Developer
|
Most of my rules-ambiguity discussions have gone like this, actually. I find it helps if both sides approach the matter with a positive attitude, willingness to be flexible, and an understanding that compromise might be necessary. I like to approach these messageboards in the same way.Wow john, your GMs and players work so nice together on rules like this. If only that was more true in real life. ;)
I have seen it, but mostly what I have seen is not as happy a conversation as that.
John, that's because no one wants to piss off the guy who can post a FAQ saying that the range is now 5 feet, and it can only be used at temperatures of -100 degrees.
:)
Pssh! Most of these conversations actually date back to my pre-developer (even my pre-VL) PFS days.
Nonetheless, point taken!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Posters in the Rules forum" and "multi-star PFS GMs" are effectively two different demographics with only the slightest overlap (most of which is Nefreet, hehe).
;-)
Personally, this forum and the Rules Forum are the two I visit practically every hour (read: no life), but I occasionally visit the GM Forum, the Advice Forum, and the other General Discussion Forum as well.
I'm "the rules guy" in my area (along with FLite), and since I GM once or twice a week, I need to keep up with the current discussions. I don't read everything, but I try to stay informed.
|
|
Uses for the rules forum
1) Save vs brain fart.
Sometimes you're looking at a rule and either you're under caffeinated or your brain is just parsing it wrong. It happens. Someone can diagram the sentence, spell it out, or point out the next line where the line you skipped brings it all together.
2) Find the rules
Sometimes rules are tucked away in some really odd places. The denizens of the rules boards usually know where they are.
3) Find the clarification
Despite how it seems sometimes, there HAVE been clarification and errata at different levels. They're not in any one centralized place though, and you need to hunt them down... or just ask someone, or just make an argument to the contrary and have someone pop up with a citation to prove you wrong.
4) See if there is an argument at all.
If you've got 10 posters agreeing that thats how something works without any decent
5) Hash it out on the boards instead of at the table.
10 fights with internet geeks you don't know and probably won't meet are better than 1 flare up at the table.
|
Ice Tomb really needs errata. I ran a game online a while back where the player of a high-level witch essentially browbeat me into accepting his insistence that since it doesn't have a listed duration or range, the range is infinite and the duration is FOREEVVVEEERRRR.
It is the nature of witch hexes to be short - a much more reasonable expectation is that since witch hexes normally are 30 foot to apply to target (or less), and major hexes have a lot of 60 foot range, that 60 foot is the range.
The duration is much more problematic as they have some permanent hexes like scar, but those are limited in number - so once you have X people scarred the next one unscarrs the oldest one.
my witch is only recently took icy tomb, after first taking retaliation (a 60 ft hex) and major healing. We'll see what the GM rules at Moonscar next month.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: But more on topic, you're right; tablemates are no more likely to be right than forumites. They're all just people with varying degrees of willingness to read and/or to be "wrong".
My willingness to be wrong varies proportionally to how much I like the person correcting me.
|
|
Still confused why ice tomb was marked as answered in errata/FAQ back in 2011 and 2012...but no FAQ or errata was ever released...
The staff apparently has a big long list of things of things showing up on their end when they look at the website. Apparently the only method they have of clearing it off the list is to say "answered". I suppose the tech team could put in some way of saying "deliberating" or "Huh we need to work on it" but those are some busy goblins.
Nobody from paizo seems to want to shed any light on what happened here and i dont even know whos in charge of the FAQ thing or on the "rules team" since it doesnt appear to be mentioned anywhere...
The rules team goes
Jason Bulhman
Rand McFarley & Sean Reynolds (who will soon be moving on. *sniff* we can only blame ourselves-... maybe)
The ask James Jacobs thread if all else fails.
|
|
Is there any way to tell whether something was REALLY answered in the FAQ or just marked as such to remove it from the queue (other than the abscence of an actual FAQ obviously)?
Chances are very good if its on an FAQ someone in the argument will bring it up.
I hate, and i mean hate, the way paizo does the faqs. They're spread out over the different books and its not always clear which book the issue deals with. For example the core rule book doesn't have alternate class features, but thats where you find the FAQ on them.
|
This thread is relevant background information on old threads marked "answered in FAQ" that never actually were. Key posts HERE. Basically (it looks like), it used to be that the rules team couldn't clear an unclear question from the queue without it being marked as "answered," leading to the occasional frustrating mis-labeling. That's since been fixed, it seems. :-)
But best thing to do is to create a new FAQ thread following the advice in the FAQ guidelines linked by several posters above. Sometimes it takes the system a while to get around to it, but they do their best and it's better to have slow FAQs than no FAQs at all!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what do we do if we do that and its still not addressed years later, as in the case of ice tomb having no range or duration? People were asking about this in 2011 and the UM errata thread.
This I can answer.
You make your own ruling or let your GM make a ruling and wait until Paizo eventually gets to it in their own time, and their priority of what needs to be answered even if it is months are years later.
It will eventually be addressed.
What you don't want to do is get upset about it in the forums because that would most likely just cause them to not read your posts in the future, or the least not address you but wait until it is brought up by another.
All you need to do is bring it to their attention. They will see it and add it to their list of things to address at sometime in the future. Just because it is not being addressed directly in the forums, does not mean it is not on their radar.
Edit: not being on the forums that long you might not know this, or if you have you may not have realized this, Paizo in general does not make rule changes or erratas until a new printing of the book, unless it is a rule that effects many players. And this particular issue is not one of those cases. You most likely will not hear a ruling until they are close to a new release of UM and the correction has made it to the next printing. A good example of that is the range of double barreled musket which was 10' when it should have been 40' not only in one book but 2. They did not change that until they finally got close to a release of the latest printing of UC.
|
|
What makes this one FAQ item more important than the countless other projects/updates/events/blogs/products/modules/scenarios/APs/conventions/an d other FAQ candidates out there?
Sorry to hear you are inconvenienced. John laid out some great ways to handle this in the interim. Be patient and wait your turn.
|
Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
But what do we do if we do that and its still not addressed years later, as in the case of ice tomb having no range or duration? People were asking about this in 2011 and the UM errata thread.
Politely remind us. As folks have responded in several threads you started, there's a list of internal priorities in which meeting our deadlines ranks pretty high up, and one rules question might rank higher than another for a variety of reasons.
I emphasize "politely" because an inquiry, no matter how relevant, is going to get bogged down with digressive argument if the inquiry is mocking, sarcastic, or insulting. In that case, a staff member is now on the defensive and has to dedicate his (or her) energy to defending himself rather than answering the question. I know that I as a staff member am inclined to respond in a tone similar to the one used to ask the question. If the inquiry is snarky, it's inviting snark; if it's polite, it's my pleasure to be polite.
If the question is clear, quick, and polite, a developer can answer it or at least check across the hall to ask another authority--likely the one who developed or wrote the rule. Responding to hardcover book queries is the domain of the rules team, but on occasion I adopt and champion a particular rules clarification that I've run across and am curious about* (especially if it's cropping up in PFS play). Gentlemen that they are, members of the rules team take my questions and either request time to deliberate or can provide a good ruling in short order. When it comes to PFS questions, I may be able to give an answer without even those steps. In fact, many of my breaks at work involve scanning the PFS messageboard, spotting a recent, straightforward, and polite inquiry, and providing a quick response.
If the question is unclear or involves lots of questions in one, it's now beyond what I can do quickly, and responding in a meaningful way** would cut into the time I need to be developing new scenarios, sanctioning new material, or planning out the rest of the season. If the inquiry is snarky or rude, it tends to create a big argument that grows faster than I can read and respond. If it's also a complicated issue that requires I write a long response or do a lot of hard thinking, then chances are the argument has shifted by the time I get around to actually posting anything meaningful. In fact, in some cases I find I'm no longer answering the inquiry; I'm having to defend myself and my actions to a crowd of incensed forum-goers. That's a very unfortunate position to be pushed into.
I think your original question in this thread worked well, and it hit all three of the positive qualities that I mentioned above. I believe I answered it satisfactorily, and I was happy to help out even though I had left work a few hours before. The more you can model future inquiries off of that model--perhaps replacing the word"badly" in the title with "unclear"--the better everyone's forum experience will be.
|
|
In the case of an unclear mechanic or something that clearly wrong, it's up to the GM to make the best call he can. When these sorts of situations come up I always offer the player in question the option to take a different trait/feat/spell/whatever if they disagree with my ruling on a matter. I find this kind of compromise covers 99% of these sorts of situations pretty well.
Of course there's always going to be the player that insists that without option X, Y, and Z, their character is completely ruined but those sorts of situations are the exception to the exception.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Myself, if i know their is table varience on something I generally avoid it like the plague.Same, and that is how I mostly advice others.
I also avoid things with variance. Overrun is a prime example, it is ruled differently in practically every game I've played in a 9th level PFS character.
Still confused why ice tomb was marked as answered in errata/FAQ back in 2011 and 2012...but no FAQ or errata was ever released...
Many old threads were when there wasn't a "Question Unclear" button. So when unclear, they would get tagged "Answered in FAQ" instead.
I believe another thread you started recently might have benefited from a less confrontational original post.
It is embarrassing and frustrating when this happens (and it has happened to me.) It is all to easy to imagine what is in the mind of others based on behavior. Question, try to avoid imagining the thoughts of others.
I've personally seen SKR, Jason, John and Mike answer a great many questions. They have answered some of mine. They don't answer every one of mine or every question asked. But they likely don't have 80 hours a week to dedicated to that task.
|
So, use that info to upgrade the stats for whatever the "default" Skeleton/Zombie is.
This is where we hit the problem. The class ability refers to two templates, rather than the default base creature, or whether this base creature can be changed.
I do appreciate the effort you took to help me out though :)
|
|
So, use that info to upgrade the stats for whatever the "default" Skeleton/Zombie is.This is where we hit the problem. The class ability refers to two templates, rather than the default base creature, or whether this base creature can be changed.
I do appreciate the effort you took to help me out though :)
Just because d20pfsrd helpfully links you to the templates doesn't mean the initial ability intended that. The ability doesn't mention the word "template" anywhere - it's more than reasonable to assume that it meant the base creature, rather than a template. Just look in the Bestiary for the creature of the relevant name, and update its Hit Dice appropriately.
Hope that helps!
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Pathfinder Design Team just ruled on the Ice Tomb hex:
Witch, Ice Tomb Hex: What is the range of this hex? Can it affect objects? Does the target need to drink? Can it affect a cold-immune creature? If the target succeeds at its save, is it still imprisoned? How long does it last?
Like most major hexes, the range is 60 feet.
In the second printing of Ultimate Magic, the text says, "A storm of ice and freezing wind envelops the creature...," so it only affects creatures, not objects.
The target doesn't need to eat, breathe, or drink.
The general assumption for effects is if the creature negates the damage from the effect, the creature isn't subject to additional effects from that attack (such as DR negating the damage from a poisoned weapon, which means the creature isn't subject to the poison). Therefore, a cold-immune creature takes no damage from the hex and can't be imprisoned by it.
A target that succeeds at its save takes half damage and is not imprisoned.
Under temperate conditions, the ice lasts 1 minute per witch level. In tropical environments it might only last half as long. In cold environments where ice and snow persist without melting, it might last indefinitely.
Future printings of Ultimate Magic will incorporate these clarifications.
I wish that Paizo could monetize time spent fixing old content. But most people wouldn't buy new printings of books they already have (I would, but I accept that I'm unusual) so that's unfortunately not practical. There will always be dozens of small rules questions / errors / unclear writing for the products; especially for non-core books.
Given that, I think that John's suggestion is the only practical way to handle the majority of such questions. (For example, I have a First Worlder Summoner signed up for a PbP event game. I posted what I understand about the RAW of their Summon Nature's Ally class feature so that the GM and I could be on the same page. Alice wasn't aware of it, now she is, and we're good to go.) I also try to avoid characters that will have table variation, but it's inevitable. It's an incredibly large ruleset, with thousands of possible components interacting. Even if everything were written perfectly, there'd be room for interpretation of those interactions. Avoid the stuff that you as a player think is too open for interpretation (what exactly Boar Style does, for example) and just talk to your GMs about the rest.
(I also wish that we could tag other users so I could mark Nefreet as "not a RAWbot")
|
Venture-Agent, Australia—QLD
|
the other thing is peoples interpretations of raw, I remember the other night I had 4 people bickering over how Subdural damage happened (And whether once you loss the HP in subdural if the excess became "rea" damage)
Out came 4 rule books, and low and behold, people came up with 2 very distinct answers from the same paragraph of text...the GM solved it by the catch phrase "He's not dead jim"