|
One thing I'd like to see cleared up: definitively nail down what kinds of mounts various classes are restricted to. I.e., book text tantalizing hints that other types of animal companions might be available (aside from the camel and horse they "can" pick). The campaign has restricted samurai (Additional Resources:Ultimate Combat write-up). Also: clear up the Mount stacking rules (differentiating between druid multiclassing and non-druid multiclassing as appropriate).
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think at this point you pretty clearly cannot.It is as clear as mud because the only arguments I've seen (when any were made) are those which would logically extrapolate to saying that broken-item-repair should also "unwind" at the end of the mod.At some point don't you have to ask "Do I really want the PFS staff spending their time writing a guide to satisfy the most pedantic readers?"Put yourself in the shoes of a DM who honestly doesn't know whether or not he should be initialing a cert in which a player has a broken dogslicer which he has both (a) repaired, and (b) upgraded to a masterwork weapon -- and he's confused because the Ch6/Ch8 text appears to imply that ongoing buffs (i.e., the Ch6 mentioned Bless) are the sorts of spells being referred to. He has his PDF on netbook, pours over it, and finally shrugs and signs off.
When you repair a broken weapon, what you're doing is removing the broken condition from that weapon in the same way you remove a disease or end the effects of a curse. Afflictions and conditions that have been removed do not magically reappear at the start of the next session. The difference between removing a condition and creation something new is where the line is drawn. When you change something from mundane to masterwork you aren't removing conditions. In these cases, under the current rules, such changes do not carry over from session to session.
|
The difference between removing a condition and creation something new is where the line is drawn.Upgrading a weapon from mundane to masterwork is creating something new, but upgrading a weapon from masterwork to magical isn't?
No it's not. One of the pre requirements of making a magical item is that the target item is masterwork. So it is assumed that when you buy a masterwork item that you are doing it in hopes of having it turned into a magical item. Therefor when you pay for the enhancement you have already met the cost of the masterwork component.
Basically think of it like this. You go to the weapon smith with your sword and you say, I want you to make this a masterwork weapon.
He say's masterwork weapon are something I can only do from scratch. I need to make sure that I use a higher grade steel, I have to make sure that the balance is just right. The grip and pommel need to be crafted for fit and form.
So you sigh and if you really want to have that masterwork weapon, you sell him your old sword for half price and you buy his masterwork weapon.
Not much change on you character sheet, but an endeavor in the fantasy game space.
Now when you show up at the magic guild and say I want this sword enchanted, the first thing the wizard is going to say, well it will take some time and materials. I'm going to need a masterwork weapon...
To which you say, "got that right here."
And the wizard says, "Ah good, well you saved yourself a trip to the weaponsmith. "
|
|
Likewise considering that in PFS you are allowed to upgrade the strength rating on bows, it doesn't seem out of line.Actually, they changed that. Can't do it anymore as of Guide 4.0. Lucky for me I upgraded mine before the change. ;)Ah sorry, it's easy to miss when a house rule gets changed.
I probably should have paid more attention there, mea culpa,
James
PS: Kudos for the change.
No harm no foul.
|
|
No it's not....The difference between removing a condition and creation something new is where the line is drawn.Upgrading a weapon from mundane to masterwork is creating something new, but upgrading a weapon from masterwork to magical isn't?
Speaking perhaps impertinently for other players, I think most of us would appreciate simple, forthright explanations (such as: "We're nixing this because we don't like the power creep of Heirloom Weapon") rather than goofy logic applied to a variety of secondary targets (such as Masterwork Transformation).
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Speaking perhaps impertinently for other players, I think most of us would appreciate simple, forthright explanations (such as: "We're nixing this because we don't like the power creep of Heirloom Weapon") rather than goofy logic applied to a variety of secondary targets (such as Masterwork Transformation).No it's not....The difference between removing a condition and creation something new is where the line is drawn.Upgrading a weapon from mundane to masterwork is creating something new, but upgrading a weapon from masterwork to magical isn't?
Unfortunately, we don't have the time to go through each and every rule and explain the (sometimes complicated) reasons why specific rulings have been made. Doing so would not change the rules and would likely cause even more argument and bickering on these boards, and that's not the type of environment we want to foster. If folks have issues with some of the campaign rules, we encourage them to post such issues for discussion. We're not opposed to changing rules as the campaign calls for them, but that doesn't mean that every decision will be explained as fully as many would like.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mark,
Hey there. I wanted to give you and the Venture-Captains a thumb's-up for keeping PFS on such an even keel.
I'd like to ask a favor, though. When a new edition of the guide comes out, it would be great if there were, somewhere, a list of changes that the new version effects. For example, some of the faction traits were down-graded, and this new change regarding adding strength to a +2 longbow, which now costs the character half the price of the bow. Folks playing pre-gens can now apply 1 XP, 1 Fame, and some gold to their first character.
For each entry in the "what's new" document, you could say: "We've changed this rule to better balance x and y." Or you could just say "We changed this rule."
But it's not helpful to hear about these changes piece-meal. I'm sure that there are some changes that have not yet been discovered, and so won't yet take effect. Or are each of us GMs expected to read through each new edition of the Guide and the FAQ, combing for changes?
By the way, saying "We've changed this rule to better balance x and y." makes for a longer "What's New" file, but it's not a bad idea to provide some explanation for the reasoning behind a rule. It might "cause even more argument and bickering on these boards", but it would certainly allow us to see the bigger picture, to extrapolate a ruling, and to provide consisntent judgement in analogous circumstances. If you don't supply your reasoning, we don't have as good an idea what "analogous circumstances" involve.
Thanks.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A change log between versions would be very nice. I don't think a "We changed this to better ...." is needed or would have any positive effect.
I'll have to check over the faction traits again and not sure what the longbow comment is about so have to check that out too :D
Developer
|
Mark,
Hey there. I wanted to give you and the Venture-Captains a thumb's-up for keeping PFS on such an even keel.
I'd like to ask a favor, though. When a new edition of the guide comes out, it would be great if there were, somewhere, a list of changes that the new version effects.
This strikes me as an excellent idea. It would stem some of the worry when we find a significant change and wonder if it was intentional, like the rules for raise dead having the "no negative levels in pfs" clause removed.
Having something those of us familiar with the guide can quickly reference to see what's changed lessens the chance we miss something. I have the feeling many GMs look for big changes when a new version comes out, but some of those are missed because most of the language regarding a rule remains the same.
This is how it was for me and the raise dead issue. I check the guide, and look over the new section on PP most closely, as that's where a lot of new GM content was centered. The Raise Dead text was nearly the same, so I did not notice the exclusion.
An "Updates in this version" list, even without the rationale of those changes, would be immensely helpful in seeing that I don't miss anything and misadjudicate something as important as raise dead effects.
|
I would like to make a request to Unstiky this, since the 4.0 Guide no longer allows for rule changes and clarification made in the Forum to be optional by GMs.
Was it there in the previous version? I do not recall.
I guess technically the ruling that nothing in the forums was "official" until it was published only existed on the boards. Therefore, the ruling regarding forum rules was itself a suggestion and not official.
We can play this game all day long :-)
I would like to make a request to Unstiky this, since the 4.0 Guide no longer allows for rule changes and clarification made in the Forum to be optional by GMs.Was it there in the previous version? I do not recall.
I guess technically the ruling that nothing in the forums was "official" until it was published only existed on the boards. Therefore, the ruling regarding forum rules was itself a suggestion and not official.
We can play this game all day long :-)
The rule did not exist in previous versions of the guide.
From time to time, campaign management staff may
answer questions regarding campaign policy on the
official Pathfinder Society messageboards at paizo.com.
While these answers give you a good idea of the opinions
of the staff on issues important to campaign play and may
provide an idea of upcoming changes to the rules of the
campaign, no change is to be considered official until it
appears either in the most recent update to the Guide to
Pathfinder Society Organized Play (this booklet) or in the
official campaign FAQ. Event coordinators are encouraged
to print an up-to-date copy of both documents and have
them handy for players and Game Masters to reference
throughout their event.
Drgnmoon's request is completely valid, as the stickied post states a rule that is now both superseded by and replaced by the rule in the most recent Guide.
|
|
I would like to make a request to Unstiky this, since the 4.0 Guide no longer allows for rule changes and clarification made in the Forum to be optional by GMs.Was it there in the previous version? I do not recall.
I guess technically the ruling that nothing in the forums was "official" until it was published only existed on the boards. Therefore, the ruling regarding forum rules was itself a suggestion and not official.
We can play this game all day long :-)
So this is how this Post reads.
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the messageboards all the time....
When they added this to the PFS 4.0 Guide they took out the "Optional" Part, In other words, before a GM could use the "Clarification or Rule Change" if they wanted to, but now they can't until it is added to the Guide.
So by keeping this post as a sticky may confuse GMs into thinking they can use "Rule calls" made on the forums before they are added to the Guide.
|
|
Very interesting and dangerous at the same time. Technically, the rule does not specify the PFS forums, so you can (and are expected to) ignore any and all forum rulings regardless of what board they exist on. So if Jason, James, Sean, Mark, or any other Paizo designer/developer chimes in on a rule clarification it is to be ignored until it exists in published material, the FAQ, or the Guide for OP.
Personally, I think the "optional" language is needed to allow GM's to use info in the forums to improve their understanding on the game and as a basis for justifying rules-calls during games.
Very interesting and dangerous at the same time. Technically, the rule does not specify the PFS forums, so you can (and are expected to) ignore any and all forum rulings regardless of what board they exist on. So if Jason, James, Sean, Mark, or any other Paizo designer/developer chimes in on a rule clarification it is to be ignored until it exists in published material, the FAQ, or the Guide for OP.
Yes. Exactly so. If Jason, James, Sean, Mark or any other Paizo designer/developer chimes in with a rules clarification that they believe should be implemented, all they have to do to make it official is to put it into the FAQ.
I'm pretty sure that they know how to do that.
I think it actually presents a good method for them to differentiate idle opinion from actual rulings. Forum post - opinion only. FAQ - ruling.
|
Very interesting and dangerous at the same time. Technically, the rule does not specify the PFS forums, so you can (and are expected to) ignore any and all forum rulings regardless of what board they exist on. So if Jason, James, Sean, Mark, or any other Paizo designer/developer chimes in on a rule clarification it is to be ignored until it exists in published material, the FAQ, or the Guide for OP.
Personally, I think the "optional" language is needed to allow GM's to use info in the forums to improve their understanding on the game and as a basis for justifying rules-calls during games.
Plus, it opens up a whole can of worms in regards to issues such as reskinning that were addressed on the forums but not in the guide.
|
|
To be clear, it says no changes are official until the next Guide/FAQ. So any clarifications to items which are not covered by rules, or as to interpretations, can still be used by GMs prior to a new Guide.
It also talks about campaign rules and policies and campaign staff, not about PFRPG rules/developers.
So:
A change to how Day Job rolls work - has to wait for Guide/FAQ
A change to Additional resources - has to wait for AR update
A change to how Stealth works - waits for rules update/errata/FAQ
An answer about whether detect magic can give the location of an invisible bad guy, from one of the developers - can be used by a GM as advice
A clarification that you cannot (or can) upgrade "named" armour, based on the existing rules - can be used by a GM
A GM is not breaking the rules by interpreting things the way the orgs/developers advise them to, whether or not they have made it to print yet. It's only an actual change that needs to wait for FAQ/Guide.
|
|
Very interesting and dangerous at the same time. Technically, the rule does not specify the PFS forums, so you can (and are expected to) ignore any and all forum rulings regardless of what board they exist on. So if Jason, James, Sean, Mark, or any other Paizo designer/developer chimes in on a rule clarification it is to be ignored until it exists in published material, the FAQ, or the Guide for OP.
Personally, I think the "optional" language is needed to allow GM's to use info in the forums to improve their understanding on the game and as a basis for justifying rules-calls during games.
You guys are totally missing my Point..
When this was posted the point was that GMs could use the Forum Rules and clarification if they wanted to that where made by Mark and Hyrum, these for for mostly PFS specific things all posted in the PFS forums...
People where complaining that they made too many rules in the forums and not putting them in the guide, so to "Appease" them they made those rulings only optional left to the GMs discretion, it was no longer required for people to Follow the Forums rulings if they did not want to until they Posted them in the Guide.
What I am saying is when they added this language to the 4.0 guide they took out the optional part for GMs and GMs no longer have the discretion to use the rules and clarifications made in the forums and now have to wait until they are added to the Guide.
To reduce confusion by the GMs they should unstiky this Thread since the optional part is not longer an Option.
You guys seem to be reading things into this post that are not there, or are confused on what I am saying.
You guys are totally missing my Point..When this was posted the point was that GMs could use the Forum Rules and clarification if they wanted to that where made by Mark and Hyrum, these for for mostly PFS specific things all posted in the PFS forums...
People where complaining that they made too many rules in the forums and not putting them in the guide, so to "Appease" them they made those rulings only optional left to the GMs discretion, it was no longer required for people to Follow the Forums rulings if they did not want to until they Posted them in the Guide.
What I am saying is when they added this language to the 4.0 guide they took out the optional part for GMs and GMs no longer have the discretion to use the rules and clarifications made in the forums and now have to wait until they are added to the Guide.
To reduce confusion by the GMs they should unstiky this Thread since the optional part is not longer an Option.
You guys seem to be reading things into this post that are not there, or are confused on what I am saying.
Concur. (Not one of "you guys").
Concur. (Not one of "you guys").You are not Me, that makes you a "You Guys". ;)
Are you certain of this fact? Huh? Huh?
Okay. I'm not you. But I don't believe I was one of the "you guys are totally missing the point" , as I was arguing that point upthread.
How is "not official" different from "optional"? I ask in all seriousness.
|
|
Afflictions and conditions that have been removed do not magically reappear at the start of the next session. The difference between removing a condition and creation something new is where the line is drawn. When you change something from mundane to masterwork you aren't removing conditions. In these cases, under the current rules, such changes do not carry over from session to session.
there is no difference between handing a masterwork item over to an NPC crafter and having them upgrade it to +1, and handing a normal dagger, 300gp for material components, and gp for spellcasting services, and getting back a masterwork dagger.
The precedent for changing it already exists within the campaign.
what we're asking for is an FAQ ruling that Masterwork Transformation is legitimate when used by a PC as well, since there is functionally no difference, as no Craft feats are used in the process.
|
|
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the messageboards all the time. We post these clarifications to help players and GMs run the best games they can and to expand on the intent of the rules and show what our thinking is on a given issue. Our goal with these clarifications is to inform GMs on what direction the official rules may take in a future update to the campaign documentation and to help GMs make their own rulings at their tables, and to give players an insight into any upcoming changes that might affect their character, allowing them time to plan accordingly. Once a ruling appears in an official format all PFS characters will be expected to follow the new rules. When appropriate, the campaign staff will allow players to rebuild parts or all of their characters. Rebuilds are only allowed when specifically called out in an update.
Hyrum.
Thanks Hyrum!
Question: So let’s say I peruse these boards and see most of the clarifications you and Mark post up to queries. And let’s say I am GM’ing a couple players who haven’t read the clarifications and have what I deem an illegal build based on said clarification.
If the rule clarification is considered optional until published in the official guide or FAQ, then how should the above scenario err? I can certainly see some players getting a might testy if I adhere to the “optional” clarification that they did not know about.
Now that it looks like there is a live FAQ, because I have noticed the FAQ and update references under several products, how would you want Coordinators and judges to handle this? Are we expected to bring a printed copy of all of the FAQ's or are they optional rules like the message threads. I know that just the Pathfinder Society FAQ and the product FAQs combined together in a Word document are around 45 pages, which will continue to grow. Plus, I don't think alot of the judges in my area are even aware of these yet.
Now that it looks like there is a live FAQ, because I have noticed the FAQ and update references under several products, how would you want Coordinators and judges to handle this? Are we expected to bring a printed copy of all of the FAQ's or are they optional rules like the message threads. I know that just the Pathfinder Society FAQ and the product FAQs combined together in a Word document are around 45 pages, which will continue to grow. Plus, I don't think a lot of the judges in my area are even aware of these yet.
In this thread, which is now hiding in the archives, Mark gave an answer to your question that was a reply to a similar question from me. Here is the specific answer:
The Pathfinder Society FAQ and any Pathfinder RPG FAQs are considered official rules for the campaign. They are not, however, something that every player needs to have on them to run a game, as the issues covered in them are likely to affect certain groups based on race, class, feat selection, etc. If someone has a character with aspects covered in the FAQ, they should print those sections out to present to GMs, but needn't bring the whole FAQ.
I hope that helps. :)
|
|
Okay, the Trip entry in the regular FAQ references a Paizo blog. That blog includes a change (addition) to how Trip weapons work with Drag & Reposition.
Now, obviously, the FAQ portion is canon. However, is the blog addition also canon?
From the blog entry:
There is a special exception to the above rules. If you’re using a weapon with the trip special feature, and you’re attempting a drag or reposition combat maneuver (Advanced Player’s Guide 321–322), you may apply the weapon’s bonuses to the roll because trip weapons are also suitable for dragging and repositioning (this also means we don’t have to add “drag” and “reposition” weapon properties to existing weapons).
|
|
It sounds like a pretty clear clarification to me and probably should exist in the FAQ. However, the official PFS rule covering blog/forum posts by staff would be in effect. The blog would be taken as a suggestion and the GM could decide to use said info or not.
IMO, in this case, it is a clear example of something that should be considered cannon even though it does not officially exist in a published form or in the FAQ.
It sounds like a pretty clear clarification to me and probably should exist in the FAQ. However, the official PFS rule covering blog/forum posts by staff would be in effect. The blog would be taken as a suggestion and the GM could decide to use said info or not.
IMO, in this case, it is a clear example of something that should be considered cannon even though it does not officially exist in a published form or in the FAQ.
That rule you are referring to was written to cover anything the PFS staff posted on, not Core Rules updates or changes that happen to be put in a blog. And from my understanding, when Paizo does these major blog rules updates, they are more likely to go into the errata and into print in the next printing of the Core Book. So yes, like you, I believe these kinds of updates should be canon and only negated by the PFS folks specifically putting an exception in the Guide or Additional Resources.
|
|
That rule you are referring to was written to cover anything the PFS staff posted on, not Core Rules updates or changes that happen to be put in a blog.
I think we differ here. First, let me say that I am not a proponent of ignoring forum rulings/clarifications whether they exist in the PFS specific forums or the general ones. Personally, I do not distinguish a difference between a forum/blog post from Mike/Mark, from those of Jason, James, Stephen, Sean, etc.
That being said, and while the Guide encourages you to post your questions in the PFS forums, I do not believe it indicates blog/forum posts in other areas have more/less importance than those in the PFS forums. I try to stay up-to-date with posts by the staff, but I also support the table GM's right to ignore them until they exist in an "official" capacity. I just think it's a poor decision to do that.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
until they exist in an "official" capacity.
So when an official source (such as a FAQ entry) specifically says "this has been revised to reflect the content of source X", does that make source X "official"? (Note that I realize you think the blog post in this example should be followed - I'm speaking theoretically/generally about "officialness".)
Also, although I realized forum posts generally aren't "official", shouldn't blog posts be?
|
|
I guess in some sense a blog post could be construed as a bit more official than someone's random forum post.
In the context of PFS, if a new "source X" has not yet made it to the additional resources page, it would not be approved for use, but that would not invalidate the FAQ post. The reason why a rule has changed is not really relevant. The existing rule can be revised/changed because of a new publication, shift in attitude, or because the wind is blowing out of the west today.
I kid, but seriously, keep in mind that PFS has declared that the only "official" sources for rules exist within the GtPFSOP, Additional resources, and the FAQ. So it is fair to say that players are not expected to read the forums or blog posts. It is encouraged, but not demanded. So if a new rule pops up in those venues, it would be optional until it makes it to the other sources.
Bob,
Ironically, this is the very thread that has the post we are talking about as it's first post. Here is that post again:
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the message boards all the time. We post these clarifications to help players and GMs run the best games they can and to expand on the intent of the rules and show what our thinking is on a given issue. Our goal with these clarifications is to inform GMs on what direction the official rules may take in a future update to the campaign documentation and to help GMs make their own rulings at their tables, and to give players an insight into any upcoming changes that might affect their character, allowing them time to plan accordingly. Once a ruling appears in an official format all PFS characters will be expected to follow the new rules. When appropriate, the campaign staff will allow players to rebuild parts or all of their characters. Rebuilds are only allowed when specifically called out in an update.
It refers only to posts on the forums by PFS staff and nothing about the official blogs containing core rules clarifications or changes by other Paizo staff. Now, what you may be thinking about are the blogs detailing things about Golarion. It has been stated that those are not official unless the PFS staff approve them, like the blog about deity sub-domains that got a forum sticky saying they are legal for play in PFS. Though on a side note, that and other Golarion Day blogs deemed legal have never made it into the Additional Resources, so are they really legal or not?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please don't presume what I am thinking. I have been very clear on my position. The only "official" locations for rule changes is the Guide, Additional Resources, & FAQ. Since most of the published material for Golarion is referenced as legal by the Additional Resources document, those become official as well.
The blogs have never, to my knowledge, been declared an official venue for rules changes, so they CAN be treated the same as forum posts.
My point is that while I personally think those rules SHOULD be recognized, I find no reason for a GM to be FORCED to recognize them any more than a forum posting. I am just trying to support the players/GM's who CHOOSE not to read the forums/blogs and that they are not required to recognize a ruling if the only place it exists in the forums/blogs.
The key is that you have the choice. So while I choose to recognize Jestercap, you as a GM are not required to.
Unfortunately, if the only place the deity sub-domain discussion occurred is the blog/forums, then a GM has the choice to ignore them. We, as stewards of the society, have a duty to follow the rules as written. If we want to incorporate additional rules, amendments, or flat out changes to existing material we have two choices. (1) post the material in an "official" location, or (2) change the definition of "official" to include blogs and/or forum posts.
|
|
The official stance is that forum clarification and/or answer posts as well as blog posts are not considered official material for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Especially Blog posts that offer new rules or content such as the cantrips that got left out of Ultimate Magic.
However, if a FAQ that is considered official, answers a question by pointing to a portion of a Blog post, then, that portion only, of the Blog post would be considered official.
This pointing is done for expediency rather than regurgitating the text all over again, and should not be taken as indicating that the entire Blog post, let alone all Blog posts, is now considered official.
|
|
The official stance is that forum clarification and/or answer posts as well as blog posts are not considered official material for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. Especially Blog posts that offer new rules or content such as the cantrips that got left out of Ultimate Magic.
However, if a FAQ that is considered official, answers a question by pointing to a portion of a Blog post, then, that portion only, of the Blog post would be considered official.
This pointing is done for expediency rather than regurgitating the text all over again, and should not be taken as indicating that the entire Blog post, let alone all Blog posts, is now considered official.
This!
I'll be nice :-)
The whole point of organised play is to have a consistent character that you can play at any table of appropriate tier, without asking GMs for their house-rules first. OP can only work if everyone knows what the rules are and agrees to abide by them. Allowing GMs to choose which rules to allow and which to ignore undermines it completely (however noble the reason). The possibility of forcing a cleric with subdomains, domain powers and domain spells to rebuild at the table because the 'blog isn't valid' is, well, less than ideal... What happens then? Can they rebuild the character back to its former subdomain state because the next GM is happy to include the blog? How does that tie in with the no rebuilding rules?
If blogs are considered valid for PFS play (and they're a nice touch if they are) then perhaps they need to be added to the Additional Resources page and the guide should confirm that?
Can't we just handle it like grown-ups you're probably asking? Well, yes, we do, but the result of that is that we treat the rules more like guidelines and just do our own thing (talking animal companions for example). The more we drift apart, fun though we're having playing the game, the less easy it is to play elsewhere and the less organised the campaign becomes.
|
|
I'll be nice :-)
The whole point of organised play is to have a consistent character that you can play at any table of appropriate tier, without asking GMs for their house-rules first. OP can only work if everyone knows what the rules are and agrees to abide by them. Allowing GMs to choose which rules to allow and which to ignore undermines it completely (however noble the reason). The possibility of forcing a cleric with subdomains, domain powers and domain spells to rebuild at the table because the 'blog isn't valid' is, well, less than ideal... What happens then? Can they rebuild the character back to its former subdomain state because the next GM is happy to include the blog? How does that tie in with the no rebuilding rules?
If blogs are considered valid for PFS play (and they're a nice touch if they are) then perhaps they need to be added to the Additional Resources page and the guide should confirm that?
Can't we just handle it like grown-ups you're probably asking? Well, yes, we do, but the result of that is that we treat the rules more like guidelines and just do our own thing (talking animal companions for example). The more we drift apart, fun though we're having playing the game, the less easy it is to play elsewhere and the less organised the campaign becomes.
If it is not considered official, then the Blog post cannot be used in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
A Blog post is not considered official unless in part or whole it is pointed to in a FAQ or is incorporated into Additional Resources.
If you built a character using information from a Blog post, then you did not build a legal character.
So I guess I'm not sure what you are trying to say.