Cool, neither of us is convinced, and will probably remain that way. I feel you place way too much weight on a 4 letter word that the devs just threw in there because they didn't think about other Dimension Door-Like abilities, you think it was put there as a well thought out plan. So let's forget about that aspect of the discussion, and try it a different way:
I think you are so focused on what the letter of the rules say, that you are completely missing the spirit in which the rule was created. Can you give me any logical reason why the devs would have included Abundant Step, but excluded the Shadowdancer's ability?
Other posters said it would OP to let the shadowdancer have it since it does not have to give up resources such as the ki points or spells to activate it. I tend to run more high powered games than most so I don't know if that would affect the average group or not.
Going back to cast I don't think it is a coincidence that it only appears when spells and SLA's show up.
If cast did not have a specific meaning they why say cast a DD and then mention the monk ability separately if abundant step is also casting it? It seems that nobody can answer that.
A connected question is why not just say access to the DD in any form(spells, SLA's, or SU) allows access to the feat since that would be very easy to do if that was the intent? You are going to need some proof to make a convincing case that they closed off an ability that was meant to be side open by accident.
In PF similar abilities do not ever sub for each other with something wording like "such as..". It is always limited to the specifics. I don't see this as any different. No different than a natural attack not qualifying you for improved grapple, even though unarmed strikes are treated as natural attacks in some cases.
Outside of this debate and my stance on RAW/RAI I would probably let them do it, but the rules say what the rules say. I guess I can hit the FAQ button also to get this changed hopefully.
Other posters said it would OP to let the shadowdancer have it since it does not have to give up resources such as the ki points or spells to activate it. I tend to run more high powered games than most so I don't know if that would affect the average group or not.
This is certainly up for debate, but I would say the extra uses are mitigated by the shadow limitation. Let's also not forget that while a Monk does it less, he does it MUCH further. A 12th level monk can "Charge" someone 840 feet away. A Shadowdancer only 80' and if the SD goes that far, that's it for the day.
Going back to cast I don't think it is a coincidence that it only appears when spells and SLA's show up.
If cast did not have a specific meaning they why say cast a DD and then mention the monk ability separately if abundant step is also casting it? It seems that nobody can answer that.
Because if you look at the base classes and are only thinking about them, these are the only two methods to teleport. Heck, I can't think of another class in core or UC/UM that has the ability to do it without casting. I think the reason it is worded that way was the devs forgot about about Shadowdancer.
In PF similar abilities do not ever sub for each other with something wording like "such as..". It is always limited to the specifics. I don't see this as any different. No different than a natural attack not qualifying you for improved grapple, even though unarmed strikes are treated as natural attacks in some cases.
No one (that I know of) is disputing this, what is in dispute, is if the Shadowdancer was excluded on purpose or not.
And the only evidence that points one way or the other as to whether shadowjump was intended points to "No".
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think you are so focused on what the letter of the rules say, that you are completely missing the spirit in which the rule was created. Can you give me any logical reason why the devs would have included Abundant Step, but excluded the Shadowdancer's ability?
I am a huge fan of GMs and players taking control of their games and running things how they feel works best in their games so by all means run it how you feel is best.
That said, you are mixing up "This is cool and it's balanced..." with "The rules say..."
Would it be cool if it worked with the Shadow Dancer ability? Yes
Is it balanced within the game rules if it does work with the SD ability? Most likely.
Is that what the rule as it is in the book right now says? The Magic Eight ball says No.
I am a huge fan of GMs and players taking control of their games and running things how they feel works best in their games so by all means run it how you feel is best.
That said, you are mixing up "This is cool and it's balanced..." with "The rules say..."
Would it be cool if it worked with the Shadow Dancer ability? Yes
Is it balanced within the game rules if it does work with the SD ability? Most likely.Is that what the rule as it is in the book right now says? The Magic Eight ball says No.
I've said repeatedly that according to RAW Shadowdancer is out of luck and does not apply. I do not believe the omission was intentional though, because I cannot come up with a logical reason for the omission, nor has one been presented beyond the vague has the possibility to be used more.
Let me say again, the rules say no. I accept that, no argument from me. The question is was Shadowdancer omitted on purpose? The only way I'll accept that it was, if some reason for the willing omission was presented.
I am a huge fan of GMs and players taking control of their games and running things how they feel works best in their games so by all means run it how you feel is best.
That said, you are mixing up "This is cool and it's balanced..." with "The rules say..."
Would it be cool if it worked with the Shadow Dancer ability? Yes
Is it balanced within the game rules if it does work with the SD ability? Most likely.Is that what the rule as it is in the book right now says? The Magic Eight ball says No.
I've said repeatedly that according to RAW Shadowdancer is out of luck and does not apply. I do not believe the omission was intentional though, because I cannot come up with a logical reason for the omission, nor has one been presented beyond the vague has the possibility to be used more.
Let me say again, the rules say no. I accept that, no argument from me. The question is was Shadowdancer omitted on purpose? The only way I'll accept that it was, if some reason for the willing omission was presented.
Dennis Baker was the one wrote the original ability. I would think he would have some insight since he discussed it with the devs at least to a small extent, according to another quote upthread, IIRC.
edit:Ok, so I maybe the discussion did not take place. :)
There is still no precedence of ability A equals ability B for purpose of a prereq without it being directly stated so not matter whether you try to use cast for an SU which fails since the monk ability would not need to be mentioned or you try to say abundant step=shadow jump that still fails without some proof since A=B has not been used as I stated in the bolded area of this paragraph.
Why does it matter what was intended?I don't know, you'll have to ask the original poster since he posted (bolding mine) :
...However, if you are not a Dev (or honestly, even if you are) I would prefer to have both your opinion on the interpretation of:
1. Rules As Written
2. Rules As Intended
3. Why you think this on both 1 & 2.Thank you for your time. :)
@wraithstrike,
Our converstations are very similar to this:You: The barn is red
Me: Yes you are correct, the barn is red, but did they mean to paint it red?
You: THE BARN IS RED!
To use the original post, you are trying to argue question 2 by proving question 1. You can't prove question 2 because it calls for an opinion. In your opinion was Shadowdancer excluded on purpose? If you think it was, why do you think it was?
The developers have better thing to do than give play by play feedback on individual feats (though they are pretty awesome about feedback).
No one is asking them to.
LOL at the barn comment.
My point at asking the question was more of a thought exercise. It is like when someone gives you a 30 minute speech that could have been told efficiently in 5 minutes or less, and you "Why didn't you just say that?.
In this case I am asking why make things harder than they have to be, and how do you think it got past everyone at Paizo, not so much so you can answer me, but to ask yourself that question.
I do have a question I would like for you to answer though.
If a dev told you to write it so that only someone who can cast dimension door or use abundant step can use it how would you have written it.
In this case I am asking why make things harder than they have to be, and how do you think it got past everyone at Paizo, not so much so you can answer me, but to ask yourself that question.
I think we all agree mistakes happen, obviously we'll never know what really happened, but if they are anything like me (and where I work) I can see it easily happening. Remember we're talking about a 4 letter word (cast) that is spelling the doom for Shadowdancer.
I do have a question I would like for you to answer though.
If a dev told you to write it so that only someone who can cast dimension door or use abundant step can use it how would you have written it.
This is a lot harder question to answer than it might appear. If the devs came to me and said it exactly that way, then there is only one way, but I don't think a dev would be that explicit, I mean for that, they would just write it themselves right? I think it was more along the lines of "We need some cool feats," or at least the writers were given much more leeway. Even if they were that explicit, they would have to have a reason for excluding Su's other than the monk's that do the same thing.
The real reason, I've taken such an interest in this is I never would have given it a second thought if a Shadowdancer wanted the feat, I would have immedately assumed it was okay. I was curious if I was missing something. Could there be a reason that it was excluded, something that isn't obvious? I'm a horrible optimizer, HORRIBLE. So I allow things all the time that I don't recognize until they're used.
I was assuming you were also a dev for the purpose of the exercise where I asked you to write the ability, but I will admit I was not clear, and they have to be explicit with regard to prereqs anyway.
Here is how I look at things--> I run a pretty high powered game, and you probably do also, but I also know the devs write for everyone, not just my style of play. Because I am such a rules lawyer I have noticed that "As if" is used when the list of possible answers can not reasonably be listed. Beyond that, the list(requirements) must be met. Often they err on the side of caution**. If a GM thinks an ability to weak or limited he can always power it up, but if an ability is too strong it might break the game, and they(the devs) don't have time to find every possible rules exploit.
I don't think it is a matter of shadow jump being too good. I would allow it, for at least one session to try it out, but for someone else it might be too much in their games. I think the devs think along the same lines.
**Stand Still should be able to affect every threatened square IMHO, but they did not allow it to work that way.
edit:My rules lawyerness is also why I know cast only applies to spells and SLA's. The reason I made the challenge to find the word cast in an SU that is not directly saying it is granting an SU or spell, and not duplicating and SU or spell earlier in the thread was because I knew it did not exist, and there was no precedent for it.
It is hyperbole when you know exactly what the point of the statement was. I understand he was trying to make the point you just explained, but the SUV/truck was not even the issue. I don't mind someone asking for a better example, but in a debate one should argue the point.
That SUV/truck example was not the point at all, but I think you already know that. :)
I was debating the core of your argument and using your justification of your example as the framework of your argument and my counterpoint to it. Therefore it wasn't hyperbole because the method and intent did not include any exaggeration either for evidence or effect. At least if you want to get technical. It was an analogue to the logic at hand revolving around both core arguments.
Maybe hyperbole is the wrong word. I am too lazy to find the debate term used for what I am trying to say though. In any event you explained the situation later, and that was cool.
I don't know why this had to turn into a debate with personal attacks. Again. I did my best to phrase the initial post in the most objective way possible. Name calling is not needed, desired or constructive. I don't know how I could be "obtuse" when I am simply asking a question. Nor do I understand how I could be "wrong" when I am the one asking the question. I posted this thread because I want to open my mind to all possibilities.
The original question (minus the reposting of the rules) was:
Can a Horizon Walker with terrain dominance Astral Plane or the Shadowdancer with Shadow Jump qualify for the Dimensional Agility feat?
I'm hoping to get a Dev's attention on this one.
However, if you are not a Dev (or honestly, even if you are) I would prefer to have both your opinion on the interpretation of:
1. Rules As Written
2. Rules As Intended
3. Why you think this on both 1 & 2.
Now, I want to thank everyone for posting here. Especially Dennis Baker as your perspective probably matters more than anyone's. But you really dodged the original question. At this point it is pretty clear what is written but we don't know why it was written that way. Further we have no idea what the intention was or why it was intended.
Allow me to give an example of a possible answer:
1. The rules as written do not allow for either the Shadowdancer (because it uses the wording "as if" and it is a Su ability) or Horizon Walker (because they do not "cast" Dimension Door) to qualify for those line of feats. The reason for the strict wording was to disallow class abilities from future source books from qualifying for these feats. The fact that it disallows Shadowdancer and Horizon Walker was not strictly intended but is the outcome of the wording.2. The intended rules are to disallow abilities such as the Travel domain's power from granting early entry into this feat tree. The intention wasn't specifically to disallow the Shadowdancer or the Horizon Walker. In fact, these two classes were printed and pretty much copy/pasted from 3.x. While we really wanted to use wording that would allow for such things the breadth of the English language does not allow for a qualifying statement that is broad enough to include those possibilities without allowing in other possibilities. We also didn't want to entirely rewrite those two 3.x classes to allow for their abilities to be used. In these circumstances we prefer a more strict wording with the realization that these kinds of things will be house ruled at many play tables regardless.
3. While I answered the reasoning in both 1 and 2 I would also like to point out that I see no balance reason why to not allow this kind of thing in your games. Sometimes it is more important to follow what is fun at your table than to worry about what the semantics behind the RAW are or what the designers think the RAI are. If you are simply concerned about a balance issue then I don't see any issue with that here.
Now, like I said, that is a pretend answer. I don't know if the things I imagined in that answer are correct, incorrect or what. It was just an example. But thats the kinda thing I was going for here.
Also, I would like the opportunity to reply to this:
I just know what I turned in and what turned up in print. The developers have better thing to do than give play by play feedback on individual feats (though they are pretty awesome about feedback).
I disagree. Well, kinda. I want to preface that I do not mean this negatively. But I think that developers have a responcibility to give feedback on their material and clear up unclear rules. In fact, I think that Paizo has done an excellent job of this.
An excellent example of this is in the FAQ where you have an entire section devoted to feats for each book published. I think the topic here is of a fairly high performance as there is an entire line of Dimensional feats that are in question, not just a single feat. This also offers a great opportunity to clear up the definition of "cast" in the context of whether activating a spell-like ability or a supernatural ability that duplicates a spell are concerned as those rules affect a lot of classes and feats.
In short, I'm sure you intended well with your above statement. However, I believe developers don't have anything better to do than to make sure their currently published material is clear. In fact, I think they are obligated to. This is a philosophy that I see in Paizo as a company and one that I appreciate as a customer. A flaw of certain other publishers was to publish unclear material, not clear up the issues it presented and just keep printing more unclear material which lead to unmitigated power creep.
I don't know why this had to turn into a debate with personal attacks.
What are you talking about? I don't recall calling you obtuse, and this thread has been going for a few days. Could you provide a link so that even if you are not referring to me the individual in questions knows who they are?
As to your question:
What I know-->People have made complaints that the monk and casters are "stuck" after using dimension door or Abundant Step. They would like to continue their actions. Those are the only ones I know of that got complaints on the boards regarding DD on the boards.
What I think the result was-->... so the devs only thought of those two when writing the feats. In short the sqeaky wheels got the grease. Casters cast, and monks use abundant step so the problem was solved.
That is the only reason I can think of for calling out a casting of DD and the monk specifically.
I think that at the time of the writing the RAW and RAI were matched up perfectly, but I don't think it is gamebreaking to give it to the Shadowdancer so I FAQ'd it hoping they errata it.
Also, I would like the opportunity to reply to this:
I just know what I turned in and what turned up in print. The developers have better thing to do than give play by play feedback on individual feats (though they are pretty awesome about feedback).I disagree. Well, kinda. I want to preface that I do not mean this negatively. But I think that developers have a responcibility to give feedback on their material and clear up unclear rules. In fact, I think that Paizo has done an excellent job of this.
An excellent example of this is in the FAQ where you have an entire section devoted to feats for each book published. I think the topic here is of a fairly high performance as there is an entire line of Dimensional feats that are in question, not just a single feat. This also offers a great opportunity to clear up the definition of "cast" in the context of whether activating a spell-like ability or a supernatural ability that duplicates a spell are concerned as those rules affect a lot of classes and feats.
In short, I'm sure you intended well with your above statement. However, I believe developers don't have anything better to do than to make sure their currently published material is clear. In fact, I think they are obligated to. This is a philosophy that I see in Paizo as a company and one that I appreciate as a customer. A flaw of certain other publishers was to publish unclear material, not clear up the issues it presented and just keep printing more unclear material which lead to unmitigated power creep.
I think he was saying they don't have time to provide feedback to freelancers, not to him/us as fans of the game.
SU's are never cast. "Cast" does not every appear without it saying you can cast spell or SLA. The one instance of the word "cast" being used with an SU it says you can cast spell X. There is no precedent for any SU being cast.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My comment about the developers not having time to give play by play feedback was a direct response to the previous post and you are taking it out of the context I'd intended it to be read. I'll rephrase so it makes sense outside of that context: Developers have better things to do than give the designers feedback on every single change they make to their work.
Whether they have better things to do than give feedback to the community as a whole is a whole other can of worms I'll leave to the community to debate.
As for not answering your question, I've answered it as best as I can. In fact the original answer Cheapy linked above pretty much covers what I can answer about 'intent'. I'll expand on that a little bit though.
Your question "Did the developer intend for this to apply to the Horizon Walker ability or the Shadow Dancer ability?" Isn't relevant because the feat wasn't aimed at either specific ability.
Feats are generally designed for a specific goal. In this case, adding some (hopefully cool) new abilities based on dimension door and the related monk ability. Whether other abilities in the game are compatible or not is largely irrelevant as long as the feat interacting with them don't affect the game negatively.
It is always cooler if a feat can be used by more people but it's impossible to cover every contingency, particularly where there are a lot of related abilities that do very similar but not identical things. The Shadow Dancer power, the clerical domain power, the wizard school power, sorcerer bloodline power, etc... all do dimension door type things, but they all work differently and come into play at different levels of the game.
As for the Horizon Walker ability, since it happens to be effectively identical to dimension door, it works.
Now of course anyone being intentionally obtuse can make anything not clear.
Perhaps I mistook who you were directing that at but it doesn't really matter as I can't see saying someone is being "intentionally obtuse" as a good thing. Lets just move on, I know I have.
Dennis:
Sorry if I took that out of context, I thought it was a general statement.
It makes me sad that you think what is relevant to your player base is not relevant to you. However, in interest of keeping this constructive let me see if I have the basic gist of this:
While it was your intention for the Dimensional feats to specifically apply to use of the Dimension Door spell and the Abundant Step class feature you were not purposefully attempting to discluding the Shadowdancer from qualifying for them?
It makes me sad that you think what is relevant to your player base is not relevant to you.
That is not what he said.
He is saying they don't have time to contact every freelancer and say "I changed your spell/feat/etc, and this is why...."
Making rules so that most everyone understands them is hard, and having to explain every rule change to every freelancer just takes up more time. That does not mean their work should not be appreciated, and no feedback should ever be given, but if a final change is made just before the product is sent to the printer no freelancer can really expect a phone call.
As an example myself and 3(IIRC) other posters who know the rules really well took a good while to nail down a version of NEA we can all agree on. As an aside, hopefully that version makes it to print since I think it is pretty clear.
So is this basically what was intended then?:
While it was your intention for the Dimensional feats to specifically apply to use of the Dimension Door spell and the Abundant Step class feature you were not purposefully attempting to disclude the Shadowdancer from qualifying for them?
Dennis was not even trying to limit the ability to DD. He wanted it open to other teleportation effects as well. His submission was more open than what Paizo wanted, and what he submitted is not even what turned up in the books.
What Dennis intended does not matter. What matter is what Paizo's intent was.
I am not saying Dennis's opinions are not important. I am saying if you(anyone) turn something into Paizo and they change it their intent when they change it is what counts.
Though for houseruling Dennis's Intent does show that at no point did he thing the ability should not be used by SD's.
On a tangent this thread helped me build my character for my wifes latest game. She is allowing me to use the ability with the teleportation subschool ability which I get at will from the Tome of Secrets Warlock. So I can truely be a short range nightcrawler. Now to pray she doesn't kill me the first time I say BAMF!
I am not understanding your statement Talonhawke.
|
RAW, it looks to me like no to the shadow dancer. Unfortunately, that makes it a lot less fun in my opinion. The first thing I thought of when I saw the feat chain was finally something cool for the shadow dancer. I my campaign at home I would allow it for all teleportation effects. It is a really long feat chain and a heavy price to pay so it seems balanced.
In PFS I am trying out a Magus to utilize this feat chain. Hopefully it will be as fun as it looks. But...holy feat drain...
Which part?
The first is just saying that the origanal designer of the feat cleary felt ShadowDancer would be able to use the feat and didnt see balance issues so if someone wanted to allow it in a home game that would be good justification if another player wanted to be a jerk about it.
The second was just some off topic musing i should have spoilered.
I was asking about the first part. I got it now.
Simply checking the boards :)
How crazy would I have to be to allow a 4th level Shadow Dancer to take the Dimensional Agility feats? Would you allow it? Can you see anything game-breaking about it?
James Jacobs:
I think that would be fine. Shadow Jump is more or less identical in use to abundant step or dimension door, so letting Dimensional Agility work with it is cool.
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz2u4o&page=272?Ask-James-Jacobs-ALL-your-Que stions-Here#13561
Even though I am saying it is not RAI or RAW I would allow it, at least on a trial basis. I would be sure to tell the player it was a trial basis only though or that like anything else that is found to be broken, it can be banned.
So James and Dennis both think it is fine to use. James even went to the extent of saying that Shadow Jump "more ore less identical in use to abundant step or dimension door". That is ironic seeing as that kind of statement (from me) is what started this thread in the first place.
Honestly, this thread has been a very validating one for me. So far it looks like while the actual RAW may not agree due to a single word ("cast") that it was not meant by the designers to disclude the Shadowdancer. Moreover, the majority of people would allow it in their games including the designers themselves.
Aside from a purposefully overly strict interpretation of the RAW, I see no reason not to allow it as it appears to be RAI. RAI by the designers.
There is an important thing about game design, which also applies here and that's called "spirit of the game".
Sometimes, especially at written words, the phrasing can simply not cover every possibility, than it's on the DM to use common sense and check if this is ok.
Here the intention of the feat-chain is to create a teleporting fighter/mage, shadowstep is a viable source for this build, especially as it's like Dimension Door/Abundant Step, but with more restriction (only shadow areas)
At least Paizo only gives you the basic structur of the game, what the game then really is, is up to YOU!
I totally agree, Tryn. And honestly as a game designer I would like to make sure that I use wording that is more restrictive rather than less due to power creep from later materials. So I can understand the more restrictive wording even while the RAI or "spirit of the game" as you put it, would point to it being usable.
And anyway, through all this I think there was only one person who said they wouldn't allow it in their games.
So James and Dennis both think it is fine to use. James even went to the extent of saying that Shadow Jump "more ore less identical in use to abundant step or dimension door". That is ironic seeing as that kind of statement (from me) is what started this thread in the first place.
Honestly, this thread has been a very validating one for me. So far it looks like while the actual RAW may not agree due to a single word ("cast") that it was not meant by the designers to disclude the Shadowdancer. Moreover, the majority of people would allow it in their games including the designers themselves.
Aside from a purposefully overly strict interpretation of the RAW, I see no reason not to allow it as it appears to be RAI. RAI by the designers.
Once again, someone saying they would allow something does not mean they think it is RAI. I don't see why that is so hard to understand. Dennis also said the rules don't support the RAI as you see it. James allows a lot of things that are against the rules, and some rules that exist he is against. I even said I would probably allow it.
edit:Serious question-->Is English your first language? You have tried to say that "I will allow it" is the same as "This is RAI" more than once, and in those cases that was not what was said by the other posters.
wraithstrike: Do you want to stop being such a dick to me? I have done nothing to you and do not deserve to be talked to that way.
Yes, English is my first language. Asking that question to someone who speaks (and understands) English is offensive. What you need to understand is that things can be interpretted differently than the way you understand them.
A perfect example is in this thread. When Talonhawke said:
The first is just saying that the origanal designer of the feat cleary felt ShadowDancer would be able to use the feat and didnt see balance issues...
I didn't see you jumping down his throat. I have the same interpretation as he does based on what Dennis has said. Dennis, the original designer of the rule "cleary felt ShadowDancer would be able to use" = intended. That, to me, is RAI. The same goes for James' answer to the question above. My take away from it is:
1. He thinks it would be fine.2. The abilities are more or less identical.
3. Regardless of the actual printed RAW, his personal opinion of the spirit of the rules is that it was intended to be allowed ("letting Dimensional Agility work with it is cool").
You may have a different opinion. Thats fine. But could you PLEASE stop trying to pick a fight with me about an opinion?! Maybe you are too sensitive about these rules questions because to me it seems you are emotionally invested in the response. I don't even care about that but I would prefer that you take your agression out on someone else. It just seems that you are taking this far too personally and I am not interested in a flame war.
I am not being a dick to you. Statements like that is why I question your understanding of things. You have accused me of insulting you more than once, and I have yet to do so.
I can't help what offends. There are a lot of people here with English as a second language. If you have misinterpreted myself, Dennis, and others more than once I don't think it is an invalid question.
I did not see Talonhawke's statement, and I did not jump down your throat.
RAI-rules as intended by Paizo.
1. Dennis said his original intention was changed. He also said he would probably allow it to work. He never said it was intended by Paizo for it to work that way, which would be RAI.
2.More or less is not identical. How identical they are is up to interpretation. The fact remains that they are not the same, so even if they had similar fluff, and worked more closely than they did, that still does not mean A=B. As an example SLA's and spells are very similar, but one as a prereq does not mean you can always use the other as a pre-req. We have beaten that horse to death already though.
3.He never said it was in the spirit of the rules for it to be allowed. That would be RAI. He said it was cool, just like I did. Thinking it is cool does not = it is the intent.
It is always cooler if a feat can be used by more people but it's impossible to cover every contingency, particularly where there are a lot of related abilities that do very similar but not identical things. The Shadow Dancer power, the clerical domain power, the wizard school power, sorcerer bloodline power, etc... all do dimension door type things, but they all work differently and come into play at different levels of the game.
As for the Horizon Walker ability, since it happens to be effectively identical to dimension door, it works.
I am not taking things personally. You need to stop stating non-facts as facts. If someone reads you post without checking they might believe you. I am only countering that your statements are not valid about any dev or freelancer saying it is RAI.
Note that the only thing he said works is the HW ability. As for the other things he says they work differently, never saying the RAI allows them.
Your questioning of my understanding of things is insulting, wraithstrike. You seem incapable of seperating a simple difference of opinion from making claims against one's ability to understand things. I assure you that the difference is relevant. You can help what offends when it is pointed out to you and you continue. So, I'll leave it at that and hope you stop taking this rules question personally.
1. What Dennis said is that what he submitted was different than what made it into print. Paizo changed it, not Dennis - the designer. It is my opinion that what the designer intended is more important than what the developer decided made it to be published. You are open to your own opinion. However, stating that it is fact that "What Dennis intended does not matter. What matter is what Paizo's intent was." does not make it a fact. If you are searching for RAI then you need to look for what the intention of the rule was when the rule was wrote. That James' statements agree with Dennis' serves as further validation for me.
2. If you don't care about other's interpretations (even the designers) about how identical the abilities are then why should anyone else care about yours? Your opinions on this are no more valid than anyone else's and likely less valid than the designers. Them saying it is "cool" and "more or less identical" is good enough for me. If it isn't good enough for you, thats fine. But trying to convince everyone else that your opinion is more valid than mine or anyone else's isn't going to get anywhere. My opinion is that the designer's original intent was to allow it (and currently do not see issue with allowing it) is the most valid. That is why I asked the original question in the way that I did and I ended up getting the response I was looking for from the designers. Lucky me. :)
3. Dennis said what his original intent for the feat chain were. That is RAI. To repost what he originally said (from Cheapy's link on the first page):
Well...
I wrote it a little more open ended and in development they added the dimension door limit. While I liked the idea of having it be open ended I think Steven (or Sean, not sure which) made a good call in limiting it. This is simpler and less prone to possible rules hacks.
I don't think they were worried about demons going crazy with it, I think they were worried about something far more destructive, rules lawyers.
While I think the bit about the worry of rules lawyers is ironically humorous in this particular context, it is clear from his post that his original intent was for it to be more "open ended". That coupled with the support for it's use being "cool", "fine" and "more or less identical" by other designers/developers support that it was RAI regardless of whether it is RAW (RAW was a seperate question, see my original post).
Your questioning of my understanding of things is insulting, wraithstrike.
I can't help what you consider to be insulting, and no I am not being snarky. I am only stating a fact. You have taken my words, and the word of other posters out of context more than once. What exactly do you expect for me to do?
So, I'll leave it at that and hope you stop taking this rules question personally.
I have never taken the situation personally. You keep seeing insults where are none.
1. What Dennis said is that what he submitted was different than what made it into print. Paizo changed it, not Dennis - the designer. It is my opinion that what the designer intended is more important than what the developer decided made it to be published. You are open to your own opinion. However, stating that it is fact that "What Dennis intended does not matter. What matter is what Paizo's intent was." does not make it a fact. If you are searching for RAI then you need to look for what the intention of the rule was when the rule was wrote. That James' statements agree with Dennis' serves as further validation for me.
What makes it into print is what is official. What is official is what matters. It is no different than an author submitting a draft of a novel and the editor saying change X, Y, and Z. I never saw James agree with Dennis. I already said Dennis original submission was very open, but that is not what made it to the books. Even Dennis said that. The question here is not what is the RAI version of what Dennis submitted, but what is the RAI version of what got printed.
2. If you don't care about other's interpretations (even the designers) about how identical the abilities are then why should anyone else care about yours?
I never said the designers opinions did not matter. Once again you misunderstand me and then you wonder why I question your ability to understand things.
Your opinions on this are no more valid than anyone else's and likely less valid than the designers.
I never said they were. What is provable is valid. I have made that statement already. I have made statements supporting why my interpretation is most likely the correct one, and they have not been countered. As I said before if this were a court of law I would probably win the case.
Them saying it is "cool" and "more or less identical" is good enough for me. If it isn't good enough for you, thats fine.
I did say I would probably allow it. I said it more than once. I said that when I was saying that allowing something and think it is RAI are not the same thing. Now I do admit there have been a lot of post so you probably missed it. What I don't understand is why you keep assuming "I would allow it" = "This is the way the rule makers intended for it to work" which is a long way of saying RAI.
That is why I asked the original question in the way that I did and I ended up getting the response I was looking for from the designers. Lucky me. :)
If the response was "I will allow then you did." If the response you wanted was "I think that was the RAI of Paizo" then you did not.
Dennis does not decide what is RAI for a published ability, only the submitted version.
If I submit a feat allowing you to ignore blindsight, and Paizo rewrites so it is less powerful then the RAI is not for it to allow blindsight. The RAI becomes whatever they change it to.
He also wrote a different version of Feral Combat Training that got changed drastically before the UC was published. Due to the how much it was changed you would never know it if he had not said anything. His original version does not fly, and in a rules discussion official version are what counts. If you want to ask can X work then it is best to post in the advice area.
Feral Combat Training was originally meant to be a replacement for IUS for characters who wanted to take the martial arts styles and use them with their natural attacks from class abilities (Alchemists claws, sorcerer claws, half orc bite, etc). The developer pushed back and asked me to rewrite it with the IUS pre-req. I grumbled a bit because I thought it was the kiss of death for the feat. After a few months now, I see a fair number of people are taking the feat in spite of the extra cost. It turns out that the combat styles are pretty powerful and character natural attacks are also pretty powerful; a fair number of people are willing to grab the extra feat to combine the two. I'm coming around to the developer's point of view on this one, seems like the final version is just fine.
Here is a link. click me
As you can see the original write-up and the final rules are not always the same.
If you look at the book the original version of this feat does not apply. RAI nor RAW supports the original write-up here either.
If RAI = the drafted version is more official than the released version then sure you are correct.
If RAI = the printed version is official then you are not correct.
What exactly do you expect for me to do?
I expect you to stop insulting my level of understanding. This is now the third time I have asked for this.
What is official is what matters. ... The question here is not what is the RAI version of what Dennis submitted, but what is the RAI version of what got printed.
According to whom? You are not the original poster of the question. I am. And it matters to me what the designer's original intent was.
I never said the designers opinions did not matter.
Yes you did. What you said I quoted in my last post. You said, "What Dennis intended does not matter." Dennis is a designer. That is what you said. Now I suppose you'll try to argue that "intention" and "opinions" is not the same?
As I said before if this were a court of law I would probably win the case.
You see, this is the ironic humour I was refering to in my previous post. This is not a court of law whether you are a rules lawyer or not. Further, even if it were, you would not win the case as what you are arguing over is a matter of opinion and I am the one writing the law. I posted the original question. The intent of the designers DOES matter to me whether it matters to you or not is moot.
It seems to me that you are still trying to prove RAW, rather than what the designer's original intention was. If we agree what the designer's original intention was then what is there to argue over? Whether or not it matters? Well I can tell you that it does beyond a reasonable doubt as I am the original poster of this thread, the asker of the question and the one to whom it matters.
What I don't understand is why you keep assuming "I would allow it" = "This is the way the rule makers intended for it to work" which is a long way of saying RAI.
Strawman falacy. I did not/do not assume this. In fact, dont need to make any assumptions on this particular matter at all as Dennis outright said that his original intent was to be more open-ended. The only assumptions I make is that despite RAW and how Paizo changed it that both Dennis and James would allow it. "Allowing it" and "original intention" being two different, yet related topics.
Dennis does not decide what is RAI for a published ability, only the submitted version.
Paizo doesn't decide what is the RAI for the designer.
If RAI = the drafted version is more official than the released version then sure you are correct.
If RAI = the printed version is official then you are not correct.
What is more official is not in dispute. That was the "1." in my original post. The "2." was RAI, a different, yet related topic. Obviously the printed version is more "official" but that relates to "1. RAW" not "2. RAI".
Look, I understand that asking for RAI is entering muddy waters. The biggest reason is because "intention" is an objective issue. What was intended by designer/developer may not be what was intended by another. The problem is that without asking what the intention was we will never know. And that by asking we are only getting the opinions of whomever answers. Thus far though, we have only got what Dennis and James have said. No designers or developers have spoke out against disallowing it from a RAI standpoint. I'm not foolish enough to make the supposition that "if they didn't want it they would speak now" as that is akin to anyone saying "if God doesn't exist then he shall strike me down now with a bolt of lightning". However, we do have Dennis' original intention and Dennis and James saying it is "cool", "fine" and "more or less identical".
Also, I wish that these boards had a decent system for private messaging as this is typically the kind of thing I would prefer to take to private tells to clear up any potential misunderstandings while leaving the thread intact.
Out of curiousity (and by way of extending the proverbial olive branch and get past any potential misunderstandings), wraithstrike: I have the excuse of living in the US in the EST time zone working midnights and weekends at a job with frequent dead times for posting at the hours that I do. You seem to follow up my posts rather quickly. I'm curious as to the cause for your posting schedule? I assume a similar situation? Or maybe your in a wildly different time zone?
Lune, Wraithstrike - I have not read all your posts, just a few here and there and the last ones. It looks to me as though you are having a theoretical discussion about what RAI is, what RAW is etc.
I think I understand your positions and that you are just talking past each other. As far as I can tell you are writing about the following different items and meanings:
Abbreviation - Meaning
- DR - Designer's RAW, i.e. what he wrote to achieve
- DI - Designer's RAI, i.e. what he intended with DR
- PR - Paizo's/Developer's RAW, i.e. what Paizo developer's, usually based on DR, wrote to achieve
- PI - Paizo's/Developer's RAI, i.e. what they intended, usually but not always equal to DI
- HR - Houserule implementation. Can be completely different from the previous variants, or equal one of them.
Most often when there are discussions about RAW and RAI in these forums people are talking about PR and PI respectively, since that is what they have available from their sources. On some occasions, DR and DI is also known, due to the designer posting it in the forum and thus taking part in the discussion. This is the case with Dennis' posts here.
Sometimes PI is not clear from PR, and thus discussions as yours are started and go on and on with evidence being collected to determine what PI might actually be.
Now you two seem to have the following stances:
Lune:
PR implements DI, so you interpret the RAW provided in the way that Dennis explained. And for you DI is more important than PI, which might actually be equal to DI, but we do not know since nobody has given a really official explicit statement regarding the Shadowdancer on this matter.
Wraithstrike:
For you, PR is more important than DR, and PI is more important than DI. However, DI matters as long as PI is not known to help determine what is actually meant. You also believe that sometime PR and PI may greatly differ from DR and DI, in which case you go for PR and PI. As long as PI is unknown you stated that you would probably set HR to DI.
Now, this turned maybe a bit formal, but I am trying to remove some of the ambiguity. The central argument your discussion is circling around and around seems to be that for Lune DI is sufficient to prove PI, and for Wraithstrike it is not, but he would be willing to houserule it the same way as long as there is no further evidence against that.
Maybe that clears it up, or maybe I am missing the point totally, but there it is :-)
I expect you to stop insulting my level of understanding. This is now the third time I have asked for this.
I did not insult your level of understanding. I questioned it, just by debating with someone you are questioning them.
What is official is what matters. ... The question here is not what is the RAI version of what Dennis submitted, but what is the RAI version of what got printed.
So you are not asking about the book version, but about the original draft?
I never said the designers opinions did not matter.Yes you did. What you said I quoted in my last post. You said, "What Dennis intended does not matter." Dennis is a designer. That is what you said. Now I suppose you'll try to argue that "intention" and "opinions" is not the same?
What he intended doesn't matter as far as official rules. What Jason or SKR, or whoever changed it matters in that regard. I do see we had a misunderstanding. When I say RAI I am speaking of the printed version, not the original draft. That matters because this is the official rules section of the boards. Anything that is not official is a house rule, not that house rules are bad, but I almost never discuss them here.
As I said before if this were a court of law I would probably win the case.You see, this is the ironic humour I was refering to in my previous post. This is not a court of law whether you are a rules lawyer or not. Further, even if it were, you would not win the case as what you are arguing over is a matter of opinion and I am the one writing the law.
Actually I would win since I have used the rule book(law) to refute any counter claim, while nothing official has countered any of my claims.
It seems to me that you are still trying to prove RAW, rather than what the designer's original intention was. If we agree what the designer's original intention was then what is there to argue over? Whether or not it matters? Well I can tell you that it does beyond a reasonable doubt as I am the original poster of this thread, the asker of the question and the one to whom it matters.
When you first asked the question I assumed you were asking about the book version as anyone would. Now you are asking about the draft version, and if you said you were changing over I missed it. In that case I agree that the original draft is a lot more open to use for others.
They do have a messaging system. It just came online last week IIRC. I live in the east coast, but I work night shift so I have strange sleeping hours.
I will send you a message, and you should see an envelope at the of your screen.
nice new abbreviations
For the most part that is correct. I assume when asking for rules clarification it is PR and PI that are being discussed. Eventually(just before your post) I realized he was discussing DR and DI. :)
edit:
Lune
There is also a chat system, but it is not on this site. Paizo chat place
I had forgotten about it since I almost never go there.
Myself and Mr.Lune have come to an agreement. It was just a big misunderstanding. PM'ing is awesome.