| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the messageboards all the time. We post these clarifications to help players and GMs run the best games they can and to expand on the intent of the rules and show what our thinking is on a given issue. Our goal with these clarifications is to inform GMs on what direction the official rules may take in a future update to the campaign documentation and to help GMs make their own rulings at their tables, and to give players an insight into any upcoming changes that might affect their character, allowing them time to plan accordingly. Once a ruling appears in an official format all PFS characters will be expected to follow the new rules. When appropriate, the campaign staff will allow players to rebuild parts or all of their characters. Rebuilds are only allowed when specifically called out in an update.
Hyrum.
|
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the messageboards all the time. We post these clarifications to help players and GMs run the best games they can and to expand on the intent of the rules and show what our thinking is on a given issue. Our goal with these clarifications is to inform GMs on what direction the official rules may take in a future update to the campaign documentation and to help GMs make their own rulings at their tables, and to give players an insight into any upcoming changes that might affect their character, allowing them time to plan accordingly. Once a ruling appears in an official format all PFS characters will be expected to follow the new rules. When appropriate, the campaign staff will allow players to rebuild parts or all of their characters. Rebuilds are only allowed when specifically called out in an update.
Hyrum.
Thanks Hyrum!
Question: So let’s say I peruse these boards and see most of the clarifications you and Mark post up to queries. And let’s say I am GM’ing a couple players who haven’t read the clarifications and have what I deem an illegal build based on said clarification.
If the rule clarification is considered optional until published in the official guide or FAQ, then how should the above scenario err? I can certainly see some players getting a might testy if I adhere to the “optional” clarification that they did not know about.
|
stuffThanks Hyrum!
Question: So let’s say I peruse these boards and see most of the clarifications you and Mark post up to queries. And let’s say I am GM’ing a couple players who haven’t read the clarifications and have what I deem an illegal build based on said clarification.
If the rule clarification is considered optional until published in the official guide or FAQ, then how should the above scenario err? I can certainly see some players getting a might testy if I adhere to the “optional” clarification that they did not know about.
I will go about this myself by reminding the players that while their character IS still valid, this will be changed once it is set in stone, so they should be thinking about their options now, rather than changing then.
|
|
From time to time the PFS campaign staff will discuss rules on the PFS boards. When we do, those posts should be treated as a rules clarification or explanation. Until the official PFS rules document (or FAQ) contains that ruling, the clarification should be considered optional because we can't and don't expect every player or GM to read every thread on the messageboards all the time.
*applause*
I've been thinking on posting on this topic over the last couple of days and think that you have hit upon the necessary approach. It is necessary in order to 1) preserve what is a definitive list of the current rules in hard copy and, 2) continue the design goal of continuing frequent communication with the players. This is a solid development.
Question: So let’s say I peruse these boards and see most of the clarifications you and Mark post up to queries. And let’s say I am GM’ing a couple players who haven’t read the clarifications and have what I deem an illegal build based on said clarification.
If the rule clarification is considered optional until published in the official guide or FAQ, then how should the above scenario err? I can certainly see some players getting a might testy if I adhere to the “optional” clarification that they did not know about.
I am not sure what Hyrum or Mark will say, but my opinion, which is all any of us have other than those two, is that if you are the GM/Event Coordinator and you are running by the latest Board info that has not made it to the Guide yet, then the player should fix his character to match the rule, at least temporarily, but keep his original build til the day the change is official. Then he can play the old version with GMs that do not use Board rulings and the rules-correct version with those that enforce all changes as they happen. But all players should be made aware as soon as possible of the eventual changes that are coming so that they can be planning out how they need to update their characters to keep them legal when the changes do make it to the Guide.
Also for Hyrum and Mark,
Does this mean that we will get an update to the rules section of the Guide on a more set schedule, like every month or every quarter, so that everyone can be prepared for when changes go from optional to set in stone?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having to chop and change your character on the whims of a DM undermines the very principle of a living campaign. Part of the reason for this notification is surely so no-one has to redesign their character whilst sat at the table?
If the rules are optional then the player is entitled to choose just as much as the DM. The DM should certainly notify the player of the ruling, but that's so the player can look it up for themselves or think about how they want to handle it going forwards.
This does need official clarification as the above is obviously just imho.
|
If the rules are optional then the player is entitled to choose just as much as the DM. The DM should certainly notify the player of the ruling, but that's so the player can look it up for themselves or think about how they want to handle it going forwards.
Agree, and I say that as someone who mostly GM's PFS. Until it's official, it ain't official; advise folks of the new ruling and looming official change, then move on. Players may update at that time or later, but can't say they weren't warned.
One could always flag their chronicle - "4/21/11 - Advised of potential rules change re: animal companion" or some-such.
|
|
If the rules are optional then the player is entitled to choose just as much as the DM. The DM should certainly notify the player of the ruling, but that's so the player can look it up for themselves or think about how they want to handle it going forwards.Agree, and I say that as someone who mostly GM's PFS. Until it's official, it ain't official; advise folks of the new ruling and looming official change, then move on. Players may update at that time or later, but can't say they weren't warned.
One could always flag their chronicle - "4/21/11 - Advised of potential rules change re: animal companion" or some-such.
See, this is why I wanted clarification on whose side to err on. I have no problem erring on the player’s side should I ever run into this as a GM. I’d have no problem erring on the side of the GM should I ever run into that as a player. I know some players, and some GM’s wouldn’t be of the same mind.
I think ultimately, the way you’ve explained how the situation should be handled is a good way. That way the next GM knows the player has been informed and is currently playing out the “unofficial illegal” build until it becomes “officially illegal”. But that you won’t have GM’s being heavy handed about “unofficial illegal” builds.
So if Hyrum or Mark could clarify whether this “optional” rule is optional for GM’s or Players, that would be appreciated.
|
|
It seems clear to me. If a player (or GM for that matter) becomes aware of a rule change during an event, they are not required to (but can) incorporate the change until it is published in the guide. After that, they must make the change to play legally.
It is clear if this rule is taken as a player-centric rule. But if it is taken as a GM-centric rule, then a player could walk into a scenario with a GM who chooses to use the optional rule and require the player to legalize their character.
|
It seems clear to me. If a player (or GM for that matter) becomes aware of a rule change during an event, they are not required to (but can) incorporate the change until it is published in the guide. After that, they must make the change to play legally.
+1
This is how I read and understood it as well.
|
It is clear if this rule is taken as a player-centric rule. But if it is taken as a GM-centric rule, then a player could walk into a scenario with a GM who chooses to use the optional rule and require the player to legalize their character.
I'm saying that the GM can choose to use it either way, just cannot force the player to follow his/her lead. It could work in reverse as well. The GM could be unaware of the rule and the player update without the GM having done so. I suppose in that case, the play may need to bring a copy of the ruling or the GM could rule it as hearsay.
|
|
I'm saying that the GM can choose to use it either way, just cannot force the player to follow his/her lead. It could work in reverse as well. The GM could be unaware of the rule and the player update without the GM having done so. I suppose in that case, the play may need to bring a copy of the ruling or the GM could rule it as hearsay.
It is clear if this rule is taken as a player-centric rule. But if it is taken as a GM-centric rule, then a player could walk into a scenario with a GM who chooses to use the optional rule and require the player to legalize their character.
I'm unclear how you can take the rule as optional both directions. If a GM chooses to use the option at his table, then the player doesn't have an option right?
|
|
That's not what I get from Hyrum's post. Until the rule is "officially" entered in the Guide, it is optional for anyone. I suppose it depends on the nature of the rule how logistically it could be applied to some of the players at the table. And whether or not the GM is employing the update.
Right, and if it is optional for everyone, then the GM does not get to decide if it applies at his table or not.
If the GM does get to decide to use the option, then it is not optional for the players.
It can't be optional for both simultaneously if both choose a different side of the option.
|
|
Depends on the nature of the rule. I think "in" game issues would be relatively easy to use in both versions, while "out" of game issues would be a challenge.
Something like the animal companion stuff can easily be used by everyone individually and simultaneously. The credit/replay update, would be something different.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keep in mind that something that appears only on the boards is not a "rule" as we're defining it. It's a "guideline" or "suggestion." Choosing not to follow a suggestion is any player or GM's prerogative, regardless of whether that suggestion comes from someone on the Paizo staff or your cousin Humphrey. That said, a GM still has final say at her table; if she makes a call that does not violate a rule that appears in the printed (or online) campaign documentation, players are expected to obey, even if they have seen contrary statements on the boards from the campaign staff.
|
|
Keep in mind that something that appears only on the boards is not a "rule" as we're defining it. It's a "guideline" or "suggestion." Choosing not to follow a suggestion is any player or GM's prerogative, regardless of whether that suggestion comes from someone on the Paizo staff or your cousin Humphrey. That said, a GM still has final say at her table; if she makes a call that does not violate a rule that appears in the printed (or online) campaign documentation, players are expected to obey, even if they have seen contrary statements on the boards from the campaign staff.
Specific example. That two week period of time after the Monkeys were clarified to not be able to use pole-arms but it wasn't in the officially in the manual until later.
Under this new ruling, it would have been optional for either the GM and/or the player to use this clarification.
In this case, it cannot be optional for both if the GM either decides to disallow monkeys with swords, or if the player decides to use his monkey with a sword until such a time as it is official.
If the GM has final say at their table, am I to assume that it is not optional for the player if the GM chooses to use the unofficial clarification?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
If the GM has final say at their table, am I to assume that it is not optional for the player if the GM chooses to use the unofficial clarification?
If the GM chooses to use the unofficial clarification then she's made the decision of what is or isn't legal at her table. If, on the other hand, the GM either doesn't know about a clarification or chooses to ignore it, a player may choose to use that clarification to inform her own behavior or decisions independent of the GM as long as her decisions aren't in direct conflict with a legal ruling the GM has made.
Ultimately, the point of making the distinction between clarification and mandatory ruling is so that we don't have to nitpick things like this. If we feel something is important enough that it needs to be dictated to such a degree, we'll likely take the time to include it in the official documentation.
|
|
If the GM has final say at their table, am I to assume that it is not optional for the player if the GM chooses to use the unofficial clarification?If the GM chooses to use the unofficial clarification then she's made the decision of what is or isn't legal at her table. If, on the other hand, the GM either doesn't know about a clarification or chooses to ignore it, a player may choose to use that clarification to inform her own behavior or decisions independent of the GM as long as her decisions aren't in direct conflict with a legal ruling the GM has made.
Ultimately, the point of making the distinction between clarification and mandatory ruling is so that we don't have to nitpick things like this. If we feel something is important enough that it needs to be dictated to such a degree, we'll likely take the time to include it in the official documentation.
Cool, thanks Mark. I just wanted to make sure in case I ran into such a distinction anytime during a scenario I GM.
|
Keep in mind that something that appears only on the boards is not a "rule" as we're defining it. It's a "guideline" or "suggestion." Choosing not to follow a suggestion is any player or GM's prerogative, regardless of whether that suggestion comes from someone on the Paizo staff or your cousin Humphrey. That said, a GM still has final say at her table; if she makes a call that does not violate a rule that appears in the printed (or online) campaign documentation, players are expected to obey, even if they have seen contrary statements on the boards from the campaign staff.
Thank you... Between this comment and the thread top by Hyrum, this is great.
|
|
Could someone tell me where I can find the "official PFS rules document (or FAQ)" I've been looking for this I'd like to bring a copy with my when I game or at least be able to look it over before I make Characters.
Almost everything you need for PFS is accessible from the main PFS page you can get to by clicking on the big PFS logo on the upper left corner of the page.
Click on the "Download the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play". You might have to put it in your 'cart' and download it from the "My Downloads" page.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Regarding the Heirloom Weapon controversy, there remains one loose end which needs to be definitively mopped up (ideally with expanded "red text" in Additional Resources.
(Man, I love that trait for shining a spotlight on several rules which have been begging for clarification!)
What's needed: a straight-up-and-down "Yes" or "No" on the subject of whether or not purchasing spellcasting services in town for Masterwork Transformation apply to Heirloom Weapon without the rationale (if one is provided) being founded upon "busted logic" (see below).
Problem: this segues into the aforementioned rules-which-need-fixing dilemma of what exactly qualifies for "any spell cast during the course of a scenario ends at the end of that scenario" (PFRPG, last sentence of Ch8/p23, alluding to earlier text in Ch6 which is pretty clearly indicating still-ongoing limited-duration spells -- as opposed to healing, repairs to broken-condition weapons, etc.)
But Masterwork Transformation is clearly not a limited-duration spell still ongoing -- yet to forbid it using the any/all-spells agument, as some argue, would mean that, by logical extrapolation of a ruthlessly literal, no-exceptions-ever reading of the last sentence of Ch8 -- all healing/repairs cast during the scenario ALSO end (and healthy PCs suddenly fall over dead for no apparent reason).
Obviously we can't have that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think at this point you pretty clearly cannot. It would be nice if there was some kind of option, or if you could spend PA on it but unfortunately this isn't the case.
As for the healing magic, I think that is equally clear and it's not something anyone genuinely questions. At some point don't you have to ask "Do I really want the PFS staff spending their time writing a guide to satisfy the most pedantic readers?"
I'd kind of rather they spent time making scenarios cooler or building meta plot.
|
|
Saludos desde España
Anybody can help me?
I bougth "the ultimate combat" and I afraid no understand the gunslinger; the player gain all the Deeds aviable for his level or must choose a deed in the suitable level (1º,3º,7º,11º...)
The gunslinger can use all base deeds (those listed in the class description, not granted by feats) available to her level.
|
|
I think at this point you pretty clearly cannot.It is as clear as mud because the only arguments I've seen (when any were made) are those which would logically extrapolate to saying that broken-item-repair should also "unwind" at the end of the mod.
At some point don't you have to ask "Do I really want the PFS staff spending their time writing a guide to satisfy the most pedantic readers?"
Put yourself in the shoes of a DM who honestly doesn't know whether or not he should be initialing a cert in which a player has a broken dogslicer which he has both (a) repaired, and (b) upgraded to a masterwork weapon -- and he's confused because the Ch6/Ch8 text appears to imply that ongoing buffs (i.e., the Ch6 mentioned Bless) are the sorts of spells being referred to. He has his PDF on netbook, pours over it, and finally shrugs and signs off.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Broken weapons and masterwork weapons, is weird.
Any spell cast by a PC during the course of a scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends when the scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC casts bless on the party and bless is still active when the scenario ends, the bless spell ends at the conclusion of the scenario. This includes spells with an instantaneous or permanent
duration, such as continual flame, create undead or fabricate.
The duration permanent restriction is (apparently) limited to PCs, the fact that make whole. As far as I can tell, you can pay an NPC spellcaster to cast both make whole and masterwork transformation. Make whole is listed explicitly as an example.
Actually, it's not weird, it makes a certain kind of sense.
|
|
What you elect to call pedantic I call getting down to the bottom of things.
-- The simple fact of the matter is that nobody knows for sure if PFC is permitting dogslicers -- or those cheesy Heirloom falcatas -- to be eligible for MW upgrading in one fashion or another.
As evidence of this, I submit your last two posts, in the first of which you were "pretty clear" that one could not, but then in your second switched to "you can pay an NPC spellcaster" after musing over my analogy to broken weapons.
And this is the problem that players and table alike judges presently face.
(The ideal thing for the PFS campaign to do is both to clarify what-spells-end/NPC-or-not, and to take the initiative in fixing or proscribing other problems.)
Of course, if people argue about Masterwork Transformation enough, they are just as likely to solve the issue by banning the spell for PFS play. I am actually sort of surprised that it was not banned to begin with since it could be used to throw off the wealth balance.
Of course, if people argue about Masterwork Transformation enough, they are just as likely to solve the issue by banning the spell for PFS play. I am actually sort of surprised that it was not banned to begin with since it could be used to throw off the wealth balance.Nope. Read it again. You have to pay the Masterworking costs as "rare reagents".
That is good. I do not have that book yet, but the way people have talked about the spell made it sound like you were masterworking something for free.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As evidence of this, I submit your last two posts, in the first of which you were "pretty clear" that one could not, but then in your second switched to "you can pay an NPC spellcaster" after musing over my analogy to broken weapons.
You made a good point about make whole. I re-read the section and it turns out that make whole isn't a problem. By extension masterwork transformation isn't a problem either, provided you have an NPC caster cast it. Turns out, I can be wrong and if people point out valid issues with what I say I admit it and change my point of view.
I don't ever get what you are arguing about at this point.
|
|
As evidence of this, I submit your last two posts, in the first of which you were "pretty clear" that one could not, but then in your second switched to "you can pay an NPC spellcaster" after musing over my analogy to broken weapons.You made a good point about make whole. I re-read the section and it turns out that make whole isn't a problem. By extension masterwork transformation isn't a problem either, provided you have an NPC caster cast it. Turns out, I can be wrong and if people point out valid issues with what I say I admit it and change my point of view.
I don't ever get what you are arguing about at this point.
Short form:
Why can you pay an NPC spellcaster to case Make Whole, and by extension, Massterwork Transformation, but cannot do it yourself if you are a spellcaster, or have a spellcaster in your party do it for you?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As evidence of this, I submit your last two posts, in the first of which you were "pretty clear" that one could not, but then in your second switched to "you can pay an NPC spellcaster" after musing over my analogy to broken weapons.You made a good point about make whole. I re-read the section and it turns out that make whole isn't a problem. By extension masterwork transformation isn't a problem either, provided you have an NPC caster cast it. Turns out, I can be wrong and if people point out valid issues with what I say I admit it and change my point of view.
I don't ever get what you are arguing about at this point.
Short form:
Why can you pay an NPC spellcaster to case Make Whole, and by extension, Massterwork Transformation, but cannot do it yourself if you are a spellcaster, or have a spellcaster in your party do it for you?
Why is the rule that way? My guess is it falls under the whole generic theme of 'you can't craft/ create/ upgrade permanent stuff'.
You can buy an Everburning Torch but can't cast continual light on a stick (and have it last)
You can pay to have your sword upgraded to +1 but cannot craft it.
You can buy a wand but cannot craft it.
You can pay for a dogslicer to be upgraded to masterwork but cannot cast the spell yourself.
etc...
|
|
There is a simple way to fix Heirloom weapon if a player wants to choose Heirloom Weapom he cannot choose it at character creation leave a Trait Slot open and take Heirloom Weapon after your first game and pay one PA to buy the heirloom weapon trait.
IN PFS charge one PA for each casting of Massterwork Transformation I don't see any diffrence in having a spell compnent cost vs. a PA cost.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
I ask this because at 3º she loses again trap sense; I copy and paste:
"Unflinching (Ex): Pirates are a salty and steadfast lot. At
3rd level, a pirate gains a +1 bonus on saving throws against
fear and mind-affecting effects. This bonus increases
by +1 for every three levels, to a maximum of +6 at 18th
level. This ability replaces trap sense. This ability replaces
trapfinding"Is it a errata or pirates only lost trapfinding at 1º and 3º level?
Javi, I think the last sentence for Unflinching is a typo because trapfinding is replaced at 1st level by Sea Legs.
Javi,
when you replace one ability for another, that change is for the life of the character. If you play a Rogue and choose the Pirate archetype, you will always have Sea Legs and never have Trapfinding.
|
|
As evidence of this, I submit your last two posts, in the first of which you were "pretty clear" that one could not, but then in your second switched to "you can pay an NPC spellcaster" after musing over my analogy to broken weapons.You made a good point about make whole. I re-read the section and it turns out that make whole isn't a problem. By extension masterwork transformation isn't a problem either, provided you have an NPC caster cast it. Turns out, I can be wrong and if people point out valid issues with what I say I admit it and change my point of view.
I don't ever get what you are arguing about at this point.
The fact that you and I are now on the same page does not mean that we are certain where the campaign stands on the issue.
|
|
The fact that you and I are now on the same page does not mean that we are certain where the campaign stands on the issue.
You may have to be patient for a response, especially when you ask during Gen Con :)
The problem is that there are spells with instantaneous effects that clearly should not reverse at the end of a scenario (like cures), and there are spells that have been seen to be problematic if they carry over between scenarios (like animate dead).
I am sure that the issue will be discussed, but it may take a while to come up with an equitable solution.