Quandary |
Mystic Theurge with the new changes isn't doing anything out of line with what a single classed caster is capable of.
You can get two 2nd level divine and arcane SLAs via Trickery Domain and an Inquisition, regardless or race, with 1 level of Cleric.
1 more level of Wizard, and 1 more level in either class to fulfill the 3 skill rank requirement, and then you take MT, giving you -1/-2 spell progression in Wizard/Cleric.Which gains Spell Levels at exactly the same levels as a Sorceror/Oracle for the -1 class, and just 1 level behind for the other.
And you have about 90% more spellslots than a single class Wizard/Cleric,
so when they run out of top level spells, or economize to do so, you keep going.
With some races/builds you don't need to dedicate both Domains to getting SLAs,
e.g. Peri-Blooded Aasimar (+INT/CHA) gains 2nd level arcane SLA (Pyrotechnics).
David Bowles |
We seem to repeatedly be getting promotions of situations where the ridiculous rules-legal situation is supposed to be able to beat the PFS GM down and force them to capitulate. This is nonsense. As a role-playing game, we rely on the authority of the GM to identify nonsense like this and shut it down where appropriate. Anyone suggesting this is a 'murky' situation has taken leave of their senses. If you want an animal companion, take a class with it.
Devil's advocate: why should animal companion classes be the only ones that get to abuse animal stat blocks? I've had my fun ruined enough times by AC classes, what's the difference here? And please don't pretend that animal companion classes make huge sacrifices for their pets. They don't. AC classes are perfectly viable without their pets; the pets are just super-killy PC-equivalent death gravy that are ignored by APL and don't take up a table slot.
If PFS GMs are getting beat down, blame the devs and scenario authors. Even in vaunted season 4 scenario I'm still seeing animal companions that the NPCs can't hardly hit. NPCs need bigger to hit bonuses or animal companions need max AC by PC level caps.
thistledown Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East |
MisterSlanky |
It's crap and threads like this that eek me closer and closer to just playing home games.
Can you do something? Yes. Is it a good idea to do that thing for the sake of the fun of the other 6 people at the table? Apparently it's become less common to think about that. Either that or we've just grown so large that we're getting to the point where we've started bringing in those that don't.
BigNorseWolf |
Remember that if you're trying to steal a PC's animal with handle animal, it needs to be listed on the villain's written tactics. And I've never seen a villain that included it there.
Once the PC's do something that invalidates the written tactics you can come up with plan B. I think the charging bison quickly puts the kibosh on most plan A's.
wraithstrike |
thistledown wrote:Remember that if you're trying to steal a PC's animal with handle animal, it needs to be listed on the villain's written tactics. And I've never seen a villain that included it there.Once the PC's do something that invalidates the written tactics you can come up with plan B. I think the charging bison quickly puts the kibosh on most plan A's.
I have been told more than once, that the GM can not change tactics.
As an example lets say a caster has see invis as an available spell. Let's say he sees a PC go invisible. He is still supposed to follow the statblock instructions, and not cast see invis, even though it might make more sense than casting magic missile at a heavily armored opponent. Now if a brooch of shielding is in place that would stop the magic missile he may then move on to another tactic.
PS:That is not an actual scenario, just my understanding of what I have been told. If Mike Brock allows you to be change tactics before the written tactics become invalid I would not mind seeing a quote.
wraithstrike |
Quote:Once the PC's do something that invalidates the written tactics you can come up with plan B. I think the charging bison quickly puts the kibosh on most plan A's.Exactly. Run with a bison in a game I'm running where there's a ranger/druid bad guy? Expect to have a very bad day.
Can you legally change tactics before the written tactics are invalidated?
Invalidated does not mean "make less optimal". For the purpose of PFS it means the action can not be performed from my understanding.
pathar |
andreww wrote:Mystic Theurge with the new changes isn't doing anything out of line with what a single classed caster is capable of.They're examples. Feel free to replace them with any other build that is legal but convoluted or balance-upsetting.
andreww wrote:I also wouldn't call it a disingenuous option given the developers have explicitly come out and said that part of the intent is to allow earlier access to certain PrC's given they are generally poor options at the moment.Developer does not equal campaign coordinator. There are plenty of legal and approved Pathfinder builds that aren't legal or approved for PFS.
This is a purely semantic argument that, in my opinion, is not terribly relevant.
SCPRedMage |
Cire wrote:Yes.Rogue Eidolon wrote:Doug Miles wrote:I'm curious, if I'm a bad guy and I observe a PC order a bison to trample, on my turn can I give the bison the same order and turn it against the party? Perhaps an opposed check would be called for? Providing I am trained in Handle Animal, this could break a lot of players from abusing this campaign feature down the road.You can, unless the bison has the exclusive trick from Animal Archive.Does this now mean that druids and rangers with animal companions that dont have the exclusive trick can have their own companions turned against the party with a simple handle animal check by an enemy?
Um... no. Animals won't honor your requests without regard to their attitude towards you any more than intelligent creatures will.
If you want to turn an animal companion against its party, you first have to improve their attitude towards you (using Handle Animal as you would use Diplomacy, or simply by casting charm animal) first, and even then you're not likely to get it to attack its master, as the animal isn't going to attack anyone it's Helpful towards.
The point of the Exclusive trick is so that even if someone gets the animal to like them enough so that it'd normally listen to them (either via Handle Animal or charm animal), it won't. Useful trick, but only in very specific circumstances.
redward |
redward wrote:This is a purely semantic argument that, in my opinion, is not terribly relevant.andreww wrote:Mystic Theurge with the new changes isn't doing anything out of line with what a single classed caster is capable of.They're examples. Feel free to replace them with any other build that is legal but convoluted or balance-upsetting.
andreww wrote:I also wouldn't call it a disingenuous option given the developers have explicitly come out and said that part of the intent is to allow earlier access to certain PrC's given they are generally poor options at the moment.Developer does not equal campaign coordinator. There are plenty of legal and approved Pathfinder builds that aren't legal or approved for PFS.
I wouldn't either, but people seem intent on quibbling with details rather than addressing my actual argument, which is: if your character or tactics are particularly complicated or powerful, discuss it beforehand with the GM. If the GM balks for any reason, attempt to reach some kind of understanding or compromise.
Using the RAW club to beat your GM into submission is going to ruin the fun for at least one person at the table.
pathar |
I wouldn't either, but people seem intent on quibbling with details rather than addressing my actual argument, which is: if your character or tactics are particularly complicated or powerful, discuss it beforehand with the GM. If the GM balks for any reason, attempt to reach some kind of understanding or compromise.
Using the RAW club to beat your GM into submission is going to ruin the fun for at least one person at the table.
I agree as far as complicated builds go; when I play my prehensile-tail-Tiefling Grenadier I explain to my GM how it all works in advance so that we don't have to go over it all later, because it seems overpowered. (Side note: In practice, it's not. But anyway.)
Re: powerful builds, though, I disagree about needing GM approval. Character portability is an essential feature and selling point of organized play; I don't want and should not have to get GM approval before every session if I am using legal options that are working exactly as written.
Dust Raven Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs |
Bringing a CR 4 or CR 5 creature into a sub-tier 1-2 scenario, is game-breaking.
Bringing a level 4 or 5 PC into a sub-tier 1-2 scenario is game-breaking. You don't need to have a pet. Still all legal though. Would you disallow A level 1 or 2 caster with a scroll of Summon Monster IV? I'd allow it. It'd probably pause for a few heartbeats while it sinks in what the player is doing, but it's legal.
andreww |
Would you disallow A level 1 or 2 caster with a scroll of Summon Monster IV? I'd allow it. It'd probably pause for a few heartbeats while it sinks in what the player is doing, but it's legal.
I would want to know where the got it from and how they afforded the 700gold cost. I would be looking very carefully at what else they had bought as that's a huge chunk of change for a level 1-2.
pathar |
Dust Raven wrote:Would you disallow A level 1 or 2 caster with a scroll of Summon Monster IV? I'd allow it. It'd probably pause for a few heartbeats while it sinks in what the player is doing, but it's legal.I would want to know where the got it from and how they afforded the 700gold cost. I would be looking very carefully at what else they had bought as that's a huge chunk of change for a level 1-2.
2PP?
Caderyn |
In the end just enforce the standard handle animal rules and it pretty much shuts down the bison trampling idea
1. If it is on the heel command it must be behind its master (who likely is not at the front of the party), meaning he will have to command it and move out of the way on turn 1.
2. Its a Full round to push or a Move action to command it normally
3. The Bison will require is own initiative and will act on that initiative after getting instructions (meaning it sometimes wont act until round 2 if it beats its master on initiative).
If after using the standard rules its still causing issues to the other players fun, then that becomes something they will have to solve (generally just moving in front of the bison is enough as it cannot trample then due to the no PvP rules)
There is also at least 1 NPC druid with charm animal and explicit tactics to use it and order the animal to attack the PCs (meaning they will get trampled by their own bison).
David Bowles |
That isnt the fault of the class feature. Dont blame the game on those unwilling to enforce the rules.
I partially agree with you, but I find ACs in particular to be far too effective with respect to other "class features". I find natural armor in particular too easy to stack up on an AC. The ACs become effective immortal because so many PFS encounters lack efficacious spell casters.
Any druid or ranger with half a brain can make the actual handling part trivial. The AC is a far too powerful of a class feature for a nine level spell caster like the druid or animal domain cleric.
It's technically not the fault of the druid players, but Paizo totally derped on the AC progression table in my opinion.
Silbeg |
Andrew Christian wrote:Bringing a CR 4 or CR 5 creature into a sub-tier 1-2 scenario, is game-breaking.Bringing a level 4 or 5 PC into a sub-tier 1-2 scenario is game-breaking. You don't need to have a pet. Still all legal though. Would you disallow A level 1 or 2 caster with a scroll of Summon Monster IV? I'd allow it. It'd probably pause for a few heartbeats while it sinks in what the player is doing, but it's legal.
Sure, I would allow that. I'd also make sure that the character makes the caster level check. Assuming even a level 2 caster, there would be a 25% chance of failure. And, this cost will only benefit them once.., for seven rounds. Seems fair to me.
A battle bison for 75gp which last not only for multiple encounters, but scenarios seems WAY under priced to me. Same for the war trained tiger.
nosig |
Dust Raven wrote:Andrew Christian wrote:Bringing a CR 4 or CR 5 creature into a sub-tier 1-2 scenario, is game-breaking.Bringing a level 4 or 5 PC into a sub-tier 1-2 scenario is game-breaking. You don't need to have a pet. Still all legal though. Would you disallow A level 1 or 2 caster with a scroll of Summon Monster IV? I'd allow it. It'd probably pause for a few heartbeats while it sinks in what the player is doing, but it's legal.Sure, I would allow that. I'd also make sure that the character makes the caster level check. Assuming even a level 2 caster, there would be a 25% chance of failure. And, this cost will only benefit them once.., for seven rounds. Seems fair to me.
A battle bison for 75gp which last not only for multiple encounters, but scenarios seems WAY under priced to me. Same for the war trained tiger.
it's much harder to carry around a bison than a scroll... just saying...
Dust Raven Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs |
Kudos on mentioning the caster level check, I see that ignored far more often than handle animal checks at my tables.
A battle bison for 75gp which last not only for multiple encounters, but scenarios seems WAY under priced to me. Same for the war trained tiger.
I agree it is way under priced. Compared to a combat trained horse (even a light one) the bison is a bargain.
Like most large creatures in PFS though, the balancing factor seems to be the difficulty in managing them in tight spaces (there are far more indoor encounters than wide open space encounters, and even most of the wide open space ones require you to have gotten though a tight space such as a door first).
Mistwalker |
Oh, I can see that. I was just having trouble with the idea that a bison can't "squeeze" through a door when an ogre can.
I can just see the shenanigans of taking a bison into a shop filled with fragile items, and some annoying NPC cast "scare" on it.....
thistledown Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East |
Dragnmoon |
I have seen it mentioned a few times in this thread about using Handle Animal like diplomacy to improve its attitude, I don't see anything in the skill that allows you to do that.
There is though at least one class ability at allows you to do that, Wild Empathy, which does not use handle animal, and of course there is Charm Animal.
Cpt_kirstov |
Remember that if you're trying to steal a PC's animal with handle animal, it needs to be listed on the villain's written tactics. And I've never seen a villain that included it there.
Ryan and BigNorseWolf covered the changing tactics part, but there is one module where a villains tactics are to charm animal and use handle animal to have it attack the PCs as its written stat block
Dust Raven Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs |
Oh, I can see that. I was just having trouble with the idea that a bison can't "squeeze" through a door when an ogre can.
I can just see the shenanigans of taking a bison into a shop filled with fragile items, and some annoying NPC cast "scare" on it.....
An ogre can choose to squeeze, an animal would need convincing or special training (in my opinion). A normal animal with a normal animal intelligence isn't going to necessarily know how to squeeze or want to.
Mistwalker |
Mistwalker wrote:An ogre can choose to squeeze, an animal would need convincing or special training (in my opinion). A normal animal with a normal animal intelligence isn't going to necessarily know how to squeeze or want to.Oh, I can see that. I was just having trouble with the idea that a bison can't "squeeze" through a door when an ogre can.
I can just see the shenanigans of taking a bison into a shop filled with fragile items, and some annoying NPC cast "scare" on it.....
Squeezing, in the game mechanic term, is about fighting in a smaller than normal area, where you don't have room to move as normal, hence you have a penalty to your fighting abilities.
Going through doors is different than fighting in a hallway that was only as big as those doors. And I was only talking about the bison going through the door/doorway.
If none of the other large animal companions (or eidolons) are having trouble going through doors, why would it be a different case for bison?
I feel that there are better ways to handle bison (or other battle cattle) in the game than to appear to be looking for "any" reason to bar them participating in a scenario.
To latch on to a reason that is not being applied to other similar sized creatures in similar encounter areas in other scenarios - or suddenly stops being a problem when not applied to low tier level adventures leaves the impression that the GM is looking for a loop-hole to stop a player from using a legal PFS option. To me, the optics are bad.
FanaticRat |
Mistwalker wrote:An ogre can choose to squeeze, an animal would need convincing or special training (in my opinion). A normal animal with a normal animal intelligence isn't going to necessarily know how to squeeze or want to.Oh, I can see that. I was just having trouble with the idea that a bison can't "squeeze" through a door when an ogre can.
I can just see the shenanigans of taking a bison into a shop filled with fragile items, and some annoying NPC cast "scare" on it.....
I'ma go with Mistwalker on this one. That does seem like sorta a stretch, and it's not like animals in real life don't try to squeeze through areas on their own accord. I think there would be a better way to handle this.
Dust Raven Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs |
An eidolon (like an ogre) has a normal intelligence, not that of an animal. Anyone with an animal companion would need to train their animal to follow them into places they would not normally go (such as through a door they can barely squeeze through) or attempt to coerce them, with either of those options requiring a Handle Animal check.
As far as looking for a reason to tone down the use of strange animals, I'm not looking for one, this one exists. Just because only a tiny fraction of PFS GMs (and GMs in general) actually enforce the rules for handling animals doesn't mean it's okay for the rest to ignore them.
The handle animal rules apply to all characters. The only thing special about those with animal companions is the companion is safely assumed to be friendly/helpful to its owner and its owner can usually make his Handle Animal checks in less time. And if the owner of an animal companion needs to make those checks, so does the guy who decided to buy a trained animal at the market. And in both cases, the animal remains an animal.
Mistwalker |
Dust Raven,
I am not suggesting that the rules not be enforced. Quite the opposite.
I have no problem with a GM requiring a handle animal check in appropriate situations.
One of the tricks that I usually assign to animals is heel - the animal follows you even into places where it would not normally do so.
My objection above was directed to statements that a bison couldn't go through a door, period.
Kahel Stormbender |
Jiggy wrote:no mounted first level PCs?Perhaps we could lobby for some kind of "Non-class-granted animals with more than X hit dice are not available" alteration to Additional Resources?
EDIT: Or maybe "Non-class-granted animals are never Always Available, and cannot be purchased with Prestige Points"?
Or "A character cannot own a non-class-granted animal with hit dice greater than the character's level"? (Or level+1, or whatever.)
Wouldn't work, what about cavaliers? They start with a mount.
nosig |
nosig wrote:Wouldn't work, what about cavaliers? They start with a mount.Jiggy wrote:no mounted first level PCs?Perhaps we could lobby for some kind of "Non-class-granted animals with more than X hit dice are not available" alteration to Additional Resources?
EDIT: Or maybe "Non-class-granted animals are never Always Available, and cannot be purchased with Prestige Points"?
Or "A character cannot own a non-class-granted animal with hit dice greater than the character's level"? (Or level+1, or whatever.)
And Druids could also start with one...
The point I was making (3 years ago?) was that we can't have a 1st level mounted PC unless it's a class feature...
FLite Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento |
Wow... Not only is this necro, but the rules have seriously changed since it went up.
Characters can only purchase animals if their CR is less than the PC, or if their CR is 1, or if the purchased animal is a horse.
ACs can never have more HD than the PC's character level +1.
So, yes, all 1st level PCs can be mounted. They just can no longer be mounted on full grown tigers.
Kahel Stormbender |
Honestly, hadn't realized it was a necro. Not only that, but I haven't seriously looked into the mounted combat rules or rules for buying an animal in PFS. Mounted combat has only come up twice so far as a PFS game master for me. And I personally rarely even consider having a mount till around level 5, when you can typically afford to have one to begin with.
nosig |
Wow... Not only is this necro, but the rules have seriously changed since it went up.
Characters can only purchase animals if their CR is less than the PC, or if their CR is 1, or if the purchased animal is a horse.
ACs can never have more HD than the PC's character level +1.
So, yes, all 1st level PCs can be mounted. They just can no longer be mounted on full grown tigers.
How about riding dogs?