I notice an optional rule limiting "enhancements" to three; examples include mage armor, which in 3.5e provided an armor bonus, not an enhancement bonus. Is this change intentional, or is it just another example of sloppy, meaningless terminology (as with "enchant")? PLEASE standardize terminology and use it correctly and consistently!
Where this Optional rule is concerned, it is solely using the term "enhancement" in a generic sense refering only towards the spell effects you have cast upon you.
Not an actual change in how Mage Armor works. If that was the case, a change in mechanics, we would have seen a new spell write-up.
In my opinion, if a spell still gives an armor bonus, it should never be called an "enhancement spell" (even in an optional rule), because the term "enhancement," in 3.5, was a bonus type, not a generic term.
This is a very disturbing trend in Pathfinder, to eliminate specific definitions and instead use terms generically and interchangeably -- which needlessly creates confusion. It would be incredibly simple to retain or create specific terms for specific usages: "enchant" to refer only to Enchantment spells, "enhancement" to refer only to the bonus type, etc. "Buff spells" or "personal spells" or something along those lines could have easily been used instead of "enhancement spells." The text would not have suffered in the slightest bit, and the meanings would have been clearer and more direct.
Instead we have the situation described. Yes, it may seem exceptionally nitpicky, but what's next? Will the rules start referring to paladins and barbarians as "fighters" sometimes, because they fight? In a conversation, loose, generic terms are OK. In a set of rules, terms should be clear and consistent.
So, a spell which grants a bonus to AC is not an "enhancement" effect?
It is afterall, providing a bonus of one type, where none existed before. That, to me, is an enhancement. Even if it is not of the enhancement type.
So, a spell which grants a bonus to AC is not an "enhancement" effect? It is after all, providing a bonus of one type, where none existed before. That, to me, is an enhancement. Even if it is not of the enhancement type.
See edit above. Should the rules refer to "barbarians" as "fighters," because they fight?
IIRC, it grants an "enhancement bonus" to armor, thus stacking with "enhancement bonuses" to Dexterity but not to other "enhancement bonuses" to your AC bonus (such as from magic armor).
An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.
Actually, Mage Armor provides an Armor Bonus. Which does not stack with other armor bonuses.
So, a spell which grants a bonus to AC is not an "enhancement" effect? It is after all, providing a bonus of one type, where none existed before. That, to me, is an enhancement. Even if it is not of the enhancement type.See edit above. Should the rules refer to "barbarians" as "fighters," because they fight?
Only if you don't mind the barbarian popping you one in the mouth for insulting him. ;oP
And as far as the rule go... it does list the type of errects that this rule would cover...
Spells and abilities limited by this rule include those that grant ability bonuses, armor class bonuses, bonuses to hit and damage, damage reduction, energy resistances, immunities, save bonuses, speed enhancements, and spell resistance, as well as those spells that grant a special ability
such as freedom of movement or invisibility) or movement type (such as fly).
So, where is the problem?
*shrug* They're people, and they expect people to draw reasonable conclusions (no offense intended). It's not a 'disturbing trend', they just expect you to use context clues.
My point is this: why not just be clear in the first place? If I refer to "that class with archery or two-weapon fighting styles," you know I mean a ranger, but why wouldn't I just say "a ranger"? There's no point to needless obfuscation.
I agree that it's more acceptable for a sidebar than in rules text. But they've done the same thing with "enchant" in the main body of the rules text.
So, where is the problem?
The problem is that some of the enhancements are enhancements. Terms in a rules document should not be needlessly re-defined to make them less clear.
Oh sweet jesus...
Yes, it may seem exceptionally nitpicky...
Quoted for truth. :oP
Pathos, I understand that you don't care if terms have actual definitions. That's fine for you. But, really, it costs nothing to have clear and consistent terms -- just the tiny bit of effort involved in using them. Would your comprehension suffer if we referred to these spells as "buff spells"? Is there a compelling reason to use "enchantment" to refer sometimes to the school of magic, and sometimes to magic item creation, when we could have separate terms?
I agree with Kirth--the term "enhancement" is used consistently throughout the document to refer to a bonus type except in this section (well, and one occurrence in the OGL, but we can't change that...).
Use "augmentation" or the slang "buff" or some other term--don't use a word that has a specific definition in the SRD. This is not nit-picky, it's good design.
Actual terms for when they truely apply... such as in spell or class decriptions... then Yes. The type of bonus granted is important.
But in the case of this "Limited Enhancement" rule. No. The word enhancement is being used as part of the title for a rule. The actual wording of the rule, and what is covers, is quite clearly stated.
"Spells and abilities limited by this rule include those
that grant ability bonuses, armor class bonuses, bonuses
to hit and damage, damage reduction, energy resistances,
immunities, save bonuses, speed enhancements, and spell
resistance, as well as those spells that grant a special ability
(such as freedom of movement or invisibility) or movement type
(such as f ly)."
And is quite self explanatory.
Perhaps, I am just an old "grognard" (if that's the right term the young-uns use these days), and don't feel I need everything spelled out and handed to me on a silver platter. I was capable of reading and understanding the rules, as well as making judgement calls, back when I was 12 (30 years ago). I honestly believe others are quite capable of doing the same in today's world.
I appologise if I seem snarky in my response, I just fail to see how people could get all caught up in the semantics of the term "enhancement", provided they read the rule.
Contributor
|
I appologise if I seem snarky in my response, I just fail to see how people could get all caught up in the semantics of the term "enhancement", provided they read the rule.
Have you ever been on a messageboard or to a games convention? People can and will get worked up about any rule inconsistency! ;-)
Seriously, I can interpret and understand the rules, but not everyone can, and not everyone wants to. There are players that will intentionally use semantics to pervert the intention of a rule. And before you say "A good GM won't allow that" be aware that at cons you don't always have a choice about who you play with, and in organized play, there are sometimes non-intuitive by the RAW rulings made for the sake of consistency.
And sometimes even smart players can just misinterpret something that is worded ambiguously. I had a player tell me that summoned animals from summon spells under 3.0 don't follow orders on the round before they disappear because the text said that they 'act normally on the last turn.' which of course meant that they get an action before they disappear. He thought it meant they do whatever animals would normally do.
Personally I feel one of the biggest benefits of the long and public playtest of Pathfinder is that we can find small inconsistencies like this and patch them.
(And yes, I too have been playing D&D since the dawn of time and had to interpret far less clear rules than this.)
I appologise if I seem snarky in my response, I just fail to see how people could get all caught up in the semantics of the term "enhancement", provided they read the rule.
No apologies needed; you have the right to disagree. I'm caught up because the definition changes from section to section. And consider for a moment that they've done the same thing with "enchantment" as well -- the Alpha 3 document uses that word interchangeably to mean the School of Enchantment, the creation of a magic item, or the casting of any spell or application of any magical effect on any person, object, or place. I remember way back in 1e, as a kid, thinking it was stupid that "enchantment" had no actual definition. 3e/3.5e repaired that.
But now we've gone back to it? Why?
So, that's already two cases in which a pre-existing clear definition has been abandoned. The argument "I'm an old-timer and I know the difference and anyone who doesn't is stupid" is fairly condescending, but more importantly it loses sight of the fact that newer gamers DO have the right to expect the rules to be "spelled out" to them. That's what rules are FOR. It's their entire purpose. Making them as clear as possible isn't "coddling," it's just good writing. Intentionally changing the definitions of terms between paragraphs serves NO useful prupose, except maybe to make old-school people like you and I feel suprerior, and that's not a good enough reason for me.
Have you ever been on a messageboard ...
O,o?
:oPSeriously, I can interpret and understand the rules, but not everyone can, and not everyone wants to. There are players that will intentionally use semantics to pervert the intention of a rule. And before you say "A good GM won't allow that" be aware that at cons you don't always have a choice about who you play with, and in organized play, there are sometimes non-intuitive by the RAW rulings made for the sake of consistency.
And sometimes even smart players can just misinterpret something that is worded ambiguously. I had a player tell me that summoned animals from summon spells under 3.0 don't follow orders on the round before they disappear because the text said that they 'act normally on the last turn.' which of course meant that they get an action before they disappear. He thought it meant they do whatever animals would normally do.
Personally I feel on of the biggest benefits of the long and public playtest of Pathfinder is that we can find small inconsistencies like this and patch them.
(And yes, I too have been playing D&D since the dawn of time and had to interpret far less clear rules than this.)
You know, logically you're right. Emotionally though, I still want to throttle people that get caught up on semantics.
I do still appologize though for any agressiveness on my part, semantics just seem so minor compared to the actual mechanical parts that do need clarification/work done.
So, I'll leave the semantics to those who have the patience for it. :oP
The issue I think is being pointed out here is actually not semantic (i.e. arguing over the interpretation of a word) since the word "enhancement" is specifically defined in the SRD and has a meaning within the rules of the game. Good design should, IMHO, avoid the use of any such specifically defined term for any use other than as it is defined. "Enchantment" is another, as Kirth points out above.
This isn't some whipper-snapper argument (I'm in the grognard category too) so much as me wanting the game to be as clear as possible so that when I have new players they do not become confused.
I would also prefer to use "enhancement" and especially "enchantment" solely for their game term definitions and no others.
Director of Game Design
|
Hey there all,
I can see where this might cause some confusion. I wanted to use "Buff", but the editor in me starting screaming. I will endeavor to clarify this in the beta.
Anybody got a word I can use that actually makes sense?
:-)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
"Limited Spell Boosts"?
"Limited Status Refinements"?
"Limited Spell Modifiers"?
Or some such mix. :oP
|
I'm with you on this Kirth. 3e did a wonderful job clearing up all that confusing BS by making it clear what terms meant.
Yes, it is very easy to infer what's going on in that passage but a game designer should 1) know how to use the terminology provided by a game system and know what those terms mean (which I am sure Jason does), 2) use it correctly in an official capacity to avoid confusion, and 3) not utilize common parlance in place of proper terminology when that parlance might cause confusion. Buff would have been a better common term to use.
I am also bothered by the blurring of official terms in the Pathfinder document.
I would really appreciate an extensive glossary for a game in the scope of D&D. That glossary would define game terms like "enhancement", "grapple", "pin", and others. When these terms are used in the rules they should be in italics if they refer specifically to the glossary definition.
This way, you can have fighters in the party, and you can have _fighters_ in the party, and the reader will never be confused as to the meaning.
By the way, I like "Buff", and I think it has become coined as an actual term in our collective gaming lexicon. I vote for defining and using the term for this purpose. The following sentence may sound weird from a formal editor's POV, but it is totally clear to us gamers: "Any buff with a fixed duration longer than 1 minute or a variable duration longer than 1 round per level."
-Scott
Anybody got a word I can use that actually makes sense?
:-)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I would suggest something like "Limiting Magical Effects" as this would keep this optional rule's language consistent with the terminology used in the Magic Overview section of the SRD.
EDIT: So some sentences would be:
"Magical effects that increase your character’s attributes..."
"Magical effects limited by this rule include those that increase ability scores, armor class, attack and damage rolls, damage reduction, energy resistances, immunities, saving throw modifiers, speed, and spell resistance..."
"When a new magical effect on a creature puts it in excess of this limit, the creature decides which magical effects to keep. All other magical effects are immediately dispelled for that creature. Effects that target items carried by a creature are subject to this limitation..."
"For example, a halfling wizard has three magical effects granting him bonuses..."
This rewording also clarifies that this limitation applies to any magical effect (be it an actual spell, a spell-like ability, or a supernatural ability) and it does not (I presume as designed) include any extraordinary, inherent, racial, etc. bonuses.
I would really appreciate an extensive glossary for a game in the scope of D&D. That glossary would define game terms like "enhancement", "grapple", "pin", and others. When these terms are used in the rules they should be in italics if they refer specifically to the glossary definition.
My PHB has such a glossary. "Enhancement" for instance is:
enhancement bonus: A bonus that represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor’s bonus to AC, they don’t apply against touch attacks.
And I agree with Scotto that inclusion of such a glossary in the Pathfinder RPG book would be very nice.
I can see where this might cause some confusion. I wanted to use "Buff", but the editor in me starting screaming. I will endeavor to clarify this in the beta.
Jason,
Thanks for the reply! With regards to specific terminology, I'd recommend the following:1. Enchant: To affect with a spell or effect from the School of Enchantment. Not to be confused with:
2. Imbue: To create a magical item from a masterwork item, or to add further magical properties to an existing magical item.
3. Enspell: To affect with a spell of any school or type.
4. Enhance: To apply an Enhancement bonus.
5. Augment (Informal "Buff"): To apply a bonus of any type, or any magical property, ability, or advantage, by means of a spell or magical effect. An effect that augments a creature or object is an "augmentation effect," or simply an "augmentation."
|
|
I can see where this might cause some confusion. I wanted to use "Buff", but the editor in me starting screaming. I will endeavor to clarify this in the beta. Anybody got a word I can use that actually makes sense?
The editor in you or you knew James would yell at you for using an MMO term? :)
Boost works, but not every spell that falls into the limiting enhancements optional rule falls into the traditional buff spell category.
I would suggest doing this. Create an optional rules chapter and pull out all the optional rules from each section. This will allow you to first, keep the rules players need to know about separate from the rules the DM isn't going to be using at the table. In the new optional rules chapter you can then list all the spells that fall under this category without changing the existing wording for the optional rules, without changing the spells to make this optional rule more fluid, and most importantly IMHO without making the text before getting to the actual spells in the magic chapter longer. Such a chapter allows you to expand on other optional rules without again, making the actual sections that those options are currently in, longer.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I like "augmentations" personally. It's only slightly more verbose than "enhancements" anyway, and it's broad enough and won't be confused with an "enhancement" bonus from a spell.
"Spell effects" is also a simple fix, such as "a character can only benefit from a maximum of three active spell effects at any given time." Of course, this verbage suggests that "negative" spell effects could count towards the maximum as well. "Well, you're already charmed, held, and feebleminded, so unfortunately, the freedom of movement effect can't be applied to you."
I will say that "buff" sounds too informal and "MMOish" while "Boost" sounds decidedly "un-fantasy." I don't really care for either of those options.
|
|
I can see where this might cause some confusion. I wanted to use "Buff", but the editor in me starting screaming. I will endeavor to clarify this in the beta.Jason,
Thanks for the reply! With regards to specific terminology, I'd recommend the following:1. Enchant: To affect with a spell or effect from the School of Enchantment. Not to be confused with:
2. Imbue: To create a magical item from a masterwork item, or to add further magical properties to an existing magical item.
3. Enspell: To affect with a spell of any school or type.
4. Enhance: To apply an Enhancement bonus.
5. Augment (Informal "Buff"): To apply a bonus of any type, or any magical property, ability, or advantage, by means of a spell or magical effect. An effect that augments a creature or object is an "augmentation effect," or simply an "augmentation."
Yes, please.
|
Thanks for the reply! With regards to specific terminology, I'd recommend the following:
1. Enchant: To affect with a spell or effect from the School of Enchantment. Not to be confused with:
2. Imbue: To create a magical item from a masterwork item, or to add further magical properties to an existing magical item.
3. Enspell: To affect with a spell of any school or type.
4. Enhance: To apply an Enhancement bonus.
5. Augment (Informal "Buff"): To apply a bonus of any type, or any magical property, ability, or advantage, by means of a spell or magical effect. An effect that augments a creature or object is an "augmentation effect," or simply an "augmentation."
I find that list to be complete and intuitive. It's very close to my home usage, which has worked pretty well over the years.
|
|
As a translator and editor, I often tear my hair out at the lack of a proper and direct translation of a term in the target language. The technique I use to stop me from going bald is to go (write) around the issue.
Here is my take on the paragraph:
Optional Rule: Limiting Beneficial Effects
Spells and powers that increase your character’s attributes, grant combat bonuses, and improve abilities can add a great deal of complexity to the game and can really slow down play. [...]Spells and abilities limited by this rule include those that grant ability bonuses, armor class bonuses, bonuses to hit and damage, damage reduction, energy resistances, immunities, save bonuses, speed increases, and spell resistance, as well as those spells that grant a special ability (such as freedom of movement or invisibility) or movement type (such as fly).
[...] All other effects are immediately dispelled for that creature.
Locworks,
For that paragraph, the tack you propose is probably the most efficient fix. But similar terms, often sloppily-used, come up all the time (as seen in the list I proposed). It would be nice to nail down some standard terminology.
|
|
Locworks,
For that paragraph, the tack you propose is probably the most efficient fix. But similar terms, often sloppily-used, come up all the time (as seen in the list I proposed). It would be nice to nail down some standard terminology.
Thank you. It feels sometimes very lonely to be on the self-appointed and very unofficial terminology nitpick team. :-)
Hey there all,
I can see where this might cause some confusion. I wanted to use "Buff", but the editor in me starting screaming. I will endeavor to clarify this in the beta.
Anybody got a word I can use that actually makes sense?
:-)
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
augment / augmentation?
EDIT: oops, someone beat me too it.