|
I'm starting to realise with the expectation of PFS GMs to run games within the rules. Official FAQs on many rules and interpretations of words is very important for GMs and players alike for a comfortable PFS game.
The lack of such clarifications via official FAQs means that there will inevitably be conflict between players and GMs at a PFS table. With both players and GMs often seeing different interpretations on how items, powers and other rules work. And while GMs hold the power to pass judgement on such conflicts at the point of time, it does not stop the problems from resurfacing after the game or at another table. Or worse placing GMs in a "But the other time I played the GM said I can do this!" situation, pitting GMs vs GMs over how they ruled.
Case in point, recently I GMed a game at a local PFS con and encountered a "table variation" problem:
In this case, a player was playing a monk (lv 8, first character) using Brass Knuckles, while doing a Monk's Unarmed Damage via the knuckles. Having not played an unarmed monk in-depth before and uncertain over how a monk's unarmed damage interacts with a weapon like a brass knuckles, I looked it up in UE and saw the phrase "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike."
I felt that the brass knuckles should not work with the monk's unarmed damage, but with timing of the con being tight and the player clearly ready to go down defending his interpretation of the meaning of unarmed strike in brass knuckles, I conferred with a fellow GM and allowed the player's monk's unarmed damage to override the brass knuckles listed damage.
After the con, I started looking up on how a monk's unarmed damage works with weapons like brass knuckles and cestus. Both which are Monk weapons that carry the words "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike." or a variation of these words. With a post in the rule forums on the subject.
I was directed to a post by Sean K Reynolds clarifying how these 2 weapons work for the AA. But since it is not in the official FAQs on what the "unarmed strike" part in these weapon descriptions means in relation to a Monk's unarmed strike, there are conflicting posts by players and GMs on how these weapons work with a monk's unarmed strike.
Now I'm face with a dilemma of what should I tell the monk player? 1)That his use of brass knuckles with his monk's unarmed damage is in error? With no official clarification to back it up? 2)Allow it to work, with the possibility I'm breaking the rules? Or 3)that he is stuck in a possible table variation each time he comes to a different table. With the 1st and possibility 3rd option making me seem like a "bad GM" for being too strict with the rules, especially since the player apparently has never encountered problems over the use of brass knuckles with a monk's unarmed damage before in past games.
As both a GM and a player, this is frustrating. How should I, myself, go about making an unarmed monk character to play in PFS games, if I can't even be certain how I should rule as a GM over this?
So this brings us back to the problem of the lack of official FAQs on a number of subject matters. Which affects PFS play far more then homebrews, since PFS GMs as stated are required to follow the rules, and PFS players are often left to the mercy of whichever GM is currently at the table. Or GMs facing the dilemma of being seen as a "too strict" or "not friendly" GM, for enforcing or interpreting table variation topics against the player/s.
It is just frustrating for both GMs and players alike, when rules become uncertain and stay uncertain for long periods of time, or even remained never answered.
I'm posting this, hoping that more clarifications on the different interpretations of rules can be looked into more often, especially with regards to those that affect PFS gameplay.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the proximate issue: I think skr's post is about as official as you're going get. Go with it.
For the bigger picture, we're stuck with it. There are too many rules, too many corner cases, too many ambiguities in the English language for thousands of DMS around the world to all agree on everything, especially since these area volunteers, not people paid to know every rule.
For a character you kind of have to avoid building around gray areas- using it is fine, relying on it is something else.
|
|
And the newer version of the same item wrote:
Brass Knuckles
Price 1 gp
Type simple
These weapons fit snugly around the knuckles and allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike. You may hold, but not wield, a weapon or other object in a hand wearing brass knuckles. You may cast a spell with a somatic component while wearing brass knuckles if you make a successful concentration check (DC 10 + the level of the spell you're casting). Monks are proficient with brass knuckles. Brass knuckles can't be disarmed.
Notice an omission of one part of the text about monk damage and adding a new rule about disarming...
Not as clear.
|
Yeah, it's something that has no easy solution. The best way to put it is page 19 of the Guide states that FAQ or messageboard rulings do affect your PC and to show him the SKR posts about brass knuckles.
Note that the brass knuckles ruling should be considered legit as it is from SKR (as lead designer before leaving Paizo) and that the backlash of the ruling (removing a cheap way monks could get past pesky metal based DRs with their full damage unarmed strikes at reasonable levels) is one of the reasons for the eventual Flurry of Changes for the monk
|
|
The newer version? What I pasted is from today, from Paizo's own prd
What I posted (and linked) was from Paizo's PRD as well. It is the rules from the Ultimate Equipment book for the same item.
APG came out in 2010
UE came out in 2013, so is the newer printed version of the item
Not saying blame a player, but educate as to other written rules for the same item. Which supercedes which is the whole question behind this thread from what I can tell, and why it's not crystal clear which is right and which is wrong.
|
|
I also don't think a player should be required to search forums for every single ability/item they have to verify their have been no forum changes.
Who's responsibility is to then to make sure the player's character is legal and the player has all the correct information for the character they are playing?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This isn't the only example of that, nosig. The same is true of, say, masterwork tools (the Core Rulebook version doesn't have the limitations presented in the UE version). It's rare, but possible, to be surprised that some item that your resources listed as perfectly reasonable, has been altered by some subsequent publication. (Potions being altered by the Advanced Race Guide potion sponges are a favorite bugaboo of mine.)
It's a practically unavoidable consequence of a mature game system.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to put it is page 19 of the Guide states that FAQ or messageboard rulings do affect your PC and to show him the SKR posts about brass knuckles.
Unless there was a change that I missed (and I can't check at the moment), the only messageboard clarifications that are PFS-binding are ones from "campaign leadership", i.e. Mike and John.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
There used to be a stickied post that had all of the rulings that weren't in the FAQ yet, but now I can't find it...
If you're thinking of the post I think you're thinking of, everything in it got ported to the actual PFS FAQ and the thread got unstickied (since it was no longer necessary).
You are only finding this out Now Nosig? This has almost been the case since Day 1 of Pathfinder, where have you been for the last few years? ;)In the past, when rules are changed, they are changed.
or when a "new rule" was "discovered" it or something it was easy to day... "well, we were doing it wrong."
but now we have two different rules.
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
and the Correct one - that doesn't appear anywhere outside of a Web Post - which says something like...
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can NOT use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
In other words, a direct reversal, which is not in a published source...
Pretty certain it doesn't count for official purposes unless it's been published in a book, a revised edition, a newer book, or an in official errata or the FAQ (or, as has been mentioned, clarified by PFS leadership)
Otherwise it's just a "Well, unofficially, this is what we really meant, for anyone interested in changing the rule in their home game." post.
|
You are only finding this out Now Nosig? This has almost been the case since Day 1 of Pathfinder, where have you been for the last few years? ;)In the past, when rules are changed, they are changed.
or when a "new rule" was "discovered" it or something it was easy to day... "well, we were doing it wrong."
but now we have two different rules.
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
and the Correct one - that doesn't appear anywhere outside of a Web Post - which says something like...
"Monks are proficient with brass knuckles and can NOT use their monk unarmed damage when fighting with them."
In other words, a direct reversal, which is not in a published source...
Pretty certain it doesn't count for official purposes unless it's been published in a book, a revised edition, a newer book, or an in official errata or the FAQ (or, as has been mentioned, clarified by PFS leadership)
Otherwise it's just "Well, unofficially, this is what we really meant, for anyone interested in changing the rule in their home game." post.
Matt - check out the thread above.
the change is only present in a post. A line was dropped from a weapon discription from the APG to the UE, and REVERSED in a post, so the OP is now ...
"face with a dilemma of what should I tell the monk player? 1)That his use of brass knuckles with his monk's unarmed damage is in error? With no official clarification to back it up? 2)Allow it to work, with the possibility I'm breaking the rules? Or 3)that he is stuck in a possible table variation each time he comes to a different table."
and he was advised to go with #1...
The reality is likely #3, though.
|
|
@Jiggy: I reread the section. I can see it both ways now:
From the first paragraph of page 19 in the GttPS:
For additional rules clarifications,
please view the official Pathfinder Society FAQ online at
paizo.com/pathfindersociety/faq. If a clarification on the
FAQ or messageboard directly affects your character, print
that section of the FAQ or messageboard ruling out and
bring it to games in which you play that PC to cut down on
any confusion or conflicts between yourself and a GM who
might not be familiar with the specifics of the situation.
When I posted, I read from the second sentence only; taken with the sentence before that, I can see your point of view. This is just from the Guide, and messageboard would be implied to be the PFS messageboard.
Here's the Thread of Messageboard Clarifications that Mike Brock created (with your help at that!). The pertinent one is the 'Follow Paizo FAQ Blog Posts'.
The question is, then, is a statement from a Paizo Developer considered an 'online clarification' that then must be obeyed?
Personally, I'd like to think yes, but I'm sure there'll be those who argue both ways.
|
Nosig the problem is when you have the same thing in multiple books and the older one has not been errata. That is a very common occurrence with Pathfinder.
Books do not get errata’s until they get reprints so if you have something in multiple books, say like Brass Knuckles or even Double Barrel Musket you get times when one of the occurrences gets an errata when they reprint it but another version will not because it is not reprinted.
It gets even worse for Campaign or Companion books because except for a select few they never get a reprint so there won't be an errata unless it is added to a new book but the old book will always have the old version.
This is very common and happens all the time.
That is why you hear a lot use the most current published version which sometimes by the way may not be the current published book but the book with the most current print edition.
|
|
Yeah. The real lighting rules are found on this website as well, NOT in the published books.
The lighting rules weren't REVERSED, but they just don't exist in the printed books.
I would expect board posting to expand, explain, enlighten, ... not reverse rules. Or if they are reversed, to do it for a short time, until an FAQ comes out or the PDF is corrected.
PDF corrected? LOL. Funny guy.
|
Separatist Cleric is an archetype, and would cost prestige for retraining.
I kind of touched upon this here. I think that the problem with domain list changes can be mitigated by allowing free retrain into Separatist. Otherwise, you have to rebuild the character.
|
|
If someone has a legal source saying their cleric is legal they should get to play it.
1)The in game effects of deity of X are pretty minimal. Chances are near 100% that they could be a cleric of Y and get the same powers.
2) It is not a players job to be the paizo continuity police.
3) Its not fair to strip a player of whats likely most of their prestige for something that wasn't remotely in the gray area of the rules.
Ah, wasn't aware of that 4.2 change with messageboard posts being considered official.
Personally, I'd say contact Mike Brock to see if he wants to add the SKR ruling on brass knuckles to his list. Then there's no wiggle room for argument.
|
|
@nosig: I'm sorry you have to potentially bum out your player, but how much is going to be invalidated, though? For a summoner, I honestly don't recall much of that way getting reversed or anything, so you can honestly say in layman's terms occasionally that there may be some things in there that may have been updated or altered since. If she has a question, she could look it up (and/or perhaps ask you or another experienced player for help). That way, you nip the problem before it becomes a potentially bigger problem later.
I know you don't like it this situation, but there isn't a need to add unnecessary stress to a young player still learning the game.
|
|
Another thing is that the PDF is not corrected until a New book is printed.
Also the PRD is not corrected until the book is reprinted so you have things like Brass Knuckles or Double Barrel Musket that have 2 different rules in the PRD.
In fact the Double Barrel Musket has a Range of 40' in the latest version of UC which is the correct and most current version and 10' in UE which was published after UC but has not caught up with the errata because there has not been a reprint!
If someone has a legal source saying their cleric is legal they should get to play it.
1)The in game effects of deity of X are pretty minimal. Chances are near 100% that they could be a cleric of Y and get the same powers.
2) It is not a players job to be the paizo continuity police.
3) Its not fair to strip a player of whats likely most of their prestige for something that wasn't remotely in the gray area of the rules.
IMHO, the best solution would be:
GM waives the issue in order to get today's game running, and annotates the player's chronicle to say "character gets a free rebuild due to rules change, and must use it to become legal before their next game"
|
|
wow Acedio you are right, Cayden lost revely sub-domain in that, what the heck...
I know a 9th lvl PFS cleric that's going to be really unhappy about that, when someone who has bought that book that he doesn't own lets him know.
For the record, Jiggy pointed out in the thread I linked earlier that the blog is still valid. Seems like your friend should be able to continue using that subdomain for Cayden.
|
This would probably be a bad time to mention that the latest hardcover edition of Ultimate Magic and its respective PDF list that Vow of Silence grants a monk 1 ki point per level, while the Paizo PRD and every other resource (Hero Lab, Archives of Nethys, etc.) lists it a 1 ki point per 6 levels.
Feel free to FAQ this thread.
|
|
IMHO, the best solution would be:GM waives the issue in order to get today's game running, and annotates the player's chronicle to say "character gets a free rebuild due to rules change, and must use it to become legal before their next game"
Maybe, but that's not a legitimate solution. The character is legal, but it's just that the action (brass knuckles and monk unarmed strike damage) is illegal. In cases of equipment changing, it's been typically allowed to resell the item at full value and if the player was honestly unaware, I as a GM would be ok with the player doing so, marking the chronicle sheet as to why due to it being a special case.