The unwritten rules thing clearly bothers some people. Sean did give an example of the kind of thing he meant though (CR 1 monsters don't have 500 hit points or whatever it was).
Is it surprising that they have a bunch of "rules of thumb" as to how things should be? Isn't it both inevitable and desirable?
The trouble is that all of SKR's examples were of game design guidelines on what would or would not be appropriate for different levels. While game designers need to know these things, players don't.
But the actual issue is not about game design but about using the already decade old published rules to play the game, not design new elements for it!
Players do need to know those rules!
I thought he meant that they'd considered these design guidelines in coming to their view as to which way to go on this contentious issue. (Contentious by way of the fact that there were many FAQ requests).
I figured he was giving us a look behind the curtain, not suggesting that it was something players should bear in mind.
As for being a decade old, I think the point about 3.5 FAQs not being open content is important. It's entirely reasonable to use them if there's no equivalent in PF. It's a good assumption that the same will hold now as did then. Nonetheless, that won't always hold true.
|
The unwritten rules thing clearly bothers some people. Sean did give an example of the kind of thing he meant though (CR 1 monsters don't have 500 hit points or whatever it was).
Is it surprising that they have a bunch of "rules of thumb" as to how things should be? Isn't it both inevitable and desirable?
It is a red herring, because people are looking for an answer other than "I did not interpret that correctly."
Which is why I keep pointing out this is not a change.
Allow me a moment to explain how this whole thing works. We have all purchased (or accessed through the OGL) a ruleset. A rule set written by a third party, specifically Paizo. This includes all of the developers and the development team.
At some point, there was a discussion of a rule being unclear. Some of us read it one way, some another. So we asked the people who wrote the rule "what is the correct interpretation of this rule."
And they answered. The people who actually wrote the rules answered the question.
That is the end of the debate of what the rule is.
Even the now overturned decision on Flurry of Blows was the writer of the game explaining what the rule was. Everyone who thought that flurry of blows was something else, was wrong. The person who wrote it, explained it.
Later, through discussion and demonstration through math and playtesting, the community was able to get that rule changed to what it is now.
That is a rule change.
This is not a rule change. This is a clarification. Just like when I was wrong about take 10, it wasn't because it was a secret rule. It was me not understanding what was written, them clarifying it, and me then deciding if I want to go with that rule, or houserule it.
Why many of us are so annoyed with some of the posters on here comes down to what we see as a fairly high level of arrogance and chutzpah to say to the person who wrote the rule "That isn't what it means".
Yes it is what it mean. Many of us read the rules and got that. Are there things that are unclear in the rules.
Yes.
Even a 1000 page tome wouldn't address all circumstances. And that would be hell to play, with all the stops to pull references.
If you really think this option not being allowed is a problem, show the math. That is how people showed that flurry by the alternate interpretation was better.
But so far it failed the one math test we gave it.
This was not an option the people who wrote the game ever intended for you to have.
We know this because they just told us.
If you want to discuss if it is an option you should have, fine. I disagree and we can look at the numbers.
But it is absolutely absurd and wrong for anyone who is not actually on the Dev team (who voted unanimously by the way...) to say that this was the rule and the Dev team is wrong.
It does, however, give a lot of ammo to all of us who have been saying that entitlement is a problem on here.
Because if you are going to argue with the person who literally wrote the rule about what the rule means, what chance does a GM have?
That's not even remotely what I am talking about. I'm talking about how they and their rulings interface with the community, the FAQs, and Errata.Because the Devs have not thought about the rules as deeply or as fully as Drachasor...Yeah, this? This is an example of "not conducive to discussion".It is what I am talking about.
With attitudes like this, on the side of supporter or detractor, what impetus do the designers have to engage with the community?
Had the attitude of the overall discussion been civil on Saturday, then Sean might have stuck around and offered up some (more) of the logic and discussion that instead came out today. Instead, some of the attitudes presented on both sides made it not worth his while to take up time on his weekend.
This exactly. I get that people don't like or even understand the ruling. It makes sense to me, but I see where some people may not see it that way. What I don't get is the vitriole toward the Devs for doing what we ask them to do.
SKR, just write some errata so that RAI == RAW explicitly.
The FAQ is nice, but this debate has been going on for apparently 10 years, and depending on which Dev you ask there is a different interpretation of the RAW (Not in Pathfinder, but that isn't where this originated).
If you don't understand something in PF, and there's no supplementary information available to explain it, you can look to the 3.5 FAQ to see if there's anything relevant there to help you understand. But the 3.5 FAQ is not binding to PF rules questions because 3.5 is not the same game as PFI agree that it isn't binding, but when rules text hasn't changed and there has been no PF specific FAQ, and as far as anyone knows the intent hasn't changed, there is a reasonable expectation that an FAQ from 3.5 applies. Saying that it is obvious that it should work the new way rather than the old way is insulting. The rules have changed from 3.5, that's great. Rewrite the relevant rule to reflect that please, rather than FAQ as rule change.This^^^^^
THIS^^^^^ (did I get that right? Yeah, looks like it.)
But perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't mean not having them talk to us or not release FAQs. I meant releasing errata when a FAQ question comes up and they realize that the written rules cannot be used to answer the question. I went over this more in a previous post.It must be a fine line to walk. No doubt they're somewhat constrained by their policy of including errata in reprints, as well. They can't just "get wordier", which is the likely temptation when clarifying a rule.This is a case where I'm quite sure they could do it without getting wordier. The books already spend a bunch of words to say little on the matter, and to do so in an unclear way. Cleaning that up would be some work, but it should be quite doable without increasing the length of the text.
I don't think it is a great idea to make people have to go through a FAQ to learn the actual rules. This makes learning the rules quite cumbersome. In turn the barrier to entry for new players rises, etc, etc.
I don't disagree. However, I'm not sure this constitutes a very important rule.
No doubt paizo would love to go back and tweak every page of the CRB. That's just not practical though and for something as niche-y as this, I could understand relying on an FAQ.
Please take this in the most constructive light, I love Pathfinder and Paizo and think they got a raw deal with 4.0 and the death of Dragon and I truly thank them for continuing my D&D game because I still call it that even though I play Pathfinder.
OK, the constructive part.
I understand your ruling and I don't even disagree with the intent. The problem for me stems from the logic. As a huge game with tons of rules, the logic is required to understand how to rule on the myriad of situations that rightfully can't be described in the rule books.
So, as I understand it, the logic states that it is too powerful and to justify(1) it, we call it using your off-hand. So this brings up TONS of questions about the use of off-hand, non-hand weapons and AoO's and quickened spells and shields and even holding things in your hands while attacking with only non-hand weapons. Those are legitimate questions, as far as I can tell.
To me, this is indicative of some of Paizo's rulings. Another case that I followed was the Shadowdancer's Hide in Plain Sight and Dim Light. I was on the "wrong" side of that one as I felt logic ruled that if a square was not dim light to an elf viewing the Rogue for the purposes of hide, it should also not be a square with dim light for the purpose of Hide in Plain Sight.
Again, I know that I am "wrong" as far as the rules are concerned, but I can't see the logic. In the new(2) TWF debate, I am unable to follow the logic to apply it to many of the questions that people have asked. The four armed alchemist and the sword & board & armor spikes fighter or even the pole arm ranger that wears armor spikes and his ability to use them for AoOs during his turn all have me stumped. I understand to make sure the max strength bonus is x1.5 and x.5 but the limit of use of hands when hands aren't used leads to other questions.
Finally, this is a game played buy a ton of people that stick to it. Many exhibit strong loyalties to one play style or another. Many exhibit addictive personalities. Many are really intelligent individuals that enjoy the dissection of the rules as much as the game itself. This is ESPECIALLY true for the people that frequent the Rules Questions part of these boards. While the art of debate is lost on a few, dismissing many of them with, "Let's talk about something a little more fun and productive, shall we?" or "So you're deliberately overreacting in an unhelpful way." are not the nicest ways to converse with your customers.
But then again, I can understand your frustration with many of the posts in this thread and don't think there is anything you can say to appease everyone.
Disclaimer:
(1) Justify as in mechanics that reflect your reasoning, not as in made something up to placate people.
(2) Newest version covering the last few days.
|
|
Justify why I can't toss the tiger....
There is nothing to justify. It was never intended to be in the game in the first place.
It would be like if you walked into a store, saw a candy bar, grabbed it and the owner took it from you and you said "Justify why I can't have that candy bar!"
Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And one more thing...
Lets put an end to the posts sniping at other posters, defending or attacking motives. If you want to talk about the rule, thats fine. This is not the place to argue motives, tone, or other unrelated issues.
Please stay on topic or don't bother hitting submit.
Jason
On the same note, but in a completely different way, if you were to house rule, what would you do? I know Blackbloodtroll gave some suggestions about nearing the str adj a bit. Anyone else?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for the peek inside your head, Jason. You're the boss.
To be fair though, the people who buy the book and read the rules can't peek inside your head. The rules, I suppose, can create divergent rules constructs inside the minds of different readers.
For the purpose of perspective, here's a peek inside my head about how I thought it all worked.:-
Some weapons don't require any hands to use, but most do.
For those that do, they require either one or both hands to use.
'Use' means, in this context, 'attack with'.
Light and one-handed weapons (that require hands) need one hand to be used to attack. Two-handed weapons need both hands.
However, they only need the 'required number of hands' to actually execute the attack. They are not 'glued' to the weapon between attacks. you can hold a two-handed weapon in one hand, you only need two as you execute the attack, not between attacks. Since you can add or remove a hand as a free action you could use two hands to attack with a greatsword for some attacks, and let go with one hand to attack with a spiked gauntlet for other attacks.
What I'm gathering from the recent FAQ plus commentary, is that you can do this...but not in TWF.
But there's nothing in the TWF rules that say you can't. Nothing that says you must be able to wield all of the weapons simultaneously when used in TWF.
This peek into my head is based on reading the rules. I'm not the only one who reads them this way. The 3.5 FAQ is simply an indication that others shared this view, and these people weren't crackpots or trying to break the rules.
I hope you take this post in the constructive way in which it is intended.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, i really wound't want to be the GM for these guys. . .Which is exactly why we need more FAQs.
If before the take 10 rule had come up you had tried to jump over a ravine that was your exact take 10 distance, I would have said no.
Now I know better, there is an FAQ, it was clarified.
If before this ruling came out, if this build had shown up it would have caused conflict.
Now, it will only cause conflict if it is probably someone you don't want to game with, since they believe they know the game better than the Devs.
Most Brazilian GMs don't care much about that and everyone houserule something or other. Some players complain about arbitrality, but most people understand that each GM is an individual and the game enjoyability improves if a GM can execute his campaing with the rules well adjusted to his play style.
|
|
@Xaratherus - I think a large part of the problem is there is a sub-community on here that create false narratives and have a victim mentality.
False narrative 1: There are secret rules.
Nope, all Sean said was the game is based in some basic understandings of interactions that he thought were clear.
False narrative 2: This is a nerf/change/etc...
Nope, this was how the Devs always understood it to work.
Because some guy in some thread said a rule works this way is irrelevent. If the Dev say it doesn't work that way, it doesn't.
But in order to give what is a closed argument merit, the conversation is now being dragged over to "Why did the Devs do this to us!" when in fact the question should be "Why did I misunderstand this rule"
The answer to the 2nd question is easy. It wasn't clear enough. If you want to fault the Devs, this is an a fair place to fault them. This wasn't made clear enough.
And then they clarified it in the FAQ.
There are a great many assumptions made on these boards that lead to a great number of problems in peoples games where combinations and machinations never intended to be allowed, are allowed, all under sacred "RAW"
Rules are written by people. When the people who wrote the rules explain how the rules work to you, they are right.
You can houserule it how you like, you can attempt to show ways to improve the rule. But no, you were not right about the rule, and no they didn't take anything away from you, and no they aren't plotting against you with super secret rules.
You just didn't understand the rule.
It happens. It could have been clearer.
But this whole shouting down the Devs thing is bad for everyone.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Perhaps I am slow, but I do not quite understand.
If a character had Martial Weapon Proficiency(Falchion), Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Unarmed Strike , could she have a two-handed attack with her Falchion as her primary attack, and a kick as her off-hand attack?
With a +6 BAB Yes. You can use iterative attacks.
With a +1 BAB and TWF, no.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps I am slow, but I do not quite understand.
If a character had Martial Weapon Proficiency(Falchion), Two-Weapon Fighting and Improved Unarmed Strike , could she have a two-handed attack with her Falchion as her primary attack, and a kick as her secondary attack?
Nope. That was the crux of this ruling. If you attack with a two handed weapon, you have used up your primary and off hand attacks making the two-handed weapon attack.
Now, if you were wielding a longsword and a torch, and made an attack with the longsword one handed, and then also made an unarmed strike with say, your foot, that would still work just fine. (not related to your question I know, but some others asked something along a similar line). It all comes down to making attacks, not utilization of your hands, necessarily.
Jason
|
Lead Designer
|
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
So shield would or wouldn't work, because with that wording I'm thinking Kryzbyn may have lead me astray...
A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack. You could, for example, use a longsword, wield a shield to get the AC bonus, and make an attack with armor spikes.
|
|
@Nicos (and others) - So that means you could do a Scimitar and shield TWF with armor spikes and get damn near the damage output of the kukri and have a shield.
Not bad.
@BBT - Your Dwarf with a boulder helmet and a warhammer just got a shield. Pretty sweet...
EDIT: Points to Crash_00 who got pretty much everything right so far in this thread.
Maybe he is a dev sockpuppet...:)
So shield would or wouldn't work, because with that wording I'm thinking Kryzbyn may have lead me astray...A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack. You could, for example, use a longsword, wield a shield to get the AC bonus, and make an attack with armor spikes.
Nice to have that one answered quickly.
Thanks!
On the same note, but in a completely different way, if you were to house rule, what would you do? I know Blackbloodtroll gave some suggestions about nearing the str adj a bit. Anyone else?
If I were going to try and make any adjustment, I would follow Blackbloodtroll and just take the STR bonus back to 1 for the THW attack and treat the spikes as a light weapon in a TWF. Thus keeping the total at the desired 1.5 STR bonus.
I hope these statements by the design team make it into the FAQ - ideally not under the equipment/armor spikes heading, but under the Combat/Two-handed fighting section.
With you answering so quickly, could you let us know if things that require a hand to be free (such as somatic casting) require the Primary or Off Hand or just a physical free hand.
On a related note, do the attacks from spells require a Primary or Off Hand to use?
For example, if I cast a quickened shocking grasp and tag a creature with it, does this use up a "hand" and prevent me from re-gripping my quarterstaff to smack it with my standard action?
I think the FAQ already covered the release/regrip issue:
Two-Handed Weapons: What kind of action is it to remove your hand from a two-handed weapon or re-grab it with both hands?
Both are free actions. For example, a wizard wielding a quarterstaff can let go of the weapon with one hand as a free action, cast a spell as a standard action, and grasp the weapon again with that hand as a free action; this means the wizard is still able to make attacks of opportunity with the weapon (which requires using two hands).As with any free action, the GM may decide a reasonable limit to how many times per round you can release and re-grasp the weapon (one release and re-grasp per round is fair).
A guy leaves for a while to make a ladder wielding Fighter and the thread just explodes on him. =/
So shield would or wouldn't work, because with that wording I'm thinking Kryzbyn may have lead me astray...A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack. You could, for example, use a longsword, wield a shield to get the AC bonus, and make an attack with armor spikes.
Schweet.
As I understand it, the touch attack is part of the spell, not a separate action in itself; therefore, the touch attack is part of the swift action, and essentially 'resolves' as part of that same swift action. So I would say that yes, you could then re-grip your staff, because you haven't done anything that would eat into your standard action at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So shield would or wouldn't work, because with that wording I'm thinking Kryzbyn may have lead me astray...A shield uses up a hand, but it might or might not use up a "primary" or "off" hand, depending on whether or not it is used to attack. You could, for example, use a longsword, wield a shield to get the AC bonus, and make an attack with armor spikes.
Sweet! Glad I was wrong!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool. I was wrong, good to know.
Thanks!
Kryzbyn! :)
What!? The logic was sound.
I'm glad I was wrong, though. Down that path went madness...
I know that the release and re-grip is allowed. I just don't know how spell attacks work with the Primary/Off Hand. I'd be tempted to say that they require a hand to attack with (especially the melee touch since it's essentially an unarmed strike), but I just like to be thorough and it's one of the issues that has cropped up the most since the FAQ.
I would just consider primary/off-hand to be functionally irrelevant to most casting issues. Unless you're actually using two-weapon fighting as with the magus and his spell combat or, potentially, using a weapon in one hand and a charged touch attack in the other within the same non-iterative attack action, primary/off-hand never needs to be tracked. And if you were using a weapon and a held charge on a touch spell, I'd assume the PC could pick which hand is being treated as primary and which is off-hand just like he can with two-weapon fighting.
Well I'm glad this has been worked out, but I'll miss the pithy banter.
Any other rules ya'll wanna argue about? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have I mentioned that I really like it when people admit they were wrong on the internet? Not for a schadenfruede purpose, but because it's generally a good thing to do.
So then a feat could allow you to add a spell (Action Economy + Power/Round) to THF but a option (TWF) and feats (ITWF, GITWF) can't allow you to add an attack (Action Economy + Power/Round) to THF?
See why I said I have trouble following the logic sometimes?