So, I actually asked this several weeks ago on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/groups/120115198524924/permalink/308142599722182/ ), and I was referred to a post here (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2urbe?SFS-106-A-Night-in-Nightarch#9). I seem to recall a response on the original thread which indicated otherwise (though they are gone now, strangely enough), so I figured I'd ask here to get clarification.
Can anyone get me confirmation on this?
If you both play and DM a scenario that either grant access to a race or gives a +2 to one of your stats for a character with that existing race, can you apply both (the player chronicle and the DM chronicle) to the same character?
As I mentioned in the facebook post, saying 'yes' (which seems to be what the rules-as-written imply, and I'm, apparently, not the only one who thinks so) seems like an attractive perk to get someone to DM, while the opposite seems to be, well, not quite as nice - the "novelty" wears off after playing one character of that race.
|
Thurston initially said "yes" here in the Forums, and then said "no" on Facebook, and then realized the conflicting statements, and has said he'll get back to us (he's on vacation right now).
In the interim many people, including myself, have created and played characters with a +2 stat increase, so we're obviously hoping Thurston keeps his initial answer.
Stand by.
|
|
Its a complicated question.
If you created a dwarf, half-orc, or halfling with RSP GM#1, then could you stack the player + GM admittance boons for a +2 on two separate ability scores? With the new guild guide, will you be able to add an additional +2?
That's a PC with 3 separate boosted ability scores, and you know someone out there would do that.
Skittershot would stack with itself, too.
|
|
Indeed. Only one +2 may be applied.
The answer that's in conflict is whether GMing and playing counts as different sources.
Personally, as one of the people asking for clarification in the first thread here in the Forums, I'd consider that answer to be the actual "official" answer.
It's been re-quoted and re-linked at least half a dozen times since it was first made, with the understanding that it was a legitimate answer.
The issue for me is that Thurston said exactly the opposite in my facebook post, though the posts are gone now. You can still see Sasha's response, though, that she'd been doing it wrong.
Ah, found it (the strangely-missing posts):
Thurston Hillman 12:05am Jun 14
Sebastian Hirsch also I am at a convention and will give this serious thought later:
-----
Sasha Lindley Hall 12:15am Jun 14
Ah, that's good to know. I've evidently been doing that incorrectly. Thanks for jumping in!
Sebastian Hirsch
Sebastian Hirsch 12:18am Jun 14
Could you maybe go in and correct that post? Because I thought that you were saying exactly the opposite.
Thurston Hillman
Thurston Hillman 12:18am Jun 14
Sebastian Hirsch no.
-----
But that was a month ago, so I figured it was safe to ask now. I didn't know Thurston was on vacation, though, so....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Facebook posts are not official.
Forum posts are official.
He deleted his counter ruling that he made on the fly while at a convention on his Facebook account.
He posted on the forums in response to your mentioning the Facebook post that he erred in making a rules statement on Facebook.
...but he did say at the end of it that he'd think it over, so there's some anticipation in the air.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With an international perspective, when is it NOT Con season, honestly?
For Thursty purposes? Between Gen Con and probably February/March. The reason I say this (and he has confirmed this) is because for PaizoCon, Origins, and Gen Con receive non-released schedules early for GMs which necessitates a compressed development timeframe, this is not the case for conventions such as PAX Unplugged, DragonCon, UK Games Expo etc., which also have a Paizo presence.
|
|
In this case, Thursty is both Mommy AND Daddy, which is an intriguing conundrum.Well, clarity is obviously something that's good to have. But let's please not have a "mommy but daddy said I could..." with rulings both on the forum and on facebook.
Could be worse. He could be his own grandpa.
|
|
While searching the Forums for something unrelated I randomly stumbled across a post by Chris Lambertz back in 2016 that essentially states not to treat Facebook posts as official, so that would seem to solve the conundrum posed by the OP of this thread.
As the director of how content and interaction is managed on our Facebook page (and other official outlets) ... We certainly attempt to answer questions and concerns via social media, but have a very firm policy of not answering rules questions or providing official clarifications in those venues.
