|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I've yet to see them respond to "wall of text" FAQ requests. Pick one question and ask it succinctly.
This feat needs FAQ because I've seen two 900+ post threads passionately debate the meaning of this feat and I don't think there is anything short of a FAQ will resolve the divide between the sides.
Now is it "you're totally reading that rule incorrectly" or "The way I'd run it, you're totally reading that rule incorrectly"?
No, it is more like "just because you read those words to mean that doesn't mean that is the only way to read those words or even the most appropriate or reasonable way to read those words."
Basically, there may be multiple ways to read that block of text and just because there isn't a FAQ or an Errata doesn't mean you are right.
you ... take your stance a few steps back and concede that there have and will continue to be instances where dev's don't agree
While I may be willing to say there may have been instances of disagreement.
I still strongly assert that the number of times people have thought something wasn't in agreement far the number of fingers and toes I have. Mostly because I see disagreement about what the rules say between different parties so many times. Both in the rules in the book and the statements of devs.
Official ruling go in an official place. Everything else is unofficial.
I'm totally not a fan of this stance. It works very well to potentially allow a "protection shield" against a particular interpretation of a rule. If a dev comes along and says "You totally are reading that rule incorrectly" these type of stances are effective (if permitted) in permitting someone from acknowledging their interpretation of the rules is not the one true way.
Do you REALLY think every DEV does things 100% the same as every other DEV?
No I don't think they are hive mind or 100% right all the time, but I know more times than I can count of instances where forums posters said "these two posts contradict" when actually they don't if you understand what both posts are saying.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
No, but the spell Magic Vestment makes them a valid target for that spell temporarily.
Akari Sayuri "Tiger Lily" wrote:
There's no clause if the AC is the same, so if you have the same AC between them and your armor, you can split +x enchantments between them and benefit from both.
If this is for PFS, then you should avoid trying this. You will see table variance at any table that feels your pedantic reading of the rules isn't the Rules as Written by their interpretation.
quotes from different dev's (or sometimes even the same dev) that'd say different things about the same rule.
I'd almost wager that every single time this "happened" the dev was talking about two different aspect and not saying something contradictory.
I know from my own experience, I've seen a lot of these type of things. For example, all the confusion about "there are two FAQ that say different things" nonsense that has happened in the past. Those FAQ still say the same thing today, if they did conflict they would have been changed.
I've always said I think there is a general test you can do.
If the ability refers to the class, then it doesn't apply to all classes but to only that class. If it makes a statement, it applies to all.
Orc Bloodline wrote:
You gain the orc subtype, including darkvision 60 feet and light sensitivity. If you already have darkvision, its range increases to 90 feet. Whenever you cast a spell that deals damage, that spell deals +1 point of damage per die rolled.
Arcane Bond wrote:
At 1st level, wizards form a powerful bond with an object or a creature
If you have Bodyguard and Arcane Strike, when you take an Attack of Opportunity do you add the Arcane Strike bonus to the AC granted? You would not be able to activate Arcane Strike because it isn't your turn.
Ultimately this is written in a way that you can expect to see table variance. You will need to go over it with your GM and see how he interprets the interaction between these.
It doesn't list armor ACP/ASF/Max Dex
Any time the target takes damage from a dazing Wall of Fire the character needs to make a saving throw.
Other than reading "any time ... takes damage" to arrive at that interpretation, do you have anything to back that up? It is a fine interpretation, I'm just curious if there is anything to support it.
Considering that NPC would have been written by an intern or staff tasked with making some NPC (not dev team members), we can't put much stock in why they had it to stack or not.
I believe the correct interpretation (and if you prefer alternate RAW) is this:
A 5th level Paladin with Animal Ally (2nd level EDL animal) and later gains Divine Bond for an Animal Companion. His EDL will be 5th level and Animal Ally will be doing nothing.
However if you were a 5th level Cleric with Animal Ally your EDL is 2nd. Then you gain 5 levels in Paladin and take Divine Bond for an Animal Companion. Your EDL is (5-3)+(5) = 7th. This effectively makes your Animal Companion = to your Character Level - 3 no matter how many levels you take in your Animal Companion class.
The strange thing about this was the seemingly different effects one could acquire between a 3rd level Dragoon with a Sash and a 7th level Dragoon without one.
No other place in the rules would we assume this could be true. Adding two levels of Cleric or an item that is as if two levels higher should arrive at the same values. Same for Monk and Monk's Robe.
I feel that it is clear that the section above also applies to armour training.
Good fine, yes that is explicitly on point. So it covers Armor Training and not getting Armor Training 2 means you don't have it and can't get it until you have sufficient levels to gain it (which may be never.)
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
+1 There is no different in a level 4 Dragoon with the Sash and a level 8 Dragoon without the Sash in regards to Armor Training. Neither have move in Heavy Plate. That is all the Sash does, increase your Fighter levels by 4 and since your Fighter levels are modified by your Archetype, you may get varied benefits from using the Sash if the Archetype swapped out higher level Armor Training advancement.
cite any class ability text (not table) that uses the terms "Armor Training 2" or "Armor Training 3" or Armor Training 4". You won't find one.
The archetypes that swap out Armor Training 2 etc.
Ultimately, this doesn't sound like something that all parties can agree. So we each need to understand that both interpretations are RAW, even if we don't agree to the other interpretation.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Gisher shows us an official source to say that armor training 2 is what give heavy armor movement.
+1 If you have traded away the Armor Training 2 then you don't get the speed reduction in Heavy Plate.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
The Dragoon trades away Armor Training 2 which means at 7th level Fighter the Dragoon doesn't have Armor Training with or without a Sash.