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
101 to 150 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 3/5

Nefreet wrote:
Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:
Protoman wrote:
Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.
You may sell back boots of the earth for a full refund.
I don't normally ask why something was banned, errata'd, or nerfed, but why did the team feel this item needed attention? I've only ever seen Life Oracles with it.

I have a monk character who was planning to buy a pair, but not any more. :(

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

I was considering them for Neil, but they felt very anti-thematic for him.

The one thing I can figure out is that they could be disruptive on a barbarian.

Consider that a barbarian in PFS can easily have over 100 HP, up into 200 if they really work at it. And they often spend those HP in place of armor. Can you just imagine if someone was stopping after every combat for 10 to 20 minutes of fast healing, while everyone else twiddled their thumbs and ran out their buffs?

*

Thanks Linda et al!

I would have been happy with a stickied thread similar to BNW's spoiler, but an actual document to have on hand when internet is out is awesome! Thank you.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm not against asking for new clarifications, but can we please for the love of Aroden focus on a compilation of previous rulings that are currently buried somewhere in the morass of (un)dead threads?

** spoiler omitted **...

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Netherlands

Hmm wrote:
Why not offer an oatmeal cookie instead? Or would that go against PFS rules on reskins?

Nah, I just havent baked those yet. I'm planning those for the weekend (with cranberries in them, he can have those)

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

8 people marked this as a favorite.

There are lots of good queries. I do want to note that not all of them are necessarily ones that this document is intended to handle, though they are nonetheless important questions to address somewhere. I know of five major places where rules clarifications might be codified.

  • The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide
  • The Pathfinder Society FAQ
  • The Pathfinder Society Campaign Clarifications Document
  • [Assorted Pathfinder RPG FAQ (most of the hardcover books Paizo has published have their own FAQ sections)]
  • Pathfinder RPG errata

    It's important that we manage what goes into each of these so that users can find information easily and so that those who need to have that information are most likely to be exposed to it. Any absolutely essential campaign rules (e.g. character building guidelines, filling out a Chronicle sheet, earning credit) should show up in the Guide. Rules clarifications that apply to a campaign element that spans multiple books or character concepts probably belongs in the Pathfinder Society FAQ, as these are not relevant to just one resource. Clarifications that apply primarily to one book (e.g. how the organized play campaign addresses a character option's ambiguity or adapts a rules subsystem for use) are great fits for the Campaign Clarifications Document. Clarifications regarding overarching rules deeply imbedded in the Pathfinder RPG line (e.g. Core Rulebook and Ultimate Magic) are better handled by the Pathfinder design team except where there is an organized play clarification necessary to utilize those rules elements properly.

    As Linda noted in the blog, many of the clarifications in this document are ones where a book's developer chimed in online to answer a question about—or unofficially revise—a rules element he or she developed, and we are compiling them for official campaign use. Others are ones pulled virtually verbatim from the Additional Resources page (we found ourselves having to add clarification text there and felt it wasn't always the best use of space). This document might even be a good place to move the rules for the retraining rules in Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Campaign. My inclination for larger campaign leadership clarifications is that those should go in the FAQ (which I acknowledge needs attention).

    When it comes to handling bigger concepts such as how light and darkness interact, how a central rules concept operates, or the like, we defer to the design team and prefer that those clarifications go through that team's review and FAQ process—especially because those rules can affect multiple aspects of the game beyond a single feat, for example. There might be times when this document addresses some smaller scale ambiguities in the RPG hardcover books, but even then I intend to vet those decisions with the designers.

    Keep the ideas coming.

  • 5/5 5/55/55/5

    The racial heritage feat needs a warning sticker to double check the math on the availability of what you want to take next. Due to the (sometimes headache inducing) additional resources restrictions with regards to race some of the things people want to take with that feat aren't available with it.

    Scarab Sages 4/5 5/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Nefreet wrote:
    Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:
    Protoman wrote:
    Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.
    You may sell back boots of the earth for a full refund.
    I don't normally ask why something was banned, errata'd, or nerfed, but why did the team feel this item needed attention? I've only ever seen Life Oracles with it.

    Those boots were the cheapest way of healing myself. Although it was starting to take close to an hour...

    But it's OK. I'll just a ring of regeneration now.

    Grand Lodge 5/5

    Super Cool! Thanks for putting this doc together! We all encounter the gray areas - with PC builds or in the heat of a game - and the extra clarity is always great!

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Of course this comes out a week after i buy Boots of the Earth for my Oradin :( Ah well i'll just splurge on a ring of regeneration instead i suppose.

    Nice to see more clarification on certain grey areas of the game though :D Keep up the good work Paizo.

    1/5

    Nefreet wrote:
    Linda Zayas-Palmer wrote:
    Protoman wrote:
    Yea I'd wanna know if the Boots of the Earth clarification counts as 'PFS' errata so that I can full-gp refund on it.
    You may sell back boots of the earth for a full refund.
    I don't normally ask why something was banned, errata'd, or nerfed, but why did the team feel this item needed attention? I've only ever seen Life Oracles with it.

    I'm one of those life oracles. I've tried to use the combo to its fullest in a Reign of Winter campaign, and while it is useful it hasn't quite seemed OP.

    It can't really be used in combat to much effectiveness (only fast healing 1 - that's not much healing for 1 round) - it was mostly used to save healing resources in between encounters. It worked pretty well in earlier levels, but as we progressed it became more common that melee would have big buffs on them with time constraints (e.g., Enlarge Person) that we would often want to save in hopes it would be active in the next encounter. Meaning - there *is* a sacrifice to using this combo. If you use it, the group loses time with existing buffs, and that does matter.

    At the same time, I do see the reasoning in adding a 'cap' to its use - I just wish it wasn't so extreme. I think by making it once a day, it will now become one of those items that no one ever buys.

    Scarab Sages 4/5

    Jeff Merola wrote:
    Steven Lau wrote:
    Wow significant raise in the price of ammunition of Gunslingers...
    No? That's the rule that it's always been (listed price in this case is talking about the feat's listed discount, not normal purchase price). It's literally just copied and pasted from the AR page.

    I'm already seeing people telling their local areas this was a price increase (not any venture officers yet, I don't think). Does this clarification need a clarification? I'm fairly sure the cost of ammo for Gunslingers was not meant to change, but in this case it seems like the clarification document has made things unclear to some players.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

    Which is weird, because I believe that was the exact same language as in the AR

    3/5

    Ultimate Combat

    p. 19 - Resolve / Determined. At 8th level this ability states that a Samurai may use a standard action to remove the Nauseated condition, which only allows a move action.

    Dragon Empires Primer

    p. 29 - Tapestry's Embrace is a non-existant bonus spell for the Void Elemental School. Call the Void is a spell described as "a new spell that exemplifies the dark powers of the void", which is not listed as a void spell.

    ... edit: also, as never answered: Grenadier Alchemist from Monster Codex has the same text as that in the Pathfinder Field Guide (excepting that it states it is an archtype often taken by hobgoblins), but only one is legal.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    A Warpriest must that also has Cleric Domains must choose Blessings to match those Domains.

    How does this interact with:

    Any other Class that grants Domains? Unless otherwise stated, those Classes work just like Clerics, so can take SubDomains, or the Domains function the same way they do for Clerics.

    A <Non-Warpriest> Archetype that removes/alters Domains? Does the <Cleric> Archetype that removes a Domain affect both the Cleric and the Warpriest, sort of a double wammy?

    What happens when it's the Warpriest Archetype that alters the Blessings. For example the Liberty's Blade Archetype from Adv Class Origins specifies they must take the Liberation Blessing, (and the Warpriest itself specifies Blessing must match Domains). What if the other Domain granting class is the Inquisitor or Druid and can't access the Liberation Domain (normally)?

    -

    If you have a BaB of +1 or higher, can you draw a scroll <of Breath of Life> or a potion as part of the Move Action?

    -

    This is a big one I see table variation on: As an Undead Creature, do Haunts grant a Know Religion check to identify in addition to their Notice Check?

    -

    For Aid Another, "In cases where the skill restricts who can achieve certain results, such as trying to open a lock using Disable Device, you can’t aid another to grant a bonus to a task that your character couldn’t achieve alone."

    The brief example given doesn't clarify it by much. For example, can you not use Disable Device to Aid Another if you are not trained in Disable Device? Or that the DC is beyond what you could possibly achieve? Both?

    I've seen table variation on both, mainly because the primary use of Aid Another in PFS is to work together to do things that no one individually can (or likely will) be able to roll.

    -

    Light vs Darkness. The last Blog just seemed to muck things up and cause even more issues.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    John Compton wrote:

    There are lots of good queries. I do want to note that not all of them are necessarily ones that this document is intended to handle, though they are nonetheless important questions to address somewhere. I know of five major places where rules clarifications might be codified.

    • The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide
    • The Pathfinder Society FAQ
    • The Pathfinder Society Campaign Clarifications Document
    • [Assorted Pathfinder RPG FAQ (most of the hardcover books Paizo has published have their own FAQ sections)]
    • Pathfinder RPG errata

    At first glance, this seems like quite a LOT of places where it can go.

    I think it's worth considering merging the clarifications document with the FAQ, treating the FAQ more as a living document than as a web page (more below).

    That cuts down the number of different places we have to look a bit. The next step would be hunting down any on-forum rulings and assimilating them into the Clarifications.

    Eventually you can hopefully go into a situation where you can declare all older rulings than the date of the most recent Clarifications to be obsolete; if it's not in the clarifications, it was dropped intentionally. Moving forward, any time you make a ruling, you can add to that "and this will be added to the next version of the Clarifications".

    That way, if you have the Guild Guide, official FAQs, Clarifications and Errata, you can be reasonably certain that that is all; if it's not in there, then it hasn't been ruled upon and the thing works just as written. No surprises.

    John Compton wrote:
    It's important that we manage what goes into each of these so that users can find information easily and so that those who need to have that information are most likely to be exposed to it. Any absolutely essential campaign rules (e.g. character building guidelines, filling out a Chronicle sheet, earning credit) should show up in the Guide. Rules clarifications that apply to a campaign element that spans multiple books or character concepts probably belongs in the Pathfinder Society FAQ, as these are not relevant to just one resource. Clarifications that apply primarily to one book (e.g. how the organized play campaign addresses a character option's ambiguity or adapts a rules subsystem for use) are great fits for the Campaign Clarifications Document.

    The Guild Guide sets down the basic rules for PFS, and the Clarifications covers the odd cases.

    John Compton wrote:
    Clarifications regarding overarching rules deeply embedded in the Pathfinder RPG line (e.g. Core Rulebook and Ultimate Magic) are better handled by the Pathfinder design team except where there is an organized play clarification necessary to utilize those rules elements properly.

    This is currently working reasonably clearly, especially after the move away from forum rulings, and towards basing it on the FAQ only.

    John Compton wrote:
    As Linda noted in the blog, many of the clarifications in this document are ones where a book's developer chimed in online to answer a question about—or unofficially revise—a rules element he or she developed, and we are compiling them for official campaign use. Others are ones pulled virtually verbatim from the Additional Resources page (we found ourselves having to add clarification text there and felt it wasn't always the best use of space).

    I think it would be a good place to add annotations in the Additional Resources that "this item is featured in the Clarifications" in all such cases. Otherwise a bland "this item is allowed" note in the AR might give the impression that it's simply allowed with no further ado.

    John Compton wrote:
    This document might even be a good place to move the rules for the retraining rules in Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Campaign. My inclination for larger campaign leadership clarifications is that those should go in the FAQ (which I acknowledge needs attention).

    I personally think the split between Clarifications and FAQ is very arbitrary. It's yet another document to keep tabs on. Consolidation is good. And documents are easier to (partially) print than web pages.

    But what I actually desire most is that this becomes a document that is added to your My Downloads page, so that you automatically get a notification if a newer version is made available. That way, news will spread faster.

    In addition, such documents are watermarked with a datestamp, so that if you find a printed copy lying around, you can see if it's sufficiently current.

    John Compton wrote:
    When it comes to handling bigger concepts such as how light and darkness interact, how a central rules concept operates, or the like, we defer to the design team and prefer that those clarifications go through that team's review and FAQ process—especially because those rules can affect multiple aspects of the game beyond a single feat, for example. There might be times when this document addresses some smaller scale ambiguities in the RPG hardcover books, but even then I intend to vet those decisions with the designers.

    This approach is working well so far, as I see it.

    John Compton wrote:
    Keep the ideas coming.

    I'm very glad this is now being worked on.

    Grand Lodge 3/5

    I assume these rules are active now, even though they haven't gone into Additional Resources yet? Or is that last line just saying "this hasn't made anything mentioned here legal yet."

    Specifically, I should be selling back my Boots of the Earth at my game tonight, I don't need to wait for the Additional Resources update, right?

    Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

    I must say that ya'll have much better questions than I do heh - the ones I'm unclear on are much more mundane than most of the ones I've seen on this thread:

    Aasimar Incorruptible trait wording
    Oathbound Paladin Spell Slot?
    Hellknight Smite wording
    Gust of Wind vs. Obscuring Mist
    How to Parry Spell?
    Sap Adept and Sap Master (probably just me not reading it clearly)

    *

    John Compton wrote:

    There are lots of good queries. I do want to note that not all of them are necessarily ones that this document is intended to handle, though they are nonetheless important questions to address somewhere. I know of five major places where rules clarifications might be codified.

  • The Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide
  • The Pathfinder Society FAQ
  • The Pathfinder Society Campaign Clarifications Document
  • [Assorted Pathfinder RPG FAQ (most of the hardcover books Paizo has published have their own FAQ sections)]
  • Pathfinder RPG errata
  • The designers left some rules vague so that a GM could best interpret for their game. These 'expect table variation' which are not always a good option for PFS GMs. The Campaign Clarifications document seems like the ideal place to list rulings declared by the coordinators to remain 'ETV' Or to remove table variation for PFS GMs by declaring 'this' interpretation vs. 'that' interpretation.

    Some of these look like could they could be in a product FAQ, leaving this document for PFS specific rulings. Perhaps Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Campaign setting and APs all need their own FAQ, ,but that is another thread. Still, after having a chance to peruse, and I do like what is here, and I most greatly appreciate it being in a single location. :)

    Dark Archive 5/5

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths of Purity; Page 18

    Quote:
    ....You might come from any class (except cleric or paldin, for Apsu does not grant spells);....

    It's been stated that this was some sort of weird error by James Jacobs in this thread. This might be a good candidate for the book for some official clarification!

    Scarab Sages 4/5 **

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    The undersized mount feat still needs a kick to work for paladins and cavaliers in PFS. It makes a human with a riding dog legal by the rules but not by PFSs ability to select a mount.

    Multiple class features (and archetype) would need to be re-written, not just Paladins and Cavaliers (Nature Oracle and Ghost Rider Cavalier come to mind). I have always felt that Undersize Mount is designed to work with Reduce Animal potions/scrolls (that is how I use it).

    IMHO, there's only so much PFS can accommodate - home games are best at dealing with character ideas that cannot be represented with the rules as written.

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    grandpoobah wrote:
    BigNorseWolf wrote:
    The undersized mount feat still needs a kick to work for paladins and cavaliers in PFS. It makes a human with a riding dog legal by the rules but not by PFSs ability to select a mount.
    Multiple class features (and archetype) would need to be re-written, not just Paladins and Cavaliers (Nature Oracle and Ghost Rider Cavalier come to mind). I have always felt that Undersize Mount is designed to work with Reduce Animal potions/scrolls (that is how I use it).

    There is nothing in the feat to indicate this. Quite the opposite.

    You've learned techniques that allow you to ride beasts of smaller sizes than normal.

    Quote:
    IMHO, there's only so much PFS can accommodate - home games are best at dealing with character ideas that cannot be represented with the rules as written.

    ...this makes no sense. PFS can accommodate a human riding around on a magically shrunken horse but not a human riding around on a pony? The feat only has a problem because of some really technical rules minutia that most people don't notice and would be fixed with "the undersized mount feat opens up other mount options available to creatures one size smaller than your normal size"

    Grand Lodge 4/5

    Maybe the clarification document could include Josh Frost's post, or the basic understanding of it, that the 1 and 2 PP purchases bypass the Fame spending limits, without bypassing the PFS Legal requirement of the purchase.

    Also, whether said item could be upgraded, while still remaining unsellable. Classic example, the 730 gp "cost" for a darkwood masterwork composite longbow (Str +3). Could it have magical enhancements added to it (+1, Flaming, etc.), or can that only be done to a regularly purchased item?

    Seeking: Can it be applied to a bow/crossbow, and affect the arrow/bolt being fired?

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

    kinevon wrote:
    Seeking: Can it be applied to a bow/crossbow, and affect the arrow/bolt being fired?

    Linkified.

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

    I'll have to spend some time digging around for those 18 posts now. BNW and others have covered most of the ones I was thinking of.

    4/5 *

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Quote:
    This is a big one I see table variation on: As an Undead Creature, do Haunts grant a Know Religion check to identify in addition to their Notice Check?

    They aren't creatures, so no.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    Librain wrote:
    I'd like to know: can you carry a loaded crossbow around with you through a dungeon?

    Depends. Are you are asking if you can carry an equipped, loaded crossbow around? I've never heard anyone say no. I don't understand how you could rule no. However, if you are asking if you can carry a stored, loaded crossbow, most in my experience say no. There is nothing to hold the bolt in place while the crossbow is stored. So, typically you will need a move action to equip (draw) the crossbow, and another move action to load it, then a standard action to fire it.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Serisan wrote:
    As someone with an orange belt in jujitsu, I can choke someone out (i.e. render unconscious) in under 12 seconds

    To be fair, real life has never been a good example of how something should work in a fantasy game. Although, if you want to use that, then perhaps better than than making "clarifications" on the intent of a feat, there should be a ruling on how "holding your breath" works. There is a big difference between taking a deep breath and holding it, which is what many feel the suffocation rules represents (2 rounds per point of Constitution) vs. being "surprised" by having to hold your breath. Meaning, in game terms, its not your turn and your enemy, environment, whatever forced you to suddenly hold your breath without the controlled opportunity to gulp a deep breath.

    If "holding your breath" is a non-action or immediate, then yes, I can see this rule nerfing the feat to the point of not taking. OTOH, if taking a deep breath is a free-action, you can only do it on your turn. So if someone puts you into a condition of suffocation, you only get the two-turn opportunity to act before you die. While the latter might simulate real-life a bit more accurately, its probably too OP and not in the best interest of the game. YMMV

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    How many replayers can you use to fill out a table? 1 2 3 ?

    5/5 5/55/55/5

    Three rounds of the "grapple to deal damage" option will knock most people out via subdual damage.

    Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

    TJ Brooks wrote:

    Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths of Purity; Page 18

    Quote:
    ....You might come from any class (except cleric or paldin, for Apsu does not grant spells);....
    It's been stated that this was some sort of weird error by James Jacobs in this thread. This might be a good candidate for the book for some official clarification!

    That's got to be a mistake, because Inner Sea Gods has a feat meant for them; Divine Barrier.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Serisan wrote:
    As someone with an orange belt in jujitsu, I can choke someone out (i.e. render unconscious) in under 12 seconds
    To be fair, real life has never been a good example of how something should work in a fantasy game. Although, if you want to use that, then perhaps better than than making "clarifications" on the intent of a feat, there should be a ruling on how "holding your breath" works. There is a big difference between taking a deep breath and holding it, which is what many feel the suffocation rules represents (2 rounds per point of Constitution) vs. being "surprised" by having to hold your breath. Meaning, in game terms, its not your turn and your enemy, environment, whatever forced you to suddenly hold your breath without the controlled opportunity to gulp a deep breath.

    Actually, that isn't really relevant.

    The reason you can choke someone out in 1-2 "rounds" in real life, is that in real life you are cutting off the blood flow to their brain, not the air to their lungs.

    If they were going to model that, it should probably be an immediate save or suck effect with an escalating DC.

    What they are really modeling is a cinematic choke hold. Think the scene in princess Bride where The Man in Black wrestles Fezzik.

    Dark Archive 5/5

    Ascalaphus wrote:
    TJ Brooks wrote:

    Pathfinder Player Companion: Faiths of Purity; Page 18

    Quote:
    ....You might come from any class (except cleric or paldin, for Apsu does not grant spells);....
    It's been stated that this was some sort of weird error by James Jacobs in this thread. This might be a good candidate for the book for some official clarification!
    That's got to be a mistake, because Inner Sea Gods has a feat meant for them; Divine Barrier.

    Yeah, James Jacobs said it was an error and wasn't sure how that got in there, but it was never documented outside that forum post.

    Just the other day I told someone who was a paladin of Apsu that he didn't grants spells and would need to change dieties. If I hadn't found his section in Inner Sea gods and then did some research on it, I wouldn't have been able to correct my mistake.

    It's a good candidate for clarification in the book for PFS play.

    Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

    The fact that he gets an article in the upcoming Inner Sea Faiths would probably make things pretty clear as well. ^_^

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

    Jared Thaler wrote:
    Choke

    Or maybe the feat is intended to simulate exactly that and the fact that we have an undefined action called "hold your breath" the feat doesn't work as intended. The point, there is at least some ambiguity regarding suffocation and restricting a feat does not get us any closer to formulating general rules for how to adjudicate.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    GM Lamplighter wrote:
    Quote:
    This is a big one I see table variation on: As an Undead Creature, do Haunts grant a Know Religion check to identify in addition to their Notice Check?
    They aren't creatures, so no.
    prd wrote:


    Haunts
    The distinction between a trap and an undead creature blurs when you introduce a haunt—

    They also do react to spells that do not otherwise affect objects, so table variation.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5

    kinevon wrote:

    Maybe the clarification document could include Josh Frost's post, or the basic understanding of it, that the 1 and 2 PP purchases bypass the Fame spending limits, without bypassing the PFS Legal requirement of the purchase.

    Also, whether said item could be upgraded, while still remaining unsellable. Classic example, the 730 gp "cost" for a darkwood masterwork composite longbow (Str +3). Could it have magical enhancements added to it (+1, Flaming, etc.), or can that only be done to a regularly purchased item?

    Seeking: Can it be applied to a bow/crossbow, and affect the arrow/bolt being fired?

    There PP thing belongs in the Guide. I'll make a note.

    4/5

    It might be buried in a thread somewhere, but how do Diehard and regeneration work, assuming the regeneration is not negated? Diehard lets you function as staggered, losing hp, until "If your negative hit points are equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you immediately die." Regeneration states "can’t die as long as their
    regeneration is still functioning (although creatures with
    regeneration still fall unconscious when their hit points are
    reduced below 0)." Diehard prevents the 'falling unconcious' part. I've house-ruled that such a creature would be helpless once their negative hp is >= their Con score.

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

    3 people marked this as a favorite.

    This thread shouldn't be the place to ask rules questions, or debate rules questions. We should bring up rules ambiguity, things that have already been debated, so that the team can determine how PFS GMs should proceed.

    The best way to do that here would be to link to other discussions elsewhere so the team can read them over there. If this thread turned into a debate on every link provided thus far it would turn into its own forum.

    If you've found a comment from either Campaign Leadership or a Developer suggesting how to proceed, then linking that here as well would be appropriate.

    Let's help keep this thread on track.

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

    Despite the general rule of "no reskinning in PFS", Mark Moreland gave the go ahead to reskin Traits (so long as any mechanics are left untouched).

    4/5

    Jared Thaler wrote:
    Bob Jonquet wrote:
    Serisan wrote:
    As someone with an orange belt in jujitsu, I can choke someone out (i.e. render unconscious) in under 12 seconds
    To be fair, real life has never been a good example of how something should work in a fantasy game. Although, if you want to use that, then perhaps better than than making "clarifications" on the intent of a feat, there should be a ruling on how "holding your breath" works. There is a big difference between taking a deep breath and holding it, which is what many feel the suffocation rules represents (2 rounds per point of Constitution) vs. being "surprised" by having to hold your breath. Meaning, in game terms, its not your turn and your enemy, environment, whatever forced you to suddenly hold your breath without the controlled opportunity to gulp a deep breath.

    Actually, that isn't really relevant.

    The reason you can choke someone out in 1-2 "rounds" in real life, is that in real life you are cutting off the blood flow to their brain, not the air to their lungs.

    If they were going to model that, it should probably be an immediate save or suck effect with an escalating DC.

    What they are really modeling is a cinematic choke hold. Think the scene in princess Bride where The Man in Black wrestles Fezzik.

    That's a leap, given that you absolutely can squeeze someone's torso enough to "persuade" them to exhale with your legs while holding an air choke sufficient to prevent breathing. Additionally, you could model it after the numerous "I strangle you to death" movie clips.

    Rewrite that actually makes sense:
    Kraken Throttle (Combat, Style) You tighten your grip around your target’s throat. Prerequisites: Wis 13, Improved Grapple, Improved Unarmed Strike, Kraken Style, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th. Benefit: The damage that you deal with the Kraken Style feat on a successful grapple combat maneuver check increases to an amount equal to your Wisdom bonus + 2. While using this style, you can take a -4 penalty on your check to maintain a grapple to choke your opponent instead of choosing to damage, move, pin, or tie up your opponent. On the first round, your opponent becomes staggered. On the second and subsequent rounds, your opponent is unconscious (Fort save DC 10+your CMB negates). If you cease to choke with your maintain a grapple check, your opponent loses the unconscious condition and is staggered for 1d4 rounds.

    I know it's out of scope for PFS leadership to make that kind of revision. I just get riled up about the "clarification" from Owen.

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

    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    John, I know you don't want this document to delve into complex rules elements (light and darkness was your example), but I think one of the biggest potential solutions this document could help with would be getting everyone on board with how PFS should handle Mounted Combat.

    As of right now, due to extreme table variation on many rules elements, Mounted Combat is virtually unusable (unless you game with a regular crew that's already come to their own conclusions).

    It's also something that's generated FAQ requests for years, with no hope in sight of an answer from the Rules Team.

    Rather than just say "mounted combat is broken, fix it", I'd like the Team to analyze a few of the key elements that are universally debated. If we can come up with the basics, the fiddly bits can be much more easily handled by GMs.

    How should GMs handle...

    1) Wheeling Charge. This is a key feat for mounted chargers because it allows you to charge through your allies. The part that's debated is whether it overrides the general rules for charging ("must charge towards your enemy"). Some people argue you can turn 90° before getting there, and some people argue you can only turn 90° after getting there. It's a yes or no question that seems like this document would be perfect for.

    2) Ride-By Attack. Some GMs rule there is only ever one charge path directly towards your enemy, and some GMs (myself included) rule there are as many as three. SKR supports the multiple path ruling (I'll look for the link now). Depending on the answer, Ride-By Attack is unusable.

    3) Sohei Bonus Feats. The Rules currently support a 1st level Sohei (Monk archetype) being able to pick up high level Mounted Combat feats such as Trick Riding and Mounted Skirmisher. This makes it a popular one level dip, especially if you have a particular Convention Boon that makes up that one level hit to your Animal Companion. The reasonable application argued is to grant access to these feats at the same rate that the Ranger's Mounted Combat style gives them.

    4) Trample and Overrun. These rules are unusable, as I understand them, and there are many, many threads asking for clarification. The previous three points are probably bigger questions for general Mounted Combat, but settling this would be icing on the cake.

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

    Charges are not limited to following the grid.

    Grand Lodge 2/5 *

    Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Not sure about a cookie; I think Nefreet deserves a good rest. :)

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

    5 people marked this as a favorite.

    No rest for the wicked.

    Silver Crusade 3/5

    Nefreet wrote:
    Charges are not limited to following the grid.

    You should link the original forum post that links to this picture instead, I think, to give it context.


    Awesome. A+++

    Thanks for making Spellscar Drifter viable.

    Sovereign Court 4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'd throw in a fifth mounted question, that I've seen more than once.

    How does Mounted Combat interact with grapple? Specifically it comes up in the context of grab. If a creature with reach grabs a mounted character, is the rider pulled off the mount? Do the mount and rider both move adjacent to the grabber?

    4/5

    Daniel Hennessey wrote:

    I'd throw in a fifth mounted question, that I've seen more than once.

    How does Mounted Combat interact with grapple? Specifically it comes up in the context of grab. If a creature with reach grabs a mounted character, is the rider pulled off the mount? Do the mount and rider both move adjacent to the grabber?

    Looks at his Ki Throw reach tripper, who moves people up to 35 feet and trips people off horses...

    I'mma say it's probably just the rider and yes, they're pulled off. That's a good question to clarify, though.


    Gunsmithing isn't clarified, it's completely rewritten and nerfed into the ground "oh you're ALLOWED to buy firearms and the like with this". Whoever decided 11gp PER shot for a weapon that hits half as hard as a longbow despite requiring more feats (TWO more now, it seems) AND a set of dedicated class abilities just to even be usable, should be fired. There's no balance there.

    It may have been the case for AR already, but rather than fix the problem, this comes off as the pathetic tantrum of someone who had their "brilliant" plan of making a fight hard by giving the bad guy full plate ruined and decided the problem couldn't have been the genius design of the encounter. Real weird that never happens to people getting dropped by color spray or whatnot though.

    There's really a drought of rationality when it comes to PFS rulings. The Synthesist is banned, but not the regular summoner (and for a long time neither was the Master archetype). "It can block one attack per round for like 4 feats so that's broken because too many characters were ill-designed" crane wing, guns...

    Well at least Sacred Geometry stays banned. For now.

    4/5 *

    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    Rein it in, please. This is a forum for discussion, not a place for insults.

    101 to 150 of 810 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Let's Be Clear All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.