Pathfinder Society & Fast Learner


Advice

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
In the context of the game, we know that Sp=Hp=Ap

Source?

Quote:
I recall reading some post from SKR? that said if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. The article openly acknowledges that the authors aren't perfect when it comes to wording and that sometimes they don't write things in parallel form. More to the point, the article is an acknowledgment that their writing can be unclear and that they make mistakes.

Yeah, I know the post you're talking about, and it's the most abused thing I've ever seen him post. He was using an example of the abilities "Channel Energy", "Channel Positive Energy" and "Channel" (from the cleric, paladin and oracle) and pointing out that they're obviously the same thing despite tiny naming differences because they explicitly reference each other to tell you how they work.

You've taken SKR's statement that "when something defines itself as working like X, it works like X" and are trying to use it to support "even when something says it does X, it might do Y instead if that makes more sense to me".

Congratulations, you are part of how "looks like a duck" is becoming the new "FALLACY!" on the messageboards.


Jiggy wrote:
The thing that determines what a feat does is what the feat says, not what would fit into your understanding of Paizo's design philosophy. Only what the feat says.

And, I know you don't like to hear this, but the way the feat is worded is vague. That means that the feat isn't really saying one way or the other.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
The thing that determines what a feat does is what the feat says, not what would fit into your understanding of Paizo's design philosophy. Only what the feat says.
And, I know you don't like to hear this, but the way the feat is worded is vague. That means that the feat isn't really saying one way or the other.

Then could you please show how it could be parsed to allow for an alternate FCB + hit point/skill point? Because it doesn't look vague to me, and I haven't seen anyone explain how it could be interpreted that way going from the actual wording of the feat.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
The thing that determines what a feat does is what the feat says, not what would fit into your understanding of Paizo's design philosophy. Only what the feat says.
And, I know you don't like to hear this, but the way the feat is worded is vague. That means that the feat isn't really saying one way or the other.

No, the feat's wording is not vague. It's cumbersome and verbose (it doesn't need "instead of choosing either one or the other option" to retain its meaning), but it has exactly one grammatically valid way to be read.

We're talking about a simple "either/or" here. It says you gain X or can choose Y. X is +1HP/skill, and Y is an alternate.

If you think there's a different parsing, I'd love to see it. For all the times I've heard that it allegedly could be read differently, I've never seen anyone actually present the parsing (at least, not without adding/subtracting words from the text to make it fit). If you're seeing something I'm missing, then go ahead and post it.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I don't think the wording is vague at all.

Lots of feats are poorly worded this one is just worded against what people think is "fair".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Benrislove wrote:

Honestly, I don't think the wording is vague at all.

Lots of feats are poorly worded this one is just worded against what people think is "fair".

Pretty much this.


RainyDayNinja wrote:


Then could you please show how it could be parsed to allow for an alternate FCB + hit point/skill point?

Benefit: When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank

instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward.

instead of choosing the hit point or the skill point you can choose an alternate class reward.

see?

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

OK, so that interpretation depends on dropping the second "or" in that sentence? I suppose it's not that far-fetched, but unless and until an errata is issued, I'm going to assume that word didn't just get there by accident.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

So when you remove the pivotal "or" in an either/or sentence you can change the meaning, therefore it's vague?

EDIT: Ninja'd.


I would say that the bigger mystery here comes from the bit where this question is marked as Answered in the FAQ. Can someone show me where it was answered, because I can't find it.

Oh, and by the way... I had figured it out like this back then.

-Matt

Shadow Lodge

I'm sorry but if you have to take out a word we're no longer in the realm of RAW and PFS is a RAW campaign.


I think many gamers have interpretations on what this feat actually grants, regardless of how grammatically correct, verbose or cumbersome it written.

To say that others dont see it another way is ignoring the many threads on this feat in which this issue keeps popping up.

Also the fact that no devs have addressed this even on the boards leads me to believe that there is not complete agreement on how the feat should work, otherwise it would have been published by now or a dev would have made a comment clarifying it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mattastrophic wrote:

I would say that the bigger mystery here comes from the bit where this question is marked as Answered in the FAQ. Can someone show me where it was answered, because I can't find it.

-Matt

It's been stated before (I can go link-hunting if you like) that "Answered in the FAQ" could mean a few different things:

1) Actually answered in the FAQ
2) Question is unclear, or some other issue and they just wanted to clear the item from their FAQ queue (especially for posts prior to when they gained a "question unclear" tagging option)
3) They believe a reasonable person can come to the correct conclusion based on what's already in the text.


RainyDayNinja wrote:
OK, so that interpretation depends on dropping the second "or" in that sentence? I suppose it's not that far-fetched, but unless and until an errata is issued, I'm going to assume that word didn't just get there by accident.

Benefit: When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward.

Why not say instead of choosing BOTH benefits you can choose an alternate class reward then?

Its not ignoring the second or. A or B or C instead of A OR B (vs instead of A AND B)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

You lost me.

Maybe let's try it this way: what things do you see the second "or" as offering you a choice between, and what in the sentence separates those things from each other?

Silver Crusade

I see the second or as giving you a choice between SP + HP or AFCB. However, you already get either SP or HP. So the choice is between choosing both of them, or making your original choice and then adding an AFCB.

Shadow Lodge

Have all the hit points and skill points you want.


Care Baird wrote:
Have all the hit points and skill points you want.

But there's no such thing as enough of either of those...


Jiggy wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
In the context of the game, we know that Sp=Hp=Ap
Source?

Certainly.

PRD wrote:
Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank.

So here we know the character is entitled to one or the other. So we can say the designers have explicitly given us the following formula for the FCB: 1sp = 1hp

PRD on Racial Favored Classes wrote:
As in the previous section, what is presented here is a set of alternative benefits that characters of each race may choose instead of the normal benefits for their favored class. Thus, rather than taking an extra hit point or an extra skill rank, players may choose for their characters to gain the benefit listed here.

Emphasis added. So intead of the Skill OR the Hit point, the character can choose the Alternate benefit. This unequivocally sets up the context in which 1 Sp or 1 Hp is equivalent to 1 Ap.

Your interpretation suggests that suddenly the designers want to alter that relationship negatively AFTER someone chooses a feat designed to improve the benefit. The context of the game is that Sp=Hp=Ap. The Fast Learner feat should parsed with that context in mind and broken up into two sentences:

As written - "When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank." - unchanged.

As written - "Instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward" - change to:

Instead of choosing the skill or the hit point you can choose an alternative class reward.

An interpretation that suddenly 1sp + 1hp = 1ap essentially penalizes the the feat holder when they don't take a skill point or hit point. Such an outcome is not consistent with how the authors of the game think or how feats are used.

Quote:
Quote:
The article openly acknowledges that the authors aren't perfect when it comes to wording and that sometimes they don't write things in parallel form. More to the point, the article is an acknowledgment that their writing can be unclear and that they make mistakes.

You've taken SKR's statement that "when something defines itself as working like X, it works like X" and are trying to use it to support "even when something says it does X, it might do Y instead if that makes more sense to me".

Incorrect. I cut my quote to hone in on my reason for referencing SKR's post. It is a definitive acknowledgement by SKR and by extension, all RPG authors that what may be clear to them may not be clear to the reader. In addition, it shows that when they write the rules they write them in the context of the game itself...not in a vacuum.

Even more importantly, SKR's article undermines the overused argument that "If they had meant X, they would have written Y and the failure to write it exactly as I say it should have been written means they can only mean what I say it means."

Is there some ambiguity here? Certainly, the numerous posts over the years speak to that.

Liberty's Edge

Jiggy wrote:

Maybe this will help make the text clearer. For reference, here's the existing text:

Fast Learner wrote:
When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward.

Now, see that phrase "instead of choosing either one or the other benefit"? That's clearly just reinforcing the "gain both" that came before it, and is therefore redundant - meaning we can remove it without changing the meaning. If you take it out, you're left with this:

Shorter version wrote:
When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank or you can choose an alternate class reward.
See how clear that is now that you don't forget the structure of the first part by the time you get to the second part? You gain both X and Y or you can choose Z. That's it. You gain both X and Y or you can choose Z.

This makes no sense.

You can pick the "or Z" without the feat. So why would you interpret that the feat could give you the ability to do what you could without it.

Shadow Lodge

June Soler wrote:
To say that others don't see it another way is ignoring the many threads on this feat in which this issue keeps popping up.

People ignoring a posted speed limit doesn't make that speed limit "vague" even if millions of people do it. If you are ignoring the meaning of the words simply because you don't agree with what those words, in that order, mean, then it isn't "vague".


Mystic Lemur wrote:
June Soler wrote:
To say that others don't see it another way is ignoring the many threads on this feat in which this issue keeps popping up.
People ignoring a posted speed limit doesn't make that speed limit "vague" even if millions of people do it. If you are ignoring the meaning of the words simply because you don't agree with what those words, in that order, mean, then it isn't "vague".

Actually a speed sign isn't vague at all: it has a concrete number(i.e. the posed speed limit) on it, which doesn't allow for any interpretation. 55 is 55 no matter what.

A yield sign on the other hand would be a better analogy.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

N N 959 wrote:


PRD wrote:
Whenever a character gains a level in his favored class, he receives either + 1 hit point or + 1 skill rank.
So here we know the character is entitled to one or the other. So we can say the designers have explicitly given us the following formula for the FCB: 1sp = 1hp

There may be some merit to the more permissive interpretation, but this argument collapses immediately.

Nowhere in the Pathfinder game is there ever a suggestion that all options are equal in value. A first-level gnome paladin gets one feat. Are all feats (Prone Shooter, Improved Initiative, Run) equally valuable? The Feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency gives your character proficiency with one of the exotic weapons. Does that suggest that all exotic weapons are equal in value? A 3rd-level wizard has one second level spell slot. Does that mean that Pathfinder intends all second-level spells to be equal in value?

Also, you should probably check the definition of "explicitly". I think you mean to say "implicitly," just the opposite.

PRD on Racial Favored Classes wrote:
As in the previous section, what is presented here is a set of alternative benefits that characters of each race may choose instead of the normal benefits for their favored class. Thus, rather than taking an extra hit point or an extra skill rank, players may choose for their characters to gain the benefit listed here.
N N 959 wrote:


Emphasis added. So intead of the Skill OR the Hit point, the character can choose the Alternate benefit.

I agree.

Quote:
This unequivocally sets up the context in which 1 Sp or 1 Hp is equivalent to 1 Ap.

I think that's baloney. They're choices. They're not necessarily equal choices.


Chris Mortika wrote:


Nowhere in the Pathfinder game is there ever a suggestion that all options are equal in value.

Your observation seems confusing. The "value" of anything is technically subjective. The value of 1sp or 1hp or 1ap is determined by the player and the context under which the game is played. What is unequivocal is that the designers felt that all three fall in the same range of incremental benefit.

Quote:
Are all feats (Prone Shooter, Improved Initiative, Run) equally valuable?

See my statement about value above. What the designers have attempted is to make all feats available at a given point in character's career of potentially equal value. Does that mean they succeeded? No. But there's a reason why Improved Precise Shot or Weapon Specialization are not available at 1st level.

However, I do think there are many feats which were added/necessary for flavor and NPC's and not really intended as a choice for PC's. I'd also wager that there are feats which most developers would agree were just not as useful or beneficial as intended.

Quote:
Feat Exotic Weapon Proficiency gives your character proficiency with one of the exotic weapons. Does that suggest that all exotic weapons are equal in value?

Do you think all Simple weapons are equal in value? What about all Martial weapons? Let me put it another way, do you think a designer is going to say any specific weapon is "better" than any other weapon in its class?

Quote:
Also, you should probably check the definition of "explicitly". I think you mean to say "implicitly," just the opposite.

1. No, I mean explicit as in "leaving no room for doubt." When the rules say you can choose A or B, then that is an explicit statement that A and B, are viewed to be of same incremental value in a game that's based on being "balanced."

2. Perhaps you are confusing "literally" with "explicitly?"

Quote:
Quote:
This unequivocally sets up the context in which 1 Sp or 1 Hp is equivalent to 1 Ap.
I think that's baloney. They're choices. They're not necessarily equal choices.

Whether you "value" them the same is irrelevant. It is a fact that they are meant to be equally available on a 1 to 1 correlation. And ironically the PRD suggests that the Alternative racial class benefits are not as generally "useful" as the 1sp or 1hp choice.

As has been stated by many others, interpreting the Feat to say (A+B) or C is nonsensical given that a player can normally choose A or B or C and the authors have never said A+B=C or 2A=C or 2B=C, etc. What I am trying to figure out is what is the motivation to go that route. Psychology suggests that a person trying to insist on A+B or C has some vested interest in that outcome. Looking at the past discussions, it seems that there seems to be some need to compare this to Toughness and proclaim it's not as good.

While I agree that the wording of the feat leaves room for ambiguity, the context in which those rules are written seems to remove that uncertainty. I don't know, it's like a mini-phenomenon seeing people trying to argue this rule in a vacuum.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

The motivation? Because that's what Fast Learner says? Because it doesn't say "Pick any two of the three options." That would be a simple thing to say. And that's not how the feat's text reads.

You're suggesting, "Well, it should say that. Here's another way the developers could have written it, to conform to the way I want the rules to work."

And if you prefer "balanced" to "equivalent", I'm good with that. Reread my last post with that substitution.

In any case, this discussion has long ceased being about PFS, and should probably migrate back to the Rules forum.


Chris Mortika wrote:
The motivation? Because that's what Fast Learner says? Because it doesn't say "Pick any two of the three options." That would be a simple thing to say. And that's not how the feat's text reads.

And as is demonstrated by SKR's post on channel energy, just because the authors don't write it in the simplest or clearest fashion doesn't mean they don't mean what should be obvious.

Quote:
You're suggesting, "Well, it should say that. Here's another way the developers could have written it, to conform to the way I want the rules to work."

That's actually what you're arguing. I haven't said it "should" have been written in any specific way. What I said is how it should be interpreted: in the context of the game, just like every other rule.

Is it possible that they really do want it to be A+B or C? Yes. But that would be inconsistent with how the choices are weighted without the feat and there's nothing in the feat or about the feat that suggest such a change in choices is desired or intrinsic to the purpose of the feat. It's called Fast Learner. At the risk of stating the obvious, getting just 1 Ap isn't allowing the character to learn any faster.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe this will help...?

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Pathfinder Society & Fast Learner All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.