says that it does. There's no clear intent here, Andrew. As soon as there is, one way or another, we'll know what common sense should say.
(On a different tack, since both gunslinger archetypes alter some of their available deeds, wouldn't that make them incompatible due to changing the same class feature per APG page 72?)
Each deed is its own item. Not the overriding “deed” category. So if both archetypes replace the quick unjam deed, then yes, you are correct.
If you think that common sense or developer intent says that Gun Training and Pistol Training stack then we have a different definition of common sense.
Furthermore, I'm not out to argue the semantics of know, believe or think.
The OP basically admitted that he found what he believes is a loophole that with what he suspects is going to be errata once it comes out, the loophole would be closed. And he wanted to know if the majority that posted on his thread would think it ok for him to exploit said loophole.
What I'm saying is this:
If you suspect its a loophole, it probably is (ducks and quacking and all that).
Its been posted on these boards by Mark and Mike, that exploiting loopholes, while technically legal, is really frowned upon, so please don't do it.
And with the common sense rule, I believe GM's have enough ammunition to make this a table variation issue. I don't want to invoke common sense too much on things like this, because obviously one person's common sense is not anothers', and common sense should never be used to change part of the core rules the GM doesn't like or doesn't agree with.
That being said, there is enough question about the legality or loophole status of this particular combination, that anyone who doesn't want to deal with a rebuild later or potential table variance as to how a GM lets them apply this build at their table, should probably not exploit this loophole.
That's assuming they are considering or have built this combination. In general, you shouldn't exploit loopholes in the rules just because you can.
I really don't have much more to say about this issue than that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
An awful lot of talk about obvious intent in here, and a typical lack of anyone seeming to try to confirm that intent by asking James Jacobs in his very well maintained thread. You'd think that anyone confident enough of their impression of intent to treat it like it was obvious would be the first to go ask and back it up. The fact that no one has done so is, in my opinion, rather telling.
|
|
Blondie also used a rifle. He wasn't a pistolero.Cheese or no cheese, its quintessential Eastwood.I'm sure the ONLY reason to do this combination is for flavor.Cheese has flavor.
The whole reason Stranger, a.k.a Blondie, a.k.a. The Man With No Name, uses the metal chest plate in "A Fistful of Dollars" is to get close to rifle-expert Ramon because he is much better with a pistol than a rifle. Obviously he took Exotic Weapon proficiency so he could shoot a rifle too.
|
|
An awful lot of talk about obvious intent in here, and a typical lack of anyone seeming to try to confirm that intent by asking James Jacobs in his very well maintained thread. You'd think that anyone confident enough of their impression of intent to treat it like it was obvious would be the first to go ask and back it up. The fact that no one has done so is, in my opinion, rather telling.
I am not familiar enough with this site yet. Where is this?
|
|
An awful lot of talk about obvious intent in here, and a typical lack of anyone seeming to try to confirm that intent by asking James Jacobs in his very well maintained thread. You'd think that anyone confident enough of their impression of intent to treat it like it was obvious would be the first to go ask and back it up. The fact that no one has done so is, in my opinion, rather telling.
Or perhaps just lack of time?
I only get so much time to post while I'm at work Jiggy. But the intent is there to eventually get around to asking the question.
But keep in mind, just because I value what James Jacobs has to say, does not mean that what he has to say is the one and only answer. He will tell you that himself (he has posted it even).
Indeed, I remember you and I trying to get an answer from him, and he backtracked on that answer fairly quickly when we noted what his answer meant.
Lets not make this thread anything other than what it is.
Someone asking if its ok to exploit what they suspect is a loophole.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole reason Stranger, a.k.a Blondie, a.k.a. The Man With No Name, uses the metal chest plate in "A Fistful of Dollars" is to get close to rifle-expert Ramon is because he is much better with a pistol than a rifle. Obviously he took Exotic Weapon proficiency so he could shoot a rifle too.Blondie also used a rifle. He wasn't a pistolero.Cheese or no cheese, its quintessential Eastwood.I'm sure the ONLY reason to do this combination is for flavor.Cheese has flavor.
The man with no name appears in more than just one movie. In one he's an agent of hell sent to seek revenge on a town's indifference. Mysterious Stranger Pistelero Tiefling anyone?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
An awful lot of talk about obvious intent in here, and a typical lack of anyone seeming to try to confirm that intent by asking James Jacobs in his very well maintained thread. You'd think that anyone confident enough of their impression of intent to treat it like it was obvious would be the first to go ask and back it up. The fact that no one has done so is, in my opinion, rather telling.I am not familiar enough with this site yet. Where is this?
|
|
The man with no name appears in more than just one movie. In one he's an agent of hell sent to seek revenge on a town's indifference. Mysterious Stranger Pistelero Tiefling anyone?The whole reason Stranger, a.k.a Blondie, a.k.a. The Man With No Name, uses the metal chest plate in "A Fistful of Dollars" is to get close to rifle-expert Ramon is because he is much better with a pistol than a rifle. Obviously he took Exotic Weapon proficiency so he could shoot a rifle too.Blondie also used a rifle. He wasn't a pistolero.Cheese or no cheese, its quintessential Eastwood.I'm sure the ONLY reason to do this combination is for flavor.Cheese has flavor.
While "High Plains Drifter" isn't actually part of Sergio Leone's 'Man With No Name' trilogy ("A Fistful of Dollars", "For a Few Dollars More", and "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"), it is certainly a spiritual successor. As is Eastwood's character of 'Preacher' in "Pale Rider."
|
|
Shazam!An awful lot of talk about obvious intent in here, and a typical lack of anyone seeming to try to confirm that intent by asking James Jacobs in his very well maintained thread. You'd think that anyone confident enough of their impression of intent to treat it like it was obvious would be the first to go ask and back it up. The fact that no one has done so is, in my opinion, rather telling.I am not familiar enough with this site yet. Where is this?
Thank you!
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
For anyone interested, James Jacobs doesn't know the original intent.
|
|
For anyone interested, James Jacobs doesn't know the original intent.
ROFL. So much for closing that can of worms.
|
|
For the record, Musket Master has almost the exact same text for Musket Training with the following line at the end: "This replaces firearm training 1, 2, 3, and 4." Note that there's actually no ability called firearm training, so shouldn't it be compatible with mysterious stranger to? Obviously they meant Gun training, but they said firearm training, so by RAW...
Ultimate combat is riddled with errors, but it's obvious that the Musket version replaces Gun Training, so the Pistol version should as well.
|
|
For the record, Musket Master has almost the exact same text for Musket Training with the following line at the end: "This replaces firearm training 1, 2, 3, and 4." Note that there's actually no ability called firearm training, so shouldn't it be compatible with mysterious stranger to? Obviously they meant Gun training, but they said firearm training, so by RAW...
Ultimate combat is riddled with errors, but it's obvious that the Musket version replaces Gun Training, so the Pistol version should as well.
This. Precedent is huge when looking at how to adjudicate something like this. What do all similar situations do? How are all similar circumstances handled? How is all similar language written?
Based on Precedent, Pistol Training replaces Gun Training.
|
|
For the record, Musket Master has almost the exact same text for Musket Training with the following line at the end: "This replaces firearm training 1, 2, 3, and 4." Note that there's actually no ability called firearm training, so shouldn't it be compatible with mysterious stranger to? Obviously they meant Gun training, but they said firearm training, so by RAW...
Ultimate combat is riddled with errors, but it's obvious that the Musket version replaces Gun Training, so the Pistol version should as well.
This. Precedent is huge when looking at how to adjudicate something like this. What do all similar situations do? How are all similar circumstances handled? How is all similar language written?
Based on Precedent, Pistol Training replaces *Firearm* Training.
Fixed that for ya. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I agree.
Although I hate hate HATE having my only reason for contradicting printed rules be "Because they obviously meant something other than what they wrote". Hate it.
But in this case, it sure looks that way, and I'd have to rule that way at my tables. But I hate having to do that.
Did I mention I hate this type of situation?
EDIT: Ninja'd. The "I agree" was in reply to Andy.
|
|
I'm sure the ONLY reason to do this combination is for flavor.
Thats why I made one. I want to know if the combos legal. Looking over the book, PRD and errata doc, it seems that way. I didn't plan out 12 levels of cheese, feats and oneshoting every enemy. I'm not doing it to break scenarios. I looked over archtypes and said hey I like those. I want to play a man with no name style character who specializes in using pistols. Can i do that without blending the archtypes, sure. And when I see from a developer that it is a misprint and yes they do both have something that replaces gun training I will rewrite my character according to the guide to organized play document. If a GM makes a huff at a table Ill go "Ok I guess I'm playing him without archetype X",
|
The answer right now is expect table variation. However, it won't fly at a lot of tables, and that includes mine. I've had to shut down a pistolero who wanted to apply both firearm training and pistol training to his damage, and even with only single Dexterity to damage, he still blew through encounters.
I would suggest erring on the side of caution and choosing only one of the two archetypes.
|
|
What ever you think, you should watch your own arguments.
Even the apply common sense clause can´t stop someone from taking that, since it´s legal by the rules. And a GM banning something like that is not kosher.
Also all that " i know what was intended" talk is kind of bullshit i think. How do you know that? In the same way that so many people think they know how to improve the game and houserule whatever? Guess that was specifically banned in PFS.