I could understand a response that was like: "I'm very confident these allegations are untrue." or a response like: "These allegations are shocking and we will investigate." But this? I mean, come on. Come on.
Buying and selling intelligent/sentient beings is kind of creepy and violates the baseline lines/veils position of Paizo as I understand it.
I would favorite this post 50 times if I could.
I guess it depends on what it means to "cross" the wall. It seems to me like if you cross the edge of the wall on either side, you've crossed the wall for the purpose of determining if you have encountered fire. So the "to intersect" definition of to cross is probably what I would apply here.
Also, Paizo as a whole is MUCH smaller than WotC, which is backed by the monolithic Hasbro. Paizo can't afford to have one dedicated "rules master" without taking significant time and energy away from more profitable projects they could be working on instead. WotC on the other hand, can afford an entire team or department of staff where that's their sole purpose. I've often heard this argument but the fact that Paizo used to do this for Pathfinder 1e while remaining a profitable business kind of suggests that Paizo could afford it if it were a priority to them, like it used to be. I agree though that the toxicity of the community is a major deterrent. The toxicity is weird because (a) you don't really see the equivalent toxic reactions to Jeremy Crawford--who incidentally does a *ton* of things besides answering rules questions on Twitter; and (b) neither the PF2 discord nor the Arcane Mark discord seem toxic at all. In retrospect perhaps deleting their forums was a super smart move by Wizards of the Coast.
I think no, because though the spell could be cast by someone with arcane magic, it is being cast by someone with divine magic, and so this version of the spell has the divine trait but not arcane trait. The wording of Recognize Spell says "the spell's tradition", not "one of the spell's traditions." The different spell traditions presumably work differently, and if the casting didn't look different, it really wouldn't mean anything for a spell to take the trait of one tradition and not another.
...I don't actually think it's "most folks" interacting with the rules digitally. Pretty sure most still buy hard copy books, store them on shelves, and have a vague awareness that errata is a thing at best, but rarely ever actually go find or use it because it's not an issue to them. I would be shocked if this were the case, but I suppose data would be helpful here. I buy hard copy books, and even store them on shelves, but a) at the game table it is always quickest to look up rules digitally; b) if building a character, I use pathbuilder, and I suspect that isn't a minority position; c) after a year of pandemic the vast majority of players play digitally at least some of the time; d) if there is a critical mass of casuals who regularly play pf2 but who don't or very rarely consult archives of nethys or pathbuilder, those people don't care about errata anyway so they literally aren't affected by it anyway.
Yeah I know all the arguments for not answering rules questions, but I mean two or three a year wouldn't be asking for a lot and it isn't like the designers could possibly be unaware of the issues. Or, hell, indirectly answering by releasing some errata would be even better. With most folks interacting with rules elements digitally, the downsides of a more regular errata schedule really are small.
But a worm, an ooze or an amorphous creature, just don't have an underside or a normal orientation. They should be immune to being tripped. Well, if you do an image search of oozes, they are usually fairly erect, with appendage like pseudopods and the like. So I think a "prone" ooze would be a bit splatted on the floor. To get back into the fight, it would need to puff itself back up, or "stand." So that all feels okay to me. (That said, I'm not sure why, say, the weapons with the trip trait would be especially better at splatting an ooze.) It *does* seem to me like tripping a basilisk should be more difficult. Maybe targeting its fortitude dc instead of reflex might make more sense. I run two games, and if I made any sort of ruling like that in one, my players would coup (or at least whine about it in their group chat passive aggressively). In my other, the group would expect me to think about something like that and render a judgment and might get irritated and eye-rolly if I handwaved and said "well, RAW, it isn't immune to the prone condition..." They would at least expect me to give an explanation/description of how the snake or ooze or whatever could be prone. The first group, on the other hand, would be irritated that I even felt the need to give such an explanation. And there are a couple players that play in both groups -- fascinating to observe the effects of groupthink / distinctive group culture that emerges in very long term gaming groups. In any event, my GM philosophy is largely just to give the players the kind of refereeing that they want.
Hmm. I use the automatic bonus progression rule in my games so I've never had to think too hard about this question. I started this thread thinking it would be ludicrous to require higher level materials for ammo to access the benefits of higher level bow runes, but I've been completely persuaded. What seems damning to me is that no one seems to be willing even to try to respond to this argument:
I just cannot imagine a world in which it makes sense to write "...on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon" if you can use that ammunition for weapons of higher level. Why would it be written that way otherwise? What purpose would such a clause serve? Barring a halfway plausible explanation, that just seems completely dispositive here.
Does anyone have a working link to the 2nd errata? The link Mark Seifter posted above is dead.Should be https://paizo.com/pathfinder/faq. Should be, but isn't. |
