|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Why does it even matter? So it didn't exist before. The devs thought it did, but it didn't. Now it does. Whether it did or not before is irrelevant now because its validity is not contingent on it being a fully in place rule in the past; it wasn't, so they made it one now. So now it's the rule.
Are you trying to tell me "the rule is only valid if it was previously valid"? Because that is paradoxical.
Look, I'm not debating that Paizo can make Pathfinder rules, or that they want to remove the martial weapon proficiencies from the Aasimar, Tiefling, etc. I don't have any issue with it one way or the other.
The point is that the way they are handling the rules is becoming increasingly slipshod. And that's a real issue that transcends this minor one and makes it into something very troubling.
We can all agree that they dropped the ball on their change to Aasimars and the like in regards to weapon proficiencies. They even agree upon that. The ARG demonstrates what they want the rule to be, or thought that it already was. However they don't seem to want to be bothered to actually make it the case when they knew exactly what is causing the confusion. This is troubling because they are the people that can make those changes to improve our game.
The ARG does not say 'hey here's a change', rather it says 'this is the way it's been'. Except that's just not true.
You've quoted the ARG, but done so incorrectly and misrepresented what it says. You're missing the distinction there.