|
good points
I do not disagree with your opinion. The issue is not so much a specific occurrence, but whether the existing rule meets the needs of the society. In your example, those "rules" covering the subdomains are merely suggestions from the view of PFS until they appear in an official document.
We have to balance the importance of clear rules with the expectation that all the players/GM's/organizers/VL/VC/stores/etc are well versed with the Blog and the Forums. Most agree that it would be poor form to expect everything in those locations to be accepted as cannon. Especially since, at a game table, it is likely that a player/GM will claim the rule changed according to something they read there, but not have the accessibility to show the documentation in support. Or perhaps they are just mis-remembering what they read.
So, at least for now, the best way to handle this issue, is for PFS staff (mostly Mike) to ensure that any rules change/amendment/clarification that is expected to be followed makes its may to the FAQ as quickly as possible.
And if we want a blog post to be "official" all that is really needed is an FAQ entry that says so. Don't even need to re-print the material. Just link to the Blog post. Then, at least, anyone who prints the FAQ and keeps it for reference (a good idea for all GM's/organizers) can simply print the blog as an attachment.
I've removed a personal attack and several responses to that post.
We hate shutting down threads, so please play nice so we aren't forced to do so.
I was not online to see anything that others posted after me, but if you are going to remove my little post about his Bob's rudeness, then you better edit out his rudeness too. And if you do not edit him, an apology from him would be nice.
As for blog posts, we still have this from Hyrum's stickied thread back in Feb:
The new subdomains posted by James in his blog post "Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!" and any additions he made to that post in subsequent replies are legal for PFS.Edit: And to keep everything in one place... The previous Golarion Day post Other Gods and Subdomains is legal as well.
You must bring a printout of the post and any comments to an event where you're using the subdomains.
We'll get them added to the Additional Resources page as soon as possible.
Hyrum.
If these are really not legal and are never going to make into Additional Resources, maybe you should just delete his post so that others are not confused by it.
|
|
I was not online to see anything that others posted after me, but if you are going to remove my little post about his Bob's rudeness, then you better edit out his rudeness too.
Since it is difficult to interpret "feelings" from forum posts, where was I rude? I even used "please" which is in and of itself, not rude. It pays a bit of respect for the other person while still requesting they take action.
As for blog posts...If these are really not legal and are never going to make into Additional Resources, maybe you should just delete his post so that others are not confused by it.
To this I agree. It could be viewed as confusing to a player/GM and probably should be addressed. We have declared that forum posts are not official, and then use a forum post to state a specific rule is legal. Very contradictory.
|
I've removed a personal attack and several responses to that post.
We hate shutting down threads, so please play nice so we aren't forced to do so.
I was not online to see anything that others posted after me, but if you are going to remove my little post about his Bob's rudeness, then you better edit out his rudeness too. And if you do not edit him, an apology from him would be nice.
As for blog posts, we still have this from Hyrum's stickied thread back in Feb:
If these are really not legal and are never going to make into Additional Resources, maybe you should just delete his post so that others are not confused by it.
The new subdomains posted by James in his blog post "Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!" and any additions he made to that post in subsequent replies are legal for PFS.Edit: And to keep everything in one place... The previous Golarion Day post Other Gods and Subdomains is legal as well.
You must bring a printout of the post and any comments to an event where you're using the subdomains.
We'll get them added to the Additional Resources page as soon as possible.
Hyrum.
If someone brings a post written by a previous campaign coordinator, such as the one you have quoted (although a link would have been better), and a print out of the blog post the coordinator’s post refers to, I don’t think there would be many, if any, GM’s that would refuse it.
This post of Hyrum’s was also posted well before the post indicating that forum posts were optional until made official by being placed in the guide, alternate resources or the FAQ.
In my career, if a specification calls for a 3’0” wide by 7’0” high door, and an addendum comes out to change it to 3’6” wide, the old specification is not deleted. We are expected to abide by the change. I’d wager this is true for almost any professional career.
With Pathfinder, you find Paizo has Errata documents. And until they put out a new PDF or a new printing, they don’t delete the old info. They don’t come to your house and redact your books.
If you are well enough informed to have read, used and printed the blog post and Hyrum’s post in February, you are also probably well enough informed to have read the next post regarding how forum posts and clarifications are to be handled. So you use the previous information at your own risk.
That being said, if you know of any situation where a GM has played hard ball with a player using the above example, then please elucidate. Otherwise we are just playing chicken little here.
|
|
This post of Hyrum’s was also posted well before the post indicating that forum posts were optional until made official by being placed in the guide, alternate resources or the FAQ.
Interesting point. I did not do the searching to see the alignment of dates. That may bring into light another confusing issue. Is the rule referencing forums post intended to be retroactive or only from the date it became official? That is very hard to adjudicate, because as additional Guides are published, players would not know what the launch date was. It is easier to interpret the rule to be retroactive, and then add to the FAQ/Additional Resources, the pertinent information from the "old" threads and blogs.
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.
Jestercap is a blog entry written by the PFS coordinator and relates specifically to PFS, for PFS characters, but you're saying it isn't legal in PFS?
Edit: what I'm saying is that's absurd, and I will continue to use the blog entries for my PFS characters. If I start to get hassle from GMs about doing that then I will probably end up playing less PFS and attending fewer conventions (or I'll play something else). The rules have to make sense for anyone to follow them.
Just a thought:
The Additional Resources page could simply state that the subdomain blog and the jestercap blog, plus any blog entry that's flagged as 'Valid in PFS' are legal in PFS play, but other blog entries are not. Then all Mike has to do is slap 'Valid in PFS' at the top of the appropraite blog entries and no further editing of the Resources page is required.
There may be other blog entries people use as well, but those are the only two I use, so I've not excluded anything deliberately.
|
|
The only issue with that is players/GM's/etc would be forced to read all the blog posts looking for the "Valid for PFS" tag. If we are going to go this route, we are better served to add the material to the FAQ (which can likely be done more efficiently since no layout work is needed) with a link back the blog.
If they're not core assumption, or whatever the phrase is, then the player should have a copy of the blog with them anyway. But I don't mind how its done, so long as its official (and therefore reliable).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well considering players are already supposed to bring a physical or digital version of all the material they've used to build their character, printing out the blog and FAQ should sort of be assumed.
If someone wants to bring something to the table, they need to be prepared to show what the actual source and rule are they are using. This applies to anything in PFS.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well considering players are already supposed to bring a physical or digital version of all the material they've used to build their character, printing out the blog and FAQ should sort of be assumed.
If someone wants to bring something to the table, they need to be prepared to show what the actual source and rule are they are using. This applies to anything in PFS.
Edit:
In order to utilize content from an Additional Resource, a player must have a physical copy or a name-watermarked Paizo PDF (or printout of the relevant pages thereof ) of the Additional Resource in question, as well as a copy of the current version of the Additional Resources list. It is considered courteous to inform the Game Master that you plan to use Additional Resource material before play begins, so he has a chance to familiarize himself with the new material.
I know it doesn't list FAQ/ blog content, but it's an obvious extension
|
|
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.
Jestercap is a blog entry written by the PFS coordinator and relates specifically to PFS, for PFS characters, but you're saying it isn't legal in PFS?
Edit: what I'm saying is that's absurd, and I will continue to use the blog entries for my PFS characters. If I start to get hassle from GMs about doing that then I will probably end up playing less PFS and attending fewer conventions (or I'll play something else). The rules have to make sense for anyone to follow them.
Jestercap is not just a Blog. It is a blog written by the campaign coordinator to inform us of a new Chronicle Sheet we could apply to our characters. Totally different animal.
And if you use a Blog that has no back-up material for it being legal in PFS, then I hope at some point you do get hassle from a GM.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will raise the issue of Hyrum's post in that blog thread to Mike, who is really the one who needs to make this call. I know which way I'm leaning, but I'm not the campaign coordinator. Since he's at NeonCon, this will likely have to wait until next week.
Until then, anything that does not appear in a printed book/errata document, the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, or the PFRPG or Pathfinder Society FAQs is not an official ruling for the campaign, including clarifications from previous campaign coordinators on past blog posts or messageboard threads.
|
|
Speaking of subdomains, one thing I've noticed a few players blank-out on is that they're unavailable unless you take the actual cleric archetype of the same name. (I.e., so you can't be a Crusader cleric of Calistria with the Deception subdomain because the Crusader and Subdomains archetypes can't stack.)
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Speaking of subdomains, one thing I've noticed a few players blank-out on is that they're unavailable unless you take the actual cleric archetype of the same name. (I.e., so you can't be a Crusader cleric of Calistria with the Deception subdomain because the Crusader and Subdomains archetypes can't stack.)
Subdomains aren't an archetype.
A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have
access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity
(see Table 2–12). If a cleric selects a subdomain, she cannot
select its associated domain as her other domain choice
(in effect, the subdomain replaces its associated domain).
Subdomains are treated as equivalent to their associated
domain for any effect or prerequisite based on domains.
If a subdomain has two associated domains, the cleric
can only select the subdomain for one of her domains.
Subdomains can be selected by druids (except the metal
subdomain) and inquisitors (if their deity allows it).
Diminished Spellcasting: A crusader chooses only
one domain and gains one fewer spell of each level than
normal. If this reduces the number to 0, she may cast spells
of that level only if they are domain spells or if her Wisdom
allows bonus spells of that level.
Just because you only have one domain, doesn't mean you can't have it be a subdomain. RAW there is nothing stopping you from being a Crusader with the Deception subdomain.
|
|
Speaking of subdomains, one thing I've noticed a few players blank-out on is that they're unavailable unless you take the actual cleric archetype of the same name. (I.e., so you can't be a Crusader cleric of Calistria with the Deception subdomain because the Crusader and Subdomains archetypes can't stack.)Subdomains aren't an archetype.
Yes, it is.
-- Look at the layout structure of new class archetypes in the APG. Under cleric there is one new listing, "SUBDOMAINS", where all the stuff regarding how subdomains work is presented. The entry is formatted identically to archetypes of other classes in the APG; therefore it is difficult to rationalize that "SUBDOMAINS" is not an archetype.
The fact that cleric subdomains do not stack with other archetypes is explicit on APG p73 prior to the archetype listings (I would argue the text also precludes Evangelists with subdomains even though that archetype does not modify domain features).
At d20pfsrd, "Subdomains" is listed in a table with all the other archetypes at bottom of the page, with an "X" in the field for Class Features Replaced / Domains.
So, unless you have campaign documentation from elsewhere indicating you can stack subdomains with archetypes, a GM is liable to (and should) nix such characters as being illegally built.
|
|
Actually, when the APG came out, clerics had no archetypes. That's why your quote from pg73 means, that at that time, the cleric only has the option of choosing a subdomain, instead of an archetype like the other classes. Sorcerors and wizards were in the same boat at the release of the APG (along with the new 6 base classes).
The only real restriction for the cleric is on pg86 "A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity (see Table 2-12)."
They've even stated that subdomains maybe taken by ANY class that has an appropriate domain (i.e. druid, inquisitor, possibly others that don't come to mind right now).
|
|
They've even stated that subdomains maybe taken by ANY class that has an appropriate domain (i.e. druid, inquisitor, possibly others that don't come to mind right now).
Where has this been so stated in PFS-legal material which passes the Mark Moreland kosher-test (see half-dozen posts above)? Links appreciated....
(Willing to be corrected, because I have some concepts to try out. Those lovely whips require so darn many feats....)
|
|
Yes, it is.Speaking of subdomains, one thing I've noticed a few players blank-out on is that they're unavailable unless you take the actual cleric archetype of the same name. (I.e., so you can't be a Crusader cleric of Calistria with the Deception subdomain because the Crusader and Subdomains archetypes can't stack.)Subdomains aren't an archetype.
They're a new feature or variant rule (APG p. 5). You do raise a troubling question about the p. 73 text:
Instead of specific archetypes, each cleric can choose from a host of subdomains...
Compare the Undead Lord archetype, which must and does take a subdomain, though it could be argued that this is granted by the archetype's Death Magic substitute ability.
|
|
Yes, it is.Speaking of subdomains, one thing I've noticed a few players blank-out on is that they're unavailable unless you take the actual cleric archetype of the same name. (I.e., so you can't be a Crusader cleric of Calistria with the Deception subdomain because the Crusader and Subdomains archetypes can't stack.)Subdomains aren't an archetype.They're a new feature or variant rule (APG p. 5). You do raise a troubling question about the p. 73 text:
Instead of specific archetypes, each cleric can choose from a host of subdomains...Compare the Undead Lord archetype, which must and does take a subdomain, though it could be argued that this is granted by the archetype's Death Magic substitute ability.
Instead of offering specific archtypes, each cleric can choose from a host of subdomains.
This is how I read it. They offered us sub domains back than to work with instead of arch types, not either or. Course after reading it, I can see how it can be taken the other way.
As for d20, how does herolab do it? I think they allow sub"s and arch's both, BUT it doesnt matter really since neither is offial.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
The primary issue is whether or not "Subdomains" is an archetype. The layout structure in the APG squarely positions it as one, and the fine folks at d20pfsrd assume so in table form. If so, then a Cleric[Subdomains] obviously cannot stack with any other archetype which modifies domain powers, with cleric[Evangelist] being the only one which doesn't. Whether cleric[Evangelist] and cleric[Subdomains] do not stack is then an issue of if APGp73's "Instead of" text is forward-extrapolating to cover new splatbook archetypes.
So...yeah; a FAQ would be useful at this point.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAQ: Can druids, inquisitors, and other classes with access to domains take the subdomains listed in the cleric section of the APG?
Yes, as long as they follow the rules for subdomains on page 86.
-- Classic example of a maddeningly unhelpful FAQ response within the context of this quandary. I.e., "the rules for subdomains on page 86" are the Cleric[Subdomains] archetype section! -- IOW, the answer doesn't help you at all if you're wondering whether or not your Cleric[Crusader] can take subdomains and ignore the class abilities stacking conflict.
The better question to ask is something directly to the heart of whether or not "SUBDOMAINS" is an actual archetype, and whether or not the "instead of" text of p73 has now been superseded.
|
|
The "instead of" text hasn't been superseded, it's been reinforced. A subdomain isn't an archetype for a class. It's a subset of a domain. That's what clerics got access to in the APG instead of archetypes.
The subdomain doesn't follow the rules of archetypes, because they're NOT archetypes. The rule that the FAQ refers to basically boils down to:
"A cleric who chooses a subdomain must have access to both the domain and its subdomain from her deity (see Table 2-12)."
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
They're a new feature or variant rule (APG p. 5). You do raise a troubling question about the p. 73 text:
Instead of specific archetypes, each cleric can choose from a host of subdomains...
That isn't a 'rule', it's a table of contents detailing what is in each section of the APG. It's an index entry, similar to the briefs that detail what feats do.
It could be paraphrased:
"Instead of including specific archetypes, this chapter contains subdomains for clerics to take."
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
This discussion is no longer about Pathfinder Society specific rules. Since this thread is about PFS specifically, I can't move it. So any discussion about how subdomains work should be taken to the rules forums, as they work the same way in PFS as they do everywhere else.
|
|
Until then, anything that does not appear in a printed book/errata document, the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, or the PFRPG or Pathfinder Society FAQs is not an official ruling for the campaign, including clarifications from previous campaign coordinators on past blog posts or messageboard threads.
The Jestercap blog, or content from any future holiday blogs, is a non issue because it is only available to people for 3 weeks. This is similar to special boons given out at Gencon and the like. The Chronicle sheets don't have anything about them in Additional Resources but they are still PFS legal and don't need to be added to the Additional Resources to clutter it up. The holiday blogs themselves are fluff that don't add any mechanical advantage in their writing. The Chronicle is provided free of charge to anyone and available for a limited time so no need to add to Additional Resources. All Chronicles, as the primary means of tracking a character's advancement, are always considered legal, regardless of whether one was earned by completing a scenario or module, as a GM reward, from a Pathfinder Tales, or from a holiday blog.
Past blogs from other staff members—whether they be developers, designers, authors, etc—are not going to be official and affect Pathfinder Society until they are printed in a book, appear in the FAQ, or appear in the Additional Resources list. This includes past blogs and posts by Hyrum or Josh. All this printing out of blogs with replies and bringing them a game to show a GM is cumbersome and I'm not going to require players to bring a ton of extra printed pages with them. If it isn't in a book, the Additional Resources list, or FAQ, then it doesn't apply to Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
If it is an issue that needs to be addressed from a past blog or messageboard ruling, please bring it up again as a new topic, and if warranted, it will be added to the FAQ initially, and possibly future versions of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play. There are too many past rulings that exist only on the messageboards and they are all over the place. It is time to tidy things up and allow players to go to the three places to find all official rulings.
|
|
Past blogs from other staff members—whether they be developers, designers, authors, etc—are not going to be official and affect Pathfinder Society until they are printed in a book, appear in the FAQ, or appear in the Additional Resources list.
Since most of the animal int blog is in PFS FAQ, that should not be a problem, but I am not happy about no longer allowing prior blogs that Hyrum allowed, for a few reasons.
PCs already are using them, now they can't, and your reason for it is to me not really a good reason. If the player is comfortable in bringing the print out in the blog already, then I don't see a problem with that.
HeroLabs already has added the blogs in and made the PFS ones legal, so now you are forcing them to change that, which is annoying.
|
|
HeroLabs already has added the blogs in and made the PFS ones legal, so now you are forcing them to change that, which is annoying.Are you talking about the alternative summons? Or are there other blogs which have been added?
Just about all the blogs that have added additional stuff have been added, and the ones that Hyrum said where PFS legal have been made so in HeroLabs
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Part of why we want to make it clear what is and isn't legal for play in as few locations as possible is to accommodate partners like the fine folks at Lone Wolf so they know where to look for updates and rulings when putting out patches for HeroLab. Thanks for bringing this specific issue to light; we'll try to get in touch with someone there about what needs to be changed in light of this clarification.
|
|
Since most of the animal int blog is in PFS FAQ, that should not be a problem, but I am not happy about no longer allowing prior blogs that Hyrum allowed, for a few reasons.
PCs already are using them, now they can't, and your reason for it is to me not really a good reason. If the player is comfortable in bringing the print out in the blog already, then I don't see a problem with that.
HeroLabs already has added the blogs in and made the PFS ones legal, so now you are forcing them to change that, which is annoying.
I'm not saying past blogs won't be made legal. However, they need to be added to the FAQ , Additional Resources, or the Guide so we have them all in a known location, not some abstract post or some two year old blog. It is also not fair to GMs for players to show up with a blog or posting they were unaware of, sometimes made a year or two before the GM joined the campaign. If all the associated blogs and posts are added to any of the three locations, it helps out GMs immensely as they can prepare ahead of time.
Feel free to send me a list of all of them and I will be glad to start working on the FAQ.
Also, I am not forcing Hero Lab to change. I am requesting the community send me the blogs that should be added so that we may get them were they should be and not buried somewhere on this website.
|
|
...I am not happy about no longer allowing prior blogs that Hyrum allowed...
If it is an issue that needs to be addressed from a past blog or messageboard ruling, please bring it up again as a new topic, and if warranted, it will be added to the FAQ
Seems that this is an equitable way to either get your PC legal again, or find out why it can't be anymore.
|
|
Feel free to send me a list of all of them and I will be glad to start working on the FAQ.
Here is the blog at least that Hyrum made legal
Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!
Blog Hryum planned on making legal
Venture-Agent, Virginia—Hampton Roads
|
Feel free to send me a list of all of them and I will be glad to start working on the FAQ.Here is the blog at least that Hyrum made legal
Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!
Blog Hryum planned on making legal
I completely forgot about those blogs. I need to bookmark those.
Feel free to send me a list of all of them and I will be glad to start working on the FAQ.Here is the blog at least that Hyrum made legal
Golarion Day: Subdomains for Everyone!
Blog Hryum planned on making legal
he did make them both legal.
paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderSociety/ general/newSubdomainsLegalForPFS&page=1&source=search#1
On phone or I would make the link pretty.
|
|
And as I said HERE these will be updated in the near future to the FAQ to incorporate both blogs in PFS play.
Linked
I completely forgot about those blogs. I need to bookmark those.
And this is the primary reason I am requiring all past, approved blogs and/or posts to be updated to be included in the FAQ, Additional Resources, or the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play per the other post.
|
|
And as I said HERE these will be updated in the near future to the FAQ to incorporate both blogs in PFS play.
Linked
And this is the primary reason I am requiring all past, approved blogs and/or posts to be updated to be included in the FAQ, Additional Resources, or the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play per the other post.
I completely forgot about those blogs. I need to bookmark those.
Question: the Trip FAQ was updated to include the change for getting the weapon bonuses to Trip with non-Trip weapons from this blog: Weapon Maneuver Blog
The FAQ does not specificaslly include this section of the blog, so it appears that this is NOT PFSOP legal:
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).
Is that correct, or does the FAQ tacitly imply that this portion of the blog is legal as well?
|
|
would like to add, that I cant find anywhere in the legal sources, that a person cant craft weapons and such with craft skills. I know that you cant, but was pointed to this but someone else.
Step 3: Skills
Next up is determining what specific training your
character has received. This is done in the standard
fashion described in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Determine your starting skill points and spend them as
you see fit.
Step 4: Feats
Characters select feats according to the guidelines in the
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Certain Core Rulebook feats
are not available to Pathfinder Society characters. These
include: Brew Potion, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft
Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Item, Forge
Ring, Leadership, and Scribe Scroll.
Paizo.com/pathfindersociety/resources c ontains a
book-by-book analysis of campaign-legal feat choices
beyond the Core Rulebook. Check there before taking any
feat from a non-Core Rulebook source.
Boon CompanionAnd can we please get an official rewrite for this aswell. I know how it is supposed to be officiated, but that is RAI, till added to FAQ. Thanks
|
|
And as I said HERE these will be updated in the near future to the FAQ to incorporate both blogs in PFS play.
Linked
And this is the primary reason I am requiring all past, approved blogs and/or posts to be updated to be included in the FAQ, Additional Resources, or the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play per the other post.
I completely forgot about those blogs. I need to bookmark those.
That blog is a clarification of the rule and is not PFS specific so it is not going in the PFS FAQ. Clarification of rules go under PFRPG FAQ and if you want it there, then flag and request it. I'm not going to fill our FAQ with rules clarifications that are system wide, not just for organized play.
If you want other blogs added to the Additional Resources, then point them out and link them and I can get that done if they are specific to PFS.
|
|
would like to add, that I cant find anywhere in the legal sources, that a person cant craft weapons and such with craft skills. I know that you cant, but was pointed to this but someone else.
Step 3: Skills
Next up is determining what specific training your
character has received. This is done in the standard
fashion described in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook.
Determine your starting skill points and spend them as
you see fit.
Step 4: Feats
Characters select feats according to the guidelines in the
Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Certain Core Rulebook feats
are not available to Pathfinder Society characters. These
include: Brew Potion, Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Craft
Rod, Craft Staff, Craft Wand, Craft Wondrous Item, Forge
Ring, Leadership, and Scribe Scroll.
Paizo.com/pathfindersociety/resources c ontains a
book-by-book analysis of campaign-legal feat choices
beyond the Core Rulebook. Check there before taking any
feat from a non-Core Rulebook source.Boon CompanionAnd can we please get an official rewrite for this aswell. I know how it is supposed to be officiated, but that is RAI, till added to FAQ. Thanks
Craft skill is allowed for day job rolls. All the craft feats are removed from play so magic items can't be crafted and I'm not sure why someone would want to craft mundane items. We are trying to maintain word count. Is it really a problem that we need to add that people can not craft mundane items?
|
|
Boon CompanionAnd can we please get an official rewrite for this aswell. I know how it is supposed to be officiated, but that is RAI, till added to FAQ. Thanks
Unfortunately, that is a PF RPG issue, not so much a PFS one. In those cases, the PFS leadership avoids the potential of rules conflicts by leaving it to the designers to FAQ as they feel it necessary.
Most seem to understand the "official" RAI on the feat based on forum feedback from the feat's author and other designers. So using it in any other way will open you up to a lot of potential problems with table variation.
As I understand it:
(1) Treat your effective druid level as four higher, capped at your character's level. Essentially, your animal companion is four levels higher, capped at you character's level
(2) It applies to any class that is granted an animal companion (ranger, druid, cavalier, etc)
(3) It does apply to familiars
(4) It does not apply to Eidolons
So some examples:
Ranger level six with boon companion would have a 6th level animal companion instead of the normal 2nd level one.
A Barbarian-2/Druid-4 would have a 6th level AC.
A Barbarian-6/Druid-2 would have a 6th level AC.
A Barbarian-8/Druid-2 would have a 6th level AC.
Not sure if any additional examples are needed, but you can always post it and we can assist you in determining the AC's effective level.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Craft skill is allowed for day job rolls. All the craft feats are removed from play so magic items can't be crafted and I'm not sure why someone would want to craft mundane items. We are trying to maintain word count. Is it really a problem that we need to add that people can not craft mundane items?
Well, if the point of banning the craft feats is to help keep the wealth level even, then it might be important. Otherwise, people could craft say full plate for 500g and sell it for 750g. I was sure mundane crafting was banned, and that only Alchemists could craft items, but jjaamm has a point, its not spelled out that you can't craft mundane items (besides the aforementioned alchemists).
EDIT:
Checking the numbers, you'd only need a +9 craft armor to take 10 and make your full plate. since time between scenarios is not measured, you could craft (if you had the gp) 10 suits of armor for 5000g and sell them for 7500g making 2500g profit between scenarios.
|
|
I'll make sure the wording is added in Guide 4.1. I'm not sure why it doesn't appear in 4.0. I wish people didn't need to feel they had to "win" or game the system but I understand it is the nature of the beast. *sigh*
It will read as follows:
"Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are legal for play. Additionally, except for day job rolls, the Craft skill is not legal for play and crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society. One exception is alchemist are allowed to use the craft skill per the FAQ."
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'll make sure the wording is added in Guide 4.1. I'm not sure why it doesn't appear in 4.0. I wish people didn't need to feel they had to "win" or game the system but I understand it is the nature of the beast. *sigh*
It will read as follows:
"Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are legal for play. Additionally, except for day job rolls, the Craft skill is not legal for play and crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society."
So will this then invalidate the FAQ about alchemists crafting alchemical items, or will the FAQ supersede this?
(Sorry for possibly giving you a headache, but if I don't ask, I know someone else will)
|
|
So will this then invalidate the FAQ about alchemists crafting alchemical items, or will the FAQ supersede this?(Sorry for possibly giving you a headache, but if I don't ask, I know someone else will)
I guess this will teach me about replying to posts on weekends. No, it won't invalidate the FAQ about alchemists crafting alchemical items.. The FAQ is designed to handle corner cases and supersedes the Guide in said corner cases.
And the additional wording:
"Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are legal for play. Additionally, except for day job rolls, the Craft skill is not legal for play and crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society. One exception is alchemist are allowed to use the craft skill per the PFS FAQ found at http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety/faq#v5748eaic9of0."
And, we move on toward a 40 page Guide......
|
|
Yup. The new Guide text could be something like:
"Neither the craft feats nor the item creation section of the magic items chapter in the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook are legal for play. Additionally, except for specific examples cited in this Guide or the PFS FAQ, the Craft skill is not legal for play and crafting of mundane items is not allowed in Pathfinder Society."
That should cover all of the other corner cases (Alchemist, Poisoner, Bonded Items) and any new ones.
Crafting mundane items between scenarios is not allowed to begin with because there is no tracking of the passage of time between scenarios. And I know something like this will have to be an all or nothing rule, but people will wonder why they can't use the craft skills during a scenario to make something simple that might only take a couple of hours to make.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
@Michael - You might consider specifying in the FAQ *when* alchemists are allowed to craft items. Our group (and I suspect quite a few others) has been allowing crafting between scenarios based on an old Josh Frost forum post but looking at the FAQ entry and Enevhar's post, it's not very clear that it's allowed. Frost suggested that you could craft as many items as you wanted between scenarios, if you can only craft while the clock is ticking, far less crafting is going to happen.
For example:
"Alchemists can use the Craft (alchemy) skill to produce items between or during scenarios with their Alchemy ability. An alchemist can make XXX(unlimited) crafting attempts between scenarios. Follow the Craft rules on pages 91–93 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook as well as in the alchemist’s Alchemy ability description. Any item created must be properly noted on that scenario’s Chronicle sheet. Under "Items Bought", note the amount of gold spent and the item created.
I wouldn't bother suggesting this but Enevhar's post made me realize that Frost's previous comments about crafting between scenarios doesn't necessarily apply any more.