Compilation of Campaign Clarification requests

[Nefreet]

N N 959 wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

N N 959, I do not understand what you're trying to ask.

Read my second post again.

This one? In a long thread it'd be helpful to either requote yourself or link to your previous posts.

N N 959 wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Being able to understand a language comes with all of the mechanical benefits that your PC gains by understanding a language.

Can you provide RAW to clarify what you mean here?

This shows me that you're not interested in an actual answer. Come on. You've been playing this game and posting in the Forums for years. You *know* there is no such thing as "RAW". Everything is up to interpretation.

You asked whether there's a difference between having an Int of 2 versus having an Int of 3, correct? The answer is: depends on who your GM is.

I'll give you my interpretation. It's as rock solid of a "RAW" answer as you're ever going to get, but only at my tables. Feel free to bookmark this comment so you can quote me if I'm ever your GM.

ANSWER: The question is bigger than "2 vs. 3". It's about Intelligence in general. There is nothing in the Core Rulebook about restricting the actions of a PC with an Int of 5 versus a PC with an Int of 25. That's up to the GM to decide. Same for Animal Companions.

At my tables an Int 1 Snake, an Int 2 Wolf, an Int 3 [Animal], an Int 6 Paladin Mount and an Int 10 Familiar are all going to be treated differently. Intelligence is a sliding scale. You're focusing on 2 vs. 3 because of the entry in the Druid section that opens up feats and skills to Int 3 Animals. But that doesn't mean some "genius switch" was flipped. Every point of Intelligence matters equally.

Furthermore, Intelligence is not the only factor when it comes to behavior. Creature type, the opponents themselves, and the circumstances the creature finds itself in all play a part in the decision making process.

I suspect that the posters in this thread are leery of having your question answered in the linear fashion that you're seeking because it would tie their hands as GMs. I know it would for me.

[William Ronald]

Here is something that I was asked about. This question is specifically for the Battle Host Occultist and an item chosen for the panoply bond archetype feature. (The same question might be applied to an arcane bond item.) Here is the relevant text from the Pathfinder PRD:

Quote:
Panoply Bond (Su): At 1st level, a battle host forms a supernatural bond with a specific weapon, suit of armor, or shield. This selection is permanent and can never be changed. The bonded item is masterwork quality and the battle host begins play with it at no cost. The bonded item is immune to the broken condition for as long as the battle host lives. If a battle host dies and is restored to life, the bonded item is also restored if it was destroyed. Any magic powers associated with a battle host's bonded item function only for the battle host; in the hands of anyone else it is only a masterwork item. The bonded item starts as an implement for any single school of magic at 1st level, and gains access to additional schools of magic at 2nd, 10th, 14th, and 18th levels, granting the battle host access to base focus powers and resonant powers accordingly. The battle host's bonded item serves as his implement component to cast occultist spells of all the schools that he knows. However, he must split his mental focus among the schools he knows for the purpose of determining resonant powers and using focus powers, even though he possesses only one physical item as an implement. This ability alters implements, mental focus, spellcasting, and implement mastery.
Is there a limit on the item value or special materials. Can a character make the bonded item a suit of full plate armor or even full plate adamantine armor? I told the player that my judgment would be an item made of materials that are commonly available.

[TwilightKnight]

I received an email regarding the Battle Host and panoply bond. I have to assume it is the same player due to the specificity of the question. I answered thusly...

Bob Jonquet" wrote:

"When adjudicating rules like this I will apply some level of RAI to the RAW because with all the rules we have it is not impossible for there to be unintended loopholes in the rules that the designers did not intend. I do not claim to be the foremost expert on the Occult material, so my opinion should not be considered an official ruling nor is it intended to over-rule a GM/s decision at their table.

After reading numerous messageboard discussions and consulting some trusted "advisors" who are a bit more rules-lawyery that I am, it is my conclusion that no, you cannot select adamantine armor. The most glaring reason is because there is no way the designers intended for a first level PC to receive an item worth 16,500gp that is essentially indestructible for free. That benefit would be such a huge bonus that every melee character (and many others) would start with a level dip into the class just to get a free suit of heavy, material armor and then progress normally thereafter in whatever class they intended.

Sometimes, RAW is not applicable. When there are unforeseen loop holes that create a massive advantage for a clever player, it is reasonable to just say no and site John Compton's recently updated FAQ entry,

"I found a way to gain infinite money/power/etc. Is it legal?"

"No. While we recognize that creative players can find loopholes in the rules, any combination that would grant your character unlimited resources is not legal for use in Organized Play."

[N N 959]

Nefreet wrote:

I suspect that the posters in this thread are leery of having your question answered in the linear fashion that you're seeking because it would tie their hands as GMs. I know it would for me.

Yes that's the real issue, isn't it? A select few GMs here having to concede something that they've previously been able to deny or shut down. The irony of your statement is that if you think these things can be handled via "Push" then your contradicting yourself. You aren't losing any ability to adjudicate anything, it's just question of when it happens. In a nutushell, I'm asking PFS to elaborate and expand upon something Paizo has already acknowledged.

Let me repeat it again,

2011 Paizo blog wrote:

A GM should, however, make exceptions in the case of how such an intelligent animal might react in absence of instructions. It might not know to unlock a door to escape a burning building—as that's a fact that's learned over time and experience—but a smart animal might have a better chance of finding a way out.

Paizo already opened this door. In addition, the "Push" mechanics already requires making exceptions. Paizo already embraced the idea that a higher INT animal can do more. I'm just asking PFS to follow this to its natural conclusion, or not, so I don't have to debate this on the occasion that I get a GM that refuses to concede any benefit for a higher INT/linguistic animal.

Quote:

This shows me that you're not interested in an actual answer.

I have to laugh at that. No offense, but you aren't the one authorized to give the "answer." Nor is this Advice forum. And since there is no RAW that addresses this, I'm asking for clarification from PFS, i'm not interested in what your opinion is because your opinion is irrelevant if you are not the GM.

Quote:

You asked whether there's a difference between having an Int of 2 versus having an Int of 3, correct? The answer is: depends on who your GM is.

Perfect, and that's exactly why I'm asking PFS to offer clarification. Your "answer" suggests that there is at least something for the GM to adjudicate. There are a few GMs that makes zero allowance for INT or Linguistics and insist it changes nothing in how the animal operates. Once gain, I am not talking about the need to use Handle Animal. Nor do I believe any modifiers are applicable or allowed, so please don't roll those straw men out, again.

By way of analogy, let's look at the Push mechanic. Whether I can Push an companion or not should not be dependent on the GM. What I can push the animal to do can be dependent on the GM. The fact that the option exist is NOT dependent on the GM. That is very subtle but substantive and important distinction.

Continuing the analogy, what I'm asking PFS to do is clarify that the Push mechanic exist. I am not asking PFS to "hard code" all the things that an animal can be Pushed to do. I am asking them to give a couple of examples of how INT/Linguistics might modify a routine HA check.

Quote:

You *know* there is no such thing as "RAW". Everything is up to interpretation.

You've been grinding that axe for years. Sorry, I don't agree with you at all. So, please don't tell me what I know.

[Nefreet]

You can disagree out of spirit all you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that reading is an interpretive activity.

Clearly this discussion should be further proof of that.

And I have never once mentioned "push" or anything about "straw men". This time I will suggest that you go back and read what I wrote.

I think you'll find that we're on a similar page, except for the part about wanting Campaign Leadership to issue a ruling.

[Belafon]

I've been trying to stay out of this (because it isn't something that's going to get resolved here and has gotten dangerously personal at times) but I hope I can make a point that will stick. If it doesn't, feel free to carry on.

N N 959 wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

I suspect that the posters in this thread are leery of having your question answered in the linear fashion that you're seeking because it would tie their hands as GMs. I know it would for me.

Yes that's the real issue, isn't it? A select few GMs here having to concede something that they've previously been able to deny or shut down. The irony of your statement is that if you think these things can be handled via "Push" then your contradicting yourself. You aren't losing any ability to adjudicate anything, it's just question of when it happens. In a nutushell, I'm asking PFS to elaborate and expand upon something Paizo has already acknowledged.

The people who don't want the question answered are trying to protect YOU (the players who use animal companions).

I'm a Venture-Officer and a 5-star GM. I'm fortunate enough to be able to travel to GenCon, PaizoCon, and other big conventions. I talk to other GMs, VOs, RVCs, Paizo staffers, freelancers, and designers of all kinds of games on a fairly regular basis. So I think I have a fairly good handle on overall sentiments. And the sentiment is that some players try to do more with an animal companion than should be possible.

If there is a PFS clarification of what Animal Companions with higher intelligence scores can do there's at least a 93% chance that the clarification will actually be an errata to "nothing that a Int 2 animal can not do."

Right now GMs have the latitude to occasionally allow a smart companion to do something a 2-int companion couldn't. The flash of cleverness that helps the party succeed. But they can also say "no" to the player who is trying to make their companion act at the level of an extra PC full time. Which Paizo has said (multiple times) is not how an animal companion of any intelligence should act. The rule is not going to be "animal companions of Int 3+ can act independently just like a PC."

The only other possible hard rule that can cover every situation is "Int 3+ animal companions get extra tricks and can take any feat they can use. Other than that they act as Int 2 companions." And that's going to keep GMs from occasionally allowing a companion to do something smart.

If you don't believe me, do an experiment. Create your own suggested rule for what Int 3+ companions can do (in another thread, if you would be so good). And watch people shoot edge case after edge case at you until your rule is 3 pages long.

[andreww]

Kevin Willis wrote:

I've been trying to stay out of this (because it isn't something that's going to get resolved here and has gotten dangerously personal at times) but I hope I can make a point that will stick.

Given experience to date I wouldn't bet on it.

[Nefreet]

Hey, now. None of that. N N 959 simply doesn't have the amount of GM experience that most of us have. I still remember being super inexperienced and having ideas that I thought at the time were beneficial, but after a while I realized were really harmful.

I see this discussion as akin to that.

[N N 959]

First off, Kevin, thank you for taking the time to post on this topic.

Quote:

=Kevin Willis]If you don't believe me, do an experiment. Create your own suggested rule for what Int 3+ companions can do.

Yes, as long as people keep misrepresenting what I'm asking for, it's easy to argue against it. But assuming the lack of clarify is my fault, I'll provide an example so that PFS will less confused.

Clarification on 3 INT/Linguistics companions wrote:

While an increase in INT does not modify Handle Animal checks and the ability to understand a language does not eliminate the need to make checks, a GM should be willing to make exceptions depending on the circumstances. For example, a companion that understands speech, once given the Down command and told to "back off," would stop attacking and might take a 5' step back. A 3+ INT animal commanded to attack might naturally avoid something it would perceive as obviously dangerous instead of slavishly taking the most direct path. Likewise, if in an obviously dangerous situation, but commanded to Stay the animal might use Total Defense to avoid attack. What the companion specifically does or does not do is still subject to GM discretion.

Again, thank you for weighing in.

[N N 959]

Nefreet wrote:

I think you'll find that we're on a similar page, except for the part about wanting Campaign Leadership to issue a ruling.

Fair enough.

[Nefreet]

The abbreviated and current version of that suggestion wrote:

What the companion specifically does or does not do is still subject to GM discretion.

Problem solved!

[N N 959]

No, that doesn't solve the problem. That's what we have now, no clarification on whether an animal that is 50% smatter than the average animal and can understand speech should have exceptions made for it. Go read the 2011 blog again,

2011 blog wrote:

A GM should, however, make exceptions in the case of how such an intelligent animal might react...

Without an acknowledgement that exceptions "should" or "should not" be made, players aren't protected, and quite frankly, neither are GMs.

[Ferious Thune]

You're leaving "in the absence of instruction" off of the line you're quoting. That line is not saying that GMs should make exceptions with regards to what instructions you can give. It's saying when you've given no instructions, a smarter animal might figure things out on its own, and a GM should consider that.

Now, that being said, I also don't think the items in your suggested clarification are really out of line with what most animal companions do now. An INT 2 animal companion is not obligated to take the fastest route to its target if it knows there is a dangerous opponent threatening squares in between. Even an INT 2 animal can recognize a threat and try to avoid it. They don't have to run through an enemy's threatened squares. Animals, and Animal Companions, can take 5-foot steps. So right there, your clarification is actually restricting actions an INT 2 companion might be allowed to take currently, depending on the GMs interpretation of the situation and how much of it the companion understands. That is why people are saying a clarification like what you are asking for is a bad idea.

[N N 959]

Ferious Thune wrote:

You're leaving "in the absence of instruction" off of the line you're quoting. That line is not saying that GMs should make exceptions with regards to what instructions you can give. It's saying when you've given no instructions, a smarter animal might figure things out on its own, and a GM should consider that.

No, I'm not leaving that out. I quoted the entire section when I first quoted it several posts ago, I'm using a partial quote to illustrate a point. That being there is some context in which INT matters. That's what I want clarification on: the context in which intelligence/linguistics matters.

Quote:

Now, that being said, I also don't think the items in your suggested clarification are really out of line with what most animal companions do now. An INT 2 animal companion is not obligated to take the fastest route to its target if it knows there is a dangerous opponent threatening squares in between. Even an INT 2 animal can recognize a threat and try to avoid it. They don't have to run through an enemy's threatened squares. Animals, and Animal Companions, can take 5-foot steps. So right there, your clarification is actually restricting actions an INT 2 companion might be allowed to take currently, depending on the GMs interpretation of the situation and how much of it the companion understands. That is why people are saying a clarification like what you are asking for is a bad idea.

Unfortunately your contention rings hollow for me because every thing you suggest might be possible by a 2 INT/Non-Ling animal, I've been told is not possible by a 3 INT/Ling animal. So perhaps now you understand my motivation in asking for clarification. Given the exact same situation, it should not depend on the GM whether my animal can avoid threatened space when moving to attack, and I can tell you that at present, it absolutely does, regardless of its INT.

Nevertheless, it's good to see that other GMs agree that the INT/Linguistics should count for something.

Thanks for posting.

[Ferious Thune]

If a GM is ruling that way for you, I'm sorry. I would hope, at least, that they are consistent, and when you are being attacked by creatures with the animal subtype and similar INT, the GM has them move in direct paths and provoke when they attack you.

[TwilightKnight]

N N 959 wrote:

No, that doesn't solve the problem

I don't really see how your custom "solution" text above fixes anything compared to the 2011 quote. Both are still bound by GM discretion. As long as that remains the arbiter of the situation, you are going to run the gamut of what a GM thinks is a "fair" action for an animal of any intelligence. You have to face facts, there are just too many possible actions for an animal to take or be commanded to take for the situation to be covered by a single rule. The best we can do is trust to the GM's adjudications. At the local level, we can discuss and hash out an acceptable compromise of what is/not reasonable actions, but if you do any traveling, those "rules" are not going to apply.

Paizo's opinion has always seemed to be on the side of limited the available actions a companion can take, but the current rules allow GM discretion. Meaning sometimes, you will be able to do what you want and more. Sometime not. If we were to force Paizo into a specific ruling, my guess is that it will not be favorable for those who want more freedom to operate their companions with quasi-sentient intelligence.

Also, if you are playing a companion class with a boosted Int and your style of play is dependent on taking advantage of that boost, I strongly encourage you to briefly discuss the issue with the GM before the session starts. If they are conservative on the matter, maybe choose a different character or a different table. If they are more open to your use of the companion's advanced Int, great. Course, this is advice that can apply to most players with a character using rules that require a greater level of GM adjudication.

[Kinkow]

I always understood and Int 3 animal could activate magic items like ioun stones while an Int 2 animal could not. So if all your physical stats are even numbers might as well boost the Int instead.

I also remember playing in the 'good ole days' when you could legitimately play a Int 3 character, so to me an Int 3 animal would be as smart at that Int 3 PC. Most of the 3-Int PCs were played (maybe for comedic value) as rather self-destructive, more often then not hindering the party with their idiocy.

[Nefreet]

Int 3 was never allowed in PFS.

[Fromper]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

I received an email regarding the Battle Host and panoply bond. I have to assume it is the same player due to the specificity of the question. I answered thusly...

Bob Jonquet" wrote:

"When adjudicating rules like this I will apply some level of RAI to the RAW because with all the rules we have it is not impossible for there to be unintended loopholes in the rules that the designers did not intend. I do not claim to be the foremost expert on the Occult material, so my opinion should not be considered an official ruling nor is it intended to over-rule a GM/s decision at their table.

After reading numerous messageboard discussions and consulting some trusted "advisors" who are a bit more rules-lawyery that I am, it is my conclusion that no, you cannot select adamantine armor. The most glaring reason is because there is no way the designers intended for a first level PC to receive an item worth 16,500gp that is essentially indestructible for free. That benefit would be such a huge bonus that every melee character (and many others) would start with a level dip into the class just to get a free suit of heavy, material armor and then progress normally thereafter in whatever class they intended.

Sometimes, RAW is not applicable. When there are unforeseen loop holes that create a massive advantage for a clever player, it is reasonable to just say no and site John Compton's recently updated FAQ entry,

"I found a way to gain infinite money/power/etc. Is it legal?"

"No. While we recognize that creative players can find loopholes in the rules, any combination that would grant your character unlimited resources is not legal for use in Organized Play."

I wouldn't assume it was the same person asking just because they asked the same thing. This is an obvious problem with the wording of that archetype. Anyone who looks at the Battle Host archetype SHOULD have the same question. I know I did when I first looked at it.

And while it's reasonable to assume that adamantine full plate is out, what about masterwork full plate that's not special material? That's still a free item worth 1650 gp at character creation. It's enough of a starting treasure boost that I don't know if PFS allows it. And if not, then exactly what is the value limit of the free armor or weapon that this archetype gives at character creation?

[thaX]

I believe he refers to another "living" campaign, not PFS for the INT 3 PC. Being able to go to 5 (with a -2 racial stat adjustment) is bad enough.

[TwilightKnight]

Fromper wrote:

I wouldn't assume it was the same person asking just because they asked the same thing

It was largely due to timing. If it came up closer to the release of the book I would agree, but this just "felt" more like a player fishing for someone to agree with them and use that as a trump over everyone who disagreed. I have since spoken to the originator a could of times and I am satisfied this was simply inquisitive more than exploitative.

Fromper wrote:

what about...

I think this is meant for, at least some level of, GM adjudication. The designers do that on purpose some times. It only becomes an issue for PFS. While I dislike the idea of a free suit of masterwork platemail at 1st level (something I still think is a powerful level dip for a melee build) 1650 is a bit more manageable than 16,500, especially since it also negates the special qualities of mithril or adamantine.

If we allow special materials, I would expect all melee druids to level dip into battle host first to get their free suit of dragonhide. I guess we could invoke the fame limitations, but since they are receiving it for free, I could see an argument that the fame limitations do not apply.

[Markov Spiked Chain]

Quote:

I guess we could invoke the fame limitations

Adamantine Fullplate or Dragonhide are always available though, right?

[TriOmegaZero]

Dragonhide is the one CRB material that is not always available.

GtOP pg20 wrote:

This does not include equipment made from dragonhide, but it does include equipment made from the other special materials, such as alchemical silver and cold iron (see the Special Materials section on page 154 of the Core Rulebook).

[BigNorseWolf]

No point in druids dipping for armor: your best suit of armor should be barding which you can't use till 4+ anyway.

[N N 959]

Ferious Thune wrote:

If a GM is ruling that way for you, I'm sorry. I would hope, at least, that they are consistent, and when you are being attacked by creatures with the animal subtype and similar INT, the GM has them move in direct paths and provoke when they attack you.

No need to apologize. I don't even blame the GM. As the rules now stand, outside of 2011 blog which is probably not an authority for PFS, there's nothing that mandates that INT or Linguistics has any effect on the animal's behavior or scope of actions. And as several others have posted, it's very easy for a person to read the bit about INT not modifying Handle Animal checks as tantamount to saying that the animal can do nothing but what is in the check.

[N N 959]

First off, thank you for posting and helping me to clarify and distill what it is I'm asking for.

Bob Jonquet wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

No, that doesn't solve the problem

I don't really see how your custom "solution" text above fixes anything compared to the 2011 quote.

Then let me answer that.

1. I don't know that the blog constitutes an authority for PFS;

2. The blog only deals with one context and only with INT. It does not address language or speak to any other aspect of animal behavior.

Quote:

Both are still bound by GM discretion. As long as that remains the arbiter of the situation, you are going to run the gamut of what a GM thinks is a "fair" action for an animal of any intelligence.

You're overlooking a very crucial aspect of what my solution does: it officially opens the door and authorizes such exceptions. Right now, there are GMs who do not believe the rules authorize any exceptions whatsoever and, in fact, implicitly prohibit them. By giving an example of what might be possible, your providing a framework for both player and GM. I also believe that there are GMs out there who err on the side of being ultra-conservative because they are worried about companion abuse. But, if given the official green-light, would be far more open-minded.

The Core Rules provide a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Let's look at Skill checks.

PRD on Skills wrote:

This section describes each skill, including common uses and typical modifiers. Characters can sometimes use skills for purposes other than those noted here, at the GM's discretion.

Does Paizo give even one example of how a skill can be used for other purposes? No, but this clause in Skill checks opens of a world of options for both GM, Player, and scenario author. Without that simple statement, the creative use of Skills would be tremendously curtailed, with a subset of GMs not allowing any substitution whatsoever.

The problem is not that things are subject to GM discretion, the problem is that GMs are saying and believing that there is no discretion.

Quote:

You have to face facts, there are just too many possible actions for an animal to take or be commanded to take for the situation to be covered by a single rule.

Incorrect. "GM discretion" covers every situation. The problem is that some GMs aren't recognizing a basis for allowing any exceptions. Yes, the vast majority of GMs I've played with are fairly liberal given higher INT and Linguistics, but some won't even entertain the discussion.

Quote:

]The best we can do is trust to the GM's adjudications.

[ No, that's not the best we can do. We can unequivocally state that exceptions can be made and give examples of the type of exceptions that can be made. Anyone claiming that an example of how this can work is not helpful is being disingenuous or subscribing to fear.

Quote:

...but the current rules allow GM discretion.

You keep saying that and it's incorrect. The rules don't address the topic. That's not the same as saying, "Yes, exceptions can be made subject to discretion." The rules are completely silent on this aspect of companions, which means that not all players or GMs even think discretion is allowed, to say nothing of the few that think it's actually prohibited. This is precisely why Skill checks say that skills can be used for other purposes. Without that statement, many GMs would assume that it was not officially possible.

Quote:

If we were to force Paizo into a specific ruling, my guess is that it will not be favorable for those who want more freedom to operate their companions with quasi-sentient intelligence.

Look, it's apparent that several of you posting here, are probably quite liberal on this topic. What you're not realizing or having to deal with is the stonewalling exhibited by some. The cornerstone of PFS is fairness. That means we all play and GM from the same starting point. So it's not "fair" to have GMs starting with a completely different understanding of what is allowed and what isn't. It isn't fun for me as a GM to have players tell me X GM allowed Y when I believe Y is not allowed but there is no RAW that speaks to Y.

Clarification services both player and GM and I'm not going to avoid it out of fear the clarification might not be favorable. As a GM, I don't think it's fair for me to allow something that other GMs are specifically refusing to allow.

Quote:

At the local level, we can discuss and hash out an acceptable compromise of what is/not reasonable actions, but if you do any traveling, those "rules" are not going to apply.

Right, a local community is going to agree on how things are going to be run and the players have a large degree of consistency. If your play is primarily PbP, you're not getting that consistency for things that aren't officially addressed. IMO, that isn't fair or fun.

Quote:

I strongly encourage you to briefly discuss the issue with the GM before the session starts.

That's not possible when the GM won't even entertain the discussion because he or she feels the rules don't allow any provisions for INT or Linguistics. I don't think many of those responding to this topic in the negative are really understanding that aspect of this problem. Instead, you're looking at this as my asking PFS to tell me what one can do. No, I'm asking PFS to tell us that having the conversation on what can be done is legally warranted to begin with.

Again, thank you for offering your insight.

[KingOfAnything]

N N 959, this thread is really not for discussion. This thread is most useful as a compilation of links to other discussions where the question can be better defined and possible solutions offered.

If you want to continue, please put further discussion here.

That is a dedicated thread for discussing the question of what to do about Int 3+ animal companions. You can link back to posts you've made here if you think they are still relevant.

[N N 959]

Nefreet wrote:

If you still have additional rules that you think could benefit from a Campaign Clarifications document, feel free to post them below.

That is what I am doing. Asking for a Campaign Clarification document to address something that isn't addressed.

If people are going to try and insist such a clarification is not needed, I am going to respond to that. If people are telling me that they don't understand what it is I think needs clarification, then PFS might not understand and I am going to respond to that.

Thanks for the thread, but I'm not looking for a discussion on what people think the rules are, I'm asking for an official statement and being forced to justify why one is needed.

[TriOmegaZero]

N N 959 wrote:

If people are going to try and insist such a clarification is not needed, I am going to respond to that.

Stop that. If your goal is to raise the issue for a clarification, one post will do that. Responding to people saying it does not need clarification does not accomplish that goal.

[KingOfAnything]

N N 959 wrote:

If people are telling me that they don't understand what it is I think needs clarification, then PFS might not understand and I am going to respond to that.

Yes, and the place to respond is in the discussion thread. You can make as many full-page explanatory posts there as you like. Leadership does look at them.

[N N 959]

KingOfAnything wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

If people are telling me that they don't understand what it is I think needs clarification, then PFS might not understand and I am going to respond to that.

Yes, and the place to respond is in the discussion thread. You can make as many full-page explanatory posts there as you like. Leadership does look at them.

Why don't you tell people who feel the need to prevent PFS from answering the question to take it to the discussion thread.

[KingOfAnything]

N N 959 wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

If people are telling me that they don't understand what it is I think needs clarification, then PFS might not understand and I am going to respond to that.

Yes, and the place to respond is in the discussion thread. You can make as many full-page explanatory posts there as you like. Leadership does look at them.

Why don't you tell people who feel the need to prevent PFS from answering the question to take it to the discussion thread.

You didn't take the time to create one I could link them to.

[N N 959]

KingOfAnything wrote:

You didn't take the time to create one I could link them to.

Because there is nothing to discuss. Unfortunately I need to defend my right to ask a question. If people are confused, then I need to clarify that in the thread where I am asking the question. You don't agree? That's fine.

[Hmm]

EDIT: Taking my response to the other thread, where it belongs.

Hmm

[CanisDirus]

Nefreet wrote:

Int 3 was never allowed in PFS.

That statement is incorrect (or the ruling has recently been changed) - Relevant FAQ

[BigNorseWolf]

Mike Bramnik wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Int 3 was never allowed in PFS.

That statement is incorrect (or the ruling has recently been changed) - Relevant FAQ

I believe nefreet meant for PCs.

[Nefreet]

Yes. I was responding to a poster about them encountering Int 3 PCs.

[CanisDirus]

Whoops, that'll teach me to skim threads ^^;

Sorry about that.

[Linda Zayas-Palmer]

There is a version of the Campaign Clarifications document that includes the clarifications from Pathfinder Player Companion: Healer's Handbook and Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Qadira: Jewel of the East, but has not yet made it on to the website. I'm including this information in a spoiler below so that you can select these options for your characters with the clarifications in mind.

Healer's Handbook and Qadira: Jewel of the East clarifications:

Healer’s Handbook

Page 4—A sacred attendant’s inspiring camaraderie ability grants a competence bonus equal to the level of the cure spell cast, rather than equal to the cleric’s level.

Page 4—A disciple of wholeness cannot use hone body or greater hone body to grant herself immunities using ki points.

Page 10—When a wasteland blightbreaker uses her banish blights ability, the break enchantment effect replaces the normal effect of the extract.

Page 11—If a sacramental alchemist uses any domain abilities with a limited number of daily uses, he must select the same domain any time he prepares a sacramental cognatogen for the rest of the day, tracking expended abilities as normal for that domain. For example, if a domain grants a 1/day ability, he cannot use it a second time by rebrewing his cognatogen.

Page 11—Neutralizing bomb grants an immediate new saving throw against all effects that grant ongoing saves to clear. For example, it grants an ongoing save against spells like hideous laughter, but not against effects that grant no additional saving throws beyond the initial save, such as flesh to stone.

Page 13—Add the following text from the Resurrection subdomain to the resurrection focused blessing, “Creatures returned to life in this way continue to be affected by any still-active spells, conditions, or afflictions present at the time of their death.”

Page 14—Contingent spells come into effect after a specified trigger happens and cannot preempt an event. A trigger such as “when I am reduced to 20 hit points” is valid, but a trigger such as “when I would otherwise have died” is not.

Page 14—For the Fortuitous Vigor feat, the GM is the arbiter of which ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks qualify to regain vigor points. In general, having a character attempt repeated superfluous skill checks in order to regain vigor is against the spirit of this feat.

Page 15—The temporary hit points that the Unconquerable Resolve feat grants last for 1 minute.

Page 16—When a character uses the ameliorating or major ameliorating hex to grant a creature the ability to suppress a negative condition at some point in the future, this protective effect expires after 24 hours if it is not triggered.

Page 19—A faith singer may activate his domain spell-like ability during a bardic performance, taking the normal actions required to cast the spell. If the spell-like ability has an expensive material component, the bard must supply that component.

Page 20—A Pei Zin practitioner’s healer’s way ability heals 1d6 hit points for every 2 oracle levels she has (minimum 1d6).

Page 21—A succor oracle’s perfect aid ability does not stack with other feats, class features, traits, or any other abilities that improve the bonuses she grants when using the aid another action.

Page 25—A paladin cannot apply the targeted mercy to herself on a round in which she has already performed actions that would break the sanctuary spell (for example, she cannot attack a foe and then use it to block that foe’s attacks).

Page 26—A benefactor shaman can attempt to suppress a given curse with her suppress curse ability once every 24 hours.

Page 27—A character with the restoration spirit specialization hex shell of succor may use the hex once per day, plus one additional time at 11th and 19th levels.

Page 28—Under the healer’s satchel item, each of the four specialized satchels (diagnosis, first aid, long-term care, and treatment) is a different magic item that costs 3,000 gp.

Page 29—A nursing necklace does not grant a +10 circumstance bonus on Heal checks to treat the wearer until the wearer has been wearing the item for 24 hours.
Qadira, Jewel of the East

Page 19—Make the following adjustments to the solar sorcerer. Replace the bonus spell gained at 3rd level with faerie fire. When the cleansing flame ability would remove a condition that resulted from a failed saving throw, the condition removal is not automatic. The target may attempt another saving throw against the effect. If this saving throw succeeds, the effect is removed.

Page 29—A character with the lesser sun totem rage power applies the immunity to environmental effects from heat and severe heat and bonus on Fortitude saves against the effects of extreme heat even when she is not in rage.

Page 33—A sunsinger skald’s pillar of light ability produces nonmagical light.

Page 43—Replace the order of the saddle cavalier’s challenge with the following, taken from the last few sentences of the listed challenge ability: “The cavalier gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC against attacks of opportunity while charging the target of her challenge. This bonus increases by 1 for every 4 levels the cavalier has. If the cavalier already has the Ride-By Attack feat, this dodge bonus increases by 2.”

Page 60—When using the genie-touched companion feat to take an istaheq, make the following adjustments. An istaheq companion’s natural armor bonus is +2 higher than the bonus of a typical horse, not +10. An istaheq companion’s steadfast ability grants a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against mind-affecting and fear effects rather than a +4 bonus.

[Belafon]

Linda:

Two questions about the clarifications

Quote:

Page 14—Contingent spells come into effect after a specified trigger happens and cannot preempt an event. A trigger such as “when I am reduced to 20 hit points” is valid, but a trigger such as “when I would otherwise have died” is not.

"When I die" is still a valid trigger for breath of life (only), yes?

Quote:

Page 60—When using the genie-touched companion feat to take an istaheq, make the following adjustments. An istaheq companion’s natural armor bonus is +2 higher than the bonus of a typical horse, not +10. An istaheq companion’s steadfast ability grants a +2 racial bonus on saving throws against mind-affecting and fear effects rather than a +4 bonus.

Is a pony just a small horse? They are listed under the same heading in Ultimate Equipment. (This might be a more general question.)

[Terminalmancer]

Something I recently became aware of... an old sidebar in Kobold Quarterly saying all quests are infinitely replayable. Is this still in effect? (note: I haven't gone to dig out my old KQs yet... so I don't have any firsthand knowledge yet.)

I mean, I'd assume not since I can't find supporting text in any of the other campaign documentation, but... stranger things have happened.

[Ferious Thune]

It's still in effect for those quests, but those quests don't grant XP. The newer quests follow the replay rules in the guide (and now what John posted up thread).

I don't know what the situation is for the quest tied to Pathfinder Unchained.

[Terminalmancer]

Unfortunately for me, I'm trying to comprehensively document this stuff, which means I need an official reference or my documentation is sort of useless. :( And as far as I can tell, the evidence all supports the non-tier-1-2 quests not being replayable. But lots of people seem to think otherwise, so here we are?

Blah blah blah quests:

There are three "problematic" quests that I know of: Ambush in Absalom, Fane of Fangs, and Urge to Evolve. Each of them is a one-shot quest (not part of a quest arc) that is outside of tier 1 or tier 1-2, which means they're not covered by the evergreen rules in v8 of the guide.

In every other case I'm aware of (excepting the standard v8 guide bugs), when there's a specific rule that's changed in a Guide, it supersedes whatever rules were written in a specific adventure. So on that point, the old rules would seem to be superseded. (Twice, I thought, because the rules in that sidebar specifically say that each character may play each quest multiple times and get multiple chronicles. But now I can't find the particular "one chronicle per character" rule explicitly stated in the guide. Hmm.)

Looking at more modern quests, when replay is mentioned, the PDF includes the "tier 1 and tier 1-2 adventures are replayable" rules but there's no mention of the broader "quests are always replayable!" rules.

Fane of Fangs does not describe itself as replayable at all. And while the older KQ version of Ambush in Absalom was described as infinitely replayable, the Paizo version lost that language.

So I'm pretty sure those replay rules are no longer in effect. But it might not be the first time the guide's language doesn't match up with the rules as the PFS team intends; something could be hiding in the forums where I can't find it; and the peer pressure for them to be infinitely replayable is very strong. So I think it'd be helpful to get a clear ruling documented somewhere. I don't have a horse in the race one way or another as to what the outcome is, even--I just want something official in a place where I can point to it and it makes sense. Selectively reading the rule as written in 2012 in a magazine doesn't seem authoritative enough.

[Ferious Thune]

Sorry. I thought I was responding in the blog thread. I didn't mean to clutter this one discussing the question. I can understand your hesitancy to put something into a guide to quests without knowing for sure that's how it works. I hope someone from the team clears it up for you.

[torrquan]

Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:

There is a version of the Campaign Clarifications document that includes the clarifications from Pathfinder Player Companion: Healer's Handbook and Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Qadira: Jewel of the East, but has not yet made it on to the website. I'm including this information in a spoiler below so that you can select these options for your characters with the clarifications in mind.

** spoiler omitted **...

I feel like every time I look at one of these clarification documents, I feel the document should be renamed house rules for pathfinder society.

[TriOmegaZero]

There's a difference?

[BigNorseWolf]

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

There's a difference?

Depending on intent yes.

Someone could say that its a house rule/clarification that thing that was obviously meant to work like this works like this (in which case it's not really a house rule its a house clarification or DMs call)

or...

They could be complaining that a clarification is faqratta, deviating from the pure perfect mechanism of the raw and changing something.

[torrquan]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

There's a difference?

Depending on intent yes.

Someone could say that its a house rule/clarification that thing that was obviously meant to work like this works like this (in which case it's not really a house rule its a house clarification or DMs call)

or...

They could be complaining that a clarification is faqratta, deviating from the pure perfect mechanism of the raw and changing something.

I will admit that I am complaining. I feel that complaining is a waste of time. I have been in Living Campaigns since 2000 and quickly realized that complaining rarely does any good. I find that I just have to work around the faqs and errata, but it does upset me that I get a new splat book, wait for the content to be approved, then before I settle into the new content to use, the content gets change to things that I feel are just about useless.

Example from above: Page 27—A character with the restoration spirit specialization hex shell of succor may use the hex once per day, plus one additional time at 11th and 19th levels. In the book this is 1+cha modifier times a day. This feature can only be used by a pure shaman according to the book, and at that many times a day I feel is useful, but with the errata I would never take that hex. Just my complaints. Take them for what they are, an opinion.

[Markov Spiked Chain]

For what it's worth, I agree with Torrquan. This is the second additional resources that allowed some Shaman stuff, but brutally nerfed it to 1/day. It's not clarification, it's just a straight power reduction. If the devs think these powers need adjusting, they should be caught in the editing process. I'd rather just have them banned, it's less frustrating, and less painful to explain to someone who checked additional resources that a separate doc immediately "clarified" that their shiny new power is only 20% effective.

[Nefreet]

Markov Spiked Chain wrote:

If the devs think these powers need adjusting, they should be caught in the editing process.

Three things:

#1: The Pathfinder Society team has nothing to do with the release of non-PFS material.

#2: The editing and vetting process for the non-Core line is not as thorough or comprehensive as the Core line. Rarely are the big names involved in those projects.

#3:From my understanding, restrictions such as 1/day are used for options that would otherwise have been banned. It's the mindset of "something is better than nothing".