|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the design intentions stated for PFS2 was to, whenever possible, house rules that deviate from the core rules. The core rules already have an inherent limitation system for minions with the requirement for their master to invest actions or they do little to nothing on their own. Adding a house rule to PFS2 to limit minions is completely unnecessary and breaks that “promise” to adhere as closely as possible to core.
The rule as presented is also not balanced to its intention. There is still the possibility of a summoning-focused caster to continuously and repeatedly to bring in swaths of creatures that are exempt from this rule. If the Summoner’s eidolon is not going to have the minion trait, then you have the possibility of a PC, plus an eidolon, plus animal companion or familiar, and summoned creatures. How is that jiving with the intent if this rule is implemented?
|
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.
Found it. Page 217, end of the second para under Familiars. (AKA exactly where I last looked for it and couldn't find it...)
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, using Cackle, a Witch could sustain a summon spell and crank out another one, so even with the proposed one minion rule, a witch could have four pawns on the board.
I think it's much more useful to focus on language centered around the intent ("don't flood the board, play nice with the other players") and less about trying to isolate all the different present and future corner cases.
If all the players want to summon oodles of creatures to flood a dungeon and keep the monster from getting to the PCs - that's legitimate. Game rules allow it, it costs the characters resources, it's fine. It might make the encounter easier. Then again, if all those characters teamworked their feats and spells in a different way, that could have also made the encounter easier.
What would not be fine is one player haplessly summoning monsters left and right and clogging up a 5ft corridor hell dungeon so that another player can't even get close to the fight.
The thing is, the proposed rule doesn't actually prevent the second problem.
This rule smells like someone had a deep, deep trauma from the way PF1 companion creatures could be overpowered. I know what it's like, I had a Riddywipple that generally outperformed 75% of the party in skill challenges, and I've had a roc animal companion that was pretty much impossible to hit for monsters. PF1 pets had great action economy and generally unreasonable stats due to the way they could stack natural bonuses and armor, or leech of a master's skill ranks. All of these though, are no longer an issue in PF2.
I think rather than this narrow focus on solving a PF1 gripe, we should have a more generic rule / guideline for the GM to make players play together in a considerate way. Rather than focus on the particular problem of one player's summons getting in the way of another player's main character, let's focus on obstructive play in general. Like one player's Tempest oracle who can see through fog calling Obscuring Mist which annoys the other players who are hindered by the concealment. Or the character with Darkvision spamming Darkness spells to blind enemies but that also render other PCs unable to see. These aren't strictly PVP damage-dealing offenses but they're all examples of players not being considerate with each others' fun.
|
| 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.
Also, this rule is -considerably- more restrictive than the PFS1 version (In which you could have a beast of burden, a non-combat familiar, and an animal companion). I could accept a rule if it said that you can't have more than "one permanent minion participating in the combat as a pawn, but they can still use their other abilities" - That's... more convoluted but more reasonable, and would allow (or would need to be worded in a way that allows) you to have an animal companion as an active combatant, plus a familiar that normally does nothing during combat except provides you with an extra cantrip, or maybe generates you a focus point back if you spend an action to give it two actions. But frankly, I'm not sure if even this restriction would be necessary or warranted.
You could, by the rules, have a mature animal companion that can take 1 action per round, and an independent familiar that can take 1 action per round. Why this need to suddenly deny this or nerf it? If there's some cheesy "my cat rides my wolf to break action economy and deliver spells at longer ranges" or other such nonsense, these issues should be addressed at other ruling levels instead of outright saying that "no, gotta decide between AC or familiar, can't have both."
*Especially* because familiars are so damn frail that they are practically speaking instantly dead if they do anything other in combat than "sit in your pocket".
EDIT: Also, 100% of what Lau said.
"don't flood the board, play nice with the other players"
"we should have a more generic rule / guideline for the GM to make players play together in a considerate way"
|
The existence of this last minute discussion before a new restriction is imposed (Wednesday, still, right?) is making me really question the decision process behind closed doors.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the open discussion, but just take a look at Guide 3.0 for Starfinder. There have been questions dating back to Season 1 that we were told would be addressed that still have no answers, and now it seems like someone at Paizo wants to ram through a restriction not just on Hirelings, but on Familiars and Animal Companions as well (with no mention of the much more problematic Bonded Animals until I brought it up).
That's last minute and messy in one case, and lacking consideration and follow through in the other.
We've always been told, and I've always believed, that Paizo has this step by step, meetings and discussions, years long calendar, draft and redraft process for rolling things out, but right now it seems that's all fallen apart.
|
|
(with no mention of the much more problematic Bonded Animals until I brought it up).
We thought we included Bonded Animals, until someone pointed out that they don't have the Minion Trait. In fact our intent was to capture Familiars, Animal Companions, Purchased and Bonded animal (in combat), and Eidolons.
While excluding Pack Animals, and Mounts that were purchased just to make overland travel faster.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Additionally, one of the nice things about PFS2 and having the guide online, is that when problems are found, we can change the guide quickly. So had this come up after Wednesday, we could have put a hold on the rule, worked things out, and gone forward after a week. We are not committed to the rule for a whole year, like we are with a PDF.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Additionally, one of the nice things about PFS2 and having the guide online, is that when problems are found, we can change the guide quickly. So had this come up after Wednesday, we could have put a hold on the rule, worked things out, and gone forward after a week. We are not committed to the rule for a whole year, like we are with a PDF.
This is mostly a tangent, although it does speak to Paizo's ability to do decent web development (which is relevant to the discussion that this one spun out of).
It seems utterly insane to me that updating a pdf takes a year. It really should be essentially as difficult as updating a Wiki, at least for documents like the Guide that are NOT carefully crafted works of art with a gazillion pictures that have to be carefully formatted.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe degree of support for the one minion rule is directly proportional to the number of times you've been at a table where one of the players is utterly terrible at decision making and/or math yet has multiple minions in play.
Great Player (Master Summoner) - "I spend a standard action to summon these(roll) 3 creatures with 3 attacks each. They all attack this guy (rolls massive handful of color-coded dice), lowest is . . .does a 17 hit? How about 19? (sorting damage dice as he asks). OK, 4 hits for 25 total damage. Eidolon pounces and (rolls another handful of dice). . .nope, no hits. I move here and I'm done."
Horrible Player (Wizard) - "OK, my summons that I started last round finishes. I'll summon. . . hmmm. . . well, he might be immune to that, so maybe not those. . . Do I want one big one or lots of little ones. . . etc."
Me - "pick something or I'm going to need to put you on delay."
HP - "OK, lantern archons are never a bad choice. Which die do I roll? Let me check the spell. I get (rolls a 4-sided dice and stares at it for a couple of seconds trying to figure out what his roll +1 is) 3 lantern archons. I'll put them here, here. . ."
Me - "That's too far, summon monster is a close range spell"
HP - "Huh? (Explain why he can't do that) "Well then, I guess I'll put one here (long time as he carefully counts the range) and another one here and another one here (slowly counting range on each). OK, these get two attacks each. TARGETING TOUCH! (rolls a d20, stares at it for about 5 seconds trying to add 3 to it) Does a 12 hit?"
Me - "Nope, that's a miss"
HP - "Targeting touch?"
Me - "It's a miss."
HP - "OK, but it has a second attack. (Picks up same die, rolls it again, stares at it for about 5 seconds trying to add 3 to it) Does an 11 hit?
Me - "As the 12 missed, the 11 unsurprisingly misses as well."
HP - "These target touch."
Me - "Yes. Why don't you just roll four d20s for the rest of your attacks?"
HP - (proceeds to roll "lucky" d20 4 more times)
The Great Player's turn took about as long as it takes to read that. The Horrible Player took over 10 minutes to do 5 points of damage, then I just cringed as (after some brief hemming and hawing and another threat to put him on delay) he started another summon spell.
If I could have all Great Players (or just good players) I'd be fine with unlimited minions. But all it takes is one Horrible Player. . .
Pathfinder 2 definitely makes the extreme cases less extreme, but it can still make a table painful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe degree of support for the one minion rule is directly proportional to the number of times you've been at a table where one of the players is utterly terrible at decision making and/or math yet has multiple minions in play.
** spoiler omitted **...
While I recognize the situation that you describe:
1. The problem is the player, not the rule.
2. PFS1's limit on companions clearly didn't do anything in the example situation because it limits you to 1 combat mionion (excluding summons)
3. The proposed change for PFS2 minions doesn't affect a similar situation in PFS2 for the same reason it didn't affect the situation in PFS1 (because it doesn't affect summons)
4. PFS2 already limits summons by making them 3 action cast, 1 action sustain - currently only a witch with a cackle can pull off 2 summons at once, and the rule, again, doesn't affect summons. In the event that the witch does pull off 2 summons, they are basically unable to do anything else (because 1 action isn't enough to cast any offensive spells, and even the non-offensive ones are pretty limited).
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I believe degree of support for the one minion rule is directly proportional to the number of times you've been at a table where one of the players is utterly terrible at decision making and/or math yet has multiple minions in play.
** spoiler omitted **...
I admit, one of the things I like about online gaming is that it is a *lot* easier to manage multiple minions, and multiple attacks. My daughter has a PF1 character whose full attack routine is something like 8 d20 checks, and 5 damage rolls. Being able to put all of that in a single Macro has made life much easier.
|
|
I admit, one of the things I like about online gaming is that it is a *lot* easier to manage multiple minions, and multiple attacks. My daughter has a PF1 character whose full attack routine is something like 8 d20 checks, and 5 damage rolls. Being able to put all of that in a single Macro has made life much easier.I believe degree of support for the one minion rule is directly proportional to the number of times you've been at a table where one of the players is utterly terrible at decision making and/or math yet has multiple minions in play.
** spoiler omitted **...
While I totally agree that this can happen, it doesn't always. Some players just don't write macros and roll everything manually.
But at least the table does the math :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point, as listed above, is this ruling does not effectively stop the multi-token user. It is just smoke and mirrors which seems to be a poor use of rules discussion time and word count in an already lengthy document
You will be happy to hear that the core guide is now half the length it was. Even with that rule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given the last time the Guide was pruned several key sections disappeared this is not as comforting as you might think.The point, as listed above, is this ruling does not effectively stop the multi-token user. It is just smoke and mirrors which seems to be a poor use of rules discussion time and word count in an already lengthy documentYou will be happy to hear that the core guide is now half the length it was. Even with that rule.
I don't promise it hasn't happened this time, but we put a lot of effort this time into making sure that only the sections we wanted to disappeared.
:)
(There was a *lot* of redundancy.)
|
|
I believe degree of support for the one minion rule is directly proportional to the number of times you've been at a table where one of the players is utterly terrible at decision making and/or math yet has multiple minions in play.
** spoiler omitted **...
While I recognize the situation that you describe:
1. The problem is the player, not the rule.
. . .
Which is kinda the point. In my home game I can say “Alicia and Beto, I think you’ve got it. Chloe and Devon, you should stick to classes that don’t have minions until you’ve got more familiarity with the game.” (Or something similar but a bit more polite.) In PFS, no one has the authority to say “Ernie, you’re not allowed to have two minions but Felicia is.” One rule has to apply to everyone. We might be unnecessarily limiting the Felicias (or Tomppas), but the rule isn’t about them. It’s for the Ernies who are going to make a miserable experience for everyone else at the table.
As for my specific example, yes it involved summons. Because that was the most extreme dichotomy I ever saw. Don’t get stuck on the summons. You saw it with animal companion/familiar/mount combos as well.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Is there a section on disruptive players in the Guide? I cannot find it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, (not in the core guide, but in the GM guidance.) Not surprisingly, it largely has to do with players who are *intentionally* or *actively* disruptive. Not players who are not as efficient or proficient as the rest of the table.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
As a matter of fact, one of the things GMs are explicitly *not* allowed to do is that they can't tell you that you cannot bring a legal build or ability to the table.
So absent a rule to that effect, a GM cannot prevent a player from bringing a bonded animal, an animal companion, an eidolon*, and 5 purchased guard dogs to the table.
*once they become legal.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don’t get stuck on the summons. You saw it with animal companion/familiar/mount combos as well.
And we've seen it plenty with players of characters with no companion characters. The wizard who flips through his list of disorganized spells or maps out templates after templates to get the biggest bang for his buck or the gunslinger trying to exquisitely manage his grit.
PF2 cannot generate the 2-5 lantern archons or 1-3 hound archons will full rounds worth of action (and the rule doesn't even cover summons).
So the worst we can come up with right now is a witch with beastmaster archetype who, at fourth level, giving up their 2nd and 4th class feats can have a Mature animal companion and an Independent familiar and a purchased/bonded animal for a maximum of 6 actions between them (none of them being casting a 2-action spell).
Extra point: familiars don't clog the map anyhow since you can stand in their square.
EDIT: Extra extra point: make a rule limiting purchased animals.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Don’t get stuck on the summons. You saw it with animal companion/familiar/mount combos as well.And we've seen it plenty with players of characters with no companion characters. The wizard who flips through his list of disorganized spells or maps out templates after templates to get the biggest bang for his buck or the gunslinger trying to exquisitely manage his grit.
PF2 cannot generate the 2-5 lantern archons or 1-3 hound archons will full rounds worth of action (and the rule doesn't even cover summons).
So the worst we can come up with right now is a witch with beastmaster archetype who, at fourth level, giving up their 2nd and 4th class feats can have a Mature animal companion and an Independent familiar and a purchased/bonded animal for a maximum of 6 actions between them (none of them being casting a 2-action spell).
Extra point: familiars don't clog the map anyhow since you can stand in their square.
EDIT: Extra extra point: make a rule limiting purchased animals.
The only 2 pawns version / only 2 PCEs version does limit purchased animals.
|
|
...AND familiar-Animal Companions or Familiar-purchased animal or Animal Companion-purchased animal.
Honestly, the level of obtuseness that had to intentionally go into that response above was rather insulting.
I must be missing something here, I honestly can't follow what you are saying with this post.
Make a rule limiting purchased animals
The 2-pawn rule does limit purchased animals
The above, which I can't seem to parse in context.
Is the point:
a) You also are limiting these other combinations. I am opposed to limiting these other combinations and you are insulting me by responding to my request to limit purchased animals with confirmation that purchased animals are limited-or-
b) You also need to limit these other combinations. I haven't realized that the 2-pawn rule applies to them, and you are insulting me by not explicitly calling them out even though they weren't mentioned.
-or-
c) Something else?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Which is kinda the point. In my home game I can say “Alicia and Beto, I think you’ve got it. Chloe and Devon, you should stick to classes that don’t have minions until you’ve got more familiarity with the game.”I believe degree of support for the one minion rule is directly proportional to the number of times you've been at a table where one of the players is utterly terrible at decision making and/or math yet has multiple minions in play.
** spoiler omitted **...
While I recognize the situation that you describe:
1. The problem is the player, not the rule.
. . .
The point here is that a slow player will be a slow player until they get familiar with their class, not that "slow players playing more complex classes are disruptive and should be limited". The point specifically is that limiting you from having a familiar and an animal companion (Which, I emphasise, is MORE restrictive than PFS1 despite PFS2 making them much, much more easier to manage and better balanced) doesn't solve the problem that a slower player not familiar with their class will still spend extra time pondering their actions. The rule does not change that. It does not help with "Ernies who might make the experience miserable for everyone else".
As for my specific example, yes it involved summons. Because that was the most extreme dichotomy I ever saw. Don’t get stuck on the summons. You saw it with animal companion/familiar/mount combos as well.
Actually, no. Maybe on the first level or two when the player is getting used to his animal companions abilities and stuff, but those are relatively constant. In PFS1, specifically trying to cast summon spells when you haven't prepared for it by 1. deciding first what you want 2. where you want it 3. what are the stats 4. what is it going to do, is what takes a lot of time.
My biggest issue here is the "No Familiar + AC": Specifically, because familiars are -rarely in combat-. They can't be. They die if the try to do combat stuff other than carry a buff spell to an ally that isn't already in melee (and then you'd be better off with a reach spell). Familiars work nicely outside of combat, they have cool and handy passive abilities (extra focus, reageants, cantrips, ability to speak (with other animals), etc. As I mentioned before, this blanket ban is much, much stricker than in PFS1 where you were allowed to have a familiar and an Animal companion - it's just that the familiar couldn't participate in combat but they still provided their other bonuses. Unless you like to replace your familiar after every scenario, it's not going to leave your pocket 95+% of the time - why deny it?
Or, rephrasing:
In what sort of situation/scenario does an extra cantrip and couple off-combat abilities become so disruptive or unbalanced that you have to drop them OR an animal companion from your build?
EDIT: OH, I want to emphasize that I have nothing against slower players: They are usually newer players, and they'll pick up the speed and efficiency when they get a couple games under their belt: They are still learning, after all. I recognize they can be slower and that can be detrimental to the rest of the table, but "how to help slow players move on with their turn" is easily another thread to share tips (stuff like, delay them until they can tell where they go, what they do, and what dices they roll (provided they know the basic rules) or assign a player to help them with the math / calculate bonuses in advance etc) but that's not the point of this topic.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of just complaining, let me suggest a solution:
Current text:
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.
[emphasis is mine]
New suggested text:
Minions:With the exception of temporary creatures, such as those created by summon spells, no character can command more than one minion per combat round. Purchased Mounts do not count as minions, provided they do not take part in combat.
Yes. This means that you can not spend actions to have both a familiar and an animal companion (or an eidolon and animal companion) act during the same round. They can still provide other bonuses and they can both act during non-combat encounters.
There. Now people can still play witches with animal companion multiclasses (or later summoner multiclass, however that works out) without having to give up their ability prepare spells every morning.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
Minions:With the exception of temporary creatures, such as those created by summon spells, no character can command more than one minion per combat round. Purchased Mounts do not count as minions, provided they do not take part in combat.
By these terms a druid (or any class granted minion-trait), who has a purchased mount and does not want to dismount for combat, has to decide if they want the mount to move (command animal mechanic) or command their animal companion (or familiar, bonded animal).
With using the rules in the CRB, action economy and skills to control animals(minion rules vs command animal rules), allows this and it works fine.
Why restrict it?
EDIT:
Wanted to throw in another option. Scrap the one whatchamacallit rule.
|
|
As a matter of fact, one of the things GMs are explicitly *not* allowed to do is that they can't tell you that you cannot bring a legal build or ability to the table.
Maybe not officially, but as the GM I still control the table and if a player is disruptive, intentional or otherwise, and does not correct their behavior, I will make that ruling.
Similar to the description of the summoning character up thread, I had a player like that back in 1E. I gave him two warnings about being more prepared for his turns. The next time I told him he could not play his summoner at my table until he demonstrated efficiency at using it. I was willing to observe him play it at another table, but I would not submit another table of players under my responsibility to it again. The organizer was aware and approved my action. I would have no problem doing that again if a player was unreasonably wasting the table's time.
Of course, YMMV
make a rule limiting purchased animals
I disagree. We don't need to punish all the players who can manage multiple tokens just because a few cannot be bothered to be prepared. This should fall under the GM/organizer discretion the same as if a caster cannot decide what to cast or a complex build cannot decide which of their laundry list of actions to take. As it was said up thread, this is a player problem, not a rules problem.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
New suggested text:
There. Now people can still play witches with animal companion multiclasses (or later summoner multiclass, however that works out) without having to give up their ability prepare spells every morning.Minions:With the exception of temporary creatures, such as those created by summon spells, no character can command more than one minion per combat round. Purchased Mounts do not count as minions, provided they do not take part in combat.
Yes. This means that you can not spend actions to have both a familiar and an animal companion (or an eidolon and animal companion) act during the same round. They can still provide other bonuses and they can both act during non-combat encounters.
I kind of like this suggestion. A question does remain, does commanding a purchased animal to move (say a warhorse) mean that the animal is taking part in combat? Remember, purchased horses don't gain the minion trait.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I kind of like this suggestion. A question does remain, does commanding a purchased animal to move (say a warhorse) mean that the animal is taking part in combat? Remember, purchased horses don't gain the minion trait.New suggested text:
There. Now people can still play witches with animal companion multiclasses (or later summoner multiclass, however that works out) without having to give up their ability prepare spells every morning.Minions:With the exception of temporary creatures, such as those created by summon spells, no character can command more than one minion per combat round. Purchased Mounts do not count as minions, provided they do not take part in combat.
Yes. This means that you can not spend actions to have both a familiar and an animal companion (or an eidolon and animal companion) act during the same round. They can still provide other bonuses and they can both act during non-combat encounters.
That is why we moved to either pawn or PCE about a page or two ago and dropped Minion entirely.
This still doesn't address the fact that the character with the Eidolon + AC + Purchased Animal + character can be physically choking the board with tokens.
There is more than just the one problem here. So far, solutions seem to be addressing only one of the multiple problems.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This still doesn't address the fact that the character with the Eidolon + AC + Purchased Animal + character can be physically choking the board with tokens.
There is more than just the one problem here. So far, solutions seem to be addressing only one of the multiple problems.
Then give the GMs the ability/flexibility to limit the PCE/Pawns count as they see reasonable. As to not allow the player to be disruptive or problematic to the scenario.
Something that could be in the guide: GM's have the ability to limit the player's PCE/Pawn count to ensure gameflow and not to overwhelm resources, ie map.
Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
Which, I emphasise, is MORE restrictive than PFS1
But it's not? In PFS 1 you can have 1 combat companion, and 1 non-combat companion. Combat companions can do whatever on their turns, and non-combat companions can only take move actions. Basically the same as these suggested rules. 2 pawns, 1 of which is your character, and it likely won't include mounts that won't fight as JTT had said they are looking into that.
This rule isn't trying to fix slower players, it's attempting to pre-emptively prevent those players who think they're clever by bringing along multiple animal companions on their summoner that also has a familiar.
As for limiting the familiar, JTT also said they were looking into players who have their familiars just sit on their shoulders, so it's likely they will allow non-combat familiars in the future, but the problem still stands that if you get hit with a fireball with one on your shoulder you need to roll for it and make sure it's okay and all that. Sure it doesn't take up space on the table but it's more unnecessary rolling that they want to try to get ahead of in this ruling.
|
Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
This still doesn't address the fact that the character with the Eidolon + AC + Purchased Animal + character can be physically choking the board with tokens.
There is more than just the one problem here. So far, solutions seem to be addressing only one of the multiple problems.
Then give the GMs the ability/flexibility to limit the PCE/Pawns count as they see reasonable. As to not allow the player to be disruptive or problematic to the scenario.
Something that could be in the guide: GM's have the ability to limit the player's PCE/Pawn count to ensure gameflow and not to overwhelm resources, ie map.
The problem here is that GMs are not supposed to restrict legal options at their tables. I can't ask someone to not play a summoner because I don't like the fact they get two tokens. The rules need to be blanket rules that apply to everyone, and GMs should only have variation when the rules aren't clear and they need to make a call on the spot to keep the game moving. Otherwise you get players complaining that their last GM let them so XYZ so why can't you?
|
|
As a matter of fact, one of the things GMs are explicitly *not* allowed to do is that they can't tell you that you cannot bring a legal build or ability to the table.
So absent a rule to that effect, a GM cannot prevent a player from bringing a bonded animal, an animal companion, an eidolon*, and 5 purchased guard dogs to the table.
*once they become legal.
Do we still have the differentiation that there used to be in PF1 between "open games" and "private games"? In PF1, I believe that it was technically legal for the GM to say
"Ok, if you insist on bringing that <abusive character> to the table then I'm just not going to run a public game. I AM going to run a private game where you're all invited, including you (pointing at player with <abusive character>) as long as you're not bringing that character"Is that still legal?
Note - I never actually did that at any table I ran in PF1. But I knew I had that particular weapon in my arsenal and just that knowledge helped. I did make it clear to people ahead of a game that there were some builds that I'd at the very least be tempted to invoke that rule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there are, or should be, any rules that allow the GM to arbitrarily deny a legal character build. I don't like gunslingers in my Pathfinder, but that's not a good enough reason to deny them at the table. Adjudications like that should be based on violations of the rules, generally demonstrated behavior by the player. Organizers should be very careful allowing a local GM to revert to private so they can censer things they don't like. Technically, they cannot stop it, but they also don't have to allow that GM to participate in the public community if they are not adhering to the rules in good faith.
There is also the issue of rewards. If you revert a public game to private, it may/should no longer qualify for increased AcP rewards, retail sales boosts, etc. Given how important the rewards are to some players, they would not be happy to learn they lost some AcP because the GM didn't like someone's character.
|
Venture-Agent, California—Silicon Valley
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a matter of fact, one of the things GMs are explicitly *not* allowed to do is that they can't tell you that you cannot bring a legal build or ability to the table.
So absent a rule to that effect, a GM cannot prevent a player from bringing a bonded animal, an animal companion, an eidolon*, and 5 purchased guard dogs to the table.
*once they become legal.
Do we still have the differentiation that there used to be in PF1 between "open games" and "private games"? In PF1, I believe that it was technically legal for the GM to say
"Ok, if you insist on bringing that <abusive character> to the table then I'm just not going to run a public game. I AM going to run a private game where you're all invited, including you (pointing at player with <abusive character>) as long as you're not bringing that character"Is that still legal?
Note - I never actually did that at any table I ran in PF1. But I knew I had that particular weapon in my arsenal and just that knowledge helped. I did make it clear to people ahead of a game that there were some builds that I'd at the very least be tempted to invoke that rule.
There was never a rule like that. If you volunteer to be a GM you accept that players will bring the legal character that they want to bring and you will make the game fun for everyone. If someone brings an overpowered character that's one thing, but if they use that character in ways that cause all the other players to not have fun that's when you can pull that player aside and explain that the way they are playing is not conducive to the "cooperate" aspect of Pathfinder Society.
You can always refuse to run, but the expectation of playing in a public game store is that the game you're running is open to the public. If you refuse to run and then make your own private event that hurts the game store and your VA.
|
|
Do we still have the differentiation that there used to be in PF1 between "open games" and "private games"? In PF1, I believe that it was technically legal for the GM to sayAs a matter of fact, one of the things GMs are explicitly *not* allowed to do is that they can't tell you that you cannot bring a legal build or ability to the table.
So absent a rule to that effect, a GM cannot prevent a player from bringing a bonded animal, an animal companion, an eidolon*, and 5 purchased guard dogs to the table.
*once they become legal.
As of this Wednesday, the language that allowed that will be removed from the guide.
I think the two posts above mine have demonstrated multiple good reasons for that change. (I was not given the reasoning behind it, so I have no more to add.)
Table Variation
A goal of the Pathfinder Society program is to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs should run Pathfinder Society adventures as written, which means:
- ...
- No alteration of mechanics of player characters,
- Nor banning of legal character options
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland—Hagerstown
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we still have the differentiation that there used to be in PF1 between "open games" and "private games"? In PF1, I believe that it was technically legal for the GM to sayAs a matter of fact, one of the things GMs are explicitly *not* allowed to do is that they can't tell you that you cannot bring a legal build or ability to the table.
So absent a rule to that effect, a GM cannot prevent a player from bringing a bonded animal, an animal companion, an eidolon*, and 5 purchased guard dogs to the table.
*once they become legal.
As of this Wednesday, the language that allowed that will be removed from the guide.
I think the two posts above mine have demonstrated multiple good reasons for that change. (I was not given the reasoning behind it, so I have no more to add.)
Table Variation
A goal of the Pathfinder Society program is to provide a fun, engaging, consistent experience at all tables. GMs should run Pathfinder Society adventures as written, which means:
- ...
- No alteration of mechanics of player characters,
- Nor banning of legal character options
Understandable. Was only a suggestion.