Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If you don't know how the rule works, you rule by your judgement.
If you know of a FAQ, Developer, PFS staff comment, campaign clarification, or Additional Resources rule then you are required to enforce that rule that way. This includes when the player presents the clarification to you.
|
|
Yeah, if there is a rule.
If you know in the text of a book, or from one of the official sources, you can't ignore it.
So you can't say, "I think combat expertise is dumb so you don't need to take it"
Or
"That FAQ is dumb and I'm going to have the rules be opposite of it"
But you can say, "Well a mounted charge, the rules aren't super clear how it works and there's no FAQ or dev comment so I say it's working like this."
Or
"I don't know for sure, and we are time crunched so I can't check now in game. So I'll rule like this for now and if we find a FAQ or comment later we'll follow it from now on."
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
The goal in PFS is that you can take your character, play with lots of different people, and have no bad surprises because everyone plays with the same rules.
When it comes to stuff on the forums, there are three groups of things:
1) The rulebooks, FAQs, the PFS Guide, the Clarifications and the Additional Resources. Those are the rules and you need to follow them.
2) Rulings made by Pathfinder Society leadership,, in the PFS forum. You have to follow those rulings in PFS.
3) Developer comments that aren't published as FAQ. Those aren't rules, those are people having a discussion, perhaps helping to clarify. One exception is that sometimes an FAQ is posted in a forum thread as a response to that thread; follow-up comments in that thread by designers are more important because they help to answer any remaining questions about the FAQ.
So developer answers in general aren't official rulings. They're people too, and sometimes want to have a discussion about the pros and cons of an idea without everyone running away and saying they ruled this or that. They use a special forum avatar to make official pronouncements so there should not be confusion whether they're just discussing.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) The following people are or were responsible for guiding Pathfinder Society. If they made a post about a rule you should follow it unless it has been reversed or clarified by a later post.
-Hyrum Savage
-Joshua Frost
-Mark Moreland
-Michael Brock
-John Compton (current Lead PFS developer)
-Tonya Woldridge (current Organized Play Coordinator)
-Linda Zayas-Palmer (current PFS developer)
The Venture Officer (VO) chain of command exists to organize PFS gameplay and to deal with interpersonal conflicts at the local level. In ascending order.
- Venture-Agent (VA) - responsible for setting up games at a single location. Coordinates with venue owners and usually decides what scenarios will be played at that location each game day.
- Venture-Lieutenant (VL) - responsible for overseeing all game days in a single geographic area (usually a single city). Coordinates between VAs to make sure there are no conflicts in scheduling, dispute resolution, and is the primary organizer for at least one convention each year.
- Venture-Captain (VC) - primary organizer for a much larger geographic area (often one state, half a state, or a major metro area in the U.S.; a single country overseas). Primary authority for that area. Sets goals, decides what conventions to support heaviest, etc.
- Regional Venture-Coordinator (RVC) - Mostly behind-the-scenes coordination. Gathers statistics on gameplay, advertises across a large geographic area, and advises the Campaign Coordinator (Tonya) on direction of campaign.
If a VO makes a messageboard post on the Paizo forums about a particular Pathfinder rule that is absolutely NOT a required decision to follow. Most of what gets posted is opinion or discussion of interpretations. If a VO makes a local organizational rule (The Tuesday game at HappyFunStore starts at exactly 6 p.m. If you aren't at your seat by that time we will give seats to standby players) then those do need to be followed.
Often VOs are called upon during a game to resolve a dispute about a rule. When there are multiple interpretations and there is no official clarification. In such cases follow the VO's decision. If you later find a contradictory official clarification be sure to let the VO know so they can rule properly in the future. If someone has made a ruling in clear violation of the rules - and in the face of evidence counter to their decision - you can escalate up the VO chain. At that point it might become a personnel issue. Just please be aware that we are all human and sometimes make mistakes.
|
|
About 3)
Qiestion: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ln8z?Can-a-Life-Oracle-with-Channeling-take#30Should I follow "Sean K Reynolds(Contributor)" word?
He doesn't posted on the PFS forum , so it's just a reference, and I correct?
I don't agree with Lau's "group #3" (see above on how us VOs are not official sources). When a designer (which Sean was for many years before leaving Paizo) makes a post using his or her real name, they are telling the world "this is how it is intended to work." In that particular thread, Sean was saying "We don't need errata, we don't need a FAQ, it simply works like this...". Other than playtest forums, off-topic posts, and posts that specifically say things like "one possible interpretation is..." I can't think of a single developer post that isn't a guideline that should be followed.
So you can't ignore Sean's post and decide (in this case) not to let Oracles take channeling feats.
Two particular notes:
1. Sean (SKR) was a designer for Paizo and the person primarily responsible for the FAQ until he left Paizo for other opportunities. Most of his posts should be treated as coming from a Paizo designer.
2. James Jacobs - while a great guy - is not a rules source. He not a designer but is one of the most active voices on the forums. When someone asks him a question of "can I do 'X'?" he tends to give off-the-cuff answers based on what he thinks would make a game flow the smoothest or be the most fun. Unfortunately that means he sometimes contradicts existing rules material. Fine quality in a home game GM, troublesome in PFS where we strive for identical experiences.
|
I think the general policy and sense among the Designers has changed over time. When SKR was posting, he generally did seem to come across as doing what Kevin says. Sometimes, he may have later changed his ruling or an official FAQ might have been issued that contradicted it. But he did generally seem to be saying, "this is how it works."
The same seemed mostly true with Jason Bulhman. Jason is still Lead Designer and still posts occasionally (usually when a playtest is going on). I still place a lot of weight on his posts, especially when he's explaining a new rule during a playtest.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland, on the other hand, I believe has specifically stated not to take his forum posts as being "the rule."
I think Mark Seifter is in a similar place as Stephen now after being very active on the boards and having people run with things he's said that he didn't quite mean to be a definite ruling.
SKR and Jason were often posting in the earlier days of Pathfinder, or shortly after a new book was released, before the process was as formalized (or at least before the process was being strictly kept to). Now, new hardback books often get a set of FAQs following very quickly after their release that address most of the issues that are initially found.
I certainly would take a post from one of the current Designers as very strong evidence about how something is intended to work, and as a GM I'd take that into consideration when making a ruling. If an FAQ is ever issued, though, it might not be in agreement, as the whole Design team discusses the question before an FAQ is issued. That is often not the case when they are posting individually.
Posts from the PFS Campaign Staff (actual employees, not the Venture Officer volunteers), should be taken as a ruling for how things work in PFS. Sometimes those rulings have changed three or four times over the years, so if it's an old post, do a search to see if there is something newer. Kevin posted the list of Campaign Staff above.
Also, a bit of curiosity I've noticed... it seems like Linda Zayas-Palmer may be responsible for the Golarion FAQ now (I'm sure in consultation with James Jacobs and others). Three rulings from the Campaign Clarification document have made it into the official Golarion Rules and Questions FAQ. Meaning they extend beyond PFS now. That's the Sword Saint Archetype changes, the White-Haired Witch Archetype clarification, and the Potion Glutton changes. It's kind of nice to have a place where all of the campaign specific books can have questions answered.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Oh, when I said "Leadership", I meant the actual Paizo employees in charge of PFS at HQ, not the whole pile down to local venture officers. Sorry if I created confusion that way.
As for how to interpret developer comments: Ferious Thune gives a nice idea of that here. At some point there were some incidents when several developers contradicted each other on the forums on some questions, which lead to a lot of arguing.
To prevent such confusion, they now prefer to use the special Pathfinder Development Team forum avatar so that it's clear when they're making official rules pronouncements.
|
|
So, I still confusd.
I "should" follow SKR, jason...'s word.
OR
I make the rule more "clear" by their word.Different between them are "Should or not"
If in PF, I can ask my GM.
But in PFS, GM "should" follow the rule, no matter personal will.
You should follow any SKR ruling from before the Pathfinder Design Team account was created. As those are 'official'. Also, you must follow any post by the Pathfinder Design Team, those are as official as FAQs. Though, that account is usually used to declare a FAQ was posted.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I would really like to see the campaign leadership collect all the key message board posts with rulings that we're supposed to be following into the campaign "clarifications" document, or the FAQ.
It happens far too often that I'm GMing a game, and a player tells me that a rule doesn't work the way I think it does. Sometimes, that rule operates in direct contradiction with what's written in the rule book -- even the latest version of the printed text. I ask for a reference... and it takes the player a fair bit of time to find an SKR ruling from five years ago that says, "oh, yeah, charge works differently from what the rules in the book say".
I find this infinitely annoying. I love PFS, but every so often when this happens I'm ready to swear it off altogether, because it drives me nuts that we're required to follow the rules, and the rules are scattered all over the place and not all that easy to find. I would very much like to see a post that frees us from all the message board postings, and keeps all these sorts of "clarifications" (and outright rule changes that are called clarifications) in the FAQs.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Honestly, I would really like to see the campaign leadership collect all the key message board posts with rulings that we're supposed to be following into the campaign "clarifications" document, or the FAQ.
It happens far too often that I'm GMing a game, and a player tells me that a rule doesn't work the way I think it does. Sometimes, that rule operates in direct contradiction with what's written in the rule book -- even the latest version of the printed text. I ask for a reference... and it takes the player a fair bit of time to find an SKR ruling from five years ago that says, "oh, yeah, charge works differently from what the rules in the book say".
I find this infinitely annoying. I love PFS, but every so often when this happens I'm ready to swear it off altogether, because it drives me nuts that we're required to follow the rules, and the rules are scattered all over the place and not all that easy to find. I would very much like to see a post that frees us from all the message board postings, and keeps all these sorts of "clarifications" (and outright rule changes that are called clarifications) in the FAQs.
I feel your pain, and there are some efforts underway to improve the situation. But it's quite a lot of work, so it'll take a while. And although it's tempting to shoot from the hip and try to get things done fast, that's not always a good idea. If you publish a clarification, people go through a whole retraining rigmarole, and then you revise your clarification, there'll be no end of complaining.
|
Honestly, I would really like to see the campaign leadership collect all the key message board posts with rulings that we're supposed to be following into the campaign "clarifications" document, or the FAQ.
It absolutely NEEDS to happen and NEVER will.
Right now, NOBODY knows what the rules are. I'm constantly playing in games where 4 and 5 star GMs disagree about the rules. Often with a genuine "there was a post/FAQ/comment changing that" which can't be quickly found or has been obsoleted or isn't "official".
The game needs a second edition to simplify it. Won't happen, of course.
|
|
Honestly, I would really like to see the campaign leadership collect all the key message board posts with rulings that we're supposed to be following into the campaign "clarifications" document, or the FAQ.
It absolutely NEEDS to happen and NEVER will.
Right now, NOBODY knows what the rules are. I'm constantly playing in games where 4 and 5 star GMs disagree about the rules. Often with a genuine "there was a post/FAQ/comment changing that" which can't be quickly found or has been obsoleted or isn't "official".
The game needs a second edition to simplify it. Won't happen, of course.
Or perhaps a free of charge .pdf containing an omnibus of all the various rulings, updated in real-time as things change?
...suddenly a 'Second Edition' seems a bit less daunting... but not by very much.
GM 101, if memory serves, suggests that any rules disputes or concerns that take more than a moment to resolve should be deferred until the end of the scenario for ease and speed of play.
ie, if one has a player at their table that is constantly bringing up rules minutiae, they are being disruptive, and if a GM is refusing to adhere to basic ways that the game is played that is also being disruptive.
Attempt to resolve the issue at the table, but if a player or GM needs to get up, that's sometimes how things roll.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or perhaps a free of charge .pdf containing an omnibus of all the various rulings, updated in real-time as things change?
...suddenly a 'Second Edition' seems a bit less daunting... but not by very much.
RPG rules are software for the mind. But the testing/version control process tends to be quite unsophisticated. It's hard to get things right all at once, but people hate the incremental patches too.
GM 101, if memory serves, suggests that any rules disputes or concerns that take more than a moment to resolve should be deferred until the end of the scenario for ease and speed of play.
ie, if one has a player at their table that is constantly bringing up rules minutiae, they are being disruptive, and if a GM is refusing to adhere to basic ways that the game is played that is also being disruptive.
Attempt to resolve the issue at the table, but if a player or GM needs to get up, that's sometimes how things roll.
I believe in the following principle:
If you want to challenge the GM on the rules during the game, have the page in hand when you do. Make your case, and if you can't convince the GM in one minute, and it isn't a matter of life and death, it can wait until later.
|
|
Heh. I'm rknop's Charge guy. I keep a folder in my bookmarks full of Pathfinder rulings for just such occasions, now. I find it fascinating how many rulings--especially significant ones--are just floating around in the aether, never having made it into a form that would survive a change in forum software.
Charge was a little trickier though, since I had found SKR's forum post ages ago, before I'd started bookmarking things. And as we all know it's not an entirely hopeless proposition to find a hypothetical blog or forum post, but it's pretty close.
And it's especially fun when someone cites a forum post on a topic but then you can't find it. Did your google-fu simply fail? Did the other person conjure it out of whole cloth? Was the ruling legit, but for actually another option or situation?
Bonus points if two people both clearly remember the same forum post, but they disagree on what it said and nobody can find it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I don't think the rules for charging will make it into a PFS clarification because they're not really PFS-specific enough and depend mostly on core books (although they impact some fringe things like Wheeling Charge). It's the purview of the development team to clear it up.
|
|
I'll post my list in a little bit. Sounds like a fun lunch project. Happily, it's lunchtime. Just need to acquire said lunch, first.
Perhaps if we combine our lists, our ultimate Pathfinder rules power will be revealed?
(To be honest, I mostly get my bookmarks from links other people post. We might have a lot of duplicates.)
I kind of feel like it would be super helpful if there was an annotated wiki version of the PRD done with the rules for pathfinder society, with color codes for original text, annotated rulings added inline with link to source material for ruling, and discussions of rules with significant table variance with links to both sides of the argument.
Ideally, the PRD would just be edited to reflect the full set of rules for the game and all unclear rules areas would immediately receive developer rulings once identified to provide table consistency, but that is kind of tough to do with limited manpower. Maybe a wiki could be put together to try and leverage the community to consolidate the rules as much as possible?
|
|
Part of the issue with Charging is SKR a few posts after saying "oblique charges were okay" realized that he had the wording wrong and a difference from 3.0 to 3.5 that he hadn't noticed, and that he was going to make a houserule in his games to allow oblique charges and bring it up as a potential FAQ candidate. Nothing ever came of that. So that means that there is no binding ruling on charges or mounted charges.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the issue with Charging is SKR a few posts after saying "oblique charges were okay" realized that he had the wording wrong and a difference from 3.0 to 3.5 that he hadn't noticed, and that he was going to make a houserule in his games to allow oblique charges and bring it up as a potential FAQ candidate. Nothing ever came of that. So that means that there is no binding ruling on charges or mounted charges.
The only sane solution is to not look at the rules minutia and just let guy on a horse do guy on a horse stuff and go with the intent.
|
Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should follow any SKR ruling from before the Pathfinder Design Team account was created. As those are 'official'. Also, you must follow any post by the Pathfinder Design Team, those are as official as FAQs. Though, that account is usually used to declare a FAQ was posted.So, I still confusd.
I "should" follow SKR, jason...'s word.
OR
I make the rule more "clear" by their word.Different between them are "Should or not"
If in PF, I can ask my GM.
But in PFS, GM "should" follow the rule, no matter personal will.
No personal designer posts are official, whether or not they were before the PDT account was created (Stephen posted to that effect, I think after something in a Mounted Combat thread that I was participating in as a fan at the time). You don't need to search for any of our old posts. That said, the PFS staff official posts are binding, as others have said above.
|
|
Part of the issue with Charging is SKR a few posts after saying "oblique charges were okay" realized that he had the wording wrong and a difference from 3.0 to 3.5 that he hadn't noticed, and that he was going to make a houserule in his games to allow oblique charges and bring it up as a potential FAQ candidate. Nothing ever came of that. So that means that there is no binding ruling on charges or mounted charges.The only sane solution is to not look at the rules minutia and just let guy on a horse do guy on a horse stuff and go with the intent.
I'm not sure what "intent" is, though I do know how I rule.
I feel pets are in two categories.Free-roaming battle pets - where the rules for attacking and having them act are.
Mounts that are treated as mobile attack platforms - what I feel is the way the rules for mounted combat are written.
The issue is when you combine those and want a moving platform that attacks and acts. rules are silent/contradictory on how this works and we don't have intent clarified.
|
|
No personal designer posts are official, whether or not they were before the PDT account was created (Stephen posted to that effect, I think after something in a Mounted Combat thread that I was participating in as a fan at the time). You don't need to search for any of our old posts. That said, the PFS staff official posts are binding, as others have said above.You should follow any SKR ruling from before the Pathfinder Design Team account was created. As those are 'official'. Also, you must follow any post by the Pathfinder Design Team, those are as official as FAQs. Though, that account is usually used to declare a FAQ was posted.So, I still confusd.
I "should" follow SKR, jason...'s word.
OR
I make the rule more "clear" by their word.Different between them are "Should or not"
If in PF, I can ask my GM.
But in PFS, GM "should" follow the rule, no matter personal will.
Ah, that changes things a tiny bit. Not much, but a tiny bit. I had not heard that the PDT changeover was also retroactive. Thank you for the clarification.
|
|
Part of the issue with Charging is SKR a few posts after saying "oblique charges were okay" realized that he had the wording wrong and a difference from 3.0 to 3.5 that he hadn't noticed, and that he was going to make a houserule in his games to allow oblique charges and bring it up as a potential FAQ candidate. Nothing ever came of that. So that means that there is no binding ruling on charges or mounted charges.The only sane solution is to not look at the rules minutia and just let guy on a horse do guy on a horse stuff and go with the intent.I'm not sure what "intent" is, though I do know how I rule.
I feel pets are in two categories.
Free-roaming battle pets - where the rules for attacking and having them act are.
Mounts that are treated as mobile attack platforms - what I feel is the way the rules for mounted combat are written.The issue is when you combine those and want a moving platform that attacks and acts. rules are silent/contradictory on how this works and we don't have intent clarified.
Since those aren't actual catagories, what is the contradiction?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No personal designer posts are official, whether or not they were before the PDT account was created (Stephen posted to that effect, I think after something in a Mounted Combat thread that I was participating in as a fan at the time)You should follow any SKR ruling from before the Pathfinder Design Team account was created. As those are 'official'. Also, you must follow any post by the Pathfinder Design Team, those are as official as FAQs. Though, that account is usually used to declare a FAQ was posted.So, I still confusd.
I "should" follow SKR, jason...'s word.
OR
I make the rule more "clear" by their word.Different between them are "Should or not"
If in PF, I can ask my GM.
But in PFS, GM "should" follow the rule, no matter personal will.
Uh oh. We're getting into "meta" territory here. We have a personal developer post saying that personal developer posts aren't official, referencing another personal developer post without a link that said that personal developer posts aren't official! What do we trust?? Mind explodes. :)
It is a little ironic that the direction on what obscure forum posts to treat as official is hidden in an obscure forum post. It might be useful to have this policy described somewhere that isn't in a forum post? I don't know if you're the right person to ask for that, though.
A secondary concern: do you think you could (pretty pretty please) see about getting Charge clarified in an FAQ at some point? Invalidating SKR's post breaks some relatively common options, like Ride-by Attack.
(There are cases in which Ride-by Attack will still function, but if you just so happen to be on the same 5' row or column as your target, you can't ride-by attack because the closest square from which you can attack is not one that allows you to continue the line of your charge. A reach weapon also greatly increases your odds of using ride-by attack simply because you're less likely to have your charge lane clip through the corner of your target's square according to the original text.)
|
Designer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Nefreet means the post about the policy of personal posts not being an official rules source for the PDT (thus extending the meta-meta that Terminalmancer identified to a new level, as its ignoring a personal post saying to ignore personal posts in order to not ignore personal posts).
|
I think Nefreet means the post about the policy of personal posts not being an official rules source for the PDT (thus extending the meta-meta that Terminalmancer identified to a new level, as its ignoring a personal post saying to ignore personal posts in order to not ignore personal posts).
Indeed.
We had answers to questions.
Stephen's off the cuff tirade destroyed that.
It was Pathfinder's darkest day, and it's the single biggest reason that FAQs and "RAW" have snowballed into the problem they are today.
It turned one of my biggest hobbies into a source of stress.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well. On that cheerful note, here's my list:
Pathfinder (and especially PFS) Rulings and Clarifications
It's not even my complete list, but it's a start (It looks like my browser hasn't synced bookmarks in a couple weeks, so I'm missing a few.)
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nppq?Are-NPC-classes-legal-for-play#7
Author: Mike Brock
Ruling: NPC classes are not legal for play (in Pathfinder Society)
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tx2z?Does-Raise-Animal-Companion-inflict-negat ive#4
Author: Cheburn (not Paizo, but included here because it's something I never considered.)
Description: an observation that animal companions take Con drain after being raised, because they are effectively level 1. Reduces the total cost of a Raise. Note: the quoted text is from Ultimate Campaign, on page 147.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2opvz?Potion-of-Strong-Jaw#15
Author: Mike Brock
Ruling: Potions of Strong Jaw are legal for PFS play. (They are not normally, due to appearing at level 4 on the Druid list.)
http://paizo.com/products/btpy8w7p/discuss&page=8?Pathfinder-Player-Com panion-Animal-Archive#372
Author: Jason Nelson (Paizo contributor to Animal Archive)
Ruling: Cavalier mounts qualify for the Charger archetype even though they do not have the Share Spells ability. This "ruling" may or may not be reasonably read to extend to the other archetypes.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t543?Retraining-CFEs-FAQ#17
Author: John Compton
Ruling: Tentative ruling that PFS players may utilize the retraining rules for character options to retrain options on companion animals. Not aware of a final version of this rule so I believe it is still in effect.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t48p?Quick-Question-about-applying-GM-Credit-t o-a#18
Author: John Compton
Ruling: (Potentially nonbinding?) clarification for how to apply credit in a number of situations, particularly in situations where you want to assign credit to a character who is currently being played (for example, in a PbP). I am not aware of any final clarification or post on this subject.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2jsox&page=10?Pathfinder-Society-Rules-20-F AQ#458
Author: Josh Frost
Ruling: During character creation, you pick one particular regional affinity for purposes of qualifying for traits, feats, etc. You can't have more than one.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2phwj?FAQ-updated-for-Animals-Companions-and-ma gic#27
Author: Mike Brock
Ruling: Most of this has been subsumed into (or contradicted by) an FAQ but I believe this is still the only ruling stating that improved familiars have access to all of their item slots without needing a feat.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhfm&page=3?Illuminating-Darkness
Author: Mark Seifter
Ruling: Just the Light and Darkness blog, which is totally unsearchable due to the name, and which I have never had a GM fully understand when it comes up. :)
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2n978?Masterwork-Tools-for-all-skills#4
Author: Mike Brock
Ruling: PFS players are allowed to buy and use masterwork tools from the CRB but if we buy too many he might change his mind. As far as I know, he never did. Also, a throwaway reference to the UE tools "updating" the CRB tools, which as far as I know was never made official.
http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lghy?Year-of-the-Sky-Key
Author: John Compton
Ruling: Several still apply. I mostly use this as the only definitive ruling saying that Investigators may craft alchemical items in PFS, but it also was the only official clarification for the Ring of Eloquence. Not sure if it still is or not.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2om2i?First-Level-Retraining-Question#50
Author: Mike Brock
Ruling: You may apply race boons to characters with 3 XP or less. Typically understood to be a slightly broader ruling indicating that a "new" character counts as one with 3 XP or less for purposes of several other types of boons as well, due to the rebuild.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2l5b9?Mounts-with-attacks-and-the-RideByAttack- Feat#33
Author: Sean K. Reynolds
Ruling: You may charge obliquely (i.e. not directly at the target). Ruling gets muddied on page 2 of the thread.
|
|
Updated with the Charge link that never synced over. Thanks, Thomas, for the reminder that SKR muddied the waters on that one himself a page later...
Nefreet, I assume you mean the campaign clarification request thread?
BNW: That is out of Ultimate Campaign if I remember correctly. Don't have a page number in front of me. My general rule is that if a rules clarification is in a hardcover, it's essentially legit (including for PFS). So if you follow that logic, Cheburn's right. Someone smarter than I am, or who knows something I don't, could always convince me otherwise I suppose.
Edit: Cross-posted. AC raise dead text is from UC, page 147. Lists have been updated to account for it.
|
I think Nefreet means the post about the policy of personal posts not being an official rules source for the PDT (thus extending the meta-meta that Terminalmancer identified to a new level, as its ignoring a personal post saying to ignore personal posts in order to not ignore personal posts).
Oh, hell, we've gone full recursive! PULL THE PLUGGGGG!!!!
|
|
I believe in the following principle:If you want to challenge the GM on the rules during the game, have the page in hand when you do.
I disagree.
All GMs make mistakes, all have rules they don't know. A quick "I think that is wrong because ..." is fine. I WANT players to point out when I've made a mistake. Its how I learn.
I completely agree that if the GM disagrees you table the discussion. Find the quotes and, when there is a convenient time, reraise the issue with evidence.
If the GM still disagrees, you table things until after the game
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I believe in the following principle:If you want to challenge the GM on the rules during the game, have the page in hand when you do.
I disagree.
All GMs make mistakes, all have rules they don't know. A quick "I think that is wrong because ..." is fine. I WANT players to point out when I've made a mistake. Its how I learn.
I completely agree that if the GM disagrees you table the discussion. Find the quotes and, when there is a convenient time, reraise the issue with evidence.
If the GM still disagrees, you table things until after the game
I don't see how what I said and what you said is not in agreement.
I'm just saying that solving rules disputes goes faster if you raise them with the book already on the right page. If you can say "I think you're wrong, look, it says right here in this paragraph how it works", you can solve a lot of disputes immediately.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Part of the issue with Charging is SKR a few posts after saying "oblique charges were okay" realized that he had the wording wrong and a difference from 3.0 to 3.5 that he hadn't noticed
I participated in that thread and I took what he said on the second page as "I'd rather not argue with you".
Mostly because the wording was identical:
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.
That thread and all the other threads that come afterwards keep focusing on the directly toward meaning. The entire rules falls apart if the "beeline to center" interpretation of directly toward as that breaks Ride-by-Attack.