| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The ability reads:
--------
Natural Divination (Ex): You can read the entrails of a freshly killed animal or humanoid to gain an insight bonus equal to your Charisma modifier on one saving throw. Alternatively, by observing and interpreting the flights of birds, you may apply a +10 competence bonus on any one skill check. Finally, by charting marks in dirt or stone, or observing the behavior of sand when thrown into the wind, you gain a +4 insight bonus on one initiative check. These bonuses must be used during the next 24 hours and you must declare you are using the bonus before the check or save is made. Making a natural divination takes 10 minutes. You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day plus one additional time per day for every four oracle levels you have attained.
--------
It's the "(in any combination)" that gets me. Is it saying you get to use all three aspects once a day, or just one once a day (prior to level 4 of course)?
I apologize for necromancing this, but the more I read this, the more I feel this is not being interpreted correctly, or it desperately needs to be reworded in the PRD.
The language on many "either or" type abilities and spells is fairly indicative of a choice. Something to the effect of "a penalty to the ability/skill/save of the caster's choice" or "choose one of the following."
The best example I was able to find is the Witch hex Evil Eye:
Evil Eye (Su): The witch can cause doubt to creep into the mind of a foe within 30 feet that she can see. The target takes a –2 penalty on one of the following (witch's choice): AC, ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws, or skill checks. This hex lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the witch's Intelligence modifier. A Will save reduces this to just 1 round. This is a mind-affecting effect. At 8th level the penalty increases to –4.
Notice the very specific language of choice which is not present anywhere in the text of Natural Divination. Other than the word "Alternatively" there is no language within the text to suggest the three separate effects can not be performed within one use.
I find it very odd the effects of Natural Divination are not also treated with language such as "Choose one of the following bonuses which must be used in 24 hours..."
Additionally, it states "bonuses" in the plural must be used in 24 hours and also states "may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day" which is contradictory to only one possible especially when then followed by "plus an additional time per every four oracle levels..." which one could interpret to say the "any combination" parentheses is non-dependent on that additional use upon reaching fifth oracle level.
Also, the "every four oracle levels you have attained" seems to support the uses are not for each piece but rather for the use of the ability as a whole. Since if an oracle could only cast the three separate pieces upon reaching Oracle 9 in "any combination", what then is the purpose of receiving additional uses at 13 and 17? Typically the language of an ability or spell with such a limitation would state, "you may add one of the other bonuses for a total of two out of three at level 5 and then all three at level 9 for the once a day use" or something similar.
While the RAI may be that only one choice of the three should be used at each such use, the RAW truly seems to suggest otherwise. I would be very grateful if one of our Paizo friends could weigh in on this, and possibly errata the PRD and pdfs if it should be so limited, or clarify once and for all if each piece may be used within one such use.
Bump for interest, "You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day..." gives me the impression it is all three once per day at level one.
Any more discussion?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I still disagree, so there we are.
Well to step away from the confusing wording; any one of those abilities makes a weak feat (Divine Protection, Improved Initiative 1/day) and the ability to pick and choose adds some extra use to it. Is it off balance by design intent to give one of each? That's like three feats for the price of one (assuming that revelations are equal to feats).
*raise dead*
In the Oracle guide this revelation is highly rated and I believe you can use all three once/day, but each requires 10 minutes. You could spend 30 minutes at any point during the day to 'set up' these bonuses for use.
Does anyone have anything else to add to this?
It still seems ambiguous and unclear as written.
What, exactly, do you think "in any combination" means?
Well clearly there is more than one opinion from the above posts.
What do you think? (answering a question with a question isn't very helpful)
Well clearly there is more than one opinion from the above posts.
What do you think? (answering a question with a question isn't very helpful)
I think "in any combination" means that you can use any number of the types, any number of times, up to the total number of times allowed.
Whatever it means, it certainly doesn't mean "each".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever it means, it certainly doesn't mean "each".
+1
I think "in any combination" means that you can use any number of the types, any number of times, up to the total number of times allowed.
Whatever it means, it certainly doesn't mean "each".
I want to believe that means you agree with my points about this, so please correct me if I'm mistake.
First, revelations are not hexes.
I read it as, "You can use Natural Divination once per day plus once for every 4 oracle levels." You indicate that you are going to use Natural Divination, you select the effect you want. It has been used.
I don't read it as getting each bonus once per day plus once more each for every 4 oracle levels.
Why are there more than three potential uses per day? Because once you have more than one use per day, nothing stops you from reapplying a bonus. A 20th level oracle wants a competence bonus to saves 5 times over 24 hours, he can. He wants to have initiative bonuses for two encounters and boost his saves three times, he can. That's where the "in any combination" comes in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they had meant each of them, once per day, they would have said each of them, once per day.
The very fact that it says "in any combination" means you are having to choose which effect you want. If you got each once per day (plus one per four levels), there would be no choosing which effect you want. That's not any combination, that's a single combination of one of each - which would make the word combination completely superfluous in describing the ability.
First, revelations are not hexes.
That was simply an example of the wording of something which requires a specific choice upon use. I'm not sure how you missed that. No one here ever suggested a revelation and a hex are the same.
I read it as, "You can use Natural Divination once per day plus once for every 4 oracle levels."
The problem with that interpretation...is exactly the point of this thread. Your "reading" is precise, exact, and in no way resembles the actual language of Natural Divination. Why then would it be so wordy and so ambiguous, if what your describing is the actual intent? They would have been able to save word count, and maybe add a whole other feat to the APG if that was what they had wanted to say!
I want to believe that means you agree with my points about this, so please correct me if I'm mistake.
I think you are almost assuredly mistaken.
Unless I am misreading your post, you seem to believe that each daily use of Natural Divination would grant you all three of the effects.
This seems the exact opposite of what RDN is saying when he said
Whatever it means, it certainly doesn't mean "each".
As for
Why then would it be so wordy and so ambiguous, if what your describing is the actual intent? They would have been able to save word count, and maybe add a whole other feat to the APG if that was what they had wanted to say!
Because the books are written by a bunch of different people, some are less experienced, and wording isn't standardized across abilities.
If they wanted you to access all three benefits for each use, they could have worded it more clearly and concisely. If they wanted you to choose one benefit for each use (as the majority thinks so far) they could have worded it more clearly and concisely.
If they had meant each of them, once per day, they would have said each of them, once per day.
The very fact that it says "in any combination" means you are having to choose which effect you want. If you got each once per day (plus one per four levels), there would be no choosing which effect you want. That's not any combination, that's a single combination of one of each - which would make the word combination completely superfluous in describing the ability.
We will have to agree to disagree then. I see it as "any combination" to indicate you are not required to activate all three simultaneously. What you are describing would generate that the oracle would gain all three automatically without fail every time at the expense of 30 minutes of time and all the material components which are also described.
Within the game which I have been using an oracle that possesses this ability, the access to each and every one of these components has not always presented itself, thus preventing the oracle from even accessing all of the three possible bonuses. By that very requirement alone, it is not at all possible or plausible to assume an oracle will always be able to use Natural Divination in even the slightest degree every 24 hour period.
This is largely why I feel the way I do. In practice this ability is not guaranteed to even be available once per day for any bonus every time let alone all three. Therefore, allowing this would be in no way game breaking as the access the oracle has to these is very rarely 100%.
Can you name a single instance where you would ever activate more than a single one of those at a time?
Initiative checks don't happen while you are in the process of making a skill check. They might happen immediately after a failed skill check (eg you failed to disable the alarm, or move silently).
If you are making a saving throw and adding cha, the init check is already over and done with.
So the idea that you don't have to activate them all at once is a given, and is therefore the wrong conclusion if you take your viewpoint on how it works (or needlessly excessive text to no effect). That text has nothing to do with how many options of the ability you activate at once.
As for its power, that isn't a reason to argue it should work the way you want it to. The first thing every player really ought to learn is that not all options are equal. I've had wizards never cast feather fall, the situation never came up. Yet I still frequently add it to the spell book "just in case". Casters are stronger than martials (in most situations). The cleave chain of feats is really strong in some situations, and totally useless in others. There are several feats that pretty much every fighter picks, simply because they are that good, then a whole slew of optional ones that are situational.
As an aside, I don't know what game you are playing in if you don't think an init check or a saving throw is going to be required at least once per day. Okay, some intrigue/sluething games will come that way, but by and large most games have multiple combats a day, and involve enemy spell casters, poisonous creatures, or other things that are going to require a saving throw. The skill check bonus is the only situational one, but would probably get loads of use out of the aforementioned intrigue style of game. Regardless, refer to my examples again of situational usability. If it doesn't come up for a given day, it doesn't come up, that's just how things turn out some times. You wouldn't complain if you learned fireball then didn't get to cast it every day would you?
None of the options can be abused because of the 10 minute set up time required between uses.
Having all three is hardly overpowered, you could still roll a crappy score on that one saving throw, that one initiative check and that one skill check.
It clearly needs faq-ing but don't hold your breath
You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day plus one additional time per day for every four oracle levels you have attained
I read it as, "You can use Natural Divination once per day plus once for every 4 oracle levels."The problem with that interpretation...is exactly the point of this thread. Your "reading" is precise, exact, and in no way resembles the actual language of Natural Divination. Why then would it be so wordy and so ambiguous, if what your describing is the actual intent? They would have been able to save word count, and maybe add a whole other feat to the APG if that was what they had wanted to say!
He practically quoted the actual rules text, and you think it "in no way resembles the actual language"?
It could be written clearer, but to get to using each ability for each use is a bit of a stretch for a natural reading.
1/day+1/4 levels - choose one each time.
[Explanation of how the bonuses cannot be activated at the same instance.]
If I have given you the impression that I would expect that mechanically, I can assure you, no, that is not at all my intent.
My expectation would be that if all three different actions of Natural Divination could be used is that over the course of that day, the Oracle would be able to activate them as she wished as defined by the description of announcing them pre-roll.
[Great explanation for why the bonuses available through Natural Divination are useful.]
I agree.
Yet...I'm not really sure why you brought this up. I can only think that for some reason you are misunderstanding me when I say that not every benefit is available to the Oracle at all times. I did not in any way mean they are not useful benefits—situationally, as you've noted.
I did, however, point out the other part of the description that everyone is glossing over: the requirements to use the ability at all.
- Unless your GM is handwaving the requirements, an Oracle is unable to use Natural Divination's first ability without entrails from a freshly dead animal or humanoid. Even then, there are some ethical and/or moral determinations that come with desecration of the dead, so that plays into roleplay and alignment dilemmas.
- If the Oracle is in a place that has no sky or birds or there is a reasonable expectation that no birds would be present despite the part of the world or even that your GM chooses to limit the availability of seeing an actual flock using random numbers—all of these things can preclude the use of the second ability.
- Marks in dirt or stone is vague, and the description could be for ones made by the Oracle, others, or even natural occurrence. Wind and/or sand may not always be available.
So even if one chooses to allow the Oracle prepare all three benefits to use throughout the day, there is no guarantee the oracle will ever be able to actually prepare all three simultaneously for activation within that day. This may be the difference between how your GM runs things and mine, so that may be flavoring each of our individual perspectives on this.
"You can use Natural Divination once per day plus once for every 4 oracle levels."
He practically quoted the actual rules text, and you think it "in no way resembles the actual language"?
"...You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day plus one additional time per day for every four oracle levels you have attained."
Correct, omitting the ambiguous phrase makes his interpretation in no way resemble the actual text. Because he excised the one thing that changes the potential meaning. That's like misquoting a poem or novel, or if I were to choose to remove language from the revelation that "proved" my point by conveniently ignoring anything that may indicate otherwise.
Whatever it means, it certainly doesn't mean "each".
Now that I understand the intent of your meaning, I have to point out that logically and mathematically you are incorrect.
Any combination of 1, 2, or 3 also includes the combination of 1, 2, and 3 which effectively means "each" is also an included grouping.
All in all, it looks like there are many ways this can be interpreted, and the Paizo staff has chosen to remain silent on this topic for over three years as far as I am aware. One of my GMs ruled that an oracle could prepare all three, but only use one bonus per use, so effectively the oracle had the choice, but once spent, none of the other benefits could be activated unless another use had been earned by level. It was a compromise that worked for me, so that's something others may find palatable as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now that I understand the intent of your meaning, I have to point out that logically and mathematically you are incorrect.
Any combination of 1, 2, or 3 also includes the combination of 1, 2, and 3 which effectively means "each" is also an included grouping.
No, that is not what "any combination" means.
Let's use an example for clarity.
You get 1 use plus 1 additional use per 4 oracle levels. So an 8th level Oracle can use Natural Divination 3 times.
Your reading seems to be that you can use (A, B, C), (A, B, C), (A, B, C). You get all three options all three times. This isn't really "any combination" since there is no variation. You always get all three options with each use.
Our reading is that you can use A, A, A; or A, A, B; or A, A, C; or A, B, A; or A, B, B; or A, B, C; or A, C, A; or A, C, B; or A, C, B; or any other combination of the three options up to three total times that day. You choose which option you use each time you activate the ability.
Any combination of 1, 2, or 3 also includes the combination of 1, 2, and 3...
Yes, for a total of 3 uses of Natural Divination, which requires being level 8 or higher.
1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3 is also a combination of 1, 2, and 3. That doesn't mean I can use that combination once every day.
If you are going to focus on the language used in the ability I think it is worth pointing out the use of the word "alternatively" between the first option and the second option. This strongly implies an "or" choice rather than "as well as".
Taking "alternatively" in context with "You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day plus one additional time per day for every four oracle levels you have attained." it is rather straightforward, you can read the entrails or the birds or the dirt, in any combination, up to the number of uses you have per day.
I'm pretty sure the inference is any combination of 1, 2, or 3 as in 1, 2, 3, 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 2 & 3.
I'm not really sure why you're stuck on assigning me with the assumption I always mean all three at all times. I'm pretty clear about that not being what I mean.
If you are going to focus on the language used in the ability I think it is worth pointing out the use of the word "alternatively" between the first option and the second option. This strongly implies an "or" choice rather than "as well as".
Taking "alternatively" in context with "You may use natural divination (in any combination) once per day plus one additional time per day for every four oracle levels you have attained." it is rather straightforward, you can read the entrails or the birds or the dirt, in any combination, up to the number of uses you have per day.
I agree that if one chooses to assign that use of the word alternatively as a rules indicator, your interpretation could be correct. I also see that the use could be simply a word choice for the flavor of describing the three actions. As some of the later wording is ambiguous, there is nothing that definitely supports that "Alternatively" should be strictly considered. I made a concession to your interpretive use in my initial post.
I'm pretty sure the inference is any combination of 1, 2, or 3 as in 1, 2, 3, 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 2 & 3.
Based on what? It says any combination. Why are you putting an arbitrary limit on which combinations are valid?
Here's the bottom line guys.
A lot of you who are vocally posting want to choose the interpretation that it's one of the three per use. There is evidence to support this, but there is also evidence that a different meaning was intended. Perhaps this is rooted in some playtest material that expanded on this that was cut, but the remainder was never reworded.
We all see this differently. Some choose to ignore the ambiguity of some of the wording by simply excising the parts that may cause the confusion which makes it seem very clear. Some choose to focus on the ambiguous wording to support the idea that a less straightforward interpretation is available.
However, until an official rules staff member comes along and agrees to provide the meaning and maybe even clean up the description on the PRD and in the APG, we will all be able to choose how we want to use these rules. There's not really any need to make posts that suggests anyone is trying to break the game with the "any combination" or keep rehashing our points of view endlessly when it's clear we just don't agree about this.
Plus, there's this guy Grammar Nazi who clearly who is making fun of people for no reason at all, when the syntax and mechanics of how phrases are constructed is at the very root of this discussion. The problem with Grammar Nazi' belittling statement is that (no matter to whom it was aimed), the assumption that the writer of Natural Divination used proper syntax or phrase construction mechanics and therefore makes the answer obvious is essentially the problem with the current wording of the revelation entirely.
So kudos to you for being self-righteous and imperious, Grammar Nazi, but sadly your words mean nothing unless the basis for your statements is without reproach. And since the basis (Natural Divination's wording) is what is in dispute, your disparaging comments are without foundation.
Based on what? It says any combination. Why are you putting an arbitrary limit on which combinations are valid?I'm pretty sure the inference is any combination of 1, 2, or 3 as in 1, 2, 3, 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 2 & 3.
I'm confused...isn't that exactly what you were doing? I thought we could each interpret this the way we wanted?
I'm pretty sure the inference is any combination of 1, 2, or 3 as in 1, 2, 3, 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 2 & 3.
I'm not really sure why you're stuck on assigning me with the assumption I always mean all three at all times. I'm pretty clear about that not being what I mean.
Well, I don't think it is clear that that is not what you mean.
Which is why I use phrases like "Your reading seems to be..."
Because I am expressing what I get from reading your posts, and you have not been clear about correcting me. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so I use phrasing which should clearly indicate this is my understanding of what you are saying.
But there is not way to read the rule in which you could choose 1 and 2 for a single use, and not also have 1, 2, and 3 as an option for a single use.
So you still haven't shown how that isn't what you mean.
I'm confused...isn't that exactly what you were doing? I thought we could each interpret this the way we wanted?Based on what? It says any combination. Why are you putting an arbitrary limit on which combinations are valid?I'm pretty sure the inference is any combination of 1, 2, or 3 as in 1, 2, 3, 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 2 & 3.
It's called reductio ad absurdum. I'm following your claims to their logical and nonsensical end to demonstrate your error.
My interpretation of the rules (that the total number of uses in a "combination" is subject to the X/day limit) is fully consistent with the written text. Your interpretation depends on special pleading to keep from collapsing into absurdity.
RainyDayNinja: You are making a statement about my position with assertion your interpretation is 100% correct. I can appreciate that, but sadly, it does not work in this case when clearly, I am not the only one who has read the wording this way, so clearly this is not "special pleading" by one lone individual who desperately wants things to go his way.
While you may choose to defend your position in any way you'd like, choosing to overlook that there are separate individuals who are arriving at the same possible conclusion independent of each other does suggest that the answer is less than 100% certain leaving remarks regarding absurdity just making you sound like someone who no longer wishes to engage in serious discussion of how the rules could be seen and each GM and player may want to apply them.
Samasboy1: I don't plan to quote myself over and over on the places I feel spelled that out. I have explicitly described how the Oracle may not ever have access to even one of the bonuses per day let alone all three, so why you continue to assume that I would suggest otherwise is beyond me. Let's just say this: It wasn't my intent to say the oracle will always without exception receive all the bonuses, every single use. If you're willing to agree that my position on that is clear going forward, can we just move on from that point of noncontention now?
I am not the only one who has read the wording this way, so clearly this is not "special pleading" by one lone individual who desperately wants things to go his way.
"Special pleading" is the name of the logical fallacy you committed here:
I'm pretty sure the inference is any combination of 1, 2, or 3 as in 1, 2, 3, 1 & 2, 1 & 3, 2 & 3, 1 & 2 & 3.
It's when your argument depends on an exception with no justification (such as claiming that "in any combination" means the combinations you listed, but not the one I suggested, based on a vague and unspecified "inference").
Fair enough. I admit I do not know all the logic terms when using logic statements and arguments, so I did not recognize that as a specific phrase.
But by that logic, then the parenthetical addition of (in any combination) makes the wording not just ambiguous, but downright broken, if we use your own example of multiple instances of the same action.
My inference was meant to assume that the Oracle could not prepare any of the actions more than once, but as you pointed out, I really don't have anything to support that as a limitation.
Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at.
Samasboy1: I don't plan to quote myself over and over on the places I feel spelled that out. I have explicitly described how the Oracle may not ever have access to even one of the bonuses per day let alone all three, so why you continue to assume that I would suggest otherwise is beyond me. Let's just say this: It wasn't my intent to say the oracle will always without exception receive all the bonuses, every single use. If you're willing to agree that my position on that is clear going forward, can we just move on from that point of noncontention now?
I see. You seem to be using a fairly novel argument here.
You seem to be saying that your position is not that each use gives all three bonuses because there are some instances where you won't have the option of using one or more of the bonuses due to the requirements (having an animal to sacrifice).
That is a....peculiar way to view a rule.
If I have charm person as a spell-like ability usable 3/day, but I am in the Abyss, surrounded by Demons and thus never have a valid target for my ability, there rules are still clear that I have 3 uses of charm person per day.
So, the fact that you may not have the opportunity to use, say, Option 2 because you are underground and there are no birds is irrelevant.
If you believe, under any circumstances, that a single use of the Natural Divination ability can be used to gain all three bonuses then your position is a single use of the ability grants all three options. Choosing not to use one or more, or not have the proper "target" to use one or more doesn't matter, and I haven't misunderstood your position.
Lol, okay. Then yes, you do understand. But I'm making the caveat that I don't mean that the Oracle automatically acquires all the bonuses every use. Only that she can if all the material conditions are able to be met.
That's the interpretation the GM I was playing with at the time I made my initial post here decided to use which suited me well enough.
Yes, that's exactly what I was getting at.
RainyDayNinja: While that may be exactly the point you are making, it does not prove your interpretation. There is just as much reason to assume your original assertion regarding the ability's current limitations as there is to assume my inference in regards to the limits of the combinations I proposed. Both such language is present within the whole scope of written Pathfinder rules for other more concise rules and abilities.
So really, all you've shown is that for an extremist wishing to break the ability, there is actually a logical argument for it, regardless of how absurd. And it is exactly that absurdity that requires clarification. As I know of no GM who would allow a 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3 , 3, 3, 3 & 3 per single use.
This kind of potential interpretation should not be left to the GM to decide.