Zero HD Native Outsiders and Weapon Proficiencies


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

LazarX wrote:


Other Statistics for Monsters
Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. They get skills and feats appropriate to a 1st-level character (even if they have a level adjustment).

This is from the D20SRD of which Pathfinder is based from. I haven't found a rule in Pathfinder that reverses it. Source text here. All bestiary entries for 0 hd races that have been published from Paizo continue to honor this rule.

Features. Features. FEATURES.

Look at what section is labeled features, and what section is labeled traits. Do tieflings and aasimar lose darkvision if they take a character class?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The Advanced Race Guide has the text that Biz quoted. If that doesn't settle the question, nothing ever will.


Setting aside that the ARG is not core, the ARG text does not even address the issue. It talks only about its own special rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Setting aside that the ARG is not core, the ARG text does not even address the issue. It talks only about its own special rules.

So what you're saying is the ARG rules don't apply to Aasimar PCs, the rules for whom appear in the ARG? Because that's the rulebook they come from. The RAW rules for Aassimars as PCs appear in that book.

So the rules from the ARG don't apply to the ARG?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Setting aside that the ARG is not core, the ARG text does not even address the issue. It talks only about its own special rules.

So, what is a Core book?

Because I always thought that it was anything in this line: Pathinder Roleplaying Game

Liberty's Edge

Bizbag wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Setting aside that the ARG is not core, the ARG text does not even address the issue. It talks only about its own special rules.

So what you're saying is the ARG rules don't apply to Aasimar PCs, the rules for whom appear in the ARG? Because that's the rulebook they come from. The RAW rules for Aassimars as PCs appear in that book.

So the rules from the ARG don't apply to the ARG?

Actually, the RAW for aasimar PCs has been available long before the ARG. The bestiary was the RAW on the topic for a good long while. I'm not sure which came first though, blood of angels (a book dedicated to pc aasimar's) or the ARG.

Weren Wu Jen wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Setting aside that the ARG is not core, the ARG text does not even address the issue. It talks only about its own special rules.

So, what is a Core book?

Because I always thought that it was anything in this line: Pathinder Roleplaying Game

That is a very good question. Core is about as poorly defined as it could possibly be. Some people insist core means "Core rulebook" since it has the word core in its title. Others think that some amount of the line you linked would be core, and yet others think that the entire line would be core.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Weren Wu Jen wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Setting aside that the ARG is not core, the ARG text does not even address the issue. It talks only about its own special rules.

So, what is a Core book?

Because I always thought that it was anything in this line: Pathinder Roleplaying Game

It also raises an interesting question. Does a newer rule retroactively replace an older one? Not so much this case (since we're arguing an artifact of the SRD) but in other methods. If a future book makes a 'monk that doesn't suck'* does that replace the monk in the CRB? If a future ARG II: Electric bugaloo, gave elves a movement of 40' should the elf in the CRB be changed?

And that's part of my concern, not if Aasimar do or do not gain their proficiency. (I'm content with JJ's statements and the ARG) But if that rule is issued in the ARG, shouldn't future printings of the Bestiary/CRB say as much? It's different than introducing a new weapon "Elven chainsaw" in "Ultimate Lumberjack" the elven chainsaw doesn't change the elf, his proficiency in it is already covered in the race description.

*

Spoiler:
Not trying to derail this into a 'monks suck' thread.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some back and forth posts. Please revisit the messageboard rules.


Matthew Morris wrote:
<snip>

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: they generally won't make sweeping changes to an existing item like the monk (for example) in a later rulebook; it'd either be errata/subsequent printings of the first book, or wait for the next edition. But new rules do override old ones in an official sense.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

RJGrady wrote:
I'm not looking for powers or to prove the devs wrong or anything. I don't usually play aasimar or tieflings, and the last few Pathfinder campaigns have been ones in which planetouched are very rare. I just want the most popular dev answer and the rules to actually say the same thing. I am not invested in the answer being one way or the other. I just know that by the RAW, native outsiders are proficient with simple and martial weapons, and it is my opinion that anyone who says otherwise either has not read the rules carefully or is willfully ignoring them. If you're one of the Paizo development team, you have the prerogative to make the answer whatever you want it to be. If you're not, you should really be looking for an official erratum at this point.

The ARG is a book in Paizo's core Pathfinder product line, and it states : Advanced Race Guide, p.215 - All 0-HD creatures gain their HD, BAB, skills, saves and weapon/armour proficiencies from their classes only and never from their types/subtypes.

This is RAW, because it is a rule in a core line product. Your opinion that "I just know that by the RAW, native outsiders are proficient with simple and martial weapons, and it is my opinion that anyone who says otherwise either has not read the rules carefully or is willfully ignoring them" is ignorant and provocative. Just because you think one core product cannot contain a rule that has overlapping consequences with a rule from another core product, does not mean that people who come to a different conclusion based on using a broader context are being "willfully ignorant". I would counter that label "willfully ignorant" could be more aptly applied to someone who chooses to ignore insight from the creative team behind the game and direct rules quote from one of their most recent core products.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
<snip>

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: they generally won't make sweeping changes to an existing item like the monk (for example) in a later rulebook; it'd either be errata/subsequent printings of the first book, or wait for the next edition. But new rules do override old ones in an official sense.

See that's a point I can understand, and disagree with in an electronic world. When Paizo issues errata, they update the PDFs. If the bastard sword* were revisitied in Bastards of Golarion to do slashing and piercing damage, I'd expect the addition of a /P in the next PDF of the CRB. Likewise, if you remove the 'or by character class' from the bestiary I, I bet you could fit the ARG rule into the bestiary I.

We've now gone through 4 bestiaries and the only place (again) where the 1 HD rule is called out is in the humanoid section. This also leads to the amusing problem of 'new rules override old ones' I look in Bestiary IV for what my aasimar gets, since it's the newest book, it references me back to the bestiary. Voila! I'm proficient in martial weapons again. So does the bestiary IV override the ARG?

*

Spoiler:
Not starting the handed argument again, just couldn't resist using the word. :-)

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Morris wrote:
Bizbag wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
<snip>

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer: they generally won't make sweeping changes to an existing item like the monk (for example) in a later rulebook; it'd either be errata/subsequent printings of the first book, or wait for the next edition. But new rules do override old ones in an official sense.

See that's a point I can understand, and disagree with in an electronic world. When Paizo issues errata, they update the PDFs. If the bastard sword* were revisitied in Bastards of Golarion to do slashing and piercing damage, I'd expect the addition of a /P in the next PDF of the CRB. Likewise, if you remove the 'or by character class' from the bestiary I, I bet you could fit the ARG rule into the bestiary I.

We've now gone through 4 bestiaries and the only place (again) where the 1 HD rule is called out is in the humanoid section. This also leads to the amusing problem of 'new rules override old ones' I look in Bestiary IV for what my aasimar gets, since it's the newest book, it references me back to the bestiary. Voila! I'm proficient in martial weapons again. So does the bestiary IV override the ARG?

*** spoiler omitted **

I do agree that the rule about 0 HD critters being spelled out in the Bestiary would pretty much resolve the entire issue.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
The Advanced Race Guide has the text that Biz quoted. If that doesn't settle the question, nothing ever will.

Read the full text in the Advanced Race Guide. I even quoted more of it up thread if you don't have it handy.

The text is not making a new rule, but rather the author is stating that this is already the rule and is reminding the reader of it.

The problem is that author got this wrong as far as I can tell. Or has anyone found a source that contradicts the Bestiary entry for outsiders?

All you have is a place in a supplemental text where someone thought the rule was one thing, when it was another.

After all the devs here inherited a good amount of the rules from 3e, and they are human. They can make mistakes, or elect not to look at what they might consider minutiae.

-James


0-HD humanoids have never gained humanoid weapon/armour proficiencies. The aasimar and tiefling races don't give out those proficiencies. The ARG states that 0-HD outsiders don't get armour/weapon proficiencies.

What more do you want??

Liberty's Edge

Arakhor wrote:

0-HD humanoids have never gained humanoid weapon/armour proficiencies. The aasimar and tiefling races don't give out those proficiencies. The ARG states that 0-HD outsiders don't get armour/weapon proficiencies.

What more do you want??

Given the existence of this thread and that it has over 50 posts, an FAQ response?

Also, the aasimar and tiefling races did give the proficiencies until the ARG came out.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Can the "aasimar and tieflings should have MWP" group please explain two observations:

1. Paizo feels the needs to expend word count listing Darkvison in these races' descriptions. Yet by the "pro-MWP" argument those races would get it anyway, for the same reasons as the profs. Why list one ability and omit the other?

2. Why should a player have to refer to what amounts to an appendix in a normally non-player book in order to find all their racial abilities?

Can anyone find an example of a published NPC aasimar or tiefling that has the proficiencies racially?

I suppose under the "pro" assumption that 20th level monks also get MWP for free as they become native outsiders.

Liberty's Edge

ryric wrote:

Can the "aasimar and tieflings should have MWP" group please explain two observations:

1. Paizo feels the needs to expend word count listing Darkvison in these races' descriptions. Yet by the "pro-MWP" argument those races would get it anyway, for the same reasons as the profs. Why list one ability and omit the other?

2. Why should a player have to refer to what amounts to an appendix in a normally non-player book in order to find all their racial abilities?

Sloppy work on Paizo's part.

Now can you explain, without the ARG, how they wouldn't have it?

Quote:
I suppose under the "pro" assumption that 20th level monks also get MWP for free as they become native outsiders.

I believe that would be correct.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Sloppy work on Paizo's part.

Really? That's the best thing you can come up with?

ShadowcatX wrote:
Also, the aasimar and tiefling races did give the proficiencies until the ARG came out.

That's not mentioned at all in the Aasimar and Tiefling sections of the Bestiary.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Arakhor wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Sloppy work on Paizo's part.

Really? That's the best thing you can come up with?

ShadowcatX wrote:
Also, the aasimar and tiefling races did give the proficiencies until the ARG came out.
That's not mentioned at all in the Aasimar and Tiefling sections of the Bestiary.

So you are saying tieflings do not need to eat, sleep nor breathe?


It doesn't say that they don't need to defecate either. Even in the Bestiary, the Aasimar/Tiefling race descriptions do not give away free weapon/armour proficiencies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
Also, the aasimar and tiefling races did give the proficiencies until the ARG came out.

Not in February 2010 or November 2010 or March 2011 or July 2011 (where the rules team specifically declined to add to or contradict the ruling by saying no response was required to FAQ clicks).

Should there be a line spelling out that the traits don't apply to 0-HD races? Yeah, there should. But they put it in the ARG, the one book specifically devoted to running non-core races as PCs; hard to argue that that's not where it belongs.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Arakhor wrote:
It doesn't say that they don't need to defecate either. Even in the Bestiary, the Aasimar/Tiefling race descriptions do not give away free weapon/armour proficiencies.

So you're conceeding you believe that they do not need to eat, sleep or breathe. Thank you.


Traits still apply, but racial features don't. Even in the Bestiary, on page 7, it states that Aasimar have no racial hit dice and that they are defined by their class and the following racial traits. It says the same on p.264 for the Tiefling.

RAW could always be clearer, of course, but native outsiders haven't changed since the Bestiary.

Matthew Morris wrote:
So you're conceeding you believe that they do not need to eat, sleep or breathe. Thank you.

No, of course I'm not. Native outsiders still need to eat, sleep and breathe, just like all 0-HD races presented to date.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

ShadowcatX wrote:
ryric wrote:
I suppose under the "pro" assumption that 20th level monks also get MWP for free as they become native outsiders.
I believe that would be correct.

Amusingly the text no longer says he becomes an outsider.

At 20th level, a monk becomes a magical creature. He is forevermore treated as an outsider rather than as a humanoid (or whatever the monk’s creature type was) for the purpose of spells and magical effects.

It then goes on to say "Unlike other outsiders..." so a bit inconsistant. :-)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Arakhor wrote:

Traits still apply, but racial features don't. Even in the Bestiary, on page 7, it states that Aasimar have no racial hit dice and that they are defined by their class and the following racial traits. It says the same on p.264 for the Tiefling.

RAW could always be clearer, of course, but native outsiders haven't changed since the Bestiary.

Matthew Morris wrote:
So you're conceeding you believe that they do not need to eat, sleep or breathe. Thank you.
No, of course I'm not. Native outsiders still need to eat, sleep and breathe, just like all 0-HD races presented to date.

Strange, where would you find that ruling? (you're wrong, BTW, but that's a tangent)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Joana wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Also, the aasimar and tiefling races did give the proficiencies until the ARG came out.

Not in February 2010 or November 2010 or March 2011 or July 2011 (where the rules team specifically declined to add to or contradict the ruling by saying no response was required to FAQ clicks).

Should there be a line spelling out that the traits don't apply to 0-HD races? Yeah, there should. But they put it in the ARG, the one book specifically devoted to running non-core races as PCs; hard to argue that that's not where it belongs.

Joana, thanks for digging up a couple more links than I had. I do think it needs added to the FAQ, since it clearly is a frequently asked question. :-) I think it also speaks to the need to change the bestiary text.

Something else I was pondering... the CRB doesn't seem to list that the core races are humanoid (except in the Ranger's favoured enemy section). So how do we know that they're humanoids? Well common sense, and defaulting to the bestiary.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
Native outsiders still need to eat, sleep and breathe, just like all 0-HD races presented to date.
Strange, where would you find that ruling? (you're wrong, BTW, but that's a tangent)

P.312 of the Bestiary mentions that native outsiders still need to eat, sleep and breathe, which I'm sure you already know. But if we're going to do take the common-sense approach, none of the main book racial write-ups for the Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc. state that they need to eat, sleep and breathe (and any free weapon proficiencies are clearly called out), so it should be assumed by any fair reading that if you don't do anything a normal human needs to do, it will be stated, and any assumed perk not listed won't be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arakhor wrote:
The ARG states that 0-HD outsiders don't get armour/weapon proficiencies.

Actually, the ARG states that this was already the rule, rather than making it a new rule.

You have two possibilities here:

1. There is such a rule somewhere that we have yet to find.

2. The author was mistaken when he added weapon and armor proficiencies to the list of things that they do not get (HD, skill ranks, etc).

-James


This wouldn't be the first time a core rule has been overturned by a later rule in another book. Epic DR was changed forever and Mythic Adventures is pretty much a splatbook. AND ITS IN THE CORE LINE AS WELL.

So we have a precedent to go off of.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Something else I was pondering... the CRB doesn't seem to list that the core races are humanoid (except in the Ranger's favoured enemy section). So how do we know that they're humanoids? Well common sense, and defaulting to the bestiary.

What's wrong with using the Ranger Favored Enemy list? Humans aren't even in the Bestiary.


james maissen wrote:
Actually, the ARG states that this was already the rule, rather than making it a new rule.

Pages 7 & 264 in the Bestiary state that Aasimars and Tieflings have no racial features other than the ones listed and 0-HD humanoids already follow that exact rule. The implication is clear that 0-HD outsiders should follow that rule too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Do 0HD native outsiders (like aasimar and tieflings) have all simple and martial weapon proficiencies like it states they should in the bestiary, or do they not have them like it states in the ARG?

Bestiary is for GM use only, so, if natives outsiders dictates to have all prof, there are only for gm.

If a player want to use an ON character, then use her option in ARG for players.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Arakhor wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
Native outsiders still need to eat, sleep and breathe, just like all 0-HD races presented to date.
Strange, where would you find that ruling? (you're wrong, BTW, but that's a tangent)
P.312 of the Bestiary mentions that native outsiders still need to eat, sleep and breathe, which I'm sure you already know. But if we're going to do take the common-sense approach, none of the main book racial write-ups for the Elf, Dwarf, Halfling etc. state that they need to eat, sleep and breathe (and any free weapon proficiencies are clearly called out), so it should be assumed by any fair reading that if you don't do anything a normal human needs to do, it will be stated, and any assumed perk not listed won't be.

Why yes, it is in the traits section of the Bestiary. Exactly like the martial weapon proficiencies. Thus the confusion. I am glad to see you found the section. Now if you check the humanoid section, you'll see that humanoids and only humanoids are called out as getting weapon and armor proficiencies by their class, not type. This, like such language not existing in the other types, is an artifact of the SRD.

Again, I'm not denying the dev team's *intent*. That the ARG points out the rule just shows that there was confusion and needs to be cleaned up. That tihs question comes up every few months shows this needs to be cleaned up. That the exact same language in the SRD meant in 3.x tieflings and aasimars were proficient in the weapons shows it is ambigious. What I'm saying is that it needs fixed in a future errata, and the FAQ team is wrong in saying "No answer required." Clearly an answer is required, since it keeps coming up.

Or to flip it on its head. IF the 0HD rule always existed, why is it spelled out again for the humanoid type?

Edit: So you're saying 0HD construct races need to eat and sleep?

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Arakhor wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Actually, the ARG states that this was already the rule, rather than making it a new rule.
Pages 7 & 264 in the Bestiary state that Aasimars and Tieflings have no racial features other than the ones listed and 0-HD humanoids already follow that exact rule. The implication is clear that 0-HD outsiders should follow that rule too.

So you're back to saying that they don't eat breathe or sleep. Got it.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Bizbag wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Something else I was pondering... the CRB doesn't seem to list that the core races are humanoid (except in the Ranger's favoured enemy section). So how do we know that they're humanoids? Well common sense, and defaulting to the bestiary.
What's wrong with using the Ranger Favored Enemy list? Humans aren't even in the Bestiary.

Honestly? Nothing. I didn't search the entire CRB, just found it funny that in hte race write up the core races aren't listed as humanoid, yet we 'know' what spells affect them.

Liberty's Edge

Juda de Kerioth wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Do 0HD native outsiders (like aasimar and tieflings) have all simple and martial weapon proficiencies like it states they should in the bestiary, or do they not have them like it states in the ARG?
Bestiary is for GM use only, so, if natives outsiders dictates to have all prof, there are only for gm.

Oh really? Do you have proof of that somewhere, like a rules quote? I've certainly never seen "GMs only" in my copy of the bestiary. . . Truth is, the bestiary's full of useful things for players, feats, animal companions, etc.

Quote:
If a player want to use an ON character, then use her option in ARG for players.

And for all the years before the ARG existed?


ShadowcatX wrote:
Quote:
If a player want to use an ON character, then use her option in ARG for players.
And for all the years before the ARG existed?

Then they may or may not have received MWP for free. Now they don't.


RJGrady wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Other Statistics for Monsters
Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. They get skills and feats appropriate to a 1st-level character (even if they have a level adjustment).

This is from the D20SRD of which Pathfinder is based from. I haven't found a rule in Pathfinder that reverses it. Source text here. All bestiary entries for 0 hd races that have been published from Paizo continue to honor this rule.

Features. Features. FEATURES.

Look at what section is labeled features, and what section is labeled traits. Do tieflings and aasimar lose darkvision if they take a character class?

I think you need to reread what you quoted. it says they have normal class-based Hit Dice and features.


Matthew Morris wrote:
So you're back to saying that they don't eat breathe or sleep. Got it.

Only in as much as humans don't eat, breathe or sleep either, of course. "Got it".

Clearly, there is a great deal of confusion regarding this topic and, yes, the core races could easily have been defined as Medium Humanoid (Elf) or what-have-you, but here we are anyway.

(And no, 0-HD constructs and undead, i.e. classed individuals, don't eat etc., as stated in the ARG. But you also already know that.)


Arakhor wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Actually, the ARG states that this was already the rule, rather than making it a new rule.
Pages 7 & 264 in the Bestiary state that Aasimars and Tieflings have no racial features other than the ones listed and 0-HD humanoids already follow that exact rule. The implication is clear that 0-HD outsiders should follow that rule too.

I agree. But "should" is not the same as "currently do."

Adjule wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Other Statistics for Monsters
Creatures with Hit Dice of 1 or less have normal, class-based Hit Dice and features. They get skills and feats appropriate to a 1st-level character (even if they have a level adjustment).

This is from the D20SRD of which Pathfinder is based from. I haven't found a rule in Pathfinder that reverses it. Source text here. All bestiary entries for 0 hd races that have been published from Paizo continue to honor this rule.

Features. Features. FEATURES.

Look at what section is labeled features, and what section is labeled traits. Do tieflings and aasimar lose darkvision if they take a character class?

I think you need to reread what you quoted. it says they have normal class-based Hit Dice and features.

Sigh. What we are discussing is a native outsider trait. Please go check the Type descriptions and get up to speed on this topic if you want to weigh in. You can argue that this trait "should" be included in what is replaced by a class's features, but it is factually incorrect to say native outsider weapon proficiencies are a feature. That is not a valid argument.

Arguments I personally accept as valid at this time, although I do not myself accept as sufficient:
- JJ's word is good enough
- It is simply an oversight that has persisted through two editions of D&D and one edition of Pathfinder, and the RAW should be ignored it was never intended
- Whether or not it was intended, the RAW should be ignored because it is not balanced
- Since the ARG indicates the official opinion of at least one developer, it should be considered as implicit errata

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just to address a small part of this discussion: for PFS play, you use the details of aasimar or tiefling from the Advanced Race Guide or appropriate "Blood of" book. The Bestiary is not a legal source for player character races. See the Additional Resources page for details.

Please continue discussion.

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.

You are right. While it was always the assumption that 0-HD creatures, no matter their type, had weapon and armor proficiencies based on their class levels, we did not state that explicitly in the Bestiary. That is why we did in the Advance Race Guide.

Saying that it is listed specifically in the Advanced Race Guide only, and somehow that does not make is core, is just wrong. It is part of the core line, and one about races, and it contains a number that are not of the humanoid type. We were able to make the clarification and we did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Apples


I appreciate your response. Given that the ARG concerns expanding player options, and aasimar and tiefling NPCs are in the core rulebooks, I don't accept that the issue has been clarified. In fact, it has been muddied. Stephen, if "we" means the design team, I request in the strongest possible way that the Types receive proper errata, designating those proficiences as features, not traits.

Designer

RJGrady wrote:
I don't accept that the issue has been clarified. In fact, it has been muddied. Stephen, if "we" means the design team, I request in the strongest possible way that the Types receive proper errata, designating those proficiences as features, not traits.

Well I'm glad you appreciate the response. I don't think we will be doing the rest, but I will pass on the request.


it is commonly houseruled against such being the case

but Aasimaars, Tieflings and other planetouched with the outsider type, even without hit dice, gain proficiency in all simple and martial weapons. this feature isn't really that overpowering, in fact, i'd rate it a step weaker than weapon familiarity because it doesn't matter how many weapons you are proficient with when you only have 2 hands, you can only use one or two at a time, likely your best ones, the fact that most of the racial exotic weapons, are a step or few better than their martial counterparts, the fact martial weapon proficiency can be replaced by levels in the appropriate class, a WotC background feat, or a handful of oracle revelations, and that most PCs will specialize in the use of one or two specific weapons anyway because they only have so many feats. i'd consider the native outsider with 5 martial weapon focus feats to be redundant and rather suboptimal

the extra weapon proficiencies, are designed to open up weapon options and allow diversity in outsider typed creatures.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Do 0HD native outsiders (like aasimar and tieflings) have all simple and martial weapon proficiencies like it states they should in the bestiary, or do they not have them like it states in the ARG?
Bestiary is for GM use only, so, if natives outsiders dictates to have all prof, there are only for gm.

Oh really? Do you have proof of that somewhere, like a rules quote? I've certainly never seen "GMs only" in my copy of the bestiary. . . Truth is, the bestiary's full of useful things for players, feats, animal companions, etc.

Quote:
If a player want to use an ON character, then use her option in ARG for players.
And for all the years before the ARG existed?

Mmm I believe if u read the introduction, there are I believe at least 4 or 5 sentences statimg the purpose of the beastiary is to have information for the dm to run the monsters in the dms world and how the dm would reward the players. Also at no point does it even refernce the players at all in using the book or acknowledging them. All the book acknowledges is the dm.

Granted that grounds for dm only, but it is grounds that the book was designed for the dm. At no point does it say players should not use this because imho I believe the players were suppose to have access to the info with gms approval, again opinion, because why else are the players supposed to have access to the almost total information of the creatures they will be fighting?
Argh hard to explain.

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

You are right. While it was always the assumption that 0-HD creatures, no matter their type, had weapon and armor proficiencies based on their class levels, we did not state that explicitly in the Bestiary. That is why we did in the Advance Race Guide.

Saying that it is listed specifically in the Advanced Race Guide only, and somehow that does not make is core, is just wrong. It is part of the core line, and one about races, and it contains a number that are not of the humanoid type. We were able to make the clarification and we did.

Thank you.

Can everyone accept this and consider the issue closed?

ETA: Just finished reading the rest of the thread. Apparently the answer is no. This makes me a sad panda.

Shadow Lodge

Just repointing out a few things.

Here is what the Bestiary says on Outsiders:

An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence. An Outsider has the following features.
• d10 Hit Dice.
• Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (fast progression).
• Two good saving throws, usually Reflex and Will.
• Skill points equal to 6 + Int modifier (minimum 1) per Hit
Die. The following are class skills for outsiders: Bluff, Craft, Knowledge (planes), Perception, Sense Motive, and Stealth. Due to their varied nature, outsiders also receive 4 additional class skills determined by the creature’s theme.
Traits: An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).
• Darkvision 60 feet.
• Unlike most living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
• Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are
proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.

• Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.

Here is what the Bestiary says one Native Outsiders:
Native Subtype: This subtype is applied only to outsiders. These creatures have mortal ancestors or a strong connection to the Material Plane and can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be. Creatures with this subtype are native to the Material Plane. Unlike true outsiders, native outsiders need to eat and sleep.

Here is what the Bestiary says about playing monster races as PC's and adding Class Levels, page 296-297:

ADDING CLASS LEVELS
Of all the methods of advancing a monster, adding class levels requires the most adjudication and careful comparison. Some classes truly add to the power and abilities of some monster types, while others do not. For
example, adding levels of barbarian to a hill giant can be a great addition, whereas adding levels of sorcerer is less useful. When adding class levels to a creature, take the following three steps.

skipped step one which is about selecting it's "role".

Step 2: Add Class Levels
Once you have determined the creature’s role, it’s time to add class levels. The first step of this process is to modify the creature’s ability scores. Creatures with class levels receive +4, +4, +2, +2, +0, and –2 adjustments to their ability scores, assigned in a manner that enhances their class abilities. Creatures with NPC class levels do not
receive adjustments to their ability scores. Next, add the class levels to the monster, making all of the necessary additions to its HD, hit points, BAB, CMB, CMD, feats, skills, spells, and class features. If the creature possesses class features (such as spellcasting or sneak attack) for the class that is being added, these abilities stack. This functions just like adding class levels to a character without racial Hit Dice. A monster with class levels always possesses treasure equal to an NPC of a level equal to the monster’s final CR (as calculated in Step 3, below). To determine the value of this gear, use the value listed for a heroic NPC of that level, as listed on page 454 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. Once a total GP value is determined, follow the rules for outfitting an NPC as outlined in that chapter. Gear should help a monster with class levels remain challenging and retain statistics close to those presented on Table 1-1: Monster Statistics by CR.

Here is something interesting from the ARG, page 214:

RACE EXAMPLES
This chapter features numerous examples of races designed with the race builder. Sidebars early in the chapter offer detailed examples of races found in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, Bestiary 2, and Bestiary 3 that would normally have racial Hit Dice, skills, and other abilities. PC members of such races, however, calculate these benefits based solely on their class. Note that these races are only an approximation of their monstrous counterparts and may not match exactly. Later in the chapter, sidebars detail entirely new races created using the race builder rules. Lastly, the final section of the chapter breaks down the points and abilities of core races and many of the featured and uncommon races.

So it looks like so far only those races that normally have racial HD are using just class levels.

ARG next page, and now we come to the point that seems to be the contradiction:

Type Quality
This is the race’s creature type. A race’s creature type is similar to the corresponding creature type found in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary, with a few important differences. The first difference is that each race type assumes members of the race are roughly humanoid in shape and have two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head. This is important so that a race can take advantage of all the various magic item slots available to characters and can utilize the standard weapon and armor options. The second difference is that all of these race types are 0-Hit Dice creatures, which means that their Hit Dice, base attack bonus, saving throw progression, skill points, class skills, and weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes.

The important thing here is that these rules are for "either one of the players or the GM—wants to create a new race", which is a fairly close approximate, not the actual race, and in no way overrides or supersedes the Bestiary, which instead focuses on how to play an existing race or creature. So there is actually no contradiction.

RAW: Outsiders (including 0HD ones) get all Simple and Martial Proficiency, as whatever armor they are listed as wearing. If proficient in armor, they also get all shields. Which I'm actually a bit more surprised that people are not up in arms that Aasimar and Teiflings get free Tower Shield Proficiency than Martial Weapons.

RAI: is up in the air. As has been mentioned, this is a very old issue. I know that the creative director was against it, but also has very clearly specified that he is not a rules guy and his suggestions are in no way official answers as they are more his opinion based on loose readings of the rules. Even before Pathfinder came out, in the alpha and beta days, this was still going on and the other paizo staff members where on both sides, which is probably why there sill not be an official FAQ answer, not because they don't deem it worthy, but because they tend to disagree. (was true in the past, might have changed currently)

Anyway, those are (I think all of) the relevant rules on the issue. I see the ARG as the generic and loose rules, with the Bestiary, which is more specifically focused on the actual issue in question the specific that would override the general, but that's my opinion.

Another interesting point is that when Pathfinder first came out and there was the huge stink about Cleric's losing Heavy Armor, Paizo also then specifically admitted to changing the Aasimar from a 3.5 Paladin to a PF Cleric, to avoid the Cleric getting that proficiency back when the Bestiary came out. That means that those that designed the Bestiary where aware of the fact and specifically used it.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
I appreciate your response. Given that the ARG concerns expanding player options, and aasimar and tiefling NPCs are in the core rulebooks, I don't accept that the issue has been clarified. In fact, it has been muddied. Stephen, if "we" means the design team, I request in the strongest possible way that the Types receive proper errata, designating those proficiences as features, not traits.

You are missing the fact that the ARG is in fact a core book. As are all of the Ultimate and Advanced books. Those are all part of Paizo's Core product line.

When a Designer comes in and says that they explicitly said something in a newer core book that had been implicitly intended all along because they recognized that it could use clarification, that is an answer.
You are demanding that they spend time and time and money to rectify a non-existent error when the clarifications are already part of their core product line and readily available on the prd. That is the kind of obnoxious and entitled b.s. that causes the designers to not want to be helpful, or give clarifications. RTMIR. You're breaking it.

Your main issue right now appears to be that you don't think the ARG is a core product so it can't provide clarification to something you think is. You are wrong. It is. All of Paizo's harcovers are part of their core product line. That's why they get added to the PRD, and why they get errata and FAQs as appropriate.

51 to 100 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Zero HD Native Outsiders and Weapon Proficiencies All Messageboards