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
301 to 350 of 810 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5

Back in 3.5 Monsterous and Racial specific Deities would not grant power to worshipers of any race not mentioned in their Typical Worshipers section. PF changed that when it deviated from 3.5 into it's own game, allowing (generally) anyone to worship any deity. It may, however be a good idea to reinforce this.

The Artifice Domain is in the Core Rule Book, and both Apsu and Torag grant it. The error is that in the ISWG it's listed as Creation instead of Artifice, (and Creation was a 3.5 Domain, but there is also the Artifice SubDomain of Construction).

3/5 5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

While we're on the subject of his scaliness, different sources have different domains for him.

His domains granted area Artifice, Good, Law, Scalykind, and Travel. Artifice was the old 3.5 version.

Another similar thing I've seen questioned is whether Torag has human clerics or not.

Was there ever a book that said he didn't? According to pathfinderwiki.com, the indication that he has roughly half human, half dwarf clergy is from the ISWG.

3/5 5/5

Fromper wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Fromper wrote:

Kinda like how Divine Favor does nothing at levels 1 and 2, but clerics, oracles, and warpriests can still cast it for no benefit? Actually, I think that one got fixed with a CRB errata along the way to clarify it.

it has a (minimum +1) it's just that it doesn't upgrade until lv6.
Yeah, I see that now, but I don't know if it always said that. I just know someone tried to convince me that at levels 1 and 2, it was +0.

It has been "at least +1" since the OGL SRD was released.

I've seen people read rules completely nutso, though, so I don't doubt that someone read "you gain a +1 luck bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you have (at least +1, maximum +3)" and honestly interpreted it as being +0 at level 1.

Sovereign Court 2/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great to have this document!

I would also like to see the scroll + spring sheath question answered.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey, here's something for Ascetic style.

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Quote:
I think that PFS will change it in the Clarifications Document and make it legal
As the designer of the feat, I sure as Hell hope they do. I'm still embarrassed about my typo for that one. (I intended for Ascetic Style to apply class abilities and feats, not feats and effects.)

Grand Lodge 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like official clarification on reach for Large Animal Companions. We know Apes have 10' reach. The size rules say some Large (Large[tall]) creatures have Reach, but there's no explicit [tall] tag in the bestiary, so sometimes you have to guess. It's very easy for a GM to claim that no companion gets reach because it's not listed in the stat blocks, and it's the sort of thing builds rely on.

Scarab Sages 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Conventions—PaizoCon

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't been able to find any clarification on this yet, so adding it in the hopes of future inclusion.

The Sword Saint archetype for the samurai class (Dragon Empires Primer) currently indicates that the Brutal Slash ability gained at level 3 replaces the 'mounted charge' ability. The samurai base class does not get a 'mounted charge' ability. The common assumption is that it was supposed to replace the 'mounted archer' ability gained at level 4.

Some clarification on this would be appreciated.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
I'd like official clarification on reach for Large Animal Companions. We know Apes have 10' reach. The size rules say some Large (Large[tall]) creatures have Reach, but there's no explicit [tall] tag in the bestiary, so sometimes you have to guess. It's very easy for a GM to claim that no companion gets reach because it's not listed in the stat blocks, and it's the sort of thing builds rely on.

I personally think it's clear; if the creature in the bestiary has [tall] style Reach, then so should the AC.

But I agree that an official clarification would be good.

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

Ascalaphus, the issue arises when the creature in the bestiary is medium or small. Medium and small creatures have the same reach whether they are tall or long...

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

The problem with that is some animal companions don't have an equivalent large creature in the Bestiary. For example do snakes get reach at large size? The Emperor Cobra does but the amphisbaena does not.

Grand Lodge 2/5

It's definitely not clear. As written no animal companions have reach except for a very explicit few. That's obviously not intended.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Not to derail this, but there are also some weirder corner cases. Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Ankylosaurus are all quadrupeds and sure seem like "Large[Long]" but have 15'/15' reach in the bestiary. Elasmosaurus is an unlikely companion, but is has 15'/20' reach, which makes a "clear" rule pretty muddled.

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

Jared Thaler wrote:
Ascalaphus, the issue arises when the creature in the bestiary is medium or small. Medium and small creatures have the same reach whether they are tall or long...

Wolf ACs do become bigger than normal wolves, but we can compare to the dire wolf.

Louis Manko Levite wrote:
The problem with that is some animal companions don't have an equivalent large creature in the Bestiary. For example do snakes get reach at large size? The Emperor Cobra does but the amphisbaena does not.

The amphisbaena isn't anywhere near to being a natural snake. It has two heads!

Bestiary I says to make bigger snakes by taking those stats and advancing them with templates and sizes, and then calls out king cobras as an example of a bigger venomous, and anacondas as constrictor snakes.

In Bestiary II we find an emperor cobra and a giant anaconda, and both appear to use the [tall] category (i.e. reach and space are the same).

Markov Spiked Chain wrote:
Not to derail this, but there are also some weirder corner cases. Triceratops, Stegosaurus and Ankylosaurus are all quadrupeds and sure seem like "Large[Long]" but have 15'/15' reach in the bestiary. Elasmosaurus is an unlikely companion, but is has 15'/20' reach, which makes a "clear" rule pretty muddled.

They may seem Long, but apparently they're Tall, considering their reach. The elasmosaurus is more like "freakishly tall".

---

I'd like to posit that Long/Tall was a bad name pair to start with; Long vs. Squat would've been clearer. That fits the evidence much better.

I still think it's all pretty clear, but clearly other people disagree.

claudekennilol wrote:
It's definitely not clear. As written no animal companions have reach except for a very explicit few. That's obviously not intended.

Here for example; I don't accept the premise that ACs wouldn't have reach if the stat block doesn't say so. I believe that if the stat block is silent, then you default to the same shape as the normal Bestiary animal.

I think most people agree on what it should be, so settling that with a clarification would be nice.

Grand Lodge 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

What about Elephant / Mastodon, a single animal companion entry for 2 creatures with different reaches?

They are both the same animal companion, both from a huge creature, but the bestiary elephant has space 15 reach 10, while the mastodon has space 15 reach 15.

So a person with an elephant companion at level 7 would get a creature with space 10 reach 5, while the person with a mastodon companion would get space 10 reach 10?

For the record, my mammoth rider's woolly mammoth (a mastodon variant) has gone with the space 10 reach 5, and is now space 15 reach 10.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given how un-clarified mounted combat is, it can be an advantage if you and your mount have the same reach. That way you avoid some arguments about where charges stop. So a shorter-reach AC may be an advantage.

But yeah, that elephant/mastodon example is odd.

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

I was unaware of that one. That does throw a wrench into the argument that it's simple to figure out.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Axebeaks have reach too! I agree that it's very helpful to have your mount match your lance reach. Too bad the Axebeak is a biped (low carry capacity) and the hoops you have to go through to get it as a mount. But I'll not scoff at charge->mount hits, get free trip->lance into prone guy.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber

Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

5/5 5/55/55/5

TomG wrote:
Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

That one is an absolute no for pfs. Fox shape is only available in the additional resources to kitsune, so whether you see it as a seperate ability or an add on to change shape is irrelevant, it doesn't work in PFS.

(see note above about racial heritage needing a BIG asterix)

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Please clarify flyby attack. As written, my take is you can attack, then move with another standard action during the move, but that's really unclear. There's a lot of threads on it (and I'm on my phone), so I don't have a specific one to link. To those who say ignore the fluff at the top: no you can not, or my sword saint samurai would be able to use two-handed swords.

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 **** Venture-Agent, Washington—Bothell

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It may not be the proper place for this but can we get an update on what familiars use what magic item slots. Since this FAQ there are only a few familiars that are allowed to have magic item slots and use wands and scrolls in PFS. Bestiary 5 just gave a bunch of new familiars and the list hasn't been added to since March 2012. This is actually the anniversary of this thread requesting that the Pooka be added to the list of familiars that can use wands as it has ranks in Use Magic Device naturally and the Familiar Folio calls it out as capable of using wands and scrolls. There is also this older thread that John Compton responded to and said updating what familiars could use magic devices in PFS was on his to-do list but if that was ever done it was never posted anywhere.

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Anderson wrote:
Please clarify flyby attack. As written, my take is you can attack, then move with another standard action during the move, but that's really unclear. There's a lot of threads on it (and I'm on my phone), so I don't have a specific one to link. To those who say ignore the fluff at the top: no you can not, or my sword saint samurai would be able to use two-handed swords.

erm, how are you getting access to flyby attack? Bestiary feats aren't generally available for pcs

5/5 *****

BigNorseWolf wrote:
erm, how are you getting access to flyby attack? Bestiary feats aren't generally available for pcs

Clarifications help GM's too.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

BigNorseWolf wrote:
James Anderson wrote:
Please clarify flyby attack. As written, my take is you can attack, then move with another standard action during the move, but that's really unclear. There's a lot of threads on it (and I'm on my phone), so I don't have a specific one to link. To those who say ignore the fluff at the top: no you can not, or my sword saint samurai would be able to use two-handed swords.
erm, how are you getting access to flyby attack? Bestiary feats aren't generally available for pcs

Same way you are allowed to pick up non allowed feats otherwise which is with a legal archetype. Didn't think any did that but Eagle Shaman Druid from Advanced Player's Guide looks to be such a source.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Agent, Nebraska—Omaha

James Anderson wrote:
To those who say ignore the fluff at the top: no you can not, or my sword saint samurai would be able to use two-handed swords.

...the sword saint example is a weird one. The line about having a free hand is a rules line. The sentence preceding it is the descriptive text. The pfsrd may lay it out suggesting otherwise, but it is clear in the book.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Quote:
erm, how are you getting access to flyby attack? Bestiary feats aren't generally available for pcs

Air Elemental Familiars!

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TomG wrote:
Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

That one is an absolute no for pfs. Fox shape is only available in the additional resources to kitsune, so whether you see it as a seperate ability or an add on to change shape is irrelevant, it doesn't work in PFS.

(see note above about racial heritage needing a BIG asterix)

Having an absolute clarification on all racial options, instead of the AR patchwork we have now, would be really sweet.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would also be nice if there was a some sort of list for which traits, feats, and racial abilities apply to Day job checks.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, given some of the stuff that is (in my opinion) needlessly banned already, and especially given how much is banned for potential confusion... I think it might be best for the Society if Racial Heritage were simply banned. (Unless they threw off all restrictions on it, but banning seems far more likely.)

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

As long as they grandfather (grandparent? "Father" sounds so patriarchal) characters that already have those options.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The stuff about using the ITS to purchase stuff in between session seems to have reverted back to the old idea in the guide.

Grand Lodge 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If Vial of Efficacious Medicine is really a mis-print, can we get it added here. I really want one for Blood Boiling Pills, but feel vaguely wrong buying one with 2 PP.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Would it be possible to get a clarification on whether or not you can use a shirt/portfolio reroll if you roll a natural 1? That conversation comes up with surprising regularity lately and having the answer in a document somewhere would help with that.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tarma wrote:

Would it be possible to get a clarification on whether or not you can use a shirt/portfolio reroll if you roll a natural 1? That conversation comes up with surprising regularity lately and having the answer in a document somewhere would help with that.

I don't even understand the question. When you use a shirt or folio to get a reroll, it means you can roll again. Why would it matter what the first roll was?

1/5 Contributor

Fromper wrote:


I don't even understand the question. When you use a shirt or folio to get a reroll, it means you can roll again. Why would it matter what the first roll was?

I've seen some chatter float past along these lines. Something to do with "a natural one is always a failure, and therefore you can't use a reroll that must be declared before the result of the roll is known" or something like that. It's dependent on some pretty dodgy--and uncharitable--reasoning.

4/5 *

Christopher Rowe wrote:
Fromper wrote:


I don't even understand the question. When you use a shirt or folio to get a reroll, it means you can roll again. Why would it matter what the first roll was?

I've seen some chatter float past along these lines. Something to do with "a natural one is always a failure, and therefore you can't use a reroll that must be declared before the result of the roll is known" or something like that. It's dependent on some pretty dodgy--and uncharitable--reasoning.

That's one take on it, and an uncharitable one (to coin a phrase). The rule states you can't reroll once the results are known, and they are known with a Nat 1 (for some rolls) immediately. I don't allow them because of this wording, but I'd be quite happy for it to be clarified.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

I always treated "result must be unknown" stuff as "the GM must not have confirmed/denied the result".

This store has been allowing rerolls of nat-1s for a while...

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
Christopher Rowe wrote:
Fromper wrote:


I don't even understand the question. When you use a shirt or folio to get a reroll, it means you can roll again. Why would it matter what the first roll was?

I've seen some chatter float past along these lines. Something to do with "a natural one is always a failure, and therefore you can't use a reroll that must be declared before the result of the roll is known" or something like that. It's dependent on some pretty dodgy--and uncharitable--reasoning.
That's one take on it, and an uncharitable one (to coin a phrase). The rule states you can't reroll once the results are known, and they are known with a Nat 1 (for some rolls) immediately. I don't allow them because of this wording, but I'd be quite happy for it to be clarified.

I feel until the player tells the GM his roll the results are unknown. Are 1's fail and 20's successes? Yes. But you don't know the result of that fail until you tell the GM you failed. You could fail against an allies cure spell, but if you didn't know that's what you're saving for you don't know the result of your roll.

3/5

Kalindlara wrote:

I always treated "result must be unknown" stuff as "the GM must not have confirmed/denied the result".

This store has been allowing rerolls of nat-1s for a while...

I judge this as what happens as a result. IE you wer epoisoned, take damage, etc.

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

Finlanderboy wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I always treated "result must be unknown" stuff as "the GM must not have confirmed/denied the result".

This store has been allowing rerolls of nat-1s for a while...

I judge this as what happens as a result. IE you wer epoisoned, take damage, etc.

When this came up on facebook, John Compton said you could use rerolls on nat-1

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

Jared Thaler wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I always treated "result must be unknown" stuff as "the GM must not have confirmed/denied the result".

This store has been allowing rerolls of nat-1s for a while...

I judge this as what happens as a result. IE you wer epoisoned, take damage, etc.
When this came up on facebook, John Compton said you could use rerolls on nat-1

I wish they wouldn't answer things on other platforms. It makes it impossible to keep sources solid or find answers via Search.

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

9 people marked this as a favorite.

Especially for those of us that gave up FaceBook years ago.

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

Kalindlara wrote:
Jared Thaler wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

I always treated "result must be unknown" stuff as "the GM must not have confirmed/denied the result".

This store has been allowing rerolls of nat-1s for a while...

I judge this as what happens as a result. IE you wer epoisoned, take damage, etc.
When this came up on facebook, John Compton said you could use rerolls on nat-1
I wish they wouldn't answer things on other platforms. It makes it impossible to keep sources solid or find answers via Search.

Well, to be fair,

1. it was asked on facebook
2. it was asked in a way that required a moderator to respond
3. the answer sounded to me more like "are there actually people saying you can't?"

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
I wish they wouldn't answer things on other platforms. It makes it impossible to keep sources solid or find answers via Search.

The VO team responsible for Roleplaying Guild Guide revisions has been notified and the language will be clarified in the next update.

As I said there, the exact wording is 'This reroll must happen before the original result is determined'. The GM is the one who make determinations, so the player simply declares he is making his reroll before that.

3/5 5/5

To quote (or misquote) Winston Churchill, "That is a level of pedantry up with which I will not put!"

5/5 5/55/55/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

The VO team responsible for Roleplaying Guild Guide...

Not a clarification but... is that name sticking at all?

3/5

I greatly preferred PFSGtOP. It just rolls off the tongue... "PFSGtOP."

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Not a clarification but... is that name sticking at all?

As far as I know, it is stuck.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You mean the Pathfinder Society Guild Guide to Gaming Good God(dess)?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TomG wrote:
Did a quick scan, and didn't see this one mentioned yet: Humans trying to take Racial Heritagae(kitsune) and Fox Shape feats.

That one is an absolute no for pfs. Fox shape is only available in the additional resources to kitsune, so whether you see it as a seperate ability or an add on to change shape is irrelevant, it doesn't work in PFS.

(see note above about racial heritage needing a BIG asterix)

Um, no. And can we please stop saying things like this unless it was actually ruled on somewhere.

If it was, then it's a great example of something that could be a lot more evident. If not, and to my knowledge it wasn't, then again, it's a pretty great example of very conflicting interpretations leading to table variation of the worst sort.

1 to 50 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.