You Have Questions, We Have Answers

Monday, March 13, 2017

Hi Pathfinders! Early last year, we released the Campaign Clarifications document, which gave us on the Pathfinder Society team a way to answer rules questions and to adapt some rules to better fit the needs of an organized play campaign. When we put out the document, I asked the forums to tell us which rules questions have caused issues in their games. You all gave us a bunch of excellent feedback and we continue to keep an eye on the clarifications threads for new questions that crop up.

However, we ran into a bit of an issue. Campaign Clarifications works well for questions that involve a single rule from one book, but it's equipped to handle questions over multiple sources. We made lists of these more general questions and answered some of them Season 8's version of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide, but we wanted to limit the guide to only the most broadly applicable information. As a side note, Guide 8.1 is still in the works and we'll address some of the questions in that update.

In order to answer the remaining questions, we knew we'd need to make a significant update to our FAQ. We also wanted to clean out information that was already answered in the guide, or that was no longer accurate, as well as gather the forum posts from John, Tonya, and myself that had been serving as unofficial suggestions. Today's update has been a long time in the making, and I'm happy to present it to you all today.

So, what's changed? I'll go through some of the highlights by section. Please read the full FAQ entries for any of the changes below that interest you.

Organized Play Events

  • Creating More Events: The instructions for creating and reporting events now take Core mode games and Adventure Card Guild games into account.

Roleplaying Guild General Questions

  • Required Materials: There were some questions about what players needed to bring to the table in order to use material from a book other than the Core Rulebook. We cleaned up the language in the FAQ entry on legal sources to make some lesser-known options more obvious.
  • Factions for pregenerated characters: You can now earn faction rewards when playing pregenerated characters, as if they were a member of the faction of the character who is receiving credit for the adventure.
  • Caster level and spellcasting services: We've tightened up the rules on the caster level for spellcasting services, specifying which ones you can purchase at higher than minimum caster levels.

Wealth and Treasure

  • Poisons: the list of available poisons from the Core Rulebook has been expanded.
  • Upgrading Magic Items: We've expanded the rules for upgrading magic items to allow some upgrades that do more than increase a number.
  • Intelligent Items: You can carry more than one intelligent item at a time, and 1st level characters are never at risk of dying from picking up an intelligent item during an adventure.
  • Alternative Ammunition: We've created a blanket rule to allows you to purchase magical ammunition listed on a Chronicle sheet as a different form of ammunition; for example, buying +1 frost shuriken when the chronicle lists +1 frost bolts.
  • Scrolls: We've cleared up the rules around scrolls, such as codifying their arcane spell failure chance, the rules for scrolls with multiple spells, and the rules for determining which ability score is appropriate to use when activating a scroll with the Use Magic Device skill.

Character Questions

  • Race-Specific Options: We've clarified the rules around the Racial Heritage feat from the Advanced Player's Guide and other options that allow characters to take options initially written for other races.
  • Legal Abilities Referencing Ones That Aren't: We've clarified what happens if your archetype or other class ability grants you an option that does not appear in Additional Resources.
  • Spell Study: We've expanded the rules around learning spells from NPCs and filling spellbooks to make it clear that such actions are not restricted only to wizards.

Character Companions

  • How Many Companions: The FAQ and the latest version of the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide disagreed with each other about the rules for how many creatures a character can bring to the table and use at one time. We've updated the FAQ to more closely align with the Guide.
  • Animal Companions and Shields: We've explicitly added shields to the list of tools that animal companions cannot use.
  • Retraining Companions: We've added rules for retraining your companion creature's abilities and replacing a companion's tricks with different ones.
  • Companions and Boons: We've added the rule from John's forum post describing what happens if a companion creature gains a boon during an adventure.
  • Improved Familiars (Work in Progress): We have not yet updated the entry about which familiars have which item slots and which familiars can use wands and other magic items. An update for this entry is in the works, with the help of a team of Venture-Officers, but it will take some time to pull it all together.

Do you have any feedback about this update? What questions would you like to see added in our next update to the FAQ? Let us know in the comments below.

Linda Zayas-Palmer
Developer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Society
101 to 150 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 2/5

Lorewalker wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I'm on my phone so this I can't easily quote the relevant text, but the FAQ about an illegal choice in a list still isn't legal implies that natural combat style rangers can't take improved natural attack. Is that intended?
BigNorseWolf wrote:

claud,

as i'm reading that (admitedly while shoveling out of the snowpocalypse and enough crown royal to safely store my dice collection) it is allowed by another source, so it's legal, so it's not illegal, so it can be granted by a source.

Although.. yeah that could use some clarification.

If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

As stated here in this ruling (which is overriding the Additional Resources text), Improved Natural Weapon (i assume is the feat in question), is part of a list of menu choices, therefore it is not legal.

I wonder if it is intended that animal companions can no longer take Improved Natural Armor and Improved Natural Attack?

Oh Gozreh that's even worse...

I wonder what choices this addition was meant to negate as so far it looks like it's just cutting out options that have been legal. (I know there have been things in the past, but those have usually been swapped out in the Additional Resources doc)

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
claudekennilol wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I'm on my phone so this I can't easily quote the relevant text, but the FAQ about an illegal choice in a list still isn't legal implies that natural combat style rangers can't take improved natural attack. Is that intended?
BigNorseWolf wrote:

claud,

as i'm reading that (admitedly while shoveling out of the snowpocalypse and enough crown royal to safely store my dice collection) it is allowed by another source, so it's legal, so it's not illegal, so it can be granted by a source.

Although.. yeah that could use some clarification.

If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

As stated here in this ruling (which is overriding the Additional Resources text), Improved Natural Weapon (i assume is the feat in question), is part of a list of menu choices, therefore it is not legal.

I wonder if it is intended that animal companions can no longer take Improved Natural Armor and Improved Natural Attack?

Oh Gozreh that's even worse...

I wonder what choices this addition was meant to negate as so far it looks like it's just cutting out options that have been legal. (I know there have been things in the past, but those have usually been swapped out in the Additional Resources doc)

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

This addition was clearly meant to address Player Companion lines that add monk archetypes or similar that grant feats published in the same Player Companion as bonus feat options. If one feat in a list isn't legal per Additional Resources, that feat isn't legal.

Rangers and animal companions are fine. The Core Rulebook defines what feats are appropriate for animals. The Bestiary entry on AR says so.

Dark Archive 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
I'm on my phone so this I can't easily quote the relevant text, but the FAQ about an illegal choice in a list still isn't legal implies that natural combat style rangers can't take improved natural attack. Is that intended?
BigNorseWolf wrote:

claud,

as i'm reading that (admitedly while shoveling out of the snowpocalypse and enough crown royal to safely store my dice collection) it is allowed by another source, so it's legal, so it's not illegal, so it can be granted by a source.

Although.. yeah that could use some clarification.

If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

As stated here in this ruling (which is overriding the Additional Resources text), Improved Natural Weapon (i assume is the feat in question), is part of a list of menu choices, therefore it is not legal.

I wonder if it is intended that animal companions can no longer take Improved Natural Armor and Improved Natural Attack?

Oh Gozreh that's even worse...

I wonder what choices this addition was meant to negate as so far it looks like it's just cutting out options that have been legal. (I know there have been things in the past, but those have usually been swapped out in the Additional Resources doc)

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted...

And if you read this ruling, it overrides the AR page, because the Ranger LIST of feats is MENU contain both legal and illegal feats. This ruling states that because it meets that criteria, the illegal feats stay illegal.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Aaron Bryant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

And if you read this ruling, it overrides the AR page, because the Ranger LIST of feats is MENU contain both legal and illegal feats. This ruling states that because it meets that criteria, the illegal feats stay illegal.

No, it really doesn't. The ranger list is a menu that contains only legal feats.

Dark Archive 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

And if you read this ruling, it overrides the AR page, because the Ranger LIST of feats is MENU contain both legal and illegal feats. This ruling states that because it meets that criteria, the illegal feats stay illegal.

No, it really doesn't. The ranger list is a menu that contains only legal feats.

You just said "Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack"

That menu of options contains a feat that is stated on the AR as not legal....

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Aaron Bryant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

And if you read this ruling, it overrides the AR page, because the Ranger LIST of feats is MENU contain both legal and illegal feats. This ruling states that because it meets that criteria, the illegal feats stay illegal.

No, it really doesn't. The ranger list is a menu that contains only legal feats.

You just said "Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack"

That menu of options contains a feat that is stated on the AR as not legal....

Where does the AR say that? Can you provide a quote?

Spoiler:
AR wrote:
Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source;

Improved Natural Attack on the Ranger list is specifically granted by the APG. The Bestiary provides the exception to the FAQ. IF the ranger list included an illegal feat from the Advanced Class Guide, which does not have this exception, you would be correct.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hmm peers down the rules rabbit hole.

Hey, guys, do we have to go down there again? I can toss you a rope if you want to climb out.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 2/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

And if you read this ruling, it overrides the AR page, because the Ranger LIST of feats is MENU contain both legal and illegal feats. This ruling states that because it meets that criteria, the illegal feats stay illegal.

No, it really doesn't. The ranger list is a menu that contains only legal feats.

You just said "Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack"

That menu of options contains a feat that is stated on the AR as not legal....

Where does the AR say that? Can you provide a quote?

** spoiler omitted **

And the only thing that does is a list of options. So per the new FAQ, because it is contained in a list of legal options, the illegal item in the list remains illegal.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Aaron B wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

I see you are ignoring the language here bolded to provide context:

I took an archetype or other ability or feature that gives me access to features that are not legal as per Additional Resources. What happens?
If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

This specially calls out "i have something that gives me access to a feat that's not normally legal"... it says "is it part of a list of feats where 1 of them is legal? if so , than it is not legal now."

The bolded portion of the FAQ says that being included in a legal menu does not make an illegal option legal.

The Additional Resources says that Bestiary feats become legal when they are included on a legal menu.

The Bestiary entries on the AR are an exception to the FAQ. It specifically calls out as legal any Bestiary feats included on such menus. The FAQ applies to every other book published by Paizo.

Dark Archive 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
Aaron B wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:

Stop freaking out. The Bestiary provides its own exception to this FAQ.

Step 1: look at ranger style list, see Improved Natural Attack
Step 2: look at bestiary on AR, see only legal if specifically granted by class.
Step 3: look at FAQ, Improved Natural Attack is legal because it is granted by Additional Resources.

I see you are ignoring the language here bolded to provide context:

I took an archetype or other ability or feature that gives me access to features that are not legal as per Additional Resources. What happens?
If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

This specially calls out "i have something that gives me access to a feat that's not normally legal"... it says "is it part of a list of feats where 1 of them is legal? if so , than it is not legal now."

The bolded portion of the FAQ says that being included in a legal menu does not make an illegal option legal.

The Additional Resources says that Bestiary feats become legal when they are included on a legal menu.

The Bestiary entry on the AR is an exception to the FAQ. It specifically calls out as legal any Bestiary feats included on such menus. The FAQ applies to every other book published by Paizo.

And the new ruling calls out that normally that works, however, the "however" statement overrules that. you can not pick and choose which part of a statement to apply. it either needs revision or clarification.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Aaron Bryant wrote:
And the new ruling calls out that normally that works, however, the "however" statement overrules that. you can not pick and choose which part of a statement to apply. it either needs revision or clarification.

The FAQ in question is I took an archetype or other ability or feature that gives me access to features that are not legal as per Additional Resources. What happens?

This whole question is not applicable to the Bestiary feats because they are legal per Additional Resources. I'm not picking and choosing what to apply, I am following directions.

Dark Archive 5/5

KingOfAnything wrote:
Aaron Bryant wrote:
And the new ruling calls out that normally that works, however, the "however" statement overrules that. you can not pick and choose which part of a statement to apply. it either needs revision or clarification.

The FAQ in question is I took an archetype or other ability or feature that gives me access to features that are not legal as per Additional Resources. What happens?

This whole question is not applicable to the Bestiary feats because they are legal per Additional Resources. I'm not picking and choosing what to apply, I am following directions.

Per the AR - Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source;

The fact is, that the feat IS illegal. It is illegal for all characters with an exception. That exception is clarified in this ruling.

So yes Improved Natural Attack is illegal per the AR. Rangers COULD circumvent that by having a feature that gives me access to features that are not legal as per Additional Resources which is the same exemption in the bestiary. Therefore by the rest of the ruling, as currently written, it stays illegal.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

For some context, check out this thread asking whether telekineticists should be able to get aether elementals as Improved Familiars.

Telekineticists with Greater Elemental Whispers have a menu of either an aether wysp or an aether elemental. Wysps are legal options for a familiar per their Bestiary entry on AR, but aether elementals are not.

That Greater Elemental Whispers is a legal character option does not make aether elementals a legal choice of familiar.

The FAQ does not change how Bestiary feats have worked. It makes clear these kinds of situations.

Paizo Employee 4/5 Pathfinder Society Lead Developer

15 people marked this as a favorite.
FAQ wrote:
If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

The intention of this FAQ is to ensure that when a new sorcerer bloodline pops up, for example, granting access to a banned feat on the bonus feat list, it's not suddenly opening up a problematic option the team restricted earlier—sometimes in that same book. The intention's not to restrict the modest number of Bestiary feats that play into several natural weapon archetypes and other character options (like the natural weapon ranger fighting style). It's likely we'll need to add such a clarification that Bestiary feats (except Craft Construct) made available by special character options are legal under that circumstance—either to the FAQ or to the Additional Resources page.

This is the fun of adding several dozen updates to the FAQ all at once. There might be some corner cases that were entirely mainstream and legal that now appear to not be legal based on the new wording. Just ask, and give us enough time to get back to the office, confirm our understanding with each other, and assess whether there needs to be a change before assuming All Is Lost.

Dark Archive 5/5

John Compton wrote:
FAQ wrote:
If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

The intention of this FAQ is to ensure that when a new sorcerer bloodline pops up, for example, granting access to a banned feat on the bonus feat list, it's not suddenly opening up a problematic option the team restricted earlier—sometimes in that same book. The intention's not to restrict the modest number of Bestiary feats that play into several natural weapon archetypes and other character options (like the natural weapon ranger fighting style). It's likely we'll need to add such a clarification that Bestiary feats (except Craft Construct) made available by special character options are legal under that circumstance—either to the FAQ or to the Additional Resources page.

This is the fun of adding several dozen updates to the FAQ all at once. There might be some corner cases that were entirely mainstream and legal that now appear to not be legal based on the new wording. Just ask, and give us enough time to get back to the office, confirm our understanding with each other, and assess whether there needs to be a change before assuming All Is Lost.

John, thanks for the reply! It's good to hear!

Grand Lodge 2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
FAQ wrote:
If the non-legal options are an automatic part of the archetype, such as a feat that all characters with that archetype gain, the Additional Resources page often provides a substitution. If it does not, that option is legal for your character. However, if the non-legal options are part of a menu of choices, such as a list of feats that includes one feat that is not legal, the option does not become legal for your character.

The intention of this FAQ is to ensure that when a new sorcerer bloodline pops up, for example, granting access to a banned feat on the bonus feat list, it's not suddenly opening up a problematic option the team restricted earlier—sometimes in that same book. The intention's not to restrict the modest number of Bestiary feats that play into several natural weapon archetypes and other character options (like the natural weapon ranger fighting style). It's likely we'll need to add such a clarification that Bestiary feats (except Craft Construct) made available by special character options are legal under that circumstance—either to the FAQ or to the Additional Resources page.

This is the fun of adding several dozen updates to the FAQ all at once. There might be some corner cases that were entirely mainstream and legal that now appear to not be legal based on the new wording. Just ask, and give us enough time to get back to the office, confirm our understanding with each other, and assess whether there needs to be a change before assuming All Is Lost.

That's good, I figured that wasn't the intention, but wanted attention brought to it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
John Compton wrote:
Just ask, and give us enough time to get back to the office, confirm our understanding with each other, and assess whether there needs to be a change before assuming All Is Lost.

You are NEVER going to make it in politics with that attitude...

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
John Compton wrote:
Just ask, and give us enough time to get back to the office, confirm our understanding with each other, and assess whether there needs to be a change before assuming All Is Lost.
You are NEVER going to make it in politics with that attitude...

You say that like it's a bad thing.

4/5 5/5 *

Looking for some clarification on snake companions. Can they wear anything at all without Extra Item Slot? It seems the FAQ calls out no barding, no neck, no nothin'. If so it seems quite unfair to those who wish to have a serpentine companion. Am I missing something?

Shadow Lodge 4/5

While you've clarified Animal Companions/Familiars/Eidolons, will you ever give guidelines on how many undead a player can control at any given time?

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

Bongo BigBounce wrote:
Looking for some clarification on snake companions. Can they wear anything at all without Extra Item Slot? It seems the FAQ calls out no barding, no neck, no nothin'. If so it seems quite unfair to those who wish to have a serpentine companion. Am I missing something?

Snakes haven't been able to wear Barding or Neck slot items for several years now. Nothing about this update changes that.

Sometimes an option isn't mechanically equal to all other options.

Silver Crusade 4/5

I'm more interested in pricing for tiny sized armor for a familiar. I know it's not proficient or anything, but a monkey clearly has the right body shape to wear a breastplate.

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

^ here's to hoping that the Rules Team is working on that one.

4/5

the updated/renamed FAQ is here --> Organized Play FAQ and is all red (new!). only link not on the blog post.

Scarab Sages 5/5 5/55/55/5

For snake animal companions, druids local 704 highly recommends a wand of mage armor, possibly with a pearl of power if you find yourself on longer missions, but definitely with a potion or two in case no one can activate the wand.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:

As to how a human and a kitsune could have a child: Let's say that a kitsune and a human have a kitsune child. That kitsune child has another kitsune child by another human. Maybe there is a limit to how many generations you can keep that up before a human child is born to a mostly human kitsune?

Blood of the Beast, pg 12 wrote:
Most kitsune have human forms that are ethnically Tian, but on the rare instances when kitsune and humans couple, any offspring are always kitsune, meaning kitsune of other human ethnicities also exist.

Always kitsune. It doesn't matter how many times a kitsune bloodline intermingles with humans, the result is always 100% kitsune.

As to humans not being able to interbreed with dwarves, the only source I know of for that is a sidebar in Bastards of Golarion, which states that dwarves, gnomes, and "others" "just aren't compatible with other races"; but goes on to say that magic can overcome that. So dwarves can interbreed with humans, but only with the help of a visit to Bob's Mystical Fertility Clinic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That quote from Blood of the Beast also says that human/kitsune couples are rare, so that statement about their offspring can probably be guaranteed for no more than a couple of generations (with the results of anything beyond that being completely unknown).

Note also that it took quite a while for Paizo to come up with alternate racial traits for half-elves and half-orcs who are mostly human. So far we have no similar traits for kitsune.

But magic can overcome even problems like this. A kitsune reincarnated into a human could become the ancestor of humans with the Racial Heritage (Kitsune) feat -- in fact, reincarnation could provide a racial heritage of sorts to any other race no matter how incompatible the two races are.

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I really don't think abit of fluff text is going to overide a legal mechanical option.

Shadow Lodge

Every part of your post broke my brain.

First, that quote isn't some character giving the results of some sort of genealogical study; it's an out-of-character explanation of how things work. If it says always, it means always.

The bit about alternate racial traits for "mostly human" half-elves and half-orcs are entirely irrelevant.

And finally, reincarnation creates an entirely new body; there's no "blood" from the old race to provide the "blood of a non-human ancestor" for Racial Heritage.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I really don't think abit of fluff text is going to overide a legal mechanical option.

It clearly identifies the intent of what the feat is supposed to represent, which at the very least makes the option wildly inappropriate.

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You don't need dragon's blood to have a draconic bloodline (but it helps!), so I don't see why you'd need Kitsune blood for a Racial Heritage.

If you do... well, have you heard of blood brothers?

1/5

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the line about "always kitsune" in the Additional Resources or Campaign Clarifications, nor do I see anything in Racial Heritage about "except kitsune". Thus, I see no justification to enforce a random sourcebook's broad generalization as an overarching Pathfinder Society rule.

(In addition, using obscure bits of flavor to try and kill character concepts one doesn't like is rather poor form. But that's just my opinion.)

Sovereign Court 3/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Any human characters with Racial Heritage(Kitsune) simply require an elaborate explanation in their backstory of how they bypassed the fact that Kitsune always breed true.

Yay roleplaying!

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Phoenix

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
To continue the Racial Heritage train, Blood of the Beast states that any time a human and a kitsune mate, the offspring is always kitsune. Does this prevent a human character from taking Racial Heritage (kitsune), seeing as it makes it impossible for a human to even have a kitsune ancestor?

No.

5/5 5/55/55/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
SCPRedMage wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I really don't think abit of fluff text is going to overide a legal mechanical option.
It clearly identifies the intent of what the feat is supposed to represent, which at the very least makes the option wildly inappropriate.

it doesn't make it wildly inappropriate. It, at the very worst, makes it violate a tiny bit of lore that came out years after the race and the feat had already been written and has never been seen before or since. Neither mechanics nor fluff are 100% consistent with themselves, much less each other.

That's before you get into the wacky world of polymorphing, shape changing, soul possessions and other weirdness that gets you extra points in the games of paracountess bingo that pass for a pathfinders family tree.

4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Paracountess Bingo. Ooh, I really want to play that game now!

While I love the fluff about kitsune always breeding kitsune, in a world with gods anything can happen.

Hmm

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I really don't think abit of fluff text is going to overide a legal mechanical option.
It clearly identifies the intent of what the feat is supposed to represent, which at the very least makes the option wildly inappropriate.

it doesn't make it wildly inappropriate. It, at the very worst, makes it violate a tiny bit of lore that came out years after the race and the feat had already been written and has never been seen before or since. Neither mechanics nor fluff are 100% consistent with themselves, much less each other.

.

On top of that too its pretty well established fluff that you can in fact retain racial traits of the most alien of creatures. In fact one of the options is in fact entirely appropriate for Ktisune. Then again I might be confusing their fluff from another game.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 ** Venture-Agent, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Hmm wrote:

Paracountess Bingo. Ooh, I really want to play that game now!

While I love the fluff about kitsune always breeding kitsune, in a world with gods anything can happen.

Hmm

I can easily see a god decreeing that a human who greatly helped kitsune would have descendants who mechanically would have the Racial Heritage (kitsune) trait. As the power of gods generally can't be measured by mortal yardsticks, I would argue that is a simple way to explain how there are exceptions to "always" fluff. Fluff is useful and enjoyable, but the rules as written are more important. (I was a bit annoyed by the 4.0 D&D fluff that a tiefling's descendants would always be tieflings. This logically would mean that soon or later, all humans would disappear as the number of tieflings grew with each interbreeding between humans and tieflings.)

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, at least if we're going down the rabbit hole again, it's because we're on a fox hunt.

(That almost makes sense!)

Hmm

Liberty's Edge 4/5 ** Venture-Agent, California—Los Angeles (South Bay)

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Well, at least if we're going down the rabbit hole again, it's because we're on a fox hunt.

(That almost makes sense!)

Hmm

So, it would seem. I wonder if that rabbit is late for a very important date.

Shadow Lodge

William Ronald wrote:
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Well, at least if we're going down the rabbit hole again, it's because we're on a fox hunt.

(That almost makes sense!)

Hmm

So, it would seem. I wonder if that rabbit is late for a very important date.

Well, if we're going down a rabbit hole on a fox hunt, then I'm pretty sure that yes, the rabbit is going to be late for a very important date.

He is, in fact, a late rabbit.

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

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why not?

We already have an Alice:

Okay, Janira. Same difference!

We already have a Mad Hatter:

Hats, from True Dragons!

We already have a Tea Party:

Ghenett Manor Gauntlet

We already have a crazy card game:

The Harrowing, Murder's Mark, Phantom Phenomena

We even have several trippy Wonderland-Style Adventures:

Overflow Archives, Between the Lines. Abducted in Aether

There are portals and rhymes and nonsense galore... All we need now is a kitsune with a good disguise skill and bunny ears, and we're good to go!

Silver Crusade 1/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

"I am *NOT* wearing bunny ears to continue this farce!" *froths a bit for dramatic effect*

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I will do it. Miss Zarta say she want to see me wear bunny suit again anyway.

Silver Crusade 1/5

Just to be clear ..

PFS FAQ wrote:


All other methods of gaining new spells (such as by gaining a level or purchasing access to an NPC's spellbook) function as described in the Core Rulebook and relevant class descriptions.

We can still assume that every spell for every class is available to learn from a NPC between scenarios, right?

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What are the rules for upgrading weapons, armor, and wondrous items?:

You may upgrade one weapon, armor, or wondrous item to another as long as the new item occupies the same slot, is made of the same material, has the same general shape, and has all of the abilities of the original item. For example, you can upgrade a +1 longsword into a +1 frost longsword or a cloak of resistance +1 into a cloak of resistance +2. You may also upgrade a magic weapon or armor into one of the named weapons or armors, such as upgrading a +1 banded mail into a banded mail of luck. As another example, you can upgrade a belt of incredible dexterity +2 into a belt of the weasel from Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Equipment , which grants a +2 enhancement bonus to Dexterity as well as other benefits.

To upgrade a magic item, pay the difference in price between the new item and the original item.

I'm reading that as you can upgrade bags of holding from I to II to III now. Seem legit?

101 to 150 of 191 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: You Have Questions, We Have Answers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.