Zero HD Native Outsiders and Weapon Proficiencies


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

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 which "core" rulebook are you using that says you can have an Aasimar PC?


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.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what would you accept as clarifying the issue? A Dev has stated the answer, do you want skywritten in 100 foot letters? The Ghost of Gary Gygax to say that is the rule? JJ to come and personally initial changes in your rulebook?


So the guideline I take from this is that later publications in the Pathfinder RPG line of books supersede earlier books if there is a rules conflict. Does that sound correct?


Vod Canockers wrote:
Just out of curiosity, exactly what would you accept as clarifying the issue? A Dev has stated the answer, do you want skywritten in 100 foot letters? The Ghost of Gary Gygax to say that is the rule? JJ to come and personally initial changes in your rulebook?

Woot! I pick the ghost! I pick the ghost!

Hehe on a side note , while i ofc agree that the ARG is a core book and i quite like it , people dont really deppend on it.

With the bestiary 4 now out , pretty much every single race there is covered in the bestaries for PCs, ofc not so well , but they are.

Shadow Lodge

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the Bestiary 4 having the same language as the Bestiary 1 on the matter then override the ARG as the most recent authority? Or does that not count?

:) which reminds me, I probably need to pick that up now. ha ha


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.

We were able to make the clarification and we did.

Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.

Rules for games should be CLEAR. And when you change things, those changes should be highlighted.

As I read it, this is simply a case that the author got a rule wrong. It happens to everyone. And likely will happen in the future. When the mistake is not one that you want to accept, then you'll demand to know why we took it that way. Why set such a blurry precedent here?

As to the bestiary, perhaps you believed that the rule located within one creature type was meant to apply to others.. but why would anyone else make that leap?

Likewise, this is something that you inherited from prior editions, is it not? If you meant to change it with the change over to pathfinder, then you failed to do so. If you believed that it was different before, then you missed a rule... it happens.

-James


3 people marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

We did not state that explicitly in the Bestiary. That is why we did in the Advance Race Guide.

We were able to make the clarification and we did.

Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.

Please observe.

Bestiary wrote:
Aasimars are defined by class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. Aasimars have the following racial traits.
ARG wrote:
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.

This rule clarification is easily sourced as to the specifics of Aasimars and Tieflings, even if the general rule isn't stated in the Bestiary.

Designer

james maissen wrote:
Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.

I never said it changed the rule. I said it clarified the rule.

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.
I never said it changed the rule. I said it clarified the rule.

Was it an unwritten rule, kind of like the whole no 2 handing a weapon and using armor spikes? Not that it matters, the ARG is obvious as to how it should work, but I just haven't seen any other source that is.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Thanks Stephen.

One day I hope to understand all the unwritten rules and assumptions underlying Pathfinder, and posts like these really help out there.

Unfortunately for you, I have figured out your ploy though.

Months ago, when armor spikes were still fresh on everyone's mind, you or Sean had an idle thought: "Wow! The only thing the forums can focus on right now are armor spikes. If we could harness this..." And then a realization struck. By choosing to release semi-controversial FAQs at select times, you could control the conversation. You could distract us from other matters.

Matters like playtests of newly announced hardcovers. Yes, this perfectly explains the bastard sword FAQs and this clarification. A cunning ploy, sure to fool us all. But I'm on to you.

:)


ShadowcatX wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.
I never said it changed the rule. I said it clarified the rule.
Was it an unwritten rule, kind of like the whole no 2 handing a weapon and using armor spikes? Not that it matters, the ARG is obvious as to how it should work, but I just haven't seen any other source that is.

Here are a few more examples of unwritten rules. Well, I lied. They aren't quite unwritten. But it speaks to much the same issue as this one, where there are certain assumptions about the game that aren't mirrored 100% with the rules as written.

Because remember, the rules as written doesn't mean it's the rules as intended. We're only human, even Sean.


Cheapy wrote:

Thanks Stephen.

One day I hope to understand all the unwritten rules and assumptions underlying Pathfinder, and posts like these really help out there.

Unfortunately for you, I have figured out your ploy though.

Months ago, when armor spikes were still fresh on everyone's mind, you or Sean had an idle thought: "Wow! The only thing the forums can focus on right now are armor spikes. If we could harness this..." And then a realization struck. By choosing to release semi-controversial FAQs at select times, you could control the conversation. You could distract us from other matters.

Matters like playtests of newly announced hardcovers. Yes, this perfectly explains the bastard sword FAQs and this clarification. A cunning ploy, sure to fool us all. But I'm on to you.

:)

Gasp, what playtest?


Scavion wrote:


Gasp, what playtest?

In case you're serious...you have a lot of reading to catch up on :)


Cheapy wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Gasp, what playtest?
In case you're serious...you have a lot of reading to catch up on :)

Its coming soon? I am always dead serious.


Scavion wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Gasp, what playtest?
In case you're serious...you have a lot of reading to catch up on :)
Its coming soon? I am always dead serious.

Of course not. Weren't you reading? They're using these FAQs to hide the fact that it's nowhere near ready, clearly.

Spoiler:
I have no clue.


Cheapy wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Scavion wrote:


Gasp, what playtest?
In case you're serious...you have a lot of reading to catch up on :)
Its coming soon? I am always dead serious.

Of course not. Weren't you reading? They're using these FAQs to hide the fact that it's nowhere near ready, clearly.

** spoiler omitted **

You are a cruel man to get my hopes up like that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
james maissen wrote:
Umm.. actually the Advanced Race Guide doesn't change the rules as you are saying. It purports that it was the rule. And in this aspect it is wrong. If you want to actually change rules, this is not the way.
I never said it changed the rule. I said it clarified the rule.

I'm just not going to accept a contradiction between every published Bestiary and the ARG as a clarification. This is not just a casual pique, although I am somewhat annoyed at the reluctant to fix something simple that needs to be fixed; if someone publishes Pathfinder-compatible material, they are reliant on the rules working properly. If Paizo has their own set of rules, different from the ones in print, that's an issue.

If you're hoping the ARG was going to settle these issues once and for all, you probably should have a plan for people who don't own and don't plan on acquiring the ARG. Stealth errata is a sin; supplement-as-errata is a sin; both at once is like sacrificing a goat to the Dark Lord of Rules Bloat and Confusion.

You don't owe me anything. I will say that if I had the privilege of working at Paizo on official Pathfinder products, and I were aware of an issue of this nature, I would certainly do my best to correct it. It makes me sad that it would be treated as an imposition to make such a minor correction.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am thinking you are just not wanting to accept that you are wrong. A designer of the game has given a clarification, and because it is posted on a forum, and printed in a book that you have basically said doesn't count, you say he is wrong.


If it makes you feel any better RJ, it is my opinion that the author of the Sage Advice in 3.5 that said Aasimars and Tieflings get the proficiencies was dead wrong. A lot of the later clarifications (post-Skip) were a bit off/flippant.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I never said it changed the rule. I said it clarified the rule.

It reads to me as if it simply got the rule wrong.

It happens.

But I'm curious if it's just a clarification then when did the rule change, and where?

And why, up to this day, do you still have the text in the Bestiary for these "0HD rules" in the humanoid type if they also apply elsewhere?

It doesn't make much sense.

-James

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
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.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what would you accept as clarifying the issue? A Dev has stated the answer, do you want skywritten in 100 foot letters? The Ghost of Gary Gygax to say that is the rule? JJ to come and personally initial changes in your rulebook?

Presumably he will accept a result that matches the answer he wants to hear.


james maissen wrote:
But I'm curious if it's just a clarification then when did the rule change, and where?

If you're asking from 3.5, then from the publication of Pathfinder. (Assuming you even count it as a rule in 3.5)

james maissen wrote:
And why, up to this day, do you still have the text in the Bestiary for these "0HD rules" in the humanoid type if they also apply elsewhere?

The text is there because it applies most commonly to humanoids? It's also well-stated in the individual race entries for Aasimars and Tieflings.


Adjule wrote:
I am thinking you are just not wanting to accept that you are wrong. A designer of the game has given a clarification, and because it is posted on a forum, and printed in a book that you have basically said doesn't count, you say he is wrong.

I have no problem being "wrong." For instance, I have issued errata for some of my own products. Mistakes happen. I can accept, further, that the one or the devs may feel they are not "wrong." Further, very few people prefer to have native outsiders gain those proficiencies. So it's not a matter of pushing an agenda. I don't want native outsiders to have the proficiencies; I posted it in the previous thread about rules misconceptions purely because I thought it was strange and maybe funny.

What I find exasperating is the lack of errata. The rule, clearly, is poorly written. I also find it exasperating that people are fine with not resolving the issue. If the proper errata were issued, almost no one would complain. I think maybe one person in this entire discussion have endorsed native outsider weapon proficiencies as a feature, rather than a bug, and I am not one of them. I have not learned any new information since the beginning of the discussion, nor have I encountered any arguments since this came up years ago, before Paizo was even curating the rules in question. It's not reasonable to think that a few off-handed posts by the devs are going to change my mind about what the book clearly says.The Pathfinder developers did not craft the text in question. The rule in question is a textual artifact of decisions made a long time ago by a bunch of other people. The consequences are almost certainly unintended. But they are clear.

The ARG and the Bestiary clearly contradict each other. If you think the ARG is correct, why don't you side with me and argue for the correct erratum to the Bestiary entries?


If you want to play a 0 HD Aasimar, then you can have the weapon proficiencies. Congratulations you know have 1 HP, 0 BAB, 0 levels, etc.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
It reads to me as if it simply got the rule wrong.

::blink, blink:: Okay.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:
I also find it exasperating that people are fine with not resolving the issue.

Because for the vast majority of players it isn't an issue. EVERY other race besides Asasimar and Tieflings has been operating under the mechanic that class and race are what give you your weapon proficiencies, not your type. The bulk of players who've made A and T characters accepted that just as they did for every other character that they've made. Quite frankly the only people that it's been a problem for are those who want to cheese their way into PrC's unsatisfied that Paizo has already okayed cheesing with spell like abilities.


Vod Canockers wrote:
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.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what would you accept as clarifying the issue? A Dev has stated the answer, do you want skywritten in 100 foot letters? The Ghost of Gary Gygax to say that is the rule? JJ to come and personally initial changes in your rulebook?

I skipped over this, but it's a fair question that deserves a fair answer. I have already stated the answer, but I'll repeat it for clarity. The answer is:

Official errata moving all the proficiencies in creature Types from Traits to Features. My requirement is simply that the text say what it is being claimed it says.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I sort of see where you're coming from RJ - you want to see clarity. The rest of us simply see it already.

Bestiary-Outsider-Traits wrote:
Traits: An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
Bestiary-Aasimar wrote:
Aasimars are defined by class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. Aasimars have the following racial traits.

To us, the above is quite clear. It's okay if you don't think so though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
To us, the above is quite clear. It's okay if you don't think so though.

Well let's see, in 3.5 it said that they have the following racial traits... and it didn't list proficiency in martial weapons nor the need to sleep/breathe/etc.

They clearly never had racial Hit Dice. Which is what the first line is saying, and this is the only addition that Pathfinder made (beyond changing the class of the sample character from warrior to cleric).

Your argument would say that, in 3.5, they clearly didn't get martial weapon proficiency. Yet the designers at the time would disagree with you, and they expressly ruled that they did get martial weapon proficiency.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
james maissen wrote:
It reads to me as if it simply got the rule wrong.
::blink, blink:: Okay.

So where did the rule from 3.5 get changed? That's what people have been looking for in this thread. The first claim was the Adv Race Guide, but that was just to clarify the change that had already been made (cause you don't seem to believe it could be a mistake). Now the second claim is that the one line in the bestiary about Aasimars not getting racial HD somehow claims this, but they never got racial HD and that's confusing traits and features.

It's not that hard, you guys get to print the books. If you want it to say something, then go out and say it. Errata is not an evil word.

Our desire here is for clear rules. They make for a better game. I've liked the majority of the changes Pathfinder has made to 3.5, but hiding those changes doesn't further the interests of the game. It just causes confusion. Rather than prance around with 'clarification', simply issue the errata and stop printing a general rule under a specific heading. The only logical conclusion a person should take from that is that you HAVEN'T changed the rules from 3.5 in this regard.

If you want the rules to be different, then print them differently.

-James

Oh and you seem to have something in your eye.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The rule got changed with the Pathfinder Bestiary, but it was not state as explicit as it could have been. When we created even more 0-HD non-humanoid races for the Advanced Race Guide (and were in the process of doing even more after) we decided to make it as explicit as possible. Before there was two races. Now there are may. Things change. We changed them, didn't explain it as well as we could, and then we stated it in a way that is crystal clear. That was the process.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:


So where did the rule from 3.5 get changed?

When this became not 3.5.


Vod Canockers 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 which "core" rulebook are you using that says you can have an Aasimar PC?

Yeah I pointed this out earlier in the thread. This complaint that a rule governing this "non-core" PC option is "non-core" just seems... I don't even know a good word for it..crazy?

No to mention the whole concept of "core" is just something made up by some players. Made up and poorly defined at that. From a system standpoint there is no difference in the validity of a rule no matter the book its in.


There is a difference in universality. Everyone has the core rulebook, and the Bestiary is the same across the board. Anything else has to be considered optional. There shouldn't be general rules found only in other books. I am really surprised by the level of venom, considering that almost everyone agrees on what the preferred rule is. For me it's just a matter of the text. The attitude almost seems to be, "How dare you care about this, I care very much and think it's wrong you care about this."


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
The rule got changed with the Pathfinder Bestiary, but it was not state as explicit as it could have been.

You mean the one line where it says that they don't have racial HD???

If so, then that's an understatement. They never got racial HD, but did get martial weapons.

Pathfinder made a number of great changes, and a number of changes that no one ever changed.. either because they didn't realized it had changed, or the rules didn't show them anything to change. That's understandable given the scope and the lack of a change list.

I'm sure that for each and every one that you guys discuss these changes, play with them, and get so used to them that you think these things have been clearly changed. But many have not. They become part of the rules learned at the table. Many learned there are correct, but many others are not and persist like bad colds there despite all efforts to get rid of them.

Now if you knew there was confusion on this, why not actually address it directly in the Bestiary? If the rule was for all '0HD' creatures, regardless of type, to not get proficiencies.. then change it as the general rule rather than have it under one specific type and leave text you knew was not clear to shore it up.

Is there something that is made worse if the core books are errata'd to be made more clear in places where you know they are not clear? There seems to be a strong resistance to doing this even in very clear places where the text needs it.

Please don't get me wrong. I thank you for explaining the process. I'm just highly disappointed in the process truth be told, but thank you for the explanation. When Pathfinder came out originally I was very hopeful that it would clean up a lot of the mess in the rules from which 3.5 suffered. It made a nice (or even great) start in places, but seems to have more than given up on that path, which is a tragic shame.

-James


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
There is a difference in universality. Everyone has the core rulebook, and the Bestiary is the same across the board. Anything else has to be considered optional. There shouldn't be general rules found only in other books. I am really surprised by the level of venom, considering that almost everyone agrees on what the preferred rule is. For me it's just a matter of the text. The attitude almost seems to be, "How dare you care about this, I care very much and think it's wrong you care about this."

Firstly since there are monsters in the GMG and the Bestiary is in no way needed to play then it is also NOT core. So the argument falls apart right there.

Secondly what is considered optional is nothing but your opinion. You are welcome to it of course but thinking is in universal shows nothing but arrogance.

It is not universal, at all. To me since almost everything is freely available on a couple of sites there is no reason for anything to be secondary. But this is only my opinion and I don't expect anyone else to do things as I do. Nor do I feel the need to try and cram my opinion down anyone's throat and pretend its a fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
There is a difference in universality. Everyone has the core rulebook, and the Bestiary is the same across the board. Anything else has to be considered optional. There shouldn't be general rules found only in other books. I am really surprised by the level of venom, considering that almost everyone agrees on what the preferred rule is. For me it's just a matter of the text. The attitude almost seems to be, "How dare you care about this, I care very much and think it's wrong you care about this."

So I'm guessing that you don't use classes or spells or feats or equipment that isn't listed in either CRB or Beastiary? And exactly where does it say in either the CRB or Beastiary that Aasimar are allowable as PCs?


Vod Canockers wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
There is a difference in universality. Everyone has the core rulebook, and the Bestiary is the same across the board. Anything else has to be considered optional. There shouldn't be general rules found only in other books. I am really surprised by the level of venom, considering that almost everyone agrees on what the preferred rule is. For me it's just a matter of the text. The attitude almost seems to be, "How dare you care about this, I care very much and think it's wrong you care about this."
So I'm guessing that you don't use classes or spells or feats or equipment that isn't listed in either CRB or Beastiary? And exactly where does it say in either the CRB or Beastiary that Aasimar are allowable as PCs?

All I'm really saying is that I don't use the ARG. The only Aasimar that has appeared in one of my campaigns at all recently was an NPC. This topic is relevant to NPCs built using the Bestiary.


Vod Canockers wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
There is a difference in universality. Everyone has the core rulebook, and the Bestiary is the same across the board. Anything else has to be considered optional. There shouldn't be general rules found only in other books. I am really surprised by the level of venom, considering that almost everyone agrees on what the preferred rule is. For me it's just a matter of the text. The attitude almost seems to be, "How dare you care about this, I care very much and think it's wrong you care about this."
So I'm guessing that you don't use classes or spells or feats or equipment that isn't listed in either CRB or Beastiary? And exactly where does it say in either the CRB or Beastiary that Aasimar are allowable as PCs?

? It is written in the CRB that they are , together with some other races.

You get the PC stats from the 1 bestiary...

Finding the page now ... well that will take a while will see if i do.


Page 406 CRB:

Alternative Races
Only more experienced GMs should consider allowing players
to play anything other than the races presented in Chapter
2, but if you want to start experimenting, the following races
from the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary are good choices for races
that are close in power to those listed in Chapter 2.
• Aasimar
• Goblin
• Hobgoblin
• Kobold
• Merfolk
• Mite
• Orc
• Tengu
• Tiefling
The following races are somewhat more powerful, due to
the fact that they possess racial Hit Dice, exceptional ability
score modifiers, natural attacks, or other unusual abilities.
These races are intended as monstrous foes, not as PC races,
and if you allow players to play one of these creatures, you
should allow characters who pick from the list above or from
the seven core races to start play at 2nd level.
• Boggard
• Bugbear
• Dark Creeper
• Drow
• Duergar
• Gnoll
• Lizardfolk
• Morlock
• Svirfneblin

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
james maissen wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:

From another thread:

Arakhor wrote:
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.
Actually I read it as
Advanced Race Guide wrote:
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.

And this reads to me as if the writer of the passage simply got the rules wrong.

It certainly is not a change in the rules as it is written.

So, yes I certainly would be interested in seeing where in the core rules this rule is stated. All I can see is a wording dealing with those of the humanoid type.

-James

PRD wrote:
Traits: An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry).
Betiary Second printing April 2010 wrote:

Aasimar Characters

Aasimars are defined by class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. Aasimars have the following racial traits.

Aasimar being defined by class levels and not racial HD seem pretty straightforward, right?

They clearly fall under those "noted in a creature's entry" as not having all the outsiders features.

èquote=PRD]Creating a Half-Fiend

“Half-fiend” is an inherited or acquired template that can be added to a living, corporeal creature with an Int score of 4 or more. A half-fiend uses all the base creature's statistics and special abilities except as noted here.

Again a list of modifications to the original race, not a outsider template to which you add the original race.

Do it with a human and you get a huma/half fiend with the class proficiencies, not the outsider proficiencies.

Half celestial, same thing. Oread, same thing as the Aasimar. And so on

It is very simple, the rules say "you have this unless ..." and before the ARG all the 0 HD outsiders races and the templates that could be applied to 0 HD races had the unless part, generally specifying what they get, not what they lose.

Requiring them to be treated differently is simply wishful thinking.

BTW, I am curious, where you guys get that in the 3.5 0 HD outsiders were getting the weapon proficiencies as a rule? Or again it is a matter of disregarding pieces of the rules text?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

The 0 HD Humanoids is a 3.5 thing where it specified that only Humanoids lost everything in favor of class levels.

In PF, Bestiary 1, page 207 Step 2 (off top of my head as posting from phone), states that all HP, Skills, etc, but specifically all proficiencies are added in addition to those from class, not replaced.

The ARG is talking about designing new monsters, and only includes Native Outsiders, as if it where a type. Its also a genedalized way of how to make up unique "monsters", not really how to use existing ones, so is kind of irrelevant.

If you are referring "Monster advancement - Adding class levels" Step 2, it is a page 297 and say:

PRD wrote:

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 in Table: NPC Gear. Once a total GP value is determined, follow the rules for outfitting an NPC as outlined in that section. 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.

Read it carefully. It speak of adding the abilities to what the monster already has. A 0 HD creature has what is included in his creature description, not "what is in the creature description + what is in the creature type description".

The specific rule of the creature supersede the generic rule of the outsiders.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think its awfully arrogant to claim ignorance when we have an absolutely amazing resource in the PFSRD to aid us in any specific rules delving.

To claim simply, "I dont have the book, so that rule in the Core Line doesn't apply to me," reeks.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

@Diego

I don't have a horse in this race, but even I can see you and several other people are ignoring posts and RAW. Please stop, take a breath, and look at the RAW.

Outsiders wrote:


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.

Native wrote:


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.

Saying the 0HD is defined by class is all well and good, but that doesn't, for the outsiders, have any clarifying text. That is what the OP is saying. And it's true. And the DEV came on and agreed that it didn't, and that it was intended to be changed, but they didn't change the text to make it explicit. Just the RAW in CRB and B1/B2/B3/B4 indicates that the weapon proficiencies are under the Traits, which are still applied unless otherwise specified (specified means specify, as in, from the root word specific, which is not done).

So why are you pounding on the OP, and even the DEV now, to try to 'prove' that you are right and that the OP and DEV are wrong? A DEV came on and admitted it was not made explicit or even clear in the rules when PF came out, and that they took the ARG as an opportunity to attempt to clarify it.

So may I ask, what reward is involved that drives people to try to grind the OP and DEV down and force them to change their stance? Are you getting a reward? Are you going to be named 'King or the Intarweb' by grinding and grinding?

RAI is they don't get the proficiencies, RAW they didn't clarify that. OP, DEVs, anyone reasonable is on the same page with all that.

So the only argument should be, 'Should the B1..B4 be errata'd to put the proficiencies above the traits, to clear it up'. Honestly, that's it.

My own thought is, there is a very good argument that a PFS player should be able to show up with CRB and Bestiary and make a valid character with just those rules. But it's ultimately up to Paizo whether they want to be clear on that or not. Trying to hound the DEV and OP into saying they are both wrong is a worthless persuit.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

@ mdt:
What part of "(unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry)." seem unclear to you?
Sure, before the ARG it was not defined as a general rule that 0 HD playable outsiders don't get all the outsiders traits, but all the 0 HD playable outsiders races specified and even now specify what they get.

Claiming that it was not understandable and evident is tiring to stretch the rules to the breaking point for personal gain, something that generally only reduce the fun of gaming unless you are playing Toon (TM).

And, maybe I am blind, but I don't see any Dev post in this thread.

JJ agreed that it could have been written better in another thread, but "written better" is not "it wasn't comprehensible".


You missed all the posts by " Stephen Radney-MacFarland Designer ?"


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Stephen-Radney-McFarland is a designer, check under his name.

And prior to ARG< yes, ti was undefined and not evident. Because they are in the same block as things like Darkvision or 'eat/sleep/breath'. Nothing in the blocks indicate proficiencies one way or the other. Go check, it's not something that's listed normally in a bestiary block, so there's nothing in the block to indicate they don't get it.

Yes, the ARG made that change. But it was a change. And arguing it wasn't is like arguing that Star Wars Episode 1 didn't change anything about the force established in Episode 3 (mitichlorians!). It's a retrofit, and that's fine, but don't argue it wasn't. Intention may have been that it wasn't, but nothing in the book specified it. You had to understand the 'unwritten rules' of the Paizo developers.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

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.

Good morning Stephen,

Would it be possible for the layout team to review removing the "or by character class" section of the humanoid type from the Bestiary and add in the beginning of the types section the 0HD rule? I ask for three reasons.

1) to keep this question from coming up every 3-6 months.
2) to make it more available. Players/GMs who just have the bestiaries and CRB will run into this problem over and over again.
3) The language in the Bestiary IV, for example, refers the reader to Bestiary I for more details.

Thank you.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Diego Rossi wrote:

Claiming that it was not understandable and evident is tiring to stretch the rules to the breaking point for personal gain, something that generally only reduce the fun of gaming unless you are playing Toon (TM).

And, maybe I am blind, but I don't see any Dev post in this thread.

JJ agreed that it could have been written better in another thread, but "written better" is not "it wasn't comprehensible".

Diego,

Unless I am mistaken, it is the same language used in the original SRD. WotC said that Aasimar/Tiefling/etc. did get the proficiencies. So are you saying that the originators of the SRD were "tiring [sic] to stretch the rules to the breaking point for personal gain, something that generally only reduce the fun of gaming unless you are playing Toon (TM)"?

I accepted James' explaination then. I accept Stephen's ruling now. I also feel the language needs to be changed/added because I don't want a Palladium case where you need to own every rule book to know the rules of the first two. That's why I lobby for it being added to the FAQ, that's why I want the bestiary text changed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Putting it in the FAQ will also solve those problems. Getting it in writing be nice, but layout is a pain. Props on a reasoned response though, Matt!

And wheeeeee philosophical arguments on the nature is what the rules 'are'!

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Just out of curiosity, wouldn't the Bestiary 4 having the same language as the Bestiary 1

It doesn't have the same language, as I removed all the language from Outsider type that is offending.

Also, do we really need to bash Stephen Radney-MacFarland and other Designers who post under their own name? Just because a rule exists in ARG doesn't mean we get to ignore the rule when we like to?

101 to 150 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