Two Handed Weapon and Armor Spikes Resolved by the Design Team?

[Crash_00]

So what I'm seeing is two shortsowrds, specifically not the case I showed you.

Similarly, as levels increase, specifically not 1st level when they stated the balance crunch to be.

Then again, it's not as good as dual wielding two of the same weapon, so it doesn't matter. Why?
Why do you get to choose where the balance point is for the dev team?

What is the balancing point? As Sean stated, it's at first level.

Hence why I'm, you know, posting how it looks at first level.

You took WF shortswords and dual wield them. Great, your average damage is one lower. Higher hit for lower damage on your main hand. There is a tradeoff

What is the tradeoff for exchanging the longsword for a great sword when using armor spikes in the off hand? There isn't one. That's the point.

[Drachasor]

Crash_00 wrote:

So what I'm seeing is two shortsowrds, specifically not the case I showed you.

Similarly, as levels increase, specifically not 1st level when they stated the balance crunch to be.

Then again, it's not as good as dual wielding two of the same weapon, so it doesn't matter. Why?
Why do you get to choose where the balance point is for the dev team?

What is the balancing point? As Sean stated, it's at first level.

Hence why I'm, you know, posting how it looks at first level.

You took WF shortswords and dual wield them. Great, your average damage is one lower. Higher hit for lower damage on your main hand. There is a tradeoff

What is the tradeoff for exchanging the longsword for a great sword when using armor spikes in the off hand? There isn't one. That's the point.

Ahh, I see, you are wondering why a bad combo is bad. Here's a hint: because it is bad. The Pathfinder system punishes people that use two different weapons to dual wield. This choice is crappy no matter whether you have Armor Spikes + GS TWF or not.

Similarly, going TWF with a Fighter is generally a poor choice. At first level, a Rogue or Ninja just does it better. The Fighter just doesn't have the class abilities to back it up.

So yeah, you can make a crappy character with TWF if you want. Good for you. That doesn't make the guy using Armor Spikes and a GS broken.

And the trade-off is obvious. Armor Spikes is a poor weapon. It has low damage and the worst crit. Dual-wielding lowers your effectiveness with your GS, which is a really good weapon. So yeah, there's a trade-off. Are you making a trade-off compared to a REALLLY crappy TWF option? Not really, but then looking at sub-par options to balance things just gives everyone a bunch of "options" that get ignored.

Edit: Btw, the math I referred to was done assuming 1st level characters.

[Espy Kismet]

Crash_00 wrote:

So what I'm seeing is two shortsowrds, specifically not the case I showed you.

Similarly, as levels increase, specifically not 1st level when they stated the balance crunch to be.

Then again, it's not as good as dual wielding two of the same weapon, so it doesn't matter. Why?
Why do you get to choose where the balance point is for the dev team?

What is the balancing point? As Sean stated, it's at first level.

Hence why I'm, you know, posting how it looks at first level.

You took WF shortswords and dual wield them. Great, your average damage is one lower. Higher hit for lower damage on your main hand. There is a tradeoff

What is the tradeoff for exchanging the longsword for a great sword when using armor spikes in the off hand? There isn't one. That's the point.

Hmm.. no wonder martial have a hard time in higher levels.

[Crash_00]

Drachasor wrote:

Ahh, I see, you are wondering why a bad combo is bad. Here's a hint: because it is bad. The Pathfinder system punishes people that use two different weapons to dual wield. This choice is crappy no matter whether you have Armor Spikes + GS TWF or not.

Similarly, going TWF with a Fighter is generally a poor choice. At first level, a Rogue or Ninja just does it better. The Fighter just doesn't have the class abilities to back it up.

So yeah, you can make a crappy character with TWF if you want. Good for you. That doesn't make the guy using Armor Spikes and a GS broken.

And the trade-off is obvious. Armor Spikes is a poor weapon. It has low damage and the worst crit. Dual-wielding lowers your effectiveness with your GS, which is a really good weapon. So yeah, there's a trade-off. Are you making a trade-off compared to a REALLLY crappy TWF option? Not really, but then looking at sub-par options to balance things just gives everyone a bunch of "options" that get ignored.

Edit: Btw, the math I referred to was done assuming 1st level characters.

No, I'm saying that it's not your choice to decide what combo to balance against. You want to balance against two of the same weapon or a single weapon. The devs balanced against two different weapons.

Why? Because it is fighting with two different weapons. It doesn't matter whether fighting with two different weapons is balanced against 2HF or 2WF with the same weapon. Armor Spikes + Greatsword is TWF with two different weapons and that's what it has to be compared against.

Take a moment to consider that for a moment. This is the same style of fighting as using a shortsword and longsword. That is what it is supposed to be balanced with. All the drawbacks of GS + AS apply just as equally to LS + SS. So stop trying to compare it to other styles. It isn't those styles. You're arguing at this point that TWF with separate weapons needs a boost which is a separate topic all together.

To make it worse, it violates the rules at a base level. It uses the off hand twice. That is what causes it to come out ahead and why it isn't allowed. This is the reason it has never actually worked. Unless you are a race with extra arms, you only have one off hand to use.

[Drachasor]

Crash_00 wrote:

No, I'm saying that it's not your choice to decide what combo to balance against. You want to balance against two of the same weapon or a single weapon. The devs balanced against two different weapons.

Why? Because it is fighting with two different weapons. It doesn't matter whether fighting with two different weapons is balanced against 2HF or 2WF with the same weapon. Armor Spikes + Greatsword is TWF with two different weapons and that's what it has to be compared against.

Take a moment to consider that for a moment. This is the same style of fighting as using a shortsword and longsword. That is what it is supposed to be balanced with. All the drawbacks of GS + AS apply just as equally to LS + SS. So stop trying to compare it to other styles. It isn't those styles. You're arguing at this point that TWF with separate weapons needs a boost which is a separate topic all together.

Might as well balance it against TWF with mace and a club. Something that is a bad combat style because of the game mechanics should not be used as a baseline in balance other options.

So no, I reject this principle that you've made up. It does not lead to good game design, especially when the option you are talking about (TWF with different weapons) is pretty much indistinguishable at 1st level from using two of the same weapon -- you just need to switch what you are holding.

Note that this principle you made up is NOT what the Devs cited. They in fact used two-handed fighting as a baseline along with ways of using two weapons. So there's no reason to use a crappy option as a reference.

Crash_00 wrote:

You're arguing at this point that TWF with separate weapons needs a boost which is a separate topic all together.

My actual point is that the weapon handedness bit of combat needs to be completely rewritten. It's a mess, as we've seen from this thread and 3.5 it causes a lot of arguments. Any rewrite really should address all these issues and ideally increase the number of effective options.

Outside of that, in isolated cases, we should only concern ourselves with overall combat balance. If we concern ourselves with what the errata should look like, on the other hand, then we should pick a few fighting styles and balance them against each other.

[james maissen]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Again, the character in the game, knows the difference between someone attacking with a two-handed sword and armor spikes and someone attacking with a two-handed weapon and then armor spikes? He knows the number of attacks he gets before he has to wait his turn in next round?

Perhaps we remove TWF from the game entirely?

Wouldn't the flavor of it be maintained by iterative attacks just as well?

Whatever you might say in favor of TWF remaining is going to extend to both instances here.

-James

[Crash_00]

Quote:

Might as well balance it against TWF with mace and a club. Something that is a bad combat style because of the game mechanics should not be used as a baseline in balance other options.

Are the greatsword and armor spikes two different types of weapons?

Are the longsword and shortsword two different types of weapons?
Is a greatsword two different types of weapons?
Are the shorsword and shortsword two different types of weapons?

Answer key:
Yes
Yes
No
No

They aren't using a different design to balance. They are using the same design to balance. Greatsword and armor spikes is mechanically the same style as Longsword and Shortsword. it isn't a different style

Quote:

Note that this principle you made up is NOT what the Devs cited. They in fact used two-handed fighting as a baseline along with ways of using two weapons. So there's no reason to use a crappy option as a reference.

Please read my whole posts before you make these claims:

"To make it worse, it violates the rules at a base level. It uses the off hand twice. That is what causes it to come out ahead and why it isn't allowed. This is the reason it has never actually worked. Unless you are a race with extra arms, you only have one off hand to use."

Now look at the FAQ:
"therefore your off-hand is unavailable to make any attacks."

They use your hands (not physical hands but primary and off) as the baseline for what you should be able to do. Primary grants x1, off grants x.5. You can only use each one once which equals x1.5. it has nothing to do with Two handed fighting and everything to do with that 1.5 which the extra use of the off hand breaks (Primary + Off + Off = x2).

[Drachasor]

Ahh, yes, ignore or take out of context the points you don't like. That's why this back-and-forth has gone nowhere.

[yeti1069]

Kryzbyn wrote:

He doesn't have to make a build to prove it. Sneaking in an extra 1d6+ 1/2 STR every round is against the intent of the rules, and now illegal.

Riiight.

Yeah, because the half-orc barbarian able to do 2d6+1d4+3xStr in a round, without having spent one feat, used any build points, or gone out of his way to do ANYTHING, and who doesn't have a penalty on attack rolls, either, is clearly against the intent of the rules also.

Or any of the other races that gain a natural bite attack that can be used with a two-handed weapon.

Or a synthesist.

[Crash_00]

Does he not have to swap out a racial trait for that Yeti? That is doing something.

@Drachasor
What has been taken out of context?
Likewise is used at the beginning of the FAQ to indicate that the clarification applies to both armor spikes and spiked gauntlets. The reasoning for why it is disallowed is the same. You can't use the off hand twice.

What points have been ignored?
You want to compare fighting with two different types of weapons to fighting with two of the same weapon instead of fighting with two different types of weapons. I believe that you are the one ignoring facts here.

Simple question, are the greatsword and armor spikes two different types of weapons?

Simple question, did the design team clarify that having already used the off hand is the reason you can't TWF with a 2HW?

[ciretose]

ciretose wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I have no problem waiting.

As I was falling asleep it occured to me.

Your attacks are

+1 Silversheen Kukri: +19/+14 (1d4+19 15-20/x2)
+1 Cold Iron Kukri: +19/+16* (1d4+16 15-20/x2)

Or 21.5 and 17.5

The Falcion does 2d4 damage, or +2.5. Two-handed gives me a +3, power attack two handed another +3 meaning at total of 8.5 damage.

So my first attack is 29 vs your 21.5
My second attack is 1d6 (3.5) + 6 + 1 or 11.5

So your attacks are 39
My attacks are 40.5

You of course have the crit range on your 2nd attack that I don't have, but I have furious focus on my first attack.

I am far too tired to do the math...but I think I may actually have you on damage, with the advantage of significantly more single attack damage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, now I really am going to sleep.

EDIT: Actually, I get another +1 to damage, but I'm lagging on your second attack because you have weapon focus over me.

It will still be close. I'll figure it out in the AM.

So now I am back, awake and ready(ish) for math.

+1 Silversheen Kukri: +19/+14 (1d4+19 15-20/x2) Avg 21.5
+1 Cold Iron Kukri: +19/+16* (1d4+16 15-20/x2) Avg 18.5

Total of 40 before crit

Mine are, again just swapping the bonuses to Kukri over to Falcion, I will have equal bonuses, plus 8.5 damage added from the Falcion (2d4 is +2.5) Power attack (3 more two handed) and Strength (3)

So my average damage with my primary is 29 to your 21.5, all else is the same. Also, swapping lunge for furious focus, I don't lose 3 on my first power attack, which means I pretty much always power attack and my first attack and moving attack is much better than yours.

My off hand will attack at a -3 relative to your off hand (no wf, gwf and one less Weapon training.

Damage will be 1d6 + 11 (power attacking) for a total damage of 14.5, with obviously less crit.

So assuming all your math is right and my adjustments relative your math are right, let us plug it all into DPR against AC 24.

My DPR is 69.78

Your DPR is 64.45

Please check my math, but if I am right, game over.

Edit: Worse, I forgot furious focus, taking mine up to 75.22

Again, this is with all the advantages to a single weapon in the the optimal class.

Assuming my math is correct...

[The Crusader]

Wait... I want to be sure I've understood this...

After a number of comments by the Paizo Developers, some bordering on condescending, about how they thought these rules and the reasoning behind them were "obvious", and the interpretations by players who used the 2H + 0H TWF style required some "creative reading"...

It actually turns out that the 3.5 FAQ regarding the identically worded rules upon which the Pathfinder system was built, ASSUMES THAT THE 2H + 0H TWF WORKS?!?!

Have I read that correctly? Can someone please tell me that I've misunderstood what has been posted in this thread? Because, up to this point I've just had some concerns about a ruling that I've disagreed with. But, if this is the case (and I'm doing my best to reserve judgement, in case I've misread this), then I am genuinely angry.

[Kryzbyn]

Yes.
But angry?
A bit over the top.

[Nicos]

Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

So even though you can get the same flavor, you don't want to because its not powerful?

Non TWF sword and shiel is weak but acceptable. Spend your itetariteve kicking is terrible, awful. A flavor choise should not be penalized that hard.

[ciretose]

THE FAQ THAT I DON'T LIKE FROM THE ACTUAL SYSTEM I AM USING IS INCONSISTENT WITH A FAQ FROM ANOTHER SYSTEM THAT IT WAS BASED ON THAT SAYS THINGS THAT I DO LIKE, BUT STILL DOESN'T ADDRESS THE THF STRENGTH BONUS ARGUMENT AT ALL AND I AM ANGRY!

RAWR!!!

Oh wait. No I'm not. That would be a completely irrational response to a question I asked the developers to answer being answered.

Whew...

[Kryzbyn]

Is this really a sense of entitlement thing?

How did I miss that?

[Kryzbyn]

AMPOSTER NOT LIKE PDT

[Crash_00]

It didn't assume that it worked, it allowed it to work. Until that point, it didn't work. 3.5 gave into the players that couldn't separate physical hands from hand used to attack. Pathfinder didn't. End of story.

[ciretose]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Is this really a sense of entitlement thing?

How did I miss that?

Come to the dark side...we have a good dental plan...

[Crash_00]

and capes...

[Kryzbyn]

Cookies?

Dunno man, I already kinda joined Ashiel's cult.
Can we still friends?

[ciretose]

Nicos - This is not meant as sarcastic at all, but could you check my math. I suck at the maths.

If my maths is...um....if my calculations are correct, I think that is game over for the argument, given the fighter would be the optimal beneficiary of the single weapon bonuses.

[ciretose]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Cookies?

Dunno man, I already kinda joined Ashiel's cult.
Can we still friends?

Only if you promise to shake your head and sigh every time someone swears the Devs fully intended for you to be able to make a simulacrum wish machine :)

[Nicos]

Crash_00 wrote:

Does he not have to swap out a racial trait for that Yeti? That is doing something.

Because taking the feat, buying a higher DEx and alower STR is not doing anything?

[Kryzbyn]

Snow cone wishmaker!!

[ciretose]

Kryzbyn wrote:

Snow cone wishmaker!!

You owe me a new keyboard!

[Nicos]

Crash_00 wrote:

The only counter I've seen is that the style has a lower to hit. How? Both are two weapon fighting with a light weapon. They have the same to hit assuming both use power attack. Even without power attack, the damage is still higher:
1D8+1D6+4+2 =14 avg.
2D6+1D6+6+2 = 18.5 avg.
It's roughly the same percentage of extra damage (around a third).

It is too much because it is better that the poorer combat style out there? should they ban archery and normal THF too?

[Nicos]

ciretose wrote:

Nicos - This is not meant as sarcastic at all, but could you check my math. I suck at the maths.

If my maths is...um....if my calculations are correct, I think that is game over for the argument, given the fighter would be the optimal beneficiary of the single weapon bonuses.

I will, I just have to eat my breakfast first.

[ciretose]

Nicos wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Nicos - This is not meant as sarcastic at all, but could you check my math. I suck at the maths.

If my maths is...um....if my calculations are correct, I think that is game over for the argument, given the fighter would be the optimal beneficiary of the single weapon bonuses.

I will, I just have to eat my breakfast first.

No worries. I'm going to bow out of this for a few hours to do actual work at work. I'll check back later.

[Xaratherus]

Drachasor wrote:

Trying to pretend 3.5 didn't explicitly allow this is silly. It was allowed and it was usable. Just because some people at WotC didn't like it doesn't change this fact. And they even determined that the rules DID allow this, hence the FAQ. The 3.5 people were well-aware that they could disagree with the official rules for the game. Many, if not all, used house rules in their games. They were quite good at distinguishing between one and the other.

Actually, it's not silly at all.

"FAQ" stands for "frequently asked question".

"Explicitly" means that something is utterly unambiguous and clear.

So if this was explicitly allowed in 3.5, if it was so utterly clear and unambiguous, please explain how its intent was questioned so frequently as to merit an FAQ?

As I mentioned to BBT earlier, it was not explicitly allowed. It was ambiguous in 3.5 (to the point where the legality of it changed at least twice, and even after the FAQ was not really unanimously accepted by the designers), and it was ambiguous when it was ported over to Pathfinder.

[The Crusader]

Fine. Call it "entitlement" if you want. Or "nerdrage" or whatever.

For me, it's a respect issue. This started with a one word FAQ followed by a nonsensical clarification regarding a gauntlet. Then there we're unwritten rules and overriding design philosophies that created a heretofore unmentioned and unknown hard cap on strength bonus to iterative attacks, followed by a string of strawman queries about multiple attacks with extra limbs, followed by a petulant storm out. This was carried on by further comments of design philosophies, that should seem "obvious", apparently.

But, all in all, the prevailing wind coming from Paizo was that it was never, never, never the intent of the rules or the people who wrote the rules to allow this....

And that was a lie.

Yes, I'm angry.

[Crash_00]

It wasn't a lie. The intent was never to be allowed to do this. 3.5 buckled when so many people misinterpreted the rule and were nerdraging over it.

Quote:

It is too much because it is better that the poorer combat style out there? should they ban archery and normal THF too?

It isn't a different style. It is better than the other options of the same style it falls in. By 32%.

That 32% comes from the fact that you are using your off hand in multiple places, which isn't allowed.

You're missing the main issue with it. It relies on doing something that is against the rules to make it better. Even if you argue that it isn't better, it doesn't cause us to ignore the fact that it's still breaking the rules.

Getting test answers off of a stupid person is still cheating, right?

[Nicos]

Crash_00 wrote:

Quote:

It is too much because it is better that the poorer combat style out there? should they ban archery and normal THF too?

It isn't a different style. It is better than the other options of the same style it falls in. By 32%.

Yeah, the total Suckage of TWF with diferent weapons have to be preserved, itis a classic of PF.

[Crash_00]

It's served me well, but to each their own.

[The Crusader]

Crash_00 wrote:

It wasn't a lie. The intent was never to be allowed to do this. 3.5 buckled when so many people misinterpreted the rule and were nerdraging over it.

Quote:

It is too much because it is better that the poorer combat style out there? should they ban archery and normal THF too?

It isn't a different style. It is better than the other options of the same style it falls in. By 32%.

That 32% comes from the fact that you are using your off hand in multiple places, which isn't allowed.

You're missing the main issue with it. It relies on doing something that is against the rules to make it better. Even if you argue that it isn't better, it doesn't cause us to ignore the fact that it's still breaking the rules.

Getting test answers off of a stupid person is still cheating, right?

There has been little or no change in the wording of the rules that govern this, since 3.5. It is pointless speculation to say 3.5 "buckled".

If the wording hasn't changed, then how has the intent changed? This has all the marks of someone's personal dislike, and a clumsy attempt to backwardsly justify it.

Which makes it a lie.

[Crash_00]

The wording didn't change between when they didn't allow it and when they did allow it either. You see, in 3.5, the ruling was made more than once. It played hopscotch depending on which dev answered it.

Then again, it makes much more sense to just get angry instead of actually looking into the facts.

[Rynjin]

Crash_00 wrote:

It isn't a different style. It is better than the other options of the same style it falls in. By 32%.

That 32% comes from the fact that you are using your off hand in multiple places

How someone can so spectacularly miss the point so many times in a row astounds me.

Allow me to break it down for you:

Is it better than TWFing with two different weapons? Yes.

Is it better than TWFing with the same weapon? No.

Is it better than 2Hing a Greatsword alone? No.

Is it better than archery? No.

Is it better than spellcasting? Lolno.

Therefore, there is no issue. It is balanced towards the game as a whole.

The fact that it is more powerful than an extremely weak option is irrelevant. If there are styles that are clearly stronger than it, it is not unbalanced. If it were more powerful than the strongest style, it would be a balance issue. If it were more powerful than all other TWFing options, it would be a balance issue.

It does neither of these things.

It is not a balance issue.

Crash_00 wrote:

which isn't allowed.

Now. It isn't allowed NOW.

This is an important distinction.

The discussion has moved on. I believe everyone is aware that this combo no longer works.

What people are wondering is why, besides these secret design principles, since there is no balance or thematic problem with the combination.

ciretose wrote:

Only if you promise to shake your head and sigh every time someone swears the Devs fully intended for you to be able to make a simulacrum wish machine :)

If they didn't want it to happen they should've worded the spell less poorly. Just sayin'. =)

[JHFizban]

The Crusader wrote:

Then there we're unwritten rules and overriding design philosophies that created a heretofore unmentioned and unknown hard cap on strength bonus to iterative attacks...

It may have been unmentioned, but it was not unknown. Many of us had deduced it from seeing how the various fighting styles worked:

* Two-handed: 1.5x Str bonus
* Two-weapon: 1.0x Str bonus main hand, 0.5x Str bonus off hand
* Weapon & Shield: 1.0x Str bonus main hand, give up off hand for defense

Sure, there were exceptions - feats that gave full Str to off hand, class abilities (monk) that eliminated off hand and gave full Str bonus, etc. But the foundation was there: 1.5x Str bonus was the standard.

That's why it was so easy for some of us to see that Greatsword (1.5x Str) and Armor Spikes (0.5x Str) was not meant to work, because that broke the standard foundation without requiring any special interaction with class abilities or feats.

I do agree, however, that there is a strong element of flavor involved. That flavor, however, is gouda. ;)

[The Crusader]

Crash_00 wrote:

The wording didn't change between when they didn't allow it and when they did allow it either. You see, in 3.5, the ruling was made more than once. It played hopscotch depending on which dev answered it.

Then again, it makes much more sense to just get angry instead of actually looking into the facts.

What facts are you presenting? All I see from you is conjecture and speculation. If you have facts, then cite them. If they made multiple FAQ rulings, then link them.

The facts I see are: Devs say it was never intended. It was intended.

There is no way for both of those to be true.

[Kryzbyn]

What's so hard about "it was never intended in Pathfinder"?

It's preposterous to demand that a company and group of developers taking 3.5 under OGL and making it into their own game must not change the decisions of the devs of the previous game.

The Crusader wrote:

The facts I see are: Devs say it was never intended in Pathfinder. It was intended in 3.5.

There is no way for both of those to be true.

Added the correct wording, and yes there is a way for both of those to be true.

[Rynjin]

They can change it just fine. Got no problem with that.

But it was at least implied that it was intended. A lot of content was copied wholesale from 3.5, and this combo was never even sorta kinda obliquely mentioned as being disallowed, so people assumed it worked the same way it always had, just like other rules pre-change/clarification in Pathfinder.

This is not a bad assumption in a game that was intended to be "3.5 updated somewhat in a new setting".

[The Crusader]

Nothing, aside from being demostrably false.

What's so hard about saying, "We don't like it. We don't want it. So, no."?

[Starbuck_II]

Kryzbyn wrote:

What's so hard about "it was never intended in Pathfinder"?

It's preposterous to demand that a company and group of developers taking 3.5 under OGL and making it into their own game must not change the decisions of the devs of the previous game.

The Crusader wrote:

The facts I see are: Devs say it was never intended in Pathfinder. It was intended in 3.5.

There is no way for both of those to be true.

Added the correct wording, and yes there is a way for both of those to be true.

Then why have the text stay the same as 3.5? See usually when people expect a rule to be different they WRITE THE RULES different.

I mean, I'm just a Panda, but even I know that.

[Kryzbyn]

We saw how well rewriting the rules worked for Flurry of Blows, right?
To the people who will read a rule the way they want to, it matters little.

[Kryzbyn]

The Crusader wrote:

Nothing, aside from being demostrably false.

Demonstrably false except for this pesky matter of the FAQ that just made it not demonstrably false, and never was demonstrably false because it was intended that way all along.

The Crusader wrote:

What's so hard about saying, "We don't like it. We don't want it. So, no."?

Nothing. House rule it.

[Xaratherus]

The Crusader wrote:

Nothing, aside from being demostrably false.

What's so hard about saying, "We don't like it. We don't want it. So, no."?

Because it's not demonstrably false.

The language was ambiguous in 3.5. It required an FAQ to clarify the intent in 3.5. It was an ongoing argument as to which way it was supposed to behave.

The language was not changed when it was ported to Pathfinder, and so it was ambiguous here as well. In this case, the FAQ went the opposite direction.

We have an ambiguous rule that was decided to function one way in one system, and the opposite in the system under discussion.

Starbuck_II wrote:

Then why have the text stay the same as 3.5? See usually when people expect a rule to be different they WRITE THE RULES different.

I mean, I'm just a Panda, but even I know that.

Because like in hundreds of other cases, the Pathfinder team did not have the time or the resources to go over the literally thousands of rules and exceptions, and so ported over much of the text verbatim, with the assumption that the rules they did rewrite would indicate their intent on the ones that were ambiguous.

In some cases, that was successful; in others - like this one - it was not.

[Kryzbyn]

Also there is the matter of taking feats in 3.5 when you only got one every 3 levels, carried a heavier cost, instead of in Pathfinder where you get one every other level.

Just something else to consider.

[mdt]

I've started a thread to request clarifications on things affected by this ruling (or at least called into question). Please leave the sniping and insults in this thread. The one below is only for questions brought about by this ruling.

Thread

[ciretose]

mdt wrote:

I've started a thread to request clarifications on things affected by this ruling (or at least called into question). Please leave the sniping and insults in this thread. The one below is only for questions brought about by this ruling.

Thread

Your OP in that thread is sniping and insulting toward the Devs...

Nicos, you are taking a long breakfest :)

Rynjin, perhaps you could do the math since the answer may or may not refute your statement above?