About worn and stowed consumables on errata

[Nefreet]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

here's the block of text talking about Fine Clothing:

Quote:

Fine clothing, suitable for a noble or royal, is made with expensive fabrics, precious metals, and intricate patterns. You can wear only one tool set of light Bulk with fine clothing, instead of the normal limit of 2 Bulk. You gain a +1 item bonus to checks to Make an Impression on upper‑class folk while wearing high-fashion fine clothing.

And here's the block of text talking about the Healer's Tools:

Quote:

This kit of bandages, herbs, and suturing tools is necessary for Medicine checks to Administer First Aid, Treat Disease, Treat Poison, or Treat Wounds. Expanded healer’s tools provide a +1 item bonus to such checks. If you wear your healer’s tools, you can draw and replace them as part of the action that uses them.

And a Repair Kit:

Quote:

A repair kit allows you to perform simple repairs while traveling. It contains a portable anvil, tongs, woodworking tools, a whetstone, and oils for conditioning leather and wood. You can use a repair kit to Repair items using the Crafting skill. A superb repair kit gives you a +1 item bonus to the check. You can draw and replace a worn repair kit as part of the action that uses it.

As you can see, they are all formatted the same way. Why are you insisting that High-Fashion Fine Clothes aren't just Fine Clothes with an item bonus?

I guess if you're someone who doesn't think High Fashion Fine Clothes have a Bulk limitation (for Tools), then you must also conclude that a Superb Repair Kit can't be used to Repair items, and you can't draw and replace your Expanded Healer's Tools as part of the action that uses them.

[Ravingdork]

For those having issues viewing the errata, have you checked to ensure your browser is up to date?

[Nefreet]

My phone auto updates every day, using the latest version of Android and Chrome.

It's Paizo's website that's glitchy. Otherwise we wouldn't see the Starfinder ysoki mechanic graphic.

[graystone]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Using some of that dreaded logic...

Fine clothes is like dressing up in a fine dress, or a nice suit or tuxedo or something. These generally do not go well with also wearing a carpenter's tool belt (technically you could, but I would rule that doing so would ruin whatever effect the fine clothes would give you).

Going by the rules you have NO issue sticking a trowel [short tool] in your belt for fine clothes. You can also wear a grappling hook, a 10' pole, a ladder and a 4 person tent and you're all good. I'm not sure your logic follows.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

High-fashion fine clothing is basically the same, except it's a Versace or Armani or Chanel or something like that. The carpentry tools don't go any better with those than they do with the off-the-rack version.

It could be but it doesn't make it clear.

CrystalSeas wrote:

Even more dreaded logic

Table 6-9 has an entry for "Clothing" with five sub-entries under it:

You'll note then that High Fashion doesn't follow the subset indentation you see in entries like thieves tools and more specialized indented underneath it.

Nefreet wrote:

I guess if you're someone who doesn't think High Fashion Fine Clothes have a Bulk limitation (for Tools), then you must also conclude that a Superb Repair Kit can't be used to Repair items, and you can't draw and replace your Expanded Healer's Tools as part of the action that uses them.

The ability to draw/replace is part of being a tool and explained at the start of the equipment section and just repeated in individual entries. as such, it really has no bearing on this.

As to repair, they made it clear that the subsection it's in it Repair Kit:. Clothing: is odd as there isn't an overarching rule for them: even tools have rules in common so they make more sense in that way. This means if you put improved versions of them, you're nesting subsections in subsections and if you do not format them the same as 'normal' entries it doesn't make it clear. Putting the tool bulk entry between fine and high fashion makes me pause: if it was meant to cover both, it seems that putting it after the high fashion line, like the tool drawing sentence in all the tools, would be the place to put it.

Now to be clear, I'm fine with the rule covering high fashion and wouldn't bat an eye if a Dm followed it: I just think that if it is intended, it's muddled in the wording/formatting of the clothing section. Archives of nethys also shows this as it's under a big clothing section so the normal rules section that cover the entire entry is missing as the entry is clothes leaving fine clothes to get the rule. IMO, it's a recipe for confusion even if we're just looking at the online entry.

[Gary Bush]

@graysone:
If you want players to be able to wear high fashion fine clothes and still carry 2 bulk of tools, go for it.

The major of people don't agree.

If you play PFS, expect to be told that you can't do that. But I am pretty sure you don't play PFS so you should be good.

Enjoy your game. In the end, that is what we all want to do.

[graystone]

Gary Bush wrote:

If you want players to be able to wear high fashion fine clothes and still carry 2 bulk of tools, go for it.

I don't want players to do anything as I'm 99% of the time the player: I'm not the one making up their mind for the games I play in.

Gary Bush wrote:

The major of people don't agree.

I look forward to seeing the spread sheet of the survey you did to find out what the majority of all players think on the subject... If you're talking about the thread, I'm not sure how much proof a majority of maybe a dozen people here means in the grand scheme of things.

Gary Bush wrote:

If you play PFS, expect to be told that you can't do that. But I am pretty sure you don't play PFS so you should be good.

I don't play PFS and I already said it wouldn't matter to me if a DM rules differently than I think it reads. The majority of Dm I play with use Nethys for rules and item linking, so they'll see this as the complete entry:

Clothing (High-Fashion Fine)Item 3
Source Core Rulebook pg. 287 2.0
Price 55 gp
Bulk L
You gain a +1 item bonus to checks to Make an Impression on upper class folk while wearing high-fashion fine clothing.

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Clothing: is odd as there isn't an overarching rule for them: even tools have rules in common so they make more sense in that way. This means if you put improved versions of them, you're nesting subsections in subsections and if you do not format them the same as 'normal' entries it...

Musical Instruments are formatted the same way.

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

graystone wrote:

Clothing: is odd as there isn't an overarching rule for them: even tools have rules in common so they make more sense in that way. This means if you put improved versions of them, you're nesting subsections in subsections and if you do not format them the same as 'normal' entries it...

Musical Instruments are formatted the same way.

Not true: EVERY Instrument has a virtuoso option and it's clear that it's a generic term for the improved version. That and there is NO special rules involved so it's hard to comment on the placement of such a rule in Musical Instruments as that sections completely lacks it. You can look at the nethys page and you can clearly how everything works.

I will admit, it's irksome that virtuoso options aren't indented on the chart [even though there is space to do so].

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

graystone wrote:

Clothing: is odd as there isn't an overarching rule for them: even tools have rules in common so they make more sense in that way. This means if you put improved versions of them, you're nesting subsections in subsections and if you do not format them the same as 'normal' entries it...

Musical Instruments are formatted the same way.

Not true: EVERY Instrument has a virtuoso option and it's clear that it's a generic term for the improved version. That and there is NO special rules involved so it's hard to comment on the placement of such a rule in Musical Instruments as that sections completely lacks it. You can look at the nethys page and you can clearly how everything works.

I will admit, it's irksome that virtuoso options aren't indented on the chart [even though there is space to do so].

Incorrect. Virtuoso instruments give +1 to Performance checks.

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Incorrect. Virtuoso instruments give +1 to Performance checks.

Please point out where I said they didn't. And why would it matter if I did as I don't see the relevance in what we're talking about as we're debating on the formatting of additional rules in the description.

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

graystone wrote:

Clothing: is odd as there isn't an overarching rule for them: even tools have rules in common so they make more sense in that way. This means if you put improved versions of them, you're nesting subsections in subsections and if you do not format them the same as 'normal' entries it...

Musical Instruments are formatted the same way.

Not true: EVERY Instrument has a virtuoso option and it's clear that it's a generic term for the improved version. That and there is NO special rules involved so it's hard to comment on the placement of such a rule in Musical Instruments as that sections completely lacks it. You can look at the nethys page and you can clearly how everything works.

I will admit, it's irksome that virtuoso options aren't indented on the chart [even though there is space to do so].

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

there is NO special rules involved

You clearly have a different idea of what's a special rule. That and I STILL don't know what your point is: the existence of "Virtuoso instruments give +1 to Performance checks." doesn't change that it's formatted differently. For instance, thieves tools go over the basic description, give you the improved version THEN give the special rules. Same with a disguise kit. Or the climbing kit. Or artisan’s tools...

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

there is NO special rules involved

You clearly have a different idea of what's a special rule. That and I STILL don't know what your point is: the existence of "Virtuoso instruments give +1 to Performance checks." doesn't change that it's formatted differently. For instance, thieves tools go over the basic description, give you the improved version THEN give the special rules. Same with a disguise kit. Or the climbing kit. Or artisan’s tools...

Or fine clothing...

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

there is NO special rules involved

You clearly have a different idea of what's a special rule. That and I STILL don't know what your point is: the existence of "Virtuoso instruments give +1 to Performance checks." doesn't change that it's formatted differently. For instance, thieves tools go over the basic description, give you the improved version THEN give the special rules. Same with a disguise kit. Or the climbing kit. Or artisan’s tools...

Or fine clothing...

You're either not debating in good faith or are clueless so I'm going to bow out of this. Your one liners aren't explaining anything more than 'I'm right cuz...'. :P

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

there is NO special rules involved

You clearly have a different idea of what's a special rule. That and I STILL don't know what your point is: the existence of "Virtuoso instruments give +1 to Performance checks." doesn't change that it's formatted differently. For instance, thieves tools go over the basic description, give you the improved version THEN give the special rules. Same with a disguise kit. Or the climbing kit. Or artisan’s tools...

Or fine clothing...

You're either not debating in good faith or are clueless so I'm going to bow out of this. Your one liners aren't explaining anything more than 'I'm right cuz...'. :P

The high fashion fine clothing entry does exactly what you say the other ones do. In fact, the climbing kit entry and the fine clothing entries are practically the same:

"You gain a +1 item bonus to Athletics checks to Climb while using an extreme climbing kit."

"You gain a +1 item bonus to checks to Make an Impression on nobility or upper-class folks while wearing high-fashion fine clothing."

So what are you arguing about?

[Thezzaruz]

Thomas Keller wrote:

The high fashion fine clothing entry does exactly what you say the other ones do. In fact, the climbing kit entry and the fine clothing entries are practically the same:

"You gain a +1 item bonus to Athletics checks to Climb while using an extreme climbing kit."

"You gain a +1 item bonus to checks to Make an Impression on nobility or upper-class folks while wearing high-fashion fine clothing."

So what are you arguing about?

The point isn't about what the explanatory text says about the +1 items but about the fact that the table doesn't show the +1 items as being subsets of the regular items and how that interacts with errata changes.

So IF an errata came that said "Climbing kit is 4 Bulk" then how much Bulk would you say that an Extreme climbing kit is? The "1" it lists as in the CRB or the "4" that the regular kit now list as?

The errata added a limitation to "Fine" and people argue about if it applies to "High-fashion fine" too.

[Thomas Keller]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

The high fashion fine clothing entry does exactly what you say the other ones do. In fact, the climbing kit entry and the fine clothing entries are practically the same:

"You gain a +1 item bonus to Athletics checks to Climb while using an extreme climbing kit."

"You gain a +1 item bonus to checks to Make an Impression on nobility or upper-class folks while wearing high-fashion fine clothing."

So what are you arguing about?

The point isn't about what the explanatory text says about the +1 items but about the fact that the table doesn't show the +1 items as being subsets of the regular items and how that interacts with errata changes.

So IF an errata came that said "Climbing kit is 4 Bulk" then how much Bulk would you say that an Extreme climbing kit is? The "1" it lists as in the CRB or the "4" that the regular kit now list as?

The errata added a limitation to "Fine" and people argue about if it applies to "High-fashion fine" too.

Everything in the Core Rulebook has a bulk listed. I don't know what you mean by "subset". Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk.

[Thezzaruz]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Everything in the Core Rulebook has a bulk listed. I don't know what you mean by "subset".

"Fine clothing" is a sub-set of "Clothing" and the question is if "High-fashion fine clothing" is a sub-set of "Clothing" or of "Fine clothing".

Thomas Keller wrote:

Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk.

Yea but would it be affected by an change in the rules for the regular climbing kit? In any way?

.

And as I posted above, this is the question the discussion is about...

Thezzaruz wrote:

The errata added a limitation to "Fine" and people argue about if it applies to "High-fashion fine" too.

[Thomas Keller]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Everything in the Core Rulebook has a bulk listed. I don't know what you mean by "subset".

"Fine clothing" is a sub-set of "Clothing" and the question is if "High-fashion fine clothing" is a sub-set of "Clothing" or of "Fine clothing".

Thomas Keller wrote:

Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk.

Yea but would it be affected by an change in the rules for the regular climbing kit? In any way?

.

And as I posted above, this is the question the discussion is about...

Thezzaruz wrote:

The errata added a limitation to "Fine" and people argue about if it applies to "High-fashion fine" too.

I can't believe the things people argue about here. Are you seriously asking if "High fashion fine clothing" is fine clothing?! Are you seriously asking if an "Extreme climbing kit" is a climbing kit?! Of course they are!

[Staffan Johansson]

Thomas Keller wrote:

I can't believe the things people argue about here. Are you seriously asking if "High fashion fine clothing" is fine clothing?! Are you seriously asking if an "Extreme climbing kit" is a climbing kit?! Of course they are!

While I agree with you, do consider that in PF1 "natural armor" was distinct from "armor" and "incorporeal touch attack" was distinct from "touch attack". So it's not like it's unprecedented.

[Thezzaruz]

Thomas Keller wrote:

I can't believe the things people argue about here. Are you seriously asking if "High fashion fine clothing" is fine clothing?! Are you seriously asking if an "Extreme climbing kit" is a climbing kit?! Of course they are!

No the question isn't if they are the same, the question is if an errata to one also doubles as an errata to the other?

[Thomas Keller]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

I can't believe the things people argue about here. Are you seriously asking if "High fashion fine clothing" is fine clothing?! Are you seriously asking if an "Extreme climbing kit" is a climbing kit?! Of course they are!

No the question isn't if they are the same, the question is if an errata to one also doubles as an errata to the other?

Why would it not?

[Thezzaruz]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Why would it not?

So above when I asked what would happen if climbing kit was errataed to be 4 Bulk and you answered "Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk." you really meant to say something else? Because that answer and the "Why would it not?" doesn't really go together.

[Thomas Keller]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Why would it not?

So above when I asked what would happen if climbing kit was errataed to be 4 Bulk and you answered "Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk." you really meant to say something else? Because that answer and the "Why would it not?" doesn't really go together.

Okay, I give up.

[graystone]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

I can't believe the things people argue about here. Are you seriously asking if "High fashion fine clothing" is fine clothing?! Are you seriously asking if an "Extreme climbing kit" is a climbing kit?! Of course they are!

While I agree with you, do consider that in PF1 "natural armor" was distinct from "armor" and "incorporeal touch attack" was distinct from "touch attack". So it's not like it's unprecedented.

And hand crossbow vs crossbow... Or Orc Knuckle Dagger and a dagger...

Here is a real thinker for you: does a change in Thieves' Tools bulk alter Concealable Thieves' Tools?

[Squiggit]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Why would it not?

So above when I asked what would happen if climbing kit was errataed to be 4 Bulk and you answered "Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk." you really meant to say something else? Because that answer and the "Why would it not?" doesn't really go together.

That's a bad analogy.

If the climbing kit's entry was 4 bulk and the extreme climbing kit was still listed as 1 bulk, there would be no issue because the answer would be spelled out clearly in the text.

Not at all comparable to the issue here.

graystone wrote:

And hand crossbow vs crossbow

Also probably not a great example, since crossbow is used as a generic term in the rulebook (i.e. the crossbow ace feat).

[shroudb]

I think that arguing about the clothes so much is silly personally.

yes, the book has them under the same entry.

So, as far as RAW goes, it is clear. Now, if one wants to use something else for their homegames, especially for something so trivial and circumstantial, then let it be so, it certainly isn't going to break, or overpower, anyone if you use either.

That said, i LOATH that they used "crossbow" as a term for both the weapon group and the weapon.

Because frankly, you cannot *know* if a sentence is referring to one or the other since both are valid game terms and cover different things (one is a specific weapon the other is all weapons in the weapon group)

[Thezzaruz]

Squiggit wrote:

That's a bad analogy.

If the climbing kit's entry was 4 bulk and the extreme climbing kit was still listed as 1 bulk, there would be no issue because the answer would be spelled out clearly in the text.

Not at all comparable to the issue here.

Not sure I see the difference tbh. The rules doesn't say that "High-fashion fine clothing" are just a better version of "Fine clothing" anymore than it says that "Extreme climbing kit" is just a better version of "Climbing kit". All 4 are listed as separate items and if a change to "Climbing kit" doesn't affect "Extreme climbing kit" then why would a change to "Fine clothing" affect "High-fashion fine clothing"???

Either the +1 versions are linked with the normal ones or they are not, it makes no sense to have just some be linked for some effects.

Squiggit wrote:

Also probably not a great example, since crossbow is used as a generic term in the rulebook (i.e. the crossbow ace feat).

Don't see how that helps your point tbh as that feat is about as clear as mud.

[Thezzaruz]

shroudb wrote:

That said, i LOATH that they used "crossbow" as a term for both the weapon group and the weapon.

Because frankly, you cannot *know* if a sentence is referring to one or the other since both are valid game terms and cover different things (one is a specific weapon the other is all weapons in the weapon group)

Huh, have I missed something? I thought the group was "bow" for all sorts of crossbows.

[Thezzaruz]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Okay, I give up.

Funnily enough, I was about to say the same thing. For all the flippant comments you've posted you haven't actually offered up a single clear answer to anything.

.

I mean these aren't meant to be trick questions and I'm not aiming to make you give a "wrong" answer or anything. I'm simply trying to explain why there is a discussion about this.

I think that of course is the RAI of the tool limitation meant to cover "high-fashion fine clothing" too and if it were ever relevant to me in a game that's how I'd expect my GM to run it. However I do not think that the RAW supports that unfortunately.

[shroudb]

Thezzaruz wrote:

shroudb wrote:

That said, i LOATH that they used "crossbow" as a term for both the weapon group and the weapon.

Because frankly, you cannot *know* if a sentence is referring to one or the other since both are valid game terms and cover different things (one is a specific weapon the other is all weapons in the weapon group)

Huh, have I missed something? I thought the group was "bow" for all sorts of crossbows.

You missed the fact that somehow my brain was interpeting the "Bow" in the crossbow weapon group entries as "Crossbow" for some reason from release till now lol^^

what baffles me even more is that none of my players have ever corrected me in this misconception so far either!

[Thomas Keller]

Thezzaruz wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Okay, I give up.

Funnily enough, I was about to say the same thing. For all the flippant comments you've posted you haven't actually offered up a single clear answer to anything.

.

I mean these aren't meant to be trick questions and I'm not aiming to make you give a "wrong" answer or anything. I'm simply trying to explain why there is a discussion about this.

I don't know how my posts are "flippant". I do find this argument ridiculous, but I wasn't trying to make fun of anyone.

And, yeah, you were trying to trap me into something. Your snarky reply to my posts shows that. This one:

Quote:

So above when I asked what would happen if climbing kit was errataed to be 4 Bulk and you answered "Extreme climbing kit is its own entry listed at 1 bulk." you really meant to say something else? Because that answer and the "Why would it not?" doesn't really go together.

[Fumarole]

This is why we can't have nice fine things.

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

I don't know how my posts are "flippant".

They seemed that way to me: when you just leave a 1 sentence reply with limited info repeatedly and assume it's perfectly clear what you mean is the definition, IMO, of that.

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

I don't know how my posts are "flippant".

They seemed that way to me: when you just leave a 1 sentence reply with limited info repeatedly and assume it's perfectly clear what you mean is the definition, IMO, of that.

Sorry about that.