| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do VOs audit character sheets anymore? Not since PFS2 started.
They do audits still, but I've only seen it at big events such as conventions. Also, since downtime and similar elements are largely left up to the trust system, such audits primarily focus on build issues or incorrect rules interpretations/implementation.
GREAT GOOGLELY MOOGLELY PEOPLE!
PFS is not hiring Pinkertons to hack your personal computers to check up on your characters!
Just fix your Oracles so they work and move on!
No one but you will know!
*Points at the cheater and screeches in pod people*
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GREAT GOOGLELY MOOGLELY PEOPLE!
PFS is not hiring Pinkertons to hack your personal computers to check up on your characters! Just fix your Oracles so they work and move on! No one but you will know!*Points at the cheater and screeches in pod people*
* spoiler omitted **By the way, what does 'fix' mean here? Play normal 'new' oracle? Play normal 'old' oracle?
And also it's not a subtle action at all. No GM needs to audit your chars to know if you play old or new version of oracle, it's obvious. So everyone will know actually. Then, if you play with the same people, also GM will know if you've bought a rebuild. And when you created your character. And PFS GMs (or GMs in PFS mode) tend to follow PFS rules.
Yep. You pretty much need a new table or GM/party buy-in for it to have any chance.
One of my players wanted to keep his old oracle. It broke my heart to tell him that, even though he landed on the (more) positive side of recent events, PFS would not allow for it.
I lost a few good PFS players over it. I can scarcely imagine how it went for GMs and players that landed on the bad side of things with even less options/choices available to them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GREAT GOOGLELY MOOGLELY PEOPLE!
PFS is not hiring Pinkertons to hack your personal computers to check up on your characters! Just fix your Oracles so they work and move on! No one but you will know!*Points at the cheater and screeches in pod people*
* spoiler omitted **By the way, what does 'fix' mean here? Play normal 'new' oracle? Play normal 'old' oracle?
And also it's not a subtle action at all. No GM needs to audit your chars to know if you play old or new version of oracle, it's obvious. So everyone will know actually. Then, if you play with the same people, also GM will know if you've bought a rebuild. And when you created your character. And PFS GMs (or GMs in PFS mode) tend to follow PFS rules.
"Fix" in this context would mean "use a rebuild that you technically didn't have to just change entirely to remaster Oracle", since we were talking about the situation of people that didn't get a rebuild so were still on the old class chassis but were forced onto the new mystery/curse.
And yes, if you just showed up with a remaster Oracle, only someone auditing your chronicles to see that you only played them after the cutoff date and didn't buy a rebuild would ever know anything is amiss. I doubt many people are going to audit it THAT closely if your sheets are in order and your build is legal, especially since they'd have to actually know to look specifically for this to even realize something is amiss.
But just to be clear: if the best way to get around this problem is cheating, that points to a problem with the guidelines.
New Oracle is funky we can all agree and it feels weird compared to Sorcerer.
I don't agree, which is why I posted when the PFS stuff started and I missed it was about HOW PFS handled the switch. IMO, the oracle just needs some clarifications like correcting the spell list text vs chart, Bones ect.
|
GREAT GOOGLELY MOOGLELY PEOPLE!
PFS is not hiring Pinkertons to hack your personal computers to check up on your characters! Just fix your Oracles so they work and move on! No one but you will know!*Points at the cheater and screeches in pod people*
* spoiler omitted **By the way, what does 'fix' mean here? Play normal 'new' oracle? Play normal 'old' oracle?
And also it's not a subtle action at all. No GM needs to audit your chars to know if you play old or new version of oracle, it's obvious. So everyone will know actually. Then, if you play with the same people, also GM will know if you've bought a rebuild. And when you created your character. And PFS GMs (or GMs in PFS mode) tend to follow PFS rules."Fix" in this context would mean "use a rebuild that you technically didn't have to just change entirely to remaster Oracle", since we were talking about the situation of people that didn't get a rebuild so were still on the old class chassis but were forced onto the new mystery/curse.
And yes, if you just showed up with a remaster Oracle, only someone auditing your chronicles to see that you only played them after the cutoff date and didn't buy a rebuild would ever know anything is amiss. I doubt many people are going to audit it THAT closely if your sheets are in order and your build is legal, especially since they'd have to actually know to look specifically for this to even realize something is amiss.
But just to be clear: if the best way to get around this problem is cheating, that points to a problem with the guidelines.
If the choice is to not rebuild and play an "illegal" Oracle or to 'cheat' and rebuild to make a "Legal" Oracle, I'd say the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law.
If the choice is to not rebuild and play an "illegal" Oracle or to 'cheat' and rebuild to make a "Legal" Oracle, I'd say the spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law.
Well, the Oracle in question isn't "illegal" in this case. It's a mess of a character that may not even work properly (and would be frustrating for a GM to have to try to figure out at the table), but it's by definition "legal" in PFS because its explicitly what the rules say you must do if you're in this boat. Changing it without paying for a rebuild is cheating under the rules (albeit entirely understandable).
Which demonstrates why that being an outcome that could happen at all is ridiculous and Paizo's "too bad, you should have known better" response was so insulting.
Biggest errata would be renaming the game to Bathminder 2E
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most important errata?
The Redcap had it's scythe replaced by a halberd in the Monster Core, but it's reaction still uses a scythe attack. Since it's been acknowledged that the Monster Core art was accidentally based on DnD redcaps (who have halberds) instead of Pathfinder redcaps, it might be good to change back to a scythe, or at least update the ability to reference the halberd.
Gamebreaking, heartbreaking, Paizo this needs immediate fixing.
The most important errata?
The Redcap had it's scythe replaced by a halberd in the Monster Core, but it's reaction still uses a scythe attack. Since it's been acknowledged that the Monster Core art was accidentally based on DnD redcaps (who have halberds) instead of Pathfinder redcaps, it might be good to change back to a scythe, or at least update the ability to reference the halberd.
Gamebreaking, heartbreaking, Paizo this needs immediate fixing.
Let's go on a hunger strike.
Let's go on a hunger strike.The most important errata?
The Redcap had it's scythe replaced by a halberd in the Monster Core, but it's reaction still uses a scythe attack. Since it's been acknowledged that the Monster Core art was accidentally based on DnD redcaps (who have halberds) instead of Pathfinder redcaps, it might be good to change back to a scythe, or at least update the ability to reference the halberd.
Gamebreaking, heartbreaking, Paizo this needs immediate fixing.
I swear I won't dip my caps in blood until this fiasco is resolved!
ANY OF THEM!
ENGLISH IS AN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE.My degree is in Linguistics, so just to be clear, *all* natural languages contain ambiguity.
In fact, it is impossible to be 100% unambiguous when using natural language.
Not difficult. Impossible. And the more complexity you introduce in order to improve clarity, the more vectors for ambiguity you introduce.
The goal should always be to reduce ambiguity as much as possible, while being aware that perfection is unobtainable.
I know this truth all too well!
The way that Cleric itself is set up, some of those things come at doctrine levels and there just aren't that many doctrine levels. It makes it an awkward fit.
It would have worked better IMO if doctrines could simply declare what level they give things at, since then there would be a lot more flexibility.
Battle Harbinger suffers from this as well to some degree.
The way that Cleric itself is set up, some of those things come at doctrine levels and there just aren't that many doctrine levels. It makes it an awkward fit.
It would have worked better IMO if doctrines could simply declare what level they give things at, since then there would be a lot more flexibility.
Battle Harbinger suffers from this as well to some degree.
The doctrine levels are fine. In fact, a lot of those levels can indeed work for progression.
If given proper martial capabilities, they would be Expert in weapons at 7th, Expert in armor at 11th, Master in weapons at 15th, and Master in armor at 19th. These all coincide with a slightly reduced martial progression as well as the given Doctrine levels.
But for some reason, they decided that Master in armor is too powerful, and Master in weapons should be a 19th level feature. Sounds more to me like Paizo thinks full spellcasting cannot coincide with full martial progression (hence why Wave Casting exists).
Not really an errate per se, but I would love to know why the art for the battle harbinger of Calistria on page 275 has "7th" kinda oddly pasted onto their breastplate? As far as I know, it's precedent not to include Earth numbers and letters in in-world sources, so it breaks with canon in an odd way.
Not really an errate per se, but I would love to know why the art for the battle harbinger of Calistria on page 275 has "7th" kinda oddly pasted onto their breastplate? As far as I know, it's precedent not to include Earth numbers and letters in in-world sources, so it breaks with canon in an odd way.
Not really an errate per se, but I would love to know why the art for the battle harbinger of Calistria on page 275 has "7th" kinda oddly pasted onto their breastplate? As far as I know, it's precedent not to include Earth numbers and letters in in-world sources, so it breaks with canon in an odd way."It's not an S. On my world it means hope." [/QUOTE
That's where my mind went too. :)
Then that 7th seemed an odd choice and that most any symbol would resemble one of the tens of thousands in Earth's lexicon.
Now if it were Cayden and it said "5th", then I'd know it's intentional.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
... is any actual useful errata. Because we have about 2 days for Autumn errata to still be considered autumn errata.
Winter starts officially on December 21st, right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
... is any actual useful errata. Because we have about 2 days for Autumn errata to still be considered autumn errata.Winter starts officially on December 21st, right?
Technically correct, they still have ~23 days. But if you'd told me back in late July that we'd still be waiting in December for errata on some of the most glaring issues, I probably wouldn't have believed you.
Technically correct, they still have ~23 days. But if you'd told me back in late July that we'd still be waiting in December for errata on some of the most glaring issues, I probably wouldn't have believed you.... is any actual useful errata. Because we have about 2 days for Autumn errata to still be considered autumn errata.Winter starts officially on December 21st, right?
Oh, I am absolutely impatiently waiting for the errata pass as well and hoping that they'll clarify my pet issue (duration of the Grandeur reaction for the Champion). Just wanted to point out that they technically have most of a month left to keep to their own timeline.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... is any actual useful errata. Because we have about 2 days for Autumn errata to still be considered autumn errata.Winter starts officially on December 21st, right?That's how it works?! My 'winter' has always started in December :D
Yes, I did find in the wiki that there's apparently "Astronomical season 22 December – 21 March". O_O But I have always used "Meteorological season 1 December – 28/29 February" it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And will continue to do so...
It depends on who you ask but formally it's based around the various equinoxes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... is any actual useful errata. Because we have about 2 days for Autumn errata to still be considered autumn errata.Winter starts officially on December 21st, right?That's how it works?! My 'winter' has always started in December :D
Yes, I did find in the wiki that there's apparently "Astronomical season 22 December – 21 March". O_O But I have always used "Meteorological season 1 December – 28/29 February" it seems. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And will continue to do so...
I'm firmly on team: the winter solstice is Mid-Winter's Day (*not* the first day of winter), so winter = late November through early February. But I recognize that I'm pretty much there by myself.
It could mean anything, between calendar seasons, fiscal quarterly seasons, etc.
That being said, I'm confused why we're on this tangent of what counts as seasonal errata...
And I'm pretty sure it's not 'mine' approach, but of everyone around here. If Paizo really means something else (and not just delays things), it's just another thing americans do differently. And means they probably should have explained what THEY mean by fall and spring.
It's not really an American thing, no. Most Americans would call December a winter month, but the use of the equinox-based astronomical seasons in an 'official' capacity is fairly common across a large number of countries.
It's just one of those things that generally isn't talked about because it's kind of silly, so you usually only see people bring it up in "well did you know that-" type conversations.
My approach is extremely simple: December-January-February - winter, March-April-May - spring, and so on. So I'm kind of surprised when people mean something else. Well, unless it's about actual weather.
And I'm pretty sure it's not 'mine' approach, but of everyone around here.
What people mean when they give a season name varies by context. The common usage is what you're describing. If I talk about viewing hot chocolate as a winter drink, people aren't going to assume I mean "starting on December 22 specifically". (Hell, up here in Canada the running joke is that we only have two seasons: winter and road construction.)
When talking about meteorology, it's definitely by the solstice. Companies promising something "by fall" tend to use the same meaning even though many of their customers aren't going to hear that. It gives them time to be what people would consider "late" while technically still being on time.
English is a very imprecise language in some ways.
|
|
Companies promising something "by fall" tend to use the same meaning even though many of their customers aren't going to hear that.
When companies refer to seasons, they usually are referring to their own fiscal quarters. These will vary depening on what their own fiscal calendar is. For publicly traded companies this is very easy to figure out, but tends to be a little harder to suss out for privately held companies.
Roughly half of companies use the calendar year as their fiscal year. For These companies, the quarters break down as:
Winter: Jan - Mar
Spring: Apr - Jun
Summer: Jul - Sep
Fall: Oct - Dec
Technically, these are only used for financial results, but since it then tends to spill over into budgeting and then project management, the seasonal quarters tend to seep into the way the company sees time in general.
Companies promising something "by fall" tend to use the same meaning even though many of their customers aren't going to hear that.When companies refer to seasons, they usually are referring to their own fiscal quarters. These will vary depening on what their own fiscal calendar is. For publicly traded companies this is very easy to figure out, but tends to be a little harder to suss out for privately held companies.
Roughly half of companies use the calendar year as their fiscal year. For These companies, the quarters break down as:
Winter: Jan - Mar
Spring: Apr - Jun
Summer: Jul - Sep
Fall: Oct - DecTechnically, these are only used for financial results, but since it then tends to spill over into budgeting and then project management, the seasonal quarters tend to seep into the way the company sees time in general.
Yep. This is how business runs. It may be how Paizo views the winter quarter from Oct-Dec per the business calendar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Companies promising something "by fall" tend to use the same meaning even though many of their customers aren't going to hear that.When companies refer to seasons, they usually are referring to their own fiscal quarters. These will vary depening on what their own fiscal calendar is. For publicly traded companies this is very easy to figure out, but tends to be a little harder to suss out for privately held companies.
Roughly half of companies use the calendar year as their fiscal year. For These companies, the quarters break down as:
Winter: Jan - Mar
Spring: Apr - Jun
Summer: Jul - Sep
Fall: Oct - DecTechnically, these are only used for financial results, but since it then tends to spill over into budgeting and then project management, the seasonal quarters tend to seep into the way the company sees time in general.
That of course is perfectly fine when talking with finance folks, shareholders, and people that generally expect that kind of communication.
When talking to ordinary customers, it tends to just result in disappointment because that is not what people are going to take from it.
Battle Harbinger doesnt treat bless bane malediction or benediction spells cast from wands staves or scrolls as battle auras.
Its a little strange with all the references to battle auras it means a bless cast outside slots or fonts isnt a battle aura for them and cant be sustained with any of their feats.
But once bless from a scroll is already in effect for its minute duration why would the spell distinguish itself from any other bless such that it recognizes BH didnt cast it from slots or font and thus cannot be sustained on strike?
One errata I think is as "objectively" needed as it can be is for the Giant Wasp animal companion. It's advanced manoeuver take two action to either fly for half of it's speed, then strike, or strike, then fly for half of it's speed, with no added benefit what so ever. Meaning that it's actually strictly worse than simply using two separate action to fly and strike in any order without using that maneuver. There are probably other small issues like that that are quite obviously oversight that need errata, but it's the only one I can think of.
Another issue that is much more subjective but I think need an errata is untamed form, and the feat "insect shape". Given that like animal form, it heighten up to the 5th level, have the exact same powercurve, and doesn't give any additional utility (no new move speed that animal form can't get, no new senses that animal form can't get), I don't understand why it need a whole new feat to be added into untamed form. It strikes me as a simple "flavor tax", taking one more feat for the druid that want to be specifically insect themed, for no actual power increase. So I think the feat should be retired, and that untamed form should have a third level heigtenning that add the forms listed in insect form in it's list.
This could be intended, but I feel an exemplar's Humble Strikes should also work with unarmed attacks if their damage die is smaller than d6. It wouldn't break anything and makes sense since there's some ikons that work off unarmed attacks.