Occult Adventures stealth errata messing with favored class bonuses?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CBDunkerson wrote:

Page 84, paragraph 4, last two sentences.

Also, right here

"If an alternate favored class option modifies a class feature or ability, it can't be taken before the character has that class feature or ability. For example, if a class gains a class feature at 6th level, a character couldn't take a racial favored class option that applies to that class feature until 6th level, even if the benefit from that option wouldn't be high enough to add a bonus until a later level."

So, human paladins can no longer take the energy resistance option since they never had it to begin with? Hurrah for stealth errata!

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the law of the land before, but as of the release of Occult Adventures, it's certainly official now.

*head desk*


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The version of that paladin ability from the 2nd printing of the Advanced Race Guide, which is the most current, I believe, explicitly grants the energy resistance, so there should not be any conflict with the ruling from OA.

The original version from the Advanced Player's guide should never have worked, since it granted a bonus to an ability the character never had. This is probably the reason why it was reworded for the ARG.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Plus this isn't stealth, it's something that always existed but wasn't as clear.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I believe it is indeed a change. I checked the APG and ACG texts, and nothing like that is in there, and I believe, for example it's a standard for a human rogue to take 1/6 rogue talent in his first six levels and gain an additional rogue talent at level 6. Under the OA ruling, this is no longer allowed, since he cannot take that favored class bonus option at 1st level as rogue talents only become available at level 2.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Not a change

But I do appreciate that it seems like one. Maybe because some misunderstood the rule, they decided to clarify in the OA book. But it's been designed to be this way since the start and officially clarified as "not a change" in Feb 2014.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Where can I find this clarification?

And how can they clarify that a change in OA is "not a change" in 2014, when the book was only published in 2015?


http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tsr2?FCB-Ruling-Source


Ravingdork wrote:
I'm pretty sure this wasn't the law of the land before, but as of the release of Occult Adventures, it's certainly official now.

John Compton addressed this two years ago.

Quote:

Related Point: Can I apply the aasimar or elf oracle's favored class bonus to a revelation I do not yet have? Can I do so for the aasimar bard’s favored class bonus?

No, when choosing which class feature’s effective level to increase, you can only select a feature that you already have. For example, an aasimar flame oracle cannot choose to improve the wings of fire revelation with her favored class bonus until she actually gains the revelation at 7th level or beyond; she could not start augmenting it at 1st level.

This isn’t actually a new rule. It’s just a clarification that I confirmed with the design team because it seemed that some folks were assuming otherwise.

So apparently the Design Team has been thinking this way for a long time.

The Paladin thing is really weird, though. I guess the authors of the ARG didn't know about this rule either.

Edit: Lots of Ninjas around these parts. :)


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

James, you link is only relevant for Pathfinder Society. No official FAQ entry relevant for the RPG in general on this issue exists, I think.

vhok, your thread has no official ruling or comment from a developer. just suppositions of forum users.


Zaister wrote:
James, you link is only relevant for Pathfinder Society. No official FAQ entry relevant for the RPG in general on this issue exists, I think.

So you think the design team would contradict that if they were asked for a more general statement?


Ravingdork wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Page 84, paragraph 4, last two sentences.

Also, right here

"If an alternate favored class option modifies a class feature or ability, it can't be taken before the character has that class feature or ability. For example, if a class gains a class feature at 6th level, a character couldn't take a racial favored class option that applies to that class feature until 6th level, even if the benefit from that option wouldn't be high enough to add a bonus until a later level."

So, human paladins can no longer take the energy resistance option since they never had it to begin with? Hurrah for stealth errata!

I'm pretty sure this wasn't the law of the land before, but as of the release of Occult Adventures, it's certainly official now.

*head desk*

(emphasis mine)

The bolded part is the important one. If you read this as Class Feature or Class Ability, then you are fine because energy resistance is not a paladin class feature. If you read it as Class Feature or (generic) Ability it makes shockingly little sense (from my perspective). Forunately, it seems to be written for the former (or there would be some form of punctuation such as a comma separating feature and ability).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

James, you link is only relevant for Pathfinder Society. No official FAQ entry relevant for the RPG in general on this issue exists, I think.

vhok, your thread has no official ruling or comment from a developer. just suppositions of forum users.

Compton outright said that he checked with the design team, and they confirmed that it worked as he thought it did.

A fairly high profile Paizo employee met with the Design Team and relayed their stance on the issue. For almost any reasonable person, that is as official as it needs to be.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I know what Mr Compton posted, and I do believe that design team intended it to be like this. However, posting this information only buried somewhere in the PFS forum cannot really be counted as a clarification for the general RPG population. I, for example, play a lot of Pathfinder, but I never check the PFS forums because I do not play PFS at all, and these forums are highly irrelevant for me. In any case, posting on that forum does not change the rule that is in the books (or isn't in this case).

For this to be an official clarification for the general RPG, it needs to be on the FAQ or in a reprint of the APG/ARG.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Paradozen wrote:
The bolded part is the important one. If you read this as Class Feature or Class Ability, then you are fine because energy resistance is not a paladin class feature. If you read it as Class Feature or (generic) Ability it makes shockingly little sense (from my perspective). Forunately, it seems to be written for the former (or there would be some form of punctuation such as a comma separating feature and ability).

As I said earlier, the human paladin favored class bonus was badly worded, and has been changed in the second printing of the Advanced Race Guide. The ability now explicitly grants energy resistance and has no problems working even within the context of the OA rule change.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Paradozen wrote:
If you read it as Class Feature or (generic) Ability...

This is exactly how I read it.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
Paradozen wrote:
If you read it as Class Feature or (generic) Ability...
This is exactly how I read it.

I would read it that way, too. "Class ability" is not a defined game term.


"Class ability" may or may not be "defined" but it is referenced regularly in the rules.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Zaister wrote:

James, you link is only relevant for Pathfinder Society.

For this to be an official clarification for the general RPG, it needs to be on the FAQ or in a reprint of the APG/ARG.

Read my link again, it explicitly says that the rules of the game forbid it but the clarification for PFS is to address some people interpreting it differently.

So in 2014, it worked like the OA verbiage. I'm sure the reason for the OA verbiage is to get in print clarification not change.

You won't likely be seeing a reprint of APG/ARG with that clarification the same as you won't likely see them add "This modifies ..." Verbiage, as they don't feel it is sufficiently confusing for anyone willing to accept official answers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well the APG will need errata as its example breaks that rule:
"For example, a dwarf with rogue as his favored class adds +1/2 to his trap sense ability regarding stone traps each time he selects the alternate rogue favored class benefit; though this means the net effect is +0 after selecting it once (because +1/2 rounds down to +0), after 20 levels this benefit gives the dwarf a +10 bonus to his trap sense (in addition to the base value from being a 20th-level rogue)."

Rogues don't receive trap sense till level 3, so that bonus at level 20 couldn't be any more than +9. Clearly when this example was written, the intent was different than the current intent.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
Clearly when this example was written, the intent was different than the current intent.

Clearly.

A fine example of how the developers change the rules, then forum goers who want to feel "right" claim that "it was like that all along."

Been seeing it over and over again for years.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are also countless examples of where a non-design team writes something that violates intend and that is often used to demonstrate a change. A good example is the NPC Codex with its bashing spiked barbarian doing 2d6. An endless stream of people used that as evidence there was a change to block stacking, when plenty of Paizo staff have said over the years they never stacked.

But I guess the morale of the story is no one wants to be wrong. So how about we just agree that going forward it isn't something that works and we have known this since 2/2014.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find it likely that there was an original intent that you couldn't choose a FCB for an ability you had not yet chosen, like an oracle revelation. That would be different than an ability you simply hadn't reached yet. But then that got changed by this FAQ

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador, hmm that would be consistent wouldn't it. So I guess that could have been the path.


James Risner wrote:

There are also countless examples of where a non-design team writes something that violates intend and that is often used to demonstrate a change. A good example is the NPC Codex with its bashing spiked barbarian doing 2d6. An endless stream of people used that as evidence there was a change to block stacking, when plenty of Paizo staff have said over the years they never stacked.

But I guess the morale of the story is no one wants to be wrong. So how about we just agree that going forward it isn't something that works and we have known this since 2/2014.

Except we didn't. The PFS crowd may have. They aren't the community at large.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
There are also countless examples of where a non-design team writes something that violates intend and that is often used to demonstrate a change. A good example is the NPC Codex with its bashing spiked barbarian doing 2d6. An endless stream of people used that as evidence there was a change to block stacking, when plenty of Paizo staff have said over the years they never stacked.

There is a quite a bit of a difference in a seperate book referencing rules in another book compared to the book that basically introduced the rule giving an example of that rule in that very block of rules text.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
I find it likely that there was an original intent that you couldn't choose a FCB for an ability you had not yet chosen, like an oracle revelation. That would be different than an ability you simply hadn't reached yet. But then that got changed by this FAQ

That was what I was thinking. That FAQ changes things. Then, when John Compton tells them that a lot of people are confused about how this FAQ applies to FCBs, they confirm the rules for him and then decide to include clarifying language in OA. Something along those lines seems like a plausible sequence of events.


Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
There are also countless examples of where a non-design team writes something that violates intend and that is often used to demonstrate a change. A good example is the NPC Codex with its bashing spiked barbarian doing 2d6. An endless stream of people used that as evidence there was a change to block stacking, when plenty of Paizo staff have said over the years they never stacked.
There is a quite a bit of a difference in a seperate book referencing rules in another book compared to the book that basically introduced the rule giving an example of that rule in that very block of rules text.

But it's fairly common practice for later books to alter or expand rules from earlier books isn't it? Ultimate Equipment changed a number of items from the CRB versions. If I recall, the ACG expanded/clarified the rules for archetype stacking that were laid out in the APG. And now we have OA adding more details about the FCB rules from ARG. I'd prefer this to waiting years for the original books to be reprinted.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not saying they can't change the rules. I'm just saying that it is very unlikely that the current rule was always the rule and people were just "misinterpreting" it. The odds of that example having been a mistake at the time of printing and reprinting are nearly zero, as it's in the very same original block of rules text for racial favored class bonuses.


I only allow the standard one skill point or one hit point.

The racial favored class bonus is the lamest.


Melkiador wrote:
I'm not saying they can't change the rules. I'm just saying that it is very unlikely that the current rule was always the rule and people were just "misinterpreting" it. The odds of that example having been a mistake at the time of printing and reprinting are nearly zero, as it's in the very same original block of rules text for racial favored class bonuses.

Oh, yes. I agree that the rules changed. And I strongly suspect that you are correct about that 2013 FAQ being the point of change.


Zaister wrote:

I know what Mr Compton posted, and I do believe that design team intended it to be like this. However, posting this information only buried somewhere in the PFS forum cannot really be counted as a clarification for the general RPG population. I, for example, play a lot of Pathfinder, but I never check the PFS forums because I do not play PFS at all, and these forums are highly irrelevant for me. In any case, posting on that forum does not change the rule that is in the books (or isn't in this case).

For this to be an official clarification for the general RPG, it needs to be on the FAQ or in a reprint of the APG/ARG.

I was reading back through the thread, and I just want to say how much I agree with you on this. It would be wonderful to have easily-accessible postings when the PDT answers rules questions for institutions like PFS and HeroLab. There are even some PDT announcements that are official but are still buried in threads rather than displayed on the FAQ pages. (This one, for example, addresses a question that I have seen show up several times.)

I would really appreciate it if they could make those clarifications easily available to the rest of us on the FAQs or some other centralized location. It would also be great to get all of the older, official, pre-FAQ rulings from Jason Bulmahn and SKR collected in one location, but I suspect that would be a very extensive project.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Gisher wrote:
It would be wonderful to have easily-accessible postings when the PDT answers rules questions for institutions like PFS and HeroLab.

I think the forums do this well. We all have separate memories. When I'd see someone using FCB on something they didn't have, I'd link the Compton post from Feb 2014. The issue is most people fallback on the "must be a FAQ or I'll ignore it" stance. I find that stance (when taken by others) unproductive. Especially in cases like this where it seemed obvious to one side that you can't take it before you have it and equally obvious to the other side that since it doesn't say you must have you can take it.

In truth, it's rarely accepted. We knew how Courageous property was supposed to have been interpreted years before aFAQ changed/clarified/fixed it. I found few people accepted the SKR email reply to HL staff.


I know what you mean. I have to admit that I kind of enjoy the challenge hunting for rulings. But not everyone has the time or inclination to pursue that. I think that a more centralized reference document would be helpful for a lot of people. Something like PFS's Campaign Clarifications, maybe.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Gisher wrote:
But not everyone has the time or inclination to pursue that.

Well, the thing we often forget is that we all have GM's empowered to make rulings. So we don't actually need a ruling to play or GM. They are sort "good to have to know how it should be" but are not required.


As I threw in on one of the other threads the ARG example for the orc gunslinger also would be incorrect since it assumes he took 20 levels for an ability he can't get till lvl 3.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Started a FAQ thread to address the apparent contradiction in the rules.


The series of feats "Extra <ClassFeature>" all list as a prerequisite <ClassFeature>. The FAQ states you cannot take those feats until you actually have the feature. Just confirming the prerequisite text.

FCB's, however, have no prerequisites beyond race and class, unless stated.

PRD

Favored Class Options wrote:

Halfling

Paladin: Add +1/2 hp to the paladin's lay on hands ability (whether using it to heal or harm).

Paladins don't get Lay on Hands until 2nd level.

This is in the CRB. There is NO text in the CRB preventing access of this FCB at first level for halfling paladins.

The way I see it, the original rule was you can get any FCB your race and class allows.

If they want to prohibit this CRB entry for the Halfling Paladin from being taken at first level, it is a rule change. That is, some form of errata and NOT a FAQ.

/cevah


Cevah wrote:

The series of feats "Extra <ClassFeature>" all list as a prerequisite <ClassFeature>. The FAQ states you cannot take those feats until you actually have the feature. Just confirming the prerequisite text.

FCB's, however, have no prerequisites beyond race and class, unless stated.

PRD

Favored Class Options wrote:

Halfling

Paladin: Add +1/2 hp to the paladin's lay on hands ability (whether using it to heal or harm).

Paladins don't get Lay on Hands until 2nd level.

This is in the CRB. There is NO text in the CRB preventing access of this FCB at first level for halfling paladins.

The way I see it, the original rule was you can get any FCB your race and class allows.

If they want to prohibit this CRB entry for the Halfling Paladin from being taken at first level, it is a rule change. That is, some form of errata and NOT a FAQ.

/cevah

You are correct that Occult Adventures is not a FAQ.


captain yesterday wrote:

I only allow the standard one skill point or one hit point.

The racial favored class bonus is the lamest.

I'd say a single skill or HP is pretty lame myself. :P


The problem I have with the interpretation put forward in OA is that it makes the game more difficult to understand without impacting game play in any meaningful way.


I've always been confused as to why some people are so adamant that things that happened didn't actually happen. Like vehemently insisting that nothing was changed even though something was clearly changed. What does it matter? Everyone knows how it works now, so why this weird insistence that history be rewritten?


Scythia wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

I only allow the standard one skill point or one hit point.

The racial favored class bonus is the lamest.

I'd say a single skill or HP is pretty lame myself. :P

We don't, nor are we ever likely to play together, so it doesn't matter. :-)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Which sort of begs the question as to why you mentioned it out of the blue in the first place.

More on topic, I've always been confused by this company and board's insistence on rewriting history too. Most people would admit they made a mistake, and fix it (and most normal consumers would accept that companies are made of people, and people are fallible), and that would be the end of the matter.

Why this weird tendency of claiming you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote all along? I don't see what is gained by this. This is like if Blizzard patched something in one of their games, and then claimed the game wasn't patched, it never had been patched, the Resplendent Flaming Sword of Alacrity was always meant to do frost damage, and in fact always has.

It just makes them look rather silly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:

I only allow the standard one skill point or one hit point.

The racial favored class bonus is the lamest.

I'd say a single skill or HP is pretty lame myself. :P

That rule allowed wizards to have hit points and fighters to have skills. It is literally the least lame thing that pathfinder ever did.


And so proceeds the gradual evolution of the game to a 2.0 state that I keep mentioning and people are like "where? show me proof." Here's another instance. This isn't limited to OA which is what makes it such an instance. Once it get disseminated to a critical mass of players, it'll be summarily applied to other groups and therefore becomes "the way the game is played." Someone just picking up the CRB has yet another rule to be sidelined with making the CRB yet again not the authoritative standard in setting the baseline rules for the game. Good job, Paizo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
And so proceeds the gradual evolution of the game to a 2.0 state that I keep mentioning and people are like "where? show me proof." Here's another instance. This isn't limited to OA which is what makes it such an instance. Once it get disseminated to a critical mass of players, it'll be summarily applied to other groups and therefore becomes "the way the game is played." Someone just picking up the CRB has yet another rule to be sidelined with making the CRB yet again not the authoritative standard in setting the baseline rules for the game. Good job, Paizo.

While what you are saying isn't totally incorrect, there is a pretty glaring error in your post.

Alternate Favored Class Bonuses are not in the Core Rule Book. In the CRB, the only options available are...

CRB wrote:
Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:

Which sort of begs the question as to why you mentioned it out of the blue in the first place.

More on topic, I've always been confused by this company and board's insistence on rewriting history too. Most people would admit they made a mistake, and fix it (and most normal consumers would accept that companies are made of people, and people are fallible), and that would be the end of the matter.

Why this weird tendency of claiming you meant the exact opposite of what you wrote all along? I don't see what is gained by this. This is like if Blizzard patched something in one of their games, and then claimed the game wasn't patched, it never had been patched, the Resplendent Flaming Sword of Alacrity was always meant to do frost damage, and in fact always has.

It just makes them look rather silly.

WotC's D&D and Star Wars Saga did this for years as well. It got so bad that they got rid of their forums altogether in order to better cover up the growing conspiracy that was their continual lies.

It saddens me to see that Paizo might be headed in the same behavioral direction. If they simply said "it shouldn't have been written that way and shouldn't have worked that way in the first place, so we're changing it now" that would be totally fine with most of the community I think, but to say "as written, it always worked that way, but we're clarifying it now for those who believe otherwise" can be somewhat disingenuous.


Well, Racial Favored Class Bonus isn't in the Core book. It seems to be first mentioned in the APG. There probably aren't very many books that give rules for Racial Favored Class Bonus. I guess it'd be the ARG and all of the books that have introduced classes since the APG.


Snowblind wrote:

While what you are saying isn't totally incorrect, there is a pretty glaring error in your post.

Alternate Favored Class Bonuses are not in the Core Rule Book. In the CRB, the only options available are...

CRB wrote:
Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank.

Yup, you are correct. I let my ranting get the best of me.

1 to 50 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Occult Adventures stealth errata messing with favored class bonuses? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.