|
Question about legal sources for the campaign - Why is the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazeteer excluded?
Or, more specific to my case, why was I lied to by a Paizo representative when I asked whether it would be (back in '08)? ;)
The Gazeteer was replaced by the more comprehensive Chronicles Campaign Setting book.
Question about legal sources for the campaign - Why is the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazeteer excluded?
Or, more specific to my case, why was I lied to by a Paizo representative when I asked whether it would be (back in '08)? ;)
Maybe because everything in the Gazetteer is also in the Campaign Setting book so it does not need a separate listing? ;)
Since I can play a character of any age, and it doesn't affect my character's attributes, how young a child do I have to play, in order to play a Small-sized human?
A halfling or gnome of any age will qualify for that. Since there's no mechanical effect of age, that also means there's no size changes.
Iceman, what in the Gazeteer did you want to use?
Well, it has a fair amount to do with whether I can trust the material to be accurate. Whether it was superseded or simply reprinted / expanded upon in the Campaign Setting book (which I have no plans to buy).
But I do like the class replacement options and would've liked to use one or two. Obviously, ones like the Paladin's don't convert well to the new rules, but the Wizard's would.
-VIC
But I do like the class replacement options and would've liked to use one or two. Obviously, ones like the Paladin's don't convert well to the new rules, but the Wizard's would.
The class replacement options were designed for 3.5, and now that the campaign uses PFRPG rules, a lot of those elements are obsolete. Look for PFRPG native alternate class abilities in the APG; I imagine quite a bit from that book will be allowed in PFS play. Also, bear in mind that when the Gazetteer was released, not only had PFS not started yet, but it was in a year of playtesting the system while the final PFRPG rules were still being developed. When someone told you content from that book would be legal for play, they were most likely telling you the truth as best they could at that time.
|
|
The class replacement options were designed for 3.5, and now that the campaign uses PFRPG rules, a lot of those elements are obsolete. Look for PFRPG native alternate class abilities in the APG; I imagine quite a bit from that book will be allowed in PFS play. Also, bear in mind that when the Gazetteer was released, not only had PFS not started yet, but it was in a year of playtesting the system while the final PFRPG rules were still being developed. When someone told you content from that book would be legal for play, they were most likely telling you the truth as best they could at that time.
In that context the Gazeteer was absolutely legal for play in 3.5.
As far as I can see from a quick glance nothing in the gazeteer has been ommited in the Campaign Setting book.
The Campaign Setting was however also designed for 3.5 use and as such is not 100% up to PRPG standards.
The PFS guide explicitly states what parts of the CS are legal for OP so you should be able to extrapolate to the gazeteer from there, though I doubt anything in the gazeteer aside from alternate class abilities has any impact on character creation.
If there is any one thing in particular you want to use for your character I think you should specifically point that out here to Josh. I am sure he will give you a to the point answer.
The very idea and structure of PFS is based around "house" rules from character creation to availability of choices in every category where you can possibly make a choice for your character options (feats, spells, equipment and so on) in order to make it a balanced organized play system. Attempting to streamline spell pricing is hardly a radical step, but it does need to be in the Guide to Organized Play so everyone knows. I assume it will be in the next update.
I have to humbly disagree with your opinion on it's requirment and application to organized play in general, but I'll admit I don't know squat about how it applies to PFS so maybe there is something I'm missing. I'm sure this point will not get expressed the way I intend, but the point I was trying to make is that small changes based on opinion or personal preference applied on a large scale are indeed "radical". For instance, changing the climb DC for a knotted rope from DC 0 to DC 1 is hardly radical, but would that simple change not force every participant to reference new material? A person can justify the DC increase is required "in order to make it a balanced organized play system". I guess I just don't agree.
I hope this is read in the same manor I wrote it, and that is simply to engage in a friendly debate and void of attitude or rudeness. I'm Pathfinder's number one fan (self proclaimed!) and I wish I could play in PFS without being overwhelmed by learning a new system. Heck, that's why I haven't touched a 4ED book
I don't really want or need to drag this out, but one more response won't count as dead-horse-beating, will it? ;)
In that context the Gazeteer was absolutely legal for play in 3.5.
Not according to the version 1.1 society guide. It has a few brief references to the campaign setting book (notably for faction info and equipment) but nothing about any other PF resource.
So, right out the gate, the Gazeteer was not included.As far as I can see from a quick glance nothing in the gazeteer has been ommited in the Campaign Setting book.
Since I bought the book for the short version of the nation and race info, this is good to know. Thanks.
The Campaign Setting was however also designed for 3.5 use and as such is not 100% up to PRPG standards.
One of the main reasons I'm not buying it any time soon. :D
I mean, I have the flavor already and can barely use the crunch.If there is any one thing in particular you want to use for your character I think you should specifically point that out here to Josh. I am sure he will give you a to the point answer.
The wizard's alternate class ability (swapping for scribe scroll) is of great interest to me and my reluctant-to-play friend. We cannot sit down for a game, it seems, without him lamenting the removal of scribe scroll from the class (esp. in favor of Spell Focus for a non-blaster) but I know he'd be more satisfied with the Gazateer's more on-the-fly option.
Anyway, it's not a big deal... I honestly just wondered about the way in which it was completely ignored.
Cheers.
-VIC
Question about legal sources for the campaign - Why is the Pathfinder Chronicles Gazeteer excluded?
Or, more specific to my case, why was I lied to by a Paizo representative when I asked whether it would be (back in '08)? ;)
The rules bits in that book were replaced by a book in 2009 called the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. :-)
They became unnecessary "fixes" for the 3.5 classes since the classes were essentially fixed with the new game.
stuff
This is no longer the thread to debate "house rules." That thread is here. Thanks! :-)
|
Josh,
Just a reminder that the wording on resonant Ioun stones in the Seeker of Secrets section of the PFSOP guide needs to be clarified to make sure that it is clearly understood that only normal Ioun stones, not cracked, flawed or scorched Ioun stones, can have resonance in PFSOP.
The current wording is unclear enough that our regular GM, playing one of his PCs today, didn't realize that his cracked Ioun stone couldn't have resonance. Fortunately, the resonance bonus did not affect the game. This time.
|
|
What languages do human characters in OP automatically know? By the RAW they only speak Common.
1 - Do they only speak Taldane? (Which is silly for characters with other native tongues)
2 - Do they only speak their native language? (Which is a severe handicap in OP)
3 - Do they speak both? (Which goes against the RAW)
What languages do human characters in OP automatically know? By the RAW they only speak Common.
1 - Do they only speak Taldane? (Which is silly for characters with other native tongues)
2 - Do they only speak their native language? (Which is a severe handicap in OP)
3 - Do they speak both? (Which goes against the RAW)
I believe these questions are all answered in this thread.
What languages do human characters in OP automatically know? By the RAW they only speak Common.
1 - Do they only speak Taldane? (Which is silly for characters with other native tongues)
2 - Do they only speak their native language? (Which is a severe handicap in OP)
3 - Do they speak both? (Which goes against the RAW)
Option 1. But a human pc has an extra skill point per level, and every pc of every race can gain an additional skill point as a favored class bonus at level one, either of which can be used to take a rank in Linguistics to learn their native tongue.
|
What languages do human characters in OP automatically know? By the RAW they only speak Common.
1 - Do they only speak Taldane? (Which is silly for characters with other native tongues)
2 - Do they only speak their native language? (Which is a severe handicap in OP)
3 - Do they speak both? (Which goes against the RAW)
As the others have indicated, they can only speak Taldane, you can spend your bonus skill point on your native tongue if you so desire. But I have a question. How exactly is the inability to speak their native language a "severe handicap" in organized play? I have heard of one module that uses a native character language, and the inability to speak with your fellow faction members in something that the Taldans/Chelaxians can't understand is hardly severe (and think of it from their perspective where they don't get to have "secret" conversations at all).
Josh,
Just a reminder that the wording on resonant Ioun stones in the Seeker of Secrets section of the PFSOP guide needs to be clarified to make sure that it is clearly understood that only normal Ioun stones, not cracked, flawed or scorched Ioun stones, can have resonance in PFSOP.
The current wording is unclear enough that our regular GM, playing one of his PCs today, didn't realize that his cracked Ioun stone couldn't have resonance. Fortunately, the resonance bonus did not affect the game. This time.
Are you looking at v2.2 of the Guide? v2.2 added the following:
Added the following line under Seekers of Secrets in Chapter 13:
Additionally, only normal ioun stones have resonance–flawed ioun stones never do.
|
Added the following line under Seekers of Secrets in Chapter 13:
Additionally, only normal ioun stones have resonance–flawed ioun stones never do.
It says flawed stones don't have resonance but says nothing about cracked. Given that "flawed" is a type of stone that doesn't include "cracked," it's probably worth it to say: "Additionally, only normal ioun stones have resonance – cracked and flawed ioun stones never do." (or "Additionally, only normal ioun stones have resonance – neither cracked nor flawed ioun stones ever do.") Being more precise is rarely a bad thing.
|
|
I think my post from the ioun stone thread covers what Callaerk is asking about.
Joshua J. Frost wrote:
Only normal ioun stones have resonance. None of the rest do. I'll make sure this goes into the next update.
The update made it in but you may want to reword it to say
"Additionally, only normal ioun stones have
resonance inferior ioun stones never do."
Right now it uses flawed in place of inferior which is a subset of inferior in the book. Anyone should be able to tell the intent but still I wouldn't be suprised if someone stared asking about cracked or schorched.
|
Wow, really guys? It says "only normal Ioun stones have resonance." That should be enough. Don't make Josh spell out every tiny detail. He's got better things to do, and, honestly, there are many things more important that people should be reading in the Guide.
Really. People will try anything :)
I think that 'inferior' should be used, which seems to cover all non-normal stones according to the Seeker of Secrets.
Wow, really guys? It says "only normal Ioun stones have resonance." That should be enough.
Indeed -- adding the extra line about flawed stones (but not cracked stone) doesn't add any additional clarification.
|
|
Wow, really guys? It says "only normal Ioun stones have resonance." That should be enough. Don't make Josh spell out every tiny detail. He's got better things to do, and, honestly, there are many things more important that people should be reading in the Guide.
1) No, it is not obvious, since flawed is one specific type of inferior Ioun stone, and normal is sort of generic, but not definitive, since it is not used to refer to non-inferior Ioun stones anywhere I have seen.
2) The reason it came up was our normal GM was the one who hadn't noticed it, on his character, who had bought a Wayfinder and a cracked Ioun stone. He thought it sounded broken, but the references for it are both buried in fine print, and incomplete, since it only refers to "normal" and flawd, and ignores, apparently, cracked and scorched.
Clarification never hurts, IMO.
Then again, it doesn't help that Seekers of Secrets is listed both as core assumption, and has a listing in additional resources. One or the other, please. If it is core assumptions, then any modifications to it should be right in the core assumptions area, not in the additioonal resources section, since it isn't additional as core...
|
+1So, WTF does this "+1" excrement mean?
All I have seen it used for was people wasting posts keeping topics that they seem to want to kill alive, and making nonsense, weird posts.
Callarek, please consider that the people posting here don't consider (for the most part) their posts to be nonsense or excrement. If you're frustrated at them it doesn't help anything to lash out--it will only make them defensive and lead to more "wasting posts" as they try and explain themselves or flame something back at you. And if you are trying to be silly through an exaggerated response then please put a wink after your statement so we know you're only kidding.
Adding a "+1" below a post is a way of saying that you agree with what the above poster said and don't need to expend the time or effort to say the same thing.
Then again, it doesn't help that Seekers of Secrets is listed both as core assumption, and has a listing in additional resources. One or the other, please. If it is core assumptions, then any modifications to it should be right in the core assumptions area, not in the additional resources section, since it isn't additional as core...
I think this is a good point. I've never encountered anyone who had difficulty understanding the intent of the ioun stone section as currently written, but I agree with you on the document organization area.
Or, to put it more concisely, "+1."
+1So, what in the world wide web does this "+1" stuff mean?
All I have seen it used for was people wasting posts keeping topics that they seem to want to kill alive, and making less than clear, sometimes weird posts.
Doug's already stated it quite well so I'll state it concisely:
Dude, chill.
|
|
Adding a "+1" below a post is a way of saying that you agree with what the above poster said and don't need to expend the time or effort to say the same thing.
I have edited my original post to reduce the offensiveness factor.
Hiwever, even with the quotes, frequently it is unclear what the poster is saying "me, too" to; or something they say in the rest of their post contradicts their "me, too"ness. That is what I meant by weird.
And it seems a waste of bandwidth to post if you have nothing new to add to the conversation.
Wow, really guys? It says "only normal Ioun stones have resonance." That should be enough. Don't make Josh spell out every tiny detail. He's got better things to do, and, honestly, there are many things more important that people should be reading in the Guide.Really. People will try anything :)
I think that 'inferior' should be used, which seems to cover all non-normal stones according to the Seeker of Secrets.
In v2.3 I'll change "flawed" to "inferior."
|
|
Adding a "+1" below a post is a way of saying that you agree with what the above poster said and don't need to expend the time or effort to say the same thing.I have edited my original post to reduce the offensiveness factor.
Hiwever, even with the quotes, frequently it is unclear what the poster is saying "me, too" to; or something they say in the rest of their post contradicts their "me, too"ness. That is what I meant by weird.
And it seems a waste of bandwidth to post if you have nothing new to add to the conversation.
Whether or not you consider my remark worth is really not the point. I agreed with the the person I was responding to, and felt like I wanted them to know I agreed with them. There is plenty of "bandwidth" to go around.
As you look around the boards you will see that the "+1" usage frequently. But since this is a discussion on what should or shouldn't be updated on the rules, occationally it is better to be very direct to the point. Since I agreed with the poster and didn't feel that I, in the short time I had to post could put it any better than they did.
This comment is not directed at anyone in particular.
Arguing about the validity of '+1' as a proper or improper method of communication is not for the 2.2 FAQ thread. Please take that discussion elsewhere.
|
|
Ok, I got about 30 posts into this thread (not even the other threads), and I've run a search in the Pathfinder Society: Guide to Pathfinder Society Organised Play for "race." I also glanced through the PS:GtPSOP overall, and looked at the entry for the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary. This shouldn't take long to respond to.
Are any PRGB races legal in PSOP? If so, which ones? Did I hear something about kobolds or some other race being considered for addition to the full rules? Am I correct in assuming that there are no non-Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook PSOP-legal races? Are there any from other PFRPG products?
Sorry for the bunch of questions. I've got to get ready for the 'Con this weekend.
Also, hi to anyone who remembers me from the original FaWTL thread (haven't been on at all due to school, though I've still got 2-3 days left [2-3 days because it's tomorrow and half of Thursday]). I hope to be posting more this summer, and meeting irl Paizonians at PAIZOCON2010.
Only the seven races in the core rulebook are legal for PFS play.
At the risk of looking like an idiot (too late): What exactly is meant by calling Seekers of Secrets a "Core Assumption" book? Does that mean you have to own it? Have to be familiar with the contents? Does each player need to see it, or just GMs?
Core Assumption means that the player does not have to provide their own copy of the book for anything from those books their character is using to be considered legal, unlike the optional stuff, where a player needs to bring a copy with him to show the GM, if necessary. A GM is expected to own the Core Book, Bestiary, and Seekers of Secrets. A player should own the Core Book and Seekers of Secrets but does not have to have a copy of either at the table because the GM should have it.
|
|
Are any PRGB races legal in PSOP? If so, which ones? Did I hear something about kobolds or some other race being considered for addition to the full rules? Am I correct in assuming that there are no non-Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook PSOP-legal races? Are there any from other PFRPG products?
At some point Joshua posted that the Bestiary is not legal for PCs, only for GMs. I.e. PCs cannot take classes, feats or abilities from the Bestiary. The only exception to this is of course the use of approved animal companions.
So, hypothetically, players and GMs refusing to read it, even if a copy is made freely available to them, probably constitutes something of an issue...
Only insomuch as scenarios may contain references to things without explanation, assuming that players and GMs have read the assumed material. The same way a module doesn't explain what a cloak of resistance +1 does, it could provide access to a cracked scarlet and blue sphere ioun stone. If a participant in a game has no way of knowing what that does, it presents a problem for them, but not for the Society as a whole.
|
|
Hmmm....the only real counter-argument I can see to that is that it does present a problem when a GM who won't touch the book attempts to challenge a player on its' contents, when the rules say it's the GM's responsibility to know it. Whether this is an argument for removing the thing from the Core Assumption, I don't know. I've had three hours of sleep a day for the past week, I'm starting to hallucinate, and I don't really know what I'm doing awake at this ungodly hour.
If a GM dismisses a player's knowledge from the core assumption by refusing to read it, that GM is not doing his/her job.
Hmmm....the only real counter-argument I can see to that is that it does present a problem when a GM who won't touch the book attempts to challenge a player on its' contents, when the rules say it's the GM's responsibility to know it. Whether this is an argument for removing the thing from the Core Assumption, I don't know. I've had three hours of sleep a day for the past week, I'm starting to hallucinate, and I don't really know what I'm doing awake at this ungodly hour.
I guess I don't understand why someone would virtually sign the social contract involved in agreeing to play or run in an organized play environment and then stubbornly refuse to even look at a book around which the campaign is centered, thematically. Such a GM should probably run the scenarios unofficially in a home game or run some other material as they see fit. But if someone joins PFS, it's understood that they are agreeing to participate in good faith.
...when a GM who won't touch the book attempts to challenge a player on its' contents...
When it comes to the Core Assumption, any GM who did so would be in the wrong.
...but it was at a convention and his position seemed, basically, to be that the campaign has no business adding books to the Core after the fact so he wasn't going to buy it.
Huh.
Well, I can certainly understand and appreciate his viewpoint. Seekers of Secrets was, for all intents and purposes, written to be a core addition to the Pathfinder Society. Will I add other books to the core in the future? Not likely. Was this a, shall I say, obvious addition to the campaign's core? Probably. Did that GM have the wrong attitude about the whole thing? Yup.
|
|
Until now I had assumed that the Advanced Player's Guide would be added. Especially since the classes from the APG seem to be officially included with the publication of MotFF.
Tam
Remember, you can always use APG information in building your character (once it's been approved as a legitimate source) and it does not need to be identified as "core". The main difference between "core" and "approved sources" is that players have to have their own "approved source" on hand for GM reference, they do not need to have "core" books to play.
|
|
Remember, you can always use APG information in building your character (once it's been approved as a legitimate source) and it does not need to be identified as "core". The main difference between "core" and "approved sources" is that players have to have their own "approved source" on hand for GM reference, they do not need to have "core" books to play.Until now I had assumed that the Advanced Player's Guide would be added. Especially since the classes from the APG seem to be officially included with the publication of MotFF.
Tam
Or maybe Joshua was thinking of new PFS specific publications, i.e. like SoS - at least that is how I interpreted his post.