PFSRD italics = flavor? and if yes, does it still count as rule?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Honestly this is 90% why I use d20pfsrd, the faq/errata thing.

it is just so nice to see all the info there.

Liberty's Edge

I almost exclusively use the prd because it's usually easier to find the source for material than on the pfsrd. And my GM only allows PFCS material on a case-by-case basis, so I'm not losing much freedom sticking to the rpg hardcovers.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

CWheezy wrote:
have you ever posted an example?

Many times, one example is Fox Shape feat with it's editorial "Special:" line added by pfsrd. There are more examples.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Jodokai wrote:
PFSRD is AMAZING in that they add the FAQ's and link them, and searching their site is easy, as opposed to Archives of Neyths where doing an actual search will take you longer than just clicking through link. I also don't like the color scheme of Archives, but that's a personal thing.
Good job of pissing on one of the more notable VOLOUNTEER pieces of work from the community. PFSRD is a commercial entreprise, in case you haven't noticed.

This post really bugs me... most of the people who work on the site ARE volunteers. I worked on the site for several years and never got paid for it. Just because d20PFSRD is now also a publishing company doesn't make it any less of a community effort. And the OP was not in any way "pissing" on the Archives of Nethys. I freely admit that I often use the Archives of Nethys when I want to look up information on gods of Golarion or other Golarion-specific information that just can't be included on d20pfsrd.com.

James Risner wrote:


Many times, one example is Fox Shape feat with it's editorial "Special:" line added by pfsrd. There are more examples.

Okay so, looking at this example, the ONLY thing that was done differently here than what was in the actual book is the placement of a single line from the book:

D20PFSRD text wrote:


You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.

Special: A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat.

Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.

Dragon Empires Primer Sidebar wrote:


Bonus Kitsune Feats
A kitsune may select from the following feats any time she would gain a feat.
Fox Shape
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms. Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune. Benefit: You can take the form of a fox (Pathfinder RPG
Bestiary 3 112) whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.

Swift Kitsune Shapechanger
You can change shape more quickly than most kitsune. Prerequisites: Dex 13, base attack bonus +6, kitsune. Benefit: You can assume human or kitsune form as
a swift action. If you have the Fox Shape feat, you can assume fox form as a swift action as well.
Normal: A kitsune’s change shape ability is a standard action.

Vulpine Pounce (Combat)
You can change shape mid-charge and pounce on an opponent in the same round.
Prerequisites: Swift Kitsune Shapechanger, base attack bonus +10, kitsune.
Benefit: When you change shape into your kitsune form and use the charge action in the same round, you can make a full attack against your opponent.

Now, the ONLY change that has been made was taking a line that applied to each of the three listed feats, and applying it to a single feat because of the format of the site. It does not in any way change the way the feat functions. In fact, I wouldn't call that "editorial" at all. It's a formatting issue only, and was probably the simplest way the person adding the feat to the database could think of to include that information. The alternative was to leave that line out, which would THEN have been "editorializing" in my opinion.

So, can you provide us with a few more examples of where the info that has been posted on d20pfsrd.com is added information that detracts from the clarity or understanding of the material for the user? Because I really don't think that example qualifies.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

cartmanbeck wrote:
Now, the ONLY change that has been made was taking a line that applied to each of the three listed feats, and applying it to a single feat because of the format of the site

They way it is portrayed looks like a rules line from the feat, and the book makes it clear that line isn't a rules line as that is the only line in a sidebar box. If they just dumped the feats on you without any header it would look odd. The ONLY header they give you is "A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat." which is basically "here are some more feats you can pick".

There is no indication in the book these feats can be chosen when given a list, but there is a never ending supply of threads where people use the PFSRD's improperly modified wording to suggest as much.

When a resource causes arguments over rules, that resource is a problem.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

James Risner wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
Now, the ONLY change that has been made was taking a line that applied to each of the three listed feats, and applying it to a single feat because of the format of the site

They way it is portrayed looks like a rules line from the feat, and the book makes it clear that line isn't a rules line as that is the only line in a sidebar box. If they just dumped the feats on you without any header it would look odd. The ONLY header they give you is "A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat." which is basically "here are some more feats you can pick".

There is no indication in the book these feats can be chosen when given a list, but there is a never ending supply of threads where people use the PFSRD's improperly modified wording to suggest as much.

When a resource causes arguments over rules, that resource is a problem.

I personally don't understand how it could be misinterpreted to mean anything other than "a kitsune can take this feat", which is what it's supposed to mean. And if the text instead said "Here is a feat that a kitsune can pick" would you like that better? And who's to say that it's not a rules line? It's a line in the book that tells you that the feats are meant for kitsune... that seems like a rule to me.


cartmanbeck wrote:
James Risner wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
Now, the ONLY change that has been made was taking a line that applied to each of the three listed feats, and applying it to a single feat because of the format of the site

They way it is portrayed looks like a rules line from the feat, and the book makes it clear that line isn't a rules line as that is the only line in a sidebar box. If they just dumped the feats on you without any header it would look odd. The ONLY header they give you is "A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat." which is basically "here are some more feats you can pick".

There is no indication in the book these feats can be chosen when given a list, but there is a never ending supply of threads where people use the PFSRD's improperly modified wording to suggest as much.

When a resource causes arguments over rules, that resource is a problem.

I personally don't understand how it could be misinterpreted to mean anything other than "a kitsune can take this feat", which is what it's supposed to mean. And if the text instead said "Here is a feat that a kitsune can pick" would you like that better? And who's to say that it's not a rules line? It's a line in the book that tells you that the feats are meant for kitsune... that seems like a rule to me.

You can read "A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat" as allowing a kitsune monk to take one of those feats in place of a monk bonus feat as it would qualify as a 'time she would gain a feat'. Or for example, a ranger trading out endurance at third for it, as once again it's a 'time she would gain a feat'.

This is opposed to the reading that it's meant to just "a kitsune can take this feat".

The issue is that the stated quote doesn't make it clear if it matter that the gaining a feat means an open feat or is it ANY feat gained?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

but since that line is there anyway, couldn't it still be interpreted that way even without it being included on d20pfsrd? it's literally word for word what's in the book.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

But see I think that this issue is with the way it's written in the book, not with the way it's been translated over to d20PFSRD.com. I would argue that a kitsune monk CAN take one of these in place of a monk bonus feat, because the line in the book says "any time she would gain a feat." A monk bonus feat is a feat you're gaining. There's no indication in the book that that line is NOT rules text.

So I guess I don't understand why the site is being blamed for the ambiguity of text found in the book.

But alright, let's say that we've screwed up this time and that sentence is NOT rules text at all. Fair. We can change that (though I personally don't believe we should) or make a FAQ box on the side that talks about the controversy. And that's the beauty, I think, of the site... you can see when there's a controversy and both sides of the argument are generally shown there.

Anyway, I am not in any way trying to suggest that the d20PFSRD is the end-all be-all for Paizo rules, but I do take offense when someone badmouths the site, because I know there are many people who spend a lot of their free time to get all that info up on that site and make it freely available (and I used to be one of them, though I unfortunately haven't had time to devote to the site in a while).


cartmanbeck: To be clear, I have NO issue with d20PFSRD having the line in (or where it's put). I was just explaining what the controversy is with the line. James Risner seems to be the only one that's said it's an issue.


James Risner wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
have you ever posted an example?
Many times, one example is Fox Shape feat with it's editorial "Special:" line added by pfsrd. There are more examples.

OK, its been shown that isn't an example, because pfsrd isn't wrong. Do you have any actual examples or more non examples


CWheezy wrote:
James Risner wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
have you ever posted an example?
Many times, one example is Fox Shape feat with it's editorial "Special:" line added by pfsrd. There are more examples.
OK, its been shown that isn't an example, because pfsrd isn't wrong. Do you have any actual examples or more non examples

The rage powers for wereboars are listed as "special" when the book presents them closer to "prerequisite", although neither term is expressly used in the book.

Edit: quote

Blood of the Moon wrote:

NEW BARBAR1AN RAGE POWERS

The following barbarian rage powers are available to
wereboar-kin and those who associate with them.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Bandw2 wrote:
but since that line is there anyway, couldn't it still be interpreted that way even without it being included on d20pfsrd? it's literally word for word what's in the book.

Word for word, but without the context of a sidebar box with only one line "kitsune can take these" and the feats. You leave with a totally different impression of when and how you can take them than you do when reading the pfsrd site.

CWheezy wrote:
its been shown that isn't an example, because pfsrd isn't wrong. Do you have any actual examples or more non examples

Not been shown to my satisfaction. As for more. The space rules on threatening used the 3.5 rules for threatening despite there not being a rule for that and SKR saying it was taken out in PF. Now I'll grant you that everyone wanted rule to exist, but pfsrd didn't say "this is how it was in 3.5 and we liked it so we changed the rules in PF". Everyone wanted it so bad that they recently FAQ'd the rule back into pathfinder in 2015. 6 years later.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
but since that line is there anyway, couldn't it still be interpreted that way even without it being included on d20pfsrd? it's literally word for word what's in the book.
Word for word, but without the context of a sidebar box with only one line "kitsune can take these" and the feats. You leave with a totally different impression of when and how you can take them than you do when reading the pfsrd site.

i'm not feeling it, as has been said, so one guy thought it was different.

Grand Lodge

The biggest thing I have noticed with d20pfsrd is with certain campaign specific / Golarion attributes. In particular with traits and feats that require a certain god, or various other "named" pieces. Such as Blade of Mercy for Saerenrae or Defensive Strategist for Torag. Similiarly, The 'Aldori' Dueling Sword is just called Dueling Sword, and the 'Aldori' Swordlord prestigue class is called just Swordlord. Wayang Spellhunter trait is instead called 'Metamagic Master'.

To be honest, I am not sure how AoN gets away with it while d20pfsrd doesn't.

I've never seen an actual rules piece be wrong, unless it was something new that recently changed. Those that have changed I have seen get changed farirly quickly.


Corwin Illum wrote:

The biggest thing I have noticed with d20pfsrd is with certain campaign specific / Golarion attributes. In particular with traits and feats that require a certain god, or various other "named" pieces. Such as Blade of Mercy for Saerenrae or Defensive Strategist for Torag. Similiarly, The 'Aldori' Dueling Sword is just called Dueling Sword, and the 'Aldori' Swordlord prestigue class is called just Swordlord. Wayang Spellhunter trait is instead called 'Metamagic Master'.

To be honest, I am not sure how AoN gets away with it while d20pfsrd doesn't.

I've never seen an actual rules piece be wrong, unless it was something new that recently changed. Those that have changed I have seen get changed farirly quickly.

Not 100% sure but I know d20pfsrd had to alter things once they got into a commercial sales of the rpg products instead of just a reference site.


Corwin Illum wrote:

The biggest thing I have noticed with d20pfsrd is with certain campaign specific / Golarion attributes. In particular with traits and feats that require a certain god, or various other "named" pieces. Such as Blade of Mercy for Saerenrae or Defensive Strategist for Torag. Similiarly, The 'Aldori' Dueling Sword is just called Dueling Sword, and the 'Aldori' Swordlord prestigue class is called just Swordlord. Wayang Spellhunter trait is instead called 'Metamagic Master'.

To be honest, I am not sure how AoN gets away with it while d20pfsrd doesn't.

I've never seen an actual rules piece be wrong, unless it was something new that recently changed. Those that have changed I have seen get changed farirly quickly.

It's because d20pfsrd started running itself as a business and selling merchandise. When they did so Paizo requested, or rather asserted, that they could no longer use their copyrighted material. This basically amounts to all the proper nouns of gods, locations, cities, etc. Up until d20pfsrd decided to start selling things they in fact had all the copy written material on the website.

The reason the Archives of Nethys is allowed to operate is that it is a fan made, non-profit website.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Claxon wrote:
Corwin Illum wrote:

The biggest thing I have noticed with d20pfsrd is with certain campaign specific / Golarion attributes. In particular with traits and feats that require a certain god, or various other "named" pieces. Such as Blade of Mercy for Saerenrae or Defensive Strategist for Torag. Similiarly, The 'Aldori' Dueling Sword is just called Dueling Sword, and the 'Aldori' Swordlord prestigue class is called just Swordlord. Wayang Spellhunter trait is instead called 'Metamagic Master'.

To be honest, I am not sure how AoN gets away with it while d20pfsrd doesn't.

I've never seen an actual rules piece be wrong, unless it was something new that recently changed. Those that have changed I have seen get changed farirly quickly.

It's because d20pfsrd started running itself as a business and selling merchandise. When they did so Paizo requested, or rather asserted, that they could no longer use their copyrighted material. This basically amounts to all the proper nouns of gods, locations, cities, etc. Up until d20pfsrd decided to start selling things they in fact had all the copy written material on the website.

The reason the Archives of Nethys is allowed to operate is that it is a fan made, non-profit website.

Just to give a LITTLE bit more clarity here:

Archives of Nethys operates under the Pathfinder Community Use Policy, which d20PFSRD.com used to as well. When the proprietor of d20PFSRD decided to start selling and publishing books using the site, Paizo sent him a (very nice but stern) email saying that he would now have to conform to the Paizo Compatibility License, which allows one to use all the RULES content of Pathfinder but none of the setting-specific material. So, rather than revert back to how things were before, John decided to run with it, and we edited out all the Golarion-specific content.

I then created pathfindercommunity.net as a community use supplement to the d20PFSRD, where I could put the golarion-specific stuff and link out to the main site. However, I got very little traffic (the only things on that site that really get traffic are my guides) so that site fell by the wayside and hasn't been updated in quite a while.

So, for Golarion-specific stuff like the Aldori Dueling Sword, Archives of Nethys is still the place to go, and probably always will be.

Sczarni

AoN does make some money. They have a banner ad on the bottom, and you can click links to buy Paizo books via either Paizo or Amazon (which they get like a few cents for or something).

They just don't sell 3rd Party Products, and so they don't compete with Paizo (which d20pfsrd does).


James Risner wrote:
I strongly recommend not using pfsrd. They frequently add things that are not in the books, they edits things to make it less clear

You make this claim in every thread in which PFSRD is mentioned, and I haven't seen anything of the kind. The only changes they make are to change Golarion-specific fluff items (like the names of deities) into something generic. Which I'm honestly in favor of, because there's no reason to tie a generic mechanic to a specific deity or nation.


Fun fact: if you look at the URL for a pfsrd golarion changed name, it often uses the correct name in the URL.
For example:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/regional-traits/wayang-spellhunter-minata

Scarab Sages

Nefreet wrote:

AoN does make some money. They have a banner ad on the bottom, and you can click links to buy Paizo books via either Paizo or Amazon (which they get like a few cents for or something).

They just don't sell 3rd Party Products, and so they don't compete with Paizo (which d20pfsrd does).

To clarify an important distinction: Yes, the site does pull in some money, but it is not for profit. This means that the money I get goes back into the site, paying for server costs and such. d20pfsrd had ads too, back under the CUP. As far as I know (and as you said), the tipping point came with the store.

Just don't want to give people the wrong idea :) All revenue generation on the Archives is passive, and it all goes back to paying for the site. I don't have any plans to ever change this model. If I did want to do something different and more profitable, it'd be a different website.


Karui Kage wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

AoN does make some money. They have a banner ad on the bottom, and you can click links to buy Paizo books via either Paizo or Amazon (which they get like a few cents for or something).

They just don't sell 3rd Party Products, and so they don't compete with Paizo (which d20pfsrd does).

To clarify an important distinction: Yes, the site does pull in some money, but it is not for profit. This means that the money I get goes back into the site, paying for server costs and such. d20pfsrd had ads too, back under the CUP. As far as I know (and as you said), the tipping point came with the store.

Just don't want to give people the wrong idea :) All revenue generation on the Archives is passive, and it all goes back to paying for the site. I don't have any plans to ever change this model. If I did want to do something different and more profitable, it'd be a different website.

This Community Use Policy FAQ makes explicit that your site having banner ads will not automatically make you a commercial user:

Paizo wrote:
We don't mind you having banner ads on your site. You're just not allowed to sell or otherwise charge for access to anything that uses the Paizo Material.

Another distinguishing feature between the two sites is likely to be:

The CUP wrote:
If Paizo believes that you are in the publishing business, you are considered to be a commercial user, and you are not granted any right to use any Paizo Material under this Policy.

Community Manager

Removed a couple of unhelpful posts. Let's keep this thread on-topic.

The Exchange

Up until I opened the STORE Paizo had no issues with me using the CUP. After I opened the store I got a polite email from Lisa indicating that they felt I was no longer able to use the CUP if I ran the store. They indicated they saw two options: 1) I shut down the store and keep using the CUP or 2) I keep the store but convert to using the PCL/OGL. I opted for #2.

As Karui said, his site earns money. Now if you want to call it "non profit" because the money it earns goes into paying the expenses of running the site then d20pfsrd.com is non-profit too because one of the expenses of running the site is keeping me alive- or in other words providing me food and shelter. So I think it's really a matter of semantics what "non-profit" means.

Also, I did not begin publishing anything until long after I started the store. Therefore, I was not "in the publishing business" at the time they asked me to shut down the store.

Also, to those defending d20pfsrd.com, Thanks! I know there are a few individuals (perhaps James is one) who seem to have it out for d20pfsrd.com and take every opportunity to bad mouth it. We (me and many others) work hard to make the site MORE than just a copy and paste of the rules. We go above and beyond to TRY to make it easier to understand and find information AND to provide a COMPLETE rules resource with all material of like nature grouped together, instead of separated by book. Some people really just don't like that (or perhaps me? or perhaps that I'm trying to make a living out of the gaming industry? who knows...)

And lastly, to James and anyone else who just plain doesn't like the site... that's fine. You're allowed to not like it. You have lots of options available to you.

Thanks again to cartmanbeck who has been a LONG LONG time contributor to d20pfsrd.com for standing up for what we've done. It's a lot of work but certainly some won't appreciate our "take" on the situation- again, that's fine.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Non-profit isn't relevant as far as the CUP goes - it's non-commercial usage that matters. (Granted those are related, but they are distinct).

EDIT: Just in case it isn't clear, from what I've heard PFSRD sounds like a great site - my comments arent intended as badmouthing in any way. I think it's good that there's lots of options around, depending on what people are looking for.

I just think it's important to be precise when speaking about the OGL, PF-Compatibility License and the CUP. Speaking loosely can lead to some misunderstandings, I think.


Steve Geddes wrote:

Non-profit isn't relevant as far as the CUP goes - it's non-commercial usage that matters. (Granted those are related, but they are distinct).

Yea, I think the whole discussion on whether or not it was non-profit spun out of LazarX's criticism of d20pfsrd, not discussion of the PCL vs CUP.


You're probably right. I still think it's useful to be precise - even if my posts are something of a non sequitur.

One could driveby the thread and come away thinking it's okay to use the CUP, provided it's not-for-profit.

Similarly, I could see a small 3PP thinking it's okay to run a Golarion-wiki for free on the side, totally separate from their PF-compatible stuff.

I figure it can't hurt to point it out - even if it is tangential.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
And lastly, to James and anyone else who just plain doesn't like the site... that's fine. You're allowed to not like it. You have lots of options available to you.

I'd like to clarify:

I like that the site can make you a living, I'm a business owner also.
I like you.
I like that the site exists.
I like that there are options.

I've had many bad experiences with information lookup from the site, from players in games using the site as the one and only lookup source. As a result every use of the site requires verification from the books or AoN for me now.

I don't like people looking at Fox Shape one the site and telling me they want to take that feat as their 1st level Monk feat.

I don't like people looking at the site saying archetype A stacks with archetype B because the site says they do one adds options to a class feature and the other modifies the same feature.

I didn't like that people pointed to the site because they wanted square reach as large before the Dec 2014 FAQ that gave us via Errata the 3.5 square reach back.

The Exchange

I'll see what I can do to address your points James.

Liberty's Edge

I find both sites useful for different things. I tend to use AoN when I'm building characters but often use the d20pfsrd for look ups.

As a side note if you're searching for things on AoN and find the search not to your liking remember that google is happy to help. Just go 'site:archivesofnethys.com <your query here>' and google will find it for you.
I use that trick for plenty of websites because google is usually better at searching than anyone else :P

Shadow Lodge

I like pfsrd because I find it generally easier to find the information I'm looking for, especially when I don't know exactly what I'm looking for. For example, if I want to ignore difficult terrain but don't know if I need a feat, spell, or magic item.

Though while we're giving feedback I've noticed that recently the search function has failed to find certain basic topics (usually in the Magic section) - I have to navigate there from the main links and then Ctrl-F to find the specific section I'm looking for. Don't know if you have control over that. Also I greatly prefer class feature subpages that look like the alchemist discovery list compared to, say the arcanist's exploits - again, the former makes it easier for me to skim for abilities that do a particular thing.

I have never noticed the problems James Risner points out, possibly because my group doesn't mind deciding what a rule should be. We accept a GM call on these issues but are also OK with a player requesting a rule be bent, like stacking two archetypes that aren't technically compatible but don't interfere with each other. So any confusion introduced over any rule, including by site formatting, is quickly resolved to everyone's satisfaction. I will also note that we've had more such confusion resulting from poorly phrased PF rules than from pfsrd formatting. A recent example: the difference between a spell with a 1-round casting time vs casting a spell as a full round action.

I definitely appreciate the FAQs and other commentary being on the same page as the material it refers to, since otherwise I might not be aware of those FAQ.

Grand Lodge

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
I'll see what I can do to address your points James.

While you are at it. :)

The Traits > Religeous notes that they require worship of specific dieties (not listed there) but on the pages for the traits themselves there is no note of that requirement. Might be a good idea to add that.

Scarab Sages

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
As Karui said, his site earns money. Now if you want to call it "non profit" because the money it earns goes into paying the expenses of running the site then d20pfsrd.com is non-profit too because one of the expenses of running the site is keeping me alive- or in other words providing me food and shelter. So I think it's really a matter of semantics what "non-profit" means.

I was speaking more akin to this definition, albeit loosely (just skimmed the first sentence or two). The site makes enough to pay for server costs (some months), that's about it. If it was ever generating enough that I could support myself as well, then I don't think it's really nonprofit anymore.

100% Revenue -> Business/Product/Website = Non-Profit
Any Revenue -> People = Profit

Granted, it's a moot point anyhow, and I'm definitely no business expert so I'm sure my understanding of the above is a beginner level. Paizo obviously doesn't base their CUP decisions around Profit or Non-Profit anyways since they're okay with ad revenue, so I probably just confused things by even bringing up "Non-profit" or not.

As Steve said, the important detail is commercial use. Once the site became associated with a store, that's all it took.

In the end, both sites are free, so just use whichever is best for your needs. :)

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
I'll see what I can do to address your points James.

While you are at it. :)

The Traits > Religeous notes that they require worship of specific dieties (not listed there) but on the pages for the traits themselves there is no note of that requirement. Might be a good idea to add that.

Unfortunately this is one of the things that cant' really be done, as the specific deities' names can't be listed there since those names are not covered as part of the Compatibility License. For religion traits, I would absolutely suggest checking Archives of Nethys for deity requirements before you take one of them.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I like how there's a level of animosity between people who like AoN and d20pfsrd, and then the 2 owners are completely polite and understanding of each other.

Grand Lodge

cartmanbeck wrote:
FLite wrote:
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
I'll see what I can do to address your points James.

While you are at it. :)

The Traits > Religeous notes that they require worship of specific dieties (not listed there) but on the pages for the traits themselves there is no note of that requirement. Might be a good idea to add that.

Unfortunately this is one of the things that cant' really be done, as the specific deities' names can't be listed there since those names are not covered as part of the Compatibility License. For religion traits, I would absolutely suggest checking Archives of Nethys for deity requirements before you take one of them.

I was sugguesting something akin to the warning on the parent page, which is "taking these traits requires worship of dieties not named here. You will need to look up which one somewhere else."


cartmanbeck wrote:
FLite wrote:
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
I'll see what I can do to address your points James.

While you are at it. :)

The Traits > Religeous notes that they require worship of specific dieties (not listed there) but on the pages for the traits themselves there is no note of that requirement. Might be a good idea to add that.

Unfortunately this is one of the things that cant' really be done, as the specific deities' names can't be listed there since those names are not covered as part of the Compatibility License. For religion traits, I would absolutely suggest checking Archives of Nethys for deity requirements before you take one of them.

There was a similar issue with other Traits and Prestige Classes related to Factions.. an unmentionable name that is a built-in requirement. The wording adopted there to the effect of 'this was originally presented as belonging to a specific organizations; GMs and players should consider whether there is a suitable organization in the campaign when adopting this entry' might be suitable here as well.

Sovereign Court

Karui Kage wrote:
2. Search - I developed the entire engine myself for fun, but if there are better already made engines out there that I could plugin, I'd love to know about them. I've thought about sticking a google search engine on the site for one.

In general I like the search as it is now, as opposed to the google model. While google search is pretty clever, it gets harder and harder to do non-fuzzy searches. Your search engine allows "solid" searches which are really convenient if you know what you're looking for.

One thing that does irritate me: if you click on a search result such as an alchemical discovery, you go to the top of the list of discoveries, rather than to that specific one. I've noticed the same behaviour with rogue talents and rage powers. If you used anchors and linked the search results to those, we'd arrive more on-destination.

Apart from that, the new search interface is more user-friendly. Great work!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

it's because the #TOC's are done wrong 90% of the time, which just puts you at the top of the page.

Scarab Sages

Ascalaphus wrote:
Karui Kage wrote:
2. Search - I developed the entire engine myself for fun, but if there are better already made engines out there that I could plugin, I'd love to know about them. I've thought about sticking a google search engine on the site for one.

In general I like the search as it is now, as opposed to the google model. While google search is pretty clever, it gets harder and harder to do non-fuzzy searches. Your search engine allows "solid" searches which are really convenient if you know what you're looking for.

One thing that does irritate me: if you click on a search result such as an alchemical discovery, you go to the top of the list of discoveries, rather than to that specific one. I've noticed the same behaviour with rogue talents and rage powers. If you used anchors and linked the search results to those, we'd arrive more on-destination.

Apart from that, the new search interface is more user-friendly. Great work!

I wanted to do bookmarks/anchors originally, but it's not as much a thing with ASP. I do have plans to give individual pages to every item that is on a group right now (like rage powers), it's just on my To Do list. :) Thank you for the feedback! I'm glad you enjoy it otherwise.

The Exchange

4 people marked this as a favorite.

All of the Religion Traits pages have been updated today to include a note about the gods etc.

Grand Lodge

d20pfsrd.com wrote:
All of the Religion Traits pages have been updated today to include a note about the gods etc.

Thank you


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

that's nifty.

@FLite, you liked your own comment, you're dead to me.[/joke]


Would it be possible to get an update on the Buckler as well (from earlier in the thread)? =]

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I compared the wording carefully between the CRB version, the Ultimate Equipment version, and the wording on d20pfsrd.com. The only difference was that I inserted a line break between the bit about wearing it on your forearm and the next sentence and then italicizing the sentence about wearing it on your forearm. I removed the line break and italics from the first sentence now. I hope that makes it less confusing (not sure how it was confusing in the first place but I really couldn't care less so there you have it lol)


The issue presented in the OP was that the sentence "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." was presented as flavor text instead of rules-text. If it was just flavor, then you couldn't actually use a bow or crossbow while using a buckler, as you normally need 2 hands to use such a weapon. Thanks for addressing it. =]

The Exchange

But the sentence "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." was not in any way positioned or formatted as to imply flavor text. It was presented exactly as the CRB and UE presents it, within the paragraph along with the other info. The only sentence that was separated and italicized was the bit about strapping it to your forearm... that is unless we're talking about a different page. I edited the actual buckler details page. If there's text somewhere else that I'm missing please let me know!

51 to 100 of 102 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / PFSRD italics = flavor? and if yes, does it still count as rule? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.