|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The rules you're talking about are from the "New Character" section. Don't apply them to anything other than new characters.
We don't explicitly talk about it for characters that aren't new because the standard rules
Allow for Abstractions. Sometimes the story you imagine can get in the way of playing the game. Despite their aquatic nature, Bunyips can be encountered in the Manor House. Caltrop Bead works against Skeletons, even if they don’t have flesh on their feet. Don’t force the cards to fit your story; let the cards tell you their stories.
Theryon Stormrune wrote:
And let Mike have a Necromancer deck. I know they'd all be wizards or sorcerers or some-such but we'd all know they are really Necros.
In Pathfinder RPG terms, "necromancer" specifically refers to a wizard that specializes in necromancy magic. (Other specialist wizards includes abjurer, conjurer, diviner, enchanter, evoker, illusionist, and transmuter.) If we wanted to have non-wizards who deal with undead magics, we would probably choose a different word than "necromancer."
Lucky Pips wrote:
Are each of our votes agnostic to any other votes we have made, or does each voter add as much data as possible by also ranking items relative to other items you have already voted on? Also wondering, how you ensure voters don't submit logical paradoxes if it recalls your previous votes? Just curious.
I no longer have that information stored in my head, as I haven't had to think about it for a couple years. About all I can tell you is we're using a modified version of the Schulze Method. And the most important thing is the number of voters who prefer A to B or A to C or B to C; whether you personally prefer A to B to C isn't a factor.
Andrew Betts wrote:
We will be adding digital subs later (unfortunately, probably not until we're at least a couple volumes into MM.)
JJ Jordan wrote:
Do the previous upvotes count after each cull? Or do they cull and then start from scratch to see how things shake out? Just curious. I don't think it changes the philosophy much either way.
Our selection algorithm thrives on data—the more the better—and relative rankings of the surviving items were just as valid at the start of the voting period as they are now. So the data is not cleared.
Sorry—Carrion Golem says "You may not play spells that have the Attack trait." And since Sacred Weapon is a spell that has the Attack trait, you can't play it.
However, Wand of Sacred Weapon from Wrath 2 is an item, so even though it also has the Attack trait, you can play it against the Carrion Golem.
Encountering a villain happens in this order (from the handy reference on the back of the rulebook):
• Attempt to temporarily close open locations.
"The villain does not escape" only changes things in that last section:
Check to See Whether the Villain Escapes wrote:
If any locations are not closed, the villain escapes. If you defeated the villain, count the number of open locations, subtract 1, and retrieve that number of random blessings from the box. Shuffle the villain in with those blessings, then deal 1 card to each open location and shuffle those location decks. If the villain is undefeated, do the same thing, but retrieve the blessings from the blessings deck instead of from the box. (Note that if you did not defeat the villain, there is always at least one open location: the one in which it was just encountered.)
And temp-closing *any* location *anytime* you can temp-close always has just one effect: the villain cannot escape there.
Rebel Song wrote:
I can't speak for Tanis's intent, but I can speak for templating. We used to say "draw a random X from the box," but since the FAQ entry I linked defined a drawing from the box as random unless a specific card is named, the template is now simply "draw an X from the box." They should be considered equivalent. If we want you to choose, old template or new, we should say "choose."
Rebel Song wrote:
Unless "the box" in this case is the base box and not the class deck. Which completely negates my entire previous paragraph.
Earning Scenario Rewards (Page 8 of the Guide) wrote:
So as currently worded, that reward is very clearly a random card of the same type from your class deck box.
What is forbidden by Vic's sidebar is, and I quote, "In these cases, the things you do cannot require anyone to do something else for your action to be meaningful—the things you do must directly affect the check."
"Anyone" means "anyone." If we meant "anyone other than you," we'd have said "anyone else."
I don't know if they're going to stick to any sort of order when releasing them once we finish the CRB classes - maybe roughly the order or RPG release?
Nope. There's no huge list going deep into the future. We do them in batches of 3 or 4, and usually, we decide what the next batch is just shortly before the designers are ready to work on them. We factor in obvious things like what we're doing with Adventure Paths and OP (for example, Paladin was the top of the list for new decks because of Wrath) and less obvious things like making sure we space out basic character types (we don't want a bunch of focused spellcasters all in a row, for example). But we also factor in whether or not the designers already have a bunch of ideas sitting around for a particular class, or whether a class might benefit from mechanics that we plan to introduce in a future Adventure Path, or just whether the designers are particularly keen on working up a particular class.
Which is to say, I think we'll keep surprising you.
The rules for locations cards say "The front of each location card has the following features," before the discussion of traits. So traits are only listed on the front, and still apply when the card is flipped over. (Of course, if the location card has *two* fronts, a trait's presence or absence is very much relevant.)
Blog post says "And let's not forget that every demon they defeat (including Vellexia) has a 1 in 6 chance of summoning Shamira." but the rules indicate otherwise. Vellexia is never defeated, if she would be defeated she's evaded instead. That means she never triggers the 1 in 6 chance to summon Shamira. Which is actually correct so I know how to play it when I finally end up getting my AD4?
The blog is incorrect. Removing "(including Vellexia)."
I have removed some posts. Reminder:
Vic Wertz wrote:
Please note that this is not a rules discussion thread. Please keep this thread for updates and commentary about the FAQ itself, not about the gameplay issues that are or are not described in the FAQ. (See the Rules Questions and Gameplay Discussion forum for discussion of those issues.)
It's an advertisement for the Card Creator created by DriveThru, not a promo card for the game created by Paizo. They gave us a bunch to put into store orders, and so we did; it had nothing to do with your subscription (and you'll note it was not listed as an item on your packing slip or in your order history).
Also, we did not promise you will "get every card through your subscription." The subscription listing says "Subscription shipments will also include any promo cards associated with that month's release." To date, we have associated every promo card we've created with a subscription shipment *except for* the Iconic Heroes cards, and we will continue to do so, but it is possible that some future promos will be treated like Iconic Heroes. I will only allow that to happen when I have confidence that subscribers will have the opportunity to get those cards with reasonable ease (as is the case for the Iconic Heroes cards); I won't allow super-rare or geographically limited promos.
So basically, until Lucas's death, there CAN'T be a 1080/24p, 7.1 DTS HD MA Blu-Ray of the ORIGINAL original trilogy (and even then, it will require a deal between 20th Century Fox and Disney).
I can't remark either way regarding the veracity of your general statement... but if you want the ORIGINAL original trilogy, you can't have a 7.1 soundtrack. The closest thing would be the original 70mm 6-track mixes, which had 3 front channels (left, center, right), a single surround channel, and a pair of low-frequency-effects tracks. (In modern terms, they were "4.2" mixes.) You want split surrounds and differentiation between rear and side, that won't happen without somebody making additional creative decisions well outside the scope of the original production.
Sigh. Ok, I've figured out what's happened.
• The first printing (Gamemastery logo, © 2010) had the errors listed above.
• The second printing (Gamemastery logo, © 2012) corrected the Fatigued error but did not correct the Confused error.
• I could not find a copy of the third printing (Pathfinder Cards logo, © 2013) at Paizo, but one of Liz's posts above says that both errors were corrected.
• The fourth printing (Pathfinder Cards logo, © 2015) reverted to the first printing text, meaning the errors are again present on both cards.
The responsible parties have been made aware of the error, but given that we're only a couple months into this printing, this is going to be the status quo for quite some time to come.
Pizza Lord wrote:
The delay isn't about making you take the time to read it—it's about mitigating voting fraud. We don't want people clicking as fast as possible through all the entries until they spot their own (or their friend's, or just their favorite) and voting it up, then repeating. (Or doing the same to repeatedly downvote an entry they dislike, or just to introduce chaos to the voting by randomly voting on as many pages as possible.) Assuming a number of entires in the high hundreds or low thousands, seeing two entries per minute means you have to vote for hours (on average) between seeing the same item twice (of course, random is random, so it's *possible* to see repeats much sooner, but over time, you'll drift to the average).
Since culls result in fewer entries to go through before you're likely to see your target again, the delay actually becomes *more* important to the process as we cull.
I have previously said:
The Pathfinder ACG actually began when Lone Shark brought the game that would become Apocrypha to us, saying (more or less) "We're working on this game that we know isn't quite right for you, but we think we can make a game *like* it for Pathfinder that you will love."
..to which I will add that it was always clear that Lone Shark was going to continue to develop that game. But in no way is it PACG 2.0—PACG and Apocrypha are separate branches on the same family tree.
I have also previously said:
When it comes to competition, I believe that Magic: The Gathering actually benefited quite a bit from the existence of other trading card games. By itself, M:TG was a successful game, but it couldn't be the cornerstone of a genre until there were other TCG/CCGs. This is why we didn't trademark "Adventure Card Game"—I'd love it if, in a few years, there are a handful of ACGs in existence, giving weight to our game.
Robert Jordan wrote:
Vic, from a different view point I agree that C is the winning option for how to handle things. The issue is that the updates aren't just hitting PFS, they're going to the source material instead of a PFS reference document. Some of my players will buy the PDF or a more recent physical copy than the source I have on my shelf. That causes conflict at tables outside of PFS, where it really shouldn't. PFS is it's own strange beast with it's own esoteric rules and adjustments and that is perfectly fine, when it flows out and begins to twist the rest of the game it becomes a problem.
Following that logic, you would prefer we were selling new players the exact same Core Rulebook that we introduced several years ago, complete with all the problems that we've identified and fixed in the years since? I'm not a fan of that plan.
Words like "editions" and "versions" mean different things to different people.
Officially, Call of Cthulhu has had 7 editions, though the rules themselves changed very little between the first 6, so some people would say there have been just 2. Yet others say there have actually been *18*.
When it comes to PACG, where the content gets completely replaced every year, and sections of rule are added, removed, and rewritten, there's really no point in that kind of naming/numbering scheme.
MTG never got a 2.0 update, so who knows...
There was a time when Magic sets had numbered editions. Alpha and Beta were retroactively considered (but not labeled) 1st Edition; Unlimited was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 2nd Edition, Revised was retroactively considered (but not labeled) 3rd Edition, and 4th through 10th Editions were actually labeled as such. (The next 6 editions were named by year, followed by Magic Origins this year, which, had the numbering remained, would be 17th Edition.)