Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Actually, the PRD *is* a legal reference. (In fact it is the only reference a GM is required to have.)
As a player, you can't use stuff outside the core book unless you have the book it came from. But as a GM all rules used in a given scenario are either printed in the scenario, or available on the PRD. In fact, you are even allowed to draw NPCs from the PRD in certain circumstances. (Per Mike Brock, if PCs break the law blatantly and repeatedly, the GM is permitted to use the City Guard NPCs from the PRD to respond.)
|
A few answers:
The PRD is NOT a legal reference for PFS. It is there as a convenient way to get the Pathfinder rules "out there", but the Organized Play Campaign specifies what its rules are in the 50-page Guide to Organized Play.
In the Guide it discusses FAQs and clarifications. It uses the term "Campaign Leadership" - Mike Brock is the Campaign Coordinator, and John Compton does (most of?) the development for PFS. SKR worked on many of the rules books, but his word is not official for PFS (although obviously it carries weight. But in the few instances where it completes reverses a written rule, the rule stands unless Mike or John say otherwise.)
This. Some of this type of stuff came up during a 7-11 scenario I was running this weekend. I forget the particular spell or w/e it was. However, I think I allowed the use of a Pathfinder developer's board post to sway me. Not doing this anymore. It's going to be adjucated as per the book rules, FAQ's, and Mike and/or John posts. This isn't as good to me as a rapidly updated FAQ would be, but it's what I'm going to roll with. If there's a case where there's a dispute and it's not clarified in the FAQ or in a post by M. Brock or J. Compton, then I, as adjudicator (table GM) will decide.
|
|
Actually, the PRD *is* a legal reference. (In fact it is the only reference a GM is required to have.)
As a player, you can't use stuff outside the core book unless you have the book it came from. But as a GM all rules used in a given scenario are either printed in the scenario, or available on the PRD. In fact, you are even allowed to draw NPCs from the PRD in certain circumstances. (Per Mike Brock, if PCs break the law blatantly and repeatedly, the GM is permitted to use the City Guard NPCs from the PRD to respond.)
The point is, that the PRD is not a legal reference for players. So a player using the PRD to add to their argument is not going to work.
|
Most of those aren't the same thing though.Exactly. Entirely different classes/abilities with the same name. "Used twice without intending to be an errata".
Bane the inquisitor ability and Bane the weapon ability are easily distinguished. The archetypes and the hybrid classes are the same story.I was actually referring to Bane, the weapon enchantment, and Bane, the spell.
No, as in "Most of those aren't the same thing as what I'm referring to". You're talking about double name use of different things, such as, for example, weapon enchantments and spells.
I'm talking about double name use of 2 different weapon enchantments (or 2 different spells, etc).
If you have a "Dueling Greatsword", someone might not know which one that is; if you have a "Bane Greatsword", everybody knows what it is, even though a Bane inquisitor ability also exists.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So you want us to FAQ your post? Or are you planning to message Mike or someone from Paizo directly?Got page-bottom'd, so re-posting.
So could we get either a PFS FAQ, or a note in Additional Resources, clarifying how brass knuckles (and presumably other glove-type weapons) are supposed to work?
Uh, hadn't thought that far ahead. I guess I was thinking maybe they were already following the thread? Clicking the FAQ button might not be a bad idea.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
The point is, that the PRD is not a legal reference for players. So a player using the PRD to add to their argument is not going to work.Actually, the PRD *is* a legal reference. (In fact it is the only reference a GM is required to have.)
As a player, you can't use stuff outside the core book unless you have the book it came from. But as a GM all rules used in a given scenario are either printed in the scenario, or available on the PRD. In fact, you are even allowed to draw NPCs from the PRD in certain circumstances. (Per Mike Brock, if PCs break the law blatantly and repeatedly, the GM is permitted to use the City Guard NPCs from the PRD to respond.)
Okay, I just didn't want to start dealing with players telling me that my NPCs were being run wrong because their books contradict the PRD, and the PRD isn't "official"
That said, Ultimate Combat Musket Masters just got stealth errataed in the reprint, and the PRD apparently hasn't been updated, acording to anouther thread on here, so I am somewhat skeptical of the prd too...
|
I'm happy about the stealth errata. It's obscurity lines up perfectly with the question I was trying to get FAQ'd, so I can't help but think it influenced someone on the Design Team to raise a finger.
Seriously? Over a hundred comments and a pending FAQ over an !?
|
Problem stems from unarmed strike meaning 2 different things. (1) is an unarmed strike as per combat rules and the other use (2) is a monk's unarmed strike.
The most recent source of brass knuckles removed the line of it dealing a monk's unarmed strike(2).
However some people still mistake the "allow you to deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike(1)" line as meaning a monk's unarmed strike(2).
Then there is some people who knows brass knuckles means normal unarmed strikes(1), but INSIST it means a monk's unarmed strikes(2) for various reasons.
A few answers:
The PRD is NOT a legal reference for PFS. It is there as a convenient way to get the Pathfinder rules "out there", but the Organized Play Campaign specifies what its rules are in the 50-page Guide to Organized Play.
In the Guide it discusses FAQs and clarifications. It uses the term "Campaign Leadership" - Mike Brock is the Campaign Coordinator, and John Compton does (most of?) the development for PFS. SKR worked on many of the rules books, but his word is not official for PFS (although obviously it carries weight. But in the few instances where it completes reverses a written rule, the rule stands unless Mike or John say otherwise.)
Actually the Pathfinder rules are what PFS goes by barring an exception from PFS leadership. That means you dont get to pick and choose which rules you want to follow even if they don't make sense. As a 4 star GM you should know this.
With that said the latest version of the brass knuckles is the latest rules. SKR's old post was not a rules change, but a clarification.
edit: If you are only speaking of the PRD then I retract my statement, but those rules are also normally in the latest printing of any book.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'd like to see, is when one book updates another book, that the PRD actually reference this.
For example, if I pull up only the APG on the PRD, and look at Brass Knuckles, it will actually shunt me over to the Ultimate Equipment portion of the PRD.
Same for Masterwork Tools from the Core Rulebook being shunted to Ultimate Equipment.
What I'd like to see, is when one book updates another book, that the PRD actually reference this.
For example, if I pull up only the APG on the PRD, and look at Brass Knuckles, it will actually shunt me over to the Ultimate Equipment portion of the PRD.
Same for Masterwork Tools from the Core Rulebook being shunted to Ultimate Equipment.
Or even just a note along the lines of, "this reference document reflects the current in- print state of this book, however since this book went to press this rule has been superseded by a newer version. -=Relevant Link=- "
That would be a great asset.
What I'd like to see, is when one book updates another book, that the PRD actually reference this.
For example, if I pull up only the APG on the PRD, and look at Brass Knuckles, it will actually shunt me over to the Ultimate Equipment portion of the PRD.
Same for Masterwork Tools from the Core Rulebook being shunted to Ultimate Equipment.
Or even just a note along the lines of, "this reference document reflects the current in- print state of this book, however since this book went to press this rule has been superseded by a newer version. -=Relevant Link=- "
That would be a great asset.
I'd actually prefer it were like that - make it explicitly clear to anyone reading that the rule has been superseded.
I also think this is the one case a printout from the PRD should be allowed as a legal player resource - if they own the book and are bringing the PRD printout of a rule as well as the book in order to have the updated rules with them (especially if it hasn't received official errata yet).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One problem with that, though, would be when something is reprinted in a book that won't ever find itself on the PRD, like Inner Sea Gods, where quite a few things got updates. Or things that were originally printed in one book that's not on the PRD and then reprinted in another book that's not on the PRD.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I posted this in the other thread that Jiggy linked but I figured I should copy/paste over to here since this thread is more meant for it:
Please keep in mind that this post isn't in regards to the Brass Knuckle thing specifically, but rulings in general. I apologize for the long post but I feel it is necessary to fully flesh out my feelings on this matter.
No, and this is one of the points I want to make. Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
This serves a couple of purposes.
First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.
Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.
The intention of that post is rather clear. It's to allow for dialogue between developers and customers in an open and constructive manner as much as possible. If any postings such as those pointed out by Stephen (all design/dev team posts) start being taken as rules, then that foundation begins to erode because even if it may not apply to a moment, it paints the background that the team should not be questioned in regards to opinions and/or decisions made on this board.
After all, in the ensuing discussion during and afterwards, the team may actually decide to change their minds and go with something different than what they said their plan is in a forum post. If this were to happen there would be people using a rule (albeit until the errata/FAQ actually happens) where people are using the wrong rule. Then we have another category of people who see the post about "the plan" but don't actually have that source material. They would have no way of knowing that the change actually didn't happen and would start using a rule that never actually existed. This can also be applied to people who have the material but didn't look in the reprinted source to check if the change actually went through because they assumed the dev post was as good as law.
Don't get me wrong, I think people should absolutely place a lot of weight behind posts made by who are (or used to be part of) the team. I think it's phenomenal that players and devs have this much interaction and any reasonable player would see a post made by one of these people and go "I should really think about this".
There is an important question here. It isn't really about people trying to delay having to follow rules because their character is (in the words of Chester Cheeto) dangerously cheesy in PFS, or any rulings how specific rules work. It is "what is reasonable and not reasonable for the average player to keep track of, and what is reasonable for a consumer of a product to assume upon purchasing that product"? I personally find it wholly unreasonable/unrealistic to expect a player to know about a post in some random thread from a team member that hasn't been given an official errata or FAQ. I hate to use the "pull on their heartstrings" card, but there is a very real 13 year old who spent a good portion of their hard-saved allowance money on a product that had to be told that their money might not have given them what they expected. All because people use obscure points buried in the internet that hasn't even been given official acknowledgment in a setting specifically made to be as standardized as possible.
However, it is not unreasonable for someone to know the contents of their book or at least not throw a fit if shown the (officially changed) product is a little out of date and that it's been put in a very obvious place to see. If it is both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect someone to know the rule, then there is absolutely no reason to rule it as such in PFS. If there hasn't been an official FAQ or errata made about the ruling then PFS GMs shouldn't enforce the rule in a "used to work this way, now it doesn't" scenario. A person buys a product with the expectation that it is correct with the exception of changes glaringly made through an official channel. Dev team posts on forums aren't (as given by the above quote if read in a fittingly-for-the-subject-matter RAW manner) and shouldn't be (reasons given throughout this post) considered official rulings until given through a true official channel in the form of an errata or officially published FAQ.
This also means, and I loathe to put more on the shoulders of the team at Paizo, that they have to keep very careful track of what things were meant to be official FAQs and what were meant as general conversation when said. And if they were meant to be FAQ/errata they need to be added as soon as possible because if general posts are not law then hot-fixes need to be put in place immediately for all to see.
Best Regards,
Aziraya
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My vote is still to limit table variation, as to keep various PC builds from being neutered by GM fiat from table to table. This is the single quickest way I've seen to piss off players.
At Origins, I ran a table that included a fighter who had greater trip. He tripped everything, and pretty much neutered every encounter. It was frustrating, to be sure, but that's his build and it was legal.
When the game was over, he thanked me for being fair because some GMs have a problem with what his character does. I just said, "that's my job." It's not the GM vs Players, and it's not my job to punish people for playing legal builds, even if it makes the encounters pointless.
I do think part of the problem is that there are separate PRDs for each major book.
A consolidated rules PRD would be nice, updated as new books come out.
That said, there has been a "you must use the latest printed version of the rules" clause in EVERY one of the dozens of living campaigns I've ever heard of, from the grandaddy of them all Living City back in the late 80s to today. So I'm not sure why this is surprising.
-j
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My vote is still to limit table variation, as to keep various PC builds from being neutered by GM fiat from table to table. This is the single quickest way I've seen to piss off players.At Origins, I ran a table that included a fighter who had greater trip. He tripped everything, and pretty much neutered every encounter. It was frustrating, to be sure, but that's his build and it was legal.
When the game was over, he thanked me for being fair because some GMs have a problem with what his character does. I just said, "that's my job." It's not the GM vs Players, and it's not my job to punish people for playing legal builds, even if it makes the encounters pointless.
So the player knows that GMs have a problem with his character, and you yourself were frustrated by it. Yet he plays the character anyway.
Seems like 'jerk' behaviour.
Shouldn't the player show some responsibility and consider how the GM feels about this?
I once played a scenario where damn near every encounter centered around flying enemies. That PC would have been equivalent to a Warrior NPC in that scenario. Had that been the story told, would you still be calling him a jerk?
|
|
It is not the player's responsibility to softball NPCs. Especially in seasons 4 and 5 when some encounters begin DIRECTLY after another. Again, as I pointed out, the trip scheme has quite a few weaknesses. Playing a trip build is NOT being a jerk. In general, the NPCs are SUPPOSED to lose. Some days as GM you get to put the fear into the PCs, and some days you just get owned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way I see it, PFS has rules about running the module as written for a reason.
Living with those rules is part of being a PFS GM.
I'm somewhat sympathetic for the position of having a table with a mix of playstyles, but again - living with the fact you're going to mix with players of differing styles is part of being a PFS player.
PFS isn't for everyone. I'll gladly admit that it isn't something I'd want to participate in full-time (but hey, if there's ever a game in my area I can get to I could well be interested in a one-off game.)
I get that PFS rules mean that some people can't enjoy the game they way they'd like to. The way around that is to not play PFS. If it affects enough people, maybe those rules will change. If it doesn't, then why change them?
There's a fine balance between being inclusive and exclusive. Sometimes you end up excluding some people because of the inclusiveness. I think PFS has that balance dead on. It doesn't *have* to satisfy everyone, it only has to satisfy the people it's designed to satisfy. Making changes intended to satisfy more people could well result in it satisfying less people, instead.
I'm not afraid to admit "PFS just isn't for me." I can guarantee the changes needed to make me happy would make many others unhappy. Sometimes we have to step away and let other people enjoy the thing they enjoy, rather than trying to change it.
I'm not afraid to admit "PFS just isn't for me." I can guarantee the changes needed to make me happy would make many others unhappy.And I'm not afraid to tell people "Maybe PFS just isn't for you". :) Come to PaizoCon, I'll run a one-off for ya.
I can't this year, but it's certainly something I'd love to do in the future :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I find it awkward when a player can wreck a DM's time be trashing the encounters. If I have a player whoop the adventure I get excited and happy form them. That is as long as they let the other player enjoy the scenario as well.
Obnoxious attitude and behavior(out of game) is what bothers me as a DM.
As a side note I like trip builds since they are huge debuffers. Usually this helps the team out more. If I had a trip build putting the scenario on easy mode hogging the fights, I would make him take his AoOs last so they have a chance to help in combat. I purposely build my tripped/grappler with no str so I would NEED my teammates to kill the enemies I debuff to emphasis this.
I am very vicarious when I DM.