|
Exactly as the title reads is what my question is. Items such as the Scabbard of Vigor appear in two different source materials. In the APG and UE. In the APG it is listed as a belt slot item but in the UE it is under the slotless magic items. Which is the correct one to use? What if I own the APG and not the UE? Am I disallowed to use the item then?
In the case of a feat I was thinking of Fencing Grace. Now I know it was faq'd I believe so that they read the same so it isn't an issue. But if owned ACO and not UI and the wording hadn't been faq'd for this resource which is the right one to use?
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In an ideal world, the Additional Resources page or the Campaign Clarifications document should be updated to reflect the appropriate version of the option. That's been done for some but not all, and it's a list we need to be keeping so that any inconsistencies can be cleared up.
|
|
This is a very good question, and one that hopefully we can get answered.
In the meantime, I'd go with whichever is most restrictive if you want to be safe
I assume the most recent printing is the correct one personally. So if you don't have the newest version its locked out until you fix the situation. I understand it is a mean way of looking at it, but I have always looked at rules in this light.
Is Jade Regent sanctioned?
|
|
Is Jade Regent sanctioned?
Pathfinder Adventure Path #49: "The Brinewall Legacy"
Equipment: dancing wasp
Pathfinder Adventure Path #50: "Night of Frozen Shadows"
Equipment: deadly kiss, earthfire shuriken, fugitive's grenade, shozoku of the night wind; Spells: aspect of the nightengale; Other: customized summon list on page 75
Pathfinder Adventure Path #51: "The Hungry Storm"
Equipment: claws of the ice bear, ghost mirror armor, map of the high ice, sashimono of comfort, terra-cotta talisman
Pathfinder Adventure Path #52: "Forest of Spirits"
Equipment: do-maru of broken flesh, flask of endless sake, jingasa of the fortunate soldier, kikuya's sensu
Pathfinder Adventure Path #53: "Tide of Honor"
Equipment: armor of the tireless warrior, daikyu of commanding presence, dragonmaw nunchaku, karyukai tea set, samisen of oracular vision; Other: Customized summon list on page 73; Spell: replenish ki
Pathfinder Adventure Path #54: "The Empty Throne"
Equipment: Ikarikurusai, the raging cyclone, Karusetsu, the cutting light, o-yoroi of imperial rule, Seishhinru, spirit elixir, Tsuruhashi, the silent crane
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting.
|
|
As I understand it, if you have 2 legal sources for an item that are different you can use either one. Just be clear which source you are using. (languages for a Nagaji is an immediate non-equipment example)
You must use the errata'd version of your source of course, but nothing requires you to use one source over another if both are legal.
|
|
As I understand it, if you have 2 legal sources for an item that are different you can use either one. Just be clear which source you are using. (languages for a Nagaji is an immediate non-equipment example)
You must use the errata'd version of your source of course, but nothing requires you to use one source over another if both are legal.
Doesn't this defeat the purpose of requiring a legal source? If it appears in two books and isn't written the same wouldn't that cause confusion? "That item doesn't have a slot...But my book says it doesn't!" "Nagaji don't know that language....my book says they don't."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it does cause confusion. As long as both sources are legal, then the player can pick which one they want to use. As long as they can back that up with their source material and the most recent copy of the additional resources doc.
However, what usually happens is that the additional resources document is updated to make one of those items illegal.
|
Yes it does cause confusion. As long as both sources are legal, then the player can pick which one they want to use. As long as they can back that up with their source material and the most recent copy of the additional resources doc.
However, what usually happens is that the additional resources document is updated to make one of those items illegal.
I thought what usually happens is that the old source is forgotten that it has a legal copy of that item in it and it remains that way for a long time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a player, I don't want to be compelled to purchase a new book, just because it contains an updated version of a legal option that my character has been using for years. It's bad PR and breeds resentment.
It also affects my back and my luggage allowance.
I know it doesn't work for everyone, but the pdf's really helped me with this. Now I just carry a core rule book. (I actually gave it away recently to a little girl who was playing and didn't have one.)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier in Jade Regent is the pre-errata version. I'm not allowed to use it even though its currently a legal source, right?
You're allowed to, currently. Just be warned that when they update the CC to say it works the same as the errata'd version or remove it from the legal sources you won't have such a nice resale policy.
|
|
Regardless, compelling people to purchase a new book, even a PDF, is horrible policy.I know it doesn't work for everyone, but the pdf's really helped me with this. Now I just carry a core rule book. (I actually gave it away recently to a little girl who was playing and didn't have one.)As a player, I don't want to be compelled to purchase a new book, just because it contains an updated version of a legal option that my character has been using for years. It's bad PR and breeds resentment.
It also affects my back and my luggage allowance.
You aren't compelled to buy an updated item.
Splat books don't get updates, so your version is a perfectly fine source, even if the item gets updated in another book. If you still want a Jingasa or another updated item and your source is the originally-worded splatbook, you may want to go online and print the newer wording from there, just so you have the current wording with you, but there will be no need to rebuy the book as it isn't updated.
As for the hardbound books, the ones that do get updates, just print out the changelog and stick the papers inside the front cover of the book. No repurchase required.
Also, if you have the PDF of the hardbound books, those DO get updated, and the new version is then put into your downloads for free. You don't have to rebuy it just cause it gets updated.
Hope that helps! :)
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I'm not happy with the changes either but come on, you know they wanted to change the items, its over. Sell it back.
Even asmodeus is giving THAT level of rules lawyering the spock eyebrow.
I have to agree. This will only be a short reprieve, folks. You might as well let that Jingasa go now.
Hmm
|
I feel like it be a little hypocritical if this entire time the errata was called a Pathfinder RPG change and PFS was accommodating it if we then had to ban an item from a different source just because it didn't receive errata. Isn't that a change the development team would take care of?
If the PFS team banned the item from that source it would be an acknowledgement that they are the ones influencing the errata and not the other way around. Otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to ban an item which has been unaltered for 4 years.
It is certainly something the team can do but at least be forward enough to admit who is the cause of all this errata if you do.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I feel like it be a little hypocritical if this entire time the errata was called a Pathfinder RPG change and PFS was accommodating it if we then had to ban an item from a different source just because it didn't receive errata. Isn't that a change the development team would take care of?
If the PFS team banned the item from that source it would be an acknowledgement that they are the ones influencing the errata and not the other way around. Otherwise they wouldn't have any reason to ban an item which has been unaltered for 4 years.
It is certainly something the team can do but at least be forward enough to admit who is the cause of all this errata if you do.
I'm pointing out this post from John Compton to the holdouts.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things like the Nagaji languages or Dhampir stat bonuses seem like they could easily be left with all variants being legal for play... effectively becoming different racial options.
Others, like the Jingasa, should probably be updated to the latest official version.
If a change wasn't made for 'balance' reasons then there is little incentive to over-turn existing character builds just for consistency... especially given all the flexibility and variation already offered by options to switch out racial abilities, archetypes, et cetera.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was unbalanced it would have been banned long ago. The errata was made and PFS was just conforming is what we were told. The fact that the other source is going to be removed just shows how thin that claim really was.
After reading John's, post it appears that they are going to update the Campaign Clarifications document to have changed items that also appear in other sources be in line with the UE errata.
So, if you own AP #52 you can still buy the Jingasa, and for the time being Jingasa's from AP#52 will still give a luck bonus until the next time John updates the Additional Resources and the Campaign Clarifications documents. When the CC document gets updated to bring the AP 52 Jingasa in line with the UE version, there will not be the same generous offer to resell AP 52 Jingasas at full value.
|
|
If it was unbalanced it would have been banned long ago. The errata was made and PFS was just conforming is what we were told. The fact that the other source is going to be removed just shows how thin that claim really was.After reading John's, post it appears that they are going to update the Campaign Clarifications document to have changed items that also appear in other sources be in line with the UE errata.
So, if you own AP #52 you can still buy the Jingasa, and for the time being Jingasa's from AP#52 will still give a luck bonus until the next time John updates the Additional Resources and the Campaign Clarifications documents. When the CC document gets updated to bring the AP 52 Jingasa in line with the UE version, there will not be the same generous offer to resell AP 52 Jingasas at full value.
Yes I realize this which is why I'm saying the claim that the changes are purely on the Paizo RPG side and not the PFS team is a bit silly. The PFS team would have no need to remove the other option from play unless they wanted to because it wouldn't conflict with the published material.
Edit: While we are on the topic a bit why is the current guide so incredibly restrictive when options are removed from play? The only features covered by the guide for an option being banned are feats and traits. What if a class is banned? Item? Spell? Everything else I could possibly have? I think it is a bit ridiculous how much worse this version of the guide is for players than previous versions in the errata section.
|
|
If it was unbalanced it would have been banned long ago. The errata was made and PFS was just conforming is what we were told. The fact that the other source is going to be removed just shows how thin that claim really was.After reading John's, post it appears that they are going to update the Campaign Clarifications document to have changed items that also appear in other sources be in line with the UE errata.
So, if you own AP #52 you can still buy the Jingasa, and for the time being Jingasa's from AP#52 will still give a luck bonus until the next time John updates the Additional Resources and the Campaign Clarifications documents. When the CC document gets updated to bring the AP 52 Jingasa in line with the UE version, there will not be the same generous offer to resell AP 52 Jingasas at full value.
Yes I realize this which is why I'm saying the claim that the changes are purely on the Paizo RPG side and not the PFS team is a bit silly. The PFS team would have no need to remove the other option from play unless they wanted to because it wouldn't conflict with the published material.
Edit: While we are on the topic a bit why is the current guide so incredibly restrictive when options are removed from play? The only features covered by the guide for an option being banned are feats and traits. What if a class is banned? Item? Spell? Everything else I could possibly have? I think it is a bit ridiculous how much worse this version of the guide is for players than previous versions in the errata section.
They aren't removing anything, they are bringing the AP 52 Jingasa in line with that of the errata. Doing so will eliminate confusion further down the line and save having to answer when people six months from now have to ask which is the correct version. When the rules guys issue errata they probably check in with the PFS team and listen to any input, but in the end they are the ones that make the changes.
|
|
Why can't they both be the correct version? It wouldn't be the first time different features with the same name do different things. It doesn't sound like the actual adventure path is going to be errataed so much as it is just going to be dictated that it has a different text than it actually does. Which would mean that the PF RPG team wouldn't be in control of this change at all.
|
|
Why can't they both be the correct version? It wouldn't be the first time different features with the same name do different things. It doesn't sound like the actual adventure path is going to be errataed so much as it is just going to be dictated that it has a different text than it actually does. Which would mean that the PF RPG team wouldn't be in control of this change at all.
I understand you don't feel the change is necessary, and I'm sorry you were affected. If the rules team felt the item needed to be changed, and PFS Leadership agreed with them, then why would they let a functionally identical item remain legal for play? I'm going to bow out of the conversation at this point, sorry again if you had PC's affected.
|
|
Why can't they both be the correct version? It wouldn't be the first time different features with the same name do different things. It doesn't sound like the actual adventure path is going to be errataed so much as it is just going to be dictated that it has a different text than it actually does. Which would mean that the PF RPG team wouldn't be in control of this change at all.I understand you don't feel the change is necessary, and I'm sorry you were affected. If the rules team felt the item needed to be changed, and PFS Leadership agreed with them, then why would they let a functionally identical item remain legal for play? I'm going to bow out of the conversation at this point, sorry again if you had PC's affected.
I wasn't affected this time. I've always been against errata, bannings, and PFS house rules that aren't absolutely necessary because I believe in the ability of players to create tables they think will be fun and stop playing with people they don't think are. Maybe I'm just wrong but 4 years is a really long time to let something which requires a nerf to remain legal if it isn't actually acceptable the way it was.
|
|
Non-core books don't go through errata. This is not because Paizo wants 2 versions of an item/feat/etc but mainly because of money/time/people can only be invested in so many things during the day.
I am assuming that PFS has it's own small pot of money to work with and so they can invest some of that into making sure that the errata applies to all versions of the item in PFS play. It probably costs the PFS leadership a lot less money to do this because they don't have to errata an entire book, just apply the change to all of versions of the item, and they can publish that change on the cheap through the web page that does not utilize the art department, etc, etc.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I find the suggested, that people who invest in a volume of an AP (which I personally own since it came out) could get access to a superior version of an item from a relatively common source (Ultimate Equipment), to be deeply disturbing.
That's pretty close to the definition of "pay to win" or "buying power".
It may be a loophole, but considering previous events when it came to loopholes and grandfathering, I would suggest avoiding using this one, unless you want to add it to the list, why we can't have nice things.
|
|
The entire pathfinder society system is based off buying their products what are you even talking about. It's not like there is a scarcity of the material either when anyone has access to the same products. Ultimate Equipment is no more common than an AP when there are unlimited copies of both readily available to everyone.