|
The blog post by Jason seems to imply that the animal gains a language automatically by virtue of gaining INT 3, whereas the PFS FAQ clearly states that the animal must put a rank in Linguistics to gain the language. I think SCPRedMage is looking to see which should be considered correct, since PFS doesn't usually override base PF unless there is a specific reason.
The thing is, Jason's blog post isn't necessarily an ironclad rules source. I wonder if when he wrote that, he was thinking in terms of a rank in linguistics, or if he intends for the language to be automatic (or, possibly, misremembered the rule *gasp*).
|
I don't understand what's inconsistent either. Take my ranger's owl, for instance. It's an owl. It is physically incapable of speaking common. It's also incapable of writing, so is therefore illiterate, no matter how many ranks of Linguistics I put into it.
You yourself said the official PF FAQ says that while it understands the language, it isn't physically capable of speaking. This is how it is with animals. Yes, they're creatures, but they can't do it.
Both of your sources are basically saying the same thing in different ways. At least that's how it's seeming to me.
|
|
It has nothing to do with speaking or writing. The question is whether the acquisition of one understood language is automatic on gaining INT 3 (as Jason implies), or if you must spend a skill point on Linguistics to get it (as the PFS FAQ states). Very big difference when spending skill points on your AC.
|
I think where the OP is going is that if an animal gains a language, it is then capable of fully understanding said language even if it is not capable of speaking or writing it. This concept leads to lots of confusion about how it relates to continued handle animal checks vs. just being able to plainly tell your companion what you want it to do. It has been discussed at length over multiple threads in the past and as I recall, the official rule is that you must still perform the skill checks even if the animal gains a language. That may not be true in the case of animals becoming magical beast, but I cannot find the relevant post.
If my assumption is incorrect, I encourage the OP to clarify his position.
|
|
I hope the OP does come clarify, but in the meantime I think the question I posed (whether his intent or not) is an important one to get clarified - does an AC that gains an INT 3 have to spend a point in linguistics to understand a language, or is it free? If it's free, I'd like that point back for something else.
|
The PFS FAQ that you posted answers your question.
An Intelligence of 3 does not grant animals sentience, the ability to use weapons or tools, speak a language (though they may understand one with a rank in Linguistics; this does not grant literacy)
So, you are not granted the ability to speak (or understand) a language just for having an Int of 3. You must spend a point in Linguistics to be able to understand one.
Edit: PFS has a very strict set of rules that doesn't always correlate with the basic rules set for Pathfinder. The PFS variations override the default rules.
|
|
Edit: PFS has a very strict set of rules that doesn't always correlate with the basic rules set for Pathfinder. The PFS variations override the default rules.
But usually for a reason and it is made clear that it is a change from written PF rules. This doesn't have that, hence the confusion (and hope! :) )
I'll stick with the skill point rule until/unless told otherwise, but it would be nice to have that clarified.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bottom line is that I'm seeking an official answer, either sourced from a previous question I haven't found, or a new response from someone in charge: does this PFS FAQ entry represent an over-ride of the default rules? If so, was that intentional, or just an oversight that could be fixed?
If that is the way you want to phrase it, then yes, the PFS FAQ entry represents an override of the default rules. It was intentional.
Also, please don't read the next statement with any tone. It is stated in a matter-of-fact way and other people have become sad when I answer a question directly in other threads, thinking I am being brusque, or rude, or whatever.
The answer to the next question that almost always comes up is no I'm not going to explain why it was an intentional decision. There are plenty of threads that can explain it, and if I give an explanation to an intentional decision, it turns into people wanting to argue why it should be a different decision.
|
|
If that is the way you want to phrase it, then yes, the PFS FAQ entry represents an override of the default rules. It was intentional.
Good to know. Thanks!
The answer to the next question that almost always comes up is no I'm not going to explain why it was an intentional decision. There are plenty of threads that can explain it, and if I give an explanation to an intentional decision, it turns into people wanting to argue why it should be a different decision.
Perfectly fair and reasonable! I appreciate you responding - as Andrew pointed out, it was clear that the PFS FAQ was the deciding document, I was just curious if it was an intentional change. I wasn't even aware it had been discussed before. :)
The answer to the next question that almost always comes up is no I'm not going to explain why it was an intentional decision.
This is perfectly reasonable, and nothing more needs to be said.
There are plenty of threads that can explain it [..]
On the other hand, it's a big pet peeve of mine when people say "it's been explained many times in many posts" and then decline to link to one of these supposedly easy-to-find posts. :-/