...on stealth, the question isn't under what conditions one can enter stealth (which is clearly laid out) the question is what conditions you require to maintain stealth (which is most definitely not clearly laid out). For example, while stealthed, can you dart past an open door? Can you move through a well lit area momentarily while guards have their backs turned?
There isn't any ambiguity here.
You cannot move through an open space or a well-lit area if someone is even casually observing that space or area, no. The Stealth entry is clear on this point. An observer that is distracted, perhaps by a Bluff check, is a different story (which is also addressed in the Stealth entry).
If you are allowing the rules addendums from the Rules Compendium, you will find some pretty detailed rules regarding moving between areas of cover or concealment exactly as you have described above.
Ok, let me try to explain this.
Can you use stealth to cover open ground?
Per the Core Rulebook and PSRD, no... not unless the observer is distracted.
What counts as a magical trap?
A trap with the 'Magic' type is a magical trap.
Does darkvision affect a supernatural ability like HiPS?
No. Hide in Plain Sight allows you to hide while being observed, while darkvision enables you to see in perfect darkness. Darkvision grants no special abilities otherwise.
When is it that stealth can be used? Can you hide without cover or concealment and under what conditions?
Only against a distracted opponent. Note that the Stealth entry says that you must have cover or concealment to hide from MOST opponents, suggesting that (for example) a character could hide from a blinded opponent.
The interactions between dim light/darkness/darkvision/stealth/and concealment are still unclear. When does this incredibly convoluted series of interactions allow a rouge to use sneak attack.
Dim light grants concealment, which allows a character to use Stealth to hide from opponents. A hidden rogue that can strike opponents flat-footed may use Sneak Attack on those opponents.
Darkvision renders dim light (but not other forms of concealment) irrelavent.
Just to be very clear, my DM says that since they are a single ray, and they are fired simultaneously that they count as a single source of damage and fire resistance is applied once.
Your DM is, of course, free to rule however he likes, but energy resistance does not apply once per damage source, it applies once per attack; and an "attack" is not a vague idea, but a clearly defined term from the Core Rulebook.
Sneaking past an open door while the two guards are complaining about their nagging wives? Sounds reasonable, Rule 0, they get a -5 because they're distracted. Problem solved.
You're correct, except for the "problem solved" bit; as there never was a problem here. The rules support exactly what you just described.
Per the Core Rulebook and the PSRD, you can use Stealth to hide from a distracted individual.
...on stealth, the question isn't under what conditions one can enter stealth (which is clearly laid out) the question is what conditions you require to maintain stealth (which is most definitely not clearly laid out). For example, while stealthed, can you dart past an open door? Can you move through a well lit area momentarily while guards have their backs turned?There isn't any ambiguity here.
You cannot move through an open space or a well-lit area if someone is even casually observing that space or area, no. The Stealth entry is clear on this point. An observer that is distracted, perhaps by a Bluff check, is a different story (which is also addressed in the Stealth entry).
[begin mild sarcasm]I'm glad you're so certain. I'll just go tell all the people that posted in one of the thousand+ post threads about stealth that all the questions are resolved.[/end mild sarcasm]
The question people have been debating for quite some time is not "can I use stealth while being passively observed, or while moving through an area under observation" it is "What counts as observation? Is a creature who is unaware of my presence observing me? Lacking facing rules, is it possible to sneak up on someone while they're looking the other way, or is everyone observing everything in all directions at all times? etc."
These questions aren't really clearly resolved in Pathfinder, though there are varying answers from a couple different sources in 3.5.
I'm perfectly happy to discuss it and work out a good answer; I'm not really necessarily looking for an "official" answer the way Nexus is (though it would be nice). Debate/Discussion is one thing though, and just coming in and saying, "There's no ambiguity" then implying that anyone who disagrees with you is either an idiot or hasn't read the rules is not debate, it's just rude (admittedly, Nexus does that to people; he got me riled up the first time we talked too).
The question people have been debating for quite some time is not "can I use stealth while being passively observed, or while moving through an area under observation" it is "What counts as observation? Is a creature who is unaware of my presence observing me?
By definition, a creature that is unaware of you cannot observe you, therefore you can use Stealth against unaware characters. A character that is actively watching and observing the activity in any given hallway will be observing you, when you enter that hallway.
If the issue that you have with Stealth is the issue that you have described above, then the issue is not with Stealth, but with the fact that the term "distracted" is not entirely defined.
If the issue that you have with Stealth is the issue that you have described above, then the issue is not with Stealth, but with the fact that the term "distracted" is not entirely defined.
Fair enough, either way there are questions about (and some ambiguity in) the definition of distraction, facing or lack of facing, etc.
Fair enough, either way there are questions about (and some ambiguity in) the definition of distraction, facing or lack of facing, etc.
Most of which are best decided by a DM in a case by case scenario. If a couple of guys are complaining about their nagging wives and you want to sneak by an open space in their view, it's up to the DM to determine whether they're so into their discussion that they're considered distracted or not.
If the issue that you have with Stealth is the issue that you have described above, then the issue is not with Stealth, but with the fact that the term "distracted" is not entirely defined.Fair enough, either way there are questions about (and some ambiguity in) the definition of distraction, facing or lack of facing, etc.
Facing isn't an issue, there is no facing, and as such the idea facing is irrelevant to Stealth. What is relevant is the "distracted" issue.
Since you can use Stealth to hide from distracted characters and cannot use Stealth to hide from characters observing you, it stands to reason that a character is either observing an area (watching the aforementioned hallway, for example), or he is distracted (doing just about anything else, for example).
Not an official ruling (the rules seem intentionally nonspecific as to what "distracted" means), but it makes sense, seems like the RAI, and is smoothly compatable with the RAW.
The question people have been debating for quite some time is not "can I use stealth while being passively observed, or while moving through an area under observation" it is "What counts as observation? Is a creature who is unaware of my presence observing me?By definition, a creature that is unaware of you cannot observe you, therefore you can use Stealth against unaware characters. A character that is actively watching and observing the activity in any given hallway will be observing you, when you enter that hallway.
I don't think this quite rings true. A creature is unaware of you because he hasn't "noticed" you, whether because you are using stealth, or because you have total concealment. But they get the chance to notice you whenever they "observe" you, which is whenever you leave total cover or concealment.
A problem with the rules that contributes much to this issue is that there is no facing in standard d20 (including Pathfinder), and so everyone automatically "observes" in all directions unless specifically distracted as stated by previous posts. However, that is where the Perception check DC modifier "creature making the check is distracted" entry comes in. Plus ad hoc mods by the DM.
I'm making pudding, who wants some?
Is there not a exception to facing with regards to making Attacks Of Opportunity agaist foes against your flank who move out of threatened areas?, just curious and putting it out there.
Is there not a exception to facing with regards to making Attacks Of Opportunity agaist foes against your flank who move out of threatened areas?, just curious and putting it out there.
I do not understand the question, facing doesn't exist in the pathfinder game.
Is there not a exception to facing with regards to making Attacks Of Opportunity agaist foes against your flank who move out of threatened areas?, just curious and putting it out there.
There is no such exception, no. Facing is simply not an aspect of the game.
To some degree, the Stealth/Perception rules are intentionally vague. This is similar to how a recipe might say "add salt to flavor." Everyone's individual flavor is different. Similarly, different groups can handle Stealth/Perception how they see fit.
-Skeld
I have a similar feeling about this.
I think that "distracted" is intentionally undefined by the Stealth entry since defining whether or not ANY given action leaves a character "distracted" would be virtually impossible. Being a vague term (with a common and easily understood definiton), the DM is left to determine for himself whether a character is observing an area... or distracted.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
The question people have been debating for quite some time is not "can I use stealth while being passively observed, or while moving through an area under observation" it is "What counts as observation? Is a creature who is unaware of my presence observing me? Lacking facing rules, is it possible to sneak up on someone while they're looking the other way, or is everyone observing everything in all directions at all times? etc."
These questions aren't really clearly resolved in Pathfinder, though there are varying answers from a couple different sources in 3.5.
Actually, they are, as part of the FUNDAMENTALS of the game. The simple answer is 'Whatever the GM says'. I'll reiterate:
Rather than provide modifiers for every single possible scenario, Pathfinder (and 3.5, and practically every other tabletop RPG) gives the power of judgement to the GM.One handy rule to keep under your belt is the Fiat Rule—simply grant a player a +2 or a –2 bonus or penalty to a die roll if no one at the table is precisely sure how a situation might be handled by the rules.
If you are a Game Master, you control the world that the players explore. Your job is to bring the setting to life and to present the characters with challenges that are both fair and exciting. From the local merchant prince to the rampaging dragon, you control all of the characters that are not being played by the players.
Emphasis mine. What counts as observation? YOU are the SUPREME BEING of this world, if it would make sense for the PCs opponents to be observing an area (e.g. guards, audience members of the aforementioned opera) they are. If it doesn't (e.g. praying, in a crowded bar, in combat, sleeping during said opera, flirting with an attractive (wo)man) they aren't.
You're really making this much more complicated than it needs to be. Make a ruling based on the situation, apply reasonable modifiers, and get back to having fun!
It's nice that this is the way you are playing spring attack. I'm still not seeing where attack action is defined . I've searched the whole combat chapter and glossary and have not found anywhere where this is defined. I don't know what this *means*. And people can tell me what they think it means, but I didn't start this thread so I could hear how someone house ruled something. Rule 0 isn't what I'm interested in, nor assumptions. This thread is a request for official responses to these queriess.
Attack Actions are under the Standard Actions heading sub category Attack. Listed there is the following:
Melee Attack
Ranged Attack
Unarmed Attack
Natural Attack
Multiple Attack: This one has exception to the Standard action as it's full round Action called full attack so while it is an attack action it's not standard action.
There is nothing if you search for Attack Action but if you look under Actions in Combat you find Standard Action and under that is Attack with the list above. Not the most clear but it is there.
It's nice that this is the way you are playing spring attack. I'm still not seeing where attack action is defined . I've searched the whole combat chapter and glossary and have not found anywhere where this is defined. I don't know what this *means*. And people can tell me what they think it means, but I didn't start this thread so I could hear how someone house ruled something. Rule 0 isn't what I'm interested in, nor assumptions. This thread is a request for official responses to these queriess.Attack Actions are under the Standard Actions heading sub category Attack. Listed there is the following:
Melee Attack
Ranged Attack
Unarmed Attack
Natural Attack
Multiple Attack: This one has exception to the Standard action as it's full round Action called full attack so while it is an attack action it's not standard action.There is nothing if you search for Attack Action but if you look under Actions in Combat you find Standard Action and under that is Attack with the list above. Not the most clear but it is there.
Absolutely.
I think an issue underlying nearly all confusion with rules, especially when we try to "find the rule", is that the d20 rules originally produced by WotC, the current SRD, and by extension Pathfinder, are all written "by omission". What I mean by that is the "exception" based nature of the rules, means there are baseline rules and unless an action, feat, spell, or special ability specifically calls out an exception, then the normal rules apply.
For instance, the new Pathfinder version of the Cleave feat says "As a standard action, you can make a single attack at your full base attack bonus against a foe within reach. If you hit, etc...."
This is an exception to the rule that attacking more than once is a full round action. But it also means that you cannot use Cleave and then continue with a full-round action attack.
I should note that I believe the problem with the Vital Strike feat is that it does not say this, even though that is how it works. It shouldn't say "When you use the attack action", it should say "As a standard action".
I would also like to point out (sorry for the ramble) that way back in early 3.0 the attack action was described as this weird little subset of actions, as delineated above by voska66, that were interchangeable with Grapple attacks, Disarm attacks, etc. That was where the confusion was at the time.....just a little history.
I should note that I believe the problem with the Vital Strike feat is that it does not say this, even though that is how it works. It shouldn't say "When you use the attack action", it should say "As a standard action".
The Vital Strike Feat could have been written as standard action but there is a reason why one wouldn't do that. If you wrote it as standard action you would have to add what type of action is it. Does it apply to ranged, melee, unarmed and such. So you specify that it does or by omission state that can not be done. This leads to much more wordy feat. As well if additional attack action get added in the future they have multiple places to add that action.
Now if as an attack action it applies to all the actions under Attack. It's located in on place and any additions can be added so any feat referencing an attack action applies to the new attack action. That's good design.
The only thing I think could be more clear is having the terminology actually say Attack Action equals XYZ in a nice chart for easy reference.
I should note that I believe the problem with the Vital Strike feat is that it does not say this, even though that is how it works. It shouldn't say "When you use the attack action", it should say "As a standard action".
The Vital Strike Feat could have been written as standard action but there is a reason why one wouldn't do that. If you wrote it as standard action you would have to add what type of action is it. Does it apply to ranged, melee, unarmed and such. So you specify that it does or by omission state that can not be done. This leads to much more wordy feat. As well if additional attack action get added in the future they have multiple places to add that action.
Now if as an attack action it applies to all the actions under Attack. It's located in on place and any additions can be added so any feat referencing an attack action applies to the new attack action. That's good design.
The only thing I think could be more clear is having the terminology actually say Attack Action equals XYZ in a nice chart for easy reference.
But by your own definition, the attack action is either a single attack or part of a full attack. And the only thing that distinguishes one attack action from the other is the action that it takes (i.e. standard or full).
The Vital Strike feat is very definitely a single attack for extra damage which could be said to consume a full attack, as some things have in the past (when they are very powerful), or a standard action which would allow a move but not a full attack. It seems clear that since they improperly referred to it as an attack action, they meant standard action, and since you only double the dice this seems inline with the power of it being a special standard action attack (i.e. it costs a feat and can't be combined with all your attacks).
As I said before, the original ruling on "attack actions" by the original designers of the d20 system was that they were interchangeable with the "special attacks" like grapple, etc. You wouldn't want Vital Strike to be interchangeable in that way because it would be far too powerful, and everyone would take it.
The bottom line is that, despite the insanity of this thread as a whole, the "attack action" does need a definitive explanation, and a place in the main headings. I liken it to the Basic Attack of 4E. Go from there.
nothing prevents you from tripping while holding a quarter staff or Longspear in your hands, the rules don't say anything about needing to have your hands free to trip somebody... you just don't get the extra bonuses from using a masterwork or magic weapon on trip attacks if the weapon isn't a trip weapon... feel free to describe your trip however you want... "I shove my staff behind his leg and shoulder block him back over it, attempting to trip him" etc.James recently answered in a different thread that you can only trip with a trip weapon or an unarmed attack. He stated that was an "official" response.Am I reading this correctly? You officially can not trip with a quarterstaff, or even a long spear?
Huh.
That is a weird ruling...
It seems I might have struck a nerve.
Since there is absolutely no ambiguity in my writing, let me clarify for you. Repeatedly if necessary.
I never said anything about "with a quarterstaff or long spear in hand." In fact, I am well aware it is possible to put someone on their back (much like a trip action) without spilling a drop from a full mug of beer. Not very easy, but possible. I haven't even tried to contend if you can trip with anything in hand.
How a player can describe a thing is completely irrelevant to my point. How things can go in one game has nothing to do with another game. Hell, with the right GM I can describe my 1st level wizard throwing 25000GP of diamond dust into the air and using wish to cast my magic missile. (As long as I don't try to use the diamond dust outside of this description, of course...)
My point was, that according to official ruling, it is weird that you can not trip with a:
- Dagger/Knife: Step past the opponent, and drive the blade into their hamstring, pulling back and up.
[*}Gauntlet/Spiked Gauntlet: Any "trip" type actions you can perform with open hand.
- Light Shield/Heavy Shield: Drive the shield upward and into opponent. With a little luck to catch it under the chin, and with enough force, the opponent is on their back.
- Quarterstaff/Long Spear/Any long shafted weapon: Sweep out the front leg - just like you would do with an unarmed attack.
- Net: Enough said.
- Any long weapon, such as a Greatsword: All you have to do is swing at the back of the legs, and since their is no facing (and the rogue class ability no longer requires being behind an opponent), you could always have a good clear shot at them. If a sythe can trip, a greatsword can when at a 90 degree angle to the opponent.
I just find it really weird that there would be an official ruling stating that you can only trip with an unarmed attack, or a specific trip weapon.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a weapon doesn't have the trip special quality listed on the chart of weapons on pages 142–143, you can't use it to trip foes. Whether or not we should have given this quality to things like spears or quarterstaffs or nets is a different topic—in order to trip a foe with a weapon, the weapon HAS to have the trip special quality. As to why we didn't give more weapons this quality, it all has to do with the way we decided to balance the rules for each weapon. Giving a weapon the trip special quality makes it better, which means it either has to become more expensive or less effective in other areas.
As a DM I would houserule that if you try to trip with a weapon without the "trip" property, you have to take -4 to the roll as if using an improvised weapon.
If a weapon doesn't have the trip special quality listed on the chart of weapons on pages 142–143, you can't use it to trip foes. Whether or not we should have given this quality to things like spears or quarterstaffs or nets is a different topic—in order to trip a foe with a weapon, the weapon HAS to have the trip special quality. As to why we didn't give more weapons this quality, it all has to do with the way we decided to balance the rules for each weapon. Giving a weapon the trip special quality makes it better, which means it either has to become more expensive or less effective in other areas.
When I posted the list I was unaware that this had already been answered, I missed the thread.
Also, the official ruling on scorching ray was posted in that thread.
Several of the issues with grapple have been cleared up for me(such as rake not giving a extra attacks but simulating a full attack while grappling).
I really appreciate your responses James, here and in the displacement thread. It is one of the wonderful things about this community.
I am still of the opinion a guide to perception/stealth with a collection of DC's and examples of how stealth works, a walk through on key points of grapple, and a little clarification on 'attack' actions for feats such as vital strike would be nice. I think the fact that there's some discussion in this thread about these issues shows they could use clarification. Seems like a good bit for the gamemaster's guide, or perhaps even a pdf download. ;-p please don't hate me for hinting. I know everyone is working hard.
Again, thanks for the reply.
The only problem I have with this thread is the OP will only accept the word of someone on the Paizo Staff. Any post by anyone other than Paizo Staff, no matter how many page #'s or rules are listed, are termed 'Your Interpretation of the Rules not RAW'.
That leads this to be a useless thread because no post by anyone other than a Paizo Staff will be treated as anything other than 'Your Opinion'.
That makes this a colossal waste of time and engenders annoyance and irritation in the people who were trying to help. It's basically a slap in the face, as someone asked for help and when help was given (with rule quotes and page references), the people who were helping were told they were just interpreting the rules and their interpretations were no more valid than anyone elses.
That doesn't encourage people to continue attempting to help.
The only problem I have with this thread is the OP will only accept the word of someone on the Paizo Staff. Any post by anyone other than Paizo Staff, no matter how many page #'s or rules are listed, are termed 'Your Interpretation of the Rules not RAW'.
I guess that's why I titled the thread 'Official answers'
That makes this a colossal waste of time and engenders annoyance and irritation in the people who were trying to help. It's basically a slap in the face, as someone asked for help and when help was given (with rule quotes and page references), the people who were helping were told they were just interpreting the rules and their interpretations were no more valid than anyone elses.
That doesn't encourage people to continue attempting to help.
I didn't ask anyone for help. I pointed out five issues, each that has threads near or over 100+ posts (one that has half a dozen posts with several in the multiple hundreds) without resolution And said, and I quote
"I'm not looking to restart the endless threads that go on about these things. I'm looking to itemize a list of stuff that we know is a problem."
In the sense that if we could collect these issues, it might help them address them.
People replying, claiming that the debate in those thousands of posts was 'stupid' because they didn't know the rules and the answer was 'simple' when the length of the threads clearly indicated that it *wasn't* simple seemed kind of offensive to me, if not to several other posters.
Thanks anyway mdt. I'm sure we'll spar again in the future. ;-p
That leads this to be a useless thread because no post by anyone other than a Paizo Staff will be treated as anything other than 'Your Opinion'.
And there is no real guarantee that whichever Paizo staffer decides to post has had a heart-to-heart round-robin pow-wow with Jason Buhlman and the rest of the design team. In essence, it may just be 'their opinion' anyway.
|
The only problem I have with this thread is the OP will only accept the word of someone on the Paizo Staff. Any post by anyone other than Paizo Staff, no matter how many page #'s or rules are listed, are termed 'Your Interpretation of the Rules not RAW'.I guess that's why I titled the thread 'Official answers'
The sense of entitlement from some is really somehting that hits a nerve with me. While Nexuspere knows there are many threads on these subject he thinks that he think that if he posts, the answers will be given to him because he is special. (My opinion on what he is thnking).
There is a reason this game has a DM. There is absolutley no way that a book will cover the rules for every situation. It isn't going to happen. There is also no way you are going to get an official answer for every situation. Everytime an answer is given there wil be another question..
It is true that some of your questions are common ones, or have been around for a while, but that doesn't make them more important than any others. When the core rule book was being written, I am sure the reason that some questions were left open was because either a: the writer decided the was enough information in there to answer them, or b: the writer decided that the DM can make a judgement based on the situation. I don;t know Jason pesonally, but I'll bet he didn't "leave out" things just to piss off Nexuspere.
Get used to the fact that there may be some questions that are never going to be answered officially. That is what your DM is for. If you don't like his answers, find another. If you "need" a rule for everythign you can do in a game, play monopoly, or a video game, because roleplaying isn't for you.
It is paizo's job to make products that we enjoy using, not to sit here and hold your hand through the game. They are nice eough to stop in and answer a question when they can, but don't think you have a right to them answer all your gaming questions. When something comes up that is unclear, ask your dm. That is his role in the game. If you are the DM, then use commone sense and make a decision that you think is best for you and your players.
|
There is a reason this game has a DM. There is absolutley no way that a book will cover the rules for every situation. It isn't going to happen. There is also no way you are going to get an official answer for every situation. Everytime an answer is given there wil be another question.
Problem is, some of us play with more than one GM. We may not even have a "regular group" but jump around to a number of local games when we can. I also play in the Pathfinder Society, where I GM and have been GM'ed by eight, nine different GM's. It makes it hard when each one has a slightly different interpretation of the rules. I can handle "GM opinion" when its something weird and inconsequential like the effect of farting in the wind on enemy's Perception checks. But for things like combat and stealth rules that come up in almost every game, it would be nice if there were one official answer. The Core Rule book is great, but it is unclear is some areas, or at least open to interpretation, in some major areas. The whole trip weapon thing is a good example. Especially when it turns out that the official answer is counter to common sense - you really can't trip someone with a quarterstaff? So, yes, official clarification is more than a selfish luxury for some of us.
The other part of it is the lack of an updated FAQ. Say there is some guy out there who buys the Core Rule book tomorrow and has a question about trip weapons. Is he really supposed to come here and search through multiple forums and read a bazillion post before he finds James' post finally clarifying what you can and can't trip with? Or does somebody from Paizo at some point just put the answer to questions like that - or the Headband of Intellect question that seems to pop up once a week - in a FAQ so people can find the answers to the most common questions quickly. Now, whether or not people like and accept those answers in another issue...
I guess that's why I titled the thread 'Official answers'
Right. For me, posting something asking for an official response does not equal "YOU MUST DROP EVERYTHING AND FOCUS JUST ON ME NOW". No, it means, "Hey, Paizo, whenever you get a chance, can you stop in here for 5 minutes and give me a little clarification on something?" That doesn't mean you expect them to answer immediately, or even soon, just eventually. I'd actually like a Rules Questions forum somewhat like what Troll Lord Games uses for Castles & Crusades ie, ONLY Paizo staff can respond. Yes, I know I can make something up. Yes, I know my DM can as well. But there's a freaking reason I paid for a book full of rules and its not so people can tell me "oh they meant to be vague there... geez make it up"
If I really wanted to restart the same thread that already has 11 pages of people bickering about how something is supposed to work I would have just hung out in that other useless thread no one is going to read all of. And personally, I think the Rules Questions forum should have a somewhat higher priority to Paizo staffers over general discussion posts. I've seen so many posts by Paizo staffers engaging in random conversation with fans, multiple posts long, while rules questions threads languish for months being rebumped several times a day, begging for attention. I can't help but imagine a scenario where one player is trying to get the DM's attention on a rules question but all the DM wants to do is chit-chat with another player about the football game last night. The player who is focusing on the game and who has a legitimate question eventually gets frustrated and says screw it I'm going home.
People replying, claiming that the debate in those thousands of posts was 'stupid' because they didn't know the rules and the answer was 'simple' when the length of the threads clearly indicated that it *wasn't* simple seemed kind of offensive to me, if not to several other posters.
+<a lot>
You're not alone. There are a few people on these boards who have absolutely horrid interpersonal skills. Amazing for gamers I know. You'd expect us all to be really charming individuals but alas there's some real stinkers out there. I keep searching for an "Ignore" button everytime I see a post by... well we'll leave their names out but I suspect those people know who they are (I bet you do to).
Thanks anyway mdt. I'm sure we'll spar again in the future. ;-p
Speaking of....
oh nevermind :)
|
The other part of it is the lack of an updated FAQ. Say there is some guy out there who buys the Core Rule book tomorrow and has a question about trip weapons. Is he really supposed to come here and search through multiple forums and read a bazillion post before he finds James' post finally clarifying what you can and can't trip with? Or does somebody from Paizo at some point just put the answer to questions like that - or the Headband of Intellect question that seems to pop up once a week - in a FAQ so people can find the answers to the most common questions quickly. Now, whether or not people like and accept those answers in another issue...
A FAQ is supposedly "in the works" and should be ready "real soon" (or so I've been hearing for some time now).
Yes, apparently a new player is supposed to search through hundreds of threads each hundreds of posts long to find an official response (and then hope that official response wasn't flip-flopped 5 posts after he stopped reading).
For now we have been updating an unofficial FAQ on d20pfsrd.com but it hasn't been updated in a while. We basically gave up trying to keep finding random rulings sprinkled throughout the boards and then having the links to the post broken due to Paizo archiving old threads (which is somewhere else Mr. New Player better make sure to search). Anyway, it is what it is. The FAQ on d20pfsrd.com may help with some questions but I wouldn't be surprised at this point if there have been more recent official rulings on some of the items we cataloged that are not 100% opposite to what we have there.
Sigh.
|
Creative Director
|
A FAQ is supposedly "in the works" and should be ready "real soon" (or so I've been hearing for some time now).
The faq is in the works, but it's not ready "real soon." The next round of errata should be ready "real soon." I'm sorry this disappointments folks, but the game remains playable without a faq or errata. Please have patience and try to enjoy the game in the meantime.
It's PERFECTLY okay to make your own rulings, or to seek the advice of the thousands of other VERY experienced gamers on these boards for help with confusing rules. There's no test involved.
|
|
I guess that's why I titled the thread 'Official answers'Right. For me, posting something asking for an official response does not equal "YOU MUST DROP EVERYTHING AND FOCUS JUST ON ME NOW".
The post started with these questions have been around for 10 years, and no official ruling yet. That to me says he want to see something "now"
Yes, I know I can make something up. Yes, I know my DM can as well. But there's a freaking reason I paid for a book full of rules and its not so people can tell me "oh they meant to be vague there... geez make it up"
Also you paid for a rulebook, one that is in your hand, not a team of people to answer questions for you. They prepared for that by telling you the dm makes those rulings. now granted, I am really glad that James and crew don't just ignore the questions, because a lot of us would like them answered, but we do not have any right to demand answers. Posting to a thread and saying "Hey if you have time, please look at this" is fine, but getting all pissy because someone from paizo hasn't OR because other people are giving you good suggestions is not right. Also, it really doesnt matter if they do answer it. IF you DM says otherwise, it is otherwise. if I am a DM, you can quote Jame's post to me all day, but I still say you can trip with a quarterstaff. The book (The one I already paid for) says I am right.
I also understand the point that when you play with a lot of different DMs, things change. Well, that is it, they change. There is no wrong answer. In one game quarterstaffs can be used to trip, in another one they can't. That is the way it works. Just like in some games wizard are loved, in other they are hated and hunted. If you are going to play this game, you will have to learn to adjust your method to the other players/dm in the games you play in. There is no winning D&D. The object is to have fun, and if you are so worried about whether or not your DM understand that an eagle flying overhead give you a shadow and you can now make a hide roll, maybe your missing the point of the game.
I remember going to cons, and playing with a DMs who did everything really weird. One let wizard empty wands of magic missile in one round. I used to get all uptight, and try to tell them that they were running the game wrong, or they didn't understand the rule, and some players would agree and other would get mad and I found that I used to really not enjoy the games. There was so much time spent figuring our how we should be having fun, we didn't have fun. One day I said "I am not gonna argue with any rule" and just played my character. It was awesome. Was I surprised when someone lit my grease spell on fire and burned up half the party, damn right, but next time, I learned to cast grease on their side (Followed by flame arrow).
If you need an official ruling to have fun playing an RPG, maybe you need to rethink the purpose of the game. You don;t play to get everything perfectly right, or on target. You play to have a good time. If your good time is ruined because someone makes a rules decision you don't agree with, you aren't going to find many good rpg games.
|
I guess that's why I titled the thread 'Official answers'Right. For me, posting something asking for an official response does not equal "YOU MUST DROP EVERYTHING AND FOCUS JUST ON ME NOW". No, it means, "Hey, Paizo, whenever you get a chance, can you stop in here for 5 minutes and give me a little clarification on something?" That doesn't mean you expect them to answer immediately, or even soon, just eventually.
The assumption here being that paizo staffers have nothing productive to do beyond chase after forum threads of people who aren't interested in reading the book.
It's great that Paizo staff are frequently on here and do pop in to give somewhat official answers but if they start replying to every thread with the word "Official" in the title then these threads are going to multiply because of course people want the 'official' answer. This thread is a perfect example, almost all the questions are answered by reading the book or were given perfectly reasonable answers within the first 20 posts.
|
|
A FAQ is supposedly "in the works" and should be ready "real soon" (or so I've been hearing for some time now).
Yes, apparently a new player is supposed to search through hundreds of threads each hundreds of posts long to find an official response (and then hope that official response wasn't flip-flopped 5 posts after he stopped reading).
Or just read the book and play it like they have for the last 25 plus years.
The assumption here being that paizo staffers have nothing productive to do beyond chase after forum threads of people who aren't interested in reading the book.I guess that's why I titled the thread 'Official answers'Right. For me, posting something asking for an official response does not equal "YOU MUST DROP EVERYTHING AND FOCUS JUST ON ME NOW". No, it means, "Hey, Paizo, whenever you get a chance, can you stop in here for 5 minutes and give me a little clarification on something?" That doesn't mean you expect them to answer immediately, or even soon, just eventually.
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.
Here is a little food for thought: If any staff at Paizo need to be protected from forum posters, they are in the wrong damn job. They need a job where there is no chance of interacting with the public.
The English language isn't a science. Even less so when translated to other languages. Thanks to internet, not one of us can assume that any one posting looking for "official" clarification can actually interpret the book as intended.
On top of that, no one at Paizo has really done much to help those not already in the know find answers they might want. Look at this post and you will see that even fan based attempts at coallating answers is felt as a waste of time, because information is hard to find to begin with, and even when it can extra work has to be done to keep the links working because of the archive function.
Hell, how is a new poster suposed to find out about these fan based works? There isn't any obvious links anywhere on the Paizo site... In fact, a poster would need to ask a "stupid, unnecessary, and obvious" question just to get someone who already knows to link to them.
And sometimes, just sometimes, it is about simple curiosity. I find myself wondering (quite often, actually) "what was the intention behind this rule?"
But I guess, instead of asking the designers I should just go and f#*% myself to appease posters like you?
|
|
But I guess, instead of asking the designers I should just go and f*%~ myself to appease posters like you?
Ultimately as soon as Paizo starts chasing after threads with "Official Answers Wanted" in the title then soon every thread has that in the title because people are too lazy to figure things out for themselves.
But hey feel free. Decorate every thread on the forum with "Official Answer wanted". See where that goes.
We're all waiting with bated breath for the new search function. :)? New search is online.
Well, as a test I tried searching the messageboards for "trip weapon jason buhlman" to see if I might get an "official" ruling on the trip weapon question.
I've determined it is likely in this thread, but a 461 post thread is a bit daunting to assume any poster to go through rather than asking in a new thread.
|
Creative Director
|
I understand that folks are frustrated and eager to see FAQs and errata... but try to avoid venting rage and anger on the boards. The simple truth is that there are tens of thousands of folks posting on these boards, and only a couple dozen or so folks at Paizo... and not all of them are comfortable fielding questions and answers on the boards. So those of us who are comfortable answering questions do what we can, but we ALSO have to work on the rest of our jobs.
We're not ignoring you out of spite, in other words.
So! I'm about to head off and run a playtest of the first Serpent's Skull adventure... I'll be out for the rest of the day, but if there's any questions in particular you feel NEED me to give some advice/answers to, repost them after this thread and I'll try to answer them later this evening.
(And yes, we've launched the new search function.)
We basically gave up trying to keep finding random rulings sprinkled throughout the boards and then having the links to the post broken due to Paizo archiving old threads (which is somewhere else Mr. New Player better make sure to search).
Those links won't break. Our system is smart enough to take a peek into the archives when it doesn't find a thread (or, inversely, look outside of the archives when it doesn't find one that had an archive link.)
For instance:
link 1 <- This thread
link 2 <- This thread, after it slips into the archives
and
link 3 <- An archived rules thread
link 4 <- The same thread before it archived/after someone posts in it.
All four of those links take you were you need to go.
I'm going to repost this, as it seems to have 'gotten lost' be being at the bottom of the last page.
People, chill out. It's just a game. Really.
But as far as [O]fficial answers go, the whole reason we have a public rules forum is so that questions can be answered by the community. If you're creating a thread here, you really can't expect every single community member to hold their tongue. We have some really talented, smart people here, and I'd really prefer it if they weren't driven away from contributing by bickering over two equally valid interpretations of the rules or people insisting that their opinions are worthless just because they didn't actually write the book.
Jason, believe it or not, already has a full time job without being responsible for answering every rules question. So does James, who DOES take a lot of time out of his day anyway to answer questions for the community (and, for the record, he's fully capable of answering Rules-as-Intended questions just as well as anyone else in the company.)
If you really feel that the only person who can answer your question is Jason, then by all means send him an email. His address is listed on our 'contact us' page. But don't be surprised if it takes him a long time to get back to you, if he ever does.
This thread is a perfect example, almost all the questions are answered by reading the book or were given perfectly reasonable answers within the first 20 posts.
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?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.
They released a rule book, they got some responsibilities.
|
This thread is a perfect example, almost all the questions are answered by reading the book or were given perfectly reasonable answers within the first 20 posts.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?
Right now Paizo can release a FAQ that deal with 5 or 6 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.
They released a rule book, they got some responsibilities.
Which they are working on. 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, and putting billable projects ahead of it while working on it as the chance occurs seems an eminently sensible business decision. How long did it take WotC to put out a FAQ and errata? And they had rather more than the under two dozen people Paizo have working full time for them.
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?