RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I have no idea why so many people are against the idea. Elvan Chainmail is light armor because there was a mistake and it was printed as light armor... and they decided it was nice that Elvan Chainmail was different than standard mithral armor. Sometimes mistakes make the game better.
The Mysterious Pistolero is actually the smallest reason I am disappointed. Who cares if the gunslinger can use Charisma instead of Wisdom. Honestly this should have been a Charisma class from the get go; that just corrects something. But really this is about players and a fun game. I think it would have been nice to see double dexterity damage. I am not trying to break the game nor do I condone that. It's pretty easy to break this game - it's just math after all; We could all just play summoners cause Eidolons break the game everyday. I would have liked double dexterity damage because I want to see a player who took the chance to play a risky, flavor based class have as much fun as the great-sword fighter or the wizard. Being a Gunslinger is hard. Period. What other class has to pay so much gold just to use their class abilities? And again, what other class has fumble rules written into it? And I keep coming back to that because I have seen how deflating those fumbles can be. People are trying to play a something right out of Unforgiven (double pistol wielding Pirate); something incredible cool you know a Pistolero or a Mysterious Stranger that comes to town on a dust storm (people are playing exactly what the developers wanted)and when they roll poorly, which happens, it almost like they can't play the character they intended. It becomes almost slap stick. In fact, I have been suggesting that anyone who seriously wants to play that type of character should just play a light repeating crossbow character who duel wields (just a dip into Inquisitor). Yeah you don't get touch attacks or dexterity to damage but you don't fumble, you don't pay a mint for every attack, your exotic weapons are cheaper than the guns, and you can...
Again, neat points. Unfortunately friend, you're in the wrong forum.
Allow me to repeat this: If you'd like to get an official ruling to support your belief on the RAI, then I'd recommend you direct your post to the rules forums, and flag it for an FAQ.
This topic has been discussed to a point of oblivion here, and Mike has already made his statement. So I wouldn't hold my breath for another official response. You'll have better luck in the rules forum.
|
"A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature."
The Gunslinger's Class Features are as follows:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Gunsmith
Grit
Deeds
Nimble
Bonus Feats
Gun Training
True Grit
Both archetypes modify the 'Deeds' Class Feature therefore they don't stack. It's a bit confusing because "Deeds" is a group of extraordinary abilities which are also called deeds. However, one is the overall Class Feature and the others are the individual extraordinary abilities.
|
Ahh.
I'm still new to all this, and not familiar enough with the Society stuff to know who are writers, who have a hotline to development staff, and such like.
You can tell who staff are because they have a little blue golem figure to the left of their name, much like the Qadira symbol, the crossed scimitars, except it the Paizo symbol. The top left corner of this page has a larger version of the Paizo golem.
Any staff likely have a "hotline" to development and design staff, not that every thing they say is going to be right. Mike Brock however is the Campaign Coordinator, whatever he says about rules for PFS is right, by definition. This of course only holds true until he says otherwise or is no longer in that position.
|
They are clearly not intended to go together. Campaign staff has made that clear.
Campaign staff doesn't matter though because Mike is not willing to make a hard ruling on it for PFS. He is saying IF the dev team chooses to make it not stack, you will get punished for using this combo. The dev team has had a FAQ cycle already since he posted that...and no fix. So I doubt this was a case of Mike having a line to the dev team. So what matter is what the dev team thinks...and they have been pretty dang silent on this subject. So yeah...your guess is as good as mine or Throne's.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
"A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature."
The Gunslinger's Class Features are as follows:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Gunsmith
Grit
Deeds
Nimble
Bonus Feats
Gun Training
True GritBoth archetypes modify the 'Deeds' Class Feature therefore they don't stack. It's a bit confusing because "Deeds" is a group of extraordinary abilities which are also called deeds. However, one is the overall Class Feature and the others are the individual extraordinary abilities.
I don't think this particular argument holds water, because it's formatted similar to Bardic Performance, but it has been clarified that Bard archetypes that modify or remove different bardic performances can be used together, as long as they don't touch the same performances. That being said, I agree with the other reasoning that it shouldn't be legal.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
Both of the other ACFs state that they replace Gun Training. It's abundantly obvious that Pistolero was supposed to as well. Choosing to interpret it in any other way is asinine.
Alternatively, the replacement of Deeds as indicated above would render the two of them incompatible as per RAW.
|
|
I don't think this particular argument holds water, because it's formatted similar to Bardic Performance, but it has been clarified that Bard archetypes that modify or remove different bardic performances can be used together, as long as they don't touch the same performances. That being said, I agree with the other reasoning that it shouldn't be legal.
But has that same clarification been made for Deeds? If the argument is that it's "similar" to the way that Bardic Performance is worded, I don't see that as a better argument than Pistol Training is similar to the other archetypes that do explicitly replace Gun Training.
Especially if the pro-Pistolero-MStranger argument is that we have to follow RAW to the letter.
|
|
don't think this particular argument holds water, because it's formatted similar to Bardic Performance, but it has been clarified that Bard archetypes that modify or remove different bardic performances can be used together, as long as they don't touch the same performances. That being said, I agree with the other reasoning that it shouldn't be legal.
Hey, if someone is going to argue that the raw is all that matters, to hell with rai, to hell with clarification and to hell with common sense for their ability they hardly have any ground when the same argues against it.
|
|
don't think this particular argument holds water, because it's formatted similar to Bardic Performance, but it has been clarified that Bard archetypes that modify or remove different bardic performances can be used together, as long as they don't touch the same performances. That being said, I agree with the other reasoning that it shouldn't be legal.Hey, if someone is going to argue that the raw is all that matters, to hell with rai, to hell with clarification and to hell with common sense for their ability they hardly have any ground when the same argues against it.
Except that there is no clear RAI in this matter as the dev team has been pretty silent on it. There has been no clarifications. And common sense went out the window a long time ago.
|
|
Except that there is no clear RAI in this matter as the dev team has been pretty silent on it. There has been no clarifications. And common sense went out the window a long time ago.don't think this particular argument holds water, because it's formatted similar to Bardic Performance, but it has been clarified that Bard archetypes that modify or remove different bardic performances can be used together, as long as they don't touch the same performances. That being said, I agree with the other reasoning that it shouldn't be legal.Hey, if someone is going to argue that the raw is all that matters, to hell with rai, to hell with clarification and to hell with common sense for their ability they hardly have any ground when the same argues against it.
Then you're left with the strict raw that they both modify the deeds class feature and are thus illegal.
Capone for tax evasion indeed...
Following that logic chain would mean several Bard archetype combos previously considered perfectly fine are now illegal, since Bardic Performance follows the same general subdivided structure as Deeds.
-j
|
|
Following that logic chain would mean several Bard archetype combos previously considered perfectly fine are now illegal, since Bardic Performance follows the same general subdivided structure as Deeds.
According to this thread, the question of whether individual Bardic Performances can be swapped out was answered in a FAQ. I can't find that FAQ, but here is James Jacob's post on the matter (I know he's not a Rules Guy, but he is a Bard Guy).
So assuming that FAQ actually exists and/or you consider JJ's word law, there is clarification for Bardic Performance. But not for Deeds.
|
|
Except that there is no clear RAI in this matter as the dev team has been pretty silent on it. There has been no clarifications. And common sense went out the window a long time ago.Does no one else here remember the campaign coordinator, who works for the company in question, flat out referring to this as a "loophole", right here in this very thread, thus establishing a RAI, as far as this campaign is concerned?
** spoiler omitted **
We know what the RAI is supposed to be. It has been clearly stated in this very thread by the campaign coordinator. At this point, any claim that the RAI is unclear is willful ignorance.
You DO realize that mike brock is not on the dev team...right? He is however head of PFS so he can very well make it so they don't stack in PFS just fine, all on his own. However, he has chosen not to do that and said he was gonna wait for the dev team to MAYBE fix this...since we don't even know if this is an issue as far as they are concerned as they have said nothing about it. So basically what Mike's opinion is on this matter doesn't matter unless he chooses to make a PFS specific ruling. It doesn't matter if he thinks it should not stack because he is not on the dev team. And if you STILL missed my point, I am talking about the RAI from the DEV TEAM...who are all that matters for actual rules RAI and RAW matters.
|
|
This line of reasoning was disproved already
Then you're left with the strict raw that they both modify the deeds class feature and are thus illegal.Capone for tax evasion indeed...
Actually hasn't. Went over it...and there is a pretty solid RAW case to be made that they can't stack due to deeds. Pretty solid the other way around as well. So if a GM doesn't like it, he has tax evasion. I honestly dislike how many of these there are in this game and how slowly they are getting fixed and how quickly new ones are being generated.
|
|
You're absolutely right. I mean, it's not like Mr. Brock works in the same building as the dev team, right? It's not like he has any contact with them what-so-ever.Here's the thing: as campaign coordinator, if he says it's RAI, then as far as this campaign is concerned, it's RAI, even if the dev team were to indicate otherwise. But seriously, you're not going to get anyone else at Paizo to chime in on this, because Mike already has. We have a clear indication of what the RAI is supposed to be, and you are refusing to accept that.
Willful ignorance, thy name is Cold Napalm.
Do you have ANYTHING to back ANY of that up? Do you even know that they are in the same building?!? Have you been there? Mike saying it's RAI doesn't make it so for the rest of PF...just PFS...which without the dev team making it so will do nothing because Mike does not want to cross that line (and that is FINE). So I accept what Mike said for PFS...however that has NOTHING to with the ACTUAL RAI of the combo. The people who can clarify or fix that hasn't and hasn't even said a peep. Remember that there has been a FAQ cycle. That right that is a pretty good argument that it is SUPPOSE to stack since this has been a known for a LONG time now and hasn't been fixed. Course they could just be slow too....
|
|
Do you have ANYTHING to back ANY of that up? Do you even know that they are in the same building?!? Have you been there? Mike saying it's RAI doesn't make it so for the rest of PF...just PFS...which without the dev team making it so will do nothing because Mike does not want to cross that line (and that is FINE). So I accept what Mike said for PFS...however that has NOTHING to with the ACTUAL RAI of the combo. The people who can clarify or fix that hasn't and hasn't even said a peep. Remember that there has been a FAQ cycle. That right that is a pretty good argument that it is SUPPOSE to stack since this has been a known for a LONG time now and hasn't been fixed. Course they could just be slow too....
You're absolutely right. I mean, it's not like Mr. Brock works in the same building as the dev team, right? It's not like he has any contact with them what-so-ever.Here's the thing: as campaign coordinator, if he says it's RAI, then as far as this campaign is concerned, it's RAI, even if the dev team were to indicate otherwise. But seriously, you're not going to get anyone else at Paizo to chime in on this, because Mike already has. We have a clear indication of what the RAI is supposed to be, and you are refusing to accept that.
Willful ignorance, thy name is Cold Napalm.
Since this is the PFS section of the boards, arguing what is the rule outside of PFS is pointless.
|
|
Do you have ANYTHING to back ANY of that up? Do you even know that they are in the same building?!? Have you been there?
You're absolutely right. I mean, it's not like Mr. Brock works in the same building as the dev team, right? It's not like he has any contact with them what-so-ever.Here's the thing: as campaign coordinator, if he says it's RAI, then as far as this campaign is concerned, it's RAI, even if the dev team were to indicate otherwise. But seriously, you're not going to get anyone else at Paizo to chime in on this, because Mike already has. We have a clear indication of what the RAI is supposed to be, and you are refusing to accept that.
Willful ignorance, thy name is Cold Napalm.
Is this even a serious line of questioning? If so, you have not paid attention to anything related to posts for jobs at Paizo. Just to be clear that is not an insult, just a statement of observation on my part.
Lisa has stated over and over and over, that no you can not work remotely for Paizo you must move to the Seattle area and come in to the office to work.
In some of Mike's earliest posts in his position he mentioned moving to Seattle. All of their Job postings, to the best of my knowledge, have included the requirement of working in the Paizo offices.
I could go on, but I won't. It is a well known fact that all Paizo employees live in the Seattle area and show up to work at the Paizo office.
So yes Mike does work in the same building as the development team and yes I know this.
|
|
And if Lisa posted in this thread that the RAI was one thing or another, it would hold just as much weight as Mike. Which is to say, they are not Rules People. There is a perceived problem with this combination. That problem will only be resolved if Rules People resolve it. Anything else is a house rule, PFS or otherwise.
|
|
And if Lisa posted in this thread that the RAI was one thing or another, it would hold just as much weight as Mike. Which is to say, they are not Rules People. There is a perceived problem with this combination. That problem will only be resolved if Rules People resolve it. Anything else is a house rule, PFS or otherwise.
Your point being what?
Mike's indicated what he would prefer for PFS. House rule or not... that's what it is.
So why are we arguing over what it is outside of PFS?
|
|
You didn't seem to have a problem discussing it on the first page when you were insisting that the combination wasn't legal in PF, not just PFSOP.
Because it isn't legal.
But now the argument isn't about whether its legal in general or not.
People are now arguing that Mike has no say on whether its legal or not for Pathfinder... which doesn't matter one whit for PFS.
|
|
People are now arguing that Mike has no say on whether its legal or not for Pathfinder... which doesn't matter one whit for PFS.
Only because people have argued that Mike's banning the combination is evidence that it isn't legal in PF in general, which it isn't.
If I say "It's not legal because X" and you say "But Y", I don't get to say "But Y doesn't matter because we're talking about PFS." We're not talking about PFS. We haven't been all thread. If you want the thread moved, flag it.
|
|
argue semantics all you want.
Mike said he consulted with the development team on this.
If that isn't good enough for you until they get a chance to errata it, then nothing will be.
Folks who don't get a rebuild and have to retire their characters because of this type of argument... I have no sympathy for.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Mike said he consulted with the development team on this.
You are at a brick wall here man, since there are some that once they find a particularly cool (incorrect interpretation) rule they will continue to assert that it is rules as written (when you deliberately incorrectly interpret) and they won't stop asserting this until someone comes down from on high and tells them to stop.
Since the dev team almost certainly considers it not the way he does, this is a safe bet until the Errata for clarity is publish. FAQ responses are reserved for the things that really are frequently asked, and not ones like this which are infrequently asked but hotly debated.
|
|
We're not talking about PFS. We haven't been all thread. If you want the thread moved, flag it.
You are wrong. PFS is what the thread is about. PFS is what the first post in the thread was about. See the first post, quoted below.
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?
If you want to discuss non PFS legality of this combination, make a thread elsewhere.
|
|
Yes, there will always be people who insist that the rules are incorrect. They may even be right. But until they are fixed, you either have to play them as written or admit you are using a house rule.
I'm done with this thread. I don't have a dog in this fight, as I've never played a gunslinger and have no plans to do so.
So the argument is that Pistoleros keep Gun Training? Even if you rule out the double Dex to damage that would still mean an archetype that focuses solely on pistols gets special training with other types of guns at 9th, 13th, and 17th level. Does that seem like RAI?
Edit-I have absolutely no idea what I was looking at. Again it is one of the many times I was wrong.
SRM is a pretty good source for rules claims though, and he's the one who told me it'd be fixed in the next errata :)
Developers, much like deities and tribbles, work in mysterious ways.
|
|
I don't think this particular argument holds water, because it's formatted similar to Bardic Performance, but it has been clarified that Bard archetypes that modify or remove different bardic performances can be used together, as long as they don't touch the same performances. That being said, I agree with the other reasoning that it shouldn't be legal."A character can take more than one archetype and garner additional alternate class features, but none of the alternate class features can replace or alter the same class feature from the core class as another alternate class feature."
The Gunslinger's Class Features are as follows:
Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Gunsmith
Grit
Deeds
Nimble
Bonus Feats
Gun Training
True GritBoth archetypes modify the 'Deeds' Class Feature therefore they don't stack. It's a bit confusing because "Deeds" is a group of extraordinary abilities which are also called deeds. However, one is the overall Class Feature and the others are the individual extraordinary abilities.
Until they clarify that Gunslinger archetypes can be treated like Bard Archetypes and their Performances, then wouldn't Bards be the exception, rather than the rule?
How long does it take for someone to ask how they are supposed to take care of the now "illegal" build that they have?
Slower than it takes someone to link this post by Mike Brock saying:
What I will advise is it is a loophole that allows a very cheesy build. A large majority of people know it is a loophole. Do not be surprised when the loophole is closed through errata and we do not allow any type of rebuild. If you are abusing the combo now due to the loophole currently in place, do not complain when you do not get any form of rebuild what so ever in the future.
