|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me, or does anyone else find this phrase incredibly frustrating?
The whole idea behind having a Rules Forum is so that people can come here to ask questions about the rules. As people begin asking the same question over and over again, that question becomes a "Frequently Asked Question". Often this happens because the rule in question is ambiguous and/or there are (at least) two dominant interpretations of how it works. Until an official answer is given, there will continue to be people questioning it.
I completely understand that not all questions will ever get an official response. This rant doesn't mean I have a problem with the FAQ system. But may I humbly ask that the web staff discontinue using the phrase, "Staff response: no reply required"?
This "answer" only makes things worse. It does not address the original question, leaving the same opposing interpretations as before, and it does not stop the same question from being asked over and over again in the future, since people, obviously, needed an answer in the first place. They will continue to post the same question, and the staff will continue to post the same response.
Analogy: If two employees had differing interpretations about a policy, and went to their boss to ask which was correct, what would their reaction be if the boss stroked his chin in thought, paused, and then responded, "No reply required"? They'd be frustrated at their boss, and they'd still have their question unanswered.
Now, imagine if the same two employees left a voicemail for their boss, asking the same question. They're going to have to wait until their boss gets back to them. They will still have their question unanswered until then, but at least they won't be frustrated with him for telling them "I don't need to answer your question".
Please favorite this post if you agree. I'm betting we've all been confused/angered/frustrated by this response at least once before.
Nope, not really. Usually the people on the forums are smart enough to answer my question when no reply is required. Or I can put together what the answer is through common sense without the rules having to spell it out for me.
What does need to change is the response where they say the FAQ has been answered, but it was answered in some topic long ago and not in the official FAQ. I'd rather see a link made to it or something. But I don't get frustrated over little things like that.
There are definitely many legitimate times for the use of no reply required (example: A Guide To the Class Guides), so I understand why it's there. It's just that every now and then, it pops up in a thread that is, unfortunately, not as clear as the design team would think. Or, perhaps it is pretty clear, but there are two legitimate ways to look at it and both would make sense.
|
|
Most people "can put together what the answer is through common sense". Most rules are not ambiguous. But for those where there are two common sense applications, or two very different points of view, what do you do? You post a question, hoping it gets answered. What do you do when you're told your question isn't worth answering? You still have your original dilemma.
Granted, for home games, GMs are free to make their own rules, but the majority of play I see is Society, where there is no such freedom.
Note that hey've also said that it's fine to make a new post and FAQ that one on the same topic if you think it still needs clarification.
Which I did with the topic that you made this thread about :)
|
|
Actually, THIS is the thread that prompted me to post this. But the repeated questions about Shamans would also definitely apply.
They categorically remove 'FAQ Request' from forum titles. I've started to just not include it after the 3rd thread that had it removed, and instead just praised the reader's handsomeness.
|
|
Doesn't PFS have it's own "Mike Brock says so" system that's independent fron design team FAQ system?
No.
PFS has its own house rules for some things, but Mike Brock has better things to do than answer frequently asked rules questions. In fact, most rules questions that get posted in that forum get booted over here.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Separate but related question:
When the staff says that no response is necessary, what is the best way to proceed when the question still needs answering? Do you go with whatever answer gives you the most favorable outcome, or the most stringent?
For the Shaman Druid archetypes, does that mean level 4, or level 6?
For special material weapon hardness, does that mean harder to destroy, or easier to destroy?
For anything else, does it mean RAW, or RAI?
If I recall, the shaman druid issue was answered by Jason Nelson. Can't find the thread at the moment. Lemme look for it.
He knows of that post, Odraude :)
My point, though, is that the thread probably said No Reply Required because it was already answered. In this case, by the guy that wrote the druid. But, that's not exactly good enough for most people, so they demand that it be added to the already long list of FAQ. And, to be honest, many people that ask these question all feel that their answer deserves to be in the FAQ and thrown into RAW because they have more of a stake in it being the legitimate answer than a dev does. This is especially true of PFS, which I have my own opinions of but those aren't relevant. That's why it's much better for them to keep an impartial, unbiased look at what needs to be FAQ'd and what is simple common sense, especially since despite them doing well for an RPG company, there's still only so many people that work with Paizo. And each Paizonite has a great deal of work to do to stay on deadlines and such, especially during con season (which is fast approaching). So it is unrealistic to have every little niche case have it's own FAQ, whether it's Oracles using Wisdom for Cleric spells, or using Sneak Attack when hiding with Stealth, or the hardness of a weapon. And it really isn't as simple as "hire more people" because that's expensive. And asking for free volunteers wouldn't work either because people wouldn't regard their word as the "Correct RAW Canon of Pathfinder" since they aren't devs, even if they hired some forumites with good heads on their shoulders like wraithstrike or Epic Meepo or youself, Cheapy. And even with all that, there's the danger of everything being overly codified and sowing this attitude of pedantic over-complication and stubbord inaction until a dev says something, instead of using our heads and logic to figure out some rules.
Now, this isn't a jab at asking questions when things are too confusing, or when there are actual rules issues. But my point is that sometimes, we need to step back and really think if it's the question that's overly complicated, or simply the person making it overly complicated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many of these FAQ's are people simply not liking what the book says and just being willfully stubborn or hoping there is some small chance the book is in error.
Yeah I have been in debates where the person basically said the devs meant the exact opposite of whatever was written. I point out that it had the same wording and ruling in 3.5. In that case Paizo meant to change it but they forgot. O_o
Separate but related question:
When the staff says that no response is necessary, what is the best way to proceed when the question still needs answering? Do you go with whatever answer gives you the most favorable outcome, or the most stringent?
For the Shaman Druid archetypes, does that mean level 4, or level 6?
For special material weapon hardness, does that mean harder to destroy, or easier to destroy?
For anything else, does it mean RAW, or RAI?
I tend to go with a mixture of logic, gut feeling, and RAI.
So for, say the Shaman Druid (which I agree, do need a rewrite in the actual book), I went with no wildshape until level 6, and then it works as it says (-2 for everything except the animal).
For special material hardness, I always have that override the normal weapon hardness. Or else, you'd really get no benefit against sunder for having adamantine.
Anything else, I look at RAW and make sure it is clear and concise. If not, I go with RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of these FAQ's are people simply not liking what the book says and just being willfully stubborn or hoping there is some small chance the book is in error.
Yeah I have been in debates where the person basically said the devs meant the exact opposite of whatever was written. I point out that it had the same wording and ruling in 3.5. In that case Paizo meant to change it but they forgot. O_o
That's the truth. There's a point where even when the devs come out and say that "yes, this is the rules as intended", it still isn't good enough to sway people and it must be written in the Tome of Pathfinder. Preferably in virgin blood. :)
It definitely rubs the wrong way sometimes but I really try to put myself in their shoes and assume the best about their intentions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get where the OP is coming from.
The problem really is the fact that many, maybe most, dare I say maybe even about 99%, of all Pathfinder players don't live and eat and drink and breathe these forums.
It's all well and good when there's a hundred people who know that some Paizo staff member answered the same question in 2011 and don't really need a FAQ response. For millions of other players who don't remember that long-lost answer, it would be nice to have a quick location where we can easily look up answers to our questions.
So we search. Using a few strategic keywords, we can narrow it down to a hundred threads or so. Then we sort by relevance and begin at the top. Bingo! First thread has a lively discussion about the very question we want answered, and a FAQ request too! Perfect!
But, that request was shot down by Paizo leaving me to wonder if it has ever been answered or not. Maybe yes, maybe no. So I read the 300 posts in that thread and all I get is 2 or 3 or 7 different ways to interpret the rule I had originally wondered about. OK, onto the 2nd most relevant thread. And the third. And the fourth. An hour of searching the forum, and all I have is more questions, and no answers.
What's worse, is I know that the very first thread I found asked my exact question and Paizo answered it - but their answer was only to say that they didn't want to answer it. Heck, I bet that, at least some of the time, they could have spent just about the same time reading the question, thinking about an answer, and posting the answer rather than posting a non-answer.
That can be fairly frustrating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in the day the response would have been that's why we have DMs. I would guess the forum response that irritates you means it is in the RAW (and they think it's plain), it's been errata'd, it's already been answered (and our staff is too small to keep re-answering questions), it's been FAQ'd, or we're busy as all get out = figure it out. Or check with your GM :) I am not trying to be snarky btw, but the amount of time the staff at Paizo puts in interacting with posters is amazing. Already. If they don't have an answer, for whatever reason, figure it out and move on is as good as it gets.
I would guess the forum response that irritates you means it is in the RAW (and they think it's plain), it's been errata'd, it's already been answered (and our staff is too small to keep re-answering questions), it's been FAQ'd, or we're busy as all get out = figure it out. Or check with your GM
That we don't know which of these reasons is behind "Staff response: no reply required" being put on the post, is part of what makes this so frustrating.
And yes of course we will ask our GM if we can't get an answer on the messageboards. That's not a reason to avoid discussing a part of the FAQ system that doesn't seem to be working. By that same reasoning, why not suggest that Paizo just scrap the entire Rules Question part of the Messageboards and replace it with a big "ASK YOUR GM".
I think that instead of saying "no reply required" a dev(as the Pathfinder Team) could chime in and say poster ____ is correct. There have been times when nobody knew who was correct, but sometimes I do understand why they do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of sympathize with how the OP feels though I'm not sure that this really constitutes a "Rules Question". Anyhow, I'd bet that the staff might find many of our threads "incredibly frustrating" (maybe even this one)
I personally think it would be pretty funny if this thread got answered with "Staff Response: no reply required". Maybe it is really Paizo's way of saying, "We love you guys despite your pedantic rules lawyer ways".
It certainly seems like a nicer answer than, "You guys really get on our nerves sometimes with your whining and demands" or "This has been discussed 17 times. Will you just cut it out?"
See response from Sean K Reynolds in another thread, which explains a little. Also I recommend reading the rest of that thread so we all have a better idea how and when to use FAQ requests.
SKR response to thread about 'answered in FAQ'
However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.
Farther down in response to SKR, Paizo's Chief Technical Officer
We could create a "question unclear" flag... or any other flag that you think helps you do your job!
So that is a potential solution that hopefully will come down the pipe.
I get where the OP is coming from.
The problem really is the fact that many, maybe most, dare I say maybe even about 99%, of all Pathfinder players don't live and eat and drink and breathe these forums.
It's all well and good when there's a hundred people who know that some Paizo staff member answered the same question in 2011 and don't really need a FAQ response. For millions of other players who don't remember that long-lost answer, it would be nice to have a quick location where we can easily look up answers to our questions.
So we search. Using a few strategic keywords, we can narrow it down to a hundred threads or so. Then we sort by relevance and begin at the top. Bingo! First thread has a lively discussion about the very question we want answered, and a FAQ request too! Perfect!
But, that request was shot down by Paizo leaving me to wonder if it has ever been answered or not. Maybe yes, maybe no. So I read the 300 posts in that thread and all I get is 2 or 3 or 7 different ways to interpret the rule I had originally wondered about. OK, onto the 2nd most relevant thread. And the third. And the fourth. An hour of searching the forum, and all I have is more questions, and no answers.
What's worse, is I know that the very first thread I found asked my exact question and Paizo answered it - but their answer was only to say that they didn't want to answer it. Heck, I bet that, at least some of the time, they could have spent just about the same time reading the question, thinking about an answer, and posting the answer rather than posting a non-answer.
That can be fairly frustrating.
This.
I would like for some indication as to which side of the debate has the correct answer. There have been times this was applied to a thread, but nobody had a definite answer about who was right.
"Poster X is correct" can't take anymore time than a "no reply required".
And yes of course we will ask our GM if we can't get an answer on the messageboards. That's not a reason to avoid discussing a part of the FAQ system that doesn't seem to be working. By that same reasoning, why not suggest that Paizo just scrap the entire Rules Question part of the Messageboards and replace it with a big "ASK YOUR GM".
My point being your DM is closer and more likely to have the time to answer your question. I'm not saying "don't post your question", I'm just pointing out that Paizo devs may not have the time to answer every question and, in the end, it's your DM who is more likely to give you an answer. And if the DM feels you're going behind his back, for whatever reason, he may get a bit... annoyed. I would say proper etiquette would be check with your DM, and if he's not sure, check with the boards here - either for response from other posters, many of whom have a great grasp of the rules -- and I'm not saying I do :D, or from the devs. My 2 cp, ymmv.
And if the question is being posted by a DM who wants to know how something should work?
And if the question is being posted by a DM who wants to know how something should work?
Then he posts it and other people chime in. Or, he discusses it with his players and if no consensus is reached, he posts it. This community is not short of rules gurus. They may not always agree but the resulting discussion is likely to give you the answer you need. And a dev may chime in, who knows? I'm just saying they may not have time to answer every question, nor should they be expected to. They have jobs that don't include just cruising the boards. The level of contact with developers on these boards is extraordinary. You just can't always expect it.
And "ask your DM" doesn't hold up in PFS most of the time. Everything there is RAW, and you'll have a lot of DM's with a lot of answers. Thus, it needs an official FAQ ruling.
I don't play PFS, so I have no clue on that. Iirc, the rules for PFS are a bit different than RAW in some areas. I'd guess you take it to that section and ask. Or do these get posted in the regular rules section?
See response from Sean K Reynolds in another thread, which explains a little. Also I recommend reading the rest of that thread so we all have a better idea how and when to use FAQ requests.
SKR response to thread about 'answered in FAQ'
However, as there is no option for us to say "this post is a mess and we can't suss out exactly what you're asking," it's possible it may have been marked answered-in-FAQ to purge it from the list (otherwise it would sit in the list forever... the only options for clearing flags are "answered in FAQ," "answered in errata," "not an error/no staff response needed," and "create new FAQ entry for this") with the expectation that a clearer version of the question is in the queue.Farther down in response to SKR, Paizo's Chief Technical Officer
We could create a "question unclear" flag... or any other flag that you think helps you do your job!So that is a potential solution that hopefully will come down the pipe.
Actually, they DID add a "Question Unclear" tag, it was used on one of my posts (though it was answered anyway).
"No Reply Required" is something else entirely.
|
|
I don't play PFS, so I have no clue on that. Iirc, the rules for PFS are a bit different than RAW in some areas. I'd guess you take it to that section and ask. Or do these get posted in the regular rules section?
Pathfinder Society is a global campaign, and only really has its own rules as far as the campaign setting is concerned. Certain feats, traits, spells, items, etc. are banned or restricted, just as any GM may feel free to do in his or her own campaign. But generally speaking, the rules are the rules. They are not interpreted any differently.
The PFS forums are dedicated to discussing the PFS campaign. The Rules Forum is for posting rules questions. If you try to post a Rules Question over there, as many ppl are apt to do because of the reasons you proposed, it gets shunted over here by the webstaff. Same thing if you try to ask a PFS question here. The question is not about how the rules work in PFS, the question is about how the rules work in Pathfinder. PFS strives for consistency, which means consistent rules interpretations from table to table, and not one GM ruling something this way and other GM ruling in a different way.
The point I think you're missing is that after everything has been said and done, including talking to your GM (PFS or not), or searching the forums for an answer, or asking the community, or having a debate, or using "common sense", sometimes a question still just isn't clear. So an FAQ post is made in hopes of settling it once and for all. It is then that after the two sides have been laid out and all evidence presented that I felt the need to start this thread. You may not have sympathy for that, or think that everything is black and white and easy to conclude, but by the very virtue of these forums not everyone will see things the way you do.
I don't play PFS, so I have no clue on that. Iirc, the rules for PFS are a bit different than RAW in some areas. I'd guess you take it to that section and ask. Or do these get posted in the regular rules section?
Pathfinder Society is a global campaign, and only really has its own rules as far as the campaign setting is concerned. Certain feats, traits, spells, items, etc. are banned or restricted, just as any GM may feel free to do in his or her own campaign. But generally speaking, the rules are the rules. They are not interpreted any differently.
The PFS forums are dedicated to discussing the PFS campaign. The Rules Forum is for posting rules questions. If you try to post a Rules Question over there, as many ppl are apt to do because of the reasons you proposed, it gets shunted over here by the webstaff. Same thing if you try to ask a PFS question here. The question is not about how the rules work in PFS, the question is about how the rules work in Pathfinder. PFS strives for consistency, which means consistent rules interpretations from table to table, and not one GM ruling something this way and other GM ruling in a different way.
The point I think you're missing is that after everything has been said and done, including talking to your GM (PFS or not), or searching the forums for an answer, or asking the community, or having a debate, or using "common sense", sometimes a question still just isn't clear. So an FAQ post is made in hopes of settling it once and for all. It is then that after the two sides have been laid out and all evidence presented that I felt the need to start this thread. You may not have sympathy for that, or think that everything is black and white and easy to conclude, but by the very virtue of these forums not everyone will see things the way you do.
All I did was post a guess as to what was irritating you and discuss getting answers with several other posters. And then ask about PFS differences from regular play. I have no idea what preceded this thread. I'm not sure what my "sympathy" or lack there of has to do with it. And I am oh so sure that not everyone will agree with me. This is the internet. You could find an argument about whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. I'm guessing you're reading something into my posts that I didn't intend. If so, I am sorry and it was unintentional.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like for some indication as to which side of the debate has the correct answer. There have been times this was applied to a thread, but nobody had a definite answer about who was right.
"Poster X is correct" can't take anymore time than a "no reply required".
You know how that will end up, do you?
Post gets a "Poster X is correct" flag
X: HA! I'M CORRECT! I've been officially endorsed by Paizo as The Person Who Knows! Don't any of you dare disagree with me, for I am the Official Truthspeaker and second only to Jason. In fact, they've been consulting rules with me for some time. I'm flagging every post that disagrees with me, because that's like arguing with Jesus.
Now juxtapose that with several personality types present in rules debates and tell me where will that lead us other than even bigger mess than before :)
|
|
I would certainly hope people don't act that way in response to "X is correct" posts by Paizo staff. I've seen such posts used appropriately in other venues and the 'designated truthspeakers' remained quite well grounded and sensible in other posts/threads going forward.
If it does, one supposes Paizo could 'lawyer up' such responses. Imagine it: "Without endorsing or condemning (username) as a generally consistent or inconsistent rules source, (username) is correct in this matter. This response does not grant any special status unto (username) and does not make them a 'rules authority' in any sense. This response solely denotes that they are correct on this one single matter and going into any further detail on the topic is unnecessary. Again, (username) is not Rules God. Or even Rules Prince. Or Rules Squire for that matter. No official status for (username) going forward. No kiddin'. We're totally serious on that. We're only nodding at this one specific answer on their part. That's right. Yes, we're still talking; that's because some people misunderstood previous posts of this sort and we're being 180% clear on this. No, 260% clear! We are ALL THE CLEARS on this."
Said cautionary note would actually be longer than the simple "X is correct" response, which makes it even more hilarious. Hopefully it would be sufficient to drive the point home.
Post gets a "Poster X is correct" flag
X: HA! I'M CORRECT! I've been officially endorsed by Paizo as The Person Who Knows! Don't any of you dare disagree with me, for I am the Official Truthspeaker and second only to Jason. In fact, they've been consulting rules with me for some time. I'm flagging every post that disagrees with me, because that's like arguing with Jesus.
I generally follow this rule. Unless a paizo employee shows up and tells me i'm wrong... Then I'm totally right. Its like a traffic ticket. You're only wrong if you get caught!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would certainly hope people don't act that way in response to "X is correct" posts by Paizo staff. I've seen such posts used appropriately in other venues and the 'designated truthspeakers' remained quite well grounded and sensible in other posts/threads going forward.
If it does, one supposes Paizo could 'lawyer up' such responses. Imagine it: "Without endorsing or condemning (username) as a generally consistent or inconsistent rules source, (username) is correct in this matter. This response does not grant any special status unto (username) and does not make them a 'rules authority' in any sense. This response solely denotes that they are correct on this one single matter and going into any further detail on the topic is unnecessary. Again, (username) is not Rules God. Or even Rules Prince. Or Rules Squire for that matter. No official status for (username) going forward. No kiddin'. We're totally serious on that. We're only nodding at this one specific answer on their part. That's right. Yes, we're still talking; that's because some people misunderstood previous posts of this sort and we're being 180% clear on this. No, 260% clear! We are ALL THE CLEARS on this."
Said cautionary note would actually be longer than the simple "X is correct" response, which makes it even more hilarious. Hopefully it would be sufficient to drive the point home.
It's the Internet, dude. You can't expect people to moderate themselves, because they never will. All you can do is keep the matches and gasoline away from them.
I have never seen a thread which had "No Response Required" that couldn't have been given a legitimate answer. Likewise, I have never seen a thread that got that kind of treatment that resembled anything remotely like the kind of threads that wraithstike has describes above.
That whole aspect of the FAQ system needs to die in a fire.
Next time I see one I will be sure to inbox you.
I would like for some indication as to which side of the debate has the correct answer. There have been times this was applied to a thread, but nobody had a definite answer about who was right.
"Poster X is correct" can't take anymore time than a "no reply required".
You know how that will end up, do you?
Post gets a "Poster X is correct" flag
X: HA! I'M CORRECT! I've been officially endorsed by Paizo as The Person Who Knows! Don't any of you dare disagree with me, for I am the Official Truthspeaker and second only to Jason. In fact, they've been consulting rules with me for some time. I'm flagging every post that disagrees with me, because that's like arguing with Jesus.Now juxtapose that with several personality types present in rules debates and tell me where will that lead us other than even bigger mess than before :)
LOL..I don't think most of us are would do that, but I would definitely save it in my wishlist, even if Paizo errata'd it later. :)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. I'm sure many of the "no response required" responses predate when the tech team added the "answer unclear" option. If you feel you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer, start a new thread with a clearer question.
2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious: So if you don't like that "no response required" is an option for clearing FAQ flags... too bad, it's necessary. We're not going to spend our work time answering questions like "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Some questions really don't need an official response from the rules team.
1. I'm sure many of the "no response required" responses predate when the tech team added the "answer unclear" option. If you feel you haven't gotten a satisfactory answer, start a new thread with a clearer question.
2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious: So if you don't like that "no response required" is an option for clearing FAQ flags... too bad, it's necessary. We're not going to spend our work time answering questions like "Do I have to take Power Attack before I take Cleave?" Some questions really don't need an official response from the rules team.
Given that "no answer required" is an official response from the rules team that already required they read the thread and come to a decision, perhaps an option that says "Rules function as written" or "No deviation from RAW intended" or something that confirms that the obvious reading of the text is correct without giving a non-answer?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because for some questions, no staff response is needed.
I remember, back in the day, when GMs would actually make rulings based on the text in the book. And if a player asked, "Can I take Extra Channel more than once?," the GM would say "Obviously not, the feat would say you could if you could, like all the other feats that say you can take them multiple times." I don't want to empower any player or GM who says, "Yeah, the text of the feat is right there in the book, and I think that's what it means, too, but is that what they really mean? We should FAQ it just to make sure."
The GM is not a robot. The GM has a brain and should be able to make rulings. And I expect GMs and players to be able to read text and make a reasonable interpretation of the text, without second-guessing things that are obvious, like whether or not can take Extra Channel more than once.
There's a limited amount of time in the day we can devote to answering rules questions. Would you rather we spend that time answering actual confusing things, or spend that time responding to questions for which the answer is obvious in the text?
With all due respect, "No staff response is needed" is not a very good response (all irony aside). It leaves way too much up in the air for too many questions that people want answered.
"Rules function as written" at least gives specific information that the rule being questioned is, in the opinion of the Paizo dev team, clear enough that it doesn't need to be clarified.
"Rules intentionally left to GM ruling" at least gives specific information that the dev team felt that this was one of those times that the Paizo dev team deliberately left the rule in the realm of GM fiat.
"No staff response is needed" provides nothing but "Paizo staff doesn't feel like answering this question."
Which is why it bugs people.
2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious:
I started that thread. There was a rationale behind it:
Several people in a different thread, related to which healer was better (Cleric or Oracle of Life), had builds where they had taken Extra Channel more than once.
Those people had taken Extra Channel more than once because a number of similar feats - Extra Hex, Extra Arcana, etc. - do allow you to take them more than once, and the format\title of the Extra Channel feat is otherwise identical. I openly admitted that I knew the "Special" tag wasn't there in the feat, but I wanted clarification because the rule book does occasionally have mistakes, and this seemed like it could be a place where it could have been overlooked.
In that particular instance, I assumed that the "No response required" answer meant exactly what you just stated. Having seen some other "No response required," thread, I don't know that that is always the case. I agree with Ximen Bao that an additional label of "Rules function as written" might avoid some confusion.
2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious:I started that thread. There was a rationale behind it:
Several people in a different thread, related to which healer was better (Cleric or Oracle of Life), had builds where they had taken Extra Channel more than once.
Those people had taken Extra Channel more than once because a number of similar feats - Extra Hex, Extra Arcana, etc. - do allow you to take them more than once, and the format\title of the Extra Channel feat is otherwise identical. I openly admitted that I knew the "Special" tag wasn't there in the feat, but I wanted clarification because the rule book does occasionally have mistakes, and this seemed like it could be a place where it could have been overlooked.
In that particular instance, I assumed that the "No response required" answer meant exactly what you just stated. Having seen some other "No response required," thread, I don't know that that is always the case. I agree with Ximen Bao that an additional label of "Rules function as written" might avoid some confusion.
I posted most of those builds. Someone else pointed out that you can't take extra channel multiple times. I looked it up for myself, and sure enough, you can't. My mistake was assuming that Extra Channel works like some of the other Extra Feats that say you can take them multiple times. The rules themselves are pretty clear.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I started that thread. There was a rationale behind it:
Several people in a different thread, related to which healer was better (Cleric or Oracle of Life), had builds where they had taken Extra Channel more than once.
And obviously, those people were breaking the rules.
Those people had taken Extra Channel more than once because a number of similar feats - Extra Hex, Extra Arcana, etc. - do allow you to take them more than once, and the format\title of the Extra Channel feat is otherwise identical.
The format is identical, except it lacks the critical part that says you can take it multiple times.
I openly admitted that I knew the "Special" tag wasn't there in the feat, but I wanted clarification because the rule book does occasionally have mistakes, and this seemed like it could be a place where it could have been overlooked.
In other words, "I know the rules say X, and I believe they mean X, and I know it doesn't have the line that would allow something other than X, but just in case they don't mean X I'm going to FAQ it." Your interpretation of the text was right. Your gut told you that your interpretation was right. But you still FAQ'd it.
High Aldwin: What's your problem, son?
Willow Ufgood: How do you mean?
High Aldwin: When I held up my fingers, what was your first impulse?
Willow: Well, it was stupid.
High Aldwin: Just tell me.
Willow: To pick my own finger.
High Aldwin: Aha! That was the correct answer. You lack faith in yourself. More than anyone in the village, you have the potential to be a great sorcerer. Now, when you're out there, listen to your own heart.
I'm quite glad that the Rules Team can essentially answer "use your common sense". Dignifying some questions with a response only prompts more ridiculous questions.
2. "No response required" isn't going away as an option for the rules team. Last week or the week before someone created a thread for "Can I take Extra Channel multiple times, or just once?" I marked it "no response required" because the answer is obvious:I started that thread. There was a rationale behind it:
Several people in a different thread, related to which healer was better (Cleric or Oracle of Life), had builds where they had taken Extra Channel more than once.
Those people had taken Extra Channel more than once because a number of similar feats - Extra Hex, Extra Arcana, etc. - do allow you to take them more than once, and the format\title of the Extra Channel feat is otherwise identical. I openly admitted that I knew the "Special" tag wasn't there in the feat, but I wanted clarification because the rule book does occasionally have mistakes, and this seemed like it could be a place where it could have been overlooked.
In that particular instance, I assumed that the "No response required" answer meant exactly what you just stated. Having seen some other "No response required," thread, I don't know that that is always the case. I agree with Ximen Bao that an additional label of "Rules function as written" might avoid some confusion.
Not directed at Xaratherus:
I would like a "Rules function as written" statement also, even though some posters will still complain, but you can't please everyone, and some people want the book to be written in legalese.
If you need a base ruling then I understand, but if you find some crazy combination of rules that seems to good to be true, that is for the GM to decide. As for PFS I would suggest you as the player don't try to use such combinations and then complain about it later when you get table variation. Does that mean you don't deserve an answer? No, I am not saying that, but the rules do not cover every possible situation. Some things don't have a rule, and it is a good idea to not base a character around such things.