Clarificatons in PFS?

[Netopalis]

As it currently stands, rules questions in the PFS forum are generally moved to the rules forum unless they relate specifically to PFS rules. I raised some issues with this policy in another thread, and John indicated that it would likely be a good topic to discuss in a separate thread. As such, I would like to post here and get some thoughts about the creation of a simple, unofficial clarification system.

First, let's talk about what this is meant to address. As we all know, Pathfinder rules can be vague at times. Interpretation of rules in a home game is generally left up to the GM, but it can be jarring to have varying interpretation of character abilities in Society play. With some abilities, I can't say with any certainty how a random GM at a convention would handle a particular class ability, and it may severely impact my play.

As an example, I am currently building a variant channeler of Sun Wukong who channels Ale/Wine. This was stated as a possible choice by James Jacobs in another thread, but by RAW, it is unclear whether or not it would work. The rule mentions that it relates to the deity's area of concern, and Sun Wukong has Drunkenness as an area of concern. Therefore, I think most GMs would allow it. However, no official ruling has been made, and therefore I will likely only play this character with GMs that I've had an opportunity to sit down and discuss the issue with.

So, with this issue, under the current system, I should start a discussion in the rules forum about whether or not the ability works as I believe it to. If I were to post in the Society forum, it would likely be moved to the Rules forum. However, the rules forum isn't exactly ideal for this sort of thing. Most posters on the rules forum will reference third-party products or house rules, none of which are relevant to PFS. Most posters will not understand why it matters all that much that we have a more definite ruling. However, as PFS is a RAW campaign, and as we try to minimize table variation as it relates to the interpretation of character abilities, we often need something a bit more concrete.

Furthermore, there can sometimes be a significant delay in getting rulings on questions. I had an issue with a player at my table believing that confusion bombs do not offer a saving throw. The ability was unclear. When I searched, I found that two previous rules threads had been created on the subject, both ending with a simple "Answered in the FAQ." It had not been addressed in the FAQ. So, I started a new thread. Two months, 40+ FAQ requests and 8 pages later, I finally got an answer. The initial post asking the question was over two years old. That's significantly longer than the lifespan of most PFS characters.

Therefore, I proposed in the other thread that Mike and John start issuing off-the-cuff rulings. These rulings would be non-binding on the larger world of Pathfinder, and would simply provide guidance for GMs in interpreting unclear rules. Campaign staff would be allowed to change these rulings without warning should a particular one turn out to be problematic. I would recommend that these requests be made in a separate section of the PFS forum, to separate it a bit from the general discussion.

The main focus here is that players need to be able to sit down at a table with confidence that their character will play as they believe it should play. This is easier in an AP, because the GM has the ability to make a houserule. In PFS, however, that is not available, and there is an expectation that there should be consistency amongst tables. Therefore, I think that this would be a valuable addition to Society play and would help eliminate much confusion.

[BigNorseWolf]

If you're getting arguments about it in the rules forum, expect arguments about it in PFS in general.

You can't add "in bed" to the end of anything you say and call it a fortune cookie, and you can't add "in pfs" to a rules question to put it on the pfs forum.

[Avatar-1]

This is really more of a question of FAQ's getting answered more frequently, PFS or not. It's been an issue for a while.

[Avatar-1]

It should be said that questions directly relating specifically to PFS actually do usually get answered pretty promptly; I'm hard pressed to think of one that wasn't.

A PFS question is something more along the lines of a question about prestige/fame or faction missions, rather than how a class feature should work.

[Finlanderboy]

Well you get answered much quicker in the PFS thread then in the rules thread.

[Netopalis]

Avatar: I agree completely, this wouldn't be an issue if FAQ requests were answered more promptly, but I am assuming that is not something that is likely to happen.

[Mystic Lemur]

Then there is an issue with the Rules forum that needs to be addressed. On Paizo's end, they should try to answer FAQ requests as quickly as possible (not saying they don't, just stating a "goal"). If they have time to mark a post as "Answered in the FAQ", I feel they have time to link to the relevant entry, but maybe that's just me.

On our end, maybe we should all spend more time in the Rules forum, making sure questions get answered appropriately? I know I spend next to no time there myself. Maybe I should work on that...

[Netopalis]

Mystic: The problem isn't that there aren't enough users, the problem is that for PFS, we need actual rulings, not opinions.

[Pirate Rob]

I would rather Mike and John spend their time developing awesome stuff for PFS than answering rules questions in the PFS forums.

Also campaign staff previously issued off the cuff rulings all the time and I at least thought it sucked. Joshua Frost did it and it caused problems. It meant there were rules for how things worked all over the place, occasionally they were contradictory and it meant there was lots of fiddly notes, some of which made it into the organized play guide and some of which did not. Eventually this was changed so that the rules were only binding if you had read them which was both good and bad.

In a home game we have the advantage of being able to go hey GM, I have this thing that's unclear can I do it? And get an answer that you can stick with.

In PFS you're stuck making the character and then asking every GM you come across if it's okay.

The PFS answer is: Understand that making a character in a grey area may cause it to not always work as intended.

While that answer sucks, I think it's better than the alternative.

[GM Lamplighter]

What Pirate Rob said - if you are pushing the grey areas of the rules, expect some GMs to push back. If that bothers you, be a bit more conservative in your builds, or have lots of PCs. There are WAY too many permutations to issue specific rulings on every one. Wait until the new mixed-classes book comes out!

The game has a GM for a reason - a ruleset CANNOT be free of grey areas. Look at the laws of every country in the world, where a lot more time, money, and effort is put into developing them. Even *they* don't work RAW - that's why we have judges.

[James Risner]

Netopalis wrote:

With some abilities, I can't say with any certainty how a random GM at a convention would handle a particular class ability, and it may severely impact my play.

PFS is a RAW campaign, and as we try to minimize table variation as it relates

It isn't fun showing up feeling like you need to "explain" how your character works so you can see how your GM will rule on your mechanics. I'd stopped playing two characters due to this problem.

which two:

Overrun:
I had a Greater Overrun/Elephant Stomp/Charge Through/Dragon Style character that was pretty much different at every table. Overrun itself is poorly understood and every FAQ thread back to 2009 has been locked or closed with "no reply required" yet not a single FAQ has been issued regarding Overrun.

Handle Animal vs Ride:
Handle Animal is always a Move (or longer), but Ride (Guide with Knees/Fight with Combat-Trained) is a "no action" or "free action" and sometimes GM's ask for Move Actions.

So the root problem is much of these corner case very rare questions are unlikely to be given an answer in the rules forums by the PDT. It would be so much better if we had something like the "Ask JJ" thread for PFS GM's to ask questions or if PFS made JJ answers "official" for PFS. It wouldn't effect the general game, but it would be a source for the official word on how something should be played that could be handed to your PFS GM if you really wanted to play something that is going to get every GM asking "now how does that work."

[kinevon]

Scott Young wrote:

What Pirate Rob said - if you are pushing the grey areas of the rules, expect some GMs to push back. If that bothers you, be a bit more conservative in your builds, or have lots of PCs. There are WAY too many permutations to issue specific rulings on every one. Wait until the new mixed-classes book comes out!

The game has a GM for a reason - a ruleset CANNOT be free of grey areas. Look at the laws of every country in the world, where a lot more time, money, and effort is put into developing them. Even *they* don't work RAW - that's why we have judges.

And the GM should take a look atr the rules he is ruling on, sometimes. It doesn't take a "gray" area to get inconsistent rulings. It just takes rules that are not clear.

What are the current rules on handling light spells, daylight spells, continual flame spells, sun rods, torches, lanterns, ambient light, darkness spells, and deeper darkness spells?

I admit, last time I looked at the explanations, it was ... confusing. I no longer know how light and darkness works in PF, much less PFS.

Also, have you looked at the official rules for reach weapons and diagonals? Many GMs haven't, and run it so that those corners are threatened, others have, and the corners are free zones. Still others have read the clarification, but go, "Huh?" about it.

Throw in those maps, which happen all-too-often (like Thornkeep's Accursed HAlls), which usde a lot of diagonal rooms, instead of orthagonal, and you get points where a polearm user might just as well stay at the back of the party, he isn't doing anything anyhow.

Last game I played my polearm-wierlding Rogue, and I spent a lot of time, in combat, trying to figure out where I could go to continue to threaten opponents, while getting a flank. Oy. And polearms are corner cases, then?

[thistledown]

Pirate Rob wrote:

I would rather Mike and John spend their time developing awesome stuff for PFS than answering rules questions in the PFS forums.

I disagree. We've got a ton of content already. I'd much rather see rules questions getting worked out than more content being added while questions are left unanswered.

[CWheezy]

I am sorry you picked elephant stomp james, unfortunately that feat does literally nothing.

Maybe you mean Vicious Stomp?

[James Risner]

CWheezy wrote:

I am sorry you picked elephant stomp james, unfortunately that feat does literally nothing.

Maybe you mean Vicious Stomp?

I was either unaware of Vicious Stomp or it didn't exist when I took Elephant Stomp. ;-)

[Netopalis]

What if there were some sort of process by which questions approved by a VC could get official attention? That should limit the number of questions to those that are particularly good. Then, Mike and John could state their quick opinion and, unless contradicted by later errata or FAQ entry, PFS GMs could use that.

[SCPRedMage]

James Risner wrote:

or if PFS made JJ answers "official" for PFS.

Please, no. Just... no. JJ is a great guy and all, but the rulings he's made in his "ask JJ" thread aren't always consistent with, ya know, the rules. The big example that drove that home for me was his ruling on shield spikes and the bashing enchantment.

Tangent:

James Jacobs wrote:

Karui Kage wrote:

So a +1 Bashing Spiked Heavy Shield would deal 2d6 points of damage on a 'shield bash', being treated as if it were three size categories higher. This is how it was in 3.5 at least, it doesn't look like the Pathfinder rules changed any wording in that regard.

Not if you're going to play the semantics game/rules as precisely written game. Because a shield spike and a shield bash are DIFFERENT weapons (they've got different entries on the weapon table on page 142 to prove it). The bashing quality says noting about improving a shield spike attack. It's ONLY about improving a shield bash attack.

So his entire argument is "they have different entries on the weapons table, so attacking with a spiked shield isn't a 'shield bash'".

The problem with that argument is that text trumps tables:

PRD, Shield spikes wrote:

These spikes turn a shield into a martial piercing weapon and increase the damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you (see "spiked shields" on Table: Weapons).

Note that the description of shield spikes state explicitly that they modify the shield bash attack (and then references the weapons table, indicating that spiked shields were included there simply for ease of reference), completely invalidating JJ's argument.

Whether or not he is correct about whether the two stacking was intentional (and Paizo's own scarred wanderer statblock from the NPC Codex indicates he's not, since the +5 spiked heavy shield he carries is listed as doing 2d6 base damage), the fact that he made such a glaringly wrong statement about the rules illustrates the fact that he's not a "rules guy"; he can and does make rulings that directly contradict RAW, and making his rulings he uses in his home games PFS binding would do more harm than good.

That said, having an equivalent PFS thread would, in my opinion, be of immense help.

[James Risner]

SCPRedMage wrote:

"ask JJ" thread aren't always consistent with, ya know, the rules.

It is funny, because I disagree with you.

The linked thing you post about +1 Bashing Spiked Shield looks to be in the middle of a discussion, so we lose context.

But he isn't wrong about the rules in the spoiler you quoted if you read the rules pedantically. It comes down to how you read the rules.

If you read they stack (like most people read caster level increases e.g. Otherworldly Kimono and Orange Ioun Stone) then it deals 1d10 damage.

If you read they don't stack (like applying two metamagic feats to a spell like Empower Maximize) then it either deals 1d6 (Spiked) or 1d8 (Bashing.)

I spend a lot of time reading about the rules, and he matches my view on the rules way more times than he doesn't.

Also, keep in mind for this to work we only need a ruling. It doesn't have to be correct, it just need to be official. So even if his rulings were not by the "rules" (and I think they are) then no hard will be done. As things will have answers.

[SCPRedMage]

James Risner wrote:

*stuff snipped for length*

Alright, first, minor nit-pick, but you got the damage they do "if" they stack wrong.

Spoiler:

A shield bash with a heavy shield does 1d4; shield spikes increase that "as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you", which pushes it to 1d6 (as seen on the weapons table). Bashing increases it by two size categories, which puts it at 2d6, not 1d10 (1d6 -> 1d8 -> 2d6).

Unfortunately, this (weapon die steps) is something that's hard to pick up on in the PF rules; there was a table in the 3.5 DMG that explicitly ran down all the dice size increases by number of size increases, but apparently that section didn't get released under the OGL, as it didn't make it over into the CRB in any form. The only remnant is the "Tiny and Large Weapon Damage" table, which got brought over from the 3.5 PHB unchanged. If you examine the table, you'll notice a medium weapon that does 1d6 damage does 1d8 as a large weapon, and a weapon that does 1d8 as a medium does 2d6 as a large, therefore a weapon that does 1d6 damage does 2d6 when you increase the weapon size by two categories.

FYI, the 3.5 DMG table backs that up: the "1d6" row lists "2d6" on the "Number of Size Categories Increased: Two" column, indicating that, in 3.5, the correct damage is 2d6; since the only other info on weapon size category changes wasn't modified, we can assume that it still works the same way.

Second, I pointed out, in great detail, that the entire premise (in other words, the reason WHY he said they didn't stack) of JJ's ruling was fundamentally flawed. And by flawed, I mean egregiously incorrect. As I stated, if there's a disagreement between what a table implies and what the text says, the text wins. In this case, the text explicitly, in no uncertain terms, indicates that it increases the damage die of the shield bash attack. JJ's argument was that "attacking with shield spikes isn't a shield bash", which is provably false, so as an official ruling, it has literally no basis in the rules. Either JJ remembered the rules incorrectly (and didn't bother to look it up before making his ruling), or he simply didn't like the idea of them stacking, made a knee-jerk ruling, and attempted to put together a reason to reject it afterwards.

Spoiler:

A better excuse would have been to state that "virtual" weapon size increases don't stack, ala the spell effects stacking rule, but seeing as shield spikes aren't a magic effect, that really doesn't hold water, either.

Also, if the two don't stack, that would mean a spiked bashing shield and a non-spiked bashing shield would do the exact same damage, which seems pretty ridiculous to me, from a verisimilitude perspective.

Thirdly, as I also said, Paizo's own statblock for the scarred wanderer (NPC Codex) lists the base damage of his +5 bashing spiked heavy shield as 2d6. Seeing as that's three size increases from the 1d4 base damage of a heavy shield bash, that's pretty much the closest we'll probably ever see to Paizo officially declaring that they stack.

Either way, such rulings, if made binding, WOULD do great harm to the campaign, simply because of the fact that this is an ORGANIZED PLAY campaign. The rules need to work as-written, without wacky misinterpretations being periodically codified as how things work, because this game has THOUSANDS of players around the world, and they have a right to be able to expect that certain basic principles of how the system works aren't going to be overturned just because a fluff guy didn't remember how the crunch is supposed to work and couldn't be bothered to look it up.

I personally have a character built entirely around shield bashing, to the point where shields are literally the only form of weapons he carries, and I shouldn't have to worry about JJ's flawed rulings on the subject suddenly nerfing my character in very major ways for no good reason. The last thing this campaign needs is a good portion of the campaign getting pissed off because a bunch of blatantly and provably wrong calls like that become the law of the land.

Again: JJ, great guy, awesome at what he does for a living (setting), not the greatest at something he doesn't (rules).

[Brian Lefebvre]

The Pathfinder Design Team posted this The Rules FAQ, and How to Use It Sticky Thread. The last entry, What is the Golarion FAQ? says - The design team’s area of interest is the Pathfinder RPG product line (Core Rulebook, Bestiary, Advanced Player’s Guide, and so on), but Paizo publishes content (both rules and flavor) specifically for its Golarion setting. The Golarion FAQ is for questions about Paizo-published content from source other than the Pathfinder RPG line: the Pathfinder Companions, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, and so on. Creative Director James Jacobs posts answers to the Golarion FAQ.

This means that James Jacobs is now responsible for FAQing everything that isn't part of the Core Hardback Book Line.

[James Risner]

SCPRedMage wrote:

statblock for the scarred wanderer

Again: JJ, great guy, awesome at what he does for a living (setting), not the greatest at something he doesn't (rules).

Brian Lefebvre wrote:

James Jacobs is now responsible for FAQing everything that isn't part of the Core Hardback Book Line.

Stat blocks are not always 100% rules correct, as they are written often by people who didn't write the rules in question.

Plus as Brian mentioned, JJ is responsible for rules in all non-core material and has post rules answers in the Golarian FAQ.

[SCPRedMage]

James Risner wrote:

SCPRedMage wrote:

statblock for the scarred wanderer

Again: JJ, great guy, awesome at what he does for a living (setting), not the greatest at something he doesn't (rules).

Brian Lefebvre wrote:

James Jacobs is now responsible for FAQing everything that isn't part of the Core Hardback Book Line.

Stat blocks are not always 100% rules correct, as they are written often by people who didn't write the rules in question.

Plus as Brian mentioned, JJ is responsible for rules in all non-core material and has post rules answers in the Golarian FAQ.

You can keep arguing all you like, but again my point was that the entire premise for his "ruling" in this case was so horribly flawed that there literally is NO wiggle-room for saying that it is, in some way, correct. While you might be able to find some other excuse to tell me they don't stack, the reason he cited is clearly and irreconcilably wrong.

My objection here isn't based on the ruling, but rather how he arrived at the ruling.

As to him being responsible for the Golarion line of product FAQs, I can only hope he puts more time and consideration into that than he has in the off-the-cuff answers he's given to rules questions in his "ask JJ" thread.