Zero HD Native Outsiders and Weapon Proficiencies


Rules Questions

201 to 250 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
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.

When we say "no response required" what we typically mean is that we are not going to include this item in the FAQ. It does not mean that designers or developers are not going to answer questions in threads. I answered questions and explained the design decision process to those interested in the discussion.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

james maissen wrote:


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

-James

Rather, you don't agree with the way it's been presented. They created an implicit rule, in that they did not tag proficiencies on to any of the 0 HD races, stated in the entry for Aasimar and other 0 HD races that they "are defined by class levels and do not possess racial Hit Dice. (They) have the following racial traits". Traits, you know, the same things that give things like racial weapon proficiencies back in the "Creature Types" section of the book, where it also states that they "possess the following traits unless otherwise noted in a creature's entry". Since Aasimar are noted to have a specific set of racial traits that do not include proficiencies, that meets that qualifier. Then when they wrote a book on advanced races, they said "Gee, maybe we should be a little bit more explicit about that rule since there may be some room for confusion" and they explicitly stated "...these race types are 0 Hit Dice creatures, which means that their (...) weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes". They laid out their rule of context into nice plain explicit English, and they did it in the book that made the most sense to do it in. They didn't change a rule that had existe previously in Pathfinder, they clearly spelled out a rule that was existent in context all along.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I would also like to point out--as I have done in other threads--that we do not and cannot reference the 3.5 FAQ on the Wizards of the Coast website. That document is not Open Game Content. While you are all free to debate the arguments and merits of that collection of document, we make our own decisions about Pathfinder.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I would also like to point out--as I have done in other threads--that we do not and cannot reference the 3.5 FAQ on the Wizards of the Coast website. That document is not Open Game Content. While you are all free to debate the arguments and merits of that collection of document, we make our own decisions about Pathfinder.

Great, but you can't expect people to see changes that you don't make.

When you have rules that you know are not clear, then look to change the way you've written those rules.

Having unprinted or misprinted rules is just bad form. Electing to keep them when you could change them? Those aren't good decisions to make about Pathfinder.

-James


Ssalarn wrote:
Since Aasimar are noted to have a specific set of racial traits that do not include proficiencies, that meets that qualifier. Then when they wrote a book on advanced races, they said "Gee, maybe we should be a little bit more explicit about that rule since there may be some room for confusion" and they explicitly stated "...these race types are 0 Hit Dice creatures, which means that their (...) weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes". They laid out their rule of context into nice plain explicit English, and they did it in the book that made the most sense to do it in. They didn't change a rule that had existe previously in Pathfinder, they clearly spelled out a rule that was existent in context all along.

Your argument is flawed.

You claim that Aasimars (as an example) do not get the outsider weapon and armor proficiencies.. not because they are '0-Hit Dice' creatures, but rather only because of their bestiary entry (which your logic would also mean that they don't need to sleep/eat/or breath).

You then claim that there is a blanket rule for all 0-Hit dice creatures. Where would that rule be?

And certainly it was a change. When it was a change is up for debate, as it seems Paizo makes changes but doesn't tell anyone about them! They thought that they had made this change with the Bestiary, but really did not. They realized that people didn't seem to catch this hidden change, and put a reminder in the ARG for a rule they knew wasn't printed.

It's sloppy.

I'm not sure if there are reasons to look to avoid errata, but I would think that such improvements to the rules would be seen positively. Pathfinder made a good number of strides in the right direction, but has given up on that.. with a vengeance.

Which is a shame as there are a lot of areas that need it. Some that have needed it before Paizo, and others that Paizo caused in the slew of changes that they made for Pathfinder while blindly copying and pasting a lot from the SRD.

-James


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
I would also like to point out--as I have done in other threads--that we do not and cannot reference the 3.5 FAQ on the Wizards of the Coast website. That document is not Open Game Content. While you are all free to debate the arguments and merits of that collection of document, we make our own decisions about Pathfinder.

This needs to be posted in giant neon green letters for everyone to read.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
seebs wrote:

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?"

You obviously weren't reading up thread, or have chosen to selectively forget from when I quoted the rule from the 3.5 SRD. "Zero-HD Outsiders get ALL of their proficiencies and skill ranks from class features."


No outsider lists martial weapon proficiency in their individual Bestiary entry. That's why Outsider traits are listed in a section at the end. To apply to all Outsiders. Which is where the assumption aasimar/tieflings are proficient comes from, not for their individual entries.

The ARG does seem to make a new rule/rule change. This should be included as errata for the Bestiary not because without it the rule doesn't exist, but because you can't assume your customer has an ARG. And without having the ARG the rules don't read the way the ARG states.

Its not about including every new rule in errata for old books, its about making sure the information in the old books is accurate.

Look at it this way, if the new class book comes out and says all Fighters were automatically proficient with one exotic weapon of their choice, regardless of whether it was considered by staff to be a rules "change" or "clarification," don't you think they should errata the Core book entry for Fighters to mention it?

I think the level of grief over this is kinda out there, but at the heart is an important idea.

LazarX do you have a link, because I don't see that language on the SRD? Also, what you dismiss as a forum discussion has a link to Ask Wizard, the official WotC Q and A. So that is official from WotC (not that it matters what WotC's position was for PF, just that since the rules read the same until the ARG there was no reason for the result to be different}.


Samasboy1 wrote:


The ARG does seem to make a new rule/rule change. This should be included as errata for the Bestiary not because without it the rule doesn't exist, but because you can't assume your customer has an ARG. And without having the ARG the rules don't read the way the ARG states.

We can assume that the customer has access to the PRD however. Which is pretty much just as good.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This has to be one of my least favorite rules threads either. An anti-FAQ faction has arisen to steadfastly oppose a pro-FAQ faction that wants a FAQ agreeing with their position as to what the rule is. "How dare you agree with us?" Meanwhile, Paizo acknowledges that they clarified/changed/whatever the rule in the ARG, but refuses to FAQ it for the Bestiary. "Why do you see a problem with the same rule our designers saw a problem with?"

Sigh.


Why do you feel that is a good assumption? I don't see what Paizo has to gain by making that assumption.

If you are changing how a rule in the older book (or even clarifying it) shouldn't it be in the errata/FAQ for the old book?

Why have errata/FAQ, you could just incorporate any rules changes/clarifications into the next book to be released or the PRD?


seebs wrote:

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?"

Maybe you should read the thread then:

The answer to "when did it change."


Scavion wrote:
Samasboy1 wrote:


The ARG does seem to make a new rule/rule change. This should be included as errata for the Bestiary not because without it the rule doesn't exist, but because you can't assume your customer has an ARG. And without having the ARG the rules don't read the way the ARG states.
We can assume that the customer has access to the PRD however. Which is pretty much just as good.

not every customer plays their games with a laptop in a place where they can freely access the wireless connection. not every laptop possess the ability to perform a wireless connection, and a lot of places either charge you to use their wireless connection, or only allow paying customers to use it.

at the local game store i play at with weekly william and his 15 home game buddies from a variety of groups he picked up over the years by leaving his number for interested friends, whom invited their friends, whom invited their friends

our game store, Great Escape. does not have free wireless connection, to use it, you have to either pay by the hour, or buy a piece of gaming material. renting a game room for 5 hours does not qualify, and all buying a 50 dollar book does, is encourage them to not charge you the dollar an hour for the first 5 hours of your session. because every 10 dollars you spend on books or snacks, is a dollar off your wireless charges.

living on a highly limited income, i am lucky if i can afford one 50 dollar source book a month, i can't afford 5 dollars a week of wireless connection, so i tend not to bring my laptop unless the books are already downloaded.

thing is, my DM doesn't like PDFs, no hardcopy or no printout for me to read? can't use it.

he also tends to ignore a lot of the erratas he doesn't care for unless his personal copy includes them. and he won't buy a new book because of an errata nor will he make a paizo account, because neither does have the money for that many books, nor does he have the desire to make a paizo account because he sees no interest in PDFs. he's a case of, a roleplayer's worth, is measured neither in how much he spends or the vast number of PDFS on his laptop, but in the whiplash from carrying his books, the tendonitus from his homebrewing, and his ability to function in the worst of circumstances. he will let players play pretty much anything, just ask and let him find a way to accomodate. he's the kind of guy who can challenge and slaughter any PC he desires. when a character brings the greatest of cheese, he sees no issue with said cheese, he sees it as a challenge to create worthy obstacles for that player.

though he has neither access to the PRD nor the multitude of books on PDF you would expect and cares little of errata. he still gives a good time, able to create obstacles for any party of any size or composition. he adjusts to his parties roles and backstories, still brings a worthy challenge.

at first, i might have badmouthed weekly william for his slaughterhouse killer DM styles of allowing anything and eventually ignoring or dismantling it, or his habit of ignoring both rules and common sense. but i haven't brought a player he couldn't design a challenge worthy obstacle for nor character.

but Rant about weekly william aside. not every customer has access to the PRD when they game. some groups may have a no laptop policy or a simple no PDF policy. some groups require either a hardcopy or printout alongside the personal stuff. some DMs require you to go to a copy store and copy the pages of your books. some DMs require copies of your homebrewed material in pentuplicate

there are some of us whom cannot reliably access the internet during game sessions, either due to lack of a laptop that has the ability to connect to the internet wirelessly, whether by not having a laptop at all, or by having a primitive model, some us can't afford the wireless connection fees where we game, and some of us have DMs whom are so obsessed with analogue, that they refuse to acknowledge PDFs, virtual dice rollers, or whatever


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't need it every time you game. Just once to clarify your making your character properly is enough. Surely you can access the internet once a week. Or at home. And you would definitely benefit more from the resources on the site.


Scavion wrote:
You don't need it every time you game. Just once to clarify your making your character properly is enough. Surely you can access the internet once a week. Or at home. And you would definitely benefit more from the resources on the site.

Honestly , tons of players dont check anything online , they go by the book , i have friends like that , not that they would check a FAQ either lols.

Then again , chances of they even caring about this ... 0.


RJGrady wrote:

This has to be one of my least favorite rules threads either. An anti-FAQ faction has arisen to steadfastly oppose a pro-FAQ faction that wants a FAQ agreeing with their position as to what the rule is. "How dare you agree with us?" Meanwhile, Paizo acknowledges that they clarified/changed/whatever the rule in the ARG, but refuses to FAQ it for the Bestiary. "Why do you see a problem with the same rule our designers saw a problem with?"

Sigh.

This might be the first thing I agree with you on in this thread, but with this I agree to a 100%.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ShadowcatX wrote:
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.

No, as it is not only "no response required", it is "FAQ - no response required", and it is appropriate as the response is already printed in the ARG.


James Risner wrote:
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.

Well I did. That is one of the reasons I started the thread. (The other being, I was asked to, because people was confused about it in some other threads.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
james maissen wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Since Aasimar are noted to have a specific set of racial traits that do not include proficiencies, that meets that qualifier. Then when they wrote a book on advanced races, they said "Gee, maybe we should be a little bit more explicit about that rule since there may be some room for confusion" and they explicitly stated "...these race types are 0 Hit Dice creatures, which means that their (...) weapon and armor proficiencies are based on the class levels each member of a race takes". They laid out their rule of context into nice plain explicit English, and they did it in the book that made the most sense to do it in. They didn't change a rule that had existe previously in Pathfinder, they clearly spelled out a rule that was existent in context all along.

Your argument is flawed.

You claim that Aasimars (as an example) do not get the outsider weapon and armor proficiencies.. not because they are '0-Hit Dice' creatures, but rather only because of their bestiary entry (which your logic would also mean that they don't need to sleep/eat/or breath).

Again this false argument.

Assimar don't receive the Outsider traits under the Outside type, but they receive the Native subtype that has further informations:

PRD 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.

You can still argue that they don't need to breath as that is one of the Outsider traits that don't appear in the native outsider text or the Aasimar traits, but calling that the rules say they don't need to eat or sleep is blatantly false.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
[paraphrased] can't access the Paizo site while gaming and my GM don't have the money to open an account

1) He can make an account at Paizo without buying anything and that will allow him to access to all the free downloads, specifically the errata for all the books, so your GM can get those for the cost of a few pages of paper and some toner. Keeping the books up to date to the last printing isn't hard.

2) The FAQ can be printed out. Copy paste the text in any word processor and you will have a very handy text.

Both things will not help you with the matter at hand if no one in your gaming group own the ARG, but at least it will allow your GM to keep up to date.


Diego Rossi wrote:


1) He can make an account at Paizo without buying anything and that will allow him to access to all the free downloads, specifically the errata for all the books, so your GM can get those for the cost of a few pages of paper and some toner. Keeping the books up to date to the last printing isn't hard.

2) The FAQ can be printed out. Copy paste the text in any word processor and you will have a very handy text.

Both things will not help you with the matter at hand if no one in your gaming group own the ARG, but at least it will allow your GM to keep up to date.

*points to no response required flag*

As far as this topic goes, there is no FAQ. There will be no FAQ.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Since the ARG has the rule explicitly stated, and devs have said "yes, that is the rule", what difference does it make if it's in a FAQ?

It's NOT a matter of accessability since the FAQ and the ARG both require internet (or in the case of ARG buying a hardcover - so if anything, the ARG is more accessible).

I mean yeah, sure, they could put it in the FAQ if they wanted to (and it would be a good idea I think, though not necessary it's always useful), and I do think they should add the line from Humanoid to Outsider in the next bestiary releases, but bringing up that you don't have internet/printer/whatever access is irrelevant to the matter of a FAQ.

Scarab Sages

If the assumption goes that the latest published rulebook trumps when there is a rules contradiction then Bestiary 4 just undid what Advanced Races Guide supposedly claimed.

By Bestiary 4s ruling, Aasimars and Tieflings are proficient in martial weapons.

The argument that bestiaries are a GM only source is false: the bestiary line is definitely required by players, for animal companions, familiars, summoned monster statistics, feats, and optional playable races.

If Paizo doesn't choose to create consistency in their rulebooks then this problem will plague the ruleset. Monsters and characters follow the same rules (and if they don't, they are so close to following them that they should) so any rules source on race should be valid.


Horselord wrote:

If the assumption goes that the latest published rulebook trumps when there is a rules contradiction then Bestiary 4 just undid what Advanced Races Guide supposedly claimed.

By Bestiary 4s ruling, Aasimars and Tieflings are proficient in martial weapons.

Specific overrides general. Unless B4 says something equally specific and explicit - such as explicitly stating "0HD outsiders gain MWP" - it's not relevant. Just how a new book mentioning that humans gain a bonus feat does not mean they get one even if they take the Dual Talent alternate race trait.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ilja wrote:
Horselord wrote:

If the assumption goes that the latest published rulebook trumps when there is a rules contradiction then Bestiary 4 just undid what Advanced Races Guide supposedly claimed.

By Bestiary 4s ruling, Aasimars and Tieflings are proficient in martial weapons.

Specific overrides general. Unless B4 says something equally specific and explicit - such as explicitly stating "0HD outsiders gain MWP" - it's not relevant. Just how a new book mentioning that humans gain a bonus feat does not mean they get one even if they take the Dual Talent alternate race trait.

But it does cause confusion.

Another reason it should be errata'd in the B1/2/3/4, so that copy/paste confusion is not propagated with each new book.

Scarab Sages

Exactly. Confusion that is identified should be errataed or FAQed.


I agree that they should reword it somehow. It is a good thing to have in a bestiary.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stephen,

I do not expect Paizo to use WotC's faq, and am unaware of anyone who suggested otehrwise in this thread.

I've used their FAQ to show that the exact ame text has been read two different ways by two different design teams. I accept Paizo's ruling, and don't have an issue with it.

I do disagree that 'no response is required'. That the question comes up every few months, to me, is the definition of a Frequently Asked Question.

Yes, in a perfect world, the issue would be solved by taking the rule from the ARG and putting it into the Bestiary. I accept that the logistics of doing that may be too difficult, but that is what the FAQ is for.

Please reconsider and add it to the FAQ.


FWIW, I have two links to posts with 'no reply required' on this topic, and a post from Sean (I think?) Saying that they don't get it.

So, it's come up at least three times.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Diego Rossi wrote:
PRD 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.

You can still argue that they don't need to breath as that is one of the Outsider traits that don't appear in the native outsider text or the Aasimar traits, but calling that the rules say they don't need to eat or sleep is blatantly false.

Diego, I disagree this is a false statement.

You are asking the reader to apply everything from the native subtype but not everything from the outsider type. The argument from the Bestiary (Aasimar only have the traits listed for Aasimar PCs) would leave this ambigious.
(Aside, I found the 0-HD rule in the race builder section. I think a reasonable person could say that applies to races using the race builder, not pre-existing races. Again a bit of ambiguity).


I don't think it's all to reasonable to assume the 0hd rule applies only to the race builder. It's fairly trivial to see that making the same race as a preexisting one, such as the many example races there, would then mean the race built one is weaker... For no reason. This should tip anyone off that their assumption is off.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Cheapy,

We'll agree to disagree then. :-) However since it is in the race builder, I find it a bit much to assume that anyone who owns/uses the book is going to use that section. I own Ultimate Campaign, but have no plans to use the Mass Combat system. If there was a rule in the Mass Combat system saying, "Oh by the way, Dwarves are not automatically proficient in the Dwarven Balista" I'd not ever see it.

Yes, that's an extreme example, but it is similar.


I do agree that it should be in the FAQ.

And well, they wouldn't be proficient with that even if there wasn't that rule. They just get Familiarity with dwarven weapons :)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fine, a fighter not being proficient in a 'Dwarven Balista' and having to burn an EWP on it. :P

Good catch.


OK, that's not unreasonable either, as an elven fighter would be in that exact situation, not to mention 97% of the other recess that would be in the same boat.

Now if you had specified dwarven fighter. :p

Shadow Lodge

I just wanted to add that saying its sloppy, and some of the other overly negative things earlier doesnt really help and will probably put people on the defensive. We should probably avoid that, (and that goes for BOTH sides equally).

I dont agree with some of whats been said, but wd dont need to be rude, even unintentionally about it.

From what Ive seen, the Bestiary 4 says to use the rules for playing monster pcs in the Bestiary 1, not the creation of a new race from the ARG, (and I admit I have not looked too much yet). So, as far as RAW (only), it looks like we are back at the get MWP point.

Liberty's Edge

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
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.
When we say "no response required" what we typically mean is that we are not going to include this item in the FAQ. It does not mean that designers or developers are not going to answer questions in threads. I answered questions and explained the design decision process to those interested in the discussion.

I know, it just tickled my funny bone a bit. I wasn't trying to say anything bad.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Cheapy wrote:

OK, that's not unreasonable either, as an elven fighter would be in that exact situation, not to mention 97% of the other recess that would be in the same boat.

Now if you had specified dwarven fighter. :p

Yeah, I misremembered the rule and corrected myself. Fortunately it's not been asked enough to need a FAQ. :-)


While clarified language in the Bestiary would be helpful, it may not be mandatory, since the way the rules for monsters as PCs in the Bestiary read strongly as optional rules, suggestions, or at the very least subject to DM approval (more so than ordinary, that is). A DM should be able to make wise judgments about this, especially with the rules and data available for his pursuance on this site.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Assimar don't receive the Outsider traits under the Outside type, but they receive the Native subtype that has further informations...

calling that the rules say they don't need to eat or sleep is blatantly false.

I agree with your ultimate conclusion, but your reasoning is still flawed. The rules certainly say that they eat/sleep/ and breathe as well as say that they get martial weapon proficiencies. They do all of this under TRAITS. Not racial traits, but the outsider traits (which even take the time to list this bit for native subtype within them).

You claim that racial traits are equivalent to outsider (type) traits. This doesn't seem to have any basis or support. You claim that Aasimar's don't get outsider traits because they have racial traits listed. Please LIST those outsider traits. One of those TRAITS is what you are railing against right now.

Your argument is not self-consistent.

You claim that by listing racial traits that traits from type are removed by omission. Then you want to pick and choose amongst them.

The problem here is the PATH, and given the name that Paizo chose for our game.. having the wrong path is doubly problematic.

-James

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Samasboy1 wrote:


LazarX do you have a link, because I don't see that language on the SRD? Also, what you dismiss as a forum discussion has a link to Ask Wizard, the official WotC Q and A. So that is official from WotC (not that it matters what WotC's position was for PF, just that since the rules read the same until the ARG there was no reason for the result to be different}.

It's in the "Monsters As Races" section of the Hypertext SRD. Here's the link Keep in mind that in the original SRD, Asasimars and Tieflings would be considered humanoids because of their general form in that rules set. And not the use of the word in the actual paragraph is "Creatures" not "Humanoids".


Humanoids and Class Levels
Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels. The monster loses the attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, skills, and feats granted by its 1 monster HD and gains the attack bonus, save bonuses, skills, feats, and other class abilities of a 1st-level character of the appropriate class.

Characters with more than 1 Hit Die because of their race do not get a feat for their first class level as members of the common races do, and they do not multiply the skill points for their first class level by four. Instead, they have already received a feat for their first Hit Die because of race, and they have already multiplied their racial skill points for their first Hit Die by four.

The ARG essentially requoted and clarified this rule.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

LazarX wrote:

It's in the "Monsters As Races" section of the Hypertext SRD. Here's the link Keep in mind that in the original SRD, Asasimars and Tieflings would be considered humanoids because of their general form in that rules set. And not the use of the word in the actual paragraph is "Creatures" not "Humanoids".


Humanoids and Class Levels
Creatures with 1 or less HD replace their monster levels with their character levels. The monster loses the attack bonus, saving throw bonuses, skills, and feats granted by its 1 monster HD and gains the attack bonus, save bonuses, skills, feats, and other class abilities of a 1st-level character of the appropriate class.

Characters with more than 1 Hit Die because of their race do not get a feat for their first class level as members of the common races do, and they do not multiply the skill points for their first class level by four. Instead, they have already received a feat for their first Hit Die because of race, and they have already multiplied their racial skill points for their first Hit Die by four.

The ARG essentially requoted and clarified this rule.

Requoted and clarified how this rule is used in Pathfinder. Just for clarity's sake.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Requoted and clarified how this rule is used in Pathfinder. Just for clarity's sake.

Actually misquoted would be more accurate if this was taken to be the source of the rule.

There is nothing here that would alter the weapon proficiencies for '0-HD' creatures. And seeing as we're talking about 3rd edition where the ruling was that they GOT them, it should not be surprising.

The ARG lists all of these out, but then throws in weapon and armor proficiencies without any basis for doing so. As a matter of RAW, the ARG is wrong.

The ARG could have added such a rule (though the Bestiary would be the proper place for it), but it did not do so. Rather it referenced a rule that does not exist.

-James


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

All I've ever called for is consistency and transparency. If you are going to change existing rules, do it through errata. If it is a clarification to existing rules, put it in the FAQ.

What you don't do is include a stealth errata in a newer book and then fallaciously claim it was the rule all along. That can only serve to damage Paizo's image, even if it was done incidentally (such as by simple misunderstanding/bad communication). The new rule may have been what was intended all along, but intent means nothing without action.

We're roleplayers, not mind readers. If it isn't printed in the expected places, it isn't likely that we will find it.

I would hope that's just common sense.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@James,

Barring typos, the RAW can't be wrong. It can be misunderstood, or read differently but it can't be wrong.

My argument is simple.


  • The rule is fuzzy.
  • WotC read it one way
  • Paizo reads it differently.
  • The rule as Paizo reads it was restated in the race building section of the APG.
  • Paizo's reading should be in the FAQ.
  • a) The reading of the rule in the bestiary is fuzzy
  • b) Two seperate companies (who have shared coffee, gaming time, and employees) interpret the same text differently
  • c) It is a question that is frequently asked.
  • Ideally, the Bestiary I would be reformatted to include the clearer rule. (but I understand the difficulties of that.)

201 to 250 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