I had a tiefling 'kobold' in a game who rolled on the chart that he could eat ash. Made a great running gag through the adventure. He always talked about food being undercooked, and really liked the burnt pieces they left in the fire.
Umm, wrong thread?
|
I had a tiefling 'kobold' in a game who rolled on the chart that he could eat ash. Made a great running gag through the adventure. He always talked about food being undercooked, and really liked the burnt pieces they left in the fire.Umm, wrong thread?
It's just a continuation of the Teifling variant abilities conversation ^w^
That and Paizo seems to find the idea of an actual update(pathfinder 1.5 or even 2) abhorrent for some reason....Without question it would alienate a large portion of the roleplaying community. Seeing as Paizo is still reliant on our funding their enterprises, it makes sense that they would tread carefully.
Pathfinder came into the mainstream BECAUSE other popular systems reset their rules/versions. Why would Paizo want to do that, potentially creating a new rival for themselves like WotC did?
People were upset because the editions for D&D were coming out fast and COMPLETELY changing the game and out dating their books. An actual update to Pathfinder instead of piecing it out through errata and FAQs that does the exact same thing wouldn't be a problem after, oh, a decade or so?
People were upset because the editions for D&D were coming out fast and COMPLETELY changing the game and out dating their books. An actual update to Pathfinder instead of piecing it out through errata and FAQs that does the exact same thing wouldn't be a problem after, oh, a decade or so?
I certainly wouldn't be mad about a new edition. Considering that Pathfinder was explicitly backwards compatible with 3.5, making Pathfinder 2e backwards compatible with Pathfinder 1e (you'd need to write a conversion guide, but that shouldn't be a problem.
The overwhelming value in, say, your 6 year old splatbooks, at this point, without a revised edition, is in the fluff. I mean, if you invalidated something like "Dwarves of Golarion", is that a huge loss? When is the last time you saw someone use "Sliding Axe Throw" or "Xorn Stance"?
Not those abilities, but I *do* use dwarf only traits and weapons from that book. One primary one being Glory of Old.
I take Glory of Old a bunch too, but the reason is "it's a numerical bonus to a useful racial trait". Assuming Dwarves in Pathfinder 2.0 also have a version of Hardy that increases their saves against certain things, it's not exactly hard to figure out what Glory of Old 2.0 should do.
Honestly though, one of the reasons I want a new edition is that traits, in particular, are a huge mess.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly though, one of the reasons I want a new edition is that traits, in particular, are a huge mess.
If anything was redone, I'd want the errata/FAQ system revamped. Having errata take YEARS to happen, if ever, and FAQ's standing in for errata isn't good for the game. How often have we seen a change that obliterate an option JUST because the real issue is't up for an errata any time soon... SO put a system in place that allows an issue, like fixed MoMS monks, to be fixed in real time: Unchain it from the production schedule for new prints of the book it's in. Let errata be for rules changes and FAQ's for rules clarifications/suggestions.
Doing that, we could fix up what we have and a lot of the reasons people want a new editions could go away. I don't expect it to ever happen but I think it's one of the best things that could happen for the players of the game. They might sell less reprints but more people would be willing to snag new books/PDF's if they know the material will get updated regularly if needed.
Completely agree with you there, Graystone. Between that and getting SLAs count as spells back would be great.
Newest version is most updated.
It would be best to define "reprinted". If the rules have changed they aren't a reprint they are an update. Most current.
Well...
As a real world (as in 'this happened') example:
- Book A has item B printed.
- Item B gets FAQ with errata
- Item B is now working very differently
- Book C gets printed with reprint of original Item B without errata - whoops!
Has happened before - can happen again - I'm pretty sure there are instances where errata has hit the FAQ but didn't make it into the reprint of said book because Paizo is run by humans and they aren't perfect. This is all 100% acceptable and can happen - however apply the stance you take ("If the rules have changed they aren't a reprint they are an update") to the above happening and then ask yourself this:
If something is meant to change shouldn't there be an official word from the publisher to ensure we don't jump the gun and assume something?
I think Scorpion Whip had at least three different printed versions, so any later publication had to choose one of those with no idea if it was the correct one (currently).
I think Scorpion Whip had at least three different printed versions, so any later publication had to choose one of those with no idea if it was the correct one (currently).
I think there are still multiple written versions... This is one of my issue with the status quo. You can look up something in the PRD and find an outdated answer because you didn't pick the book that was updated last. Luckily, we can use 3rd party websites that update all instances of changes instead of waiting years to put all the correct info on their website... :P
PS: Not to say the other sites are always right but they at least try to have consistent and updated information.
PPS: LOL Azten, I wouldn't mind getting the last SLA FAQ rolled back too but that's a different issue, though related: The over reliance of PFS in errata. That's as unlikely to change as the general errata strategy, and likely to upset some, so best to stop there.
PPPS: This thread is about reprints as errata right? We seem to be getting a bit in the weeds here, though I guess it was inevitable with the murky way 'errata' is done here.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this a concern for PFS? I always have to ask myself this when I open a thread going on about something that is of very little concern to anyone. If no, then rule as you see fit.
If yes, then get a PFS ruling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS only allows what is named in their Additional Resources document and has rules to cover rebuilds in the event that they suddenly ban something that you are using there, so this issue does not come up there.
For non-PFS games, this thread could be profitable for suggestions on how home groups might want to adjudicate such cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For non-PFS games, this thread could be profitable for suggestions on how home groups might want to adjudicate such cases.
I feel like "Hey, I want to do combat maneuvers, can I use the old Lore Warden instead?" is the sort of decision that doesn't actually need all that much deliberation to reach.
I mean, we resolved the Whip/Scorpion whip problem by just ignoring the text "A whip deals no damage to any creature with an armor bonus of +1 or higher or a natural armor bonus of +3 or higher" so scorpion whips don't need to exist anymore. This took all of 3 minutes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People were upset because the editions for D&D were coming out fast and COMPLETELY changing the game and out dating their books. An actual update to Pathfinder instead of piecing it out through errata and FAQs that does the exact same thing wouldn't be a problem after, oh, a decade or so?I certainly wouldn't be mad about a new edition. Considering that Pathfinder was explicitly backwards compatible with 3.5, making Pathfinder 2e backwards compatible with Pathfinder 1e (you'd need to write a conversion guide, but that shouldn't be a problem.
The overwhelming value in, say, your 6 year old splatbooks, at this point, without a revised edition, is in the fluff. I mean, if you invalidated something like "Dwarves of Golarion", is that a huge loss? When is the last time you saw someone use "Sliding Axe Throw" or "Xorn Stance"?
So this is just my opinion (and not indicative of any plans that Paizo has), but personally, I think the best case for not doing a sweeping change to Pathfinder is the AP line. I've been a subscriber for almost a year now (I started with Strange Aeons), and in that time I've only managed to run my crew through two of the twelve volumes I've bought in that time. If this holds through starting with someone who has been playing for all six years of PF's existence, then that would mean that such a subscriber might have bought 70 volunes, but played 12 of them.
Putting out a new edition that invalidates TONS of Paizo backlog (both AP and other product lines) seems like a poor business move to me, personally, and sort of like in comic books, an edition change might be a good way to reset so-called content bloat, but it also provides a chance for your customers to assess whether or not they want to start all over with your product line. A cursory glance at comic data seems to suggest that if you give a fan a resetting point, you'll usually end up losing more subscribers than you gain or keep. I am sure this factors into the Paizo Team's decision on whether or not to do a new edition.
yeh - to do all the APs you'd have to be doing maybe 4+ games/week from the start of PF
For society play, that is a very specific crowd and the PFS team should make their own judgement call on how to handle that. But it definitely shouldn't prevent republishing material if the devs believe it will allow for a healthier game state. I HIGHLY doubt greed is a motivator for this, particularly since most of this republished content is at least 6 years old or so. Why should they not touch up old content? To invalidate a purchase you made 6 years ago? Give me a break....
Old content?
Advanced Class Origins - published 10/22/14
Ultimate Intrigue - published 03/23/16
That's less than a year and a half. What was the main selling point for ACO? - Fencing Grace. What Feat got nerfed in Ultimate Intrigue? That's right, Fencing Grace.
(I'd link to the post, but it appears that the PDT &/or Jason B. hid or removed the post it seems, but here's a discussion of what I'm referring to as the main selling point.)
Should we be using the Spell Research rules outline in the GameMastery Guide, or those in Ultimate Campaign?
Reprinted material sure can get confusing!
;P
For society play, that is a very specific crowd and the PFS team should make their own judgement call on how to handle that. But it definitely shouldn't prevent republishing material if the devs believe it will allow for a healthier game state. I HIGHLY doubt greed is a motivator for this, particularly since most of this republished content is at least 6 years old or so. Why should they not touch up old content? To invalidate a purchase you made 6 years ago? Give me a break....Old content?
Advanced Class Origins - published 10/22/14
Ultimate Intrigue - published 03/23/16That's less than a year and a half. What was the main selling point for ACO? - Fencing Grace. What Feat got nerfed in Ultimate Intrigue? That's right, Fencing Grace.
(I'd link to the post, but it appears that the PDT &/or Jason B. hid or removed the post it seems, but here's a discussion of what I'm referring to as the main selling point.)
Should we be using the Spell Research rules outline in the GameMastery Guide, or those in Ultimate Campaign?
Which one do you like more? Use that one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But which one are we expected to use???
Are they both option rules, or was one an update of the other?
Someone today also pointed out to me that there is a third set of research rules in the Core Rulebook.
WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END!?
Outside of organized play, all rules are optional rules.
Outside of organized play, all rules are optional rules.
I would say the same is true for Organised Play as well - it's just that the Paizo OP Team fulfill that role of the DM in adjudicating what's in and what's out.
The alternative to multiple versions of rules is that, when Paizo discover what they consider to be an error, they refrain from fixing it.
Personally, I'm happy to accept a bit of this "insanity" in exchange for clarifications/revisions/updates as Paizo uncovers and addresses them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'use what you want' argument is simply a misdirect from the key issue; the key issue being whether the ruleset itself is damaged by these conflicts. Say what you want about Paizo's product line, or what they feel their product line is, but while they feel and act like publishers, what they really SELL is a ruleset. They just happen to deliver that ruleset via books. If the underlying ruleset is poor, and as more conflicts like this arise, it gets patently poorer, it does degrade the value of the books that contain it.
The alternative to multiple versions of rules is that, when Paizo discover what they consider to be an error, they refrain from fixing it.
Personally, I'm happy to accept a bit of this "insanity" in exchange for clarifications/revisions/updates as Paizo uncovers and addresses them.
Steve I feel that's a bit of a strawman considering the entire point of this thread is to push the idea that Paizo should make a note in the FAQ/Errata when they update a rule.
"Refrain from fixing it" is hardly the only choice here where the issue would be resolved in an acceptable manner.
the key issue being whether the ruleset itself is damaged by these conflicts
I don't see how it possibly could be. Almost nobody plays games of Pathfinder with all the rules in play (who wants to play my Guns Everywhere Words of Power Unchained Action Economy Mass Nautical Combat Mythic game?)
From Paizo's perspective, what they want to do is to provide options that people want to use, as well as options that cover any situation that might come up. It really doesn't matter if there are a dozen different versions of nautical combat rules, as long as each table can locate and agree upon one that they like.
The ruleset is a basket that you pick and choose from as you like in order to make a game work. Having redundancy or contradictions in that basket is only really a problem if people are trying to run two different naval combat systems at once. You could say the ruleset would even benefit by having different naval combat rules: one set of rules for fast and easy naval combat, and one set of rules for complex and sprawling naval combat; that way people can choose whichever rule is most appropriate for what they're trying to do and go from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the key issue being whether the ruleset itself is damaged by these conflictsI don't see how it possibly could be. Almost nobody plays games of Pathfinder with all the rules in play (who wants to play my Guns Everywhere Words of Power Unchained Action Economy Mass Nautical Combat Mythic game?)
From Paizo's perspective, what they want to do is to provide options that people want to use, as well as options that cover any situation that might come up. It really doesn't matter if there are a dozen different versions of nautical combat rules, as long as each table can locate and agree upon one that they like.
The ruleset is a basket that you pick and choose from as you like in order to make a game work. Having redundancy or contradictions in that basket is only really a problem if people are trying to run two different naval combat systems at once. You could say the ruleset would even benefit by having different naval combat rules: one set of rules for fast and easy naval combat, and one set of rules for complex and sprawling naval combat; that way people can choose whichever rule is most appropriate for what they're trying to do and go from there.
Have you see the rules questions forum? There is a 2500 post thread on jumping over a 10 foot pit.
The words 'attack action' can mean 'when you make an attack' and 'a specific kind of standard action'. People argue over the meaning of a phrase based on the placement of a single word all the time. I hate to generalize - but this hobby attracts a large number of people who enjoy the rules and the meta game of how to use them.
Rules light games work this way - see Swords and Wizardry for example. There are certainly pros and cons of each approach but overwhelmingly I believe people like the rules 'crunch' in Pathfinder because they can generally expect that the GM will use the same rules as they do so they know what to expect if the try a specific thing - conflicting rules throws that all out the window.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the 10 foot pit argument is precisely a perfect example of the difference between "how people actually play Pathfinder when they sit down at a table" and "how they talk about it on the internet."
I don't think there's a single table in existence where an argument would erupt in response to "the DC is 10" or "the DC is 11" or "the DC is 15". People would pick one, and move on. If there's a disagreement, flip a coin and go with whatever it says. If someone is so annoyed that "jumping over pits" is not adjudicated precisely as the rules indicate that they make a deal over it long after the pit has been successfully traversed, I probably don't want to play with that person again.
On the internet though, we argue about minutiae that doesn't actually affect people's games. People reflexively house rule things like "Slashing grace works with that" or "Gauntlets can be enchanted" or "Bardic Masterpieces are separate mechanics that use bardic performance rounds" or all sorts of other things that aren't supported by a legalistic reading of the rules, because it's faster, more pleasant, and less headache-inducing to play the game that way. We play this game to get together with friends and tell fun stories about peril and adventure, not to argue about grammar.
The arguing for six weeks about "attack action" is just a separate game we play on the internet. In actual practice, both the old Lore Warden and the new Lore Warden still exist and are potentially valid options for characters, unless the GM says otherwise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the key issue being whether the ruleset itself is damaged by these conflictsI don't see how it possibly could be. Almost nobody plays games of Pathfinder with all the rules in play (who wants to play my Guns Everywhere Words of Power Unchained Action Economy Mass Nautical Combat Mythic game?)
You forget unchained action system.
But I'll play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the 10 foot pit argument is precisely a perfect example of the difference between "how people actually play Pathfinder when they sit down at a table" and "how they talk about it on the internet."
I don't think there's a single table in existence where an argument would erupt in response to "the DC is 10" or "the DC is 11" or "the DC is 15". People would pick one, and move on. If there's a disagreement, flip a coin and go with whatever it says.
The argument erupts when the player rolls a 12 on his acrobatics check, is sure that he made it across, but the GM says "Nope - the DC is 15, so you failed!"
I've just had a convention where a different 'rules ambiguity' at a table (a GM ruling which severely restricted some players) resulted in a near-TPK, one player leaving the table, and two other players complaining about their experience in a public location. Thats not good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the internet though, we argue about minutiae that doesn't actually affect people's games
I feel like the success of Pathfinder Society disagrees with you entirely. In fact overwhelmingly I see people who love PFS do so because they know it has to be 'by the book' (with whatever *published* exceptions are listed) and the GM has to do it that way or be over-ruled by a higher authority. People seem to really *hate* GM fiat - otherwise we could still play D&D basic which left much of the game in the hands of the GM and players could do anything they wanted without a feat - subject to GM approval.
That last part - the 'subject to GM approval' - if that were popular we wouldn't have 2000 feats to cover every possible thing to prove 'YES MY CHARACTER CAN DO THAT' - otherwise 99% of those feats would be useless.
Just so I understand your position clearly - you are saying that asking the publisher to keep the rules clear and unambiguous is not acceptable? That's your counter argument - that the rules can be a mess because they are expected to be pick and choose anyway....? I feel like I'm not understanding you - which is unfair if so.
Mostly I feel that if you're going to try to maintain the same continuous basket of rules for 10 with regular releases and without any major revisions, you're going to invariably run into situations where a book published in 2017 is going to contradict a book published in 2011."
What I'm saying is "that's not actually a problem since it's pretty much inherent to the way Pathfinder is structured."
Specifically if Paizo came out and said "The Lore Warden in the Pathfinder Society Field Guide doesn't exist anymore" what is that going to actually affect? PFS was likely going to do that anyway (so didn't need Paizo to weigh in) and everybody else is free to just ignore what Paizo says and use any version of the Lore Warden they want.
Basically I'm saying is that asking for an official word on high for "reprinted options are errata Y/N" is ultimately meaningless and carries no weight. If you want to implement with your group "the most recent version is the version we use" go for it, but that shouldn't be a universal standard. If I own Ultimate Campaign but not the GameMastery Guide (or vice versa) why should I listen to Paizo telling me to use the Spell Research rules in the book I don't own?
The way to get clear and unambiguous rules is not to spread them over 100+ books, but that is apparently not an option so we live with ambiguity and make the best of it we can.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the 10 foot pit argument is precisely a perfect example of the difference between "how people actually play Pathfinder when they sit down at a table" and "how they talk about it on the internet."
I don't think there's a single table in existence where an argument would erupt in response to "the DC is 10" or "the DC is 11" or "the DC is 15". People would pick one, and move on. If there's a disagreement, flip a coin and go with whatever it says.
The argument erupts when the player rolls a 12 on his acrobatics check, is sure that he made it across, but the GM says "Nope - the DC is 15, so you failed!"
I've just had a convention where a different 'rules ambiguity' at a table (a GM ruling which severely restricted some players) resulted in a near-TPK, one player leaving the table, and two other players complaining about their experience in a public location. Thats not good.
Yes and this can be exacerbated when you get to things like PFS and 2 tables with a different ruling (heck possibly because of 2 different books with the rules) can cause a difference in play experience. Something as simple as T10 rules on climbing a rope up a cliff with no other factors could be the difference in one group sailing through with T10 and the other nearly TPK'ing because of bad rolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing is it seems players very much like knowing what the base default assumed rules are, and thus knowing when what they are doing is a house rule. Having two contradictory rules both being considered right to me causes me to rule that that option isn't an option anymore.
I already do this with mounted combat. Ride by attack is only useful for when the rider has a reach longer than the mounts, and that you cannot charge if the rider's and mount's reach differ. It's how I run it as my tables because that's what I feel the rules say to do. I'm not interested in making up house rules for my tables.
Thus I'm one that would like to know if something was supposed to be considered the correct version rather than the mess.
I feel like the 10 foot pit argument is precisely a perfect example of the difference between "how people actually play Pathfinder when they sit down at a table" and "how they talk about it on the internet."
I don't think there's a single table in existence where an argument would erupt in response to "the DC is 10" or "the DC is 11" or "the DC is 15". People would pick one, and move on. If there's a disagreement, flip a coin and go with whatever it says.
The argument erupts when the player rolls a 12 on his acrobatics check, is sure that he made it across, but the GM says "Nope - the DC is 15, so you failed!"
I've just had a convention where a different 'rules ambiguity' at a table (a GM ruling which severely restricted some players) resulted in a near-TPK, one player leaving the table, and two other players complaining about their experience in a public location. Thats not good.
Beat me to the punch, PossibleCabbage. You can bet your whiskers that a player wills speak out against a ruling like that when his long-time character is at stake.
I feel like the ultimate problem that leads to arguments here is that "a pit where, if you are unable to jump over it, leads to either death (falling in the pit) or inability to progress (not jumping" is a terribly designed obstacle, since failing isn't remotely interesting.
I don't personally think there should be any DC to jumping over that pit, because it contributes nothing to the story whether you succeed (which was required) or fail (which ends your story.) Only reason to have a spiky death pit in a dungeon is so a disposable NPC can fall in and die in order to make a point to the players about this place being dangerous.
I think situations where a character is at stake off of a single die role in a situation where better tactics would not apply are the problem, and are to be avoided whenever possible.
The alternative to multiple versions of rules is that, when Paizo discover what they consider to be an error, they refrain from fixing it.
Personally, I'm happy to accept a bit of this "insanity" in exchange for clarifications/revisions/updates as Paizo uncovers and addresses them.
Steve I feel that's a bit of a strawman considering the entire point of this thread is to push the idea that Paizo should make a note in the FAQ/Errata when they update a rule.
"Refrain from fixing it" is hardly the only choice here where the issue would be resolved in an acceptable manner.
I wasn't responding to the whole thread, just this bit:
But which one are we expected to use???
Are they both option rules, or was one an update of the other?
Someone today also pointed out to me that there is a third set of research rules in the Core Rulebook.
WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END!?
I reject the claim that I was creating a straw man argument. Maybe I misunderstood though. I thought ravingdork was objecting to the existence of multiple printed versions of rules (the only way to avoid that is to put up with errors when you discover them).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Ravingdork was objecting to the existence of multiple printed versions of rules (the only way to avoid that is to put up with errors when you discover them).
More accurately, I'm objecting to the existence of multiple printed versions of the rules that vary from one another with no additional clarification as to why they vary.
Not knowing why is the default, isn't it? I can scarcely recall more than one errata that was given any kind of explanation. More often the PDT works in mysterious ways.
"Putting up with" errors leaves multiple versions of the rule floating around, and will not avoid the existence of multiple printed versions.
I reject the claim that I was creating a straw man argument. Maybe I misunderstood though. I thought ravingdork was objecting to the existence of multiple printed versions of rules (the only way to avoid that is to put up with errors when you discover them).
Err, no it doesn't. I clearly didn't explain that very well.
If Paizo put up with errors they find, I mean they'll reprint rules or books without making any changes (even if they subsequently decide they could have done it better).
I'd personally rather they make the changes they think will improve the game - even if doing so means there are two, three or more official ways to adjudicate/represent something.
To me the DM-as-arbiter is a really important part of the game and having several different ways to approach something is a boon, not a problem.
I thought Ravingdork was objecting to the existence of multiple printed versions of rules (the only way to avoid that is to put up with errors when you discover them).More accurately, I'm objecting to the existence of multiple printed versions of the rules that vary from one another with no additional clarification as to why they vary.
There's certainly no harm in more information in itself.
Nonetheless, there's a clear opportunity cost. Presumably the PDT would be responsible for combing back through every book and looking for every update so they could write up the thinking behind the various different versions. That's going to mean less work on rules and less time answering FAQs, I'd expect.
It's no doubt exacerbated by the fact that they don't have oversight over every source of rules for pathfinder. As such, sometimes they'll see something (from the companion line, the back of a comic, an APs backmatter or whatever) and disagree with the approach taken without knowing the thinking behind it. If it's something they want to include in the rulebook line, it will need revision or rewriting.
They can't really do much more than say "here's how I'd have done it" in that case (and although I don't have any special insight into the process, my impression is that this is a common source of rules changing when they are compiled from softcover supplements to hardcover rules books).
I've actually seen the players set themselves up in this situation before where a PC wizard dropped some pit spells between two buildings with a 5 foot gap between the pits. the baddies were closing in and the front liners had to jump their allied pits to get to safety. i think they were acid pits maybe? anyways, no one wanted to go in the hole and they were very worried about their acrobatics checks to get over them. in this case falling in the pit would also leave you stranded for the baddies to play with after you get all face acided.
I think the problem in this sort of situation can be resolved by actually talking about what the rule in question is before you start doing things. That way, if you establish the DC to jump a 10 foot pit is 10 before you start executing this tactic, you don't really have ground to stand on when you want to claim "it should be 15" after all the monsters easily clear the acid pit.
If GM A runs it as "10" and in a different game six months later with GM B it's "15" and in both cases everybody knows before anybody tries to jump over a pit, I don't really think that's a terrible situation. As long as everybody at the table understands the rule, it doesn't matter if that understanding is different from table to table or time to time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think Paizo needs to decide what they want to do with the system in the first place.
But which one are we expected to use???
Are they both option rules, or was one an update of the other?
Someone today also pointed out to me that there is a third set of research rules in the Core Rulebook.
WHEN WILL THE INSANITY END!?
Core is the base rule.
Gamemastery is an optional expansion to the core rules.Campaign is a variant for use with the optional downtime system.
As to the why, the core rules just set minimum costs and leave the price up to the DM. Gamemastery takes the basic framework and puts a bit more 'meat' on the bare bones rules. Campaign sets out a way to codify downtime and the spell rules for it reflect that system. SO it's up to the DM which of the correct method, with the core being the default.
Yeah, but without any clarification, that's all just conjecture, graystone.
If you're like me and you want to know more about what is what and why, hit FAQ on the first post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but without any clarification, that's all just conjecture, graystone.
If you're like me and you want to know more about what is what and why, hit FAQ on the first post.
but it isn't conjecture. The gamemastery guide calls out the core's minimal rule then goes into explaining the optional rules that expand on the core.
Downtime is a system of interlocking rules that cover non-adventuring time: if you aren't using that system, you aren't using that research and if you ARE using the system, you're using that research. It's a package deal, downtime system and downtime research: It even SAYS that the core has rules for it and here is how you do it in downtime.
So reading the collected rules gives me a complete view of the rules for spell research that matches my last post. The 2 optional rules call out the base core rule as a base, with one working in the downtime system and the other not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the key issue being whether the ruleset itself is damaged by these conflictsI don't see how it possibly could be. Almost nobody plays games of Pathfinder with all the rules in play (who wants to play my Guns Everywhere Words of Power Unchained Action Economy Mass Nautical Combat Mythic game?)
From Paizo's perspective, what they want to do is to provide options that people want to use, as well as options that cover any situation that might come up. It really doesn't matter if there are a dozen different versions of nautical combat rules, as long as each table can locate and agree upon one that they like.
The ruleset is a basket that you pick and choose from as you like in order to make a game work. Having redundancy or contradictions in that basket is only really a problem if people are trying to run two different naval combat systems at once. You could say the ruleset would even benefit by having different naval combat rules: one set of rules for fast and easy naval combat, and one set of rules for complex and sprawling naval combat; that way people can choose whichever rule is most appropriate for what they're trying to do and go from there.
There is a huge difference between differing sets up optional rules (unchained action, armor as dr, wounds and vigor, etc), designed as such, and straight up rule conflicts, where the same thing is seemingly accidentally written/ruled differently depending on what sourcebook is looked at first. The former provides people the way to customize the rules to their style, the latter simply causes confusion and contention, adding nothing positive to the actual game. It is the latter that I talk about as damaging the ruleset.