Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [pcgen] Re: Pathfinder Skill Point Calculations

Expand Messages
  • Andrew
    Thanks for the research - I dislike unofficial in any title, even if it s quoting a person involved in the book. We have to go by the book and official
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 27 11:34 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks for the research -
      I dislike "unofficial" in any title, even if it's quoting a person involved in the book. We have to
      go by the book and 'official' errata put out by the publisher. I can't justify pushing for a change
      for an unofficial ruling this late in the cycle.

      However, you can open a Feature Request for it. What you're asking involves either a Code Change
      (Which at this point would be a NEW TAG Request) or a Data Change. It won't likely get addressed
      till after the 6.0 release though. Beta phase and rapidly moving towards our final release.

      I'll take into consideration such things, when an object's design is unclear - like a bad
      abbreviation, or wording that makes it difficult to determine intent.

      Cheers,

      On 9/27/2012 9:50 PM, Allen Cohn wrote:
      > I just did some research. Although it's not crystal clear in the rules, James Jacobs (Paizo exec) has stated that the "minimum function" is applied before the human race and favored class bonuses, and this interpretation has become part of the unofficial FAQ.
      >
      > http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/pathfinder-faq#TOC-Acquiring-Skills-4-13-10-
      >
      > Allen
      >
      > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Andrew <drew0500@...> wrote:
      >> Hi,
      >>
      >> Please cite the source of the rule that states it is only from the class skill points.
      >>
      >> Cheers,
      >>
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > Related Lists
      > PCGen's release site: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net
      > PCGen's Mailing Lists and Links: http://wiki.pcgen.org/Mailing_Lists_and_PCGen_Links
      > PCGen's alpha build: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net/07_autobuilds.php
      > PCGen's JIRA Tracker: http://jira.pcgen.org
      >
      >
      > PCGen List File Help: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PCGenListFileHelp/
      > (for assistance in creating new homebrew or official list files)
      >
      > PCGen Experimental: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/
      > (for new official data source development)
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >

      --
      Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
      Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
      Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
      Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
      Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Allen Cohn
      Thanks, Andrew. It sounds like the PCGen team thinks that PCGen is following the rules correctly now. So, no need for PCGen change. I ll just use the interface
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 28 7:36 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks, Andrew.

        It sounds like the PCGen team thinks that PCGen is following the rules correctly now. So, no need for PCGen change.

        I'll just use the interface to force an extra skill point each level. That should solve the needs of my table's alternate interpretation.

        Thanks,
        Allen


        --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Andrew <drew0500@...> wrote:
        >
        > Thanks for the research -
        > I dislike "unofficial" in any title, even if it's quoting a person involved in the book. We have to
        > go by the book and 'official' errata put out by the publisher. I can't justify pushing for a change
        > for an unofficial ruling this late in the cycle.
        >
        > However, you can open a Feature Request for it. What you're asking involves either a Code Change
        > (Which at this point would be a NEW TAG Request) or a Data Change. It won't likely get addressed
        > till after the 6.0 release though. Beta phase and rapidly moving towards our final release.
        >
        > I'll take into consideration such things, when an object's design is unclear - like a bad
        > abbreviation, or wording that makes it difficult to determine intent.
        >
        > Cheers,
      • Andrew
        We endeavor to follow the official rules of the source, even if they might be outdated. Looking at that page, the comment was made April 2010, and it s now
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 28 7:45 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          We endeavor to follow the official rules of the source, even if they might be outdated. Looking at
          that page, the comment was made April 2010, and it's now September 2012.

          I can have a PL monkey poke them and see if they put it in an errata update and we missed it.

          Like I said, make a JIRA. We can work something out in the alpha cycle of 6.2. But we're a bit too
          late to alter things for 6.0.

          If you want to make it work without the manual adjustment - Remove the BONUS:SKILLPOOL from the
          human trait, instead change it to 'BONUS:ABILITYPOOL|Human Skill Point|TL'

          Create the 'Human Skill Point' Abilitycategory. Make an ability (You can model it from the one I use
          in Eclipse)

          ~ Full Skill Buy KEY:Full Skill Buy OUTPUTNAME:~ Skill Buy Choice
          CATEGORY:Skill Buy TYPE:SkillBuy.FullCost STACK:YES MULT:YES
          CHOOSE:SKILL|TYPE=AdeptChoice BONUS:SKILLRANK|%LIST|1 COST:1

          Hope that helps.

          Cheers,


          On 9/28/2012 7:36 AM, Allen Cohn wrote:
          > Thanks, Andrew.
          >
          > It sounds like the PCGen team thinks that PCGen is following the rules correctly now. So, no need for PCGen change.
          >
          > I'll just use the interface to force an extra skill point each level. That should solve the needs of my table's alternate interpretation.
          >
          > Thanks,
          > Allen
          >
          >
          > --- In pcgen@yahoogroups.com, Andrew <drew0500@...> wrote:
          >> Thanks for the research -
          >> I dislike "unofficial" in any title, even if it's quoting a person involved in the book. We have to
          >> go by the book and 'official' errata put out by the publisher. I can't justify pushing for a change
          >> for an unofficial ruling this late in the cycle.
          >>
          >> However, you can open a Feature Request for it. What you're asking involves either a Code Change
          >> (Which at this point would be a NEW TAG Request) or a Data Change. It won't likely get addressed
          >> till after the 6.0 release though. Beta phase and rapidly moving towards our final release.
          >>
          >> I'll take into consideration such things, when an object's design is unclear - like a bad
          >> abbreviation, or wording that makes it difficult to determine intent.
          >>
          >> Cheers,
          >
          >
          > ------------------------------------
          >
          > Related Lists
          > PCGen's release site: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net
          > PCGen's Mailing Lists and Links: http://wiki.pcgen.org/Mailing_Lists_and_PCGen_Links
          > PCGen's alpha build: http://pcgen.sourceforge.net/07_autobuilds.php
          > PCGen's JIRA Tracker: http://jira.pcgen.org
          >
          >
          > PCGen List File Help: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PCGenListFileHelp/
          > (for assistance in creating new homebrew or official list files)
          >
          > PCGen Experimental: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/pcgen_experimental/
          > (for new official data source development)
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >

          --
          Andrew Maitland (LegacyKing)
          Admin Silverback - PCGen Board of Directors
          Data 2nd, Docs Tamarin, OS Lemur
          Unique Title "Quick-Silverback Tracker Monkey"
          Unique Title "The Torturer of PCGen"


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.