Let's Be Clear

Hillis: I am PFS #145296. That means that there are at least 145,295 more players out there in Society play. Actually, I think the number is much larger, but I digress.

Not all of the players in Society play can even afford to buy Ultimate Campaign.

Society play is based on 'available resources', of which the original traits list, the PFSRPGG, and the CORE rulebook are the only *required* items.

Restricting things to 'the newest iteration' is not only crippling to the campaign, but drives away players who have a choice between *paying rent* and *playing Pathfinder* if they have to have *all the new books*.

Having played in a campaign or two like that in the past, the fact that Society play is a lot more open and isn't as restrictive on such things is one of the *major* selling points to me.

If this has changed and *the newest source is the only source*, someone please correct me?

Thank you very much for your time and your focus on GMing, becoming a four-star GM is a significant accomplishment.

If a source is meant to be superseded by a new one, the older source will be removed from additional resources.

As long as the older source remains in additional resources, it remains legal for play. Some of these older sources may have errata, relevant FAQs, or clarifications. But those are all available free on this site.

Use the version of the feat/trait/spell in whatever source you bring to the table (but check the errata, FAQs and PFS campaign clarifications document.)

They are the same trait, Nefreet, with an expanded explanation in the gnome book but the same mechanically (with the addition of being a Combat Trait as well)

All the traits, I believe, are reprints from the APG and the web download in the Ultimate Campaign.

My question, my concern, my overall want is to clarify once and for all if Adopted can take Race Traits of the particular race selected, or if the Social tag will make the choice useless for a character adopted by a gnome. However it is done, this document has the means to clarify the use of the Trait and if Ultimate Campaign (the newest source for the Race Traits qualifiers) removes this silly classification for this particular book (Gnome of Golaron).

Ok, I'm not sure why this debate rages on. Obviously both Nefreet and Thax are disagreeing with terminology, but the question has been clarified, and the clarification has been linked. Mike Brock clarified that he talked with James Jacobs and it doesn't work. HERE

While there aren't many options that this precludes, it does seem to only affect people who want gnome social options. So, if you really want the rule changed why not write a proposal in the style of the others that have worked in the past.

(Also, to be fair Tengus, who you were concerned about basically get all the benefits of Etymologist already built into their race. - +4 racial bonus is equal to (or better than) +1 and class skill and they get 2 languages per rank. If you just want it as a class skill there are traits to do that, that don't involve race at all)

The newer source would supersede the older, with both being valid sources with the change that the newer source has put fourth.

My main concern with how it was when Mike posted that is the fact that it makes Adopted unable to take the traits most likely to be learned by the character. If all the Race Traits had one of the Basic Trait Qualifiers added to it (if not a Regional or Religion trait), there would be a lot of characters that would need to change traits to make them compliant.

My first thought, as the situation is now, is that the design purpose for this was considered a mistake and was not followed in the succeeding Race books. I have taken the Gnome Social Trait with the Tengu because of the traits not having those additional requirements in Ultimate Campaign. I had thought, at the time, that all the Race Traits was using the same categorization as the Gnome book and Ultimate Campaign ignored it.

Now, it seems that there is a conflict with what Mike had proffered and what the book actually says. (These traits can be taken with Adopted)

I offer this. Adopted, by itself, offers no benefit without the other trait that it adds and allows. If I take off Etymologist from that particular character and do not replace it, I have nothing there, no benefit from taking that trait. Why would taking a Social Trait with Adopted not be allowed?

The newer source would supersede the older, with both being valid sources with the change that the newer source has put fourth.

...

I offer this. Adopted, by itself, offers no benefit without the other trait that it adds and allows. If I take off Etymologist from that particular character and do not replace it, I have nothing there, no benefit from taking that trait. Why would taking a Social Trait with Adopted not be allowed?

Sorry, but no. New sources don't supercede old sources. There is no language for this anywhere. There are plenty of other examples of new sources and old sources differing, in some cases they have been clarified to supercede the old source, or even errataed to match the newest source, but two sources existing doesn't mean both aren't valid. Also, in the newest source isn't Etymologist only listed as a social trait with a requirement of being gnome? Meaning it wouldn't be a valid target for adopted anyway (since it's not a race trait in that source).

Adopted still does something. It lets you take another race (see also not social) trait from a different race - a choice that you would have passed on at that point (maybe for pure fluff reassons). I disagree that you should be allowed in this case to take two social traits, as there's a general rule - no two traits from the same category and a specific clarification - the one from Mike Brock. If it gets re-clarified a different way, ok I'll roll with it but at this time that's not how it works. As a note, Adopted is still a legal trait in CORE too, where it does absolutely nothing since there are no race traits in the document, but you can still take it (again maybe for pure fluff reasons).

It is called a "Racial Trait" which is a miss characterization that has been discussed before. All the traits in that section are considered Race Traits as described, though the wrong term is used in that particular book (Racial instead of Race).

Each are divided into one of the four basic Trait Categories, reprinting the two Race Traits from APG as it does so. Thus far, it is the only source that does this.

This is why I want this clarified in the document that is just for the product such as this that will not get reprinted with Errata.

Is Adopted useless for Gnome Traits? That is the question that I have.

Ok so now, we're switching back to the Gnomes of Golarion book. Got it. So it's not superceded by the newest sources as previously suggested. Cool. (And yes I know the race/racial disparity in Gnomes of Golarion) And yes, at this time the Adopted trait is useless to get to those traits.

Also, it should be noted that Gnomes of Golarion (technically) couldn't have reprinted anything from the APG. The APG (August 2010) released 3 months after Gnomes (May 2010).

Huh! So why didn't APG put the Race Traits into the basic traits as well?

My original reason for taking the trait with the second character was the exclusion of the addition requirement of the basic traits qualifiers for the Race Traits in Ultimate Campaign.

The confusion I have had since the beginning is the reasoning behind why I could not take the very Traits that make the most since for an Adopted character to have. This is why I specifically asked about it at Gen Con 2013 (I believe it was that one) and had to change Krawford at the time.

It needs clarified, that is the reason I bring it up now.

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

The newer source would supersede the older, with both being valid sources with the change that the newer source has put fourth.

...

I offer this. Adopted, by itself, offers no benefit without the other trait that it adds and allows. If I take off Etymologist from that particular character and do not replace it, I have nothing there, no benefit from taking that trait. Why would taking a Social Trait with Adopted not be allowed?

Sorry, but no. New sources don't supercede old sources. There is no language for this anywhere. There are plenty of other examples of new sources and old sources differing, in some cases they have been clarified to supercede the old source, or even errataed to match the newest source, but two sources existing doesn't mean both aren't valid. Also, in the newest source isn't Etymologist only listed as a social trait with a requirement of being gnome? Meaning it wouldn't be a valid target for adopted anyway (since it's not a race trait in that source).

Adopted still does something. It lets you take another race (see also not social) trait from a different race - a choice that you would have passed on at that point (maybe for pure fluff reassons). I disagree that you should be allowed in this case to take two social traits, as there's a general rule - no two traits from the same category and a specific clarification - the one from Mike Brock. If it gets re-clarified a different way, ok I'll roll with it but at this time that's not how it works. As a note, Adopted is still a legal trait in CORE too, where it does absolutely nothing since there are no race traits in the document, but you can still take it (again maybe for pure fluff reasons).

Actually, Mike posted on two occasions that the item slots from animal archive and masterwork tools from ultimate equipment applied whether you owned the book or not. So there certainly is precedent for new source superseding old one.

Joe Ducey wrote:

Sorry, but no. New sources don't supercede old sources. There is no language for this anywhere. There are plenty of other examples of new sources and old sources differing, in some cases they have been clarified to supercede the old source, or even errataed to match the newest source, but two sources existing doesn't mean both aren't valid. Also, in the newest source isn't Etymologist only listed as a social trait with a requirement of being gnome? Meaning it wouldn't be a valid target for adopted anyway (since it's not a race trait in that source).

Adopted still does something. It lets you take another race (see also not social) trait from a different race - a choice that you would have passed on at that point (maybe for pure fluff reassons). I disagree that you should be allowed in this case to take two social traits, as there's a general rule - no two traits from the same category and a specific clarification - the one from Mike Brock. If it gets re-clarified a different way, ok I'll roll with it but at this time that's not how it works. As a note, Adopted is still a legal trait in CORE too, where it does absolutely nothing since there are no race traits in the document, but you can still take it (again maybe for pure fluff reasons).

Actually, Mike posted on two occasions that the item slots from animal archive and masterwork tools from ultimate equipment applied whether you owned the book or not. So there certainly is precedent for new source superseding old one.

Wouldn't that be exactly the definition of a clarification saying something new superceded the old?

Exactly. It had to be clarified that, in that specific instance, the newer source replaced the older one.

It had to be specified because that's not the general rule.

Joe Ducey wrote:

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

The newer source would supersede the older, with both being valid sources with the change that the newer source has put fourth.

...

I offer this. Adopted, by itself, offers no benefit without the other trait that it adds and allows. If I take off Etymologist from that particular character and do not replace it, I have nothing there, no benefit from taking that trait. Why would taking a Social Trait with Adopted not be allowed?

Sorry, but no. New sources don't supercede old sources. There is no language for this anywhere. There are plenty of other examples of new sources and old sources differing, in some cases they have been clarified to supercede the old source, or even errataed to match the newest source, but two sources existing doesn't mean both aren't valid. Also, in the newest source isn't Etymologist only listed as a social trait with a requirement of being gnome? Meaning it wouldn't be a valid target for adopted anyway (since it's not a race trait in that source).

Adopted still does something. It lets you take another race (see also not social) trait from a different race - a choice that you would have passed on at that point (maybe for pure fluff reassons). I disagree that you should be allowed in this case to take two social traits, as there's a general rule - no two traits from the same category and a specific clarification - the one from Mike Brock. If it gets re-clarified a different way, ok I'll roll with it but at this time that's not how it works. As a note, Adopted is still a legal trait in CORE too, where it does absolutely nothing since there are no race traits in the document, but you can still take it (again maybe for pure fluff reasons).

Actually, Mike posted on two occasions that the item slots from animal archive and masterwork tools from ultimate equipment applied whether you owned the book or not. So there certainly is precedent for new source superseding old one.

I disagree with this line of thinking.

Suppose you own an older book A, and it's listed as a sufficient additional resource for X.1. But X.2 is in a newer book B you don't own. You're not allowed to use X.2 because you don't own the book. But Additional Resources says you're allowed to use A as a source for X.1. It then follows that you can't be forced to use the newer version of X; you were given permission to use X.1, this permission was never retracted, and are meanwhile forbidden to use X.2 until you buy another book.

So then there's the question of what happens to people who own both A and B. Should they be punished for giving Paizo more money, by forcing them to use X.2 while others can stick to X.1?

I disagree with this line of thinking.

Suppose you own an older book A, and it's listed as a sufficient additional resource for X.1. But X.2 is in a newer book B you don't own. You're not allowed to use X.2 because you don't own the book. But Additional Resources says you're allowed to use A as a source for X.1. It then follows that you can't be forced to use the newer version of X; you were given permission to use X.1, this permission was never retracted, and are meanwhile forbidden to use X.2 until you buy another book.

So then there's the question of what happens to people who own both A and B. Should they be punished for giving Paizo more money, by forcing them to use X.2 while others can stick to X.1?

FWIW, I agree with you, except in the specific case where something has been clarified to override the wording in one of the sources, like the ones that Andy mentioned.

Furthermore, I believe in the case that you own both sources, use whichever one is more beneficial to you. (Unless it's been overwritten)

If a source is meant to be superseded by a new one, the older source will be removed from additional resources.

As long as the older source remains in additional resources, it remains legal for play. Some of these older sources may have errata, relevant FAQs, or clarifications. But those are all available free on this site.

Use the version of the feat/trait/spell in whatever source you bring to the table (but check the errata, FAQs and PFS campaign clarifications document.)

Kelly, this is only true for when an ENTIRE source has been superseded, like the old Campaign Guide.

For older sources, sometimes, they get completely superseded, like Osirion, Land of Pharoiahs, by People of the Sands. For most older sources, you get parts removed from legality, if the campaign administrators notice, and/or remember, that the item/ability/whatsis is in multiple sources.

And, usually, if you check the Additional Resources, you will find that the older version is either removed form legality, or has a special note added to it, like a couple of the Dhampyr and Skinwalker racial types, which are radically different between two books, but the PTB didn't want to penalize those with the older resource, even though there is a Developer post giving the updated stats, and saying those are what should have been in the older book.

There is, usually, also explanatory discussion when they accidentally name two different options the same thing, like the Dueling enhancements.

In this case, the issue could easily be resolved with an entry in the Clarifications document that either the Gnome Race Traits retain or do not retain the Combat/Faith/Magic/Social designations in the book; making the Gnome Race Traits totally unlike all other Race Traits, in all other sources, including the Gnome Race Traits that were reprinted in Ultimate Campaign.

So, any reason so much debate that a clarification is needed for something that needs to have whatever clarification is given be included in the Clarifications document, rather than being an obscure post on the Paizo forums?

I saw the Proposed Change for Gunsmithing, Removing the word "Reduced" from "Reduced Listed Price". For as long as I have Been in PFS it has been understood (At least in my area) that Gunslingers could buy their Ammo at the same price it would take to craft it.

Under the proposed change it would cost 11-12gp per shot. Extremely expensive, especially for 1st level players. not to mention the Pain and annoyance involved in every gunslinger having to audit their characters. Not to mention the 1 rank in Craft:alchemy everyone has taken.
Please, Keep the Gunslinger Class viable at lower levels.

IMO and that of many others, the listed price for bullets and Black powder is ridiculous anyways. 1gp of a lead ball? How can that price possibly be justified? Making an Arrow takes more time and more costly materials. How about 10 gp for something you can make with a mortar and pestle from some of the most common ingredients in the world, even in medieval times?

The listed price is the reduced price granted by the feat. It's the same text as per the Additional Resources page.

This keeps coming up (including earlier in this thread, more than once).

Nothing about the rules for pricing ammo changed (though including a price breakdown in this clarifications document would be awesome).

This keeps coming up (including earlier in this thread, more than once).

Nothing about the rules for pricing ammo changed (though including a price breakdown in this clarifications document would be awesome).

Read the new text proposed in the PDF. They Removed the Word "reduced" before "Listed Price". Why would they do that if they were not testing the waters for a price change?

And remember that this ids not yet official. at this point in time it is only a suggestion.

Gunsmithing does not grant the ability to craft firearms, ammunition, or black powder. Rather, it allows the purchase of bullets, pellets, black powder, and alchemical cartridges (with 1 rank in Craft [alchemy]) at the listed price, but does not grant a discount on the purchase of any firearm. Resold items gained through this feat are worth half the actual cost paid, not half the regular market value for the item. No PC can purchase a gun without this feat, even if they possess the Amateur Gunslinger or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearm) feats.

Page 103—Gunsmithing does not grant the ability to craft firearms, ammunition, or black powder. Rather, it allows the purchase of bullets, pellets, black powder, and alchemical cartridges (with 1 rank in Craft [alchemy]) at the listed price, but does not grant a discount on the purchase of any firearm. Resold items gained through this feat are worth half the actual cost paid, not half the regular market value for the item. No PC can purchase a gun without this feat, even if they possess the Amateur Gunslinger or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearm) feats.

The "listed price" both text are referring to is to the feat Gunsmithing from Ultimate Combat:

Crafting Ammunition: You can craft bullets, pellets, and black powder for a cost in raw materials equal to 10% of the price. If you have at least 1 rank in Craft (alchemy), you can craft alchemical cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the price of the cartridge. At your GM's discretion, you can craft metal cartridges for a cost in raw materials equal to half the cost of the cartridge. Crafting bullets, black powder, or cartridges takes 1 day of work for every 1,000 gp of ammunition (minimum 1 day).

It doesn't need to say "reduced" listed price, because the listed price referred to by the feat Gunsmithing is already the reduced one for ammunition.

ALSO, Linda Zayas-Palmer clarified that the text in the PDF is the same as the Additional Resources and they're just migrating info from AR to the clarification pdf and not any changes at all to the rules

Thank you for that.

May need to post it again when this thread progresses to the next page =\

Dreamed Secrets from Inner Sea God seems PFS legal but worshiping great old ones or outer gods are not.

Pick one:
Add "generic other God" to prerequisite instead of great old ones or outer gods.
Allow one outer God that is more PG
Allow all great old ones and outer gods
Ban Dreamed Secrets in PFS

I thought it was just that the great old ones were not legal deities for the purposes of clerics and inquisitors? Can't a pc worship one of these entities at all? I have a Dark Tapestry oracle; whilst he's not an open (or knowing) worshipper of the great old ones, aren't they nonetheless the source of his divine magic?

And I'd thought that Dreamed Secrets was not allowed. Did that change? It certainly appears to be legal now.

It certainly appears to be legal now.

I don't recall it ever being illegal or prohibited. I've been asking about it since the book was released and never gotten an official answer. I'd like it because I'd like to play a character with the feat, but I'm not going to build a character when I can't legally take the feat because I can't worship the require gods.

Maybe that's why I thought it wasn't allowed, the "worship" requirement.

I would love to be able to take this feat but the outer gods and great old ones are explicitly excluded from being able to be worshipped which means you cannot meet the feat requirements.

@superillian and @andreww, which is why I'd like some clarity. Ban the feat, or allow the gods. Because it takes someone with high attention to detail to see a permitted feat and then check to make sure the requirements are allowed. Most people will pick a god without checking the god is allowed (if they see a feat is allowed.

I entirely agree.

Time to dust off the Inquisitor of Yog Sothoth?

James: Expect table variation. ;)

James: Expect table variation. ;)

I do everything to avoid table variance, including not playing contention features like Overrun.

Isn't it better to get clarifications though? (when possible)

Soooo...

The top post states "As part of our Additional Resources process, we plan to revisit this document each month and make changes if necessary."

Given all the suggestions in this thread, I would love to see the next update. I hope this is still in the works?

I may have scared them off...

I may have scared them off...

"He says what we're all thinking!"

Nefreet wrote:

I may have scared them off...

"He says what we're all thinking!"

And you only touch the tip of the iceberg of questions. Those are the major ones.

I may have scared them off...

Sure, but if they just started from the top of that list and tackled one question per week then it would already be a useful effort.

That would take 3 years to accomplish.

Assuming nothing else was needed =\

That would take 3 years to accomplish.

Assuming nothing else was needed =\

Yes, and?

I'd rather have these questions answered slowly, than having them answered never.

Just pointing out the scope of the problem.

I obviously want them answered as well, otherwise I wouldn't have compiled that list.

Most people will pick a god without checking the god is allowed

I don't understand the logic here. If the deity/ies are clearly banned and the feat requires worshiping one of them, why do we need to specifically ban the feat or clarify? By transitive logic you cannot select it. If a player selects a god from the banned list and doesn't bother to check if its legal, how would a rule that they are equally unlikely to check going to stop them from taking the feat? We cannot mandate or house rule someone using their common sense.

Some rules clarification request just seem like we are asking to be smacked with a hammer rather than just apply some reading comprehension.

James Risner wrote:

Most people will pick a god without checking the god is allowed

I don't understand the logic here. If the deity/ies are clearly banned and the feat requires worshiping one of them, why do we need to specifically ban the feat or clarify? By transitive logic you cannot select it. If a player selects a god from the banned list and doesn't bother to check if its legal, how would a rule that they are equally unlikely to check going to stop them from taking the feat? We cannot mandate or house rule someone using their common sense.

Some rules clarification request just seem like we are asking to be smacked with a hammer rather than just apply some reading comprehension.

Why would someone expect to have a backdoor ban on something that seems legal ? Thats not reading comprehension that's delving into the twisting morass of PFS legality twice. Its like getting a permit to burn leaves and then getting a ticket for not having a permit to start a fire.

^ that's a beautiful analogy.

Its like getting a permit to burn leaves and then getting a ticket for not having a permit to start a fire.

If the requirements for the fire permit are clearly listed and in the same place as the burning leaves permit, then I do not have sympathy. As the old adage goes, "ignorance of the law is not a defense"

I disagree with the analogy. IMO, this is more akin to someone seeing a fire pit being sold and jumping to the conclusion that means they can burn things without a permit.

But, like most times when someone submits an analogy to support their position, it just provides an opportunity to argue over interpretation of meaning.

Maybe they left it legal because it's easier than listing it on a Chronicle, if they were to issue a Chronicle opening up an OG/GOO for worship.

It's like how all the changeling stuff is legal, but only if you can play a changeling.

Just my theory, though. ^_^

There are already game mechanics for receiving the benefits of feats without meeting the requirements. I'm not saying there is for this feat specifically right now but you guys know already know that a feat's requirement doesn't have to impact its legality because of stuff like this.

Some limited hand-waiving of feat requirements does exist, but IIRC they are all focused on GM adjudication issues not rules requirements. Is there a single occurrence of ignoring a worshiping requirement for a feat?

Maybe there is and I don't know or maybe there will be in the future. If I was told Paizo was printing another separatist class that gets to choose a feat of a deity they don't worship I wouldn't be that surprised.

We see tons of issues where we don't future proof ruling even as we are now and they become a problem for people. Just leave it open ended it literally can't cause a problem if you can't even take it.

that's delving into the twisting morass of PFS legality

^ this is the point I think we need to be focused on.

It's easy for veterans (or just forum-goers) to recognize that a particular thing might be legal, when its requirements are not, but we shouldn't make others do the dance just because we can.

Soooo...

The top post states "As part of our Additional Resources process, we plan to revisit this document each month and make changes if necessary."

Given all the suggestions in this thread, I would love to see the next update. I hope this is still in the works?

Yes, an update is in the works. We are planning to release it with our next update to Additional Resources.

Thanks, Linda! Great news!

Thank you!!

I'll happily buy you a drink at PaizoCon, since I'm probably to blame for at least some of the work you're doing =\