|
Okay, Human Feat for Racial Heritage. Seems pretty clear this one allows feats and racial archetypes related to my selected humanoid race, for my human to take.
First question, Can I select ANY PFS legal humanoid player race (including ones that require boons)? Does having the boon for that race have an impact on this?
Second question, Can I use this to gain access to the selected humanoid's PFS legal Racial archetypes and or as a racial requirement for feats, even though my PC is not a member of that race?
Third, If my human selects a race which does not require a boon to play in this season, but next season it ends up requiring a boon, will I have to rebuild my character?
For examples:
1: Can I pick a goblin, dhamphir, kitsune, nagaji, ratfolk, skinwalker (and so on)?
2: Can I take a racial feat like Hard-headed, or a racial archetype like the Naga Aspirant?
3: If I take the Naga Aspirant (Racial Heritage Nagaji) and next season requires a boon to play Nagaji (or disallows them entirely), will this affect my human character?
|
|
Racial feats aren't limited to just ARG. There are tons of them. Core races too.
But regarding the ARG:
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed)
Maybe I'm wrong, but as worded, seems like the below is addressing the above.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
|
|
I still firmly believe that we should open up those options for characters with that feat.It would be far easier to just ban racial heritage. There are too many rulings that would have to be made if the restrictions were lifted.
I agree. If the intention is to prevent Racial Heritage from functioning, the more direct response would be to ban the feat or to specifically address it's limits. This alone seems like evidence that it is intended to enable access.
But if you look at Mike Brocks posts in this thread and this thread. He made them while campaign coordinator so Racial Heritage doesn't grant access to material in the ARG to anyone not of the appropriate race in PFS.
Vague at best, are those links. Especially when Michael Brock is no longer Campaign Coordinator. Remotely unofficial rulings, at best. If official, it would be in the PFS FAQ or in the additional resources for the Racial Heritage feat.
Officially, we have the
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).and the
Racial Heritage: Can a human with this feat take levels in an archetype that requires you to be of a specific race?
Yes, the Racial Heritage feat allows you to qualify for archetypes that have the chosen race as a requirement, assuming you still meet all of the other requirements to take levels in the archetype.
It's entirely possible that it is PFS's intention to disallow this, but the PFS current staff should be addressing this. Seems entirely reasonable to ask these questions and verify current answers.
|
|
Revisiting old rulings is certainly appropriate, but those rulings aren't suspect merely because they came about from a previous Campaign Coordinator.
It's not suspect for that reason. And it hasn't been give a ruling, as far as I know.
I gave the official quotes already, which do call it into question on their own. As I'm relatively new to PFS, I would not have concluded that Michael Brock was a campaign coordinator if not for being informed by people on this thread. In the linked thread, there is nothing to suggest that his word has any more weight than an opinion, as it lacks any official stamp or a title to his name that suggests that his word carries more weight.
If it is intended as a ruling, then this should be posted somewhere as a ruling. As written in the linked threads, it is just an unsubstantiated opinion by a forum member such as myself.
|
"You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety . GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary."
page 6 of the guide.
|
|
And yes, this system sucks because some rulings are from 5+ years ago when Frost or even earlier was in charge and the only documentation is in that thread which is 5+ years old. Many have asked if we could get some sort of compilation of all these rulings to be in one spot. Many hope that the clarification document might do just that. But so far we don't have anything nice for finding these rules.
|
|
"You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety .
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
The quote you've got doesn't really clarify this particular question, as Michael Brock is not part the campaign leadership (as far as I know).
And for that matter, is there an official list somewhere which describes who the past and current campaign leadership members are? If players are expected to follow past and present campaign leadership rules clarifications then there should be some method to identify who is on this list of past and present PFS campaign leadership members.
For the record, I'm seeking clarification regarding the use of this feat in PFS. I'm not looking to ignore rulings, but at the same time, I don't understand why this particular ruling is anymore than an opinion by another player.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
...do laws created by a government cease to be laws when a new government is elected?
|
|
...do laws created by a government cease to be laws when a new government is elected?
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
A new government, yes. Though most new governments adopt many of the same laws as the former government. They may even choose to retain criminal records from the old government to the new, though they'd need to pass a law to this effect.
Though I think you are referring to individual rulers, not the actual government. In an absolute monarchy, the succession of prince to replace the king would still be the same government, and retain the previous laws (unless the new king changes them). This is because the government hasn't changed, just the individuals involved.
Which brings me to my point, since the quote refers to rules clarifications made by individuals within the campaign leadership and not rulings made by the campaign leadership itself.
Official FAQs would stand regardless of who writes them, but for the quote, a ruling made on the forums by someone that isn't a member of the campaign staff carry's no official weight. Being a "former" member by definition, means a you aren't a member.
"You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety .
Michael Brock, as I understand it, is not a member of the Campaign Leadership, so his rules clarifications are not covered by this ruling.
PS: using Michael Brock due to the earlier quote. And I'm not sure what his position is within paizo. I haven't been able to find any clear listing of past staff on this site. With current staff only being able to be identified due to the titles next to their name within the forums.
I really don't mean to target Michael Brock specifically, as any former PFS campaign staff would function for this subtopic.
|
|
Look. Anything they said when they were in is binding. that is the rule. Do I have the source handy? No, because it's probably in some random thread, maybe even in a well known thread, but I don't have it handy. If you must have the actual source for some crazy reason. Say so. If you're curious as to what the rule is, then you've been answered, accept and move on.
|
I'm seeking clarification regarding the use of this feat in PFS. I'm not looking to ignore rulings, but at the same time, I don't understand why this particular ruling is anymore than an opinion by another player.
This is not merely opinion. It is well established fact. If you use the Search function on the top right of this Forum you will find multiple discussions (directly and indirectly) coming to the same conclusion.
It's also one of the things that will hopefully be added to the Campaign Clarifications document. So if you'll only accept something in print, have patience.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I must say that it is a little audacious for a new player to come to a forum of dedicated fans and volunteers, who have been doing this for years, and automatically assume their answers mean nothing.
Have some class. Etiquette is a thing. Some of us have been doing PFS for longer than the current Leadership team. This isn't the Rules Forum, where only printed FAQs matter. We're a community of experienced players and GMs who generally know what we're talking about.
Show some respect, please.
|
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
Think of it from the other side
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership don't qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
Now, which one of those situations actually makes sense? Certainly not the one where everything a team member said is instantly nullified once they leave the position.
If a judge makes a ruling, and then retires, does that mean his past rulings are no longer in effect?
If someone makes a statement in an official capacity, 'retiring' doesn't make the statement no longer in effect.
Also, looking at this in the real world:
Current PFS leadership believes that those previous statements are still binding.
If you want to play in PFS sanctioned games, they're going to say: those statements are still in effect whether or not you are satisfied with the proofs we've presented.
So you'll have the choice of either playing by those rules or not playing at all.
They have the power to not let you use a character they don't believe is acceptable, given previous rulings by PFS leadership.
The fact that you don't think the previous rulings are still in effect doesn't change reality. You don't get to change how an entire organization works just because you aren't convinced that a statement is true.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been lurking around these Pathfinder Society forums, and I've seen a lot of threads where the answer to a question is a reference to a developer post buried in some old thread. It may be a bit audacious of me to ask this, but isn't there a better place to store official rulings than randomly strewn about years worth of forum posts?
I've seen threads on this particular topic at least five times, and I still have no idea what the Racial Heritage feat actually does in PFS.
It may be a bit audacious of me to ask this, but isn't there a better place to store official rulings than randomly strewn about years worth of forum posts?
At least one of those links upthread goes to this post:
It does not apply to all previous rulings in other books. This applies to the Advanced Race Guide. You can find my official ruling in the Additional Resources.
Have you looked through that Additional Resources page?
Additional ResourcesYou can scroll down to the Advanced Race Guide and see the specific paragraph quoted:
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).
You might also want to subscribe to the update thread for that page
|
|
It may be a bit audacious of me to ask this, but isn't there a better place to store official rulings than randomly strewn about years worth of forum posts?
Asking questions is not audacious. Asking questions while simultaneously having no interest in answers, is.
And, yes, there is a better practice. It's called the Campaign Clarifications document, and Campaign Leadership is working hard to have it ready and regularly updated for just these sorts of questions.
I've seen threads on this particular topic at least five times, and I still have no idea what the Racial Heritage feat actually does in PFS.
HERE is a summary I often use.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And, yes, there is a better practice. It's called the Campaign Clarifications document, and Campaign Leadership is working hard to have it ready and regularly updated for just these sorts of questions.
Just bookmarked your awesome list of Campaign Clarification Requests
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must say that it is a little audacious for a new player to come to a forum of dedicated fans and volunteers, who have been doing this for years, and automatically assume their answers mean nothing.
Have some class. Etiquette is a thing. Some of us have been doing PFS for longer than the current Leadership team. This isn't the Rules Forum, where only printed FAQs matter. We're a community of experienced players and GMs who generally know what we're talking about.
I'm a new player looking at written rules of the game and being told that unwritten rules must be followed in addition, and in contradiction, to the written rules. That's unreasonable.
I point out quotes that solidify my stance in written rules and instead of getting friendly replies to either agree or substancially disagree, I get responses like:
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership don't qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
Which is the rough equivalent to kids responding to insults with, "I know you are, but what am I?"
I've posted the quotes. There seems to be a huge assumption on these boards that "former" means something vastly different that the dictionary describes it. A person that is former staff is not staff. Basic English. There's not even any official paizo/PFS notes or titles on Michael Brock's profile to indicated that his words carry more weight than the validity of the words themselves.
And, as I've mention, if I have this wrong, by all means, point out a quote. I follow written rules very well even if I disagree, but when asked to abide unwritten rules, I find it rather unreasonable.
If a judge makes a ruling, and then retires, does that mean his past rulings are no longer in effect?
If someone makes a statement in an official capacity, 'retiring' doesn't make the statement no longer in effect.
Actually, this is another poor example. Regarding individual cases, the ruling does retain to that case, but as a legal precedence, the judge's ruling is merely a guideline to other judges and carry's no actual legal effect. Lawyers and police will use precedence to justify their interpretation of the law and to predict the outcomes of trials, but each trial is ultimately up to the current judge and precedence is no always followed.
As for other occupations in the real world, almost always, when you change leadership, the subordinates/followers have to adapt to the change in leadership style and often the new/altered rules that come about. In this, us RPG players would be the followers. Even if the past rulings remain the same on paper, they often enforced differently.
Anyway, regarding this one, the issue is that the quote refers only the campaign staff. Former/retired members of a staff are not staff anymore. Here:
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, at http://paizo.
com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/
pathfinderSociety . GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.
Is Michael part of the Campaign Leadership (including campaign
coordinator and campaign developer) right now?He's either a part of it, or he is not.
And, as stated in this document, if it is a SIGNIFICANT CLARIFICATION, it will be found in the FAQ. The PFS FAQ is great spot to put past rulings that are intended to be kept when staff are changed out and are not longer part of the Campaign Leadership.
I'm not really sure, with only the above quote, how anyone would conclude that people not part of the Campaign Leadership, are consider to be part of it if they were in the past. I suspect there's another quote somewhere else which clarifies this past/present bit, but I can't find it and you guys won't supply it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems unreasonable to me to demand that whenever we change campaign coordinator, said new coordinator must then pass judgment on every single ruling the previous campaign coordinators have made. Tonya and John already have way too much on their plates to go over 8 years of decisions made by past leadership.
|
|
[Which is the rough equivalent to kids responding to insults with, "I know you are, but what am I?"
Do you have a quote that suggests that rulings made by former members of the Campaign leadership don't qualify as rules clarifications made by current members?
You must not understand that child's insult then because it's not even remotely similar.
You jump to the conclusion that without a quote then we are wrong. I'm simply pointing out that you have no valid reason to jump to that conclusion over the opposite, and yet you are using your conclusion to basically say "I'm right, period. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm right."
A leadership position made a ruling. Someone else later in that position has never even remotely implied that ruling is no longer in effect. Look at it however you want, it doesn't change how absurd it is to think him leaving the position nullifies everything he ever ruled that didn't make it into the FAQ page.
The Additional Resources (not the FAQ) should certainly include a sentence saying that the paragraph there overrides the ability to use Racial Heritage to take those options, but the fact it isn't there doesn't take away that we have an official ruling whether you like it or not.
|
|
I'm a new player looking at written rules of the game and being told that unwritten rules must be followed in addition, and in contradiction, to the written rules. That's unreasonable.
... and an incorrect statement, but let's ignore that for the moment.
Once you become aware of a clarification on the board, you must abide by it. That's in the Guide. It's not in the Guide that you can be rude to everyone else and ask them to do your research for you. There are a dozen threads on this topic, and a binding ruling by the campaign coordinator at the time. Do you think that laws expire when the government changes?
I'm sorry that PFS isn't to your liking. Perhaps a home game with a single GM who can clarify things to your liking would remove some variability for you.
A ruling was made by PFS management. It has not been countermanded or revoked. That the management has had some staffing changes does not alter the rulings.
-j
Developer
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rulings of past members of campaign leadership are binding unless a more recent ruling reverses them.
I understand your concern about being able to know that someone was a past member of campaign leadership who is longer marked as such on the forums. The following people are past members of campaign leadership, with the following versions of their names as usernames: Nicholas Logue, Joshua J. Frost, Hyrum Savage, Mark Moreland, and Michael Brock. Current campaign leadership is Tonya, John, and me.
Practically speaking, official posts by any past members other than Mark Moreland, who is tagged as a Paizo Developer, and Mike Brock, who is tagged as Global Organized Play Coordinator, will be from 2011 or earlier, and have most likely been incorporated into the FAQ or the Guide by this point, or revised as the size of the campaign has dramatically grown and its needs have changed.
We certainly don’t expect people to have encyclopedic knowledge of every potentially relevant post on the forums. We are working on making it easier to find rulings with projects like the Campaign Clarifications document. If you have recommendations for the clarifications document, please post them either in the thread for the Let’s be Clear blog post or Nefreet’s thread that he linked above. I keep a close eye on both of those threads. When you do learn about a ruling by campaign leadership, past or present, please respect it.
|
|
The rulings of past members of campaign leadership are binding unless a more recent ruling reverses them.
I understand your concern about being able to know that someone was a past member of campaign leadership who is longer marked as such on the forums. The following people are past members of campaign leadership, with the following versions of their names as usernames: Nicholas Logue, Joshua J. Frost, Hyrum Savage, Mark Moreland, and Michael Brock. Current campaign leadership is Tonya, John, and me.
Practically speaking, official posts by any past members other than Mark Moreland, who is tagged as a Paizo Developer, and Mike Brock, who is tagged as Global Organized Play Coordinator, will be from 2011 or earlier, and have most likely been incorporated into the FAQ or the Guide by this point, or revised as the size of the campaign has dramatically grown and its needs have changed.
We certainly don’t expect people to have encyclopedic knowledge of every potentially relevant post on the forums. We are working on making it easier to find rulings with projects like the Campaign Clarifications document. If you have recommendations for the clarifications document, please post them either in the thread for the Let’s be Clear blog post or Nefreet’s thread that he linked above. I keep a close eye on both of those threads. When you do learn about a ruling by campaign leadership, past or present, please respect it.
Awesome. Thank you so much. Totally solved this one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for the confirmation Linda.
the following versions of their names as usernames: Nicholas Logue
To be extremely pedantic (just because it might help someone out who's using it as a search term) the actual username is Nicolas Logue.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If official, it would be in the PFS FAQ or in the additional resources for the Racial Heritage feat.
It is not vague at all. Do you want to know why I know?
I've lobbied for a year to get them to make a sentence "no Racial Heritage doesn't bypass the Additional Resources restrictions on race" and have mostly been dismissed with something similar to "everyone already knows you can't so why?"
Here is to hoping that it is one of the things covered in the Campaign documentation document.
|
|
It is not vague at all. Do you want to know why I know?
At this point, you are beating a dead horse. This topic, as I already posted, has been resolved.
I could summarize, if you want, what I learned.
I had three original questions:
Can I select ANY PFS legal humanoid player race (including ones that require boons)? Does having the boon for that race have an impact on this?
Answer is yes. I can select any PFS legal humanoid race, be it a player race or not.
Granted, using this feat to gain access to things does depend on PFS legal eligibility to those feats, so obscure race choices don't result in any real benefits.
Second question, Can I use this to gain access to the selected humanoid's PFS legal Racial archetypes and or as a racial requirement for feats, even though my PC is not a member of that race?
Yes and no. Racial Heritage does allow access to racial archetypes, racial feats and so forth, but not those found in the Advanced Race Guide.
Third, If my human selects a race which does not require a boon to play in this season, but next season it ends up requiring a boon, will I have to rebuild my character?
Question is meaningless, as only the content of the Advanced Race Guide is restricted and that's the content which requires boons.
And Forth, was a side question regarding if past Campaign Staff were still considered staff for the purposes of the Michael Brock's quote which Officially answers that question you were lobbying for.
As Nicholas Logue, pointed out in an official capacity, past staff DO qualify as Campaign Staff unless specifically overridden by current staff. Nicholas Logue even specified a handy list of the PFS staff of past and present which qualify to make Official Rulings on these boards (Nicholas Logue, Joshua J. Frost, Hyrum Savage, Mark Moreland, and Michael Brock).
Thank you all for bearing with me. I can be very stubborn at times and your patience was very helpful.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two minor corrections:
1) The various race boons allow creation of a new character. They don't grant characters of other races access to different racial options. I only mention this because it is a persistent misunderstanding.
2) The Advanced Race Guide is just one source with such a "race restriction" clause. It is not the only one.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
2) The Advanced Race Guide is just one source with such a "race restriction" clause. It is not the only one.
+1
Also Add:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Campaign
Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Inner Sea Races
Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Monster Codex
Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of the Elements
Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of the Moon
Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of the Night
I'm fairly certain ALL things you can take with Racial Heritage of races other than the Core Rulebook are prohibited.
At least, all things that have options you may take, are restricted.
|
|
I'm fairly certain ALL things you can take with Racial Heritage of races other than the Core Rulebook are prohibited
Advanced Player's guide has a bunch of racial feats, which I'm pretty sure is the main grouping of allowed racial feats via racial heritage.
The feat also applies, as far as I can tell, to the activation of magic items with a race component, to ranger favored enemies, and so forth.
|
|
And Forth, was a side question regarding if past Campaign Staff were still considered staff for the purposes of the Michael Brock's quote which Officially answers that question you were lobbying for.
As Nicholas Logue, pointed out in an official capacity, past staff DO qualify as Campaign Staff unless specifically overridden by current staff. Nicholas Logue even specified a handy list of the PFS staff of past and present which qualify to make Official Rulings on these boards (Nicholas Logue, Joshua J. Frost, Hyrum Savage, Mark Moreland, and Michael Brock).Thank you all for bearing with me. I can be very stubborn at times and your patience was very helpful.
Actually, it was pointed out by Linda Zayas-Palmer, not Nicolas Logue, who was, IIRC, the original OPC, back in 2008.
Nicolas Logue
Joshua Frost
Hyrum Savage
Mark Moreland
Michael Brock
Tonya Woldridge
Other voices of authority:
John Compton
Linda Zayas-Palmer
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it was pointed out by Linda Zayas-Palmer, not Nicolas Logue, who was, IIRC, the original OPC, back in 2008.
Fail. I thought this (below) meant that Linda's actual name was Nicolas Logue.
Thanks for the confirmation Linda.
the following versions of their names as usernames: Nicholas LogueTo be extremely pedantic (just because it might help someone out who's using it as a search term) the actual username is Nicolas Logue.
My mistake.
|
|
Nah, it just means that she typoed Nicolas's name. Or, maybe, that he typoed it when making his Paizo account, lo those many years ago.
He was before my PFS time, I joined when Josh Frost was the OPC...
Be careful when you play a Josh Frost scenario, or a scenario in a series he wrote at least one of the scenarios for...
Huh. Just checked the retired scenarios from Season 0, and he was credited with writing credit for only one of them, and that one as co-author...
|
|
Nah, it just means that she typoed Nicolas's name. Or, maybe, that he typoed it when making his Paizo account, lo those many years ago.
He was before my PFS time, I joined when Josh Frost was the OPC...
Before mine too (good Lord the man has been on this site a long time) but I'm fairly confident the relevant posts should be in his correct name.