Input about a ruling clarification?

[Dash Lestowe]

Hello,

I posted a thread requesting some ruling questions in the general section. It was moved to advice, and relabeled. (I see there's also a ruling forum, but not sure why it wasn't moved there)

I posted a different thread in the advice forum, without having to be moved, nor relabeled. I'm wondering if the higher up PFS organizers read the advice forum as much as they read this one?

If not, how would one go about requesting input specifically from some of the PFS organizers?

Thanks.

[RainyDayNinja]

If your question is about the rules of the Pathfinder game itself, then it goes in the rules section.

If your question is about the rules specific to Organized Play (such as how Prestige and Fame work, how chronicle sheets work, etc.), then it should go in the Pathfinder Society section.

[Dash Lestowe]

It's about the Pathfinder game, specifically a feat.

[Jiggy]

Then if it's a question about how the feat works, it goes in rules. If it's a question about whether taking it is a good idea, it goes in advice. If it's a question about whether the feat is legal in PFS or how it interacts with campaign-specific rules, it goes in the PFS boards.

[RainyDayNinja]

Jiggy wrote:

Then if it's a question about how the feat works, it goes in rules. If it's a question about whether taking it is a good idea, it goes in advice. If it's a question about whether the feat is legal in PFS look in the Guide to Organized Play and the Additional Resources page.

There, I fixed it for you.

[Dash Lestowe]

Thanks.

[Nefreet]

Well, now I'm curious.

In most cases you will not receive a direct answer to a rules question from Mike Brock, Mark Moreland, or John Compton. They usually have better things to do with their time, like organize the campaign. It's like any other hierarchy in life: you have to work your way through the peons (us regular posters) first.

But, usually, we can answer your questions for you.

(especially if you offer us cake)

[RtFM]

RainyDayNinja wrote:

Jiggy wrote:

Then if it's a question about how the feat works, it goes in rules. If it's a question about whether taking it is a good idea, it goes in advice. If it's a question about whether the feat is legal in PFS look in the Guide to Organized Play and the Additional Resources page.

There, I fixed it for you.

Amen.

[Dash Lestowe]

It's this thread.

I am trying to create awareness of it, in hopes that a creator would offer some insight. It seems people are split down both sides of the topic, to where only a ruling could solve the issue.

If the creators don't review the forum, efforts to continue a discussion about it are fruitless.

[James Risner]

Dash Lestowe wrote:

If the creators don't review the forum, efforts to continue a discussion about it are fruitless.

I replied in your other thread.

If you expect an answer on this issue, be prepared to wait 2 to 3 years or forever.

The only issues that get answers are the ones that actually are frequently asked. It took me 20 minutes to read your other thread and understand your question in a way I could research and intelligently answer. I had never heard your logic used in that thread prior to today, so your question is hardly frequent.

You will need to live with the fact you will and should expect significant table variance. It is best if you retire or retrain out of builds that have high table variance, or you will get very frustrated.

[John Compton]

The creators, developers, and freelancers regularly peruse the messageboards and comment when it seems appropriate or if a thread is particularly intriguing. That said, we tend to patrol different sections of the forum based on our own personal and professional interests. For example, I check the Pathfinder Society messageboards between three and [obsessive] times a day, whereas I tend to only skim the most recent thread titles in the Rules forum a few times a week. Sean K Reynolds, on the other hand, likely has approximately the opposite pattern. When we spot something of interest to one another, we often send the appropriate person a message and a link to check it out.

As a developer for Pathfinder Society, I typically leave interpretation of rules mechanics to the design team; at the very least I like to consult them before making a blanket statement. Often times responding forum-goers come to a consensus regarding what the mechanic should do, and sometimes just one person states the answer in a way that lines up with the developers'/designers' interpretation. At that point such a person can pop into the conversation, agree with one of the participants, and continue working on other projects.

In general, I recommend using the Rules forum for questions of how non-PFS-established rules work. So long as you reference in your post that you're seeking a rules-as-written answer in the interest of using it in PFS, other posters are typically helpful in respecting your particular query. By it being in the Rules forum, it's also more likely to pass by the people who actually developed the rules mechanic(s) in question. Ideally, the PFS Forum should receive rules questions only if they have to do with PFS-specific rules (e.g. gold earned, Chronicle sheets, replacement feats for certain classes, Prestige Points, etc.) unless it's a discussion about how a Pathfinder RPG rule might interface strangely with PFS.

My initial personal interpretation of your conundrum—were I to encounter it at a table with little time to research—is that Feral Combat training would not increase the base damage of a natural attack. Rather, the ability opens up different ways of using a natural attack. As for the "...as well as other effects that augment unarmed strikes" part goes, I see that as language that would now allow one to use, for example, greater magic weapon on the natural attack, as a monk's unarmed strike is called out as being both a manufactured and a natural weapon for spell effects.

[Dash Lestowe]

Very well spoken response, thank you!!

John Compton wrote:

Rather, the ability opens up different ways of using a natural attack. As for the "...as well as other effects that augment unarmed strikes" part goes, I see that as language that would now allow one to use, for example, greater magic weapon on the natural attack, as a monk's unarmed strike is called out as being both a manufactured and a natural weapon for spell effects.

Allowing magic weapon to apply to the natural attack is definitely some thing that I overlooked (even though I mentioned that property specifically), and is a unique interpretation of the "augment" discussion. There are a good number of abilities that say this cannot be applied to natural or unarmed attacks. Take a level of monk, with this feat, and they all apply...

Quote:

My initial personal interpretation of your conundrum—were I to encounter it at a table with little time to research...

Could you review that thread when you had time to research? I'm curious if after reading what's there, would you feel the same?

Spoiler:

It basically boils down to the definition of augment being "1) replaces with greater, 2) adds additional". The monk ability replaces the d3 with a d(x) based on levels. The thought I (and others had) is by definition, it's an augment.

Additionally, what are your thoughts about the Brawler barbarian rage power? While it doesn't specifically list the ability as "with the Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite", the D6 upgrade is only available if you have the feat.