Let's Be Clear

The current text of Thunder and Fang allows you to dual wield Earthbreakers as one-handed weapons, but previous versions (and the whole idea of "Thunder and Fang") only allowed using an Earthbreaker one-handed when also using a Klar. Will that intent be reviewed by this document?

(oh... That's 18 posts... I suppose I should take a break...)

Will there be a easy to find link to the Campaign Clarifications Document? Like the additional resources link or have it appear in the downloads section?

Blog posts can become hard to find or backtrace after some time.

I don't have boots of the earth but I'm genuinely curious how anyone could say they can only be used once a day and not call that errata.

I know Paizo works differently but have you guys considered a system more like Magic: The Gathering's oracle text where each card has an official text record kept online? Even if the printed text says something different the card is played and functions according to its official online text. I honestly think this would really benefit your business and allow you to more quickly change items, abilities, etc.

The description made it sound like they were going to try for that extra layer of official rules that I keep telling people wandering into the forum we don't have. The document appears to be far less ambitious.

It gets a little bit easier for a Light crossbow. You pull it out as your move action, load it in that turn. Next turn you can shoot. Still not a good 'fallback', though. Make an elven wizard next time? (Bow proficiency)

I did. Then I saw what my 7 strength did to the damage, and swapped it out for a heavy crossbow. The repeating crossbow would solve the problem (free action to pull the reload lever, full-round action to reload a new case of 5 bolts), but requires exotic weapon proficiency.

There's nothing that says a crossbow, once cocked, must be fired the next turn. In theory, a cocked crossbow can be held indefinitely without it spontaneously uncocking itself. Arguments about long term damage to the strings and such trivialities do not apply here, as the same points apply to myriad other weapons & armour, but are ignored for the sake of sanity (it's not healthy for a longbow to stay stringed all day). Of course there's a difference between carrying a loaded crossbow around in your hands, and pulling one out of your pack, but RAW doesn't cover either.

Is this document also supposed to be/become the compendium of all the collected rulings scattered throughout the forum by (previous) campaign leaders?

Hilarious Rant

Welcome to our world, of the occasional incredibly frustrating AR change or nerf. Please enjoy your stay! ;)

I personally can live with the changes and nerfs themselves. It's the lack of rebuilding to my satisfaction that is the truly frustrating point. I understand logging such rebuilds can be a hassle, and sympathize. Better that hassle than the damage to my/our fun factor though is my perspective.

Of course there's a difference between carrying a loaded crossbow around in your hands, and pulling one out of your pack, but RAW doesn't cover either.

A fat kitsune and a tengu having this conversation...

Andrew Roberts wrote:

Question on one of the clarifications:

PFS-Campaign Clarifications Document wrote:

Page 13—The Kraken Throttle and Kraken Wrack feats are not style feats. When you use Kraken Throttle to choke an opponent, you cut off its ability to breathe. The opponent counts as holding its breath for the purposes of the suffocation rules on page 445 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook, and it does not need to roll Constitution checks to avoid falling unconscious until it has been unable to breathe for 2 rounds per Constitution modifier—or fewer rounds as appropriate if she takes standard or full-round actions while unable to breathe.

(bolded part is important)

This is different from the standard suffocation rules:

Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote:

Suffocation

A character who has no air to breathe can hold her breath for 2 rounds per point of Constitution. If a character takes a standard or full-round action, the remaining duration that the character can hold her breath is reduced by 1 round. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check in order to continue holding her breath. The check must be repeated each round, with the DC increasing by +1 for each previous success.

When the character fails one of these Constitution checks, she begins to suffocate. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hit points). In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she suffocates.

(bolded part is important)

Is this intentional?

No, it should be referencing the suffocations rules as written (2 rounds per point of Constitution).

For something with as many requirements and failure points as this feat, I maintain my strong opposition to this clarification. It is not even close to comparable with effects like Phantasmal Killer, which has similar failure points with significantly fewer restrictions and total count of failure points, nor is it in any way indicative of reality. As someone with an orange belt in jujitsu, I can choke someone out (i.e. render unconscious) in under 12 seconds. An orange belt is no great accomplishment - it's only one step up from white belt. A character with Kraken Throttle is looking at a minimum of 12 seconds if the target doesn't hold their breath, and likely 2+ minutes if they do.

It was balanced with its original writing of beginning the fort saves immediately. The clarification rendered this feat useless.

First thought - thanks, folks!

Second thought: It's probably a good idea to keep this thread for questions to be added next time, and avoid non-staff interpretations of how they'd run things at their table, or arguing with rulings, just to avoid confusion. :)

Third thought: Nefreet has lots of good questions...

Someone hand Nefreet a cookie

Somebody teach them to edit posts!

but good work, yasss

In the next update, would it be possible to add craft DCs for these alchemical items?

Pathfinder Society Field Guide
air crystals
ghost salt weapon blanch

Qadira: Gateway to the East
healy myrrh

Advanced Race Guide
stink ink (arcane)

Rival Guide
blackfingers paste

Ultimate Equipment
casting plaster

Blood of the Elements
planar alchemical catalyst
elemental brine

Melee Tactics Toolbox
rockshard canister

Can the body guard feat be clarified? There is some variance on where the PC, attacked target, and defender need to be. -probably not the biggest need here, but it would be nice for me:)

Someone hand Nefreet a cookie

When I get off work today I'll probably have another 18 posts to make...

...and you'll get another cookie!

I'm a little confused about this document. Why aren't these clarifications just being added to the FAQ? Why the need for a separate document?

On the other hand, any additional clarifications from Paizo about common questions is a good thing, so please keep them coming.

And I'll add a "me too" to hoping for a clarification on whether a scroll can be used with a spring loaded wrist sheathe to pull it out as a swift action.

I'm not against asking for new clarifications, but can we please for the love of Aroden focus on a compilation of previous rulings that are currently buried somewhere in the morass of (un)dead threads?

Right now, if something's been ruled upon, you might not even know it because it's hidden in a 1000-page thread full of angry people. "I want to use X. Is there a ruling about X that I should know?" is a question that should be able to answer with certainty.

For that matter, the ruling may only make sense in the context of a long thread. But it really isn't practical to carry a big stack of printed threads to a gaming session.

For another, some of those rulings are probably obsolete, overtaken by PDT errata or some other rules change that removes the original problem.

Others are the answer to recurring questions, like pregen crediting, that pop up every other month, but have ostensibly been sufficiently answered already.

I'm a little confused about this document. Why aren't these clarifications just being added to the FAQ? Why the need for a separate document?

On the other hand, any additional clarifications from Paizo about common questions is a good thing, so please keep them coming.

And I'll add a "me too" to hoping for a clarification on whether a scroll can be used with a spring loaded wrist sheathe to pull it out as a swift action.

Well, they can't go in the FAQ for the books they come from, because they aren't general dev clarifications, they are just GM rulings.

And have you seen how massive the PFS FAQ is? I would rather see item specific lines removed from the PFS FAQ and added to this document, rather than the other way around.

(The current PFS FAQ has 78 items, this would grow that to 126 items, you would lose the sorting by source, and I expect that when all the other house rules are collected, you would be looking at at least doubling the current FAQ.)

And have you seen how massive the PFS FAQ is?

IMO it isn't very large at all. It also hasn't been updated in a year and a half.

I would prefer one massive FAQ that you can Ctrl-F your way through rather than guessing which FAQ explains the interaction between items from multiple books.

You can still use chapter headings to group content, but this would make it comprehensively searchable.

EDIT: I don't see the need for a separate FAQ and document; IMO they should be the same thing, just different medium. Document is nice if you need a particular item, so you can print that page with watermark and everything.

Andrew L Klein wrote:

Got excited when I saw the Coin Shot spell from Heroes of the Streets, thinking I missed it getting legalized since it was in a PFS document. Sadly it is still not allowed...

Blog wrote:

I’m sure some of you will notice a couple of rules elements mentioned in the Clarifications Document that are not currently legal in Pathfinder Society. These elements will appear in our next update of Additional Resources.

How did I miss that?

YEEEESSSSS!!! Bard here I come!

I know it says clarification on the document, but as some of the text is change. Can I count this an Errata due to rebuild/change from the PFS guide volume 7?

Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.

Woran wrote:

Someone hand Nefreet a cookie

When I get off work today I'll probably have another 18 posts to make...

That will upgrade you to belgian waffle status.

Although I'm happy with clarifications, I too am bothered a bit by the trend of nerfing support characters like bards and life oracles.

Lyric was saving up for the Boots of Earth. I'm relieved she hadn't purchased them yet. I would be in favor of allowing full refunds for this item!

Be the change you believe in. If you know of a post/clarification from Campaign Leadership that's buried in a thousand post thread, then link to it here so that it can be included in this document.

I'm not against asking for new clarifications, but can we please for the love of Aroden focus on a compilation of previous rulings that are currently buried somewhere in the morass of (un)dead threads?

The undersized mount feat still needs a kick to work for paladins and cavaliers in PFS. It makes a human with a riding dog legal by the rules but not by PFSs ability to select a mount.

BNW, animal companions can retrain now. John Compton made a new ruling. Oh, where is it?

Found it!

Sorry BNW, no cookies for you. Chocolate is bad for you and we dont want you to die :(

Why not offer an oatmeal cookie instead? Or would that go against PFS rules on reskins?

In the next update, would it be possible to add craft DCs for these alchemical items?

Pathfinder Society Field Guide
air crystals
ghost salt weapon blanch

Qadira: Gateway to the East
healy myrrh

Advanced Race Guide
stink ink (arcane)

Rival Guide
blackfingers paste

Ultimate Equipment
casting plaster

Blood of the Elements
planar alchemical catalyst
elemental brine

Melee Tactics Toolbox
rockshard canister

If I could add to this (wonderful) list, I would like a Craft DC for:

Why not offer an oatmeal cookie instead? Or would that go against PFS rules on reskins?

We already let him get away with his choice of name, rather than just "Dire Wolf".

BNW, animal companions can retrain now. John Compton made a new ruling. Oh, where is it?

Found it!

I don't see that as final decision yet.

Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not against asking for new clarifications, but can we please for the love of Aroden focus on a compilation of previous rulings that are currently buried somewhere in the morass of (un)dead threads?

** spoiler omitted **...

Unchained monks can't take archetypes, but other unchained classes can. This one should really be in the Additional Resources listing for Pathfinder Unchained.

I know I saw a reply to the question, but can't find it. Can Ioun Spite Bracers steal flawed/cracked ioun stones?

Jeff Merola wrote:

Steven Lau wrote:

Wow significant raise in the price of ammunition of Gunslingers...

No? That's the rule that it's always been (listed price in this case is talking about the feat's listed discount, not normal purchase price). It's literally just copied and pasted from the AR page.

You are right, I read Listed price as Book price... Doh!

I already have a local player complaining about the loss of the discount.

*sigh* Looks like we need a clarification to the clarification...

Tarma wrote:

Great idea! This could really clear up a lot of issues.

For future editions, would it be possible to clear up the old wrist sheaths and scrolls debate?

As long as the player who wants to put a scroll in a wrist sheath understands how they function together (i.e. has read the Physical Description of what a Scroll is as per the CRB and how Wrist Sheathes work as per AA), there should be no debate, IMHO.

(That said, expect table variation and potentially a future ruling)

Well, if there's a substantial amount of table variation expected, it sounds like a prime candidate for a section in this document :)

Steven Lau wrote:

Jeff Merola wrote:

Steven Lau wrote:

Wow significant raise in the price of ammunition of Gunslingers...

No? That's the rule that it's always been (listed price in this case is talking about the feat's listed discount, not normal purchase price). It's literally just copied and pasted from the AR page.

You are right, I read Listed price as Book price... Doh!

I already have a local player complaining about the loss of the discount.

*sigh* Looks like we need a clarification to the clarification...

Just point out to them that the rule is literally a copy and paste from the AR page, and nothing's actually changed.

There are so many suggestions to review here that I may be repeating something already posted, but I'd love to see more detailed rules on how an individual may control their Summoned Monster #.

RAW states that you must be able to 'communicate' with the creature to give it commands, but the word 'communicate' is not really defined, which leads to table variation and teeth grinding. For example, speaking to it through an interpreter? Using bluff to pantomime? Holding up flash cards with stock commands on them written in the creature's language?

Also - how about exploring the rules (and explicit costs) of inappropriately sized weapons? I believe current RAW allows for weapons of size small through large - in PFS, the lack of RAW regarding weapons of other sizes causes most GMs to say that they are not legal items to purchase. While a gargantuan flail has limited functionality - I think someone should still be able to buy one, being that it's just a big mundane weapon.

Will there be a easy to find link to the Campaign Clarifications Document? Like the additional resources link or have it appear in the downloads section?

Blog posts can become hard to find or backtrace after some time.

Working on adding a link next to the Additional Resources so that you can find both documents easily!

Be the change you believe in. If you know of a post/clarification from Campaign Leadership that's buried in a thousand post thread, then link to it here so that it can be included in this document.

That's a great idea. While I sorted through developer clarifications in product threads, the post history of campaign leadership is daunting, to say the least.

NO COUP DE GRACING the pcs unless the scenario calls for it

This one needs to reference Mike's subsequent post in the same thread which makes it clear that this is a rather more nuanced position.

You can find it HERE

Nefreet wrote:

Be the change you believe in. If you know of a post/clarification from Campaign Leadership that's buried in a thousand post thread, then link to it here so that it can be included in this document.

That's a great idea. While I sorted through developer clarifications in product threads, the post history of campaign leadership is daunting, to say the least.

Maybe even the various "Ask so-and-so" threads, since they give wonderful insights on how something was designed to work.

Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.

You may sell back boots of the earth for a full refund.

Protoman wrote:

Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.

You may sell back boots of the earth for a full refund.

I don't normally ask why something was banned, errata'd, or nerfed, but why did the team feel this item needed attention? I've only ever seen Life Oracles with it.