|
I asked this question a while back about which interpretation was correct and never got a concrete answer,as there are different versions in both divine anthology and the weapon masters handbook.
So here's my interpretation, BOTH of them apply. You can either be Within that deities alignment, but you HAVE to worship them to be able to use it, or you can learn the techniques without worshiping said deity, but you can't go so much as a tippy toe outside the gods alignment.
Is this accurate?
It was clarified
You happen to have a quote, link or a thread I can look for that?
|
|
I don't remember if it was also in a FAQ. I tend to follow the pathfinder society clarifications when there isn't another source.
Weapon Master's Handbook
Page 10—The Divine Fighting Technique feat qualifies you for divine fighting techniques in other sources, as long as you meet the prerequisites listed in that source. For example, you must worship your chosen deity as your sole patron deity to qualify for the divine fighting feats on page 28 of Pathfinder Player Companion: Divine Anthology.Divine Anthology
Page 28—The Divine Fighting Technique feat qualifies you for divine fighting techniques in other sources, as long as you meet the prerequisites listed in that source. For example, you must have the same alignment as your chosen deity to qualify for the divine fighting feats on page 10 of Pathfinder Player Companion: Weapon Master's Handbook.
Hence why i feel both of them apply
nicholas storm: AH, clarified for PFS. THAT explains why I hadn't seen it. While it's interesting information, it's of little use to me as I'll never be in a PSF game.
Malik Gyan Daumantas: Looks like PFS is allowing you to pick the way you qualify for the feats, alignment or worship. It'd be nice if intent was clear outside of it though.
nicholas storm: AH, clarified for PFS. THAT explains why I hadn't seen it. While it's interesting information, it's of little use to me as I'll never be in a PSF game.
Malik Gyan Daumantas: Looks like PFS is allowing you to pick the way you qualify for the feats, alignment or worship. It'd be nice if intent was clear outside of it though.
So FYI, IF a FAQ was to come out for softback stuff it'll mostly likely be whatever the campaign clarifications are saying it is, (this really shown by them saying that they can FAQ softback books that PFS has done the work to create a CC for). So for softbacks, I'd say use the CC and treat it as like an 80% official FAQ.
So FYI, IF a FAQ was to come out for softback stuff it'll mostly likely be whatever the campaign clarifications are saying it is, (this really shown by them saying that they can FAQ softback books that PFS has done the work to create a CC for). So for softbacks, I'd say use the CC and treat it as like an 80% official FAQ.nicholas storm: AH, clarified for PFS. THAT explains why I hadn't seen it. While it's interesting information, it's of little use to me as I'll never be in a PSF game.
Malik Gyan Daumantas: Looks like PFS is allowing you to pick the way you qualify for the feats, alignment or worship. It'd be nice if intent was clear outside of it though.
I play online and in my experience, PFS is seen as having their own house-rules for many, many things. Add to that a lot of the people playing aren't one's that can play PFS and you can see how bringing up a PFS ruling isn't likely to be seen as 8% of a FAQ let alone 80%. It's seen in the same light as 'my last group house-rules it like this, so can I do it?'
The "barring errata use the version in the book you have" standard, particularly when the specific rule in question appears in only one book is pretty much the common sense one anyway.
I play online and in my experience, PFS is seen as having their own house-rules for many, many things. Add to that a lot of the people playing aren't one's that can play PFS and you can see how bringing up a PFS ruling isn't likely to be seen as 8% of a FAQ let alone 80%. It's seen in the same light as 'my last group house-rules it like this, so can I do it?'So FYI, IF a FAQ was to come out for softback stuff it'll mostly likely be whatever the campaign clarifications are saying it is, (this really shown by them saying that they can FAQ softback books that PFS has done the work to create a CC for). So for softbacks, I'd say use the CC and treat it as like an 80% official FAQ.nicholas storm: AH, clarified for PFS. THAT explains why I hadn't seen it. While it's interesting information, it's of little use to me as I'll never be in a PSF game.
Malik Gyan Daumantas: Looks like PFS is allowing you to pick the way you qualify for the feats, alignment or worship. It'd be nice if intent was clear outside of it though.
Sure, if it doesn't help it doesn't help. I'm just saying that if the PDT were to make a faq on this issue since it's a softback it'll be what's in the CC. Like if you took that PDT statement saying that they'll use CC to FAQ softcovers and then show the CC I would imagine that a fair amount of GMs would accept it. But I have very little experience with online GMs so I very well could be way off base.
The "barring errata use the version in the book you have" standard, particularly when the specific rule in question appears in only one book is pretty much the common sense one anyway.
The 'book' in this case is an online source like nethys or d20, where all the fighting techniques are put together. I can't link my physical book to my onlne DM.
Chess Pwn: From my experience, online DM's pretty much hear the bad sides of PFS and none of the good: makes rules seemingly on a whim [why did THIS get banned?], they use houserules [no crafting, ect], ect]. I've never seen a PFS ruling for any game and I've played dozens.
For myself, I have NO idea if PFS is doing it because of any relevant rule issue or personal issue with something or it intersects with their own houserules. As such, I'm not sure I agree with the 80% and even if it was true, I don't see it as very relevant to me as no one that'd DM for me would give it a second look. From my experience, a PFS ruling is less likely to get traction than a houserule from some random guy... [a lot of people are playing online BECAUSE they don't like PFS]
Also, their ruling on this case is pretty common sense - use the requirements for the feat for the book it was in.
If it were following 'common sense', we wouldn't have the same name and different requirements. That's ships sailed though, so I don't see the 'common sense'.
PFSRD splits it up into 2 sections - one for weapon masters handbook and one for divine anthology
Not much use as it's been scrubbed of actual names, so linked items don't match actual names. When I link to nethys, it's one big list.
So I disagree that a PFS ruling is "probably how the PDT would rule on a question": they have other things in place that alter their ruling that don't apply to a non-organized game. As such, it's hard to point to any ruling and say I KNOW why they made it and the reason is applicable to pathfinder as a whole. While I agree some rulings are clearly taken from PFS, there are plenty of things usable in pathfinder that aren't allowed in PFS, making a whole network of houserules that influence JUST PFS.
Secondly, I'm not even the person I'd have to convince it's useful. I have NO expectation that any Dm I showed it to would give it a second look. It has less influence than a ruling by Jeff, and no one knows who Jeff is...
By the way, have you read campaign clarifications?
Nope.
You can disagree with what is allowed and not allowed under additional resources (we ignore it since we don't play PFS).
As I pointed out above, it would be a waste of time to read the campaign clarifications, as I know no DM that I'd play under would use it. As I said, it's as useful as asking Jeff what his houserules are: they have 0% impact on my games.
We don't even pay attention to campaign clarifications except when a question like this arises.
We go one further and don't look at all. It's just not a relevant/valid source of information for us.
Nethys: Correct, but there is no indication that those sources have any relevance in picking your feat and/or fighting style. Unless your game is using limited sources of books, does anyone look at what book your spell came from? Much the same, no one's going to think a unified list requires a source check, instead thinking it's just one unified list.
My own interest in the OP question: I was wondering if it was ruled one way or the other. If it's ruled both, I doubt it'll impact me as it very hard for a DM it notice one identically named feat is meant for a different list, much less CARE that one list goes with a different identically named feat. So I think it'd effectively make it so either feat would work for either list; or how it works now.
|
|
By the way, have you read campaign clarifications?Nope.
You can disagree with what is allowed and not allowed under additional resources (we ignore it since we don't play PFS).As I pointed out above, it would be a waste of time to read the campaign clarifications, as I know no DM that I'd play under would use it. As I said, it's as useful as asking Jeff what his houserules are: they have 0% impact on my games.
We don't even pay attention to campaign clarifications except when a question like this arises.We go one further and don't look at all. It's just not a relevant/valid source of information for us.
Nethys: Correct, but there is no indication that those sources have any relevance in picking your feat and/or fighting style. Unless your game is using limited sources of books, does anyone look at what book your spell came from? Much the same, no one's going to think a unified list requires a source check, instead thinking it's just one unified list.
My own interest in the OP question: I was wondering if it was ruled one way or the other. If it's ruled both, I doubt it'll impact me as it very hard for a DM it notice one identically named feat is meant for a different list, much less CARE that one list goes with a different identically named feat. So I think it'd effectively make it so either feat would work for either list; or how it works now.
Personally I don't see any issue in letting both apply so you can have multiple ways of getting access to the fighting styles.
Personally I don't see any issue in letting both apply so you can have multiple ways of getting access to the fighting styles.
This is pretty much what I've seen done and what I'd expect would continue to happen if a ruling like the PFS one came out for general pathfinder. I've seen it used a few times and it didn't cause any issues. As long as one version doesn't vanish, I think it'll stay that way.