Let's Be Clear

Monday, January 11, 2016

Happy New Year, everyone! As we return from our holiday vacations, John, Tonya, and I have been diving into some projects that have been sitting on the Pathfinder Society back burner for some time. We are happy to announce the release of the first of these projects—the Pathfinder Society Campaign Clarifications Document.

As anyone who has ever seen the official list of Additional Resources knows, Pathfinder Society characters have many options. As anyone who is a regular on our forums knows, some of these options can be interpreted in different ways. When these rules ambiguities crop up in a home campaign, where a player is likely to have only one GM, the GM and the player can work together to find a satisfying solution. In the organized play campaign, where players are likely to have many GMs over the course of each character’s adventures, these ambiguities can lead to substantially different rules interpretations from table to table. We created this document to help reach one of goals of organized play—to provide an equitable gaming experience to players all over the world. The Clarifications Document is a centralized place for us to offer official rulings for ambiguous rules.

Many of these interpretations are the suggestions of the developers who worked on the rules in the first place, which have until now been unofficial posts on the messageboards. Others come out of Additional Resources, which we will be trimming down a bit in the next update. The last source is a list of ambiguities I’ve been saving until we had a clear plan for how to address them. I’m sure some of you will notice a couple of rules elements mentioned in the Clarifications Document that are not currently legal in Pathfinder Society. These elements will appear in our next update of Additional Resources.

While GMs are free to use clarifications from this document in their home campaigns if they wish, these are not official errata. The Clarifications Document principally addresses rules material that appears in softcover sources such as the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Player Companion lines, rather than the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hardcover books. As part of our Additional Resources process, we plan to revisit this document each month and make changes if necessary. What rules ambiguities have you seen in your Pathfinder Society games that you would like to see resolved?

Download the Campaign Clarifications Document — (8.43mb zip/PDF)

Linda Zayas-Palmer
Assistant Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Campaign Setting Pathfinder Player Companion Pathfinder Society
551 to 600 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

Bob Jonquet wrote:

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.

Town hall sold the firepit and then doesn't hand out burn permits.

If something has a backdoor ban it should be banned, get a waiver to get through the back door, or called out that its only legal if you have something the same way Goblin boons are only called out as legal for goblins.

Devotee of a dead god is another one. Aroden (oddly) isn't legal for worship so you can't take the trait, even though its legal.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
If a player selects a god from the banned list and doesn't bother to check if its legal

I'm 1 percent of the players. I spend 40 to 100 hours building a character before I play 1 session. All my characters are legal to the best of my ability.

The other 99 percent would be consider the gods legal and not bother looking it up, simply because a feat that requires them is legal.

If that feat is backdoor banned on purpose, ban it officially.
If you want to open it up with a boon, note that on Additional Resources.
If you want it open to all, note that on Additional Resources.

Don't just stomp your food and glare at a player taking the feat and by extension the god when they had a strong indicator the god was legal.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Something similar happened to me regarding another normally unavailable option.

After GMing PaizoCon 2014 I read over the GM Boon. It worked like the "Extra Trait" Boon, but only granted a Trait from the newly released AP that Season. So I pull up the Additional Resources document and see that only a couple Traits are legal from that source, and none of them were very good. I traded the Boon away like a hot potato.

Then I found out from John that the Boon was intended to open up access to all of the Traits from that AP, despite no such language anywhere on the Boon stating those Traits could be chosen (or that the Boon superceded the Additional Resources).

If you intend to open up some obscure Outer Gods material, such as a feat, make it clear how someone can acquire said option.

This alleviates stress in a few ways:

  • New players don't need to navigate a labyrinth to create their first PC.
  • Veterans don't have to waste time creating concepts for material that'll never be legal.
  • It'll help eliminate the frequently created threads asking "How can X be legal when Y isn't?"

  • Grand Lodge 2/5

    Hopefully this one can be addressed in the next clarification:

    What happens if you are holding 3xp worth of level 13 GM credit and start playing Eyes of the Ten? Does it apply when you complete part 2 of Eyes of the Ten, or only after the whole arc? Or does it apply immediately and disqualify you from playing parts 3 and 4?


    An issue I'd love to have soe form of clarification on is the Constable's Squad Commander ability.

    Specifically I'm a bit confused as to whether an action is required to activate a plan when it's condition is met.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Crossing fingers....

    Please make the Gnome Traits usable with Adopted, please make the Gnome Traits usable with Adopted.....

    Grand Lodge 3/5

    If we're just wishing, I hope they add retraining costs for traits and favored class. :)

    Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern

    Hillis Mallory III wrote:

    Crossing fingers....

    Please make the Gnome Traits usable with Adopted, please make the Gnome Traits usable with Adopted.....

    The Social Trait Adopted lets you take Race Traits from another race, so Gnome Race Traits are already available.

    Silver Crusade 4/5 Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh

    Mike Bramnik wrote:
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:

    Crossing fingers....

    Please make the Gnome Traits usable with Adopted, please make the Gnome Traits usable with Adopted.....

    The Social Trait Adopted lets you take Race Traits from another race, so Gnome Race Traits are already available.

    I think there's an unfortunate complication where the gnome traits aren't just race traits but also another type of trait in addition. So they're race+combat, race+faith, race+magic, and race+social. Because Adopted is a social trait, you just can't take any of the Gnome race+social traits with Adopted. I think you can take the others, but if you use it for Excitable for example, one trait counts as taking up your Combat, Race, and Social trait slots all at once, is that right? That's my understanding, anyway. There's a bunch of big threads about it hiding somewhere around here.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    Specifically, in thaX's case, the rules state that Adopted *does* work, but Michael Brock ruled otherwise.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    I believe that Nefreet's 'clarification' is incorrect.

    The rules state that Adopted lets you take traits that you would otherwise not be permitted to take because they were restricted to a particular race and you were not of that race.

    The rules (and, in particular, the wording of Adopted) say nothing about whether this also allows you to take two traits from the same category; as Adopted is itself a Social trait, you would not be allowed to take another Social trait unless this restriction were also lifted.

    ThaX wants to be allowed to take another Social trait (arguing that, in fact, these are the most likely race traits being adopted would grant access to).

    Mike Brock, however, specifically ruled on this (and apparently told ThaX this in person), and said Adopted did not allow you to take another social trait; it just lifted the race restriction.

    So ThaX can still take gnome traits; he just can't take gnome social traits.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    John Francis wrote:

    The rules state that Adopted lets you take traits that you would otherwise not be permitted to take because they were restricted to a particular race and you were not of that race.

    The rules (and, in particular, the wording of Adopted) say nothing about whether this also allows you to take two traits from the same category; as Adopted is itself a Social trait, you would not be allowed to take another Social trait unless this restriction were also lifted.

    Those are the general rules of Adopted, yes.

    Gnomes of Golarion has a clause (quoted earlier) that specifically overrides the general rules.

    Mike Brock then made a ruling that more specifically overrides the clause in Gnomes of Golarion.

    ThaX wants that decision revisited. Honestly, I'm with him on this. It seems like a needless ruling, and unless you're experienced with this discussion there'd be no way that a casual player would come to the same conclusion.

    1/5

    Would it be out of the question to add other eligible elements to the Kinetic Chirgeon archetype? It seems like Wood would be appropriate as well. Or is that sort of thing beyond what you want to do with this document?

    EDIT: Also, it seems like there should be some sort of blanket statement for Alchemist archetypes that replace bombs with another ability that is usable a similar number of times a day. The current examples are Ectochymist and Gloom Chymist.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    It was my thought that since the one Gnome trait that was reprinted (Ultimate Campaign) didn't have that additional qualifier (this one being a Combat ("Racial") trait Rabscillion) that all of them didn't have them anymore.

    Whether or not that is the case, I believe the clarification should allow for the Adopted trait to take the "Social" Race traits that it allows for. (Gnomes, for this specific book)

    I got around this with a human character by taking Racial Heritage (Gnome) instead.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    It was my thought that since the one Gnome trait that was reprinted (Ultimate Campaign) didn't have that additional qualifier (this one being a Combat ("Racial") trait Rabscillion) that all of them didn't have them anymore.

    ThaX, you're really not helping your cause by repeating this chorus when you have been told multiple times that Ultimate Campaign didn't change anything.

    I would like Michael Brock's decision revisited, too, but this point you've locked on to is not the way to go about it.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

    Nefreet wrote:
    John Francis wrote:

    The rules state that Adopted lets you take traits that you would otherwise not be permitted to take because they were restricted to a particular race and you were not of that race.

    The rules (and, in particular, the wording of Adopted) say nothing about whether this also allows you to take two traits from the same category; as Adopted is itself a Social trait, you would not be allowed to take another Social trait unless this restriction were also lifted.

    Those are the general rules of Adopted, yes.

    Gnomes of Golarion has a clause (quoted earlier) that specifically overrides the general rules.

    Mike Brock then made a ruling that more specifically overrides the clause in Gnomes of Golarion.

    No - it's not that cut-and-dried.

    Gnomes of Golarion has a clause that some people believe overrides the general rules, but that's reading their own interpretation of intent into the clause; the text from Gnomes of Golarion can, in fact, just as easily be read to not override the limitation on taking two traits in the same category, but instead to be nothing more than a reminder that taking Adopted lets you override the race restriction.

    Mike Brock didn't override the clause in Gnomes of Golarion - he made a clarification that the second interpretation is the correct one.

    Nefreet wrote:
    ThaX wants that decision revisited. Honestly, I'm with him on this. It seems like a needless ruling, and unless you're experienced with this discussion there'd be no way that a casual player would come to the same conclusion.

    You may feel that way. However, as the thread discussing this showed, there are quite a few people who didn't even consider that the clause in question could be read as allowing multiple traits from the same category, which argues against the claim that no casual player would come to that conclusion.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Think of this. If I take Adopted and do not take another Race Trait with it, what would it do for me as it takes up that Social Trait slot?

    Why would taking a social trait with Adopted, one that is a Race trait allowed to be taken, be a concern? Because Adopted and the additional trait count as two traits? How? What does Adopted actually do to make it unable to take the traits that make the most sense to take with it?

    That is what I need Clarified.... *Crossing fingers*

    Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West

    The only reason to take Adopted is to allow you to take a race trait that you would otherwise not be able to take, so asking what would you get if you took Adopted but then didn't take another race trait seems to be a pretty pointless question.

    It also strikes me as disingenuous to claim you are asking for a "clarification" - you've already had the clarification, but you're asking to have that ruling revisited in hope of getting a different answer.

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:

    Think of this. If I take Adopted and do not take another Race Trait with it, what would it do for me as it takes up that Social Trait slot?

    Why would taking a social trait with Adopted, one that is a Race trait allowed to be taken, be a concern? Because Adopted and the additional trait count as two traits? How? What does Adopted actually do to make it unable to take the traits that make the most sense to take with it?

    That is what I need Clarified.... *Crossing fingers*

    NOTHING, it would do nothing. It would take up a slot, just as it currently does in the Core Campaign. It's not the only trap option in PFS/PF nor will it be. (see also, Dreamed Secters which requires worship of a Great Old One and many others.)

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    I had someone tell me of the stance then, before Ultimate Campaign was published.

    My point of the question is why it would matter what Adopted is (Social or otherwise) compared to the trait that it allows to be taken with it. I would consider Adopted to be a placeholder, where the character would still be taking two traits (the one with adopted and the other).

    It has always been a question for me as to why Adopted would preclude any trait that it is used to be taken with it. If they are both Social Traits, then it is one "slot" that is a Social trait.

    The Clarification isn't one from Mike Brock years ago, but one that would take the Ultimate Campaign reprinting and other considerations into account and look at it from a new OoC with fresh eyes. It isn't that I want rules to change, but that they should be consistent. The Gnomes book is an anomaly to the rest of the companion books, dividing out the Traits into basic categories while later books did not. Should it still do this, would it still be done if the book was made today?

    This is the type of thing this document was meant for.

    3/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    While this document is primarily for softcover books, there is a houserule that is strongly encouraged by the APG that could be brought into the campaign at the same time if PFS leadership thought it makes sense to (and it would make players of Oracles [and now Fractured Mind Spiritualists too] quite happy!). Specifically, cleric spells that reference only using WIS instead of casting modifier on CHA based spellcasting classes.

    It would be a happy present to see this brought into PFS :)

    The Exchange 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    My point of the question is why it would matter what Adopted is (Social or otherwise) compared to the trait that it allows to be taken with it. I would consider Adopted to be a placeholder, where the character would still be taking two traits (the one with adopted and the other).

    Because it's two traits. Adopted is a Social Trait that allows you to get a Race Trait you can't otherwise access. It's all there, black and white...

    Quote:
    This is the type of thing this document was meant for.

    No - what you seem to want is a change to Ultimate Campaign (or Gnomes of Golarion), in which case you are on the wrong part of the Paizo boards.

    Sovereign Court

    General Spoon wrote:

    While this document is primarily for softcover books, there is a houserule that is strongly encouraged by the APG that could be brought into the campaign at the same time if PFS leadership thought it makes sense to (and it would make players of Oracles [and now Fractured Mind Spiritualists too] quite happy!). Specifically, cleric spells that reference only using WIS instead of casting modifier on CHA based spellcasting classes.

    It would be a happy present to see this brought into PFS :)

    This is doubly true for the Medium, a Charisma caster whose spell list had to specifically have these spells added to it. This is as good a time as any to try and get this rule functional.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Old "Scuttlebutt" Salt wrote:
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    My point of the question is why it would matter what Adopted is (Social or otherwise) compared to the trait that it allows to be taken with it. I would consider Adopted to be a placeholder, where the character would still be taking two traits (the one with adopted and the other).

    Because it's two traits. Adopted is a Social Trait that allows you to get a Race Trait you can't otherwise access. It's all there, black and white...

    Quote:
    This is the type of thing this document was meant for.
    No - what you seem to want is a change to Ultimate Campaign (or Gnomes of Golarion), in which case you are on the wrong part of the Paizo boards.

    I get that it is two traits. My point is that Adopted doesn't actually do anything without the other trait that goes with it. To limit the three traits in the Gnome book that happen to also have the Social basic trait qualifier when no other race trait in any other publication has that limit is overreaching. When the book was released, it might have seemed that this was going to be the way each of the other race books in the companion line was going to be. It did not turn out that way. This is the reason behind my wanting the clarification.

    Gnomes of Galarion is one of the softcovers that this document covers, those books that will not get reprints or errata.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas

    Just for the Adopted discussion:

    From Gnomes of Golarion:
    Character traits represent quirks in a character’s background, things that have significantly affected her development as a person. Each character typically chooses two character traits during character creation. Although the traits presented below are broken into several different categories, all are considered gnome racial traits. Only gnome characters may take these traits, as they represent gnome-specific reactions to various stimuli and backgrounds. A dwarf or human may have gone through the same events, but their reactions to those events (and thus their traits) differ accordingly. (Of course, a character of a different race could still select a gnome racial trait if she has the Adopted trait presented in the Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement.)

    From the Character Traits Web Enhancement:
    1 Adopted: You were adopted and raised by someone not of your actual race, and raised in a society not your own. As a result, you picked up a race trait from your adoptive parents and society, and may immediately select a race trait from your adoptive parents’ race. Race traits can be found in Pathfinder Companion products—if you don’t have access to a selection of race traits, it’s best to simply pick a different social feat.

    I see nothing in the Gnomes statement that overrides the Social trait lockout in Adopted. If it said, instead: (Of course, a character of a different race could still select a gnome racial trait, even one of the Social traits, if she has the Adopted trait presented in the Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement.) then it would serve as an override. Otherwise, it just appears to be a reminder that the Adopted trait exists, and what it can be used for, in general.

    So, the actual issue, which was caused by a one-time aberration, is that the Gnome racial traits in Gnomes of Golarion also include another category of trait in their definitions. None of the other Race of Golarion books include that multi-category definition for their racial traits. The Gnome racial trait reprinted in Ultimate Campaign does not include that multiple trait definition.

    And, since Gnomes of Golarion is one of the softcover books unlikely to be reprinted, here seems to be the best place to see if the extra trait category, beyond Gnome racial trait, should be removed for PFS use.

    -- 30 --

    Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Indiana—Southern

    I'd like to suggest this, a clarification from Rob McCreary about Witchguard Rangers, as something to add to a future campaign clarifications document:

    http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2poxb?People-of-the-North-Witchguard-Question#3

    Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5 RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    General Spoon wrote:

    While this document is primarily for softcover books, there is a houserule that is strongly encouraged by the APG that could be brought into the campaign at the same time if PFS leadership thought it makes sense to (and it would make players of Oracles [and now Fractured Mind Spiritualists too] quite happy!). Specifically, cleric spells that reference only using WIS instead of casting modifier on CHA based spellcasting classes.

    It would be a happy present to see this brought into PFS :)

    This ruling by John Compton may help (I'm not familiar with shattered mind spiritualist).

    John Compton wrote:

    Good afternoon,

    This question is one I’ve considered for some time, and following my discussions with Mike Brock and Sean K Reynolds about a FAQ post earlier this year, I’ve made a decision. A character who receives spiritual weapon and/or spiritual ally as a bonus spell (such as an oracle mystery spell or witch patron spell) may use her primary spellcasting ability score in place of her Wisdom score when calculating the spell’s attack bonus. In this way a select set of characters that would otherwise have no choice but to learn the spell (e.g. spirits patron witches, ancestors mystery oracles, and sacred servant paladins with the war domain) can still make effective use of a character feature.

    This ruling only applies to the two spells mentioned above and does not modify any other spells that may have similar circumstances. This ruling does not alter how the above spells function for characters who do not receive those spells as bonus spells.

    This is a clarification that we are using for Pathfinder Society Organized Play. We plan on updating this in future update of the Pathfinder Society FAQ.

    If there are other spells that also experience the “spiritual weapon conundrum,” please endeavor to go first to the rules forum to bring it to the design team’s attention. Let’s keep this thread just to discussing these two spells.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Thank you, Kinevon.

    I believe that Adopted had always been intended to be used with all the "racial" traits, though this was a part of the confusion of giving them the basic trait categories in the first place.

    Hope it is clarified, still crossing fingers.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Old "Scuttlebutt" Salt wrote:
    Adopted is a Social Trait that allows you to get a Race Trait you can't otherwise access. It's all there, black and white...

    Yes, indeed, "black and white"...

    Gnomes of Golarion wrote:

    Although the traits presented below are broken into several different categories, all are considered gnome racial traits.

    Of course, a character of a different race could still select a gnome racial trait if she has the Adopted trait presented in the Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement.

    As I said earlier, any casual player that was unaware of this controversy could rightly conclude that Etymologist could be taken with Adopted.

    It's written in black and white, after all.

    Sovereign Court 2/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    Oooookay, we just spent the past ten pages arguing about one particular trait. Can we please agree to disagree here and move on? I'm sure there are other issues that could be brought up here for the List Of Unclear Things.

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    Everyone's on the same page, here, though. The current ruling by Mike Brock prevents Adopted from working with Etymologist.

    Some people would just like that ruling revisited, is all.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    Yep. It is something that has been a niggle for me since I had to change Krawford because of it.

    This and "The Character can use this (Two Handed Weapon) with One Hand" shenanigans. (TWF with Two Earth Breakers or Wielding an oversized one? Really? ... Uh, no.)

    Grand Lodge 2/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    This and "The Character can use this (Two Handed Weapon) with One Hand" shenanigans. (TWF with Two Earth Breakers or Wielding an oversized one? Really? ... Uh, no.)

    As has been said in person, just because it wasn't supposed to work that way doesn't mean it doesn't work that way. It's pretty plain that it lets you wield an earthbreaker 1-handed.

    The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    claudekennilol wrote:
    just because it wasn't supposed to work that way doesn't mean it doesn't work that way. It's pretty plain that it lets you wield an earthbreaker 1-handed.

    See I think it's plain that it works only with a klar. People are different.

    Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I know GMs who wouldn't allow magi to use spell combat and spellstrike in the same round. People are different, indeed. ^_^

    Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    That said, Thunder and Fang would be an excellent subject for this document. ^_^

    Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    #26b

    Sovereign Court 2/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Ok, since we are collecting these now...

    • A designer has stated that Spell Storing Armor is supposed to be an immediate action, not a swift.
    • Can you apply metamagic feats when you cast a spell into a Spell Storing Weapon or Armor? What about metamagic rods?
    • Can a Tengu or Nagaji (or other races that don't have hair) use the White-Haired Witch or Prehensile Hair witch abilities?
    • If you're carrying your familiar or riding your mount, and both of you have the Escape Route feat, does that let both of you move everywhere without provoking AoOs?
    • The SRD lists a generic "masterwork tool" (and a number of specific ones, e.g. climbing kit). In PFS games, for which skills is the generic one allowed?
    • Do the new occult classes have retraining synergies with one another, for the purpose of training out a class level? How about with other classes?

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    claudekennilol wrote:
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    This and "The Character can use this (Two Handed Weapon) with One Hand" shenanigans. (TWF with Two Earth Breakers or Wielding an oversized one? Really? ... Uh, no.)
    As has been said in person, just because it wasn't supposed to work that way doesn't mean it doesn't work that way. It's pretty plain that it lets you wield an earthbreaker 1-handed.

    Yep.

    Just not two of them (you only have one Main Hand) or an oversized one (Still a Two Handed Weapon).

    Wield the one in One Hand all day long, though, with or without the Klar.

    As I mentions, it's a niggle.

    Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    claudekennilol wrote:
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    This and "The Character can use this (Two Handed Weapon) with One Hand" shenanigans. (TWF with Two Earth Breakers or Wielding an oversized one? Really? ... Uh, no.)
    As has been said in person, just because it wasn't supposed to work that way doesn't mean it doesn't work that way. It's pretty plain that it lets you wield an earthbreaker 1-handed.

    Yep.

    Just not two of them (you only have one Main Hand) or an oversized one (Still a Two Handed Weapon).

    Wield the one in One Hand all day long, though, with or without the Klar.

    As I mentions, it's a niggle.

    Agreed, for the same reason you can't wield two longswords or two battleaxes. You only have one main hand, after all. ^_^

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

    I mention the Main hand because a Two Handed weapon needs a Main hand to wield it with. When a character wields it with One Hand (being able to do so with a feat), it needs to be with the main hand, as the weapon normally needs a main and off hand to wield it. The character only has one Main Hand. (One Handed weapon can be wielded with an Off Hand)

    I know, some unwritten (inferred, as it is mention in part of the rules here and there) rules.

    A clarification would clear it up for those that look at these feats to find "loopholes" with them.

    Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Hillis Mallory III wrote:
    I mention the Main hand because a Two Handed weapon needs a Main hand to wield it with. When a character wields it with One Hand (being able to do so with a feat), it needs to be with the main hand, as the weapon normally needs a main and off hand to wield it. The character only has one Main Hand. (One Handed weapon can be wielded with an Off Hand)

    Hmm...

    Thunder and Fang wrote:
    You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon.

    So there shouldn't be any issues, what with it being used as a one-handed weapon (much like longswords and battleaxes). ^_^

    Hopefully the Curse of the Crimson Throne Hardcover will give them an excuse to reprint the feat with new wording that matches their intentions.

    551 to 600 of 810 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Let's Be Clear All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.