Let's Be Clear

Kalindlara wrote:

Since I have an Oread boon and very strong motivation to make one of these, another useful clarification would be: Does Shaitan Binder "modify" an eidolon's base form?

My belief is that it doesn't... but it depends on how one uses the term "modifies", and in what context.

I'm pretty sure modify is any change to the base form. Any addition, subtraction, or sideways change.

I'm not sure how adding a +2 to a stat can be viewed as not modifying the base form, since its no longer the same as it was before.

That's what I was referring to with the final line of my post. The definition you reference is what we use when determining whether archetypes stack. But is it the definition we use when determining compatibility with the Unchained Summoner? The archetype clearly functions with the USummoner, so is it intentionally prevented from doing so in PFS?

I figured it was worth bringing to Leadership's attention, in any case. (Given a certain scenario, it's a question that I think will come up again.)

Kaboogy wrote:

An issue that has bothered me quite a bit is how to read Dragon Totem Resilience. RAW it adds 2 to a barbarian's DR per Dragon Totem rage power (plus some other things), but due to how powerful that would be and the general context of the rage power many think it's a typo, and was supposed to be energy resistance. I know that as is I would feel very dirty bringing it to a PFS table without some official source saying how I should read it.

You read it as written. Just because some feel it's over powered doesn't mean it's ambiguous.

It is somewhat confusingly written.

Dragon Totem Resilience (Su): While raging, the barbarian gains resistance to the energy type that is associated with her dragon totem—acid (black, copper, green), cold (silver, white), electricity (blue, bronze), or fire (brass, gold, red). This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one. A barbarian must have the dragon totem rage power and be at least 8th level before selecting this rage power.

Does that mean that when I take it (L8, one previous dragon totem power), I get an additional +4 DR/- while raging? That seems quite a lot, especially if it stacks with invulnerable rager.

Indeed. It's not clear.

I, personally, do not let it increase a Barbarian's actual class granted Damage Reduction.

But, then again, I'm also the person that often points out there is no such thing as "rules as written", and that reading itself is an interpretive action.

By PFS's own house rules, they have pre-emptively banned the Fey Caller archetype that is specifically designed for the Unchained Summoner. That archetype definitely modifies the eidolon -- and they have disallowed the Unchained Summoner from taking archetypes that modify the eidolon.

By PFS's own house rules, they have pre-emptively banned the Fey Caller archetype that is specifically designed for the Unchained Summoner. That archetype definitely modifies the eidolon -- and they have disallowed the Unchained Summoner from taking archetypes that modify the eidolon.

...no

The unchained summoner qualifies for all existing summoner archetypes, save those that modify the eidolon's type or base form.

The new Fey Caller archetype is not preemptively banned.

Indeed. It's not clear.

I, personally, do not let it increase a Barbarian's actual class granted Damage Reduction.

But, then again, I'm also the person that often points out there is no such thing as "rules as written", and that reading itself is an interpretive action.

This is the reason I believe this needs a clarification. A GM at a PFS table may rule that a barb gains no DR from this, and I really could't blame them for it. It's one of the rare cases that even though the language is relatively straight forward, the issue is contested enough to expect some significant table variation.

I'd like to make an official request that the shaitan binder archetype (found here) be declared legal for the unchained summoner's use.

...I'd go on, but someone helpfully laid out the arguments for me. ^_^

Andrew Christian wrote:

Kaboogy wrote:

An issue that has bothered me quite a bit is how to read Dragon Totem Resilience. RAW it adds 2 to a barbarian's DR per Dragon Totem rage power (plus some other things), but due to how powerful that would be and the general context of the rage power many think it's a typo, and was supposed to be energy resistance. I know that as is I would feel very dirty bringing it to a PFS table without some official source saying how I should read it.

You read it as written. Just because some feel it's over powered doesn't mean it's ambiguous.

It is somewhat confusingly written.

Dragon Totem Resilience wrote:

Dragon Totem Resilience (Su): While raging, the barbarian gains resistance to the energy type that is associated with her dragon totem—acid (black, copper, green), cold (silver, white), electricity (blue, bronze), or fire (brass, gold, red). This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one. A barbarian must have the dragon totem rage power and be at least 8th level before selecting this rage power.

Does that mean that when I take it (L8, one previous dragon totem power), I get an additional +4 DR/- while raging? That seems quite a lot, especially if it stacks with invulnerable rager.

It sounds very much like the writer went with a casual usage of what should be very precise game terms again. Many people call energy resistance a form of 'DR', whereas energy resistance and damage resistance are two very different game concepts. As intended, I believe it should be referring to an increase in the energy resistance by two per dragon totem rage power, but as written, it could very well be referring to the damage resistance. *sigh*.

Damage Reduction

Energy Resistance

But, yes, I believe it was an editing mistake.

Damage Reduction

Energy Resistance

But, yes, I believe it was an editing mistake.

Good call. Thanks for the correction.

I posted a couple of questions to the other thread a little while back.

-j

Ok, since we are collecting these now...

Here's a few more. If the developers want detailed argumentation to go with these, please ask.

• Can a ninja take rogue archetypes (that don't trade out trapfinding, which the ninja lacks) and/or monk vows?
  
• Can an arcanist take sub-schools with his School Understanding exploit? What about wild-blooded bloodines with the Bloodline Development exploit?
  
• Does fire (or cold) resistance protect against the effects of climate, such as taking nonlethal damage from traveling through a desert or snowstorm?
  
• Can an arcane caster learn a regional spell (e.g. Detect Charm from Andoran) by visiting that region even if he was born somewhere else? Likewise, can an arcane caster learn a religion-specific spell (e.g. Deadeye's Arrow from Erastil) and then switch worship to another deity?
  
• For the Close Range magus arcana, the summary says "You can use ranged touch attacks as melee touch attacks" but the full text says "You can use rays as melee touch attacks". Since there are ranged touch spells that work exactly like a ray but aren't called a ray (e.g. Snowball), which of the two is correct?
  
• Does a warpriest with the Sacred Fist archetype gain the old-style monk's flurry ability, or the unchained one?
  

I believe that the wild-blooded question, at least, is clear... even if I disagree with the design decision. All of the mutated bloodlines are part of the wildblooded sorcerer archetype, which means:

That's also what I heard, but it really should be in an accessible place. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, bloodlines are an archetype, and bardic masterpieces are also an archetype, but wizard sub-schools are not, and cleric animal/terrain domains aren't either. But it's rather confusingly written.

That's also what I heard, but it really should be in an accessible place. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, bloodlines are an archetype, and bardic masterpieces are also an archetype, but wizard sub-schools are not, and cleric animal/terrain domains aren't either. But it's rather confusingly written.

bardic masterpieces just get traded for a feat or (more often) a spell known. I don't get where thats an archetype?

bardic masterpieces just get traded for a feat or (more often) a spell known. I don't get where thats an archetype?

Well, like I said it's unclear, but d20pfsrd lists it as an archetype. I agree that doesn't make a lot of sense, but then doesn't make sense either for bloodlines, domains, or sub-schools to be an archetype.

The real question is, can non-bards that somehow have bardic performance ability also learn masterpieces? Can non-druids that have a domain also pick an animal domain? Can non-wizards with an arcane school also pick a sub-school?

[

Well, like I said it's unclear, but d20pfsrd lists...

Quoting d20pfsrd is like saying "My friend who knows a lot about the game says..."

Sure he knows a lot, and is right way more often than not, but he makes mistakes and his opinion is just that, another person's opinion, not actual evidence in support of a position.

Can we do this without the condescending snark? Thank you.

The same is true of Monk Vows, which incorrectly get listed as an archetype on d20pfsrd.

This section introduces monk vows, which any user of ki can take to increase his ki pool. Following the vows is a new archetype, the qinggong monk, who can learn unusual uses of ki.

Of course, vows are further complicated, because they replace the still mind class feature, which not every user of ki has. So it becomes a question of whether or not you can take them if you don't have still mind, or if you only lose still mind if you would have had it, and other classes (like Ninja) can just take vows without losing anything. At any rate, nowhere in the section on Monk Vows does it say they are an archetype, just like the masterpieces are not an archetype.

Can we do this without the condescending snark? Thank you.

I fail to see where there is any condescending snark in the post above yours?

d20PFSRD is not a legal source. Use the PRD on Paizo's site here for rules legality on the sources posted. Go to the original text of the book or PDF for actual rules and classifications. This is why the player must provide a copy at the table for the GM to reference when the material is used.

Bloodlines and Bardic Masterpieces are not archetypes; they are class features for the classes that have them. Wildblooded (scroll down to near the bottom) is an archetype that allows some different bloodlines for sorcerers.

edit: corrected site reference.

• Can an arcane caster learn a regional spell (e.g. Detect Charm from Andoran) by visiting that region even if he was born somewhere else? Likewise, can an arcane caster learn a religion-specific spell (e.g. Deadeye's Arrow from Erastil) and then switch worship to another deity?

Since even divine casters aren't restricted to spells associated with their deity, I'd like to know why you think arcane casters are?

There are still a few religion restricted spells out there. Which reminds me of a clarification request:
Dwarves of Golarion (and possibly other race books) still has a bunch of religion specific spells, while all other religion specific restrictions have been lifted.
I really want to use Watchful Eye more broadly.

There are still a few religion restricted spells out there. Which reminds me of a clarification request:

Dwarves of Golarion (and possibly other race books) still has a bunch of religion specific spells, while all other religion specific restrictions have been lifted.
I really want to use Watchful Eye more broadly.

That's true, I guess. I was thinking specifically of Inner Sea Gods not having any restriction.

Markov Spiked Chain wrote:

There are still a few religion restricted spells out there. Which reminds me of a clarification request:

Dwarves of Golarion (and possibly other race books) still has a bunch of religion specific spells, while all other religion specific restrictions have been lifted.
I really want to use Watchful Eye more broadly.

That's true, I guess. I was thinking specifically of Inner Sea Gods not having any restriction.

In addition, up until Inner Sea Gods, most of the spells reprinted therein were under that restriction as well; that may be fueling confusion.

I know I was glad when channel vigor became available to more than just Irorans - that spell is bonkers. ^_^

The Brood of Torag spells are one of the best things about worshipping Torag. 2nd to getting to shout "Torag!" a lot.

Invigorating Repose is another good one. And Mighty Strength for a melee cleric.

EDIT: I have a hard time picking just one of the Brood of Torag spells. I would take all three of those every day if I could.

Wait. Spells tied to a specific deity aren't restricted to their worshipers any more? How did I miss that?

Wait. Spells tied to a specific deity aren't restricted to their worshipers any more? How did I miss that?

I dunno. ^_^

(It's a minor note in ISG, and only applies to that source; no changes have been made to other sources, such as Dwarves of Golarion.)

Fromper wrote:

Wait. Spells tied to a specific deity aren't restricted to their worshipers any more? How did I miss that?

I dunno. ^_^

(It's a minor note in ISG, and only applies to that source; no changes have been made to other sources, such as Dwarves of Golarion.)

Wait, what?! *looks it up*

The deities of Golarion grant a diverse range of spells to their followers, and many of those spells also have arcane forms. The following chapter details new spells that are known in Golarion, both ones specific to individual deities and those with

more general use.

Many of the spells in this chapter originated with the faithful of a particular deity and are more common among the worshipers of that god. Such spells are denoted with the god's name in parentheses after the spell's name. Worshipers of a spell's associated deity always treat the spell as common, and need not research it in order to prepare or learn it. Despite this, all the spells in this chapter are available to members of other faiths, though some temples or religious organizations may proscribe the use of specific spells. Additionally, arcane spellcasters have unlocked the secrets of casting particular spells.

The other spells presented in this section are not preferred by a specific deity and fit thematically with the churches of several gods.

Okay, so there's a specific exception for Inner Sea Gods. Even so, that's quite something.

Does a Kineticists Internal Buffer start charged between sessions?

How will we know when this document is updated?

How will we know when this document is updated?

I saw a post where John said (this was like a month ago so hopefully I'm remembering it accurately) that they intended to update this alongside the additional resources doc. But that didn't happen last time though so I would like to know this as well.

I want to confirm whether some errata to variant dhampir from Blood of the Night should be used for PFS.

http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fq#v5748eaic9qy5

Are official blog post FAQ's or Errata updates legal for Pathfinder Society Organized Play?

Yes. Please follow these clarifications.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qfqj?Can-Something-Be-Done-About-Variant -Dhampir#34

Can Something Be Done About Variant Dhampir Errors?

Patrick Renie Developer Jun 3, 2014, 01:41 pm
Hi!
First off, apologies for the long delay in an official reply to this matter.
Second off, after taking a look into this, I've found that yes, there are some issues with the variant dhampir racial ability modifiers from pages 20–21 of Blood of the Night.
To rectify some obvious oversights and make the ability modifiers of jiang-shi-born and vetala-born dhampirs more in line with their flavor text, use the following errata:
Jiang-Shi-Born (Ru-Shi): +2 Str, +2 Int, –2 Dex
Vetala-Born (Ajibachana): +2 Dex, +2 Int, –2 Wis
Interestingly, while jiang-shi themselves boast high Dexterity scores (representing their ability to hop around the battlefield quickly without being hindered by such obstacles as difficult terrain), jiang-shi-born lack this dextrous trait (and are indeed clumsier than most dhampirs), likely because they are able to walk on both legs and have some sort of physiological disconnect between their unique undead lineage and their mortal physicality. This is represented by the penalty to Dexterity.
A ru-shi's physical gifts do not manifest in a Constitution bonus (in fact, ru-shi are often even sicklier than most dhampirs as a result of their constantly rotting internal organs). However, ru-shi do manage to inherit some of the unnatural strength of their undead forebears, represented by the racial bonus to Strength.
Hopefully these corrections were worth the wait and clear up the discrepancies. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask here and I'll get back to you as soon as possible (much sooner than this long-overdue reply, for sure :]).
Happy dhampiring!

Given that this is an "official reply" to "use the following errata" I assume this should be used for PFS dhampirs but want to confirm before I go ahead and play a dhampir with one or the other affected variant.

Given that this is an "official reply" to "use the following errata" I assume this should be used for PFS dhampirs but want to confirm before I go ahead and play a dhampir with one or the other affected variant.

The current stance is to use it as printed in the Player Companion. That post was not by Campaign Management on the PFS forums so is not official for PFS. As to the quote you posted, that post is neither an official blog post nor an official errata.

That being said, I believe in Inner Sea Races the corrected stats were printed so if you want that bloodline and those stats in then you'll need ISR.

The set of stats for variant heritages from Blood of the Night are legal as is, as are the set of variant heritages from Inner Sea Races. This can lead to some goofy occasions where you have two Ru-Shi at the table that are superficially the same but with different bonuses, but for now we just go with it.

Mike Lindner wrote:

Given that this is an "official reply" to "use the following errata" I assume this should be used for PFS dhampirs but want to confirm before I go ahead and play a dhampir with one or the other affected variant.

The current stance is to use it as printed in the Player Companion. That post was not by Campaign Management on the PFS forums so is not official for PFS. As to the quote you posted, that post is neither an official blog post nor an official errata.

That being said, I believe in Inner Sea Races the corrected stats were printed so if you want that bloodline and those stats in then you'll need ISR.

It is official errata posted by a developer, so IMO it should be used in PFS.

claudekennilol wrote:

Mike Lindner wrote:

Given that this is an "official reply" to "use the following errata" I assume this should be used for PFS dhampirs but want to confirm before I go ahead and play a dhampir with one or the other affected variant.

The current stance is to use it as printed in the Player Companion. That post was not by Campaign Management on the PFS forums so is not official for PFS. As to the quote you posted, that post is neither an official blog post nor an official errata.

That being said, I believe in Inner Sea Races the corrected stats were printed so if you want that bloodline and those stats in then you'll need ISR.

It is official errata posted by a developer, so IMO it should be used in PFS.

It is not an official errata though, it is the author for that bit saying "this is how it should have been" which is fine for a home game but does not change things for PFS. If it did, then this bit in the Additional Resources page under the entry for Inner Sea Races would be unnecessary:

Races: A dhamphir or skinwalker PC can use the following different statistics as alternate racial options supported by the Pathfinder Society Organized Play campaign rather than those options that appear in Blood of the Moon and Blood of the Night: jiang-shi born, vetala-born, wereboar-kin, and werecrocodile-kin.

You can certainly petition to have the changes from the author be made legal for PFS. But for now this is the way it is.

Edit: There's also the issue of rebuilds. If they adopted the errata, it would force a number of rebuilds for a number of people as their characters get upended by some stealth errata. It is a lot cleaner/easier to just have the two differing sources both be legal.

claudekennilol wrote:

Mike Lindner wrote:

Given that this is an "official reply" to "use the following errata" I assume this should be used for PFS dhampirs but want to confirm before I go ahead and play a dhampir with one or the other affected variant.

The current stance is to use it as printed in the Player Companion. That post was not by Campaign Management on the PFS forums so is not official for PFS. As to the quote you posted, that post is neither an official blog post nor an official errata.

That being said, I believe in Inner Sea Races the corrected stats were printed so if you want that bloodline and those stats in then you'll need ISR.

It is official errata posted by a developer, so IMO it should be used in PFS.

This isn't me trying to be rude or start a fight, but just because it's your opinion that it should be so doesn't mean it is so. PFS is very clear that only errata, FAQs, specific subset of blog posts, and posts by PFS Campaign Management are official for PFS. So until that changes it's pretty clear what is and what isn't official.

I'd much rather it be the way it is now instead of also having to know about posts by even more people being considered official.

edit: There's also the additional resources page and this campaign clarifications doc. So that's further evidence there's already enough (or too many) places to look for official rulings without further complicating it by adding more.

edit: There's also the additional resources page and this campaign clarifications doc. So that's further evidence there's already enough (or too many) places to look for official rulings without further complicating it by adding more.

There are indeed way too many places to look already. Which is why I think all the relevant forum posts should be added to this clarifications doc here.

For that matter, the "additional resources" page also contains some stealth errata that should really be in this document here instead.

Ah, it does appear we need a way to announce that we've made changes to the Campaign Clarifications document—not sure if posting in this thread is necessarily the right place for it.

Either way, the document is now updated as of April 7, 2016. Thanks to Chris Lambertz's efforts, you can now read the document directly from our website through link at the top of the Additional Resources page. You can also go directly to the Campaign Clarifications document if you like.

Now that we're making updates to the document, I'll make a note that it's worth our making it easier to identify recent changes.

So apparently this was updated on Friday.

So apparently this was updated on Friday.

I'm not sure what gives you that impression.

Ah, it does appear we need a way to announce that we've made changes to the Campaign Clarifications document—not sure if posting in this thread is necessarily the right place for it.

Either way, the document is now updated as of April 7, 2016. Thanks to Chris Lambertz's efforts, you can now read the document directly from our website through link at the top of the Additional Resources page. You can also go directly to the Campaign Clarifications document if you like.

Now that we're making updates to the document, I'll make a note that it's worth our making it easier to identify recent changes.

Is there a way of getting new changes highlighted the way additional resources does to make checking for new updates a bit easier?

Is there a way of getting new changes highlighted the way additional resources does to make checking for new updates a bit easier?

+1

On the topic of my dhampir racial variant question.

First off, I had no idea the variants were even republished as I do not own Inner Sea Races. And which way this goes doesn't matter to me since I can use a fitting racial variant either way. I would just like to be certain what the rules are before I bring the character to a game.

More generally though, to the best of my knowledge Paizo doesn't publish errata for the Player Companion line of books in a formal way (only the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line gets this treatment I think). So if a Paizo developer explicitly providing an "official reply" to "use the following errata" is not sufficient, then it is impossible for a Paizo developer to correct issues in the vast majority of the books they publish in a PFS-legal way while still following their own policies, apart from bugging John and Tonya to fix it for PFS specifically.

Back to this case, I posted to this thread to hopefully have an entry added to the campaign clarifications document or additional resources to clarify whether players should use the errata or not when Blood of the Night is the source for the racial variant.

So if a Paizo developer explicitly providing an "official reply" to "use the following errata" is not sufficient, then it is impossible for a Paizo developer to correct issues in the vast majority of the books they publish in a PFS-legal way while still following their own policies, apart from bugging John and Tonya to fix it for PFS specifically.

This is correct. It's a not-infrequently criticized aspect of Paizo policy.

Mike Lindner wrote:

So if a Paizo developer explicitly providing an "official reply" to "use the following errata" is not sufficient, then it is impossible for a Paizo developer to correct issues in the vast majority of the books they publish in a PFS-legal way while still following their own policies, apart from bugging John and Tonya to fix it for PFS specifically.

This is correct. It's a not-infrequently criticized aspect of Paizo policy.

It would be nice if the PFS FAQ entry more clearly defined what is an official errata.

Edit: It occurs to me I may be misreading the PFS FAQ entry as "official blog post FAQ's or official Errata updates" instead of "official blog post FAQ's or official blog post Errata updates." The latter is much narrower in scope, and so it would not apply to general messageboard posts.

On the topic of my dhampir racial variant question.

First off, I had no idea the variants were even republished as I do not own Inner Sea Races. And which way this goes doesn't matter to me since I can use a fitting racial variant either way. I would just like to be certain what the rules are before I bring the character to a game.

More generally though, to the best of my knowledge Paizo doesn't publish errata for the Player Companion line of books in a formal way (only the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line gets this treatment I think). So if a Paizo developer explicitly providing an "official reply" to "use the following errata" is not sufficient, then it is impossible for a Paizo developer to correct issues in the vast majority of the books they publish in a PFS-legal way while still following their own policies, apart from bugging John and Tonya to fix it for PFS specifically.

Back to this case, I posted to this thread to hopefully have an entry added to the campaign clarifications document or additional resources to clarify whether players should use the errata or not when Blood of the Night is the source for the racial variant.

This issue was brought up a while back, by me, and that is what resulted in the addition to the Additional Resources document that both versions of those racial variants fixed in ISR were legal in both books.

In Vogue (Ex)...A vigilante must be at least 5th level and have both the double time and social grace social talents to take this talent.

Talents: The social and vigilante talents are legal for play except double time. The in vogue social talent doubles the gold earned when using Craft or Profession for a Day Job...

Emphasis mine.

It looks like 'In Vogue' is legal in PFS but has the illegal 'Double Time' as a prerequisite. Am I reading this right? If so, should we just ignore the 'Double Time' as a prerequisite or is there another?

Thanks in advance!

Mike Lindner wrote:

On the topic of my dhampir racial variant question.

First off, I had no idea the variants were even republished as I do not own Inner Sea Races. And which way this goes doesn't matter to me since I can use a fitting racial variant either way. I would just like to be certain what the rules are before I bring the character to a game.

More generally though, to the best of my knowledge Paizo doesn't publish errata for the Player Companion line of books in a formal way (only the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game line gets this treatment I think). So if a Paizo developer explicitly providing an "official reply" to "use the following errata" is not sufficient, then it is impossible for a Paizo developer to correct issues in the vast majority of the books they publish in a PFS-legal way while still following their own policies, apart from bugging John and Tonya to fix it for PFS specifically.

Back to this case, I posted to this thread to hopefully have an entry added to the campaign clarifications document or additional resources to clarify whether players should use the errata or not when Blood of the Night is the source for the racial variant.

This issue was brought up a while back, by me, and that is what resulted in the addition to the Additional Resources document that both versions of those racial variants fixed in ISR were legal in both books.

That is good to know. I guess I just find it distasteful that a Paizo developer admits that something should be fixed (a defect in the product), but the only way to actually use that fix in the Paizo campaign (PFS) is to purchase an additional book to fix the first book.