Let's Be Clear

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...

What are you talking about the regular summoner is banned in PFS?

The only summoner allowed in PFS is the Unchained version.

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

While the tone was not helpful, I find I generally agree with his bafflement at what is permitted/nerfed/changed vs. not.

Crane Wing? Waylayer Rogue? Too good, let's just go ahead and make that first one very subpar, and ban the second one.

But Sacred Geometry? Pistolero Gunslinger? Perfectly balanced! No need to change those at all. . .

(One developer example and one PFS specific example done on purpose.)

The point I was hoping to have clarified around Gunsmithing, and what others have affirmed, is that it was not changed from what was listed in the Additional Resources to what is listed in this document. Meaning that gunslingers pay the listed crafting price (10%), and nothing has changed. I was asking because "listed price" has confused more than a few people, and I saw that confusion being spread to others. I thought it might help head off further issues if there was a quick reaffirmation of that from the campaign.

I'm not going to comment on what should or shouldn't be banned or how those decisions have been handled in the past, and I don't think this thread is the place to do that.

It says listed price rather than crafting price, which leaves us with the table prices are listed in, given it explicitly starts by explaining you are not allowed to craft them (such as an alchemist would alchemical items with his class ability). Can you even upgrade your starter anymore, if you're not allowed to craft with it?

Hell of a tax-feat gating even if you're right, though: Need EWP and Gunsmith just to be allowed to have a weapon that's priced like a magic item.

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.

Huh? I am confused.

Gunslingers get all the needed feats for free.

It is 1.1 gp per shot. (I pay 1.7, so that each shot is cold iron and silver blanched.) by 5th level, that is trivial. Even the alchemical cartridges don't go much above my dayjob check.

A long bow is 1d8 x3, a musket is 1d12 x4 (touch) (I can count on the fingers of one hand how many combats have been outside 40 feet...) Yes, longbow has a bunch of feats to make it hit harder, but it still can't move and shoot twice the way the double barrel musket can out of the box.

Honestly, given reload times, a musket is closer to a crossbow anyway.

Seriously, I am playing a suboptimal gunslinger (mysterious stranger) with a +1 merciful pistol as my main weapon, no precise shot, and I am chewing through combats like you wouldn't believe. (And when I crit, things just go down. 4d8+1d6+28 damage... Seriously thinking about picking up improved crit.)

It says listed price rather than crafting price, which leaves us with the table prices are listed in, given it explicitly starts by explaining you are not allowed to craft them (such as an alchemist would alchemical items with his class ability). Can you even upgrade your starter anymore, if you're not allowed to craft with it?

Hell of a tax-feat gating even if you're right, though: Need EWP and Gunsmith just to be allowed to have a weapon that's priced like a magic item.

It isn't tax feat gating. It's class gating. They are trying to restrict guns to gunslinger and gunslinger derived classes and archtypes, all of whom get those feats for free. (Well, except for piccaroon, but that archtype has so many design problems that that is the least of it. )

The whole justification for banning most of the gun archtypes and requiring gunsmithing is to keep guns rare and mostly in the hands of actual gunslingers, because in Golarion, almost all guns come out of arkenstar and are in the hands of gunslingers.

It's a rarity tax.

It says listed price rather than crafting price, which leaves us with the table prices are listed in, given it explicitly starts by explaining you are not allowed to craft them (such as an alchemist would alchemical items with his class ability). Can you even upgrade your starter anymore, if you're not allowed to craft with it?

Hell of a tax-feat gating even if you're right, though: Need EWP and Gunsmith just to be allowed to have a weapon that's priced like a magic item.

It's talking about the listed price in the Gunsmithing feat. The entire section is in reference to the Gunsmithing feat.

In PFS, purchasing ammo for guns has always been at the crafting price. Purchasing guns has always been at full price, just like purchasing any other weapon is at full price. Additionally, guns are not on the Always Available list in PFS, so they are treated more like magic items in that regard as well. Note, however, that a Gunslinger still begins play with a free gun, and they begin play with both the EWP and Gunsmithing, so being able to get a gun is a non-issue for them. Buying a backup gun does require that they have the fame and gold to pay full price for it.

This listing in the clarification document did not change any of that. To me, it looks like they were just moving something from the Additional Resources to this document, because it fits in more with the type of things listed in this document. As a result, people have become confused and think that the rule has changed (when it hasn't).

Jamie Charlan wrote:

It says listed price rather than crafting price, which leaves us with the table prices are listed in, given it explicitly starts by explaining you are not allowed to craft them (such as an alchemist would alchemical items with his class ability). Can you even upgrade your starter anymore, if you're not allowed to craft with it?

Hell of a tax-feat gating even if you're right, though: Need EWP and Gunsmith just to be allowed to have a weapon that's priced like a magic item.

It's talking about the listed price in the Gunsmithing feat. The entire section is in reference to the Gunsmithing feat.

In PFS, purchasing ammo for guns has always been at the crafting price.* Purchasing guns has always been at full price, just like purchasing any other weapon is at full price. Additionally, guns are not on the Always Available list in PFS, so they are treated more like magic items in that regard as well. Note, however, that a Gunslinger still begins play with a free gun, and they begin play with both the EWP and Gunsmithing, so being able to get a gun is a non-issue for them. Buying a backup gun does require that they have the fame and gold to pay full price for it.

*provided you have a point in craft alchemy.

But yes, that is why it says "Resold items gained through this feat are worth half the actual cost paid, not half the regular market value for the item."

Unless they amend the 'clarification' to state you can in fact purchase ammo at the crafting price rather than its listed price, it locks out gunslinger types as well.

As is it more or less tells us that it's backtracked the old ruling in favor of "With this feat, you can purchase ammunition at the listed price. Normal: you cannot"

I've shown the wording to 4 other people already in case it was just me misunderstanding, but they've all had the same reaction.

One even asked if it was purposefully designed to make dead-shot an attractive option preferable to just grabbing clustered shots. I hadn't even remembered dead-shot.

Unless they amend the 'clarification' to state you can in fact purchase ammo at the crafting price rather than its listed price, it locks out gunslinger types as well.

As is it more or less tells us that it's backtracked the old ruling in favor of "With this feat, you can purchase ammunition at the listed price. Normal: you cannot"

I've shown the wording to 4 other people already in case it was just me misunderstanding, but they've all had the same reaction.

One even asked if it was purposefully designed to make dead-shot an attractive option preferable to just grabbing clustered shots. I hadn't even remembered dead-shot.

So what is your interpretation of the line "Resold items gained through this feat are worth half the actual cost paid, not half the regular market value for the item."

This listing in the clarification document did not change any of that. To me, it looks like they were just moving something from the Additional Resources to this document, because it fits in more with the type of things listed in this document. As a result, people have become confused and think that the rule has changed (when it hasn't).

That's right. It's the same text that appears in Additional Resources. We're migrating some information out of Additional Resources into the Clarifications document. The next update of Additional Resources will mark rules that have further information in the clarifications document.

If people would like to continue the conversation about the PFS version of the Gunsmithing feat, that discussion would best be served in a separate thread.

Ferious Thune wrote:

This listing in the clarification document did not change any of that. To me, it looks like they were just moving something from the Additional Resources to this document, because it fits in more with the type of things listed in this document. As a result, people have become confused and think that the rule has changed (when it hasn't).

That's right. It's the same text that appears in Additional Resources. We're migrating some information out of Additional Resources into the Clarifications document. The next update of Additional Resources will mark rules that have further information in the clarifications document.

If people would like to continue the conversation about the PFS version of the Gunsmithing feat, that discussion would best be served in a separate thread.

Thank you!

Edit: Sorry Linda, you posted while I was writing. I'll take it elsewhere.

I think if the prices I outlined up thread were included just after that text it would eliminate any further questions on what Gunslingers pay for ammunition.

I think if the prices I outlined up thread were included just after that text it would eliminate any further questions on what Gunslingers pay for ammunition.

I would think it would eliminate almost all - but I am confident that some of our fellow posters (myself included) could "question" (argue) about whatever was posted.

The current text of Thunder and Fang allows you to dual wield Earthbreakers as one-handed weapons, but previous versions (and the whole idea of "Thunder and Fang") only allowed using an Earthbreaker one-handed when also using a Klar. Will that intent be reviewed by this document?

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but this one needs no clarification. The Earth Breaker is a Two Handed Weapon, will always be a Two Handed Weapon and never changes from being a Two Handed Weapon.

No matter how one wields the Two Handed Weapon, there is only a couple of class abilities that allow it to be used beyond the wielding rules (Wielding one size category up (Med. to Large, for example) Two Handed Weapons)

This feat only allows for one handed use of the Earth Breaker, making Str bonuses be 1.0 times, Power attack at +2 for each +1, and so on.

Though the period being put in an odd place (or placed there instead of a comma) makes it to be read (loosely) to be something that isn't there, the weapon itself is still a two handed weapon (indeed, it still can be used as such), and it can be combined with the Klar (per the feat), but that should be as far as it goes.

There was a (now locked) thread about this whole issue that went back and forth for quite a long time. A clarification would stop the arguments, certainly, but the rules are clearly there, in the Core Rulebook, and the want to slide the scale on those rules is an issue that goes beyond just this particular feat. (the rules for the Lance and Bastard Sword being cited more often than not)

To be clear, this is one of the issues I have seen that sees the player clearly know that this isn't the way it should go, that Double Wielding Two Handed weapons or Wielding a larger one two handed is going beyond the rules of the game and was never the intent of the feat. The intent is actually in the description, which is universally ignored. EB with Klar, all the way.

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, Nefreet, but this is something that has been a sore spot for me.

I've seen the T&F threads. No matter how obvious it seems to one person or another, on either side, clarification can't hurt.

I've seen the T&F threads. No matter how obvious it seems to one person or another, on either side, clarification can't hurt.

RAW vs RAI. Cheeseweasels vs the short cited oppressors stifling creativity! FIGHT!

Kalindlara wrote:

I've seen the T&F threads. No matter how obvious it seems to one person or another, on either side, clarification can't hurt.

RAW vs RAI. Cheeseweasels vs the oppresive bastards stifling creativity! FIGHT!

Role playing vs roll playing. Crunchy vs creamy. No wait, that's peanut butter.

I've seen the T&F threads. No matter how obvious it seems to one person or another, on either side, clarification can't hurt.

I would hope a clarification would be more toward the rules of sized weapons and how one can wield them or not wield them whether than on a specific feat that allows for one particular about that rule.

I do know that more than the T&F feat is the center of this discussion and a clarification should include more than just a particular on a specific feat.

It is less of a concern than it was before because there are now two class archtypes (barbarian and fighter) that can wield oversized two handed weapons.

Nefreet wrote:

The current text of Thunder and Fang allows you to dual wield Earthbreakers as one-handed weapons, but previous versions (and the whole idea of "Thunder and Fang") only allowed using an Earthbreaker one-handed when also using a Klar. Will that intent be reviewed by this document?

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but this one needs no clarification. The Earth Breaker is a Two Handed Weapon, will always be a Two Handed Weapon and never changes from being a Two Handed Weapon.

If you're wielding it as a one handed it's a one handed weapon. Since it's a one handed weapon now you can wield two of them, both as one handed weapons, because of the feat. Nothing in the feat says "only while wielding/wearing a klar".

So you're correct it needs no clarification, but you have the wrong understanding of why it needs none.

I sent you (edit: thaX) a PM.

These are the sorts of discussions that shouldn't be clogging up this thread.

This one I could use being laid to rest:
Can an Oracle use UMD on a Ring of Revelation to get a revelation from mystery that he doesn't have by emulating that mystery as a class feature?
Best we've got was a comment by JJ suggesting that it might be possible, but to my knowledge the current position is 'expect table variation'.

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

The current text of Thunder and Fang allows you to dual wield Earthbreakers as one-handed weapons, but previous versions (and the whole idea of "Thunder and Fang") only allowed using an Earthbreaker one-handed when also using a Klar. Will that intent be reviewed by this document?

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but this one needs no clarification. The Earth Breaker is a Two Handed Weapon, will always be a Two Handed Weapon and never changes from being a Two Handed Weapon.

If you're wielding it as a one handed it's a one handed weapon. Since it's a one handed weapon now you can wield two of them, both as one handed weapons, because of the feat. Nothing in the feat says "only while wielding/wearing a klar".

So you're correct it needs no clarification, but you have the wrong understanding of why it needs none.

Yes, this is the sort of back and forth that happened before. You only WIELD it as a one handed weapon. The feat allows you to wield it with a Klar as you do so.

The weapon itself didn't change. See quote above.

One thing that needs clearing up is the traits that can be used with Adopted. Since Ultimate Campaign, the newest source, didn't have race traits (racial?) be categorized in the basic trait categories as well as being Race Traits, this should open up past Race/Racial Traits to be used without tracking the basic trait quantifiers the previous books put them in. (Adopted/Gnome taking Etymoligist, for example)

The only question would be if it opens up all Race Traits, or just those listed in Ultimate Campaign or another newer source.

Psychic bloodline Sorcerer casts psychic spells instead of arcane spells. Is it still considered an arcane spellcasting class for items, effects and abilities that specifically refer to arcane spellcasting classes?

When may you play a Pregen?

Discrepency between AR and FAQ regarding Poison

the one thing I have yet to see officially - if we have an entry affected by these new Rulings are we allowed Retrain / refund etc. on them

Boots of the Earth is my personal example

the one thing I have yet to see officially - if we have an entry affected by these new Rulings are we allowed Retrain / refund etc. on them

Boots of the Earth is my personal example

Boots of the Earth can be refunded for the full amount.

Not sure about the other clarifications.

Spoilered for length:

One thing that needs clearing up is the traits that can be used with Adopted. Since Ultimate Campaign, the newest source, didn't have race traits (racial?) be categorized in the basic trait categories as well as being Race Traits, this should open up past Race/Racial Traits to be used without tracking the basic trait quantifiers the previous books put them in. (Adopted/Gnome taking Etymoligist, for example)

The only question would be if it opens up all Race Traits, or just those listed in Ultimate Campaign or another newer source.

This isn't up to table variation, though, which is the intent of this document. Adopted is a Social Trait, and allows you to choose any Race (not "Racial") Trait, so long as it's of a race different from your own.

Charges are not limited to following the grid.

I don't disagree that these are straight lines that end up in squares adjacent to the target, but all of these "charge lines" disregard that charges have to be directly toward your opponent. Now what could clear that up is if directly toward could be clarified. Does it mean the line is straight to the target's center? Or does it just mean so long as you end up in a square you can attack from that that is directly toward?

Maybe directly toward is simply that as you move, the distance from the target must be getting smaller. Meaning generally you cannot move laterally or away from the target to avoid obstacles and such.

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.

Ahhh this is a good one in relation to bull rush, trip, and grapple vs a mounted character in general that I've seen ruled different ways at nearly every table.

Some say that you can't trip the rider because they are mounted, so you have to trip the horse (which kinda makes sense). Others disagree and say you "trip" the rider by knocking them off the horse where they go prone in an adjacent square (which makes more sense, but then also seems more like a bull rush than a trip at that point). Yet another said they go prone but IN the saddle like they were awkwardly knocked off kilter on the horse equating to a trip penalty (ehh... questionable at best). Others still say the only way to dismount a rider at all is with the Unseat Feat.

Edit: Or uh... you know the mount going the way of Old Blanchy

Nefreet wrote:

Charges are not limited to following the grid.

I don't disagree that these are straight lines that end up in squares adjacent to the target, but all of these "charge lines" disregard that charges have to be directly toward your opponent. Now what could clear that up is if directly toward could be clarified. Does it mean the line is straight to the target's center? Or does it just mean so long as you end up in a square you can attack from that that is directly toward?

Context

Also, this thread isn't the place to debate these. Start a new thread or use one of the older threads on the topic.

Thanks. The only link I'd saved was directly to his picture.

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

This isn't up to table variation, though, which is the intent of this document. Adopted is a Social Trait, and allows you to choose any Race (not "Racial") Trait, so long as it's of a race different from your own.

I agree. (The thing with Race/Racial is concerned what it is called in each source. The Gnomes of Golorian, for example, call them Racial traits)

I do know the difference between the traits taken at character creation and the other traits trading out racial abilities/powers.

I do know that before Ultimate Campaign, my earlier character could not take Adopted (Gnome) and Etymoligist because both traits where considered Social traits at the time. (Even though Etymoligist was also a "Racial" trait)

Even the writers are confused by the nomenclature. That is a sure sign that it is problematic. ;)

Yeah, every time I see either of them in a book when I'm working on it, I add a clarifying note reminding the reader of the difference. It's too late to change the names now, though; that would just make it even more confusing than it already is.

I am sorry if this has already been covered, but when dose a Medium pick up their legendary spirit? It seems like the trickster one requires you to have a bit of gold first, to pay for your poisons.

claudekennilol wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Charges are not limited to following the grid.

I don't disagree that these are straight lines that end up in squares adjacent to the target, but all of these "charge lines" disregard that charges have to be directly toward your opponent. Now what could clear that up is if directly toward could be clarified. Does it mean the line is straight to the target's center? Or does it just mean so long as you end up in a square you can attack from that that is directly toward?

Context

Also, this thread isn't the place to debate these. Start a new thread or use one of the older threads on the topic.

Unfortunately, the more important post is this one from later in the thread when it was pointed out to him that he was misremembering the rule.

I think it is set now, but older books may call them Racial traits when it should have been Race.

Can we please move the rules arguments off this thread?

]Unfortunately, the more important post is this one from later in the thread when it was pointed out to him that he was misremembering the rule.

*whistles innocently*

I think the best fix for it is to admit that the raw is a little borked, and instead of trying to mandate something out with soh cah toa and a protractor, just let the guy on the horse with a lance do vaugely guy on a horse with a lance stuff.

Clarification : guys on horses can do stuff that guys on horses can do.

As yet unclear : what girls and nonbinary folk on horses can do.

Clarification : guys on horses can do stuff that guys on horses can do.

As yet unclear : what girls and nonbinary folk on horses can do.

My brain just went to a place. A rules place where a character's sexuality determined how their charge rules worked.

Are the items in the clarification document slated for possible errata when the actual book's errata comes out? In my home game I use PFS as a guide and if the items here will possibly be errata'd I would like to know.

Edit: I skimmed the thread so if I missed this info I apologize and would appreciate a link.

Here's a few more:

Concentration checks are [ability]-based checks for [ability]-based casters.

SKR describing "class features".

Invisible creatures still benefit from flanking.

Dervish Dance isn't supposed to reward tricky-thinking two-weapon fighters.

Aren't all of those non-PFS-specific rules issues, Nefreet?

I would like to second the motion for Spring loaded wrist sheaths and scrolls
Id also Like to request a ruling on False Focus and Alchemical power components