|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the digitization blog thread there is discussion of the one minion rule (OMR), limiting players to having one minion. I have questions about that. What if you are a Leaf Order Druid with Order Explorer (Animal Order)? Does the OMR mean I can't have a companion and a familiar even though those feats and orders seem to be intended for just that? What about summoned creatures and figurines of wondrous power? They both have the minion trait. Does that mean, by the OMR, that PCs with familiars or companions can't cast summon spells or activate the figurines? I have little doubt that I don't know all the details, but it seems this was not thought out.
|
|
I'm curious about this too. I've seen tables with familiar + animal companion in play in PFS2 and haven't seen it being a problem. Pretty common with mutli-order druids, or gnome druids. Likely to become more common with the Familiar Master and Beastmaster archetypes.
I don't think a Witch should be blocked from casting summoning spells.
There's no OMR in the CRB. Some spells/rituals call out a 4 undead/4 animated object limit as a counter point. One of the rituals calls our a 4 minion limit (no qualifier on type).
There's no OMR in the current published version of the guide.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the *exact* text that will be in the new guide (dropping Wednesday)
Minions: With the exception of temporary creatures, such as those created by summon spells, no character can have more than one minion. Purchased Mounts do not count as minions, provided they do not take part in combat.
Yes. It will affect Familiar + AC builds.
It will not block people with Minions from casting summon spells.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I'm curious about this too. I've seen tables with familiar + animal companion in play in PFS2 and haven't seen it being a problem. Pretty common with mutli-order druids, or gnome druids. Likely to become more common with the Familiar Master and Beastmaster archetypes.
Neither Familiar Master nor Beast master grants you an additional minion of the same type. In fact Beast master references a rule saying you can only have one animal companion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Based on feedback from this thread and the others on the topic, the leadership is revisiting the form of the rule. I expect to have more information from them to pass on in the next day or two.
I can share the following.
The intention of the rule was to avoid clogging the board with minis / avoid situations where PCs have multiple allies who can act independently. (for example, certain Animal Companions get a free action per turn.)
The *origional* form of the rule was:
"With the exception of summon spells, no Player can have more than two Pawns on the table. As such, a player who has already placed a second Pawn, either as a result of a class feature (such as a familiar or an animal companion) or as a result of using an Ally boon, cannot benefit from any Boon or Ability that places a pawn on the table. Player purchased mounts do not count as pawns assuming they do not take part in combat."
We went to "No more than one Minion" to try to reduce the number of new terms we were defining. It sounds like it will be going back to "no more than 2 Pawns" (With your character counting as one of the two.)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the rule was to avoid clogging the board with minis / avoid situations where PCs have multiple allies who can act independently. (for example, certain Animal Companions get a free action per turn.)
Clogging the board: I'd have the player who is mounted remove their "Character Pawn" and place a "mounted character pawn" down instead. If the dismount, then another pawn would come down. Granted most mounted characters I have seen would rather not dismount in the heat of combat.
If this is about limiting characters with multiple pets that act independently: I would not worry about this. Only certain minions can act independently. Their are rules in place and feats that allow these actions in the CRB, so it must have been intended to be used. Besides, purchased animals or mounts do not gain the minion trait, so they can not act independently even if they wanted to.
I do not see what this new rule was supposed to fix. As Cavernshark says and I am kind of seeing it that way too, you have a solution for something that is not a problem.
Game I ran recently, we had a druid who rented a mount for the game. They had an AC. Technically she only had two pawns on the board, her and mount as one. The rules, mainly action economy, in place by the core rule book kept that player/charcter in check. Not one problem/rule debate or issue came up. It ran smooth as intended
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Based on feedback from this thread and the others on the topic, the leadership is revisiting the form of the rule. I expect to have more information from them to pass on in the next day or two.
I can share the following.
The intention of the rule was to avoid clogging the board with minis / avoid situations where PCs have multiple allies who can act independently. (for example, certain Animal Companions get a free action per turn.)
The *origional* form of the rule was:
"With the exception of summon spells, no Player can have more than two Pawns on the table. As such, a player who has already placed a second Pawn, either as a result of a class feature (such as a familiar or an animal companion) or as a result of using an Ally boon, cannot benefit from any Boon or Ability that places a pawn on the table. Player purchased mounts do not count as pawns assuming they do not take part in combat."
We went to "No more than one Minion" to try to reduce the number of new terms we were defining. It sounds like it will be going back to "no more than 2 Pawns" (With your character counting as one of the two.)
Thanks for clarifying, but this rule still presupposes that two independent minions taking an action each is in any way problematic. I'm not convinced it is based on the 2e games I've GMed and participated on. This still feels like a solution looking for a problem.
I'd argue your "summon + minion" is significantly more likely to bog down game play, especially on a virtual tabletop where the PC is unlikely to have uploaded multiple character sheets and tokens. At least the PC probably has a familiar and AC sheet ready.
Clogging the map doesn't relate *just* to action economy, it also relates to small maps. I GMed a table back in PFS 1 where half the party literally sat outside the building playing cards because there were so many pets half the PCs couldn't get into the room to engage in combat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am GMing 1-15, a Verdant Wheel scenario, for Gameday. Four of the characters have a familiar or animal companion. Plus, the champion of Cayden Cailean posted an extra pawn for a barrel of ale because he felt left out.
Aside from the Gameplay thread getting spammed to 60ish posts during introductions, there have been zero logistical issues.
I don't see a problem.
The PFS2 maps are much less crowded than the PFS1 maps.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to lose the most important thing in this discussion.
Jared took our feedback back to the Powers That Be and they are reconsidering their position.
That deserves a very sincere thank you.
Thank you :-).
I now return you to your regularly scheduled rules wrangling :-)
|
|
Once in PFS2 I was in a session with 6 characters and 4 pets. It was pushing things a little but still quite manageable from a "pawns on the board" perspective.
And the characters weren't overpowered because pets are actually quite balanced in this edition. They're a viable option but not an overpowered one.
|
|
Uhh, that paragraph is pretty terrible for several reasons:
You’ll also need a miniature or pawn to represent your character—Pathfinder uses a standard 1-inch grid to determine movement and tactical positioning in combat, so you need a physical representation of your character to use on the grid. Paizo produces a wide range of Pathfinder Pawns and also works with Reaper Miniatures and WizKids to offer a wide variety of gaming miniatures, so you can find just the right figure for your character
it seemingly restricts multiple pawns, but not multiple miniatures... (Obviously not the intent but pawn is already a semi-defined term)
Also pawn is randomly capitalized some times...
Also I don't understand if it restricts their use in exploration mode or not. Maybe it does if the GM puts a map out on the table, but doesn't if they run it in a more abstract fashion.
Also what happens if you're riding a horse while your familiar floats around and you get attacked?
|
|
Uhh, that paragraph is pretty terrible for several reasons:
You’ll also need a miniature or pawn to represent your character—Pathfinder uses a standard 1-inch grid to determine movement and tactical positioning in combat, so you need a physical representation of your character to use on the grid. Paizo produces a wide range of Pathfinder Pawns and also works with Reaper Miniatures and WizKids to offer a wide variety of gaming miniatures, so you can find just the right figure for your characterit seemingly restricts multiple pawns, but not multiple miniatures... (Obviously not the intent but pawn is already a semi-defined term)
Hence why we changed it, and why I said I would appreciate alternate terms for pawns.
Also pawn is randomly capitalized some times...
It's copied from a rough draft. (Actually it is copied from discussion notes, so not *even* a rough draft.)
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't want to lose the most important thing in this discussion.
Jared took our feedback back to the Powers That Be and they are reconsidering their position.
That deserves a very sincere thank you.
Thank you :-).
I now return you to your regularly scheduled rules wrangling :-)
As you said, that is why I (don't) get paid the big bucks :-)
|
|
How so?No. It doesn't even stop that. It's explicitly permitted.It stops it from growing to 18 creatures, some of whom are large.
6 characters with a base companion creature each cast a summon spell, which is explicitly exempted: 18.
So it prevents 24 creatures.
This seems like something for the table to adjudicate amongst themselves at the start of a game rather than for OP to govern unless the concern is that the master powers from a familiar on a character with an animal companion are just too powerful.
|
Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The intention of the rule was to avoid clogging the board with minis / avoid situations where PCs have multiple allies who can act independently. (for example, certain Animal Companions get a free action per turn.)
I don't see either of these to be an actual problems however. It is not like PF1 each additional entity had an entire turn to resolve. Their actions are limited in scope AND the system moves forward faster and more smoothly than PF1
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Also, you don't place "pawns" on the map for Hirelings. They specifically can't partake in combat.
Hirelings are a completely seperate discussion and have nothing to do with this rule. You are welcome to start a thread for that, but please stop trying to drag it into every other thread someone starts.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
How so?No. It doesn't even stop that. It's explicitly permitted.It stops it from growing to 18 creatures, some of whom are large.
6 characters with a base companion creature each cast a summon spell, which is explicitly exempted: 18.
So it prevents 24 creatures.
This seems like something for the table to adjudicate amongst themselves at the start of a game rather than for OP to govern unless the concern is that the master powers from a familiar on a character with an animal companion are just too powerful.
My understanding is that the reason summons got exempted was that they don't stick around, so when the characters are in a tight place people can decide whether or not to cast summon spells.
|
Venture-Captain, Texas—Austin
|
I completely agree with this idea. I would rather this be a case-by-case call than a blanket ban
In the event that it is problematic, maybe add something to the effect that "A GM, at their discretion, may limit players to a single minion on the board if it is becoming prohibitive to gameplay."
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I completely agree with this idea. I would rather this be a case-by-case call than a blanket ban
In the event that it is problematic, maybe add something to the effect that "A GM, at their discretion, may limit players to a single minion on the board if it is becoming prohibitive to gameplay."
Will pass that request along as well. Though based on the feedback, I would use "Additional pawn" or "Additional miniature"
and "disruptive to game play" possibly? (prohibitive seems like a high bar to clear.)
|
Based on feedback from this thread and the others on the topic, the leadership is revisiting the form of the rule. I expect to have more information from them to pass on in the next day or two.
I can share the following.
The intention of the rule was to avoid clogging the board with minis / avoid situations where PCs have multiple allies who can act independently. (for example, certain Animal Companions get a free action per turn.)
The *origional* form of the rule was:
"With the exception of summon spells, no Player can have more than two Pawns on the table. As such, a player who has already placed a second Pawn, either as a result of a class feature (such as a familiar or an animal companion) or as a result of using an Ally boon, cannot benefit from any Boon or Ability that places a pawn on the table. Player purchased mounts do not count as pawns assuming they do not take part in combat."
We went to "No more than one Minion" to try to reduce the number of new terms we were defining. It sounds like it will be going back to "no more than 2 Pawns" (With your character counting as one of the two.)
Okay, considering that one goal for the organized play is to be "as close to PF2" as possible with very little need for "house rules", this change goes directly against that philosophy. Going for the wording "no more than 2 Pawns" would sound like a witch (1 pawn) with a familiar (forced class feature, also 1 pawn) would be unable to summon a creature (another pawn). I know you said earlier that "with the exception of summon spells" but for this particular reason, I think the Pawn word is a horrible choice.
Secondly, "clogging up the table" is more of an issue with how maps are drawn and how spawns are placed, less with how many miniatures are on the maps. Sncearios tend to give PC's very little room for placement, and tends to place the PC's at the edge of the map with no room to back away. This is a problem with scenario/encounter design, not a flaw in the system that requires fixing by telling people that they can have a familiar OR an animal companion, not both.
It's especially annoying given how well they seem built - keeping an AC up to the task requires spending considerable amount of feats, while keeping them active in combat eats an action. Keeping two minions active in combat eats two action, leaving you unable to cast spells (or for a martial, to do anything other than strike once).
(For examples of poorly designed map, there's 2-00 page 10 (encounter A) and page 11, encounter B - A is horribly designed and will cause trouble for party full of creatures and minions, B is awesome and works very well for any size of party, and gives everybody room to maneuver
Another example is 1-05, Encounter A (page 8) has PC's in a small area, against a foe that they probably want to pull back from, except that they map ends right behind them so they'll be retreating over it's edge, while 3/4ths of the map won't be used for anything. Meanwhile, Encounter C (page 13) does have a small placement area, but it has plenty of room for the PC's to maneuver and move if needed without the map ending as abruptly (though again, half of the map will go unused - no reason why the PC's and monsters could not have been placed closer to the middle of the map).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How so?No. It doesn't even stop that. It's explicitly permitted.It stops it from growing to 18 creatures, some of whom are large.
6 characters with a base companion creature each cast a summon spell, which is explicitly exempted: 18.
So it prevents 24 creatures.
This seems like something for the table to adjudicate amongst themselves at the start of a game rather than for OP to govern unless the concern is that the master powers from a familiar on a character with an animal companion are just too powerful.
My understanding is that the reason summons got exempted was that they don't stick around, so when the characters are in a tight place people can decide whether or not to cast summon spells.
And you could just as easily decide to leave your companion creature in the previous room while you investigate the small room or deal with the encounter or say at the beginning of a game, "Wait! We're all Animal Order Druids? We might want to rethink this" as decide to not use your summon spell or memorize a summon spell.
Once you say 12 action figures on the board is OK, you're kind of past the point of no return in regards to map space. So... the real reason is either something else they're not sharing or it's just what other people have been saying: a solution in search of a problem.
Did one of the OP people have a bad experience with a party full of Animal Order Order Explorer Plant Order druids or something recently?
|
|
Okay, considering that one goal for the organized play is to be "as close to PF2" as possible with very little need for "house rules", this change goes directly against that philosophy. Going for the wording "no more than 2 Pawns" would sound like a witch (1 pawn) with a familiar (forced class feature, also 1 pawn) would be unable to summon a creature (another pawn). I know you said earlier that "with the exception of summon spells" but for this particular reason, I think the Pawn word is a horrible choice.
As I said before, I would love to hear a better word suggested than Pawn. Given that the rule *literally* starts with "with the exception of summon spells" I don't se how people would be left with the conclusion that the witch cannot summon. But I totally agree that Pawn is not as satisfactory a word as we would like.
|
Also, you don't place "pawns" on the map for Hirelings. They specifically can't partake in combat.Hirelings are a completely seperate discussion and have nothing to do with this rule.
Apparently you can't even keep up with your own quotes.
You mentioned in this very thread that Ally Boons are included.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
PC's at the edge of the map with no room to back away.
Honestly, This is a personal pet peeve of mine, and I *always* back fill maps when that happens. The world should not just end and fall into the void.
However, I think the concern is more things like the Haunted House map which if the party grows beyond a certain size, you just can't put encounters anywhere *but* the ballroom.
Narrow passageways and limited maneuvering room are reasonable balancing factors for an encounter. But for a party over a certain size, what was intended as a "balancing factor" becomes "an unworkable mess."
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Also, you don't place "pawns" on the map for Hirelings. They specifically can't partake in combat.Hirelings are a completely seperate discussion and have nothing to do with this rule.Apparently you can't even keep up with your own quotes.
You mentioned in this very thread that Ally Boons are included.
No I mentioned that "Ally boons which place a pawn." are included. As you pointed out, Hirelings don't place pawns.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So I feel like my wizard with his familiar and MC witch with his spell-giving familiar will be ok. I'd probably never use the witch familiar--I'd only use my better wizard familiar.See, this a great reason why this rule doesn't feel necessary. You already can't have two familiars.
You can have only one familiar at a time.And the only way to get multiple ACs specifically forces you to toggle them on and off, or is locked behind an uncommom level 16 feat.
Can I get a page ref for that? I was looking and couldn't find it.
So, if leadership can be convinced to exempt familiars, the things that would still be effected are:
Two or more of (AC, Bonded Animal, Eidolon, Any future Pawn granted by boon. )
Can anyone think of others?