|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Worst. Idea. Ever.
EDIT: on a more serious note, I've heard if you want to entice the PDT into answering your pet question, you must lure them in such a way that will leave you forever scarred—most of which involves the liberal application of very expensive alcohol.
Ambiguity is sometimes better. See the FAQ on free actions.
What.
What.
I assume you understood the thread, so presuming incredulity: Yes, the OP really does appear to be serious about this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At best, this will probably make a great number of people extremely angry and lead to a boycott by many of these boards and of Pathfinder. At worst, it could lead to a complete crash of the boards by people unhappy with rulings they paid for and disagree with and the loss of the FAQ system entirely. I tend to think it would end more in one of the latter options more than the former.
Personally, I'd rather have faith that the PDT can address the issues that are really necessary to address, even if it takes them some time. The fact that it takes them time is overshadowed by the fact that they're doing it at all, and that they're willing to engage in discussion with us on the boards.
I don't agree with every ruling they make, and I don't always take Dev rulings as gospel, but I do appreciate that they take their personal time to do this. Paying them for rulings feels to me like it would cheapen the ruling.
The question was: who would pay for this? So far no one has answered my question. So what if people get upset, and too f&##ing bad for them. If people start crying about it, how will that impede the adults from using this service.
> Ambiguity is sometimes better
I would like to suggest you haven't spent 4 hours debating a ridiculous question, although I wouldn't bet on it. I recently spent half a session trying to determine the difference between commas, and the word 'and'. The DM noticed some animals natural attacks are separated by commas, and some were separated by the word 'and'. See Lion and Bulette. He was under the impression that when the word 'and' was used, the animal could make both attacks as a standard action. Later we found a FAQ ruling countering his arguement, but the time is still gone forever.
The answer is that no one wants to pay for a "service" that they believe will cause massive amounts of anger and nothing productive.
Not me..Most of the times I dont FAQ something so I can be told how it is run. I just like to know the intent. If I like how it is supposed to run I will just ignore it anyway. Well not every time, but sometimes. Most of us can figure out the rules well enough anyway. We just dont have a tag by our name that makes us officially represent Paizo.
|
|
Saying that nobody has answered your question doesn't mean nobody has. Several of us have, even if we were a bit abstract in doing so. It's not a difficult jump to assume that somebody who says "this is a bad idea" is answering your question with a tacet "no."
My position stated in one very small word: No.
And for what it's worth, this is in entirely the wrong forum. This isn't a Rules Question. It should probably be in General Discussion.
Or possibly Paizo Products.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
The answer is no.
It would create more problems than it would solve. See a few forums created about some of the FAQ posts. Also it would slow down production of product. Time put towards creating official calls is time away from working on product. Lastly, this system, as rules heavy as it is, is still built with a level of flexibility assumed and holes in the rules can be filled by GMs. In fact it is my opinion that great GMs don't need a developer's call to fill those holes.
I am willing to pay them for rules of areas not already covered, but they seem to be thinking of things months before me.
You asked how many people would support the idea. So far everyone is against it. How is that not answering your question? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you have a rules question, ask one of the game designers. You may or may not get an official ruling, but you probably will get the impression that they figure stuff out as they go and expect the people who buy their game to do the same.
I would like to know how many different spell effects could be identified in one round using detect magic.
3 rounds per 1 item identified. This question was specifically answered at least three times in the Core Rulebook.
Oh, and on top of everything else?
If you and 20 other people each offered 5 dollars for one question, that would be a 105-dollar bounty, not 100.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaay, capitalism! Let's put a dollar-value on everything!
|
|
I would like to know how many different spell effects could be identified in one round using detect magic.3 rounds per 1 item identified. This question was specifically answered at least three times in the Core Rulebook.
Not quite accurate.
You detect magical auras. The amount of information revealed depends on how long you study a particular area or subject.
1st Round: Presence or absence of magical auras.
2nd Round: Number of different magical auras and the power of the most potent aura.
3rd Round: The strength and location of each aura. If the items or creatures bearing the auras are in line of sight, you can make Knowledge (arcana) skill checks to determine the school of magic involved in each. (Make one check per aura: DC 15 + spell level, or 15 + 1/2 caster level for a nonspell effect.)
You can identify the strength and number of all detectable auras in range in 3 rounds. Identifying school or actual spell requires a separate skill check for each.
The day Paizo starts accepting payment for rulings on the mechanics of the game is the day I lose all faith in the company. It is also the day I stop buying Paizo's products. In other words, I think it's a terrible idea and I would NOT pay for oficial rulings.
*Determining which items are magical and which are not through the spell Detect magic takes 3 rounds.*
*Once you have determined a magical item is magical, it takes 3 rounds to identify each (1) item.*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An idea occurred to me that I wanted to sound out with this community. How many people here would be willing to pay money to encourage Paizo to release an official ruling on a specific question?
I'd be happy to pay more to give paizo more resources to devote to development. I don't really like your bounty idea though - I think the game will improve more rapidly if Paizo focus on the fixes they feel are important, not the fixes the richest of their fans think are important.
I fail to see what good this would do. They already answer the questions we put up. Apart from being bad taste i dont see any merit to the suggestion. I dont know the the answer to your question but if you make a normal FAQ you may get a reply.
So a clear NO from me if we get to vote here.
I think people would be more willing to pay when they see the effects of their contribution, rather then a possibly empty promise to do more work.An idea occurred to me that I wanted to sound out with this community. How many people here would be willing to pay money to encourage Paizo to release an official ruling on a specific question?I'd be happy to pay more to give paizo more resources to devote to development. I don't really like your bounty idea though - I think the game will improve more rapidly if Paizo focus on the fixes they feel are important, not the fixes the richest of their fans think are important.
Maybe. Like you, I don't care if people don't like my ideas. :)
The bounty system might get more subscribers, however I stand by my opinion that a consumer-led prioritisation will produce an inferior result than a developer-led one.
|
|
*Determining which items are magical and which are not through the spell Detect magic takes 3 rounds.*
*Once you have determined a magical item is magical, it takes 3 rounds to identify each (1) item.*
Except his original question wasn't about identifying magical items, but identifying spell effects. Knowledge(arcana) check, and all can be made simultaneously. I digress, though. That discussion is tangential to the actual thread.
|
|
I think people would be more willing to pay when they see the effects of their contribution, rather then a possibly empty promise to do more work.An idea occurred to me that I wanted to sound out with this community. How many people here would be willing to pay money to encourage Paizo to release an official ruling on a specific question?I'd be happy to pay more to give paizo more resources to devote to development. I don't really like your bounty idea though - I think the game will improve more rapidly if Paizo focus on the fixes they feel are important, not the fixes the richest of their fans think are important.
In theory, could be. But why would they pay for a service that is already offered for free? Questions are answered according to their validity and the necessity of their being addressed. And your system has no way of guaranteeing that the promise made is any more or less full than the one made for free, or that the question is answered any more rapidly than it would have been otherwise.
Sometimes it takes time to figure things out, so paying for it isn't going to speed it up any unless they turn around and use that money to pay a new team to interpret rules created by the design team, which will lead to yet more problems when the design team says one thing and the new faq team says something else.
As your idea stands, it's not a good one. Perhaps put some more thought into how such a system could be made to operate effeciently, and you might get less opposition.
I agree with jlighter and the others, paying for it to get results faster isnt the way to go. If anything, they would be encouraged to do quick rulings with little thought on it to get paid, while currently they can take the necessary time to discuss it withouth any pressure over them, which overall leads to rulings with more thought put on it.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am already paying for official rulings from Paizo.
I call it "Core Rulebook".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to suggest you haven't spent 4 hours debating a ridiculous question, although I wouldn't bet on it.
Suggestion: during a game, if you disagree with the GM's ruling, say what you think. If the GM disagrees, do it the GM's way. After the game, check the forums.
Sometimes you will use the wrong rule, but that's better than wasting four hours of game time arguing about something.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Best part is... the idea seems to be that a) the PDT would start somehow working FASTER due to money for rulings, and b) the reasoning is that unclear rules could be avoided this way. First off, the PDT works as fast as it can already. Second, EVERY ruling will still interact with all other rules of the game, creating NEW unclear situations. Believing otherwise is hopelessly naive.
Or, for those who still think the question hasn't been answered:
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Any questions?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Best part is... the idea seems to be that a) the PDT would start somehow working FASTER due to money for rulings, and b) the reasoning is that unclear rules could be avoided this way. First off, the PDT works as fast as it can already. Second, EVERY ruling will still interact with all other rules of the game, creating NEW unclear situations. Believing otherwise is hopelessly naive.
Or, for those who still think the question hasn't been answered:
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Any questions?
Does that no really mean "no" or do you mean I can should trying to argue the point no matter how eloquently you say "no"?
Maybe deep down inside you mean yes, but you don't know it yet. :)
<runs>
|
|
I wouldn't pay. Especially as Paizo have in the past made a ruling and later ruled the other way (weapon bonuses applying to certain Combat Manoeuvres eg Trip), and how the latest FAQ for Ability Bonuses just made things much less clear for me in an area that I previously felt I knew (so in effect the FAQ ruling made things worse for me - can you imagine if I had paid for that!)
But what I would like to see is a page that lists the threads that have been flagged for FAQ and order it by number of FAQ - so we could at least see what the next FAQ should be.