Hello all. I'm relatively new to PFS, and I have plenty of ideas for characters using the legal sources for PFS, but sometimes there are interactions that are somewhat unclear. An example is the combination of the Startoss Style feats and the Ricochet Toss feat (all in Weapon Master's Handbook), and how they work together. The freelancer who designed the Startoss chain says he intended the thrown weapon to return after all bounces are resolved, but a very strict reading of Ricochet Toss suggests it has to return after the first attack is resolved (since each 'bounce' requires a separate attack roll).
In cases like this, am I better off designing characters who completely avoid these kinds of potential problems, or would it probably be fine to go with it and simply expect table variations?
|
alternately, if you largely play at one venue you could ask around for a local ruling .
Hmmmm.. I think I may change my mind and say go ahead with this one.
RAW:Nothing says you have to use your feats. You don't HAVE to activate your feats. "Benefit: What the feat enables the character ("you" in the feat description) to do" enables, not requires, not forces you to, enables. You don't need to turn on Richochet style till the last one.
RAI: You have an authors statement on how its supposed to work.
Power: you're spending 4 feats to pretty much be a short range archer that can occasionally attack without cover using geometry.
Flavor: You're captain andoran. you're supposed to be able to do this.
Thank you. I'd like to believe that you can ignore the benefit of a feat whenever you want, though I can imagine some GMs will take issue with the meaning of 'enable'. But other than that, I think there's a good grounding in the rules for this one. If anybody else disagrees, wouldn't allow it at their PFS table, or can give me an official ruling, I'd leave to hear it.
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your behavior will also affect how GMs rule on feat interactions that have table variation. If the player is being cooperative, open about how their feats work, and presents the materials to me, I'm less likely to balk.
Things that I want to see:
1) The reference materials -- one player showed me a flow chart he'd made of how his feats interact, so I wasn't surprised when his bullrush expert overran my villains. I don't expect everyone to go to this effort, but it was really helpful.
2) Do you know how your feats work?
3) Is this non-disruptive? Can you do all this without sucking up too much of our game play time?
4) Is this fun for roleplay?
5) Is it fun for other players? Does the combat run well?
If the answer to all these is yes... Chances are you'll get to use your weird feat interactions every time. (On the other hand, a disruptive player who tries to solo everything is far more likely to get a flat 'no' the next time they bring forward something in the grey area.)
Does this make sense?
Hmm
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anytime you have a question about whether your build works or a gray area where you get table variation, bring it up to the GM before the game. Outline the issue, explain the arguments on each side, provide references if requested (links to forum arguments, developer posts, related FAQs, etc.).
Ask your GM to make the ruling before the game starts, and adjust your play accordingly. You benefit by knowing what you're getting into and not being surprised by a negative ruling in the middle of combat. Your GM will also appreciate getting a chance to review the issue with less pressure, and your fellow players will thank you for not slowing down the game after it's started.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
With Babyshanks the Bullrush guy, he found me 20 minutes before the start of the game.
He had a folder he handed me for GM reference that included:
1) watermarked printouts of all relevant feats from original documentation, with important bits highlighted
2) a flow chart of how they all interacted, with this summary at the bottom: "I am going to try to bull rush everything. If I can run it over, I'm going to hit it like a mack truck."
He was organized, thoughtful, and allowed everyone in the party a chance to shine. Most importantly, he did not try to spring this on me as a GM, and his great descriptions of what he was doing made everyone laugh and increased the fun of others.
This was at a con. I'd never played with him before, but I'd welcome him again.
Hmm
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That question really is email it ahead of time level of complicated.
If possible, yes. But I don't think it's THAT complex.
I have a PC that will use this combo once I hit 6. He's only level 1 at the moment, and actually Core, until I eventually start taking feats from the Weapon Masters Handbook and convert him to standard, so I'm nowhere near that far yet. As Hilary suggested, I'll probably do a quick write-up to hand to GMs before the session begins to warn them this is coming and give them a chance to think about it in advance. Maybe something like this:
My PC is a thrown weapon specialist, and utilizes the feats Ricochet Toss, Startoss Style, Startoss Comet, and eventually Startoss Shower from the Weapon Master's Handbook. See attached printouts of the pages from WMH for those feats.
There has been much debate on the Paizo forums about how (and if) Ricochet Toss works with the Startoss feats, with no definitive answer. So for now, this is a question for each individual GM to rule on.
Here's the relevant text from each feat description:
Ricochet Toss: "When you make a ranged attack with an appropriate thrown weapon, the weapon returns to your hand immediately after the attack is resolved"
Startoss Comet: "As a standard action, you can make a single ranged thrown weapon attack at your full attack bonus with the chosen weapon. If you hit, you deal damage normally and can make a second attack (at your full attack bonus) against a target within one range increment of the first."
So Ricochet Toss makes the thrown weapon bounce back to the thrower after an attack, while Startoss Comet bounces the weapon off the first target to hit a second target. Startoss Shower just adds a 3rd (and eventually subsequent) attack to the Startoss Comet.
The question is whether these can be used in combination to bounce a weapon off of two enemies, and then have it return to the thrower.
Interpretation #1:
Some people think that the Ricochet Toss would kick in after the first attack, so the thrower can either use Ricochet Toss to get the weapon back after the first attack OR use Startoss Comet to bounce the weapon to a second target, but they can't bounce the weapon off multiple targets and then get it back.Interpretation #2:
Since using a feat is optional, some people think that the thrower can skip using Ricochet Toss on the first attack, and have it kick in after the second attack of the Startoss Comet is resolved. Or some people consider the entire Startoss Comet to be a single special attack, even though it attacks multiple targets, so the Ricochet Toss would kick in after the whole thing is resolved. Either way, these interpretations allow the thrower to bounce the weapon off of multiple targets before it returns to their hand.Either way, I can just use Ricochet Toss to full attack normally, with the weapon returning to me after each throw, and the Startoss feats will each give me a +2 damage bonus. So they're not wasted feats, no matter how the GM decides this works at their table.
How's that for a single page explanation to hand the GM 5 minutes before the game?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one page or so that I wrote above for this particular question will be formatted nicely in MS Word. It'll definitely be easier for a GM to skim than the wall of text above.
And it's not like I'll hand them the sheet and walk away. If they want me to summarize it verbally, I can say, "Basically, I've got these two feats" *point at the quotes on the page* "One lets my thrown weapon bounce back to me after every attack. The other lets me bounce it off two enemies with each throw. Can I combine them to bounce it off two enemies and then have it return to me at the end?"
And then the GM can decide how much thought they want to put into it. I'll have the page there, along with the pages from the book with the full feat descriptions, for them to read if they're interested in doing so.
It's really not that difficult. The key is to put a little prep into it, so you have everything in front of you to show the GM, depending on how much detail they want to see.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Other than realizing that you have surprised a GM with something, how do you know if your character is doing something 'weird'?
Is Amplified Rage on an Urban Bloodrager enough that it is considered weird? How about Effortless Trickery on a sorcerer?
Just trying to get a feel for unusual something is before I should say "Hey, look at this!"
|
|
Other than realizing that you have surprised a GM with something, how do you know if your character is doing something 'weird'?
Is Amplified Rage on an Urban Bloodrager enough that it is considered weird? How about Effortless Trickery on a sorcerer?
Just trying to get a feel for unusual something is before I should say "Hey, look at this!"
FOr my characters I like to ask DM if they are familiar with the rules I intend on using.
|
|
Other than realizing that you have surprised a GM with something, how do you know if your character is doing something 'weird'?
Is Amplified Rage on an Urban Bloodrager enough that it is considered weird? How about Effortless Trickery on a sorcerer?
Just trying to get a feel for unusual something is before I should say "Hey, look at this!"
If you haven't seen it in action at your local tables then it is probably a bit weird.
If it took you days of effort to find the combination its probably weird.
If it seems overpowered to you its possibly weird.
If you came to the rules forum because something wasn't clear then its weird. If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weird
|
|
I'd say it also depends on how long it takes to explain, and how often it comes up. If it's something you'll only do once or twice all session, and you can explain it quickly in a phrase, then it's not worth mentioning in advance.
For instance, for your Effortless Trickery, when it comes up, you can just say "I've got the Effortless Trickery feat that lets me concentrate on my illusions as a swift action." That's a quick and easy explanation that doesn't require a lot of discussion, so not worth it in advance, unless the GM specifically asks who does weird stuff.
And in some cases, I'll actually ask the GM if he wants to know in advance about weird stuff my PC does. Some just don't care.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weird
Come on, half the rules forum will argue that RAW means weapon focus longsword means that it's that one longsword and no other, so you can't get the benefit when duel wielding them. half of THOSE will argue that you can't take weapon focus twice to make up for that...
If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weirdCome on, half the rules forum will argue that RAW means weapon focus longsword means that it's that one longsword and no other, so you can't get the benefit when duel wielding them. half of THOSE will argue that you can't take weapon focus twice to make up for that...
Hell the rules forum would probably argue over 10 Silver equaling 1 gold
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Hell the rules forum would probably argue over 10 Silver equaling 1 goldIf the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weirdCome on, half the rules forum will argue that RAW means weapon focus longsword means that it's that one longsword and no other, so you can't get the benefit when duel wielding them. half of THOSE will argue that you can't take weapon focus twice to make up for that...
No - it's 20 silver to 1 gold, 12 copper to a silver ... :-)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weirdCome on, half the rules forum will argue that RAW means weapon focus longsword means that it's that one longsword and no other, so you can't get the benefit when duel wielding them. half of THOSE will argue that you can't take weapon focus twice to make up for that...
In the Rules Forum I define "consensus" as "almost everybody agrees even though 1/2 the posts are from 2 outliers who just refuse to be convinced that they're WRONG. Even when they eventually "win" the thread by sheer dogged determination I count it as consensus for the other side.
Eh. I think Paul got it already.
The with that breakdown is
1. In my time of being on the forums its rare.
2. It assumes that simply because one side is more vocal that the more vocal side is right. IE if 10 guys say x and 2 guys say y then the consensus is x even if Y is actually the only side with evidence.
3. It completely ignores evidence.
If the forum hasn't reached a ckear consenus then its DEFINITELY weirdCome on, half the rules forum will argue that RAW means weapon focus longsword means that it's that one longsword and no other, so you can't get the benefit when duel wielding them. half of THOSE will argue that you can't take weapon focus twice to make up for that...
Either that or they're demanding DC quotations for tying one's own shoelaces and arguing if you can take 20 on the task.
|
|
Eh. I think Paul got it already.The with that breakdown is
1. In my time of being on the forums its rare.
2. It assumes that simply because one side is more vocal that the more vocal side is right. IE if 10 guys say x and 2 guys say y then the consensus is x even if Y is actually the only side with evidence.
3. It completely ignores evidence.
If what you want to know is "how will this be ruled most of the time?" then evidence is irrelevant. So, for that matter, is what the "right" answer is. All you really want to know then is which interpretation is the majority opinion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what you want to know is "how will this be ruled most of the time?" then evidence is irrelevant. So, for that matter, is what the "right" answer is. All you really want to know then is which interpretation is the majority opinion.
The rules forum is a horrible way to find that out.
Many people that play the game won't come to the forums because of the grar.
Many people that come to the forums won't go to the rules forums because of the grar.
The rules forums not only revel in a hyperliteral disection of the text despite it's horrible track record of being right, they INSIST that a hyperliteral disection of the text in persuit of mechanical advantage is THE rules paradigm PFS MUST use or you are a horrible person.
That's really not how I see PFS work, either online or in 5 states.
You're looking at 75% of the time the DM not caring/not looking/not noticing.
then 3/4s of the other dms are RAI
then whats left split from the exact raw saying something works and the insistance that the exact raw says it doesn't.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
The rules forums not only revel in a hyperliteral disection of the text despite it's horrible track record of being right, they INSIST that a hyperliteral disection of the text in persuit of mechanical advantage is THE rules paradigm PFS MUST use or you are a horrible person.
Truth be told that is really the easiest way to go about it especially when you run into situations where the RAI crowd will cite rules that don't exist as fundamental truths.
A good rule for PFS is that if at all possible, try to find other ways than using questionable corner interpretations of mechanics to have your fun.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If what you want to know is "how will this be ruled most of the time?" then evidence is irrelevant. So, for that matter, is what the "right" answer is. All you really want to know then is which interpretation is the majority opinion.
The rules forum is a horrible way to find that out.
Many people that play the game won't come to the forums because of the grar.
Many people that come to the forums won't go to the rules forums because of the grar.
The rules forums not only revel in a hyperliteral disection of the text despite it's horrible track record of being right, they INSIST that a hyperliteral disection of the text in persuit of mechanical advantage is THE rules paradigm PFS MUST use or you are a horrible person.
That's really not how I see PFS work, either online or in 5 states.
You're looking at 75% of the time the DM not caring/not looking/not noticing.
then 3/4s of the other dms are RAI
then whats left split from the exact raw saying something works and the insistance that the exact raw says it doesn't.
I don't really disagree, except that my experience has been a little different. For anything with real divisiveness, there are enough different people who post on the first page or two that you can pretty easily tell what the naive opinion is and what the majority opinion is. (Whether or not you agree with either of those.)
The real chasm that I often see is between people who believe that words in the rulebooks are *defining* the rules versus those who believe that they are *describing* systems that exist but are basically undefinable. And this disagreement is ultimately unresolveable, because it comes down to how cognition works for the people in the two sides of the discussion -- you'll never change how people's brains work.
I'm one of the latter types of people, which means that I always bow to textual evidence that defines how individual pieces work (feats, class abilities, spells, etc) but rarely accept textual evidence that change my understanding of how entire systems work (action economy, spellcasting) unless they can account for all the ways that revision changes interactions with other systems. (Which does happen.)
I really appreciate the literalists, because they're capable of catching inconsistencies that I would never find that lead me to a deeper understanding of the systems. But I sometimes get annoyed at the few (and it really only is a few) who don't recognize that the macro view is as valid as the micro view.
A lot of times this gets *called* RAW vs RAI, but that's not really what is going on -- it's more like analytical vs intuitive (though even that isn't quite right.)
Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha
|
The real chasm that I often see is between people who believe that words in the rulebooks are *defining* the rules versus those who believe that they are *describing* systems that exist but are basically undefinable. And this disagreement is ultimately unresolveable, because it comes down to how cognition works for the people in the two sides of the discussion -- you'll never change how people's brains work.
This is very well put, thank you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With Babyshanks the Bullrush guy, he found me 20 minutes before the start of the game.
He had a folder he handed me for GM reference that included:
1) watermarked printouts of all relevant feats from original documentation, with important bits highlighted
2) a flow chart of how they all interacted, with this summary at the bottom: "I am going to try to bull rush everything. If I can run it over, I'm going to hit it like a mack truck."
He was organized, thoughtful, and allowed everyone in the party a chance to shine. Most importantly, he did not try to spring this on me as a GM, and his great descriptions of what he was doing made everyone laugh and increased the fun of others.
This was at a con. I'd never played with him before, but I'd welcome him again.
Hmm
I was at that table, and at another one later in the same convention.
Babyshanks is truly an inspirational character, and surprisingly quiet for the sheer amount of BADASS that he carries in his bag.
We had AMAZING group synergy on that first run, and even the weaker synergy in the second run was bolstered by that build. No lie.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The real chasm that I often see is between people who believe that words in the rulebooks are *defining* the rules versus those who believe that they are *describing* systems that exist but are basically undefinable. And this disagreement is ultimately unresolveable, because it comes down to how cognition works for the people in the two sides of the discussion -- you'll never change how people's brains work.
I'm one of the latter types of people, which means that I always bow to textual evidence that defines how individual pieces work (feats, class abilities, spells, etc) but...
Was trying to think of how to describe what I think the difference is and then saw the term i was looking for.
Some rules types read it with Aristotelian logic. You have a known, you can proceed from a known by rational logic from that known in perfect, non contradictory order. If evidence doesn't absolutely 100% mean that something is a certain way, it's worthless. If something isn't 100% contradictory, it means absolutely nothing.
Another type is Baysean logic: you can weigh different kinds of evidence against each other, and something can PROBABLY mean that a rule works a certain way without being 100% proof.
Baysean logic can be more than a little subjective, but Aristotelian logic will give you outright contradictory answers depending on what you use as your start point and how you plinko that through a series of if/then to get to your answer.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real chasm that I often see is between people who believe that words in the rulebooks are *defining* the rules versus those who believe that they are *describing* systems that exist but are basically undefinable. And this disagreement is ultimately unresolveable, because it comes down to how cognition works for the people in the two sides of the discussion -- you'll never change how people's brains work.
I'm one of the latter types of people, which means that I always bow to textual evidence that defines how individual pieces work (feats, class abilities, spells, etc) but...
Was trying to think of how to describe what I think the difference is and then saw the term i was looking for.
Some rules types read it with Aristotelian logic. You have a known, you can proceed from a known by rational logic from that known in perfect, non contradictory order. If evidence doesn't absolutely 100% mean that something is a certain way, it's worthless. If something isn't 100% contradictory, it means absolutely nothing.
Another type is Baysean logic: you can weigh different kinds of evidence against each other, and something can PROBABLY mean that a rule works a certain way without being 100% proof.
Baysean logic can be more than a little subjective, but Aristotelian logic will give you outright contradictory answers depending on what you use as your start point and how you plinko that through a series of if/then to get to your answer.
Well, that explains the PDT's evil schemes. It's the Bayesian conspiracy!