I first want to say, this is not a rant at all. It is a concern for me (and I am sure for others as well) on the game I have come to really enjoy playing. I bring up these concerns (or maybe it’s considered one general concern) as I want to see the issues resolved.
But what I am referring to is the vagueness on several of the rules I am seeing. I have seen (and participated in some) threads where the RAW is not clear. Stealth is a big returning issue, magic item creation has come back more than once and recently there was a large thread on what is the specifics of how lighting works with the use of the Darkness and Deeper Darkness spells. I am not going to rehash the conversations/questions right here, if you wish to see them, you can do searches on them. There is a current Stealth conversation going on the front page under “Rules”.
But I am seeing in these threads often “RAW says this, but in the situation of ____ RAW is unclear.” Or, people will be quoting passages out of the book/SRD and you would think it would make it more clear, but unfortunately the quotes only make it more confusing as they sometimes contradict one another (the magic item creation rules is one known for this). I am going to steal someone else’s quote in regards to the main issue with Stealth, because he explains it very well:
there are a lot of rules presented (and not all of them in the Stealth section - which complicates matters). These rules, as presented, have gaps in them. They do not always agree with other elements of the game, at least not in any intuitive way. They are confusing - and I don't consider that a matter of personal opinion, it's evidenced by the large amount of people who have posted to the various Stealth threads over the last year or so that are confused. The PFRPG Rules are great, no doubt about it. In this one area, though, they lack clarity - and as I've said upthread, this isn't good for the Core Class (rogue) for whom this is essentially a Class-defining ability. Are fighters asked to be confused about the mechanics behind swinging a sword, or to formulate house rules for it? That's why there's a problem.
I understand that making a rules intensive system like Pathfinder you are not going to be perfect. I totally understand that. But something I had heard James Jacobs say once (and I don’t have the quote handy) is the rules in Stealth, were left vague on purpose to leave each DM incorporate the rules what is best for his campaign.
And even though that only applied to Stealth, I wonder if that is also the case in other areas as well, in intentionally leaving the rules vague. Well, this worries me. I would much rather you give us the detailed rules, and if a DM does not like them, he can change them how he sees fit. Because if you leave it vague, then you have the same threads popping up asking the same questions and people having the same arguments in “The RAW says ‘this’, but I am sure the RAI are ‘this’.
And yes, I understand that is going to be more work, but at least speaking for myself, I would be willing to wait the extra time for the more detailed rules and extra playtesting.
What has already been started with the FAQs are a great first step. It is good to see this, but on the other hand, what I see with the FAQs is an answer to a specific circumstance, than filling in the gaps of some of the rules. No offense meant, but some of them need to be rewritten with added detail (again, mainly Stealth and magic item creation) along with maybe more examples. And I just don’t see this happening. And what really worries me is future rules (for classes/abilities/feats,etc) being intentionally left vague.
I want to say again, I only bring this thread up because Pathfinder is a game I have come to really enjoy playing, and it is not meant as a rant, but to something I would love to see resolved. I know I am not the only one who feels this way.