Zero HD Native Outsiders and Weapon Proficiencies


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Out of curiosity does the fact that we have no examples of a 0hd outsider native ever being built to use the whole "all outsiders have marrial weapon proficiencies" thing matter as far as the rules go?

This seems like one of those thought experiment things that I've never seen anyone tey in an actual game.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Mojorat wrote:

Out of curiosity does the fact that we have no examples of a 0hd outsider native ever being built to use the whole "all outsiders have marrial weapon proficiencies" thing matter as far as the rules go?

This seems like one of those thought experiment things that I've never seen anyone tey in an actual game.

Usually this doesn't matter. It didn't in the Temporary Bonus to STR thread when all Barbarians were built with stats actually increasing their STR. No one seemed to care in that thread.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mojorat wrote:

Out of curiosity does the fact that we have no examples of a 0hd outsider native ever being built to use the whole "all outsiders have marrial weapon proficiencies" thing matter as far as the rules go?

This seems like one of those thought experiment things that I've never seen anyone tey in an actual game.

The problem is, Mojorat, that without the specific rule listing from the ARG, it's as equally valid to say that the Aasimar from Bestiary 1 has Martial Proficiency as it is to say they don't, because there's no proficiency entry in the stat block. Not in any statblock. Since proficiency is not an entry in a statblock, a lack of 'martial weapons' listing doesn't mean anything.

I'm fine with it being defined in the ARG, but there's a valid argument to say that it should be errata'd to the B1 to B4 (assuming B4 has the same issues).

Designer

11 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
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.

Let us assume that is all you are saying, which I don't think it is, but let's just assume that.

First, if the aasimar is an NPC, there was absolutely no problem with you giving it martial weapon proficiency by the rules as written. We often say that monsters are proficient in certain types of weapons as well as any weapons that are listed in the entry. Why do we do that, because want monsters to have the weapons we want monsters to have. There is only the illusion to universality to in monster design when it comes to proficiency because we don't want to needlessly limit monster design.

So you could have given your NPC aasimar a bastard sword, and that would have been fine. You're the GM, and we want you to make the stories you want, with critters that make sense to you.

The clarification was mainly for people who wanted to use it as a PC race, be it in their home game or in Pathfinder Society (especially in Pathfinder Society). We realized that the line "Aasimars are defined by class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. Aasimars have the following racial traits," did not have the clarity required. Though you will notice the traits after that section say nothing about weapon or armor proficiency, and the sections in the monster entries are purposefully vague. The armor sections much more than the weapon sections.

Then we created the Advanced Race Guide, which was a book that expanded the options for PC races. Because that book dealt not with stocking a world full of critters to serve as adversaries and NPCs, it had different design needs. We had to be clearer on some things we were purposefully unclear on before. You may not like that lack of clarity, but often it serves a purpose. Either a certain amount of flexibility for monster design, or even brevity where needed.

In short, if you gave your NPC aasimar martial weapon proficiency (or even exotic), don't worry. The game doesn't break down, and you have the flexibility to do so. If you house rule that your PC assimar has them, so be it. People house rule things all the time, and Pathfinder thugs never show up at their door to tell them they are doing it wrong. I'm a strong believer that the ability for individual GMs to house rule is a feature of our game, not a bug.

What we are saying is that we will not design them in official product with those proficiencies (and to my knowledge have not done so purposely) nor do you get them for free in Pathfinder Society.

If you find this disappointing, I'm sorry. But it is the truth. It is highly unlikely we will change the wording in any of the Bestiary books. Frankly because this is not a issue, and those books have a different focus. The definitive answer for PC creation of 0-HD non-humanoids in general is covered in the Advanced Race Guide (a book designed to expand on that subject in greater detail) and I have talked about the rationale in depth here.

Good gaming and have a fantastic Halloween!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
james maissen wrote:
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.

No they did not. You can go back to the original D20 SRD and find that the same rule that was referenced in the Advanced Race Guide can be found there as well.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

LazarX wrote:
james maissen wrote:
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.

No they did not. You can go back to the original D20 SRD and find that the same rule that was referenced in the Advanced Race Guide can be found there as well.

Lazar, as I posted elsewhere, WotC did say they got the MWP, verified in Dragon 352. here is a discussion over that fact.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

RJGrady wrote:


I'm just not going to accept a contradiction between every published Bestiary and the ARG as a clarification.

It's not a contradiction. Outsiders get X. Clarification- If you don't actually have HD of a type, proficiencies etc. are determined by class.

RJGrady wrote:


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.

They do. It's called the PRD. It's actually available right on this site.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:
LazarX wrote:
james maissen wrote:
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.

No they did not. You can go back to the original D20 SRD and find that the same rule that was referenced in the Advanced Race Guide can be found there as well.
Lazar, as I posted elsewhere, WotC did say they got the MWP, verified in Dragon 352. here is a discussion over that fact.

I'm going to say that the SRD trumps any messageboard discussion. WOTC never incorporated that into the SRD, so it's irrelevant.

You also conveniently overlooked where the addendum also states "OR by character class." The ruling being referred to was a general rule on outsiders. So even that only applies for a non-classed Asasimar or Tiefling which you can't make by Pathfinder rules.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

LazarX,

Your discounting that WotC read the exact same language, and even referenced the section people are referring to, does not change it is the exact same language.

Ask Wizards wrote:


Q: Do Aasimars and Tieflings (having the outsider type but no racial HD) gain proficiency with all martial weapons?
--Lukas

A: Yes, based on the traits listed for outsiders in the Monster Manual (page 313), they most certainly would be proficient in all simple and martial weapons.
--Chris Lindsay

(note, I can't link to the Wizards website from work. Emphasis is mine.)

Also, please explain if that rule was explicit in the SRD, why they'd add the "or by character class." to the Humanoid section?

Again, this is why it needs to be a FAQ, if we can't get them to update the next Bestiary. The question is frequently asked.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Morris wrote:


Also, please explain if that rule was explicit in the SRD, why they'd add the "or by character class." to the Humanoid section?

Again, this is why it needs to be a FAQ, if we can't get them to update the next Bestiary. The question is frequently asked.

Because the whole thing was written by committee? And again it's an irrelevant question. It doesn't matter WHY something was written only that it was. So yes there are redundant pieces of text in any game system that large. Redundant doesn't mattter when they do not contradict.

There doesn't need to be a FAQ, just because you don't like the answers that are already there.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

LazarX,

Thank you for taking the time to prove you haven't read my posts. :( I have said several times I'm content with the ruling, I'm not trying to change the ruling. Indeed, I am saying that the issue is the question keeps getting asked frequently (Strange, don't you think, that's what FAQ stands for?) precicely because the language is unclear. Paizo read it one way, WotC read it the other. Both readings make the argument that "The text says this, and this is what it means."

The 'answers that are already there' are in the ARG, and in the message boards. What you choose to ignore is that Paizo is reading the same language in exactly the opposite way WotC did. Is Paizo correct? Yes, it's Pathfinder. Is WotC correct? Yes, it's the SRD.

So it is pretty clear that the rule can be read both ways. One interpretation is valid in Pathfinder. I'm not asking them to change it, I'm asking them to FAQ it, so we don't see this question every 3 months.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You'll see it every three months anyway, because there will always be someone who will ask before looking it up in a Faq that's growing to monstrous size.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people have been arguing enough different points that a lot of people are talking past each other at this point.

Basic issue: There is some ambiguity about which racial rules apply to the native outsiders. This rests in the fact that the qualities of a race are subdivided into "traits" and "features", and martial weapon proficiency is listed as a "trait", but the general rule that class advancement replaces racial qualities replaces "feaures". As such, it is possible to read the Bestiary I as indicating that the native outsiders get the outsider racial traits, which would include those proficiencies, as their entries do not say they don't, and they don't have the "or by character class" wording that's present in humanoids. The presence of that wording for humanoids implies that it needed to be said or else it wouldn't be true; if everyone got "or by character class" for proficiencies, humanoid wouldn't need to have that wording.

Confounding issue: Pathfinder is derived from the 3.5 rules, and as such, the default assumption is that a 3.5 ruling is correct unless explicitly stated otherwise, and Wizards explicitly ruled that, yes, the words in the rulebook confer those weapon proficiencies on aasimar and tiefling characters.

So if you have CRB and Bestiary I, and read the rules, and come to the conclusion that the native outsiders should have that proficiency, that's obviously reasonable; we have a totally unambiguous statement from the official interpreters of the original wording that it does indeed work that way, and nothing has changed in the relevant wording since then.

And yet! The ARG clearly states that the PF people don't think it works that way. And we have statements from their designers that they never thought it worked that way, and they view this as a clarification.

I think the real questions are:
1. Were the PF design team aware of the specific ruling on the meaning of the words of the d20 SRD?
2. Did the PF design team consider this to be a change they were making between 3.5e and Pathfinder?
3. If this wasn't intended as a change, how is it that the answer is different between 3.5e and Pathfinder?
4. If it was intended as a change from 3.5, why were there no changes in the words of the rules to indicate that something had changed?

I know there's a certain reluctance to talk about the 3.5 heritage, but one of the selling points of Pathfinder is "you can keep using your existing rules and books and materials". So it does matter if there's a change from 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Vod Canockers wrote:
You missed all the posts by " Stephen Radney-MacFarland Designer ?"

Yes.

I had read only half of the thread before responding, after mdt post I skimmed the other half looking for Dev icons (I was bit in a hurry, as I had to go to work), but MacFarland icon isn't one of those I am familiar with.

Shadow Lodge

James Risner wrote:
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?

Im not sure why you assume I was bashing anyone, but that wasn't my intent. I posted all that from my phone ans honestly hia responces hadnt even been there when I started tying, and all seems to have been ignored.

I was honestly just asking a question which being that the Bestiary 4 is brand new, would be the most current and correct rules set rather than the ARG.

Ans as I noted, I hadnt picked it up just yet, so wasnt sure exactly what it said on the matter, (use steps from Bestiary 1), ans had hoped the ":)" and "haha" would have set the tone better than I guess it did.


DM Becket: Specific overrides general. The general rule is that creatures get the traits of their creature type. The specific rule is that 0HD creatures do not gain certain traits.

Unless Bestiary 4 comes out with something more specific and equally explicit - for example "aasimars gain proficiencies from their creature type" - the ARG stands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The thing is its impossible to play the rules strictly by raw. Parts of them have been edited by multiple people and bits of rules get left behind. Like a hd that's been used heavily and never defragged.

What we have in a lot of cases is a lot of established rule paradgn that exist as a fairly common understanding.

What's happening here is the tieflings and asimar thing is a case where rhe rule was in multiple locarioms but we have an arg ruling that supports the existing paradign.

This isn't necessarily always in paizos favour. For example the "monks can flurry with only one weapon faq" went against an established paradign that was supported in npc design.

I guess at the end of the day the established paradign still holds sway unless someone pushes against it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
James Risner wrote:
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?

Im not sure why you assume I was bashing anyone, but that wasn't my intent. I posted all that from my phone ans honestly hia responces hadnt even been there when I started tying, and all seems to have been ignored.

I was honestly just asking a question which being that the Bestiary 4 is brand new, would be the most current and correct rules set rather than the ARG.

Ans as I noted, I hadnt picked it up just yet, so wasnt sure exactly what it said on the matter, (use steps from Bestiary 1), ans had hoped the ":)" and "haha" would have set the tone better than I guess it did.

Except the ARG is kinda the most prominent authority for PC races. Its an entire book dedicated to PC races...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:


So you could have given your NPC aasimar a bastard sword, and that would have been fine. You're the GM, and we want you to make the stories you want, with critters that make sense to you.

... In short, if you gave your NPC aasimar martial weapon proficiency (or even exotic), don't worry. The game doesn't break down, and you have the flexibility to do so. If you house rule that your PC assimar has them, so be it. People house rule things all the time, and Pathfinder thugs never show up at their door to tell them they are doing it wrong. I'm a strong believer that the ability for individual GMs to house rule is a feature of our game, not a bug.

Ok, but what if, hypothetically speaking, I were a publisher of Pathfinder-compatible material and I were concerned about official materials being up to date? And by hypothetically, I mean, "I am a publisher of Pathfinder-compatible material." :) I don't feel warm and fuzzy because you have reassured me I can run my home game however I want. I feel discomfited because as of yesterday, I now know that Jacobs's ruling has more-or-less official status even though it hasn't been documented. I don't think it's fair to players to say they have to search the forums, or read particular supplements, to receive clarifications about rules found in the core rulebook or the Bestiary. As a writer, I am unhappy with being asked to rely on cultural wisdom to know how an NPC works. And if it is the case with native outsiders and their proficiencies, what other rules changes/clarifications have been made without documentation?

I think someone at Paizo should care as much as I do about the rules saying what they mean and meaning what they say. This is vitally important, for instance, when interpreting things like the Vital Strike feat. When this first came up in the other thread, I was making light of an oddity of the rules as written. Now I find out that at least two of the dev team don't acknowledge the oddity exists. It frustrates me that there is no indication someone feels motivated to do something about it.

The rule is unclear. 98% of the forum agrees what the fix should be. The fix requires about six lines of cut-and-paste that adds absolutely zero to the pagecount of the Bestiary. Or heck, you could just FAQ it, state it is errata, and wait till Pathfinder Second Edition comes out in 2020 to actually fix the text. Who cares?

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:


I think someone at Paizo should care as much as I do about the rules saying what they mean and meaning what they say.

That is the most arrogant and contentious thing I think I have ever seen anyone say in this forum.

RJGrady wrote:


The rule is unclear. 98% of the forum agrees what the fix should be

Please stop making up math. Just because you think something, does not mean that everyone else agrees with you.

RJGrady wrote:


As a writer, I am unhappy with being asked to rely on cultural wisdom to know how an NPC works.

You're not. You've been told what core product to reference (the ARG), and even if you don't have a copy of the book, Paizo has made it readily available here on their site.

As a writer, YOU have a responsibility to know the material you're working with. YOU have a responsibility to know the breadth of the product and keep on top of the changes, clarifications, and additions so that you and your materials grow with the source product.
You asked for a core product reflecting the change, Paizo had already given you one. In addition, a developer gave you direct insight into the process and why it was allowed to evolve the way it did.

RJGrady wrote:
I feel discomfited because as of yesterday, I now know that Jacobs's ruling has more-or-less official status even though it hasn't been documented.

Except it has, in the book in their core product line that directly relates to the subject matter.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I fail to see how this particular question would have had ANY impact on someone who was going to put out product. Unless it was "Guide to Zero Level Planetouched."

Shadow Lodge

Ilja wrote:

DM Becket: Specific overrides general. The general rule is that creatures get the traits of their creature type. The specific rule is that 0HD creatures do not gain certain traits.

Unless Bestiary 4 comes out with something more specific and equally explicit - for example "aasimars gain proficiencies from their creature type" - the ARG stands.

Please see my post above with all those rules spoilers. :)

@Scavion, Im not sure thats true. I also quoted a lot from the ARG above in those spoilers as well, and the focus of those chapters people keep pointing to are about how to create a new race race, gives examples of some existing races "as an approximate".

Shadow Lodge

LazarX wrote:
I fail to see how this particular question would have had ANY impact on someone who was going to put out product. Unless it was "Guide to Zero Level Planetouched."

I would think its mostly the principle, but a book that offers NPCs or even ready made PCs come to mind.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:
DM Becket: Specific overrides general. The general rule is that creatures get the traits of their creature type. The specific rule is that 0HD creatures do not gain certain traits.

However, that specific rule is not published.

The ARG references and reminds you of that unpublished rule.

The issue people are having is that many of us gravitated to Pathfinder because it was cleaning up a lot of sloppy rules that WotC had accumulated over time with 3rd edition but they were unwilling to spend the time and effort to fix them.

It seems as if Paizo has decided to embrace that same mentality. And this is disappointing.

Perhaps another company will take over the d20 material and undertake the task. I know that I, for one, would be far more willing to shell out money for good fixes to bad rules, poor wordings, and ambiguous terms than I would be for some passing flavor of the week, words of power, guns, or the like.

-James


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
However, that specific rule is not published.
Quote:
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.

There. They published it. It doesn't reference an unpublished rule, it publishes a rule. The developers may or may not have believed the rule to already be on the books, but it doesn't matter, because they put it on the books.

As a matter of fact, in this very thread, on this very page, a developer explains that they intended the rule to be on the books, but it wasn't on the books. So they put it on the books. They put it on the books in the ARG. Now it's on the books. Whether or not it was official before doesn't matter because it's not a conditional "if this is the case, it's still true" deal. It's a "this is the rule" deal. Those in the know realize that the rule is not unexpected, but I wouldn't matter if it was, because it's a stated rule.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I fail to see how this particular question would have had ANY impact on someone who was going to put out product. Unless it was "Guide to Zero Level Planetouched."
I would think its mostly the principle, but a book that offers NPCs or even ready made PCs come to mind.

And that book would suffer because you couldn't create a bastard sword wielding 1st level tiefling wizard? It's not that this would stop you from creating an asimar cleric of Iomedae, or a tiefling fighter, both of which would get longsword proficiencies from their class.


LazarX wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I fail to see how this particular question would have had ANY impact on someone who was going to put out product. Unless it was "Guide to Zero Level Planetouched."
I would think its mostly the principle, but a book that offers NPCs or even ready made PCs come to mind.
And that book would suffer because you couldn't create a bastard sword wielding 1st level tiefling wizard?

You're making a confused point. You can create a bastard word wielding 1st level teifling wizard. The fallout is when the Pathfinder community can't agree on whether that's legal or not.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:


You're making a confused point. You can create a bastard word wielding 1st level teifling wizard. The fallout is when the Pathfinder community can't agree on whether that's legal or not.

Fortunately they can, because there's a rule covering that as of the ARG. It sure was nice of Paizo to recognize that there was a fuzzy area in the rules there and to clearly spell out how it works in the most relevant book from their core product line.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
james maissen wrote:
Ilja wrote:
DM Becket: Specific overrides general. The general rule is that creatures get the traits of their creature type. The specific rule is that 0HD creatures do not gain certain traits.

However, that specific rule is not published.

The ARG references and reminds you of that unpublished rule.

The issue people are having is that many of us gravitated to Pathfinder because it was cleaning up a lot of sloppy rules that WotC had accumulated over time with 3rd edition but they were unwilling to spend the time and effort to fix them.

It seems as if Paizo has decided to embrace that same mentality. And this is disappointing.

Perhaps another company will take over the d20 material and undertake the task. I know that I, for one, would be far more willing to shell out money for good fixes to bad rules, poor wordings, and ambiguous terms than I would be for some passing flavor of the week, words of power, guns, or the like.

-James

This reads with the bitterness of a player protesting a (perceived) nerf to his to his aasimar and tiefling PCs. That may not be the attitude you're trying to communicate, but it's what is coming across.

These glamoured digs at Paizo, lamenting the tendency towards error that afflicts all mortals and magnanimously offering suggestions on the improvement of business practices, all smack of sour grapes.

The 0-HD rule in Beastiary 1 was not as clear as it should have been, SRMF has acknowledged this. To maintain, however, that this rule does not exist, or does not apply to PCs or NPCs, requires a rather selective interpretation of several rules, including the legitimacy of the Beastiary as a PC reference, the core status of the ARG, the nature of the ARG rule as clarification vs. errata, and the power of Paizo to issue errata on their own previously-published product--and to maintain these interpretations after each one has been clarified by developers in this very thread.

Shadow Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:


You're making a confused point. You can create a bastard word wielding 1st level teifling wizard. The fallout is when the Pathfinder community can't agree on whether that's legal or not.
Fortunately they can, because there's a rule covering that as of the ARG. It sure was nice of Paizo to recognize that there was a fuzzy area in the rules there and to clearly spell out how it works in the most relevant book from their core product line.

Except, well, no we can't. :), and not everyone even agrees that the ARG actually changes anything, much less overrules the Bestiary.

Funny thing is that this has now outgrown the original thread it was in, which was about unknown rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:
LazarX wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I fail to see how this particular question would have had ANY impact on someone who was going to put out product. Unless it was "Guide to Zero Level Planetouched."
I would think its mostly the principle, but a book that offers NPCs or even ready made PCs come to mind.
And that book would suffer because you couldn't create a bastard sword wielding 1st level tiefling wizard?
You're making a confused point. You can create a bastard word wielding 1st level teifling wizard. The fallout is when the Pathfinder community can't agree on whether that's legal or not.

Actually it would be legal. The only question is whether there's a -4 non proficiency penalty attached to the character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:


You're making a confused point. You can create a bastard word wielding 1st level teifling wizard. The fallout is when the Pathfinder community can't agree on whether that's legal or not.
Fortunately they can, because there's a rule covering that as of the ARG. It sure was nice of Paizo to recognize that there was a fuzzy area in the rules there and to clearly spell out how it works in the most relevant book from their core product line.

Except, well, no we can't. :), and not everyone even agrees that the ARG actually changes anything, much less overrules the Bestiary.

Funny thing is that this has now outgrown the original thread it was in, which was about unknown rules.

A developer shows up in the thread, and tells us that the ARG rule states explicitly what the rule is, where there may or may not have been one before, and you disagree with him? What are you disagreeing with? Are you saying the developer is wrong, and the ARG doesn't have the rule in it? Or are you saying that the ARG doesn't have Rule Authority over the Bestiary? Because no such hierarchy of rulebooks exists in the Paizo line, except perhaps for chronological order. Are you saying the word of a developer isn't proof of what the developers want?

It also doesn't even matter if anything was changed. It could be a new rule, out of the blue. It could say Humans now have hair on their brains, and it'd be true, because they published it. The new rule doesn't call out as modifying something, it just sets the rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:
... and not everyone even agrees that the ARG actually changes anything, much less overrules the Bestiary.

There are contrary people in every field of human endeavour, but that doesn't make them right.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:


Except, well, no we can't. :), and not everyone even agrees that the ARG actually changes anything, much less overrules the Bestiary.

The developers have stated that the ARG does clarify this rule, and it doesn't "overrule the Bestiary". It provides explicit elaboration on an implicit rule.

So yes, we can. Just because people want to put their hands over their ears and close their eyes while screaming "I can't hear you!" doesn't mean that the rule isn't printed in a core product and that it hasn't been pointed out by a member of the development team.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
james maissen wrote:
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.

How is writing a new rule and claiming it is an old rule not making a new rule?

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.

How do you clarify a rule that didn't exist without first making up the rule?

Changing/adding rules should require errata.

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

I cannot find where this rule is implied, hinted at, or otherwise exists in any way, shape, or form in the Bestiary.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

DM Beckett wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:


You're making a confused point. You can create a bastard word wielding 1st level teifling wizard. The fallout is when the Pathfinder community can't agree on whether that's legal or not.
Fortunately they can, because there's a rule covering that as of the ARG. It sure was nice of Paizo to recognize that there was a fuzzy area in the rules there and to clearly spell out how it works in the most relevant book from their core product line.

Except, well, no we can't. :), and not everyone even agrees that the ARG actually changes anything, much less overrules the Bestiary.

Funny thing is that this has now outgrown the original thread it was in, which was about unknown rules.

Ok, you lost me here.

My issue is that the Bestiary, which lifts the text from the SRD is clearly (hah!) ambiguous. So much so that two separate companies read it two different ways. The ARG clarifies Paizo's reading of the text. I would like to see it added to the bestiary, and/or to the FAQ. It does change it from "Schrodinger's rule" to a clearly defined state. So whether you read the original WotC Style, or Paizo style, it is now clear that it's Paizo style in Pathfinder.


Bizbag wrote:
Quote:
However, that specific rule is not published.
Quote:
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.
There. They published it. It doesn't reference an unpublished rule, it publishes a rule.

Funny my copy of the Advanced Race Guide says the following on that page:

Quote:
The second difference is that all of these race types of 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.

Do we have different versions?

This is saying that it was already the rule, and the devs have said that this was not a new rule.

The generic rule that this happens to all 0-Hit Dice creatures does not exist. All you have is this referencing that such is the case.

-James


Ravingdork wrote:
james maissen wrote:
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.

How is writing a new rule and claiming it is an old rule not making a new rule?

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.

How do you clarify a rule that didn't exist without first making up the rule?

Changing/adding rules should require errata.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
The rule got changed with the Pathfinder Bestiary, but it was not state as explicit as it could have been.
I cannot find where this rule is implied, hinted at, or otherwise exists in any way, shape, or form in the Bestiary.

true

most of the errata was stuff like

"Nerf the Growth Domain, we can't let clerics have access to enlarge person for more than one encounter per day."

"nerf mounted pouncing, because of AM BARBRIAN, whom isn't even a serious character that would be played in a real campaigh."

"Nerf the brass knuckles, gauntlets, cesti, and rope gauntlets because we can't let monks have cheaply enchanted fists because OMG, 2d10 without static bonuses is the end of the world."

"give the Suli an Intelligence penalty because we didn't like their original quadira companion version that lacked it."

"Nerf Heirloom Weapon, because giving a PCs a masterwork weapon that they receive free proficiency with and +1 to attack rolls for a trait will end the world. the truth is, the trait wasn't even overpowered to begin with, it was useless against most creatures with DR unless you had a really high enhancement bonus."

"Aasimaars and Tieflings having proficiency in all martial weapons by virtue of their race will end the world, oh noes, let us publish an ARG exception that completely contradicts the traits of the outsider type because tiefling rogues with greatswords or scimitars is overpowered."

really, allowing planetouched with proficiency in all martial weapons, as per the bestiary ruling, is no more broken than weapon familiarity, in fact i'd rate it weaker.

Reasons why i consider outsider martial weapon proficiency inferior to 90% of the weapon familiarity traits. and perfectly balanced for planetouched.:

Reason 1; most planetouched have humanoid ancestry, only giving them 2 arms and 2 hands, meaning they can do the following, 1 or 2 1 handed weapons, 1 2handed weapon, or a 1 handed weapon and 1 shield. it doesn't matter how many weapons you are proficient with when you only have 2 hands

Reason 2; some races offer familiarity in some pretty appealing exotic weapons, whether for cool factor, power or whatever. tengu offer a bunch of sweet exotic swords, including the falcata, dwarves offer the dorn degar and a few other sweet exotics, such as a reach, trip, bludgeoning polearm, half orcs offer the double axe and an alternate racial that gives the option for a meteor hammer. most exotic weapons are exotic because of minor stat differences, or because of their cool factor. it is easier to stand out in a crowd with a wacky exotic weapon than it is a subtle planar heritage

reason 3; it matters not how many weapons you are proficient with, because you will specialize in less than you can count fingers on one human hand. more people whom have common sense, fear not the guy whom practiced 36 completely different weapon styles for a month apiece, but the guy whom invested 3 years in one signature weapon style. the reason why, is because the specialist knows better, the shortcomings of his style and how to compensate.


Zahmahkibo wrote:
This reads with the bitterness of a player protesting a (perceived) nerf to his to his aasimar and tiefling PCs. That may not be the attitude you're trying to communicate, but it's what is coming across.

Don't have a horse in that race.

But I do like D&D. Very much so. Pathfinder drew me to it as it seemed as if it were trying to make 3rd edition right.

They made a number of wonderful fixes. But they have stopped doing that, and even when some easy ones are presented they are unwilling to address them. That saddens me, as I had hoped for more from them.

Paizo is a small company, it should be agile as a result. This unwillingness to issue errata as errata reduces the value of their product.

Zahmahkibo wrote:

The 0-HD rule in Beastiary 1 was not as clear as it should have been, SRMF has acknowledged this. To maintain, however, that this rule does not exist, or does not apply to PCs or NPCs, requires a rather selective interpretation of several rules, including the legitimacy of the Beastiary as a PC reference, the core status of the ARG, the nature of the ARG rule as clarification vs. errata, and the power of Paizo to issue errata on their own previously-published product--and to maintain these interpretations after each one has been clarified by developers in this very thread.

The 0-HD rule in the Bestiary is under the type humanoid. It is exceedingly clear. It applies to creatures of type (wait for it)... humanoid. It does NOT apply to plants. Why? Because they are not humanoid.

These rules were taken verbatim from 3rd edition. In 3rd edition, not only was there not such a rule.. but they expressly stated that the opposite was the case.

Can Paizo change this rule? Sure. In fact, I applaud them for doing so. It's the right call to make from a balance perspective. Even then I think that both the Aasimar and Tiefling are overpowered with the myriad of options available to them.

Now I will dig at Paizo for making a change and not telling anyone about it. They deserve that dig. Why? Because they KNEW it was not clear that they intended a change. Much like how monk flurry was supposed to be with two weapons, but then not even all of the devs (including Jason) were told that one!

The bestiary is what NEEDS to get the errata for this rule to be properly presented. I don't care what they rule one way or the other, but I do want the rules to be done right.

The ARG says that this rule is already the case and ergo a change was made from 3.5 to Pathfinder in this regard, but in all honesty it is not already the case. The Paizo devs may have decided to do so, but they never went through with it.

They certainly can issue errata. Many people on the 'other side' of you from this would be delighted were they to do so. They are begging the devs to do it. Why? Because it would improve the game to have a commitment to a better rule set.

Face it- this is a game. The rules for games need to be clear. Realizing that you have an unclear rule and NOT changing it is bad rule writing. Plain and simple.

I made these same complaints when WotC was guilty of doing this, and was happy to move over to Pathfinder as a result. Paizo had a nice history of quality and group of people that they brought together for this. It looked promising.

Lately however it looks played out, and I'm left hoping for the next to come along to deliver on the promise. Third edition holds a nice potential as a gaming system, but it is needlessly Byzantine with its rules, is confusing for no good reason, and in sloppy in too many places.

-James


even with all martial weapons, tieflings and aasimaars weren't overpowered, race points are a poor way to measure power

Resistances? yay, resistance 5 is overlapped by a 2nd level spell, and negligible 3rd level when the resistance isn't much and no longer negating the lion's share of energy damage

darkvision? look at how many races offer special sensory ability such as this one like candy?

Spell like ability? yay, once per day, i can use a situational effect that i may not get to use based on the circumstances. it's merely with alternate heritages, i can choose which situational perk i want, not that it really maters. most of the are "Oh Crap" buttons in certain specific scenarios

martial weapon proficiency; doesn't matter how many weapon options you trained with when you only have 2 hands and the resources to maybe specialize in less weapon styles than fingers on a human hand.

sorcerous affinity? yay, 5 of these offer a situational bonus for like one sorcerer bloodline, usually a highly suboptimal one with a singular focus, 4 of which, involve blasting with different damage types

early entry on several prestige classes by virtue of being able to cast one arcane spell of 1st-3rd level depending on which one you play. usually 1st or 2nd. this option isn't available to suli, or which certain alternate racials on 6 of the other 7. the 8th had high level SLAs that were highly restricted and above the entry point of most prestige classes


Things got a little wonky with Aasimar power level once Blood of Angels was released. Being able to custom tailor your race to fit the stat spread you need is very powerful, and it's one of the reasons so, so many new PFS characters are Aasimar.


Ravingdork wrote:

Changing/adding rules should require errata.

So everything printed in the ARG, APG, UC, and so on should be errataed into the CRB?

That doesn't make any sense.

Shadow Lodge

Cheapy wrote:
Things got a little wonky with Aasimar power level once Blood of Angels was released. Being able to custom tailor your race to fit the stat spread you need is very powerful, and it's one of the reasons so, so many new PFS characters are Aasimar.

While that is true, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Martial weapons or armor proficiencies themselves, but rather being able to get so many good stat modifiers, and usually a much better then Daylight spell-like ability. I'd wager that most didn't even realize the proficiencies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Davick wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Changing/adding rules should require errata.

So everything printed in the ARG, APG, UC, and so on should be errataed into the CRB?

That doesn't make any sense.

If it flat out contradicts previously printed rules, than yes, it should be errataed into said previous rules.


Quote:

This is saying that it was already the rule, and the devs have said that this was not a new rule.

The generic rule that this happens to all 0-Hit Dice creatures does not exist. All you have is this referencing that such is the case.

Why does it even matter? So it didn't exist before. The devs thought it did, but it didn't. Now it does. Whether it did or not before is irrelevant now because its validity is not contingent on it being a fully in place rule in the past; it wasn't, so they made it one now. So now it's the rule.

Are you trying to tell me "the rule is only valid if it was previously valid"? Because that is paradoxical.


DM Beckett wrote:
Cheapy wrote:
Things got a little wonky with Aasimar power level once Blood of Angels was released. Being able to custom tailor your race to fit the stat spread you need is very powerful, and it's one of the reasons so, so many new PFS characters are Aasimar.
While that is true, it really doesn't have anything to do with the Martial weapons or armor proficiencies themselves, but rather being able to get so many good stat modifiers, and usually a much better then Daylight spell-like ability. I'd wager that most didn't even realize the proficiencies.

blood of angels is hardly a problem

an aasimaar's customizability went up, but not to the level of a humans, you merely have alternate packages akin to archetypes

each package comes with

a set of 2 positive modifiers of +2

a set of 2 racial skill bonuses of +2

and a spell like ability of 1st-3rd level usable once per day that is situational, but based upon a different situation than daylight which may or may not be more common, but definitely isn't something to capitolize on.

Liberty's Edge

Anyone find it amusing that this thread was marked "no response required" by the developers when a developer specifically gave a response in the thread? Ahhh. . . the limitations of multiple choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:
Quote:

This is saying that it was already the rule, and the devs have said that this was not a new rule.

The generic rule that this happens to all 0-Hit Dice creatures does not exist. All you have is this referencing that such is the case.

Why does it even matter? So it didn't exist before. The devs thought it did, but it didn't. Now it does. Whether it did or not before is irrelevant now because its validity is not contingent on it being a fully in place rule in the past; it wasn't, so they made it one now. So now it's the rule.

Are you trying to tell me "the rule is only valid if it was previously valid"? Because that is paradoxical.

The argument hinges on whether the ARG rule was "errata" or "clarification," and if the former what methods of publication are acceptable. All the devs I've seen weigh on on this issue have said the latter, though I can see how one might disagree.

The first point is now moot, however, if as James Risner said the troublesome parts of the Outsider entry have been removed from Bestiary 4. The rule is what is even ignoring the ARG, but adding a note to the PRD in lieu of a full update doesn't seem like too unreasonable a request.


We know for sure that, as of the 3.5 SRD, aasimar PCs got free proficiency with all simple and martial weapons. They don't as of ARG.

I would love to hear the PF team's answer to the question "when did it change?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:

Why does it even matter? So it didn't exist before. The devs thought it did, but it didn't. Now it does. Whether it did or not before is irrelevant now because its validity is not contingent on it being a fully in place rule in the past; it wasn't, so they made it one now. So now it's the rule.

Are you trying to tell me "the rule is only valid if it was previously valid"? Because that is paradoxical.

Look, I'm not debating that Paizo can make Pathfinder rules, or that they want to remove the martial weapon proficiencies from the Aasimar, Tiefling, etc. I don't have any issue with it one way or the other.

The point is that the way they are handling the rules is becoming increasingly slipshod. And that's a real issue that transcends this minor one and makes it into something very troubling.

We can all agree that they dropped the ball on their change to Aasimars and the like in regards to weapon proficiencies. They even agree upon that. The ARG demonstrates what they want the rule to be, or thought that it already was. However they don't seem to want to be bothered to actually make it the case when they knew exactly what is causing the confusion. This is troubling because they are the people that can make those changes to improve our game.

The ARG does not say 'hey here's a change', rather it says 'this is the way it's been'. Except that's just not true.

You've quoted the ARG, but done so incorrectly and misrepresented what it says. You're missing the distinction there.

-James

151 to 200 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