First of all, let me state that if you are playing Pathfinder with your buddies, you are free to apply or not apply any rules that you want, regardless of errata or FAQs. This is for the people who care about errata, that is, for people who would be reading the PFS clarifications in the first place.
That being said, it is disingenuous to consider that this is effective errata. This is evidenced in the post and the document with little room for doubt.
There are several notes on that document that make changes intended for PFS only. Gunsmithing changes for example are only supposed to function in PFS, as there is no reason why this should apply on home games. Other examples are the Ustalavic Noble trait (no additional gold is a PFS thing) or the Tattooed Sorcerer casting restriction (no downtime play in PFS).
These changes are, of course, meant for PFS and nothing but PFS.
However, several changes were not intended to apply to PFS rules exclusively.
For example, notice the Spellscar Drifter fix (it couldn't otherwise use Challenge with firearm attacks, the main mechanic of it), the nerf to Boots of the Earth (these would otherwise grant UNLIMITED Fast Healing 1), Glorious Heat (this would otherwise grant UNLIMITED healing, and quite a lot of it, by spamming spark).
The Glorious Heat change is particularly relevant. Designers have said they wanted it changed but couldn't due to policy Designers have said they didn't want it to work this way.
This is 100% vital to my conclusion. Let's read the text:
The Clarifications Document principally addresses rules material that appears in softcover sources such as the Pathfinder Campaign Setting and Pathfinder Player Companion lines, rather than the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game hardcover books.
This is clearly related to Paizo's errata policy: they only release errata when they reprint a book, and they do not reprint Player Companion/Campaign Setting books.
The only exception has been Adventurer's Armory. This is an important precedent.
They have released very few FAQs on Player Companion/Campaign Setting books as well. This is because of their publication policy. Paizo uses contractors to release these books, so because they are not in-house books, they cannot modify their contents easily.
If you want to avoid applying these changes on your home games, suit yourself. You are free to do that.
But if you are applying errata at all, then, RAI: apply the non-PFS changes. Or tell me one compelling reason why Paizo would hate the Spellscar Drifter from working on every other game that wasn't PFS.
What?
Talking about this.
I was happy the Spellscar Drifter got to use challenge damage on firearms, and Chess Pwn said "oh, but that's only for PFS". It puzzled me to no end someone would think these were not intended as effective errata for things Paizo cannot actually errata.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think RAI really applies to whether or not to apply errata. There are not rules for these sort of things in homegames.
Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".
Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".
Sure, I'm just being a bit of an ass anyways :)
That being said, I agree with you and think that it is very logical for a game that brings FAQs/erratas into their game to follow suit with PFS clarifications. But that might not work for everyone's game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless Paizo says that they are effective Errata or intended to work like Errata for things Paizo doesn't actually errata then they aren't. If your GM is willing to copy a PFS houserule, awesome. But if they don't, they aren't making any house rules, they just aren't using the PFS houserule.
The PFS staff that made that document are saying that the stuff they intend to put into the document are Contentious or unclear, aka things that you'd ask your GM about, AND things that aren't likely to be cleared up by Paizo, aka the RPG line, because something Paizo could clarify are things they'll leave for Paizo to potentially clarify. But to help the game work for it's players it's making GM houserules on some things.
But that doesn't explain the notes on Sunlit Strike for example. Bypassing policy does.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I welcome the document, and I'm happy to see things like the Spellscar drifter has been adressed. That said, I'll use some of the updates but certainly not all of them. There are things in the game that work well for me but for whatever reason don't mesh with PFS.
As an example, I'm perfectly fine with Boots of the Earth as written and see no reason to use the heavily nerfed version. I also like to think my players are mature enough to handle the vivisectionist archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes it does. It's a GM houserule that they are making as the GM of PFS. It's not something in the RPG line, so it's more likely to be looked at and addressed in this document than something from the RPG line. And it's something that was unclear. "Sunlight isn't a spell, so how do I qualify for this feat?" PFS decided to substitute Daylight instead of waiting for Paizo to publish the sunlight spell to make it possible to qualify for the feat.
Houserules aren't bad, and lots of them make sense or are needed (mounted combat) to have parts function. this document is PFS's houserules.
I'm of the opinion that PFS rules are house-rules for PFS. Nothing more or less. People are of course allowed to adopt any house-rules they wish for their own games including those that PFS use. This, however, has nothing to do with the game as a whole or what the official rules are.
I don't disagree that the current Paizo errata policy sucks, but that doesn't effect the legality of PFS house-rules. Additionally, we've often seen where author and PDT intent don't match, so bringing up author posts is meaningless for even figuring out the PDT's intent.
Take, for instance, Glorious Heat. They made a BIG deal about it and how unbalanced it was. Said it'd be fixed. Then what did they do? Reprint it exactly as it was. If they'd really have wanted it fixed, and can only fix things on reprinting, that was the time to do it. By not doing so, that's as good as saying it was fine as is... :P
Note that the quotes on Glorious Heat from the Designers was made in 2011 and the feat was reprinted in Inner Sea's gods pg# 212 unaltered in 2014. As such, no matter how much you dislike the errata policy, it has NO bearing on Glorious Heat as they had the opportunity to 'fix' it within it's limitations and didn't...
So, since I'm unaware of where to look, what did they do to the boots of the earth?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are clearly house rules for PFS. These generally are changes made for the necessities of a network campaign.
There is also general errata that's intended to fix rules for general use. They are two distinct and overlapping groups.
So, since I'm unaware of where to look, what did they do to the boots of the earth?
"boots of the earth can be activated once per day." Lame...
EDIT: Blog
Note that the quotes on Glorious Heat from the Designers was made in 2011 and the feat was reprinted in Inner Sea's gods pg# 212 unaltered in 2014. As such, no matter how much you dislike the errata policy, it has NO bearing on Glorious Heat as they had the opportunity to 'fix' it within it's limitations and didn't...
Which leads me to believe that modifying previously released content is not as easy as it looks.
yes it does. It's a GM houserule that they are making as the GM of PFS. It's not something in the RPG line, so it's more likely to be looked at and addressed in this document than something from the RPG line. And it's something that was unclear. "Sunlight isn't a spell, so how do I qualify for this feat?" PFS decided to substitute Daylight instead of waiting for Paizo to publish the sunlight spell to make it possible to qualify for the feat.
Houserules aren't bad, and lots of them make sense or are needed (mounted combat) to have parts function. this document is PFS's houserules.
I think that the ontological difference between "official houserule" and "errata" is nil to slim.
I'm not saying Gunsmithing shouldn't let you craft, but I do think the Sunlit Strike thing is as good as official errata as we'll get.
Note that the quotes on Glorious Heat from the Designers was made in 2011 and the feat was reprinted in Inner Sea's gods pg# 212 unaltered in 2014. As such, no matter how much you dislike the errata policy, it has NO bearing on Glorious Heat as they had the opportunity to 'fix' it within it's limitations and didn't...Which leads me to believe that modifying previously released content is not as easy as it looks.
They are 100% unable to edit a brand new book to alter/fix a 3 year problem? I refuse to accept that they where unable to alter/fix the feat because it was too tough to do...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".
That is not how that works.
Many times things are changed for PFS because of the nature of PFS. As an example banning crafting feats. A change in PFS does not equate to "RAI for non-PFS play".
Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".That is not how that works.
Many times things are changed for PFS because of the nature of PFS. As an example banning crafting feats. A change in PFS does not equate to "RAI for non-PFS play".
Agreed. But "hey, here's Basic Phytokinesis for Wood Kineticists, which we totally failed to add" is not something that helps PFS function well as a network, but an outright addition/modification of a feature that SHOULD have been there in the first place.
I welcome the document, and I'm happy to see things like the Spellscar drifter has been adressed. That said, I'll use some of the updates but certainly not all of them. There are things in the game that work well for me but for whatever reason don't mesh with PFS.
As an example, I'm perfectly fine with Boots of the Earth as written and see no reason to use the heavily nerfed version. I also like to think my players are mature enough to handle the vivisectionist archetype.
Pretty much. Much like any errata, update, or rule itself I'll use what seems good for my game and ignore the rest. It makes for interesting banter on the boards what got changed, tho.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. But "hey, here's Basic Phytokinesis for Wood Kineticists, which we totally failed to add" is not something that helps PFS function well as a network, but an outright addition/modification of a feature that SHOULD have been there in the first place.Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".That is not how that works.
Many times things are changed for PFS because of the nature of PFS. As an example banning crafting feats. A change in PFS does not equate to "RAI for non-PFS play".
The PFS document currently is no more "official" than a designer post on the boards. PFS saying what they are going to use for Wood Kineticists basic Phytokinesis is PFS's houserule. It does let it function better to avoid Table Variation of what Basic Phytokinesis does.
Agreed. But "hey, here's Basic Phytokinesis for Wood Kineticists, which we totally failed to add" is not something that helps PFS function well as a network, but an outright addition/modification of a feature that SHOULD have been there in the first place.Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".That is not how that works.
Many times things are changed for PFS because of the nature of PFS. As an example banning crafting feats. A change in PFS does not equate to "RAI for non-PFS play".
There may be things in PFS that would be better in the core rules, but way I took your statement was that any PFS errata is also intended to be official RAI.
Now if you are saying some things that are changed in PFS may help a home GM balance his game I agree.
Agreed. But "hey, here's Basic Phytokinesis for Wood Kineticists, which we totally failed to add" is not something that helps PFS function well as a network, but an outright addition/modification of a feature that SHOULD have been there in the first place.Oh, I meant it in a tongue-and-cheek way saying that "if you care about errata, you should also care about this PFS clarifications even if they are not actually errata because Paizo sort of intended them as such".That is not how that works.
Many times things are changed for PFS because of the nature of PFS. As an example banning crafting feats. A change in PFS does not equate to "RAI for non-PFS play".There may be things in PFS that would be better in the core rules, but way I took your statement was that any PFS errata is also intended to be official RAI.
Now if you are saying some things that are changed in PFS may help a home GM balance his game I agree.
Yeah I was specifically addressing the balance and function errata included in the Clarifications Document.