|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here we go again...
I don't know the answer to this specific question, and if you can't find the clarification, then yes, use your best judgement. You're not required to implement forum posts that you aren't aware of. And if you're not sure it exists and can't find it, then I'd say that fits.
But can we please not advance the notion that just because a forum post hasn't made it into the campaign clarifications or FAQ that it can be ignored? To my knowledge the campaign leadership has issued no such statement, and the language about forum posts from campaign staff being binding still exists. I know that's not exactly what Steven suggested, but it could be taken that way, and I've definitely seen it argued that something no longer applies because the post is from 2012 (or whenever).
There are many, many (many!) items that are not in either Campaign Clarifications or the FAQ and have only ever been clarified in a forum post, some of them dating back even before Mike Brock. If a player can present the post with the clarification, please, please, please don't tell them it no longer applies.
For example:
You may purchase a potion of Strong Jaw brewed by a Ranger
Deathwatch only analyzes creatures you are aware of
All Aasimars/Tieflings are Half-Human
to a thread that collected may of the old forum clarifications into one place. Some of those made it into the FAQ or Campaign Clarifications. Some of them didn't. And some of them may have been overridden by a more recent ruling. But if the only time the issue has been addressed is in a forum post, that forum post still applies, even if it's 6 or 9 years old, until campaign leadership tells us otherwise.
I'm not saying anyone has to go scour the message boards to find every clarification. Just that if one is presented to you, don't dismiss it just because it's from an old post if there's nothing else changing the ruling from that post. And absence of the clarification in the FAQ or Campaign Clarifications does not equate to the original ruling was changed.
|
As you mentioned they asked for a call for those old posts to for inclusion into the campaign clarifications, they have had plenty of time to add them. Which has not been done.
The effort required to track those down is exceptionally difficult on these forums in many cases unless they are specifically called out in additional resources, which some are (or were).
I will not hold anyone to rules that are difficult to locate unless they are well known by that group.
I am also not going to disagree with someone that the rules stands if they track it down in the forums.
What I am not going to do is tell people to try to find something that is difficult to find, especially when Paizo already set up a much easier way for them to be all put in one location with campaign clarifications.
|
|
And that’s more or less where I am with it as well. Again, I know that you weren’t saying ignore forum posts completely. But I also know that newer players don’t know that, and I’ve seen them basing characters around things that have been clarified on the boards not to work. I’ve also seen GMs trying to deny something that has been clarified to work because of the date on the post. So it’s important not to let the notion of it’s old so I can ignore it get out there. If a GM is aware of a clarification, they can enforce it. If a player is aware of a clarification, they can factor that into their character.
The staff is never going to track down every small clarification like the one for strong jaw and put it in the FAQ. Nor should we expect them to. I just want to make sure GMs don’t try to deny things like that if a player has the post to support it.
I haven’t been able to find anywhere in the FAQ, Campaign Clarifications, or Additional Resources stating Aasimars must be half-human. I don’t want to give a player the impression they can ignore the old clarification and make a small sized half-Halfling Aasimar with their regional support GM boon. Because when they take it to a table, they’re going to be told it’s not legal. I don’t think a lack of the presence of that clarification in one of those three sources is an indication the campaign meant to make that a legal option.
I’m just pointing it out for clarity for players who don’t have years of experience with the campaign. The forum posts are still binding if the GM is aware of them. So don’t assume that because something is old, you can ignore it when making choices for your character, because if you run into a GM that does know about it, there’s a good chance they are going to enforce it.
|
|
For the record, from the current Roleplaying Guild Guide.
While GMs are not required to read every post on the
forums, they need to keep abreast of clarifications. GMs
may not ignore rules clarifications, including posts from
the organized play team on organized play forum threads
that they have seen. Forum clarifications will be added
to the FAQ, Campaign Clarifications document, or this
Guide as soon as possible.
Just like they may have had an opportunity to add those old clarifications to one of the official documents, they've also had an opportunity to state that they no longer apply. They have left the above language in the guide through multiple versions since the Campaign Clarifications document became a thing. We should continue to follow the rule set out in the guide until we hear otherwise. That's all I'm saying. It's not doing a player any favors to suggest that is not the case, even if that suggestion is unintentional. If I see a player doing something I know has been clarified not to work, I'm going to point it out in an effort to help them. Likewise, if I see a GM denying a legal option, I'm going to point it out as well, for the same reason. I might wait until after the current game, and I would do so respectfully, but it's not helping anyone to gloss over rules that have been addressed by the campaign staff, no matter how long ago they did so.
To get back to the question in this thread, if no one knows where that post is, or even remembers if it exists, then it's a GM call at the table. I searched Mike's old posts, the blog, and this forum, and I couldn't find it.
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
Is this the post you were looking for?
I was bored and looked around.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
for the record it was made in a response to player activity under extreme circumstances where a Shadow (via Shadow Projection) was allowed to speak and thus cast spells at the table by the VC. I was informed several weeks after the event by my VC at the time and shown the post where it was stated to be not allowed. I believe it may be covered by the NDA. I totally agree that if they didn't follow the prudent man rule we go with what the OGL says.
My argument FOR Shadows speaking rests upon the OGL that Paizo uses and was allowed under 3.5 and requires a specific change, none was made. So it's not a GM choice per se. It requires an authoritative statement to change it.
Well its also worth pointing out to your Venture Captain that the ruling doesn't apply in all extreme cases as there is a case where you end up with a weird frankensteinish combination of a monster. Like if I had to guess given the way you wrote that post the player was an Oracle with the Shadow Mystery which is such a confusing system.