I’m not even sure where to put this. I am guessing this forum as the direct question is asking in regards to contact info towards a developer/developers for Paizo.
I know you can contact customer service directly via phone or email related to customer service issues. But I would like to be able to email Paizo in regards to rules questions, if at all possible.
I can understand the developers are busy and would be swamped if they received hundreds of rules questions to answer, but the one I have is a Yes or No answer.
And before you ask, what I am asking for the debate has been brought up more than once on the Rules Forum and each time has turned into an argument on which is correct by RAW. So there has never been a resolution. It has also been FAQ’d more than once and no results from it.
I am just a bit frustrated and would like to hear an official Yes or No response, as that is all it takes and I can take that answer to my DM.
Thank you.
Senior Software Developer
|
All of our contact information is on the Contact Us page. We don't have a specific email address for rules questions -- we want those to stay on the messageboards.
Well, the problem with that is the question is not being answered on the forums.
|
If the designers/developers have avoided making a ruling on the boards, they are unlikely to make one by email. Many of the rules require interpretation, and that seems to be by design so the GM's can more easily make rulings that work for them. If your GM cannot decide how the rule works, reading the boards is the best way to sort out the various perspectives and formulate how it will work at your gaming table. If the GM has already decided and your hoping to over-ride that with an email from the designers, it won't work. The GM, can simply ignore the information and continue to run the game "his" way. YMMV.
Well, the problem with that is the question is not being answered on the forums.
Is nobody at all answering your question(s)? Or are you just not getting an answer from somebody with a golem next to their name?
|
We really prefer it when rules questions are asked via the messageboards rather than emails because if someone else has a similar question later, the answer is already available. With emails, only the person asking sees the answer, but on the messageboards, anyone who was wondering about the answer can also find out without having to wait for a response from a developer who might not be available right away. Additionally, it means that any of our developers can answer the question, or see if one of the others has already answered it rather than potentially overloading one developer or responding to an email that has already been answered by someone else.
thanks
sara marie
If the designers/developers have avoided making a ruling on the boards, they are unlikely to make one by email.
In that case, can I get street adresses for all of the developers instead? I have some banging on doors I need to do.
;-)
If the designers/developers have avoided making a ruling on the boards, they are unlikely to make one by email. Many of the rules require interpretation, and that seems to be by design so the GM's can more easily make rulings that work for them. If your GM cannot decide how the rule works, reading the boards is the best way to sort out the various perspectives and formulate how it will work at your gaming table. If the GM has already decided and your hoping to over-ride that with an email from the designers, it won't work. The GM, can simply ignore the information and continue to run the game "his" way. YMMV.
Yes, my GM could make his own ruling. But it is something that I would like an official ruling on, what the RAI (from the developers) is supposed to be. I have never liked the ‘leaving the rules intentionally vague’ to make it easier for GM’s, they can change the rules to whatever extent they wish, even with them being more explicit.
And being more explicit satisfies both parties. The GM (group) who want to use RAW without having to make interpretations can do so, and the GM (group) who wants to go with his own houserule, can always do so, as well.
Is nobody at all answering your question(s)? Or are you just not getting an answer from somebody with a golem next to their name?
I am looking for an answer to a golem next to their name, specifically an actual developer. It isn’t that the question hasn’t been brought up and (attempted to be) answered on the boards, it’s just one of those areas that is vague and has been argued extensively on what the RAW as written pertains, but has gotten nowhere. And has even been FAQ’d more than once. That is why I would like an official answer from a developer on the matter. But I may have to wait until Gen Con to get some kind of answer. :(
We really prefer it when rules questions are asked via the messageboards rather than emails because if someone else has a similar question later, the answer is already available. With emails, only the person asking sees the answer, but on the messageboards, anyone who was wondering about the answer can also find out without having to wait for a response from a developer who might not be available right away. Additionally, it means that any of our developers can answer the question, or see if one of the others has already answered it rather than potentially overloading one developer or responding to an email that has already been answered by someone else.
thanks
sara marie
Yes, I agree with that set up as long as the questions are answered via the threads or FAQs, but this is a question that has been floating around forum more than once for well over a year now. As there have been other questions, as well.
Which I know it is why they created the FAQs. I understand and respect they are busy, but my question, and the others I made reference to have been FAQ’d for quite some time now. So it becomes a little frustrating when you don’t see any answer for many months or a year (or more).
I am just a bit frustrated and would like to hear an official Yes or No response, as that is all it takes and I can take that answer to my DM.Tell your DM I said that the answer is "yes."
Problem solved. Your welcome.
-Skeld
I didn’t realize you worked for Paizo. Congratulations.
I appreciate the rest of you who have given serious responses, but if you want to try to be smart or funny, please don’t bother replying.
Had a feeling this would come up. I really did not want to bring it up as it would just cause the arguing all over again.
Let’s just say both sides can give accompanying quotes from RAW, but even still only results to endless debate on either side.
|
|
Had a feeling this would come up. I really did not want to bring it up as it would just cause the arguing all over again.
Let’s just say both sides can give accompanying quotes from RAW, but even still only results to endless debate on either side.
Ok, so seriously: you want private designer time and don't want to share the questions and answers with the rest of us because someone on the internet might argue about it?
-Skeld
|
Had a feeling this would come up. I really did not want to bring it up as it would just cause the arguing all over again.
Let’s just say both sides can give accompanying quotes from RAW, but even still only results to endless debate on either side.
You realize that if devs would spend their time answering rules questions via e-mail, you would see the next rulebooks delayed by half a year at least? :)
Hobbun, please pop in HERE.
|
|
You realize that if devs would spend their time answering rules questions via e-mail, you would see the next rulebooks delayed by half a year at least? :)
Hey Gorby, I hoped you would show up. I had planned on blaming my first post on you until I realized you hadn't posted to this thread yet.
I blame any future posts on Gorbacz.
-Skeld
Skeld, unless you're busy, get your butt back in the chat! :whipit:
|
|
You realize that if devs would spend their time answering rules questions via e-mail, you would see the next rulebooks delayed by half a year at least? :)Hey Gorby, I hoped you would show up. I had planned on blaming my first post on you until I realized you hadn't posted to this thread yet.
I blame any future posts on Gorbacz.
-Skeld
There you were, posting comfortably thinkng that once The Bag With Teeth posted, everybody else will come out as polite, eloquent and helpful? But I've tricked you, and you're the bad guy. Mwahahahaha.
I'm curious, what's the rule issue in question?
I would like to know also. Not only am I all-seeing, but I am also all-knowing.
Had a feeling this would come up. I really did not want to bring it up as it would just cause the arguing all over again.
Let’s just say both sides can give accompanying quotes from RAW, but even still only results to endless debate on either side.
Ok, so seriously: you want private designer time and don't want to share the questions and answers with the rest of us because someone on the internet might argue about it?
-Skeld
Sorry, I didn’t mean it anything like that. I’m not trying to keep any secrets here. If I was able to get an actual response from a dev., I of course would have shared it with the rest of the forums.
The question deals with Brew Potion and prerequisites. Can you take the +5 DC for spells you do not know, or not?
I have seen people say no, and quote the appropriate passage in that the creator must have the spell prepared or known. However, I have also seen the valid counterargument that this passage is also in Craft Wonderous Items, Craft Magic Arms and Weapons and the remaining item creation feats. Also, the argument (which also valid) is used in that potions are not a spell trigger or completion item, so it doesn’t fall under the ‘mandatory’ having to know the spell.
There you go. Now you may debate away as you want. But just to let you know, if you do a search, this question has been brought up more than once with no definitive answer and has even been FAQ’d. This is why I was just asking if I was able to get a definitive answer from a developer, as it really is a yes or no response.
@ Black Fang:
Thanks for the invite to the chat, but cannot do so right now as I am at work (I know, shame on me) and it is blocked.
But thanks for future reference! Will check it out later.
Had a feeling this would come up. I really did not want to bring it up as it would just cause the arguing all over again.
Let’s just say both sides can give accompanying quotes from RAW, but even still only results to endless debate on either side.
Ok, so seriously: you want private designer time and don't want to share the questions and answers with the rest of us because someone on the internet might argue about it?
-Skeld
Sorry, I didn’t mean it anything like that. I’m not trying to keep any secrets here. If I was able to get an actual response from a dev., I of course would have shared it with the rest of the forums.
The question deals with Brew Potion and prerequisites. Can you take the +5 DC for spells you do not know, or not?
I have seen people say no, and quote the appropriate passage in that the creator must have the spell prepared or known. However, I have also seen the valid counterargument that this passage is also in Craft Wonderous Items, Craft Magic Arms and Weapons and the remaining item creation feats. Also, the argument (which also valid) is used in that potions are not a spell trigger or completion item, so it doesn’t fall under the ‘mandatory’ having to know the spell.
There you go. Now you may debate away as you want. But just to let you know, if you do a search, this question has been brought up more than once with no definitive answer and has even been FAQ’d. This is why I was just asking if I was able to get a definitive answer from a developer, as it really is a yes or no response.
@ Black Fang:
Thanks for the invite to the chat, but cannot do so right now as I am at work (I know, shame on me) and it is blocked.
But thanks for future reference! Will check it out later.
That one was answered with proof, IIRC. I will try to see if I can find what I call the shutdown post. The same question also applies to scrolls. Standby.
PRD: In addition, you cannot create spell-trigger and spell-completion magic items without meeting their spell prerequisites.
This means that an item must be a spell-trigger or spell-completion item to require the spell
Later on the PRD goes on to describe several different type of magic items.
Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that's left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can't already cast the spell, there's a chance he'll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Command Word: If no activation method is suggested either in the magic item description or by the nature of the item, assume that a command word is needed to activate it. Command word activation means that a character speaks the word and the item activates. No other special knowledge is needed.
Use Activated: This type of item simply has to be used in order to activate it. A character has to drink a potion, swing a sword, interpose a shield to deflect a blow in combat, look through a lens, sprinkle dust, wear a ring, or don a hat. Use activation is generally straightforward and self-explanatory.
It seems the potions fall into the "do not need a spell category. It does not make sense to me, but the rules say otherwise.
PS:I don't want a rules debate in this forum so if anyone wants to dispute what I have found then feel free to make a new thread.
FYI:
* We expect GMs should make calls for their games if something is ambiguous but not game-breaking. As Monte says, "The DM is not a robot." Saying "the +5 rule only applies to spells that you actually have on your spell list" is a valid GM ruling, just as much as "you can't play a drow in my campaign" is a valid ruling. Accept the ruling and get on with the game.
* If you want the Paizo developers to make personally make rulings on game issues outside of message board discussions or the FAQ, come to PaizoCon and play in one of the games run by a developer, and make sure the rule issue comes up in the game so the developer has to make a ruling on it. Basically, there are going to be people who will never accept anything but the word of a developer as a ruling. That is a minefield we avoid, because as soon as we start answering that sort of question, we have to start answering individual questions from *everyone*, and suddenly we don't have time to get any work done.
* We're aware of the issues about that Spellcraft check rule, and it's slated to be one of the things we discuss on the designer blog.
I appreciate you going and digging that up, and please take no offense, but I thought you were going to find a post from a developer that gave a final ruling. All that really does is reiterate what I was saying in that potions do not fall under spell completion or spell trigger items, and people still have debated (with their own RAW quotes) that you can’t bypass it.
I appreciate you going and digging that up, and please take no offense, but I thought you were going to find a post from a developer that gave a final ruling. All that really does is reiterate what I was saying in that potions do not fall under spell completion or spell trigger items, and people still have debated (with their own RAW quotes) that you can’t bypass it.
I am glad Sean said that magic item creation rules will be address in a blog though.
Thanks Sean.
FYI:
* We expect GMs should make calls for their games if something is ambiguous but not game-breaking. As Monte says, "The DM is not a robot." Saying "the +5 rule only applies to spells that you actually have on your spell list" is a valid GM ruling, just as much as "you can't play a drow in my campaign" is a valid ruling. Accept the ruling and get on with the game.
* If you want the Paizo developers to make personally make rulings on game issues outside of message board discussions or the FAQ, come to PaizoCon and play in one of the games run by a developer, and make sure the rule issue comes up in the game so the developer has to make a ruling on it. Basically, there are going to be people who will never accept anything but the word of a developer as a ruling. That is a minefield we avoid, because as soon as we start answering that sort of question, we have to start answering individual questions from *everyone*, and suddenly we don't have time to get any work done.
* We're aware of the issues about that Spellcraft check rule, and it's slated to be one of the things we discuss on the designer blog.
Sean, first of all, thank you for giving your input.
But I was not trying to indicate GMs are robots, but many of us prefer just to have the official ruling already supplied (i.e. in book) and not have it ambiguous. Our GM included. If a GM is unhappy with the rule supplied in the book, he is always welcome to make changes for his own campaign.
I know the first thing we ask when a ruling we are not sure on is “what does it say in the book?” Our GM prefers to go by RAW as much as possible. If something is ambiguous because something was forgotten, completely understandable and we (as players) look forward to seeing it resolved eventually from the devs. But please don’t leave something ambiguous intentionally.
But also glad to see the rules on spellcraft checks for magic item creation is going to be addressed!
It's not a matter of intentionally leaving something ambiguous, it's a matter of "we can't print a book big enough to address every corner case."
I'm not saying there's not a rules contradiction here, I'm saying that it's up to the GM to make a call.
PFRPG = 574 pages.
1e AD&D PH + DMG = 128+240 = 368 pages.
The drawback to 3E spelling out rules for *almost* everything is that many people expect the book to actually have ruling for *everything.* When I grew up playing AD&D, we had to make a lot of rulings because (1) the books were smaller and didn't cover everything, and (2) there was no internet to get instant answers from the community or the writers, you either went with your own ruling or waited months to see a response in Dragon Magazine.
PFRPG is a really complex game. But the power is still in the hands of the GM to make rulings on things that appear confusing or inconsistent. Even if that contradicts RAW or RAI.
Well, in that case, then I am someone who would rather have the book be longer (the additional 16 pages or whatever the added amount is) and pay a little more than to cut down on words, which in turns do not make rules as clear.
Maybe I am not the majority who would want or prefer this, but I buy these books, as does my GM, so we don't have to make rulings like this at the table. Of course you are not going to be able to cover 'every' situation, that is completely understandable. But as you said, this is a rules contradiction, and one I think could have been easily remedied in one sentence.
The creator must have prepared the spell to be placed in the potion (or must know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any material component or focus the spell requires. However, as potions are not a spell trigger or spell completion magic item, the creator may take a +5 DC if the spell is not on his known spell list.
That last part in bold is of course mine and not RAW, but that is what I am referring to. That one line would have removed any doubt or people posting multiple threads on the matter.
But if you can't add it to the book because you don't want to add pages, then at least answer it in the FAQ.
I understand that you played first edition D&D where the rules were vague and the DM had to make rulings to keep the game moving. I played it as well, but I will say I do prefer the more explicit rules as I enjoy your system and want to play by 'your' rules, nevermind it being easier at the table.
Again, thank you for taking the time to respond, Sean.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
16 pages? Is that really how many extra pages you think it would take to cover every contingency? Try 1600 pages (and that's probably a conservative estimate).
And I don't think the reason for not adding every contingency to the rulebook is because the developers "don't want to add pages." It's more than likely because it's nigh impossible to come up with every possible interpretation of a rule that a player or GM may come up with, and/or to list every possible exception to a rule each time it comes up in the book.
Pathfinder (and table top RPGs in general) is a fluid game that changes from session to session, table to table. Outside of Organized Play, I would wager that no two gaming groups play with exactly the same rules (for example, my group tends to ignore encumbrance and hand waves spell components, among other things). Pathfinder is not a hard and fast system where every possible scenario a player or GM can think of is addressed. The trade off is that you are better able to influence the game with your own wild ideas instead of being pigeon-holed to a finite number of actions/options, ala PC RPGs.
The interpretation of rules by players and GMs is what makes Pathfinder (and table top role playing in general) superior to PC RPGs (IMHO) - The ability to interpret rules = more freedom of choice in the game. And some of these ideas/choices are not going to be specifically covered in the ruleset. It's just the nature of the game. If you're looking for an RPG that covers every possible rule interpretation, you won't find one. And it's not the fault of the developers. The freedom granted to an RPG's GM is a universal concept central to table top role-playing, regardless of the game played.
Honestly, my best advice for your issue (and other issues you may have with rules that may not get immediate responses on this message board) is to discuss the rule at your table and come to a consensus with your gaming group as to how the rule will be interpreted. If an official ruling comes along later that contradicts your decision, you can always change to the official ruling, or keep playing your way if everyone thinks it works better.
After all, there really is no wrong way of playing Pathfinder.
16 pages? Is that really how many extra pages you think it would take to cover every contingency? Try 1600 pages (and that's probably a conservative estimate).
And I don't think the reason for not adding every contingency to the rulebook is because the developers "don't want to add pages." It's more than likely because it's nigh impossible to come up with every possible interpretation of a rule that a player or GM may come up with, and/or to list every possible exception to a rule each time it comes up in the book.
Pathfinder (and table top RPGs in general) is a fluid game that changes from session to session, table to table. Outside of Organized Play, I would wager that no two gaming groups play with exactly the same rules (for example, my group tends to ignore encumbrance and hand waves spell components, among other things). Pathfinder is not a hard and fast system where every possible scenario a player or GM can think of is addressed. The trade off is that you are better able to influence the game with your own wild ideas instead of being pigeon-holed to a finite number of actions/options, ala PC RPGs.
The interpretation of rules by players and GMs is what makes Pathfinder (and table top role playing in general) superior to PC RPGs (IMHO) - The ability to interpret rules = more freedom of choice in the game. And some of these ideas/choices are not going to be specifically covered in the ruleset. It's just the nature of the game. If you're looking for an RPG that covers every possible rule interpretation, you won't find one. And it's not the fault of the developers. The freedom granted to an RPG's GM is a universal concept central to table top role-playing, regardless of the game played.
Honestly, my best advice for your issue (and other issues you may have with rules that may not get immediate responses on this message board) is to discuss the rule at your table and come to a consensus with your gaming group as to how the rule will be interpreted. If an official ruling comes along...
Larry, thanks at least for your constructive posts, at least most in the thread have been so.
I understand where you are coming from, but it isn't that our GM cannot make the decisions and rulings, he has done so many times and is far from a 'spineless jellyfish' (rolls eyes). It's the point that the something that will be used often, I feel the goal should be is therules should be written clear enough where we can look it up and see exactly what is intended without having to make a ruling.
You are correct, each gaming group will vary from table to table. But I think that should be because the rule 'is' there, but the DM made a choice to change it (houserule), not changed because he needed to make his own ruling.
I agree, you cannot cover 'every' contingency, which I had indicated in my prior post. But if something is brought up numerous times on the forums, it would be nice to get an official response from Paizo on discrepancy, even if it is done in a blog or FAQ. Like Sean indicated they will adddress the Spellcraft DC for crafting magic items.
I also want to say to Sean and Paizo in general, I am not writing this post because I am angry or I think the rules are bad. I do so because I really enjoy the system and want to see any mistakes/discrepancies resolved (besides always having to make the DM make a decision) and I actually give a positive call out to Paizo in what they have done overall.
The DM is far from a robot if he goes by RAW, his job is to tell a story most enjoyable to the players. This may just be my feeling, but I think the semantics (rules) should be left to the the rulebook. Yes, his/her job is to make rules decisions from time to time, that is inevitable. But I feel it should be very minimal.
Sorry if this offends anyone, as it appears it already has. I am only giving my opinion.
... Seriously when did DM's turn into spineless jellyfish that are paralysed with indecision when having to make a ruling, and when did players start insisting their DM function as an robot + plot...?
The reason for needed clarifications has been listed several times. Thanks for the insult. Instead of asking for an apology I will instead ask you to read all those threads you missed. If you can't seem to find the reasons then do a search, bump the thread you searched, and I will be more than happy to enlighten you.
@ Larry:Nobody is asking for a rule for every contingency, just the base ones such as the potion question. Now if a DM has a player combining several abilities in a new way that the devs did not anticipate then that is up to the DM, and I believe rightfully so.
PS:I actually think the potion one is pretty clear, but that was just an example because the OP brought it up.
I removed a couple posts. Really, people. Be civil.
PS:I actually think the potion one is pretty clear, but that was just an example because the OP brought it up.
I'm in agreement here that it's clear if you look for it hard enough, but I have seen many threads on Potion creation in the past and recently (and have even created my own one or two after doing plenty of searching) so that sentence or two would really get some milage.
But, now that we're here. No Master Craftsman for potions? XD I jest, but really though..
|
... Seriously when did DM's turn into spineless jellyfish that are paralysed with indecision when having to make a ruling, and when did players start insisting their DM function as an robot + plot...?The reason for needed clarifications has been listed several times. Thanks for the insult. Instead of asking for an apology I will instead ask you to read all those threads you missed. If you can't seem to find the reasons then do a search, bump the thread you searched, and I will be more than happy to enlighten you.
@ Larry:Nobody is asking for a rule for every contingency, just the base ones such as the potion question. Now if a DM has a player combining several abilities in a new way that the devs did not anticipate then that is up to the DM, and I believe rightfully so.
PS:I actually think the potion one is pretty clear, but that was just an example because the OP brought it up.
A rule does not become clearer just because it's in a book (looking at you, Stealth), and as we've learned recently, it doesn't necessarily become clearer when it's blogged about, either (looking at you, intelligent animals). This is just one of those circumstances where the GM needs to make a ruling and enfore it consistently. He could even write it down and discuss it with his players face-to-face, if they're more comfortable with written rules.
Look, I get the whole "I bought this enormous ruleset so that I wouldn't have to deal with this type of thing" position. Nobody needs to remind me how that song and dance goes. Heck, I don't even entirely disagree with it. But to think that a ruleset, any ruleset, could successfully codify every aspect of reality (and an imagined fantasy reality at that) is unrealistic.
Developer clarification is not necessary in all cases like this. The frequency with which the topic arises on the forums is not a factor either, honestly. Stealth questions come up all the time, there's been no meaningful adjudication of the issue, yet the Earth still turns, people still play Rogues, blah blah blah. People will still brew potions with or without a more detailed codification of the rule in question. GM's make rulings, games move on.
If you or anyone else doesn't see this viewpoint of mine (and Alex, and, as best as I can tell, Sean freaking Reynolds) as constructive and germane to the topic of discussion, I can only respectfully disagree and politely request that you re-examine your position on the matter.
A rule does not become clearer just because it's in a book (looking at you, Stealth), and as we've learned recently, it doesn't necessarily become clearer when it's blogged about, either (looking at you, intelligent animals). This is just one of those circumstances where the GM needs to make a ruling and enfore it consistently. He could even write it down and discuss it with his players face-to-face, if they're more comfortable with written rules.
You've got some cirumstantial evidence going here.. I thought the Poison Blog was pretty spot-on and I think a short Potion Blog (or even Crafting Blog) would/could/should be done along the same lines and clear up a few issues and even help new players. Come to think of it, stealth would be a good topic too. Maybe we can even work in Scent!
Some cases have many variables and it is hard to account for them all. But, you can give people a basic understanding again like the Poison FAQ did to clear a lot of things up. Potions have about 5 variables and pople are still confused, that should tell you something.
I enjoy the dedication of the Paizo staff and I welcome anything they would offer to help run Pathfinder.
Developer clarification is not necessary in all cases like this. The frequency with which the topic arises on the forums is not a factor either, honestly.
I would think if an overwhelming number of players asked about X in your game system, then you'd think about clarifying what you mean by X. Look at what happened with Vital Strike.
I don't mind a little clarification here and there, even if it's just a chime in on the boards rather than a FAQ, Blog or Official Errata. And if we were to put all these comments in one place where the tired, weary and confused could see them, shouldn't we?
This communication gateway allows for a great deal of transparency and immediate input from the developers and we obviously like their work so we'd like to hear their opinions. Let's keep them general as we could probably never go down the infinite number of specific ones.
If you or anyone else doesn't see this viewpoint of mine (and Alex, and, as best as I can tell, Sean freaking Reynolds) as constructive and germane to the topic of discussion, I can only respectfully disagree and politely request that you re-examine your position on the matter.
I decline your request, but understand your intent.
... Seriously when did DM's turn into spineless jellyfish that are paralysed with indecision when having to make a ruling, and when did players start insisting their DM function as an robot + plot...?The reason for needed clarifications has been listed several times. Thanks for the insult. Instead of asking for an apology I will instead ask you to read all those threads you missed. If you can't seem to find the reasons then do a search, bump the thread you searched, and I will be more than happy to enlighten you.
@ Larry:Nobody is asking for a rule for every contingency, just the base ones such as the potion question. Now if a DM has a player combining several abilities in a new way that the devs did not anticipate then that is up to the DM, and I believe rightfully so.
PS:I actually think the potion one is pretty clear, but that was just an example because the OP brought it up.
A rule does not become clearer just because it's in a book (looking at you, Stealth), and as we've learned recently, it doesn't necessarily become clearer when it's blogged about, either (looking at you, intelligent animals). This is just one of those circumstances where the GM needs to make a ruling and enfore it consistently. He could even write it down and discuss it with his players face-to-face, if they're more comfortable with written rules.
Look, I get the whole "I bought this enormous ruleset so that I wouldn't have to deal with this type of thing" position. Nobody needs to remind me how that song and dance goes. Heck, I don't even entirely disagree with it. But to think that a ruleset, any ruleset, could successfully codify every aspect of reality (and an imagined fantasy reality at that) is unrealistic.
Developer clarification is not necessary in all cases like this. The frequency with which the topic arises on the forums is not a factor either, honestly. Stealth questions come up all the time, there's been no meaningful adjudication of...
It does become clear when it says it works like X and Y only. The rule specifically states which magic items must have the spell there. You can argue the RAI, but the RAW is clear. I do hope the RAW is incorrect though, but in any event I will houserule it to work like scrolls do in that regard.
A rule does not become clearer just because it's in a book (looking at you, Stealth), and as we've learned recently, it doesn't necessarily become clearer when it's blogged about, either (looking at you, intelligent animals). This is just one of those circumstances where the GM needs to make a ruling and enfore it consistently. He could even write it down and discuss it with his players face-to-face, if they're more comfortable with written rules.Look, I get the whole "I bought this enormous ruleset so that I wouldn't have to deal with this type of thing" position. Nobody needs to remind me how that song and dance goes. Heck, I don't even entirely disagree with it. But to think that a ruleset, any ruleset, could successfully codify every aspect of reality (and an imagined fantasy reality at that) is unrealistic.
I am going to tell you what I told a previous poster, but more politely. Nobody, at least not the majority of us, are trying to get a ruling for every situation. We just want the base rulings. Corner cases are up to the DM to resolve.