Spoilers - Trusty Buddy Question


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

8 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

So I did a quick check for this but didn't see an anwer.

Trusty Buddy:
..."bypasses DR when used as an improvised weapon." Chronicle Sheet.

Question:
The description does not specify DR/Adamantine, just bypasses DR. As written, it bypasses any DR, even DR/-. Is this right?


since it is a non-magical tool I doubt that it would bypass all Dr it is probably a typo.

5/5 5/55/55/5

As with anything else unclear, I would go with the more restrictive answer followed by the more sensible answer. In this case they're the same: go with the sensible and more restrictive answer.

Sczarni 5/5

Not at all, it simply counts as a weapon made of that type of material so would only get through the appropriate DR and hardness.


I have someone I amdebating with, and they say it bypasses all Dr including Dr/epic. I say it is a typo and should say hardness.

5/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm inclined to believe the wording is intentional. It's called the "trusty buddy" after all, and I find the idea of a mundane crowbar being the answer when all other forms of attack fail to be quite hilarious and awesome.

I don't believe the kinds of creatures that this would prove superior against (DR/-- and DR/epic) are prevalent enough in PFS scenarios to really make this a "must have" item for most players. I know I would prefer an adamantine greatsword for my two-handed melee characters against pretty much every encounter I've played through to date, and the extra investment in improvised weapon feats for every other character seems extraneous in most cases. I'll admit, the trusty buddy is good, really good even. I would still allow it to work as written at my table precisely because the quirkiness of the item would make it really easy to describe the action of the encounter in a fun, flavorful way.


chronicles get mistyped rather frequently.

Dr was used instead of HR

Sczarni 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brian Fruzen wrote:

I'm inclined to believe the wording is intentional. It's called the "trusty buddy" after all, and I find the idea of a mundane crowbar being the answer when all other forms of attack fail to be quite hilarious and awesome.

I don't believe the kinds of creatures that this would prove superior against (DR/-- and DR/epic) are prevalent enough in PFS scenarios to really make this a "must have" item for most players. I know I would prefer an adamantine greatsword for my two-handed melee characters against pretty much every encounter I've played through to date, and the extra investment in improvised weapon feats for every other character seems extraneous in most cases. I'll admit, the trusty buddy is good, really good even. I would still allow it to work as written at my table precisely because the quirkiness of the item would make it really easy to describe the action of the encounter in a fun, flavorful way.

So you believe that a 3,002 gold non magical tool is more powerful then a +4 weapon? Also considering there is no weapon that gets through DR/-? That's a pretty long leap of faith for a novelty item.


The chronicle does say bypasses all dr. It is very silly and I wish someone that is allowed to make a rule judgement would just say it is a typo.

5/5 RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Kyshkumen wrote:
So you believe that a 3,002 gold non magical tool is more powerful then a +4 weapon? Also considering there is no weapon that gets through DR/-? That's a pretty long leap of faith for a novelty item.

It's hardly the equivalent of a weapon with a +4 enhancement bonus. +4 to hit and damage should not be so easily forgotten when comparing the two. I realize "bypasses DR when used as an improvised weapon" could indeed be a typo, but I'm happy to invoke the "Rule of Yes" and roll with it. By level 5, most prepared players have no problem getting around most DR at little expense, and how often is it going to be the case that a player who invested in the trusty buddy is going to be facing off against one of the rare creatures with a high enough DR/- to matter? I may just not have played enough scenarios yet, but DR/- seems to be exceedingly rare.

The trusty buddy may be over powered in a strict mechanical sense, but I don't see it ruining games any more frequently than other rules exploits already do. I'm certainly not going to let it sour the mood at the table when a player is just trying to have fun with the boon they were awarded for a notoriously difficult scenario.


Brian Fruzen wrote:
I'm certainly not going to let it sour the mood at the table when a player is just trying to have fun with the boon they were awarded for a notoriously difficult scenario.

Excellent, you can run it for me then! =D

Sczarni 5/5

I see no reason to continue pointing out what myself and others have stated about this being a clear typo. The only thing I see this "rule of yes" doing is getting people to spend 3,002 gold on an ability that this item clearly does not have.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

items that only exist on a chronicle sheet do exactly what it states, unless there is official word it doesn't bypass all dr as it says, then RAW it bypasses all DR

/devils advocate

Lantern Lodge 3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Trusty Buddy bypasses all DR.

Why it is not broken (or a typo):

1) It has to be used as an improvised weapon. Meaning a -4 for most characters to use it and a feat investment for those who want to avoid the -4.

2) Its an improvised weapon, meaning a) it is not a masterwork weapon, no bonus +1 to attack and b) it cannot be further enchanted, so your stuck with an improvised weapon that cannot be "upgraded" to deal more damage, hit better or provide you with extra weapon effects.

3) In the scenario it was provided, the Trusty Buddy was intended for the players to use to by pass the DR of monsters in that scenario. Given what they faced, Trusty Buddy is appropriately designed to fight monsters with DR and little else.

Note that if the scenario had wanted to give an adamantine crowbar, it would had done so and would not provide a unique item like the Trusty Buddy.

Remember there are scenarios that go so far as to give magic tattoos worth 4k+ or feats for FREE.
Trusty Buddy is honestly not broken, it has to be purchased off the boon sheet and was clearly made for the scenario is was introduced in.


I am sorry, but I completely disagree.

It is a mundane item with magical properties.

If the item was so trusty for the scenario I highly doubt it was at all usefull. In a 7-11 scneario no one would use because their weapons would be better with the penalties you get.

The price tag for the tursty buddy matches an addy crowbar. since there are no addy crowbars in any of the books this is your one and only chance to get one.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Finlanderboy,

Are you talking about the same scenario here? The scenario that Trusty Buddy appears in is a 5-9.

Also its special property of by passing DR is not just mentioned on the Chronicle sheet, but within the scenario's encounter description as well.

Given that players in the 5-6 range might have problem with DR, the item is well placed and given who Trusty Buddy originally belongs to, it even makes more sense.

In-scenario description:
This tool functions
as a crowbar in every way, but bypasses damage reduction
when used as an improvised weapon and grants a +4
circumstance bonus on Strength checks to open doors or
chests instead of the normal +2 bonus. The words “Trusty
Buddy” are engraved into the crowbar’s handle.

Full chronicle sheet description:
“Trusty Buddy” (adamantine crowbar; 3,002 gp, limit 1; +4 circumstance bonus
on Strength checks to open doors and chests, bypasses DR when used as
improvised weapon)

Note the +4 when used to open doors and chest. A normal crowbar only gives a +2. A normal Adamantine crowbar would still only gives a +2.

This is a special item, given as a purchase option in a chronicle sheet. Its special property is as written.

--

Chronicle sheets DO give out items that are usually not possible. There is a Keen Compound Longbow given out in a certain chronicle sheet. Is it a typo? Given that Keen cannot usually be applied to a ranged weapon? No! Its was intended as a reward for completing that module.

Just cos something is usually not found or possible in the base game, does not means that chronicles sheets cannot give special versions of such items.

Sczarni 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No where does it state the word "all" in there. It simply states that it by passes DR. If you are confused by what type of DR an adamantine item by passes I would refer you to the DR section in the core rule book. Again this is a mundane none magical item, simply putting the words "Trusty Buddy" on it does not give it all DR by passing power.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Kyshkumen,

The words "Trusty Buddy" was not placed there randomly or at the whimp of a GM. The writer placed it there. If the intent was just to give an adamantine crowbar, there won't be a need to name it or specific that it by passes DR OR state that it gives a +4 instead of a +2. A normal unnamed, adamantine crowbar would have served. But the writer did add it it there. This unique adamantine crowbar is given a name, it is given a special ability and property.

There is also no need for the use of the word "all" when describing bypassing of DR.

Here is the greater Greater Penetrating Strike feat:
Your attacks with weapons selected with Weapon Focus ignore up to 10 points of damage reduction. This amount is reduced to 5 points for damage reduction without a type (such as DR 10/—).

It does not say, bypass "ALL" DR, accept DR without a type. It just say ignore DR, accept in the situation where it is DR/-. It could have used the words:

"Your attacks with weapons selected with Weapon Focus ignore up to 10 points of "ALL" damage reduction. This amount is reduced to 5 points for damage reduction without a type (such as DR 10/—)."

But it did not, nor does it need to.

Your argument is like saying "limit 1" for items on chronicle sheets don't mean anything, cos no where does it state the word "to" in there. Therefore based on that logic, "limit 1" does not mean "limited TO 1 only", and therefore players are free to buy 1 of such items at a time, as many times as they wish.

Is this item unusual? Yes. Does it does something its normal variant can't do? Yes! That's why its on a chronicle sheet!

Grand Lodge 4/5

Secane wrote:

The words "Trusty Buddy" was not placed there randomly or at the whimp of a GM. The writer placed it there. If the intent was just to give an adamantine crowbar, there won't be a need to name it...

I'd just like to point out that there's a scenario with a named cold iron weapon that's otherwise completely and utterly normal, so "it has a name" doesn't exactly hold much weight in this argument.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Secane wrote:

The words "Trusty Buddy" was not placed there randomly or at the whimp of a GM. The writer placed it there. If the intent was just to give an adamantine crowbar, there won't be a need to name it...

I'd just like to point out that there's a scenario with a named cold iron weapon that's otherwise completely and utterly normal, so "it has a name" doesn't exactly hold much weight in this argument.

@Jeff, the full text for Trusty Buddy is quoted in a post above.

The Trusty Buddy is not normal, it has specific written special properties of which it gives additional bonus to opening doors and chest above that of the normal version and bypasses DR when used as an improvised weapon.

It is not just a case of a named item. It is a named item with specific properties that differ it from the normal variety.

“Trusty Buddy” (adamantine crowbar; 3,002 gp, limit 1; +4 circumstance bonus
on Strength checks to open doors and chests, bypasses DR when used as
improvised weapon)

Grand Lodge 4/5

Your argument included the fact that it was named as being important, while I'm saying it's irrelevant. As for the rest of the argument, I'm of the opinion that no, they didn't intend to give a nonmagical item that can bypass DR/- on a chronicle sheet for just over 3k, and that the wording is the unfortunate result of poor writing and/or editing.

As for the "it's on the chronicle sheet!" argument, chronicle sheets can and have been wrong before, like a recent scenario that included a Ring of Protection +4 for 16k.

Sczarni 5/5

You keep coming back to the fact that it does +4 instead of +2 for forcing door and locks. This is simply due to it being a better quality tool much like master work tools work better then regular tools. You also pointed out the keen longbow. While the chronicle bends the rules about how the mechanics are applied it still uses an existing game mechanic. Choosing to apply this ability as by passing all DR applies a special ability that simply does not exist in the games mechanics.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But its not on the chronicle sheet. The text stating it bypasses DR is within the the scenario itself. The particular encounter which it was found, states that Trusty Buddy bypasses DR.

You also do understand that this is a Season 4 scenario? The same season they gave out free feats, free 4K+ magical tattoos and a free +2 to 1 ability score?

Is an improvised weapon that can't be upgraded or enchanted, but can bypass DR, really that far-fetched compared to the above?

Grand Lodge 4/5

Secane wrote:
But its not on the chronicle sheet. The text stating it bypasses DR is within the the scenario itself. The particular encounter which it was found, states that Trusty Buddy bypasses DR.

Which, again, I chalk up to poor writing and/or editing. It's certainly not the worst mistake in a scenario.

Secane wrote:

You also do understand that this is a Season 4 scenario? The same season they gave out free feats, free 4K+ magical tattoos and a free +2 to 1 ability score?

Is an improvised weapon that can't be upgraded or enchanted, but can bypass DR, really that far-fetched compared to the above?

Given that it's nonmagical? Yes.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Until someone in the PFS leadership says otherwise, the only reason to assume a typo is if something is so obviously broken or wrong that it MUST be an error, and I honestly do not see what is so broken about this item. The fact that it's from a season 4 chronicle and campaign leadership hasn't said anything about fixing it, it's unlikely that they think it's a big deal either. It's an improvised weapon that cannot be enchanted (not to mention that 99% of players will be attacking at -4). Fighters won't be getting their Weapon Focus/Weapon Spec/Weapon Training bonuses with it. It costs as much as an adamantine weapon. Not to mention the action economy hit of having to switch weapons in combat.

Honestly, if it didn't get through dr/-, why would anyone buy it? 3k for an extra +2 on strength checks to open doors and chest beyond a normal crowbar, really? If someone wanted to get through DR/adamantine, why wouldn't they just buy an adamantine weapon then? For practically the same price, I could get ANY adamantine weapon I wanted, be able to enchant it and use feats with it, not have a -4 attack penalty, and so forth. In fact, just about the only melee characters I see that don't already have adamantine on their primary weapons are paladins (who have smite for DR/paladin) and bladebound magi (who can have their weapon at +4 any time they need it as early as level 5).

The sky is not falling. Just use it as-is.

Dark Archive 5/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, United Kingdom—England—Coventry aka terry_t_uk

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spoiler:
From the chronicle
Trusty Buddy” (adamantine crowbar; 3,002 gp, limit 1; +4 circumstance bonus on Strength checks to open doors and chests, bypasses DR when used as improvised weapon)

Bolding mine for emphasis
It would ignore DR as an improvised adamantine weapon.
It would NOT ignore DR/-, epic, magic, cold iron, silver etc ....
At least, that is how I would rule it on my table. That seems to be the common sense approach to me (but then I have been know to be fallible)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hrothdane wrote:

stuff

I will run it as written that it bypasses DR.

But I honestly believe it is a typo. Now as a PFS DM it is not my right to change rules based on beliefs. SO it bypasses DR at tables I Dm at.

Now there are uses for it. It is an addy tool. Tell me where you can get an addy tool? It is a touch cheaper door breaker-wall smasher as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hey guys,
I just saw a PM asking me about Trusty Buddy (I am the author of this scenario). The truth is, I have no idea as the developer put this item in after my original turnover. I cannot take credit for this item. Sorry.

Scarab Sages 4/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Hrothdane wrote:

stuff

I will run it as written that it bypasses DR.

But I honestly believe it is a typo. Now as a PFS DM it is not my right to change rules based on beliefs. SO it bypasses DR at tables I Dm at.

Now there are uses for it. It is an addy tool. Tell me where you can get an addy tool? It is a touch cheaper door breaker-wall smasher as well.

If that's the way it ends up working, it's an item worth building a character around, and there's a spell in the ACG made just for it.

Refine Improvised Weapon is a 1st level spell that turns an Improvised Weapon into an equivalent MW weapon without altering its shape or appearance for hours a level. You could then cast Magic Weapon or better yet Greater Magic Weapon on it. A Warpriest could take Weapon Focus (Club) and turn it into a Sacred Weapon. At 10th level (when a Warpriest can cast Greater Magic Weapon), it would be doing 1d10+2 and ignoring DR. For 10 rounds per day, it could be Holy as well. Sounds like fun.

Personally I think it's a typo, and I doubt it was intended that it ignores all DR.

The above combination of spells could make for some fun builds, though. Does any god have the mithral waffle iron as a favored weapon?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ferious Thune wrote:

The above combination of spells could make for some fun builds, though. Does any god have the mithral waffle iron as a favored weapon?

I actually know a barbarian waffle chef with a mithral waffle iron :D

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Until a ruling is made I will treat it as a normal adamantine crowbar.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

As PFS GMs are we allowed to interpret our own view on items/boons what appears in chronicle and boon sheets, in the absent of an PDF update, FAQ or clarification from Paizo or Mike?

Is it even advisable?

I'm asking cos recently the issue of SLA on chronicle sheets being able to allow a character to access a prestige class was brought up. And while I personally don't think it should work, I understand that by raw it does work.

Which brings up back to an item like Trusty Buddy, where by raw it bypasses DR, with no specific kind of DR mentioned on the sheet, but if GMs can decided on how items/boons on chronicle sheets works, then won't what is allowed or not allowed on a table (as far as items and boons on chronicle sheets are concern) be at the mercy of how a GM's own views on such items?

5/5 5/55/55/5

If you're going to try skirt the razors edge of legality, expect to be cut.

Yes. Dms can and have to interpret areas of vague rules... or even in these cases perfectly clear rules that people are trying rules lawyer.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

I'm just worried about what I should do if I'm gming a game where a player brings Trusty Buddy to the table and another player or fellow GM(as a player) at the same table call foul over the by pass DR.

1) Do I, as the game's GM, use my own judgment and allow Trusty Buddy to bypass DR of any type? As this is my view of the Trusty Buddy's RAW wording on the chronicle sheet?

2) Or do I not allow it, as the item (Trusty Buddy)'s abilities is challenged by another GM?

3) Or maybe I should just contact my VC and use his or her view for any local game I'm running?

I mean, someone is going to be unhappy and it may end up with a "My GM don't follow PFS rules" thread on the messageboards, bemoaning my refusal to allow something that is black and white on paper?

And god help me if someone pulls the SLA boon trick with a character at my table. I'm going to be hard pressed to say no the face of RAW... :(

I mean GMing for PFS means I need to follow RAW right? Even if it is something I won't or will allow in my own homebrew?

5/5

Secane wrote:


1) Do I, as the game's GM, use my own judgment...

This is all you really can do.

Many rules I've seen multiple people read the same text and come to completely different interpretations of what was trying to be conveyed by the author. Choose the one you feel is most keeping with the rules set of the game and makes the most sense to you on reading of the rule.

If others disagree, listen to the arguments briefly, and decide for yourself if they were persuasive enough to change your feeling on the matter. If so, allow yourself to be swayed...if not, carry on as you have been.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

Secane wrote:
I mean, someone is going to be unhappy and it may end up with a "My GM don't follow PFS rules" thread on the messageboards, bemoaning my refusal to allow something that is black and white on paper?

Here, I feel, you go too far. As should be evident by the mere presence of this thread, it is by no means "black and white on paper"; it is, at best, some shade of grey.

Personally I disagree with you; until we get a ruling from campaign management (unlikely, IMO), the DR that Trusty Buddy can overcome at my table will be DR/Adamantine; not DR/-, DR/Epic, or any other variant.

But that's at my table. Inasmuch as it is a grey area, you can use your own judgement to decide which interpretation you should use at your table. You're running the table - it's your job to interpret the rules. Your local VL or VC can give you their opinion, but that's all it is; an opinion, and not necessarily any more valid than your own (I've ruled differently from how my VC would rule on more than one occasion).

There's always going to be somebody who will complain "You're not running RAW as required by PFS", no matter which way you choose. The best you can do is go with what you feel to be right.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Has this been answered?

How is it currently being handled?

Grand Lodge 3/5 Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Diego aka Michael_Hopkins

Personally, if someone has gotten to create a build that uses the Trusty Buddy effectively in combat, I'd let them use it. Sometimes it isn't a typo, and an eccentric wizard needed an awesome crowbar.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, I tend to go for things that avoid table variation, but my Breaker Barbarian just would be so awesome with this.

No matter how it's handled.

Grand Lodge

Okay, I'm of two minds on this item. As the price matchs an adamantine crowbar a think it should probably bypass DR/Adamantine and hardness up to 20. But as written, it seems to work on any DR. So at the table I'd let it work on any DR.

Unfortunately, the chronicle sheet is on my level 13.2 archer.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love how people in here are saying they just won't allow it RAW at their table. It very clearly states that it bypasses DR when used as an improvised weapon. Two simple checks to meet this condition.

1) Is it being used as an improvised weapon? If yes, then...

2) Is there DR on the target? If yes, it is bypassed.

It doesn't matter if you don't like a rule. If you're not campaign leadership, you can't pick and choose which you want to follow. If there is ANY GM interpretation, it is now RAI. RAI is not PFS legal.

It should also be pointed out that it doesn't matter if you think it's a typo. It doesn't matter if you think something is overpowered. If there is no FAQ or clarification, you follow it exactly as written. This thing has been around for what, 3 years now? More than enough time to clarify if it was intended to be different than what is written.

Grand Lodge

trik wrote:
I love how people in here are saying they just won't allow it RAW at their table.

I love how some people insist that their interpertation is the "One True RAW" and all others must bow to their superior reading of the rules.

1/5

dwayne germaine wrote:
trik wrote:
I love how people in here are saying they just won't allow it RAW at their table.
I love how some people insist that their interpertation is the "One True RAW" and all others must bow to their superior reading of the rules.

There is no interpretation. It says "bypasses DR when used as improvised weapon". Seems pretty clear as to what is written. Two checks.

1) Is it used as an improvised weapon? If yes...

2) Is there DR? If yes, it bypasses it.

This reading follows EXACTLY what the text says (which is the definition of RAW). Any other reading is adding assumptions that are not stated (which is the definition of RAI).

Grand Lodge

trik wrote:
This reading follows EXACTLY what the text says (which is the definition of RAW). Any other reading is adding assumptions that are not stated (which is the definition of RAI).

I don't even disagree with you on this specific rule. I would let it overcome any DR if I was GMing.

What I do disagree with is your insistence that all other GMs must agree to read this the same way that you do, and that any other interpertation is unacceptable.

1/5

dwayne germaine wrote:
trik wrote:
This reading follows EXACTLY what the text says (which is the definition of RAW). Any other reading is adding assumptions that are not stated (which is the definition of RAI).

I don't even disagree with you on this specific rule. I would let it overcome any DR if I was GMing.

What I do disagree with is your insistence that all other GMs must agree to read this the same way that you do, and that any other interpertation is unacceptable.

Other GMs can run it however they want outside of PFS. My understanding is that PFS takes a strict RAW stance. If some people are using RAI, the campaign experience is not the same for all players. In this case, it could potentially have a significant effect on the difficulty of a scenario. If the RAW stance is not enforced, why bother following the other rules?

Allowing GMs to interpret rules as they see fit breaks the continuity of the organized campaign experience. Something being considered legal at one table and then illegal at the table right after is a symptom of a broken system. The only way to ensure everyone is following the same rules is to follow EXACTLY what is written in all cases, never adding your own assumptions or interpretation.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

trik,

There are Chronicle sheets with out-right errors, and legacy issues with Season 0 as well. The campaign staff is human, and things sneak through. Particularly with new boons, sometimes the mechanics interface with other sub-systems in unintentional ways.

The way I understand the game, even the "Run as Written" philosophy allows for those sorts of errors. That's why there was a recent thread about a weapon with a typo that gave it a price discount of about 80%. Everyone felt that was an error: the question was: how do we address that? There's a similar thread right now regarding a feat from a new splat book that seems to have unintended consequences.

We always "add our own assumptions and interpretations". It's never going to be the case that two GMs will run the same scenario exactly the same way. (And sometimes that extends to whether a thing is legal or not. But that's not the case here; nobody's arguing that the TRUSTY BUDDY is illegal.)

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

trik,

There are Chronicle sheets with out-right errors, and legacy issues with Season 0 as well. The campaign staff is human, and things sneak through. Particularly with new boons, sometimes the mechanics interface with other sub-systems in unintentional ways.

The way I understand the game, even the "Run as Written" philosophy allows for those sorts of errors. That's why there was a recent thread about a weapon with a typo that gave it a price discount of about 80%. Everyone felt that was an error: the question was: how do we address that? There's a similar thread right now regarding a feat from a new splat book that seems to have unintended consequences.

We always "add our own assumptions and interpretations". It's never going to be the case that two GMs will run the same scenario exactly the same way. (And sometimes that extends to whether a thing is legal or not. But that's not the case here; nobody's arguing that the TRUSTY BUDDY is illegal.)

FAQs and errata are specifically created to address errors. I don't expect everything to be error free, but I do expect all tables to observe the same rules. If someone picks up a Trust Buddy and then invests character resources into using it to it's full effect, but is then told it works differently at 1 in 10 tables, something is wrong. I would argue that removing ambiguous cases should be high on the priority list of campaign leadership, assuming they wish to present a similar play experience across the entire campaign.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento aka FLite

the problem is that the number of ambigous cases vastly outweighs the staff resources to correct them all.

You have two choices.

Have staff fix as many ambiguous cases as they humanly can and not release any new scenarios. (Because they are spending all their time fixing ambiguous cases.)

Or

Have staff release 26? scenarios a year, and in the time they have left over fix the biggest ambiguities.

Grand Lodge

trik wrote:

FAQs and errata are specifically created to address errors. I don't expect everything to be error free, but I do expect all tables to observe the same rules. If someone picks up a Trust Buddy and then invests character resources into using it to it's full effect, but is then told it works differently at 1 in 10 tables, something is wrong. I would argue that removing ambiguous cases should be high on the priority list of campaign leadership, assuming they wish to present a similar play experience across the entire campaign.

Fair enough. Lobby for this to be FAQed or Errataed, since there is a difference of opinion on how it should be handled. Don't tell other GMs that they MUST use your interpertation of the rules for it when they run games.


trik wrote:


FAQs and errata are specifically created to address errors. I don't expect everything to be error free, but I do expect all tables to observe the same rules. If someone picks up a Trust Buddy and then invests character resources into using it to it's full effect, but is then told it works differently at 1 in 10 tables, something is wrong. I would argue that removing ambiguous cases should be high on the priority list of campaign leadership, assuming they wish to present a similar play experience across the entire campaign.

I thought that when I first came to this community, but have quickly learned it is false.

There is no concern about keeping trust and consistency between the player and the GM.

GMs are given free range to do as they see fit including ignoring RAW or even the written scenario.

You should always warn your players to expect table variation for everything even if it seems black and white.

1 to 50 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Spoilers - Trusty Buddy Question All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.