Let's Be Clear

I'm wondering if, rather than this thread being the place where all rules concerns are posted, there might be a more preferred process for addressing and discussing specific issues. Similar to how the Additional Resources thread was separated into one thread for discussing errors in the document itself and other threads for discussing specific items on the list. Right now it feels like this thread is a giant list of everything that's confusing about Pathfinder, and I'm not sure if that's the best way to get any specific thing addressed. Really, I don't think the process for requesting a rule be reviewed should be that much different than the process now for requesting something be made legal or illegal. Start (or revive) a thread for the specific issue for leadership to review. Many here have linked to the existing threads, and that's good.

I also think paying attention to what campaign leadership has said so far and targeting items that are more likely to get addressed would be wise. We've been told they don't want to address large overarching rules issues. We've been told that they are mainly focused on softcover books that are unlikely to get an errata or FAQ otherwise. And we've been told that many of the issues were already unofficially clarified by the author. So if there are other things like that out there, bringing them to the campaign's attention would be good.

One item that's been mentioned, which I think is a great example, is what's allowed in a spring-loaded wrist sheath. While the Adventurer's Armory did receive an errata, it's unlikely that it will ever receive a second one. It's also an issue with very strong opinions on both sides. And, it can affect whether or not a character lives or dies due to scrolls of Breath of Life, so a different interpretation can lead to conflict or hard feelings at the table. A clarification specific to PFS would go a long way to avoiding that situation.

HERE is the most recent PFS thread I could find (likely linked to earlier as well). It contains some excellent discussion on the topic and on other issues surrounding the item (like whether using it provokes or not). It also contains references to clarifications/interpretations by James Jacobs and Mark Seifter for some of those issues.

I am not saying that's the most pressing issue, nor am I advocating (in this message anyway) a particular interpretation of that issue. I just think it is a good example of the type of issue I believe that the clarifications document should/is meant to address. I might be mistaken, and there might be something I missed, but that's my take.

Note: Please take any discussion about how the item actually works over to that thread, so as not to clog this one up further with discussion about the specific workings of a rule. I'd rather this post spark conversation about the process for getting things addressed in the clarifications document.

I think most of us are on board with your ideas. We've been linking to relevant discussions and have (mostly) avoided discussing them individually in this thread.

In my mind, every one of these links is being discussed over in the VO forums (another reason for creating a separate forum). I don't think necroing those threads will work very well, since the discussions there have already been hashed out.

What we need now is someone (Campaign Leadership) to make a decision on which side of the arguments they want to go with. The arguments themselves have already been had.

At least by linking to everything in this one thread those discussions are more grouped together than they have been in the past. It helps limit the amount of searching that's required.

Completely in agreement with DM Beckett's perspective. I've been pretty frustrated with the changes happening recently in PFS and the last thing I would want to see is people with stars doing more than they already do. At some point Paizo decided that high star GMs know the game any better than anyone else and it just isn't true. 5 star GMs are organizers of the campaign not game developers.

Librain wrote:

I'd like to know: can you carry a loaded crossbow around with you through a dungeon?

Depends. Are you are asking if you can carry an equipped, loaded crossbow around? I've never heard anyone say no. I don't understand how you could rule no. However, if you are asking if you can carry a stored, loaded crossbow, most in my experience say no. There is nothing to hold the bolt in place while the crossbow is stored. So, typically you will need a move action to equip (draw) the crossbow, and another move action to load it, then a standard action to fire it.

It was a bit far back in the thread and not entirely relevant, but on a good crossbow the Spoon will keep the bolt in place while the crossbow is stored. It's still a terrible idea to keep it loaded when you're not actively wielding it - both for safety and a maintenance reasons - but it's possible.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Librain wrote:

I'd like to know: can you carry a loaded crossbow around with you through a dungeon?

Depends. Are you are asking if you can carry an equipped, loaded crossbow around? I've never heard anyone say no. I don't understand how you could rule no. However, if you are asking if you can carry a stored, loaded crossbow, most in my experience say no. There is nothing to hold the bolt in place while the crossbow is stored. So, typically you will need a move action to equip (draw) the crossbow, and another move action to load it, then a standard action to fire it.

It was a bit far back in the thread and not entirely relevant, but on a good crossbow the Spoon will keep the bolt in place while the crossbow is stored. It's still a terrible idea to keep it loaded when you're not actively wielding it - both for safety and a maintenance reasons - but it's possible.

Things I did not know! Thanks.

Nefreet: I guess I'm just wondering if, like with the Additional Resources document, campaign leadership has a preferred method to use for this document. If that's post everything in this thread, that's fine.

I'm also pointing out that from what I've seen the majority of the issues posted so far, while they are things that could use clarification, seem to fall outside the realm of what we've been told they are looking to address. Core Rulebook issues and things like that. Which for a little while turned the thread into all the things everyone thinks are wrong with Pathfinder. I'm not sure that's a productive way to actually get anything addressed. But that kind of thing has died down since the initial announcement, so maybe it's a non-issue.

So I'll just put the question out there to John, Tonya, and Linda. If we would like to see something addressed in the clarification document, how should we go about alerting you to it and where would you like the discussion to take place?

5 star GMs are organizers of the campaign not game developers.

Absolutely agree. I have a LOT of personal biases.

More relevant to the thread - Do firearms count as metal or wood?

Ah, nice! As my main posting account is a witchwolf (she's not PFS) but I only have Blood of the Moon, it's nice to see that the limits on their shapeshifting has been removed! :D

EDIT: I also understand this isn't an errata document, but as a lot of others said, some of this very much is, like the Blood of the Moon thing is a heads up that it's been changed in the Inner Sea Races book.

Posting as this character, since she's my PFS Half-Elf (though not legal yet as of this posting, as I do not own one of the books, so until I do, she's in the wings)...

What about this:

Inspire Imitation
Source Heroes of the Streets pg. 8
Whenever a half-elf succeeds at a skill check, she can inspire imitators as a swift action. Any ally within 30 feet who witnesses the successful check and attempts the same check within the next minute gains a +2 bonus on the check as if from the aid another action. This racial trait replaces skilled.

As far as I can tell, it's a legal choice for Pathfinder Society and yet... Half-Elves do not have "skilled" in the first place. In my home games I say it replaces adaptability, but if I come to a PFS table with that trait... what is the GM going to say? It's a legal trait that actually isn't because nobody can actually take it.

I can't think of the number of times I've heard something along the lines of "Well, I don't care <*>, at my table _______"

* What the guide says / what the rules are / what the actual ruling has been / etc. . .

A great deal of the time I see 5 Star GM's push to get something banned or changed, it seems that their is a personal motivation involved, or it...

Yeah unfortunately it is all to easy for GMs with a lot of experience, to fall into this trap. Which is an excellent reason to correct them whenever they are wrong... ideally by showing them the relevant FAQ/rules text....

Having those stars shows that you have invested a lot of time and work into the campaign, and I am sure that we are all very grateful for that, but it is unfortunately not a really a seal of quality.

In theory you could run a almost everything in campaign mode for your regular private gaming group, and then offer a couple of specials... so while it is likely to be rare, you could be a 5 star GM without any or almost no public games (and thus had no contact to other GMs/players who challenge you, when you make mistakes).

So if i'm getting the idea correctly

1) PFS directly related stuff no problem

2) Soft cover books: easy/obvious patches

3) Hardcover books/ basic core rules not likely

Ragoz wrote:

5 star GMs are organizers of the campaign not game developers.

Absolutely agree. I have a LOT of personal biases.

We all have, I try not to have it affect my work as VO/GM, but I tend to warn players that some options aren't exactly thrilling me. Or in other words I advise them not to make characters that potentially cause trouble at the table.

So if i'm getting the idea correctly

1) PFS directly related stuff no problem

2) Soft cover books: easy/obvious patches

3) Hardcover books/ basic core rules not likely

4) Interactions between several sources... would be lovely.

Here's me hoping for something regarding wayang spell hunter (from a softcover book) and magical lineage.

So if i'm getting the idea correctly

1) PFS directly related stuff no problem

2) Soft cover books: easy/obvious patches

3) Hardcover books/ basic core rules not likely

That's my impression. And for number 2, if the author or a designer happens to have weighed in about the intention, that would seem to improve the chances.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So if i'm getting the idea correctly

1) PFS directly related stuff no problem

2) Soft cover books: easy/obvious patches

3) Hardcover books/ basic core rules not likely

4) Interactions between several sources... would be lovely.

Here's me hoping for something regarding wayang spell hunter (from a softcover book) and magical lineage.

What kind of something are you looking for? Is there an interaction there that I am not seeing? Both are legal, they are different types of traits, and I don't see any reason they won't play well together, other than, nominally, making metamagic a bit cheap, but no way cheaper than using a metamagic rod, which reduces the metamagic cost to 0 levels, including for things which, normally, take way more.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So if i'm getting the idea correctly

1) PFS directly related stuff no problem

2) Soft cover books: easy/obvious patches

3) Hardcover books/ basic core rules not likely

4) Interactions between several sources... would be lovely.

Here's me hoping for something regarding wayang spell hunter (from a softcover book) and magical lineage.

What kind of something are you looking for? Is there an interaction there that I am not seeing? Both are legal, they are different types of traits, and I don't see any reason they won't play well together, other than, nominally, making metamagic a bit cheap, but no way cheaper than using a metamagic rod, which reduces the metamagic cost to 0 levels, including for things which, normally, take way more.

You could argue, that both traits do the same thing, and thus they don't stack. Unfortunately this particular effect is difficult to phrase as a trait bonus.

Wayang spell hunter and another magic trait (like magical knack) or even spell hunter and magical lineage seems fair game, but stacking them both on the same spell can be quite problematic (of course dazing spell is a major offender here).

kinevon wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So if i'm getting the idea correctly

1) PFS directly related stuff no problem

2) Soft cover books: easy/obvious patches

3) Hardcover books/ basic core rules not likely

4) Interactions between several sources... would be lovely.

Here's me hoping for something regarding wayang spell hunter (from a softcover book) and magical lineage.

What kind of something are you looking for? Is there an interaction there that I am not seeing? Both are legal, they are different types of traits, and I don't see any reason they won't play well together, other than, nominally, making metamagic a bit cheap, but no way cheaper than using a metamagic rod, which reduces the metamagic cost to 0 levels, including for things which, normally, take way more.

You could argue, that both traits do the same thing, and thus they don't stack. Unfortunately this particular effect is difficult to phrase as a trait bonus.

Wayang spell hunter and another magic trait (like magical knack) or even spell hunter and magical lineage seems fair game, but stacking them both on the same spell can be quite problematic (of course dazing spell is a major offender here).

I can understand why you wouldn't want them to stack, but I don't see anything in either of them that would prevent it. It isn't a typed bonus, or a typed modification of any sort, so untyped bonuses from different sources would apply.

Unfortunately, since it can be purchased as a rod, which appears to be legal for PFS, the only difference is the number of times you can use it, which is still limited by the number of spell slots, even if it is only one level higher, instead of three, from the traits.

I think Sebastian is referring to crafting a PFS houserule (via this document) to make it so they don't "stack".

If he's not, then this discussion belongs in one of the myriad threads over in the Rules Forum asking if they work together or not (they do, btw).

I think Sebastian is referring to crafting a PFS houserule (via this document) to make it so they don't "stack".

If he's not, then this discussion belongs in one of the myriad threads over in the Rules Forum asking if they work together or not (they do, btw).

It can be argued about, and frankly this is not the place, but it is one of those issues, wheres we are extremely unlikely to get a FAQ.

EDIT: The argument about stacking boils down to semantics, and without the chance for an FAQ it will likely not be resolved through the regular channels. Call it a pet peeve of mine.

EDIT2: Did some forum research and a certain Tengu seems to be in all of those threads ^^

Did some forum research and a certain Tengu seems to be in all of those threads ^^

12,660 posts in 1,263 days equals pretty much 10 posts/day.

I gotta put 'em somewhere =P

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Did some forum research and a certain Tengu seems to be in all of those threads ^^

12,660 posts in 1,263 days equals pretty much 10 posts/day.

I gotta put 'em somewhere =P

If I ever find out, that you are "just" a 4th avatar of TOZ..... I will be very disappointed in you Steven. ^^

---

But yeah, that's a lot, and I though I had a too many posts here...

He has way more than 4, Lol.

TriOmegaCupcake is my favorite. I just want to eat him up.

I've met both Nefreet and TOZ (though, I admit, not at the same time ...), so I think you can set your mind at rest on that point.

Vast difference between a house rule and a house clarification. Calling something a house rule is saying that the rules don't work that way, and is kind of a backhanded insult to someone that thinks it does work that way

Do alignment violation warnings that the DM has to issue also apply to faith violation issues?

(I'd say yes, for the exact same reasons. People don't agree on what lawful good is, and they don't always agree on what honoring nature means or WWCCD (what would Cayden Cailean Drink) )

What happens when the player doesn't know their gods

Do alignment violation warnings that the DM has to issue also apply to faith violation issues?

(I'd say yes, for the exact same reasons. People don't agree on what lawful good is, and they don't always agree on what honoring nature means or WWCCD (what would Cayden Cailean Drink) )

What happens when the player doesn't know their gods

Absolutely. Remember the thread a while back from someone whose GM made him get an atonement, because the GM didn't know the god well enough and didn't give the guy a warning, even though the guy asked the GM's opinion on the issue before proceeding?

Do alignment violation warnings that the DM has to issue also apply to faith violation issues?

(I'd say yes, for the exact same reasons. People don't agree on what lawful good is, and they don't always agree on what honoring nature means or WWCCD (what would Cayden Cailean Drink) )

And suddenly I'm seeing "Tastes Great!" vs. "Less Filling!" schism derailing an entire table.

My idea isn't for 5-Star GMs to call the shots or make decisions, though.

It's a filter. We describe what we're doing already. Campaign Leadership decides what fits.

But that's exactly what your proposal would lead to. If a group (any group) controls what information is worthy of being looked at, they in all but name control what gets changed or ruled upon, and that is going to be heavily dictated by their own preferences and desires. Perhaps not universally, but enough.

It's also the exact opposite of the point of the blog, which was to open this up as a public forum, as opposed to the already existing VO and 5 Star hidden forums.

At some point Paizo decided that high star GMs know the game any better than anyone else and it just isn't true. 5 star GMs are organizers of the campaign not game developers.

I just want to point out that's not exactly what I said. Attaining 4 or 5 Stars, or even a Venture Officer title is a pretty big deal and it is something in my opinion that's worthy of some respect. And you are correct that some individuals could and do cheat the system, per se, by running a few scenarios (or modules/APs) a lot or by running for a "home group", BUT, that's not at all a bad thing or really "cheating" as PFS is designed to both account for and allow that.

And while those individuals may not get some of the same experience or face other potential errors, they instead face other potential errors and get different experiences, and that's something that PFS needs in order to survive, grow, and improve.

TOZ wrote:

Ragoz wrote:

5 star GMs are organizers of the campaign not game developers.

Absolutely agree. I have a LOT of personal biases.

We all have, I try not to have it affect my work as VO/GM, but I tend to warn players that some options aren't exactly thrilling me. Or in other words I advise them not to make characters that potentially cause trouble at the table.

Yeah, this character is a Bladebound/Kensai Magus who uses a whip. Perfectly legal. However, when designing her some random guy on the Fans of d20pfsrd page said "That wouldn't fly at my table." and when I said she was for PFS, she's legal he said he was a PFS GM and it still wouldn't fly at his table.

When I told a friend the story, he had just been to a convention and seen the GM at the table next to his kicked out of the convention for refusing to budge on a non-PFS ruling (apparently Paizo and/or the convention had paid for his convention ticket? So, no GMing, no access? He wasn't 100% sure what was going on, as they mostly tried to ignore it and pay attention to their own game but it was hard not to see it happening.)

On one hand, I think one shouldn't play something the GM obviously has a problem with, on the other hand, why should one be unable to play a perfectly legal character because a GM takes a too literal reading of fluff text ("doesn't matter what the rules say, a black blade must be an actual blade")

On one hand, I think one shouldn't play something the GM obviously has a problem with, on the other hand, why should one be unable to play a perfectly legal character because a GM takes a too literal reading of fluff text ("doesn't matter what the rules say, a black blade must be an actual blade")

While I agree the character is legal in this case, that line of argument often gets used to try to allow a lot of things that are questionable if not outright against the rules. (pummeling strike with a greatsword comes to mind). Sometimes its fluff, sometimes its not.

Or the crowd that argues "Martial Weapon Proficiency" doesn't actually make you proficient with your selected weapon.

Yeah, this character is a Bladebound/Kensai Magus who uses a whip. Perfectly legal. However, when designing her some random guy on the Fans of d20pfsrd page said "That wouldn't fly at my table." and when I said she was for PFS, she's legal he said he was a PFS GM and it still wouldn't fly at his table.

When I told a friend the story, he had just been to a convention and seen the GM at the table next to his kicked out of the convention for refusing to budge on a non-PFS ruling (apparently Paizo and/or the convention had paid for his convention ticket? So, no GMing, no access? He wasn't 100% sure what was going on, as they mostly tried to ignore it and pay attention to their own game but it was hard not to see it happening.)

You know, I hear a lot of stories about stuff like that on the internet. I've played or GMed over 200 tables of PFS in 4 states, more than 20 conventions, various game stores, a couple of PbP games, etc, but I've never seen that kind of thing happen at an actual table.

Sure, there are occasional rule debates, but always on minor stuff. And usually, the result is "let's just play it like this for now and look it up later", to keep the game moving along. I've just never seen the whole "your PC isn't allowed at my table" thing.

The saddest part is that I routinely see posts from people here, about how they're afraid to try PFS because they see these debates on the forums and think that's what PFS is really like.

^ 99.9% this.

It's extremely rare. IME, it's usually an inexperienced GM that makes a call like that, and they're usually the one that learns from the experience.

The VC we had in our area two VCs ago unfortunately was like that. But the moral of that story wasn't that GMs like him exist; it was that GMs like him don't exist for long.

Or the crowd that argues "Martial Weapon Proficiency" doesn't actually make you proficient with your selected weapon.

wait, what?

Nefreet wrote:

Or the crowd that argues "Martial Weapon Proficiency" doesn't actually make you proficient with your selected weapon.

wait, what?

Go open up your CRB and take a look at the martial weapon proficiency feat.

While a absurd conclusion, I agree that's what a technical reading of the rules gives you.

Fortunately we aren't supposed to read the CRB like a technical manual.

Fortunately we aren't supposed to read the CRB like a technical manual.

Which is good, because it certainly wasn't written like one.

RAW is law. There is only RAW. You will obey the raw. Your donkey will be overlayed with a layer of plastic

Since it seems to keep cropping up, Let apsu grant spells already

Kinda like how Divine Favor does nothing at levels 1 and 2, but clerics, oracles, and warpriests can still cast it for no benefit? Actually, I think that one got fixed with a CRB errata along the way to clarify it.

RAW is law. There is only RAW. You will obey the raw. Your donkey will be overlayed with a layer of plastic

Finally someone is talking sense here.

Kinda like how Divine Favor does nothing at levels 1 and 2, but clerics, oracles, and warpriests can still cast it for no benefit? Actually, I think that one got fixed with a CRB errata along the way to clarify it.

it has a (minimum +1) it's just that it doesn't upgrade until lv6.

Fromper wrote:

Kinda like how Divine Favor does nothing at levels 1 and 2, but clerics, oracles, and warpriests can still cast it for no benefit? Actually, I think that one got fixed with a CRB errata along the way to clarify it.

it has a (minimum +1) it's just that it doesn't upgrade until lv6.

Yeah, I see that now, but I don't know if it always said that. I just know someone tried to convince me that at levels 1 and 2, it was +0.

RAW is law. There is only RAW. You will obey the raw. Your donkey will be overlayed with a layer of plastic

There Is No One True RAW

Since it seems to keep cropping up, Let apsu grant spells already

I am sorry, what?

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Since it seems to keep cropping up, Let apsu grant spells already

I am sorry, what?

There's a line in one of the books about Apsu not granting spells to clerics. It's implied-contradicted by everything else.

I suspect the Wolf is joking around. ^_^

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Since it seems to keep cropping up, Let apsu grant spells already

I am sorry, what?

There's a line in one of the books about Apsu not granting spells to clerics. It's implied-contradicted by everything else.

I suspect the Wolf is joking around. ^_^

It came up in the paladin thread. So I think BNW came over here to get it laid to rest.

I believe that the two worshipers of Aspu I have would get the spells anyway, being an Inquisiter and a Bard. Sort of strange, that line being in there.

It's been since decided to be a mistake.

While we're on the subject of his scaliness, different sources have different domains for him.

His domains granted area Artifice, Good, Law, Scalykind, and Travel. Artifice was the old 3.5 version.

Another similar thing I've seen questioned is whether Torag has human clerics or not.