Zero HD Native Outsiders and Weapon Proficiencies


Rules Questions

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

Matthew Morris wrote:

@James,

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

That's a matter of definitions and game design philosophy.

There are many definitions of wrong. I think 1 is irrelevant as the rules are used for describing a universe, and thus it would be a circular argument. I think 2, 8 and 7 are quite irrelevant too. The others float together a bit to me at least (might be because English isn't my native language) but i think especially 3 and 6 are very relevant.

If the goal of writing down rules is to communicate what the developers think is a good way to play a game/tell a story, then the down-written rules can be wrong, when they are "not required, intended, or wanted" to communicate the developers intent or do not "function properly" to communicate the developers intent.

That is the way I view it, because the reason I trust Paizo to tell me how to play a good game (well, I house rule a lot but you get the point) is because I have a degree of faith in their system design skills.

So, in my view, when the RAW does not properly communicate, or does not match, the designers intent - then the RAW is wrong.

YMMV - I know there are different ways of viewing it - but it's not in any way a clear cut "the RAW can't be wrong".

EDIT: Though I agree that it should be in the FAQ and written into future bestiaries - even if only as a 1-liner in the Monster Creation rules.


Matthew Morris wrote:

@James,

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

I'm not saying the RAW is wrong, I'm saying the place in the ARG is wrong when it claims to say the RAW is one thing, when it is not. The ARG is claiming the rule was already something. It was not, and it is still not. That is a mistake, pure and simple.

Matthew, how do you read the rule within one specific creature type as applying to other types? That's not misreading or fuzzy, that's changing the rule. Period.

The rule in question was not fuzzy. It was clear. It just wasn't what they wanted it to be. As a result, they decided to change it like they did many things. This is great, except they didn't actually get around to changing it. It got forgotten. That's really understandable as there were a ton of changes made.

They have the ability to further change these books. And there are a great many things in these books that need changing. This change would be a very easy one. These changes and the commitment to quality is what drew so many of us to them in the first place.

They are, however, unwilling to continue and make even simple fixes. They would rather let the books conflict with one another. Worse, they have an easy and frequently updated list of FAQs that they are misusing as errata.. and aren't willing to even do that. This is not the Paizo that I've lauded in the past, and it saddens me.

-James

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some posts. Personal insults are not OK, and if you have feedback regarding the FAQ system, please post in the appropriate forum.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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.

So here is our sticking point. You think it matters if it was a rule before. I don't think it works that way.

This is how I imagine you seeing the text:
"This was the rule before, and it is unchanged."
Which would create a contradiction.

This is how I see the text, especially in light of the developer explanation:
"This was supposed to be the rule before, but in any case, it is the rule now."

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bizbag wrote:

This is how I see the text, especially in light of the developer explanation:

"This was supposed to be the rule before, but in any case, it is the rule now."

No, that is not this designer's explanation, and since the I am the one "developer" commenting on this thread I'm going to assume you are talking about me.

Our take is that it was the rule before. It was not explained as fully as it could have been (with the blanket line "Aasimars are defined by class levels--they do not possess racial Hit Dice", and really didn't need to be because the rules before were for monster design. When we opened up the rules for PC design, and created a book that was designed to be the go-to book for PC expanded race selection in Pathfinder, we were more explicit with those rules.

We also had to be more explicit with those rules because we started making PC playable races (0-HD) of other creature types. So it became even more important for us to clarify the rules in that book and for that subject. As brief look at weapon and armor proficiencies granted to creature types in the Pathfinder RPG will show that they are really not created for robust character generation. There is a lot of loose statements there giving GMs and critter designers a lot of leeway in their creation for a number of design reasons.

Thus the stronger wording in our book dedicated to the expansion of PC races beyond the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary. Two audiences, two related solutions. The only contradiction is the ones perceived, or ones trumped up by bringing in the 3.5 FAQ which we do not and can't use.

With that, I'm closing down this thread. We have review the arguments, I have explained the rationale, and we have made our decision on this particular subject.

Good gaming and have a great weekend.

251 to 256 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