|
I'd actually like a Rules Questions forum somewhat like what Troll Lord Games uses for Castles & Crusades ie, ONLY Paizo staff can respond.
This is what I keep thinking about for a FAQ - a Paizo-staff only forum - rather than some big production that has to be "published" every few months. Why not just have a living FAQ that takes 5 minutes to update. Ex - James officially answers the trip-weapon question in a thread. He then copies that post and re-posts it in a Paizo-staff only thread called "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions." Boom. Done. That's it. Any new customer can look there for answers before searching the rest of the forums. Quick and easy to use. Maybe once a quarter or so it gets tidied up and turned into a pdf, but I think an offical answers forum would satisfy most people's needs.
|
|
They're also working on other products that will actually bring in revenue and keep the company afloat and themselves employed. They're also working on clearing a backlog of product that built up owing to the release of the main game last year. The FAQ and Errata are in their priority list, but it's not at the top...
Problem is they're working on supplementary products while there are still questions about the CORE rules. Look, I'm a subscriber, I'm gonna' buy the APG no matter what, and I'm sure I'm gonna' find a bunch of good stuff in there and be satisfied, but I'm probably never going to play one of those new base classes. So much time and effort has gone into the current batch of PHB2 and DMG2 products (less than a year after the PHB/DMG1) that putting the finishing touches on the CORE rules hasn't happened. People aren't looking for clarification on something from a splatbook or regional supplement, they're looking for explanations of the CORE rules, the center piece of the Pathfinder RPG and the Pathfinder brand. A new customer isn't going to start with the GameMastery Guide, they're going to start with the Core Rulebook, and if they can't find answers to their questions, they're going to sour on the whole thing. How's that a good business decision? Paizo's reputation is built on quality work (and great customer service). They've said repeatedly that it is more important to get products right than to get them out on time. I support that 100%. To me, it seems like not putting timely errata and FAQs at the top of their priority list runs counter to that philosophy.
|
I'd actually like a Rules Questions forum somewhat like what Troll Lord Games uses for Castles & Crusades ie, ONLY Paizo staff can respond.
I could like this idea, but instead of people plopping all their trivial issues into it, forum members would vote up the best questions and the highest rated questions get answered.
Creative Director
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sure agree... but the question: "Spring attack and the 'attack action' (and cleave and vital strike), how do these officially interact, what exactly is an attack action?" has come up as a question again and again and again in thread after thread after thread.
How hard can it be just give an official answer?
Giving an official answer isn't hard... whether or not everyone will be happy with said answer is the unpredictable part.
As for Spring Attack, this feat lets you make a single melee attack at any point during a movement; that attack has to be a pure-vanilla attack, basically. You can't fancy it up with things like Cleave or Vital Strike, as those are their own standard actions, basically. If you have all three of those feats, you can do one of the following:
1) Run up to a foe, stab it, and run away, all without provoking an AoO (Spring Attack).
2) Run up to a foe and stab it, and then stab a dude standing next to the guy you just stabbed (Cleave).
3) Run up to a foe and stab it and do extra damage (Vital Strike).
A generous GM might allow you to mix and match these feats and even use them all at the same time... but that's not the intent of the rules. These feats exist to give you multiple options, and they each give you specific advantages depending on what you want to do (stab and get out harm's way, stab multiple foes, or stab one foe with a lot of damage).
Right now Paizo could release a FAQ that deal with 5 or 6 questions that would cover the most of the questions that pop up again and again. Would that really be time badly spent or is it better spent giving vague answers again and again in thread after thread.
What would you say those 5 or 6 questions would be?
And if we were to release that FAQ in any other form than a messageboard post, we would need to involve multiple parts of the company; editorial, design, layout, and the web team. All four of whom have responsibilities that, at this point, we consider more important than helping to put together a FAQ.They released a rule book, they got some responsibilities.
Among those responsibilities is to make sure that the thousands of our customers who have subscriptions actually get what they paid for in a timely manner. Keeping a half-dozen lines of books going on a monthly or even bi-monthly schedule takes an AWFUL lot of work. And to echo my earlier comment... we currently rank "getting our book lines on schedule and under control" as higher priority than getting a rules FAQ up. I'll certainly mention the topic next week during our editorial meeting, and we'll revisit these priorities and see if perhaps it's time to move the FAQ up to a higher priority... but I suspect "getting things on schedule so the big releases for Gen Con hit on time" will remain the top priority for a few more months.
|
Creative Director
|
Problem is they're working on supplementary products while there are still questions about the CORE rules. Look, I'm a subscriber, I'm gonna' buy the APG no matter what, and I'm sure I'm gonna' find a bunch of good stuff in there and be satisfied, but I'm probably never going to play one of those new base classes. So much time and effort has gone into the current batch of PHB2 and DMG2 products (less than a year after the PHB/DMG1) that putting the finishing touches on the CORE rules hasn't happened. People aren't looking for clarification on something from a splatbook or regional supplement, they're looking for explanations of the CORE rules, the center piece of the Pathfinder RPG and the Pathfinder brand. A new customer isn't going to start with the GameMastery Guide, they're going to start with the Core Rulebook, and if they can't find answers to their questions, they're going to sour on the whole thing. How's that a good business decision? Paizo's reputation is built on quality work (and great customer service). They've said repeatedly that it is more important to get products right than to get them out on time. I support that 100%. To me, it seems like not putting timely errata and FAQs at the top of their priority list runs counter to that philosophy.
Again... I'll bring this topic up in our weekly meetings and we'll see if management and resources and logic and what not agree...
I appreciate you being a subscriber a LOT, but if we can't get our books out on time again and again and again, how many missed months and slipped release dates does it take for you to get sick of us and turn off the subscription? Or more to the point... how long would it take the other thousands of subscribers to do so?
More importantly... the money we get from producing products is what we use to pay bills, and if there's significant interruptions to the cash flow provided by our release schedule, then that makes things complicated and awkward come bill-paying time. Producing the 800 or so pages of the RPG core rulebook and the Bestiary DEVASTATED our schedule, and we're still trying to get things back ON schedule so that the bill paying process works smoothly. Taking time out to build a FAQ isn't necessarily a wise choice, business speaking, at that time. (We DID take time out to prepare errata, and that DID end up knocking some books even further off schedule, but the errata should be available soon as a result.)
Anyway, that's about all I can really do to personally address the situation on a Saturday night. I'll see what I can do once the business week starts.
I haven't read a huge amount of this thread, but I would like to make a quick comment about the people whining for having an FAQ. Yes, it would be helpful, but no matter what system you play, you will always have some rules questions and differences of opinions. Here are my two thoughts.
1) Games have DMs for a reason. Use the DM! Seriously, all the rules questions should be taken care of quickly and deciively by the DM at the table. You can always research it later again and come to a group agreement on what the rule should be.
2) The rules are meant to be guidelines to enable YOUR FUN! If you don't like a rule, change it, If you need clarification, add it. it is your gaming group, just decide, agree, and move on. If a n "official" response changes your interpretation later, so be it, but you don't even need to listen to the "official" response if you don't want to. Stop arguing, stop whining, and enjoy your game, your way.
That ends my rant. I appreciate Paizo and the way they do business, nd I for one have no problems with how they have gone about things :)
How hard can it be just give an official answer?
Giving an official answer isn't hard... whether or not everyone will be happy with said answer is the unpredictable part.What would you say those 5 or 6 questions would be?
...
Let me just say that as far as my questions go my expectations have been far exceeded. I started this thead with no idea what response I would recieve and got from you exactly the type of clairfication I was looking for. Thank you.
As for Spring Attack, this feat lets you make a single melee attack at any point during a movement; that attack has to be a pure-vanilla attack, basically. You can't fancy it up with things like Cleave or Vital Strike, as those are their own standard actions, basically.
To clarify, all the components of a Spring Attack (move - attack - move) are part of a single action (which is a Full Round Action?), and the 'contained' attack is on par with an Iterative Attack or AoO (i.e. you may not perform an attack action, as one could in 3.5)?
While you're at it, it was never clarified what you meant about Trip attacks: Are (non-Trip-weapon) Trips performed via an Unarmed Strike by default (i.e. we can expect an Update including the explicit mention of Unarmed Strike in Trip rules that 3.5 had), or is Trip "it's own" 'weapon vector'? This matters mostly for Weapon Focus and Training.
Personally, I have to say I'll be very happy when you guys get the Errata/Update out (and probably will be picking up the new printing when it's out) ...I think if the less-than-clear sections (Vital Strike seems a big one) are re-worded well (i.e. the RAI is more clearly conveyed by the RAW), the need for an additional FAQ that rehashes the RAW/RAI will be much less.
|
|
Anyway, that's about all I can really do to personally address the situation on a Saturday night. I'll see what I can do once the business week starts.
Dude, enjoy your weekend. Any issues I ever raise are #1 meant to be at least constructive, and #2 never personal with any of you. It's got to be hard to not take flurry of opinions personally, especially when your name is on everything, but don't. I (and probably everyone else here on the boards) feel nothing but awe and respect you guys. I want Paizo to be successful as much as anyone else who doesn't actually work for the company, and that would be awesome if you'd bring that up at the editorial meeting, but it's Saturday. Right now, do what you enjoy. Ignore us 'til Monday.
Anyway, that's about all I can really do to personally address the situation on a Saturday night. I'll see what I can do once the business week starts.Dude, enjoy your weekend. Any issues I ever raise are #1 meant to be at least constructive, and #2 never personal with any of you. It's got to be hard to not take flurry of opinions personally, especially when your name is on everything, but don't. I (and probably everyone else here on the boards) feel nothing but awe and respect you guys. I want Paizo to be successful as much as anyone else who doesn't actually work for the company, and that would be awesome if you'd bring that up at the editorial meeting, but it's Saturday. Right now, do what you enjoy. Ignore us 'til Monday.
Yes, this. +1
|
Creative Director
|
To clarify, all the components of a Spring Attack (move - attack - move) are part of a single action (which is a Full Round Action?), and the 'contained' attack is on par with an Iterative Attack or AoO (i.e. you may not perform an attack action, as one could in 3.5)?
The move part of a Spring Attack is a move equivalent action. The attack part is effectively a standard action (and yes, it's just a plain, vanilla atatck). They kinda blend together to be your entire round's worth of actions.
While you're at it, it was never clarified what you meant about Trip attacks: Are (non-Trip-weapon) Trips performed via an Unarmed Strike by default (i.e. we can expect an Update including the explicit mention of Unarmed Strike in Trip rules that 3.5 had), or is Trip "it's own" 'weapon vector'? This matters mostly for Weapon Focus and Training.
Non-trip-weapon trips are performed not by an Unarmed Strike (which is technically a weapon). They're just trip attacks. You're lashing out with a leg or grabing a foe and trying to pull its leg out from under it. Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) doesn't interact with a trip attack at all. Trip attempts are their own thing, just as a bull rush or overrun are their own things. Unarmed Strike is clutter and has no involvement in combat maneuvers.
Personally, I have to say I'll be very happy when you guys get the Errata/Update out ...
Not as happy as I'll be!
|
Creative Director
|
It's got to be hard to not take flurry of opinions personally, especially when your name is on everything, but don't.
The hard part isn't the flurry of opinions... it's the anger and cranky-factor when questions aren't answered fast and/or in the way that some folks want the answers. Especially when I know for a fact that the game plays just fine if the GM just makes his decisions at the table and the players respect the GM enough to go with it. I kinda get the feeling that a LOT of posters are obsessing over the mechanics of the rules and are forgetting the fact that it's supposed to be a game, not some sort of elegant math problem.
Anyway, thanks for the kind words! And again, please just try to be patient, everyone... we WILL get to issuing errata and we WILL get to addressing a FAQ somehow. But the laws of the universe prevent us from doing everything at once.
Waiting for stuff like this is tough. I know. EXAMPLE: Guillarmo del Toro would have directed "At the Mountains of Madness" already and I would be watching it right now if we could operate outside of this damn constrictive fourth dimension. That's not the case, alas... I have to wait for him to do those dang Hobbit movies first.
I kinda get the feeling that a LOT of posters are obsessing over the mechanics of the rules and are forgetting the fact that it's supposed to be a game, not some sort of elegant math problem.
I would give my left one for the ability to have this in a .sig on this forum.
Zo
|
Here's my take ...
We've played D&D for decades, as well as lots of other RPGs and the vast majority of us have just come up with an answer to a rules question that works and then gotten on with the game. If an official answer came out, great! If not, no big deal.
It seems that in the last few years, with the increased importance of the Internet, some people seem to feel that the annonimity and instant nature of the net somehow makes it OK to be demanding, unrealistic and in some cases out and out rude.
Look, Paizo is not a tiny company, but they are not a huge one either. They put out fantastic products that a growing number of peple love. In addition to that, many of them take the time, both during work and during evening and weekends, to get on these boards and answer question. That's pretty cool!
They have said there will be an FAQ but it will not be right away. They have even pulled back the curtain and explained the financial reasons why it will not be coming out right away. I guess I don't understand the annimosity being vented by a small but very vocal group of people. Paizo really likes it's fans and goes way above and beyond to give us great stuff. Let's take a deep breath and cut them a little slack.
We all know the FAQ will come out soon but not now. When it does come out it will be done well and we will be happy with it. Until then, let's just play the game and have fun.
|
I think it is really sweet that mommy and daddy fan think that the children that work at Paizo need to be protected from strangers.
Well, Actually I made my posts so that they know not everyone is a whiner that can't figure out how to play the game by using the book that is already printed. But, I am sure they know that already, as the core book has sold thousand, and most of thoes thousands are out there playing and not posting. I still put my post up, hoping to make it clear to new players that read threads like this that "no, the game is fine, you can still play it, no Toyota recall neeed"
Of course, just like Paizo know the game works, they also know there are still some questions that need answers, but that dosen't stop people from posting these threads either, so I guess we are all even.
You guys keep posting the "We need answers thread or we go insane posts" and I will post the "Ask your DM" replies. :)
I think it is really sweet that mommy and daddy fan think that the children that work at Paizo need to be protected from strangers.
Or you know find the childish nature of others and their ME NOW attitudes annoying, therefore take a few minutes to put such natures and those that exhibit them into perspective compared to the larger picture.
But you know, whatever floats your boat/ tickles your pickle.
Or you know find the childish nature of others and their ME NOW attitudes annoying, therefore take a few minutes to put such natures and those that exhibit them into perspective compared to the larger picture.
But you know, whatever floats your boat/ tickles your pickle.
I get that.
However, I've yet to see one of these "official clarification" request threads sit long enough to be able to tell if the poster is being demanding.
There have been many threads started looking for developer input on the mechanics, some selfish, some altruistic. NONE of them sit long enough to really be able to judge to intentions of the starter. They all devolve into the same pattern of posts.
- "Dumbass! That is what the GM is for!"
- "Are you an idiot?! Don't you understand English?!"
- "Quit your whining, panzy ass!"
I'm not trying to suggest that everyone who posts something like this is trying to be insulting. But thanks to wonders of reading type, they can easily be interpreted as such.
To date, none of the threads have sat for more than a day to see if the thread starter would bump every 5 minutes, or patiently wait for the requested people to get around to it.
I guess it just depends on which side you feel is being more childish.
I haven't read a huge amount of this thread, but I would like to make a quick comment about the people whining for having an FAQ. Yes, it would be helpful, but no matter what system you play, you will always have some rules questions and differences of opinions. Here are my two thoughts.
1) Games have DMs for a reason. Use the DM! Seriously, all the rules questions should be taken care of quickly and deciively by the DM at the table. You can always research it later again and come to a group agreement on what the rule should be.
2) The rules are meant to be guidelines to enable YOUR FUN! If you don't like a rule, change it, If you need clarification, add it. it is your gaming group, just decide, agree, and move on. If a n "official" response changes your interpretation later, so be it, but you don't even need to listen to the "official" response if you don't want to. Stop arguing, stop whining, and enjoy your game, your way.
That ends my rant. I appreciate Paizo and the way they do business, nd I for one have no problems with how they have gone about things :)
It is unfortunate you didn't read much of the thread. These points have already had counter points:
- Use the GM!:
Isn't the end all solution. Maybe they just don't exist anymore, but there have been some really bad GMs out there that get it in their head that the rules work one way, and one way only. And won't budge without seeing/hearing an "official" source. (Not even for the fun of the whole group.)
And as was pointed out, a little consistency for organized play would be really nice. I know some of the worst examples of DMs I've seen were in the RPGA a decade or two ago... Maybe Pathfinder Society has been luckier to date.
- Rules are guidlines for YOUR FUN!:
Great concept. And if you are in an area where gaming groups fall off of trees, you're golden. If the nearest game is an hour to an hour-and-a-half drive away, and you have a GM that isn't putting the groups fun foremost (see above), what should you do? I know if we get more people quiting the hobby all problems will be solved.
It seems 0gre might have struck a nerve...But I guess, instead of asking the designers I should just go and f*%~ myself to appease posters like you?
Really?
And?
Must be nothing...
Certainly not irony.
And?
I'm still waiting for a point to your presence in this thread. I mean other than trying to cyber harass me - once again. Hmm... Now that I think about it... It does seem to happen each year around my birthday. I wonder...
Well, I don't swing that way Sebastian, just to get that out in the open.
Giving an official answer isn't hard... whether or not everyone will be happy with said answer is the unpredictable part.
As for Spring Attack, this feat lets you make a single melee attack at any point during a movement; that attack has to be a pure-vanilla attack, basically. You can't fancy it up with things like Cleave or Vital Strike, as those are their own standard actions, basically. If you have all three of those feats, you can do one of the following:
1) Run up to a foe, stab it, and run away, all without provoking an AoO (Spring Attack).
2) Run up to a foe and stab it, and then stab a dude standing next to the guy you just stabbed (Cleave).
3) Run up to a foe and stab it and do extra damage (Vital Strike).
A generous GM might allow you to mix and match these feats and even use them all at the same time... but that's not the intent of the rules. These feats exist to give you multiple options, and they each give you specific advantages depending on what you want to do (stab and get out harm's way, stab multiple foes, or stab one foe with a lot of damage).
Your answer is a bit confusing. First let me quote you:
linkTo move, yes. Was the design goal to allow it during Move->Vital->Move say from Spring Attack?I'd certainly let my players do that in games I run.
Second, Here is a quote from Tessius.
I've not read all the recent posts but thought it worth mentioning that a npc uses this under her tactics in PF#30. Its on print page 42. It might be worth asking this question on the product thread for this issue.
link to that thread.
The way I read it, there is nothing in the raw indicating you can’t use Spring attack and Vital Strike, but you can’t use spring attack and cleave.
What would you say those 5 or 6 questions would be?
And if we were to release that FAQ in any other form than a messageboard post, we would need to involve multiple parts of the company; editorial, design, layout, and the web team. All four of whom have responsibilities that, at this point, we consider more important than helping to put together a FAQ.
As I have suggested before, you could create a FAQ thread or FAQ forum. People could add questions and Jason, you or anyone else could now and then – when you have the time – post some answers. You could even let community add link to answers that already has been posted. Pretty soon you will have a FAQ ready for printing. Just let an Intern do some editing and post is as a PDF.
I wrote this in another thread (edit):
I'm not saying you need a FAQ with all the questions asked.
Just start of small. Answer the questions that seam to be the most common and the stuff that get GM and players most confused.
The way things are now there are questions all over the messageboards and some of the question reoccur in many threads with you, Jason or others answering the same question.
A good idea could be to create official FAQ threads.
A) You would get an overview of the questions we have
B) You wouldn't have to answer the same questions again and again in different threads.
C) You could answer when you got time to spare and slowly these threads would create a base for a FAQ that could be published.
D) Now, finding an answer by searching the messageboards is a bit like finding a needle in a haystack. This would make easier for us finding the answers.
E) You could encourage the community to help you by posting answer that you, Jason and others from Paizo have already made. The poster would add a link to the thread where they original post was made. Be it an official answer or just an advice from you or anyone else from Paizo. This would save you some time and help the community.
F) You could let an Intern organise this. Pretty soon you will have a FAQ ready for printing. Just let an Intern do some editing and post is as a PDF.
Among those responsibilities is to make sure that the thousands of our customers who have subscriptions actually get what they paid for in a timely manner. Keeping a half-dozen lines of books going on a monthly or even bi-monthly schedule takes an AWFUL lot of work. And to echo my earlier comment... we currently rank "getting our book lines on schedule and under control" as higher priority than getting a rules FAQ up.
I understand this. But wouldn’t it be a good idea to start of small and just answer some of the most common questions in an Official FAQ? A FAQ forum would really help.
I am a huge fan of the d20pfsrd FAQ.
I think the format is perfect for finding answers to questions.
|
Your answer is a bit confusing. First let me quote you:
<snip>
The way I read it, there is nothing in the raw indicating you can’t use...
James had much the same thing happen when asked about Improved Natural Attack. He's human, and sometimes changes his mind.
The best option is to decide among your group on what the group feels is a fair use of the feats. That is all that truly matters.
I don't see much of a contradiction here.... James says a generous GM/DM might allow them to be used together, and his quote from the other thread "I would certainly allow that in my game" just shows that he is a generous DM/GM.
|
Creative Director
|
Your answer is a bit confusing. First let me quote you:
<snip>
The way I read it, there is nothing in the raw indicating you can’t use...
James had much the same thing happen when asked about Improved Natural Attack. He's human, and sometimes changes his mind.
The best option is to decide among your group on what the group feels is a fair use of the feats. That is all that truly matters.
To be honest, I actually LIKE the idea of being able to make a Vital Strike while Spring Attacking, and you could certainly read the rules that way, I guess. Iterative attacks are a great way to slow down a combat, and if a high-level fighter has more reasons to run around and use Vital Strike (and thus only roll one attack for lots of damage rather than lots of attacks for less damage) that not only speeds up combat but lets the melee guy feel like he's less constricted in movement on the battlefield.
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.
For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.
For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
OK, so this isn't necessarily something you asked Jason the intent on...
Obviously, -as written- a Vital Strike'd Attack Action IS a 'single melee attack' and thus could potentially be compatible with SA(which is why I was asking about the action(s) to use SA, though that should be clear just on it's own merit).
If I hadn't made it clear, probably 80% of the reason I feel it's important to bring these up is not just getting an immediate ruling (as nice as that is), but making sure that the Errata/Update deals with these specific issues - I feel it's certainly plausible that Jason would resolve the wording ambiguity in SA in favor of 'attack action' functionality (as was in 3.5)... Especially as you seem to agree, 'the game would work better that way', and it isn't allowing any real excess of actions, since Spring Attack + Vital Strike is still only allowing a (Standard) Attack Action and a Move Action (just being split up).
Some of these cases are hard to figure out (from reading the current RAW) what the intent is, because it seems the stated intent has generally been to follow thru with 3.5 'unless it's broken', i.e. the general imagery and dynamics of maneuvers wasn't intended to be changed except to simplify the mechancis, yet Trip (and Grapple) not using unarmed as a vector *IS* very different from 3.5 (though I don't get that the imagery of how one imagines these happening is any different).
Anyhow, thanks again for being as helpful as you can be with all these issues.
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
So how come a npc uses this under her tactics in PF#30? This does indeed indicate there is a need of a FAQ.
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how come a npc uses this under her tactics in PF#30? This does indeed indicate there is a need of a FAQ.
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
#1: You win the internet for today!
#2:Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a microexaminaiton of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool.
Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW!
Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all. :-)
|
Creative Director
|
OK, so this isn't necessarily something you asked Jason the intent on...
Nope, because he's been sick all weekend and as a general rule I don't make it a policy to call him up to get permission to post to the messageboards on the weekend even when he's not sick.
And anyway, you've all convinced me that Spring Attack and Vital Strike should work together. Which wasn't hard, since as I've said above, that's my personal preference.
So how come a npc uses this under her tactics in PF#30? This does indeed indicate there is a need of a FAQ.
The game works fine either way. The rules as I see them state that Spring Attack and Vital Strike don't work together, but letting them work together is probably better for the game.For now, though, the original ruling stands. (But I'll certainly be letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together in my personal games!)
#1: You win the internet for today!
#2:Because it's a good tactic. And because when I'm developing an adventure, I go with my gut more often than a microexaminaiton of every single rule... because that's the only way to get APs out on a monthly schedule. And because, as I've mentioned above, letting Spring Attack and Vital Strike work together is cool.
Since you found precedence where the two feats work together in print, LET THAT BE THE LAW!
Vital Strike and Spring Attack were made to be together, after all. :-)
LOL. Well your cool too.
OK, so this isn't necessarily something you asked Jason the intent on...Nope, because he's been sick all weekend and as a general rule I don't make it a policy to call him up to get permission to post to the messageboards on the weekend even when he's not sick.
And anyway, you've all convinced me that Spring Attack and Vital Strike should work together. Which wasn't hard, since as I've said above, that's my personal preference.
Remember folks, James is the creative director, and as we all know, the creative players are the ones who need looked after or they'll run away with the rules!
Just kidding Mr. Jacobs!
I don't think you're making the "wild-and-wooly" call that you think you are. Remember that Spring Attack requires Dex 13, Dodge, Mobility, and base attack bonus +4. All just to avoid attacks of opportunity from a single opponent that you are attacking. If you can only make a totally "vanilla" attack, it doesn't really seem worth it. The explanation back in the day by WotC staffers was that all the feats worked together unless specified or prohibited by other rules (i.e. action cost, etc.)
Anyway, thanks for your input......and what the hell were you doing posting at like 3:30 AM?!?!? We told you to ignore us til Monday.
|
First of all: THANK YOU, James, for taking time off your weekend to post here!
I totally agree that every group should discuss those rules/details they feel are problematic/hard to interpret and adjudicate them as they see fit -- with the GM, naturally. I thought every group did this anyway, as you simply cannot design a ruleset that would have explicitly written and worded rules for every possible situation that might come up during play.
It's okay to ask for clarification or official rulings, but I just don't get it when people get snarky and start asking for Jason's opinion on everything (and preferably *RIGHT NOW*). Especially if James, other Paizonians or fellow posters post reasonable advice or suggestions on the topic. Some of them might be contradictory with each other, or even houseruled solutions, but I try to find something that either backs up my own ideas/thoughts, or possibly even works better than RAW or what I initially came up with.
Some kind of indexed PF RPG FAQ would be nice, but I'd rather get my GMG, APG and Bestiary 2 (not to mention the Companions, Chronicles and AP modules) in time.
|
I am a huge fan of the d20pfsrd FAQ.
I think the format is perfect for finding answers to questions.
Hey thanks for your fan-dom Scipion! If you ever have any special requests or suggestions please do let us know!
I'm so happy Vital Strike isn't being changed. We've been using vital strike this as an Attack Action and Melee Attack is an Attack Action. Even though no one has taken Spring Attack one player has been working his way to this exact combo. I'd have hated to tell him that Vital Strike was now a Standard Action. As well we use Vital Strike on Full Attack Actions as they are listed under attack actions as Multiple Attacks and the sentence about using Vital Strike only on the Highest Attack works well and seemed to be the intent with that statement.
Basically I'd be dealing with some very angry players had Vital Strike been changed to a Standard Action.
As DM running an AP I don't really care one way or the other.
uhh.... Voska, you probably want to check out the FAQ on d20pfsrd.com that has Jason's posts on the subject archived/quoted.
But as to 'attack action' and multiple attacks, read exactly how multiple attacks are referenced under 'attack action':
Attack Action:
(...)
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
That's basically saying any time you make multiple attacks you DON'T use the (Standard) Attack Action, but must use the Full Attack Action. Otherwise, what is the Full Attack Action FOR? So the purpose of that line is calling out that if you want to do this thing (multiple attacks) that ISN'T compatable with (Standard) Attack Actions, that you should REALLY be looking at the Full Attack Action instead, i.e. as a helpful re-direction.
But the question wasn't whether Vital Strike would change, Jason's intent on that has been made clear for some time, but how the AMBIGUITY of SPRING ATTACK would be resolved, because as written it wasn't clear what type of action it used, and thus, whether or not Vital Strike was compatible with it or not.
Obviously alot of people are having some trouble 'digesting' the rules-as-intended for Vital Strike and what situations it can be used in from the current rules-as-written, so here's hoping the next Update/Printing makes them alot more clear.
And anyway, you've all convinced me that Spring Attack and Vital Strike should work together. Which wasn't hard, since as I've said above, that's my personal preference.
James, your time is valuable both to you and to me so I'll be brief.
Here's a thought/question.
If we - the community- were to propose a reasonable and organized "ask the devs" type mechanism, would Paizo be willing to support that. Specifically what I'm thinking is that if each week a particular disputed or unclear topic were discussed by the customers, then the distilled viewpoints were presented to a Paizo staffer for review, might that work? Paizo wouldn't need to read every post, or rule on a bunch of questions at a time, but an "official" answer to hot topics could slowly come to be.
Those "official" answers would be up to us to organize in a/the unofficial FAQ.
My inspiration frankly is your evolution in this thread. At first you ruled X, but expressed you felt Y. Later, upon enough information you ruled Y.
What I'm fascinated by is that... the full exploration of contentious issues. Design viewpoints. Not just "no, it's not allowed" but rather "no, it's not RAW but it's harmless if you want to allow it". The behind-the-scenes kind of answer.
Perhaps if we were to make this a weekly blog/article by keeping the volume of questions LOW...? I mean, obviously this could supplement the other posts you make, but as a Paizo feature if one question a week were "officially" answered, those answers could be collected somewhere.
Just a thought. I'd love to read an Ask Paizo feature, despite not having any real rules questions myself.
|
Creative Director
|
Just a heads up: We talked a little bit about the FAQ in today's "state of the nation" weekly meeting, and I really like the idea of setting up the FAQ as a dedicated spot on these boards where we can post but others cannot. That lets us have direct control over everything, without worries about things like layout or finding a spot for it on the website and all that, AND lets us directly manipulate the words whenever we want without having to go to the web guys.
I'm not sure yet how it'll all work out or if there's some unforeseen reason why we COULDN'T do this (up until now, we just hadn't thought of doing a FAQ that way)... but if it all works as I hope, we might be able to get it going a LOT sooner than I thought. Especially since we don't have to have it DONE before we post it... we can start it as a single post and let it grow organically as needed.
Stay tuned!
|
Creative Director
|
If we - the community- were to propose a reasonable and organized "ask the devs" type mechanism, would Paizo be willing to support that.
We already have that system. It's these boards, and we support it as much as we can. There's nothing preventing anyone from organizing the answers right now (and some folks have already attempted it) apart from the overwhelming tedium of having to search the threads.
I'm not really interested in spending a lot of energy here at Paizo making it easier for customers to organize a FAQ. I'd rather spend our energy doing that to organize our own FAQ. (See previous post.)
Just a heads up: We talked a little bit about the FAQ in today's "state of the nation" weekly meeting, and I really like the idea of setting up the FAQ as a dedicated spot on these boards where we can post but others cannot. That lets us have direct control over everything, without worries about things like layout or finding a spot for it on the website and all that, AND lets us directly manipulate the words whenever we want without having to go to the web guys.
I'm not sure yet how it'll all work out or if there's some unforeseen reason why we COULDN'T do this (up until now, we just hadn't thought of doing a FAQ that way)... but if it all works as I hope, we might be able to get it going a LOT sooner than I thought. Especially since we don't have to have it DONE before we post it... we can start it as a single post and let it grow organically as needed.
Stay tuned!
Nice, I like this! Glad to know Dilbert doesn't work at your company, he he.
|
|
Just a heads up: We talked a little bit about the FAQ in today's "state of the nation" weekly meeting, and I really like the idea of setting up the FAQ as a dedicated spot on these boards where we can post but others cannot. That lets us have direct control over everything, without worries about things like layout or finding a spot for it on the website and all that, AND lets us directly manipulate the words whenever we want without having to go to the web guys.
I'm not sure yet how it'll all work out or if there's some unforeseen reason why we COULDN'T do this (up until now, we just hadn't thought of doing a FAQ that way)... but if it all works as I hope, we might be able to get it going a LOT sooner than I thought. Especially since we don't have to have it DONE before we post it... we can start it as a single post and let it grow organically as needed.
Stay tuned!
This seems like a GREAT way to handle it. It actually seems like a Best-Of-Both-Worlds, Win-Win kind of thing!
Paizo comes through again!
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
That's basically saying any time you make multiple attacks you DON'T use the (Standard) Attack Action, but must use the Full Attack Action. Otherwise, what is the Full Attack Action FOR? So the purpose of that line is calling out that if you want to do this thing (multiple attacks) that ISN'T compatable with (Standard) Attack Actions, that you should REALLY be looking at the Full Attack Action instead, i.e. as a helpful re-direction.
But the question wasn't whether Vital Strike would change, Jason's intent on that has been made clear for some time, but how the AMBIGUITY of SPRING ATTACK would be resolved, because as written it wasn't clear what type of action it used, and thus, whether or not Vital Strike was compatible with it or not.
Obviously alot of people are having some trouble 'digesting' the rules-as-intended for Vital Strike and what situations it can be used in from the current rules-as-written, so here's hoping the next Update/Printing makes them alot more clear.
What I was saying was under standard action: Attack, is a list of attack actions. It's the only thing that remotely defines an attack action so that's what we use. Under that list multiple attack exist referencing full attack actions. So it's full attack action but still an attack action. So as an attack action you can use Vital Strike. Due to the line in Vital Strike that limits vital strike to you highest BAB attack it makes sense.
Now if that is wrong then what is a attack action?
What I was saying was under standard action: Attack, is a list of attack actions. It's the only thing that remotely defines an attack action so that's what we use. Under that list multiple attack exist referencing full attack actions. So it's full attack action but still an attack action. So as an attack action you can use Vital Strike. Due to the line in Vital Strike that limits vital strike to you highest BAB attack it makes sense.
Now if that is wrong then what is a attack action?
Look at the fonts of the headings of the various entries you are discussing. Notice section heading=Standard Actions, then entry=Attack, followed by the sub-listings of the different kinds of Attack actions.
Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.
Then, over in Full-Round Actions the entry is Full Attack.
So, I hope you see, an "Attack Action" is a single attack that requires a Standard Action to perform. If you engage in multiple attacks it becomes a Full Attack which uses a Full-Round Action.
I must say, the section under Attack action does need to be cleared up. In Paizo's defense, it is almost verbatim from the SRD/PH 3.5. But, it includes sub-entries detailing special kinds of attack situations (unarmed [and their AoO implications, Natural attacks, etc.) that properly apply to all situations where an attack can be made and should be separated for clarity from the Attack action. And they could change the language (and title) of the entry to put this to rest.
I just want to say I totally get the OP's frustration. There are some rules that have been confusing since the day 3.0 came out that are still confusing in Pathfinder today. They're kind of the ugly things that no one wants to fix (in some cases they aren't broken, just ugly)on an official level.
The fact that the questions come up so often proves the RAW are not adequate. The answers may be there, but we shouldn't have to make a high DC Parse or Cross-reference check.
I love that there's probably going to be a forums-based FAQ. Furthermore, I really hope that the information is taken and adjusted in the PFSRD and the next printing of the Core Rulebook.
Just a heads up: We talked a little bit about the FAQ in today's "state of the nation" weekly meeting, and I really like the idea of setting up the FAQ as a dedicated spot on these boards where we can post but others cannot. That lets us have direct control over everything, without worries about things like layout or finding a spot for it on the website and all that, AND lets us directly manipulate the words whenever we want without having to go to the web guys.
I'm not sure yet how it'll all work out or if there's some unforeseen reason why we COULDN'T do this (up until now, we just hadn't thought of doing a FAQ that way)... but if it all works as I hope, we might be able to get it going a LOT sooner than I thought. Especially since we don't have to have it DONE before we post it... we can start it as a single post and let it grow organically as needed.
Stay tuned!
Nice :-)
I was about to suggest you could lock the FAQ forum so you could post but others could not, but youi beat me to it.|
Creative Director
|
I suspect there might be ONE sub-forum in the FAQ forum that might be open for everyone, but that forum would ONLY be for folks to post questions. Raw questions. No pontification or anything like that. Then we'd use that sub-forum to draw questions from (in addition to from the regular boards), deleting posts from that sub-forum as we get FAQ entries written.
I suspect there might be ONE sub-forum in the FAQ forum that might be open for everyone, but that forum would ONLY be for folks to post questions. Raw questions. No pontification or anything like that. Then we'd use that sub-forum to draw questions from (in addition to from the regular boards), deleting posts from that sub-forum as we get FAQ entries written.
What if in the sub-forum for questions other posters could reply with a link to the FAQ forum answer. That way for popular questions if you guys want you can just drop in, give a head nod that it's the right answer, lock the thread and flag it as answered?
I don't know if that would be overly complicated, just a thought.
What if in the sub-forum for questions other posters could reply with a link to the FAQ forum answer. That way for popular questions if you guys want you can just drop in, give a head nod that it's the right answer, lock the thread and flag it as answered
I thought it might be possible for Gary to work a little magic and make it easy for the "rules" team to mark questions as 'answered' and auto-link them to the Answer for them. Via something like a button that marks it "Answered" and Auto-Creates a Thread in the "Answers" Forum. Or for Questions that have already been answered, a pop-up menu to select the appropriate "Answer" Thread or something. (The special "Answer" Controls could only appear to Jason and James' accounts) In other words, make it easy to 'auto-manage' for the "rules team" themselves.