|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
A recently published (February 2015) Paizo book, called Pathfinder Strategy Guide has specifically written and illustrated rules on page 128 regarding threatened areas and attacks of opportunity with a reach weapon.
These written and illustrated rules conflict with the FAQ entry regarding threatened areas and attacks of opportunity with a reach weapon. The FAQ was meant to address some questions about the Pathfinder Rules Reference Cards.
The FAQ entry was added in December of 2014. However, the Pathfinder Strategy Guide was published in February of 2015, which is more recent than the FAQ.
This seems to be an explicit contradiction in two official Paizo documents. The Pathfinder Strategy Guide is the most recent. If the Pathfinder Strategy Guide treatment of reach is to be considered the official stance on reach and threatened areas, the FAQ must be updated to maintain consistency and clarity of Paizo resources. If it does not, and the current FAQ entry reflects the official stance on reach and threatened areas, the FAQ must be updated to address and clarify this contradiction (as well as updating any further printings of said book).
The FAQ entry was meant to clarify the cards, but now we have a different, more recent, publication from Paizo which contradicts the cards as well as the current FAQ entry on reach and threatened areas.
Please click FAQ on this post to get this contradiction addressed in the FAQ. I don't have any particular opinion on which is to be used, but think there should be clarity in this case. This case is extra confusing because we have an older published FAQ decision in contradiction to a newer published Paizo book. This is not a thread to debate which is preferential. This is to address a contradiction in official stances which I do not currently see specifically addressed in the FAQ.
Thanks, and happy rolling.
The FAQ still stands, this was even brought up before and they mentioned that it was too late to fix the book.
Chess Pwn wrote: The FAQ still stands, this was even brought up before and they mentioned that it was too late to fix the book. Where in the FAQ is this clarified? That is my concern. The FAQ entry was published BEFORE the new book. Thus it brings the existing FAQ into question. Because the FAQ has been changed before to overturn an existing FAQ interpretation, and may very likely change again. This is a directly contradictory recent publication made after the FAQ entry. Thus is my question and request for the FAQ to address it.
The book had gone to printing already when the FAQ was made, so they couldn't change the book. I can't remember which thread it was in, but they commented that the FAQ is the correct answer.
Chess Pwn wrote: The book had gone to printing already when the FAQ was made, so they couldn't change the book. I can't remember which thread it was in, but they commented that the FAQ is the correct answer. It would be nice if the FAQ, which is official, could reflect this. As it stands, the FAQ does not acknowledge this discrepancy, and a thread does not suffice as official (especially when it's a thread that can't be found), nor does it serve as a replacement for the FAQ. Else, why even have the FAQ?
Hence, the purpose of this thread for FAQ request.
If you agree that the FAQ does not properly address this inconsistency, please click FAQ on my OP.
The FAQs are official, unless they change it, FAQs beat anything. So they don't need to change a FAQ because the FAQ already has the correct answer. FAQs don't care what other things say, because they are the rule. You're likelyhood of getting a FAQ for this is super super low, because you asking them to change the current FAQ to say, "Yes this FAQ is still correct" which I don't see them doing, nor you getting much FAQ support to even show up in their list.
But good luck.
Issue is resolved on Mark Seifter's post in the Strategy Guide's discussion thread.
You know what else is official? A Paizo publication. Specifically one which covers rules. Which this named publication does, and is more recent than the relevant FAQ entry.
The FAQ entry specifically addresses the Pathfinder Rules Reference Cards in relation to "hearing something somewhere online". It does not at all reference this more recent publication. This could be confusing.
I think that the FAQ should be updated to reflect the new and more recent publication which currently stands in opposition. So, yes, they should say that the FAQ is still correct. Or say that the new publication is correct. Because it's unclear. That is the purpose of issuing a FAQ entry.
Nothing you have said has dismissed any of my points or concerns regarding this. It is still a contradiction in official documentation which has not been addressed, and one of those publications is more recent than the other.
This should be addressed in the FAQ.
kinevon wrote: Issue is resolved on Mark Seifter's post in the Strategy Guide's discussion thread. That's great! However it's not an official ruling or clarification. Which is kind of the point of a FAQ entry. This is even more reason for this to be of relevance to the FAQ.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I highly doubt the team is going to get together to alter an FAQ just to say "Yes this FAQ is still correct". They have more important things to do.
Nigrescence wrote: Where in the FAQ is this clarified? It doesn't need to clarify, as they remove FAQ that are no longer applicable. The fact they haven't removed it means it is still applicable.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Nigrescence wrote: You know what else is official? A Paizo publication. Specifically one which covers rules. Which this named publication does, and is more recent than the relevant FAQ entry. The only time official truly matters is during sanctioned play, where RAW is law. In PFS, FAQ entries supercede everything else. The designers jobs don't involve making sure every little detail of everything printed is in line with everything else.
The legal principle of lex posterior does not require you to disregard the lead time of printing and focus solely on publication date.
Nigrescence wrote: You know what else is official? A Paizo publication. Specifically one which covers rules. Which this named publication does, and is more recent than the relevant FAQ entry.
The FAQ entry specifically addresses the Pathfinder Rules Reference Cards in relation to "hearing something somewhere online". It does not at all reference this more recent publication. This could be confusing.
I think that the FAQ should be updated to reflect the new and more recent publication which currently stands in opposition. So, yes, they should say that the FAQ is still correct. Or say that the new publication is correct. Because it's unclear. That is the purpose of issuing a FAQ entry.
Nothing you have said has dismissed any of my points or concerns regarding this. It is still a contradiction in official documentation which has not been addressed, and one of those publications is more recent than the other.
This should be addressed in the FAQ.
No, you should address it by looking at the printing date on the book, which is BEFORE the FAQ, not the date it was released for sale, which was delayed by many months, due to various issues.
Not published in February 2015, but printed in December 2014, as a replacement printing for a bad print run earlier that year, free if no changes were made to it.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
