|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PFS specific weirdness on familiar weapon finesse introduced here doesn't seem to be in the Campaign Clarifications.
Mike, I'm interested in knowing how this will effect familiars who normally get Weapon Finesse. That feat is completely redundant for familiars, because it is written into the familiar feature that they use Dexterity or Strength, whatever is higher. Is it as good as it sounds, or does a familiar who gives up Weapon Finesse lose access to this feature?If a familiar gives up Weapon Finesse, they lose access to this feature.
Does that mean this ruling is not actually a PFS rule, or am I missing something?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Having binding rules hiding down old threads, and not including them in either the campaign clarification document of the society FAQ makes compliance problematic for newer players.
Indeed. I would be interested in knowing when the clarification document is planned to be updated, and how to bring matters to the attention of the people writing it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having binding rules hiding down old threads, and not including them in either the campaign clarification document of the society FAQ makes compliance problematic for newer players.
Let's not go down that road *again*.
Years ago, over in the Rules Forum, we used to have some fairly active Q&As from Developers. The FAQ system existed, but it was difficult and time consuming to update. And so dutiful forum goers compiled lists of rules answers from Developer posts in lieu of an eventual FAQ. Over time these lists contained hundreds of clarifications to otherwise unanswered questions.
Then, a couple years ago, in light of a few conflicting answers from different Developers, one employee issued a sweeping ruling that invalidated every clarification that had ever been made before him. In literally seconds, years of answers (and the work of the volunteers who maintained them) were erased. It was a giant slap in the face to fans and reverted our understanding of the rules, since we were now left with questions that *had* been answered, but were now no longer deemed *official*.
The PFS team decided instead to keep things the way they were, and included a section in the Guide to Organized Play to solidify that posts made by Campaign Leadership would always be binding. The benefits of that decision are clear today: outside of PFS a culture of hyper-RAW interpretations has arisen that makes the game virtually unplayable, while a single Developer is tasked with slowly updating an official FAQ. Meanwhile, over here, we still have clarifications we can fall back on (maintained and provided by a community of dedicated fans) when the rules are in doubt.
Think of the Campaign Clarifications document as an *addition*, not as something that's lacking. If we followed in the footsteps of that previous, much maligned decision, we would lose years of progress.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Then, a couple years ago, in light of a few conflicting answers from different Developers, one employee issued a sweeping ruling that invalidated every clarification that had ever been made before him. In literally seconds, years of answers (and the work of the volunteers who maintained them) were erased. It was a giant slap in the face to fans and reverted our understanding of the rules, since we were now left with questions that *had* been answered, but were now no longer deemed *official*.
Truth be told when you were getting answers that rendered large swatches of material completely useless for really bizarre reasons I can't blame Paizo. Conflicting is an understatement as to how inane that system got.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I participate in rules discussions often. Although I wish it was a silly notion, it is anything but.I don't think its so much outside of PFS as a vocal minority of a vocal minority that goes to the rules forum to try to push for a mechanical advantage.
A significant fraction of the rules discussions are the way they are because there's someone who found a weird way to read an otherwise normal-looking rule, which makes the game bizarre, and he's clinging to that interpretation against all common sense.
On those occasions I think it's probably best to leave one clearly articulated post explaining the sane reading for the sake of posterity, and then to bow out. Because you can't cure that kind of insanity through forum discussion.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
A significant fraction of the rules discussions are the way they are because there's someone who found a weird way to read an otherwise normal-looking rule, which makes the game bizarre, and he's clinging to that interpretation against all common sense.
Yep. Plus, this vocal minority is very visible among PFS players as well.