|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Seems fairly clear. If you have the option to rebuild after the deadline it can only be to rebuild out of aasimar/tiefling into something else, but not vice versa. That would include retraining any blood heritages.
Remember folks, we shouldn't have to rule every single possible corner-case. Stick to the spirit of the expectation and you'll be fine.
IMO, the biggest challenge is the player/GMs attitude. Too many players want to argue the minutia of the rules, often taking a lot of table time to do so, and then throw a tantrum or act like a jerk for the remainder of the session if the rule does not go their way. OTOH, I have seen plenty of GMs that immediately jump to a defensive position whenever a player questions their ruling, often dialing-up their attempts to kill the PC to punish the player.
You don't get to order them around anyway. That's not how charm person works. This is not a domination effect. You can make reasonable suggestions that would be inline with their typical attitudes.
As has been said, since you are supposed to be allies and friendly anyway, there should be no reason for this to be an issue. However, it could become a problem if you have an ally who's actions do not align with yours. This is where you need to be careful. Any alignment-required class or a PC with a borderline build could be at offs with you from time to time. In most cases, the other player is going to be really pi$$ed if you try to exert any control of their free will.
Besides, there is no real reason for you to CHOOSE to exercise your charm over your companions just because it is there. Focus on using it to your advantage vs. NPCs and you should be fine.
Also, don't forget you can suppress the gaze if you want to. That might be a good idea generally.
Mark Stratton wrote:
that person should not remain a VC.
I will go further and say that IF* the comments are accurate and represent the actions both the player and the VC intend to do, then both of them should be banned from organized play. I have neither the time nor the patience to deal with people who both know the rules and blatantly intend to cheat.
*in reality, I believe that the player is grandstanding or just having a tantrum because the campaign intends to limit their favorite race option. I also think that the reference to the VC is either, made up, or a gross misrepresentation of what the VC knows and intend to do about it
Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Tales Subscriber
Do you prefer creating your own storylines and canons between your characters and figure out the schematics later? Or do you prefer to research strategies and make characters based on them?
Personally, I fall into what seems to be the "old skool" category in that I build the character's personality, theme, etc. first. I need an inspiration before I create a PC. I will typically write a paragraph to a page (or more) of history or background on a character before I grab my CRB. For me, I need to know how or why a character is what they are. Where did they come from? How have their experiences influenced what they have become. And what are their motivations and goals moving forward.
Then I am comfortable building the statistics that make that character come alive. Sometimes that might mean a non-optimized choice, but even though my character is story-driven, I will try to chose abilities that optimize its role so it can adequately contribute to the party's success.
My preference is to have a character that is really good at a couple of things, good at a few more, and average on most others, with a couple of weaknesses they have to overcome. For me, that gives a character, well, character.
In my experience, this approach is more prevalent in home games where there is more cooperation amongst the players to have a cohesive group with a common story. I see it much less in the environment of organized play where you are an individual thrown in with others for a brief moment in their adventuring career and less able to blend game mechanics. Not to mention, due to time restraints, a character's background is more difficult to bring out.
Persoanlly, I don't care if form follows function or vice versa as long as the player knows what the character can/not do and is prepared to contribute to the overall fun of the game. Regardless of your approach you have a responsibility to not dominate the game such that the other players cannot contribute and you need to be able to carry your weight so not to be a burden on the party.
It has been said ad nauseam, Role-Play is not mutually exclusive from Roll-Play.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
EDIT--one thing I recommend, regardless of your build preferences, is to have a good intro for your character. Much of your time will be spent will players who do not know you or your character. Initially, all they will know is what you tell them. If you describe your character strictly from a statistic perspective, it won't sound alive. Avoid saying things like, "I am [fighter] with an 18 strength and a greatsword." Try to be more descriptive of their appearance, attitude, and demeanor. You can include stat-based material, but try to do it descriptively rather than simply with numbers and mechanics. YMMV.
There are thousands of aasimar and tieflings out there already, why do you care if there are a few more? How does it affect you? Its not like a player suddenly banking a dozen aasimars is gonna make your character or play experience any different than it was last month.
Do I personally think a player should bank a stack of a/t? No, but that kinda feels like accusations of badwrongfun and we need to stop short of that. At this point, there is no harm, no foul. Just let people play as they see fit.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
I think he was referring to the fact that sooo many players used that as a backstory for why they have celestial blood.
Well if they are late upwards of an hour and you are scheduled to be the GM, I would just leave. The GM puts WAAAY to much effort into preparing a game to be disrespected like that. Maybe showing up a few times only to find the game is cancelled because of them will have an impact.
In the meantime, I would discuss this issue with the organizer and or primary GMs. Behavior like this should not be tolerated. Additionally, discussions should be had with the players concerned. If they do not correct their behavior, the organizer should take action up to and including banning them from play until they can adhere to the "don't be a jerk" rule.
If the organizer fails to take action or is in fact one of the culprits, you should consult your regional coordinator (Venture-Officer) for assistance.
If none of that helps to your satisfaction, you might have to seek out another group to game with.
Pirate Rob wrote:
If you've got some extra time, do you have any other examples...
Only in so far as it not being resolved at the table by the GM and the players. In an ideal world, the players and the GM would discuss whatever issue they are having and come to a solution. Sometimes that would just be the GM saying, "that's the way it is. move on."
But, in the real world, not everyone can compromise. In just about every walk of life, there is a hierarchy of leadership which you can escalate appeals. Both players and GMs deserve somewhere to go for arbitration. Brock cannot possibly directly oversee 40,000+ members, so he appointed Venture-Officers to be his buffer. Organize games, answer questions, direct new players, expand into new play-spaces, and yes, arbitrate disputes in your region.
I'm not a search-fu guy, but I know that Brock has said in the past for issues, like PC deaths, to be escalated the Venture-Corps. It may not be specifically called out in the Guide, but IMO, it shouldn't have to be.
And in the end, if you don't like what the VO decides, you can still appeal it to Brock.
Sometimes, I just think we get too bent out of shape over the exactness of the text on the page. Some things should be intuitive. If people would just remember that this is a game and we're all just here to have fun, we wouldn't have nearly the complaints we see.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
In my neck of the PFS woods (Denver), I had heard and was told by VOs and other higher-ups not to do CdGs unless the scenario specificly says so (which I've never seen).
There is certainly some merit to that. Many players feels that a CdG is unfair or (situationally) cheating. Since we are in the business of providing an enjoyable experience, many err of the side of not using them. OTOH, CdG is a legal mechanic within the rules and just as many players will say it is a viable action. Expect table variation.
Pirate Rob wrote:
I'm asking where in the rules do VOs have the authority to retroactively change the result of a table based on disagreeing with a GM's rule call.
Well, technically there is nothing in the rules that grants Brock or any other Paizo employee the ability to make a retroactive change either. This is an intuitive situation. Paizo has empowered the regional coordinators to take actions and perform routine tasks within their region as they are needed. It is a "rule" based on the hierarchy of the society. Just like GMs oversee their table and can make rulings within that environment, Regional Coordinators oversee their area and can make rulings governing said area. If necessary, a ruling can be appealed to Brock as the next level of oversight beyond the Venture-Corps.
At one point a Glabrezu appears. My paladin has never had a chance to fight such an evil opponent. I charge and crit-smite with a x3 weapon. High fives and cheers abound! After a tally, 160'ish damage. Again high-fives! Unfortunately, it was not enough to slay the demon. It retaliates with a full attack including two crits and drops me.
During this exchange, my companions were "hiding" and observing the battle from a nearby building...
** spoiler omitted **
I don't necessarily disagree with your thoughts, but you seem to be making some assumptions about the player's experiences that may not be accurate. It could be (unlikely, but possible) that they've never had to deal with darkness before. Or at least not to the extent that this scenario takes advantage of it. As such, they would not be aware of how much an advantage it can be and how easily it is countered.
It is not uncommon for GMs to "softball" low level scenarios for a variety of reasons. That said, this scenario is not low-level and at least a couple of the PC are clearly not low-level. They should have known better.
In the end, no GM wants to be told the session they ran sucked and they are a jerk (or other badness). It can be a challenge, especially for new(er) GMs.
The most important question is did the players have a good time? If the answer is yes, then you did fine.* Sure dying is part of the game, but at the same time, you are responsible for providing a fun gaming experience. Fudging die rolls is (arguably) a legal tactic used by many GMs.
OTOH, the players stern refusal to retreat in the face of a situation that was clearly in favor of the enemy was not the best idea. Personally, I would have had a hard time not letting a tpk happen. If players insist on pushing forward despite the apparent risks, let the dice resolve the situation.
In general, it can be a challenge balancing the needs of RAW and let the dice decide vs. allowing the players to "win" and be heroic. All you can do is what you feel is right and hope that the players are adult enough to understand that in a game of randomness, sometimes things don't work out in your favor.
*Note: I am not saying that fun trumps rules, but in this case, I see nothing that I would consider cheating
John Compton wrote:
Both Mark and I are running this event, and both of our groups chose (by vote) a different scenario. There aren't any plans at this time to publish the updated scenario, but we'll see how the events go. Part of the fun is trying out a clever idea and seeing if it has any traction.
I am really hoping this goes well and encourages new development on other retired scenarios. I was really disappointed when both of Clinton Boomer's scenarios were retired. I was lucky enough to play/GM before the retirement and had a great time!
When the APG was originally released, there were PFS pregen sheets for the iconics to support the book. When UC was released, the same was done and the APG pregens were removed. It would not surprise me if something similar happens with the ACG. Some or all of the iconics might be released as pregens for PFS in level 1, 4, & 7 versions and the UC pregens could be removed.
It is a two-part calculation. First, determine their APL without the pregen to determine if a specific level pregen is appropriate. Then, add the pregen level and re-calculate to verify you're still in the proper sub-tier.
If the APL is between tiers and either version of the pregen would work, just let the players decide. Re-calculate the APL using both options and make sure the players understand the differences.
One thing to remember is that this rule is not to prove you own the resource, but to make sure the GM, who may not be familiar with that particular item/rule/effect, has access to the original rules source for the item, so she/he can adjudicate it fairly.
True to an extent. It does not mean you can just stand up and scan the room looking for someone who has the necessary book, grab it, and show the relevant text to the GM. That would not meet the requirements, although it would allow the GM to reference the necessary rules.
do your own mustering
THIS!The mustering process is MUCH easier if players group together while they are waiting in line to be seated. Most marshals will ask (or are encouraged to ask) if there are any full tables of players that want to play together and then seat them first. Not only does it move the process along quickly, but it significantly reduces the number of players in their "pool" that have to be grouped by the marshal. Even if only 4-5 players group together it is much easier to find a fill-in player than to try and muster six different players together given the variations in sub-tier, etc.
Mustering yourself while waiting also allows the players to (sort of) build their own party diversity. Do you want a mix of melee/arcane/divine/ranged? Talk amongst yourselves while waiting for the marshal to seat you. In most cases, the marshal does not have the time to tally all the character builds and levels to seat the "best" tables. Their priority is to get players to the event they registered for and that can result in un-optimized class/build mix.
Many of the issues that arise are out of the control of Paizo and PFS HQ. The convention center has some specific rules regarding the use of space, hallways, signage, etc. Many of the ideas that the community banters about are just not allowed.
We will do our best to provide the most user-friendly marshaling process, but no matter what is done, I'm sure there will be a small minority of disappointed attendees. Its just the nature of an event this large. "You cannot please all the people all the time" certainly applies.
As I said before, please remember that everyone working in the PFS room are volunteers who are giving up their opportunity to play to provide you a good experience. Over the course of four days, I expect no matter how well organized, there will be some instances of confusion, chaos, mis-communication, etc. PLEASE remain respectful (both attendees and volunteers). Everyone is just there to have a good time.
Mini poker chips are awesome...I cant wait until we have mini hologram generators where I can just create the NPC on the fly when its needed rather than carrying around a tackle box full of miniatures
Another option is the Bestiary tokens. They are not only easier to transport, but the ones that come in multiples are color-identified around the token number. For example, the skeletons in the Bestiary I box have four different colors. Also, if you use the pfd and print your own, it is very easy to just mark the token with a number (or whatever) to keep them organized.
For the GM's, why not just pre-roll the initiatives of your monsters during prep? It might help your descriptive text at the outset of combat to know when the bad guys are acting with respect to the players.
For players, do you use the initiative order to plan your targets? If you see that monster #1 will be acting before your companion, but monster #2 will be after, do you target monster #1 first? How would your PC know that? Meta-knowledge is a powerful thing.
There are a lot of opportunities for both sides to take advantage of the initiative system. In most cases, especially with low-power minions, I don't think group initiative is as evil-bad as it is portrayed.
Also, I think because Paizo doesn’t allow generics anymore for the specials due to the fiasco a couple of years ago. Last year if you didn’t have an actual ticket, you couldn’t play. I’m sure it will be the same this year, as well.
This is yet to be determined. Despite always being sold out, the specials usually have a small number of players that (for whatever reason) do not attend the event. As such, there may be an option for generic ticket holders to participate. Some of the the logistics for marshaling the events are still being discussed.
The GenCon HQ team is/will be discussing the topic of what to prep (if anything) as a backup, as well as other logistical concerns, over the next few weeks and will provide direction once the parameters are finalized. Until then, please be patient.
Regardless of the venue, it is always a good idea to have The Confirmation prepped. You never know when an opportunity will arise to expose a new group of players to PFSOP. It may/not be the best choice for GenCon, but that is yet to be determined.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Which is exactly why groups should use Warhorn
...some places this just does not happen
Despite being off-topic of the OP, I wanted to comment on this. Why do players feel it is appropriate to disrespect the efforts of the organizer to provide them a good experience? Why do organizers tolerate and passively encourage bad behavior?
If your area has a pre-registration system in place (warhorn, facebook, etc.) then it should be used by everyone. Organizing is a hard job, especially with larger groups or frequent sessions. The registration system is the only way the organizer will know who is coming and what they can/want to play. GMs need to be identified, table count, etc. GM's are a great group, but even the nicest doesn't like to spend hours prepping only to see their table not make. Nor do they like to be blindsided by having to run a table cold either because they planned to play and had to GM do to extra players or having to run something other than what they prepped.
Players wanna play, but they have to respect the efforts of the GM/organizer to do their "job". As an organizer, yes I have turned a few players away. Not noobs mind you. There has been occurrences where a player refused, for whatever reason, to participate in the prereg process. After numerous warnings (and accommodations), I refused to sit them and sent them home. In all but one case, the player began to use the system after that, and in that one case, the player was sooo unreasonable, they were "good" loss to our community.
New players are a special case assuming they are not accompanying an existing player. They should be afforded some leeway until they understand the expectations.
All I'm saying is that everyone has a responsibility to help make the Gameday the best it can be and that doesn't just mean having your butt in a seat like we should treat it as some sort of honor to have you there.
I also use these multi-colored bases from Dapper Devil to keep track of which NPC is which. When I write their names on the combat pad during prep, I'll use matching marker colors.
Thanks for the link. The DD bases look awesome! I've never seen those before, but will certainly obtain some.
Raymond Lambert wrote:
Did you not notice the example of play early in the book versus skeleton on a horse and several stNdard skeleton mentions the Gm rolls one for the big bad and once for hid minions? Kind of hard to blame GMs for following the example.of play
That is CRB p13
Thanks! I knew that example was in there, but couldn't find it.While I agree it could be used as an "official" example of grouped initiative, it could also be dismissed as descriptive (of fluff) text and that the rules on p.179 (the crunch) trump them. YMMV and just goes to demonstrate table variation.
Human Fighter wrote:
I was asking that you clearly admitted that ignoring this initiative rule was indeed not playing by the rules...
I don't think its relevant for people to admit to breaking the rules. Your passion is commendable, but your posts DO feel like pressuring people into admitting they are cheating. That may not be your intent, but that is how it reads. Your posts "feel" like a rant fueled by a recent(?) experience where grouped initiative worked against you.
Have/Do I use grouped initiative? Yes, when the situation warrants/allows it. If it makes anyone feel better to label me a "cheater" then so be it. Every decision I make as a GM is with the intention to maximize player enjoyment.
Clearly, there is a large group on both sides of this topic. In the vast majority of cases, grouping initiative does not have a significant impact on the game. However, there are circumstances where grouped could be a major advantage. Regardless, there is supposed to be a certain level of trust that the GM will make decisions that support fair gameplay and maximize player enjoyment. Remember, that core rules are written with the assumption (and encouragement) that GM's use whatever rules they like and ignore those they don't. Obviously, that is a bit too "free" for organized play, which creates some problematic cases where the rules themselves can be a detriment to play (see the example of 32 mooks).
You have said you don't want this to be an advice thread, but what else are we supposed to do with it? Do you just want people to post a list of anecdotal stories attempting to demonstrate when grouped initiative was/not a success? Do you just want to create a list of self-admitted "cheaters"? Please help us understand your intentions.
Obviously, with generic tickets there is no guarantee that you will get into the event. This is even moreso with the popularity of the PFS Specials. However, since one of our core tenets is cooperation and we strive to be as inclusive as possible, there is a chance.
My advice is that you arrive to the event early (at least 30 minutes). If there is any opportunity for generic ticket holders, it would be on a first-come, fist-serve basis. We may have a designated area for generics to wait. Once all the ticketed players are mustered, any empty seats may be allocated to generic ticket holders.
And just a reminder to those with real tickets...arrive to you event early, at least ten minutes prior to start. If you arrive after the slot start time, you risk forfeiting your seat to a generic player.
Please be responsible and respectful. Mustering/Marshaling is a VERY intensive and chaotic process. We are trying to seat 900+ players in a (relatively) small room, often in 10 minutes or less. Remember that those working for PFS headquarters are doing so FOR YOUR BENEFIT! They are volunteers who gave up the chance to play the game/s they love to help you get to, and play, the game/s you love. BE RESPECTFUL!!!
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
Congratulations Kristen. 5 stars is quite a feat considering you have to deal with Seth not only at conventions and gamedays, but at home as well. To overcome that handicap and achieve the success you have is a testament to your dedication and perseverance.
I hear construction of the women's dorm on five-star island is coming along ahead of schedule. The wet bar is being stocked as we speak and the two-way mirrors in the locker room are being removed. Nice try Baird ;-)
I have an unpopular opinion and one that Seth has picked up on. Based on my interpretation of the RAW*, as Steve quoted, the rules specifically prohibit KILLING another player. It says nothing about hitting, spelling, combat maneuvering, etc. them. Because they repeatedly reference KILLING, I assume it is for a reason.
First, we have to assume by Player vs. Player, they meant Character vs. Character since we are playing a game after all and the former is quite illegal.
There are two rules involved here; the one concerning PvP and the (don't be a) Jerk rule. I do not force players to retract their actions even if they involve friendly collateral damage unless it directly results in a character's death. Players should never have to gain the permission of other players to perform in-game actions. It may be considerate, but short of required. I also do not interpret collateral damage as PvP.
That being said, it is usually fairly clear when a player is being a jerk. There are times when most/all of the actions people have posted above have their place in the game. There is some amount of table variation with this issue. However, if the player is being a jerk, I will address that directly and out of game as it has no place.
There is also a lesson to be learned by some players. Don't play intentionally confrontational PCs, especially if you are doing it just to get the GM or other players attention. Cooperate is a focal point of the campaign (IMO, the most important) and you should be actively doing things to further it. If your PC is such that it will often want to rage-kill NPCs or will be provoked by other characters, please use it in another campaign.
*since sooo many like to shove RAW down my throat as a justification for their actions/opinions, I feel it is only fair I am permitted the same
Thank you for being a mentor, a master GM, and a friend. Your exquisite maps, dedication to storytelling, and player-enabling style has inspired us to push our GM skills to the limit and beyond.
Watching Doug run Mists of Mwangi cold, and without any printed material (completely from memory) at Origins 2010 was awe-inspiring and proof of his awesomeness.
Thank you for showing us the best ways to organize a local/regional convention. Your methodology is the foundation of how most conventions are coordinated. It is always amazing to see the things convention organizers do and think, "Doug did that first." The methods were shared by the lucky few of us who worked for Doug at a con he organized to others who attended our cons or who we had discussions with. Even GenCon has been impacted by the things he pioneered.
Doug, words fall short of the thanks you deserve. Congratulations on 500 and best wishes for 500 more!
It was not intended to be a "put-down" and I probably should have emphasized that the same methods of rules-lawyery analysis applies to both sides of the argument. And I certainly think using words like "dishonest" are significantly stronger than saying something is silly.
With the advent of the FAQ I fail to see how a strict application of plain-English reading applies unless we all want to completely dismiss that the concept of "rules as intended" even exists.
Before the FAQ, it seemed, at least in my experience, that most would not make a change in carrying capacity due to the way it was worded in the CRB. The majority of those people also agreed that it was silly to say a significant reduction/increase in Strength wouldn't impact other related mechanics than the ones listed in the (arguably) non-exhaustive list.
It appears (to many) that the FAQ was meant to clarify the non-exhaustive nature of the original rule and that carrying capacity would be affected. But, that is interpretive. Because they used "bonus" and not "modifier" is probably just an over-sight, but we have no confirmation of that. It certainly seems counter-intuitive that increasing/reducing your Strength score would not have an impact on everything that uses it as a basis for modification. It is even more counter-intuitive (and IMO ridiculous) to think that we would apply a bonus, but ignore a penalty.
After the dust clears, all we can really expect regarding this topic is table variation and hopefully players avoid lengthy arguments with the GM during gameplay.
Folks, let's not get all bent out of shape over the .5 thing. Players have very little choice when it comes to playing up/down anymore. I don't think it hurts anything to grant them the minor boon to choose which way to round X.5. Just don't pre-round to get to X.5 and then round to an APL. Try to remember that its not about trying to kill the PCs, so don't be too quick to push them up. Just have fun!
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
IMO, the intent is that damage often occurs during the heat of combat and rather spend a lot of time reworking all the PC's stats, they provided us with a quick play rule.
Drain and/or permanent ability changes are generally occur during less intensive times of the game where a player has time to make appropriate adjustments.
That being said, any significant (and sometimes minor) change in strength whether bonus or penalty should impact encumbrance, lifting, breaking things, etc. To argue the nuances of the words in some rules-lawyery way to say a penalty/bonus to Strength wouldn't affect carrying capacity, but most/all other aspects is just silly. Again IMHO.
Despite the FAQ, there still appears to be some ambiguity to the specifics of the rules, so expect some table variation.
I have seen some re-rolls being granted at local cons for various reasons. Buying a convention t-shirt, buying a goblin plushie from a vendor at the con, donating to whatever charity is being supported by the convention, etc. are all things I've noticed.
These types of things are by no means "official," but not a problem, IMO, as it supports the convention or a good cause. A table GM is, of course, within their right to deny said re-roll. Technically, I have never found anything in the rules that would preclude a GM from granting a re-roll (or a circumstance bonus/penalty) using whatever logic they deem appropriate.
Of course, sometimes players are confused by what is official and what was table variation. It can make for some uncomfortable situations at future games. Organizers/GMs have a responsibility to notify a player whenever they are granting an unofficial re-roll.
Congratulations Andrew!!! I am excited for the Pittsburgh area to get such a passionate organizer and an all-around great person.
For those who don't know him, Andrew is a fantastic GM and hilarious player. If you get the opportunity to game at his table, either as a fellow player or GM, jump at it. You will not be disappointed!
Of course there will be a few problems here and there, but that wont make it a full time job
If the forums, especially the rules forum, are any indication, it might be more than a full-time job. Ignoring the massive number of requests for clarification (warranted or not), whoever takes on the responsibility of answering has to thoroughly research the impact of their response. We see time and time again how a simple response can have enormous ripples. And with our preponderance to point out every little flaw or inconsistency in the rules, I don't blame them taking their time to answer, or sometimes not at all.
To be honest i think its more important to have working content then new, cool content. You could have 100 classes but if 90 are broken, what use are the 90?
True, but I hardly think the extremely rare rules issue is represented by a 90% failure rate. I'm sure your number was just for effect, but the occurrence of problematic rules are just not that prevalent. Sometimes, it just seems that way due to the nature of the forums.
It would only be a full time job if the initial printing of content was very badly done. For example lets say you release a new class with tons of vaugely, badly written class abilities. Well of course you are going to get swamped by FAQ requests, thats a simple result of releasing something broken.
That's kind of simplistic. With the HUGE amount of content available, its a bit unreasonable to think there won't be at least a few rules inconsistencies or ambiguities. Not to mention the ones that are intentionally left with a modicum of "gray" area.
Come on now. Even you have to admit that's a bit too "the sky's falling." I think
Edit : I just found the ask james jacobs thread after some searching. Turns out its in the off-topic section...not exactly the place you would expect to go for official paizo responses to game issues.
To be fair, he is more of the "lore" designer than the mechanics designer. While his opinions on the rules may not technically be binding, at least he responds and gives us some insight into what the designers are thinking.
Too often we complain that they are not answering our questions and then when they do, we pick it apart, telling them how wrong they are. In fairness, I'm sure if that happened to you repeatedly, eventually you would limit your responses or stop answering at all. They can't please everyone, every time and considering Pathfinder's position as the #1 RPG, I think the model is working.