|
On the PF2 Subreddit, there is a post asking for questions they can get in front of the Paizo Developer they are interviewing (They have not yet said who it will be other than either Logan Bonner, James Case or Michael Sayre) to help clear up some community confusion.
The post already has quite a bit of traction there but I wanted to bring it to the attention of non-redditors too.
Hi everyone! It's that time of year again -- a member of the Pathfinder Rules Team (Logan Bonner, James Case and Michael Sayre) has graciously agreed to join me on my YouTube channel (How It's Played) to answer your community-submitted rules questions!
So, if you have any rules questions for them, post below! And if you agree with an already posted suggestion, please upvote it, as priority will be given to the most popular questions.
Also, a few limitations to be aware of. They ask that our questions be limited to the Rulebook line and not anything specific to adventures or Lost Omens books. Also, just like in previous years, please understand that they cannot comment on potential errata (so the most popular question might not be answered when we meet if they plan to address the topic with errata).
Thanks for your questions and support!!
So, I know there are literally dozens of hanging threads without substantive answers that have been raised and left to gather dust for GM interpretation here over the last few years, and now might be a great time for anyone to ask about them in the conversation there given that the staff directive seems to be to avoid talking publicly on these forums at pretty much all costs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be better to stick with things that are actually in question and common points of argument, rather than rules someone thinks need to be fixed but which is completely clear in how it works.
Some of the biggest ones people have been wanting forever are things like "what, exactly, does the term 'special statistics' mean with battle forms? Numerical bonuses like an item bonus to a skill and fundamental runes on handwraps are clear, but whether property runes on handwraps have any effect has been a major point of convention since CRB release, as have arguments about whether things like the Additional Damage from Rage applies to battle form Strikes"
"We know from the Spark of Independence feats that Minions are definitely not immune to quickened and slowed, but we have no details on how this works. Do these conditions only affect when they are commanded, or other actions like a mature animal companion? Does Stunned reduce every round by 2 actions, does it go down only when the animal is commanded? Etc?"
"Do abilities that say 'when you roll' work when you do not roll, via Assurance? This comes up as a common argument with Risky Surgery."
"Some abilities that are not class specific, like Brawling Critical Specialization use Class DC. Several classes are Untrained in Class DC. This is very apparent with the magus Arcane Fists feat. Is there any official position on using Spell DC instead of Class DC for these cases?"
"It is common for characters to have multiple forms of casting. If a character with, for example, cleric class and sorcerer archetype prepares a staff, how do these interact? Does preparing the staff limit the way spells from their sorcerer list can be used? Could they cast a spell that is on their sorcerer list from the staff, heightened to a higher level than the sorcerer spell slots they have access to?"
That sort of thing.
Redux the question on if a Witch Archetype character's familiar dies, does it come back the next morning or does the character just have to be without their spells for the rest of the adventure.
Also are we using the CRB spellcasting archetype rules that clearly say that Basic Spellcasting feat is needed in order to use spellcasting items like scrolls and wands, or are we using the APG spellcasting archetype rules that imply that only the archetype dedication feat is needed?
And of course there is still the open question of how long a familiar will perform a task for when commanded to do something while not in combat.
When you become Stunned 1 due to an enemy reaction triggered by your first action of the round, do you lose the next two actions of your current turn as well as one action from your next turn? Or do you just lose one action from your current turn and lose the Stunned condition because of that action payment?
given that the staff directive seems to be to avoid talking publicly on these forums at pretty much all costs.
That's simply not true. I've seen *way* more staff posts on these forums than I ever saw on the equivalent D&D forums, back when they had them.
Now, discussions on the topic of rules interpretations for current rules? Maybe. That's not the same thing, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After how long the discussion has raged on, I am shocked to see that no one has mentioned wanting to get a clarification on whether making a Strike with a Reload 0 weapon should inherit the traits of the Interact action (such as Manipulate) that other Reload weapons have to perform.
Specific questions that I see commonly asked are:
- Does shooting a bow while Grabbed require a flat check?
- Do reactions that don't already trigger on ranged attack trigger because you are reloading?
- Is Mobile Shot Stance pointless if a Strike triggers a reaction because of reloading?
I think it would be better to stick with things that are actually in question and common points of argument, rather than rules someone thinks need to be fixed but which is completely clear in how it works.am I being too sensitive and you're not replying to me, or do you believe it's "completely clear" that the caster of most quickened effects is robbed of a bonus action over its duration? For instance, do you believe that most players (not us nerds) would answer "9" or "10" when asked how many total bonus actions the caster of Hastened Assault gets if it lasts the full minute? If you think more would answer "10", perhaps that needs to be clarified by a dev or brought to their attention for errata
Also are we using the CRB spellcasting archetype rules that clearly say that Basic Spellcasting feat is needed in order to use spellcasting items like scrolls and wands, or are we using the APG spellcasting archetype rules that imply that only the archetype dedication feat is needed?It says, "A spellcasting archetype allows you to use scrolls, staves, and wands in the same way that a member of a spellcasting class can, and the basic spellcasting feat counts as having a spellcasting class feature." You may have conflated the two because they're in the same sentence separated by a comma, but they're different things. Items like the ring of wizardry, dawnlight, holy prayer beads, etc. require you have a "spellcasting class feature", which is what the Basic Spellcasting feat provides. Scrolls, staves, and wands merely require the Cast a Spell activity, provided by spellcasting archetype dedications, with staves having the additional limit to spell levels you have access to normally
That being Quickened only benefits you if you are quickened at the start of your turn is clear. (It may not be intuitive, if someone is assuming instead of reading the relevant rules, but it isn't ambiguous when you do actually look up how quickened works, so the book already answers the question). I'm not going to tell you that you have to like that, or that you don't get to feel that it's unfair that a Haste spell (or equivalent) benefits other recipients slighy more than than caster. I wouldn't tell you that your table should actually follow the written rules if you feel strongly about them, instead of changing them into a form you feel is more appropriate.
But there isn't a question that the rules of being Quickened mean that. So I am saying that there's nothing there that needs clarification, and that I think things that need clarification make more sense as questions here than things people want changed.
After how long the discussion has raged on, I am shocked to see that no one has mentioned wanting to get a clarification on whether making a Strike with a Reload 0 weapon should inherit the traits of the Interact action (such as Manipulate) that other Reload weapons have to perform.
Specific questions that I see commonly asked are:
- Does shooting a bow while Grabbed require a flat check?
- Do reactions that don't already trigger on ranged attack trigger because you are reloading?
- Is Mobile Shot Stance pointless if a Strike triggers a reaction because of reloading?
Uh wha?! There was some level of contention on this? :)
Master of None's verbiage is slightly misleading, but yeah there's some disagreement over whether the "This can be 0 if drawing ammunition and firing the weapon are part of the same action" description of reloading means "you interact to reload but it costs 0 actions" or "you do not interact to reload at all"
Items like the ring of wizardry, dawnlight, holy prayer beads, etc. require you have a "spellcasting class feature", which is what the Basic Spellcasting feat provides. Scrolls, staves, and wands merely require the Cast a Spell activity, provided by spellcasting archetype dedications, with staves having the additional limit to spell levels you have access to normally
Close. Scrolls, Wands, and Staves require Cast a Spell Item Activation which requires both using the Cast a Spell Activity, and having the Spellcasting Class Feature.
Also, the CRB specifies that the Spellcasting Class Feature is given by the Basic Spellcasting feat, not the dedication. The APG has no such language so people assume that the Spellcasting Class Feature is given by the dedication feat.
And all of this has been hashed out to death repeatedly already.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
given that the staff directive seems to be to avoid talking publicly on these forums at pretty much all costs.That's simply not true. I've seen *way* more staff posts on these forums than I ever saw on the equivalent D&D forums, back when they had them.
I don't think you understand what I was talking about... maybe this owes to you not participating in the forums for very long but the Paizo staff before around 2019 had a MAJOR and DAILY presence on these forums answering questions, giving/gathering feedback, socializing, and just generally kicking about with a general presence.
These days, with the exception of those two or three staffers whose job it is to update the forum community on X or Y such as for blog posts, and it is no exaggeration in the least, there is perhaps 1/100th of the engagement between the community and staff that there was in that era.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the PF2 Subreddit, there is a post asking for questions they can get in front of the Paizo Developer they are interviewing (They have not yet said who it will be other than either Logan Bonner, James Case or Michael Sayre) to help clear up some community confusion.
The post already has quite a bit of traction there but I wanted to bring it to the attention of non-redditors too.
So, I know there are literally dozens of hanging threads without substantive answers that have been raised and left to gather dust for GM interpretation here over the last few years, and now might be a great time for anyone to ask about them in the conversation there given that the staff directive seems to be to avoid talking publicly on these forums at pretty much all costs.Hi everyone! It's that time of year again -- a member of the Pathfinder Rules Team (Logan Bonner, James Case and Michael Sayre) has graciously agreed to join me on my YouTube channel (How It's Played) to answer your community-submitted rules questions!
So, if you have any rules questions for them, post below! And if you agree with an already posted suggestion, please upvote it, as priority will be given to the most popular questions.
Also, a few limitations to be aware of. They ask that our questions be limited to the Rulebook line and not anything specific to adventures or Lost Omens books. Also, just like in previous years, please understand that they cannot comment on potential errata (so the most popular question might not be answered when we meet if they plan to address the topic with errata).
Thanks for your questions and support!!
I know of a few threads that could certainly stand to get some questions answered, but I find that the ramblings of a handful of users on the Paizo messageboard isn't going to get much traction simply because it is a completely different social medium being used to promote this (Reddit). Which is a shame, because several threads definitely deserve some answers (and some of them actually were given answers and errata, surprisingly enough).
So I am saying that there's nothing there that needs clarification, and that I think things that need clarification make more sense as questions here than things people want changed.Oh, so you're just gatekeeping
I don't think gatekeeping works that way, as he is not saying you as a poster don't get to request clarifications. He's saying your request is not a clarification, but an editation, which is not the point of these video posts.
I agree with Hammerjack in that how Quickened is written to work is quite clear: If you receive the Quickened condition during your turn, you do not simply add its actions to your pool of existing actions, because the step for you to gain your actions at the start of your turn has already passed, and generally speaking, you only gain actions right at the end of the start of your turn.
There are even obvious exceptions to this rule, such as with the Time Jump spell (stating you gain two actions to do specific Move actions), as well as certain abilities that expressly state you gain an action; denying them from working as intended, which is to provide you actions to use immediately, falls under Too Bad to Be True, so the idea that it's "overlooked" for such situations seems debunked as well, since these exceptions mean they are quite aware of the previously stated general intent of actions.
As such, if it's quite clear how Quickened is intended to work, and everyone is aware of it, and the intent of these Youtube videos is to get clarification on unclear rules, then it makes no sense to make a video about it when it's already clear how it works, which was his original point.
|
|
Folks, I posted this year because I wanted to point people to the subreddit thread so they can post their own suggestions for rules to cover, and honestly, I don't think it's productive to try to weigh the merits of if one question or another is "worth posting" there is worth the oxygen you spend while typing out the chatter here, just go post it and it will either be upvoted or downvoted and at the end of the day HiP and the Dev will make the final decision with regard to what they want to talk about.
Folks, I posted this year because I wanted to point people to the subreddit thread so they can post their own suggestions for rules to cover, and honestly, I don't think it's productive to try to weigh the merits of if one question or another is "worth posting" there is worth the oxygen you spend while typing out the chatter here, just go post it and it will either be upvoted or downvoted and at the end of the day HiP and the Dev will make the final decision with regard to what they want to talk about.
Meh... Myself, I don't really feel like going to another site, signing up, posting something and then tracking it to see what's others posted. Now if there was a similar thread HERE, you'd have my interest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you post a good question, chances are someone else will make sure it is posted there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except it's not "quite clear" to the average player, and How It's Played's stated intent of a channel is to clarify rules that are commonly misunderstood. I've seen some real doozies of a "duh" question as a video title, even among the ask a dev series, so I understand the sentiment of "why are they wasting their time on this." But saying anyone's question doesn't belong is gatekeeping and pollutes the discussion when nobody here, not you, hammerchamp, nor me, is the arbiter of that
Except it is. If I show the relevant rule to a given player, odds are they will understand what it is and how to run it for future games. That makes it quite clear how it works.
Just as well, your first post said this:
When are they going to fix the caster of effects that cause quickened getting one fewer actions than other targets over its duration?
You are asking the developers to errata the general rules for Quickened, and not to clarify what it entirely details. This shows that you actually do know how it works, and just don't like how it works. Which is all fine and good. But it also means that it's not a request for clarification, but instead a request for editation, AKA errata. The youtube series is "How It's Played," asking how something is supposed to work, not "Pester Developers To Fix Rules I Don't Like (Even Though I Can Just Change Them For My Table For My Own Players)."
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If you don't like it just change it" feels like a hollow argument here since you can apply that to any of the ambiguous rules being discussed too.
I mean I get everyone here is just acting in their own interests (which is why Baarogue wants them to address a certain issue and why other people are attacking them since this is probably a zero-sum game and they see it as a threat), but the hostility seems a bit unnecessary.
Besides, it's not like Paizo hasn't used "clarifications" to patently contradict written rules and change mechanics before either.
Paizo either will or will not answer the question and badgering someone here probably won't have any effect on it in the end.
Meh... Myself, I don't really feel like going to another site, signing up, posting something and then tracking it to see what's others posted. Now if there was a similar thread HERE, you'd have my interest.
NGL there's something kind of grimly amusing about being directed to a third party website to ask questions that will be answered on a niche youtube channel, with slim chances any of the changes or clarifications will ever actually show up in official documentation or otherwise be particularly visible to the average user.
I disagree with that simply because "ambiguous rules" are not the same thing as "rules I don't like;" the only way they can be true is if the reason I don't like a rule is because of its ambiguity, but based on their response, that's not at all the case here, since they acknowledge that it's there, and that it needs to be "fixed." I might agree with them in that it should be fixed, but that doesn't mean that it's unclear how it works, which is essentially the definition of an ambiguous rule.
What part of pointing out that requesting errata not being the same as requesting clarification, therefore isn't comparable, is considered hostile? The intent of the series is to get answers to unclear rules from developers, not ask developers change clearly defined rules into something you like. All I'm saying is that this isn't the proper channel to do that (at least, have it be meaningful), and treating it as gatekeeping is a misnomer as well.
If you post a good question, chances are someone else will make sure it is posted there.
Yes but its reddit. As often as not, it is a shallow popularity contest. If you get lucky with the timing and a few people upvote you can get traction on an issue. But once there are a half dozen responses the posts just get buried. Or someone misinterprets it and it goes negative ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not the thread for this argument yall.
There's no need to attack half of humanity by using such a loaded term.
"loaded" lol