|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Unless you had Arcane Caster level from some Spell Like Ability, you wouldn't have an Arcane Caster Level with the Caiman. Divine yes, but not Arcane.
Plus the other issue, of swapping out the familiar to some other familiar is hard because the class feature giving you the familiar doesn't give you choices.
Obvious is a strong word. I'm fine with the concept that some people think it works on everything including Craft (Pottery) checks if you have a morale bonus to it.
It isn't the first time this subject has came up on the forums here. But without the quote from the Herolab forum, there wasn't much to be done. You would say "it only works on saves" and the chorus of forum posts would say "obviously not it works on any" and the thread would drown out any other discussion.
In all my time playing PF, in over 250 PFS tables (combined total of played vs GM-ed) I've yet to see a single player using a Courageous weapon. So this issue isn't something that I'd say even 1 % of PF players use. This isn't an issue because people don't use the property.
Do people not use it because people read it and say "that is junk it only helps saves slightly" or do people say "this is awesome it helps Rage, but I'll not use it cause blah".
If it was Official then it would have to be in the FAQ or Errata for Ultimate Equipment. It's not.
They don't clarify everything. Ignoring context with this ability, you can assert it works for all morale bonuses. But if you understand they don't have the space to double the size of every rule, then you assume rules are written in context.
They probably should FAQ this, just because it seems to be something that even when we know the way the rule works some people continue to say "nuh uh" and keep saying it works the awkward way.
It's not an official clarification.
Actually it is an official clarification on how it works, what the RAW is.
The fact this official clarification wasn't widely disseminated doesn't make it less official.
RAW(Rules as Written), it boosts all morale bonuses. Thats it. That's all it says.
Using the forum created awkward RAW, which is "how can I purposely twist the words to mean something they don't mean".
There is two RAWs:
No, most if not all of those Touch attacks have "as a standard action" in their description. That locks out using them as part of a full attack action.
All Supernatural, Spell Like Abilities, and Extraordinary Abilities are explicitly Standard actions unless they explicitly say otherwise.
Robert A Matthews wrote:
As I said above, that was from HeroLab folks not from SKR. SKR only said the final line.
The other thing that's bugging me is that the email from SKR to Hero Lab said "morale bonuses to saves, fear or otherwise", which would mean that if you had something giving you a morale bonus to non-fear saves, it would still apply. Which is even stranger.
Which means if you have a bonus to fort saves for poison that is a moral bonus, then it would be enhanced.
I wouldn't call it hidden. It is more like consolidation of the info into one central place. The polymorph school. Otherwise you would need to repeat all that info in every spell.
Also, having a swim speed grants a bonus to Swim checks and allows taking 10 in combat in the skill.
I should point out: I totally admit that I am Very Pedantic. I spent about ten years on an ISO programming language committee as a hobby, not representing an employer. :P
But you do understand the rules are written with the assumption that they will not be read that strictly and that the message assumes you understand context and apply it?
Robert A Matthews wrote:
The issue people are having is that if that is the case, then why did they not errata it, or make a FAQ?
Because issuing errata and FAQ for anything is an involved process. A process they reserve (clearly from observation) for things that have been well misunderstood. I don't think many people outside the forums believe that courageous works on Rage.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
Until we see an FAQ/errata here on this site, I'm going to argue in favour of the RAW.
Expect you are intentionally interpreting RAW different than most. In a way that is awkwardly powerful. This can only be accomplished by ignoring context.
Elementals are:Melee slam +4 (1d4 plus burn)
Burn (Ex) A creature with the burn special attack deals fire damage in addition to damage dealt ...
Burn is an ability granted by Elemental Body I, so Druids get it.
King of Vrock wrote:
Rage about martials not getting nice stuff all you want, you're still reading it out of context.
Not to mention we have a reply from SKR when he was one of three of the rules team on precisely how this works. This reply was given to the HeroLab team to properly follow the rules in HL.
The fact that this "makes martials not have nice things" apparently is the reason why everyone who wants it to work in the broken way just reject reality and insert their "until it gets Errata I'll keep using the known incorrect interpretation thank you very much."
Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:
I don't agree with you and to be true you would need to assert they incorrectly copied the "normal" line.
Otherwise normally you don't have a size bonus. You would always add your STR twice (once for STR and once for size) and never add the -1 for being small.
Yes you need to pay the material costs.
Look at the UE for Wand of Restoration. Notice the cheap one 26,000 gp can't be used to restore negative levels with the 1,000 gp material component but the 81,000 gp one can be.
So yea go with max number you can target and multiply by 50 and 100 gp.
"what is wielding a weapon ?", because that question come back often and creates some threads like this one.
Didn't this get answered int he FAQ on Defending Weapon?
Actually, I don't think he wants a direct reply from SKR. Anyone, but SKR. Doubly so because he doesn't work for Paizo any more.
SKR replied to 2700 message posts. SRMF replied to almost 800. JB to less than 300. PDT (combined trio) to much less than that.
Isn't calling for "anyone but SKR" basically the same as "that way I won't get a reply! Yay!"?
Plus the reply happened before he left Paizo, while he was still on the PDT.
You are only concerned with twisting the very plain meaning of the second sentence to avoid being wrong on the internet though evidently.
I am? Seriously?
You honestly believe that?
I'm the guy that more often recognizes what is happening. That there are potentially two ways to read an ability.
I'm the one who pointed out that SKR already spoke on the matter, by officially clarifying to Herolab how the ability should be implemented to follow the rules.
Yet you want to see a direct comment from him. Do you believe the Herolab staff forged the reply to avoid being wrong?
Where is this context you speak of?
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder’s courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon’s enhancement bonus
To ignore context, one must not ignore these two sentences.
To read it your way, would lead to it fortifying the wearer's ability to sing and his ability to cook potatoes like a morale bonus to Craft (cooking) for example.
All this is a moot point. We have an official answer to the Herolab team on how the rule works. You choose to ignore it. That is fine. But please at least admit this:
You know it is unlikely to be put in official FAQ/Errata and by choosing to only change the way you interpret the text until then you get to intentionally interpret the rule incorrectly for that much longer?
Or do you just not care what the words mean if there is a way you can assert they mean something else?
That is not what is says. Even in context what it says is "any morale" "from any source". It's very straightforward really.
Context makes it "any morale bonus to saves" from "any source such as a feat, trait, item, spell, or class ability" has an entirely different meaning.
We are at impasse, because evidently "any morale" "from any source" is somehow only supposed to apply to fear in your reading
Well, all saves, not just fear saves. But I'm not alone, a former member of the rules development team agrees with my reading.
One could ask about an ability that enhances your chance of ignoring fearful saves somehow makes you stronger? Or gives you a bonus to perform (sing) if you happen to have a morale bonus to skill checks? Really? You think that makes sense?
It is a matter of context. You are reading it out of context and assuming the context doesn't matter. Because this allows extra benefits you would prefer to have.
Not even remotely true. I read the rules as they write them. Not in the best light
They write a rule that helps saves vs fear. They extend it to help all morale bonuses to saves (not just fear) and you read it to help all morale bonuses to everything under the sun without so much as any text to say so?
You don't see that as extending the rule to benefits they didn't write? No you don't. Which is why we have so many of these incidents. We will always have these incidents. Until they either start answering more FAQ, people start to read the rules in more conservative lights without the need to extend to unwritten benefits, or they start writing the books double the size to close all the extra benefits.
They don't appear to want to write more FAQ.
So at lass we are at an impasse. There is no good solution to these types of problems.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
why is it not FAQ'd or Errata'd to accommodate the desired effect, if it is really that big of a deal?
I'm assuming this is a honest question. So I'll give you an answer.
To answer FAQ requires time. They must read, comprehend, and understand the question fully to give the best answer. Off the cuff answers only confuse matters. This takes time. Time they have not been granted to do. So either they do much of it on off hours instead of having dinner with their family. Or they don't answer anything but the most pestered questions. The questions with the most number of people asking to be answered.
This isn't a top level question. There are not enough people demanding an answer.
Some people take any silence on an answer to mean that Paizo supports their view of a rule. We shouldn't. They haven't answered the pimpliest questions on how Overrun works. There is little or no agreement on how it works. Yet it remains unanswered.
Doomed Hero wrote:
I'm sure they do write the rules they intend to write. We just read them in the best light possible. We read extra features, power, and benefits they didn't write.
If they closed all these routes off, the rule books would be double the page count.
If we can't or won't understand this fact, then we shouldn't complain when they tell us something written doesn't mean what we dreamed it meant.
SKR has made TONS of errors in his rules
I've yet to see a single one.
In every case there is a situation like this:
A) Interpretation A makes the rule obnoxiously powerful and has strange corner cases (like +3 bonuses to Abilities).
B) Interpretation B is reasonable and isn't overly powerful.
I understand the want, no need, to read the rule in the most liberal (or awkward) way. It makes for more power. More fun. More crushing. But it doesn't mean the rules mean what you are interpreting.
That was written by HL staff.
Ah but the rules are vague enough that it could go either way.
If vague, it is always best to go with the more conservative reading of the text. In this case, that agrees with SKR.
Even then, we already have at least one case of WotC writing rules and meaning one thing, and Paizo copy-pasting the exact same text but deciding they'll have it mean something different.
What case? I'm curious.
As to the OP question, there are very few things that are relevant. Things like "SLA counting for casting" was forbidden in 3.5 but allowed in PF. Then there are things that were removed but assumed to be still present (like the definition of "Known spell" for Wizards was removed in PF but we all assume it still means the same thing.)
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
The 'any other morale bonus' referred to in clause two cannot be a bonus to fear saves. It must be any morale bonus other than a bonus to fear saves....like the bonuses to Str and Con from Rage.
I get the whole "until it hits a FAQ or Errata I didn't hear it" concept. I do.
But it has been clarified to only refer to saves:
christian escobar wrote:
A) If you use a weapon without Trip property, he can trip you prone off your mount if you fail.
B) Did you leave a threatened square? So you would provoke for leaving the square.
C) You need to have yourself or the mount delay to sync up, then one take an action and the other take an action. You could technically ready an action. But if you are readying an action for Vital Strike, expect some GM's feathers to be ruffled.
D) Ready an action is the only way.
Reading it to enhance the Rage is too good for a +1 (courageous), so you will find a lot of GMs that only allow the "save vs fear" bonuses. Also morale bonuses don't stack, so take the higher. Which basically means it needs to be +3 or greater and you have Bless on you to gain the "other sources" bonus.
As to your second question, holding it isn't good enough. If you didn't TWF with it, you don't get the benefit of it.