The Courageous Property: What does it really do?


Rules Questions

401 to 450 of 477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

I don't see a logical argument against using, and attacking, with a weapon, not "wielding" it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
I don't see a logical argument against using, and attacking, with a weapon, not "wielding" it.

I agree. However, you (rules-technically) aren't attacking with armor spikes, you're initiating a grapple and it just deals bonus damage. Kind of like grappling while cloaked in a fire shield. Thematically you're using the armor spikes in about the same purpose as a spiked gauntlet, and since the rules are silent on it, I don't see why we shouldn't use the thematically rational interpretation.


Ilja wrote:


I agree. However, you (rules-technically) aren't attacking with armor spikes, you're initiating a grapple and it just deals bonus damage. Kind of like grappling while cloaked in a fire shield. Thematically you're using the armor spikes in about the same purpose as a spiked gauntlet, and since the rules are silent on it, I don't see why we shouldn't use the thematically rational interpretation.

Except you are not grappling them by use of your armor spikes. If this was a net we were talking about you would have a point since we are using the net to grapple the opponent.

You do not get a bonus on grapple for shanking the guy with a knife once you have him in a grapple.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Oort wrote:

Interpreting it as "all" is RAW.

Making assumptions about context is not RAW.

Unfortunately you are not understanding that they both are RAW.

Oort wrote:
Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint

I intimately understand your flawed viewpoint, I just don't agree with your view that there is one true RAW.

Robert A Matthews wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle my friend.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I would attribute to someone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since both sides seem to understand the other side won't give up, why not just drop it? This seems to go down a more and more aggressive and demeaning way, so take this opportunity to just step away from the thread, unfollow it, and just slip away into silence.

Then we can all just let the thread die (until if a FAQ comes out) and no-one feels forced to prove they aren't wrong.

Just... Drop it. Okay? n_n


Ilja wrote:

Since both sides seem to understand the other side won't give up, why not just drop it? This seems to go down a more and more aggressive and demeaning way, so take this opportunity to just step away from the thread, unfollow it, and just slip away into silence.

Then we can all just let the thread die (until if a FAQ comes out) and no-one feels forced to prove they aren't wrong.

Just... Drop it. Okay? n_n

Sounds wise. It doesn't seem like anything's going to change in this discussion either way.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Ilja wrote:
let the thread die (until if a FAQ comes out) and no-one feels forced to prove they aren't wrong.

I sense a wise one in you young master Ilja.


James, no one said that there is exactly one true RAW in general. Just that, in this particular specific case, there is no legitimate way to claim that the English words "Any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source" denote something more restrictive than "any morale bonus the wielder gains". The only restriction is that it's not affecting the morale bonuses other people gain.


James, take a deep breath. Be the bigger... eh... green eldritch horror.


I have seen this kind of thread before, back when the Tail Terror controversy raged for days across the land. What ended up happening, you say? I am glad you asked. What ended up happening is that all the arguments had been established by the 100th post, and nothing changed until the thread grew to 1000-ish posts, until someone from Paizo finally stuck his head over the parapet and slew the beast.

A result, by the by, which could just be obtained by just FAQing it and moving on. For the good of the boards, for the good of the children, stay in your homes and wait for the PDT. Why won't anyone think of the children?!


Kryptik wrote:
Why won't anyone think of the children?!

Goblin babies would like to have words with you.


James Risner wrote:
Oort wrote:

Interpreting it as "all" is RAW.

Making assumptions about context is not RAW.

Unfortunately you are not understanding that they both are RAW.

Oort wrote:
Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint

I intimately understand your flawed viewpoint, I just don't agree with your view that there is one true RAW.

Robert A Matthews wrote:

You are fighting a losing battle my friend.

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”

Couldn't have said it better myself, though I would attribute to someone else.

Please, explain how my viewpoint is flawed. I'm not being sarcastic. That's why I posted in this thread. If there are holes in my logic, tell me what they are. That's the point of discourse.

I specifically explained how I reasoned myself into this viewpoint. I have not seen you supply any reasoning whatsoever. If you can supply a refutation in a way that doesn't insult the effort I put into explaining my reasoning then I'll be deeply ingratiated. If you can't supply a logical explanation, I'll continue to think you illogical. Simple as that.

Tell me how it's flawed. Tell me how it's flawed in a way that isn't irrelevant, insulting, unsupported or completely fallacious. If my reasoning is incorrect in some way I'd like to know. But as it stands I've supplied an explanation of my reasoning and you've supplied "because I said so".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oort wrote:
Tell me how it's flawed.

You are ignoring context, and reading the individual sentences as if they are not interconnected or related.

You need a line such as "including bonuses to skills, ability scores, attacks, and damage rolls" to make it clear this ability expands beyond saves vs fear (or just plain saves.) Without it, you are limited by the first sentence. You are ignoring this and you don't have a good reason other than "it can be read that way so I won't accept any other way to read it."

This is why this thread will never die. As long as you are unwilling to say "there are multiple ways to read it" then this thread will continue forever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nonono, you have a valid argument for RAI. What I'm saying is that there is no way to reconcile your interpretation with the latter sentence that respects the meaning of its grammar. If the RAW is flawed, it's flawed in such a way that one possible and reasonable suggestion for its actual intention--yours--can't actually be reconciled with the form of that sentence. I'm not saying you're wrong about how it was supposed to be, but in an SAT-question sort of way you can't reconcile the language used with several perfectly reasonable inferences of intent.

It's unclear, but assuming that "any morale bonus from any other source" refers to anything other than what it explicitly says is not "as written".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems that perhaps you're getting confused here. By making judgments based on context like you are, you are trying to guess what they might have intended to write for that last sentence. You can judge intent based on context, certainly, but "as written", grammatical absolutes have to stand by themselves.

If it said "A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any unicorn within 15 feet takes 2d6 fire damage" then, RAW, unicorns are gonna burn.

At that, I'm going to leave this discussion, and only for one reason that I hope you take to heart: you have no understanding of polite discourse whatsoever and it makes it a drag to participate in a discussion with you. You might examine other relationships in your life and see if they aren't bogged down in a similar manner. Were it not for that I'd gladly continue this discussion and try to reach a consensus. I just can't stand any more of your boorish condescension.


James Risner wrote:
Oort wrote:
Tell me how it's flawed.

You are ignoring context, and reading the individual sentences as if they are not interconnected or related.

You need a line such as "including bonuses to skills, ability scores, attacks, and damage rolls" to make it clear this ability expands beyond saves vs fear (or just plain saves.) Without it, you are limited by the first sentence. You are ignoring this and you don't have a good reason other than "it can be read that way so I won't accept any other way to read it."

You don't need the specific examples, you just need a word that means that this applies to any bonus, not just to bonuses that apply to some specific thing. For instance, "any".

And really, "or just plain saves"? That is not a valid reading. I mean, it just plain is not correct. That cannot be the right interpretation of that set of words. It may have been what the author intended, but at some point, we cross from "that's an odd way to express that" to "if that was what you were trying to say, you failed, please try again only using words that are related to what you want."

Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that the people you're arguing with have repeatedly pointed out how their reading takes the first sentence into account.

Let's try it again, just for fun.

"The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."

See, here's the words you're reading:

"The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. A morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."

That is a set of words which could reasonably be suspected of being intended to mean that the second effect applies only to bonuses against saves against fear. However, the actual words contain two key changes:

1. They use the word "any", twice. Once to qualify morale bonuses, once to qualify the sources of morale bonuses. The second qualifier avoids any suspicion that it might apply only to morale bonuses granted by this weapon, or by the user's own powers, or whatever else. No, it applies to bonuses from any source. The first qualifier tells us which bonuses are affected. Is it just some bonuses? No, it is any bonus.
2. They use the introductory clause "In addition". That tells us that this is not another part of the same effect, but a different effect.

Without the "In addition", you could view this sentence as merely expanding on or modifying the previously-described effect on saves vs. fear, but once it's there, we are talking about a distinct power.

Quote:
This is why this thread will never die. As long as you are unwilling to say "there are multiple ways to read it" then this thread will continue forever.

There are lots of ways to read it, but only one of them is remotely plausible for conventional English usage.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
There are lots of ways to read it, but only one of them is remotely plausible for conventional English usage.

You read any and interpreted it as including Rage.

I read any and interpreted it as only relating to saves vs fear.

Once you have read it one way, it is really hard to objectively understand that it isn't that clear to everyone. Not everyone read the same sentence and have the same take on it.

Until you understand this, you may be inclined to continue to assert that there is only one way to read this text.

It turns out the RAI doesn't exactly match either of our initial takes. Specifically limiting to saves in general.


Well as long as everyone that understands conventional English language agrees, I think we can table this discussion. There's nothing to be gained by explaining it further to those who refuse to understand. If they don't want to accept the facts that have been very generously explained them by myself and many patient others in this thread, I don't think another 5 pages will make those who don't understand conventional English admit they were wrong on the internet.

Agreed?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oort wrote:

It seems that perhaps you're getting confused here. By making judgments based on context like you are, you are trying to guess what they might have intended to write for that last sentence. You can judge intent based on context, certainly, but "as written", grammatical absolutes have to stand by themselves.

If it said "A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any unicorn within 15 feet takes 2d6 fire damage" then, RAW, unicorns are gonna burn.

At that, I'm going to leave this discussion, and only for one reason that I hope you take to heart: you have no understanding of polite discourse whatsoever and it makes it a drag to participate in a discussion with you. You might examine other relationships in your life and see if they aren't bogged down in a similar manner. Were it not for that I'd gladly continue this discussion and try to reach a consensus. I just can't stand any more of your boorish condescension.

No, a better example:

"A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. A morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source burns any unicorns each round within 15 ft by 1d6 fire damage per two enhancement bonus (miniumum 1d6 for a +1 enhancement)."

Are going to argue that the Morale bonus must boost saves? No, we are wondering why the designers hate unicorns.

Shadow Lodge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Oort wrote:

It seems that perhaps you're getting confused here. By making judgments based on context like you are, you are trying to guess what they might have intended to write for that last sentence. You can judge intent based on context, certainly, but "as written", grammatical absolutes have to stand by themselves.

If it said "A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any unicorn within 15 feet takes 2d6 fire damage" then, RAW, unicorns are gonna burn.

At that, I'm going to leave this discussion, and only for one reason that I hope you take to heart: you have no understanding of polite discourse whatsoever and it makes it a drag to participate in a discussion with you. You might examine other relationships in your life and see if they aren't bogged down in a similar manner. Were it not for that I'd gladly continue this discussion and try to reach a consensus. I just can't stand any more of your boorish condescension.

No, a better example:

"A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. A morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source burns any unicorns each round within 15 ft by 1d6 fire damage per two enhancement bonus (miniumum 1d6 for a +1 enhancement)."

Are going to argue that the Morale bonus must boost saves? No, we are wondering why the designers hate unicorns.

There would probably be a new ruling "All Unicorns have at least 1 level in Monk". That would explain it.

Grand Lodge

The Courageous Property: What does it really do?

Makes some happy, and leaves some pissed off.


Now I am thinking it only applies to fear saves and thus goes on the worthless pile with about a hundred other weapon abilities. The other interpretation is a munchkins wet dream.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Now I am thinking it only applies to fear saves and thus goes on the worthless pile with about a hundred other weapon abilities. The other interpretation is a munchkins wet dream.

Munchkin's wet dream is extreme hyperbole. There are few circumstances in which this would be better than a straight +1, and in any case it's a thing for melee weapons.

But yes, if it applies only to fear saves, into the trash it goes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Daenar wrote:
Now I am thinking it only applies to fear saves and thus goes on the worthless pile with about a hundred other weapon abilities. The other interpretation is a munchkins wet dream.

There's only one interpretation. It applies to all morale bonuses, from any source. Because the item says itself it that does. Any other interpretation is pure nonsense.


Daenar wrote:
Now I am thinking it only applies to fear saves and thus goes on the worthless pile with about a hundred other weapon abilities. The other interpretation is a munchkins wet dream.

Hardly munchkinism. I find if it was munchkinism it'd go directly against the intent of the item. It's taking "He killed the cat," to meaning "Yup, I totally went and started gnawing on its face," is the amount of munchkinism you'd expect from this.

In other words, taking "Any morale bonus (morale bonus being a defined game term) from any other source," to mean "Yup, I only mean 'morale' in the literal dictionary sense," is more of an anti-munchkin interpretation. That is, it's the polar opposite of what being a munchkin normally is, which is to bend the RAW of the item to go against the obvious intent. Problem is, the intent of the item isn't really defined anywhere.

Also consider that if you said "it's a munchkin's wet dream," and yet if it wasn't, you said that it "goes on the worthless pile with about a hundred other weapon abilities," what's the difference between a subject that's situationally good, like the Bane property, and a subject that's universally good, like an actually increased enhancement?

That same thing applies to this subject. By that logic, the Bane property is either extremely good since it's in constant use, or it's absolutely worthless because it never gets any use, or its benefit means nothing. Why is that property, which adds to hit and damage (and even more damage), nowhere near as far-fetch'd or a "munchkin's wet dream" as the Courageous property?

As an aside, this thread has hit over 60 FAQs.

Paizo Employee Official Rules Response

13 people marked this as a favorite.

Answered in FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.

A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

ouch, that'll hit a lot of barbarians


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Answered in FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.

A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.

I regret that I have but one like to give for this FAQ.


@ Kullen: The RAI regarding the ability wasn't official, or even properly established, meaning we could only draw from the RAW. When the RAW uses an official game term to confer a more literal reading, there was bound to be controversy.

With the FAQ now established, the RAI is official, and it trumps the RAW (which, as the PDT says, will be shown in the next publishing of UE).

PFS Barbarians will be in for a surprise, and maybe the PFS Bards. But as far as unchained is concerned? Not a big deal.

Thank you, PDT, for conferring the proper RAI (yes, even if I don't agree with it).


Why oh why did this have to be faq'd? Everything was so crystal clear. It's a pity - the next totally worthless weapon ability - as if there are not enough already.


Seriously?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh thanks, cuz martial classes need more of a kick in the teeth at higher levels.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure your barbarian will be doing just fine without massive bonus increases.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Into the trash it goes.


TOZ wrote:
I'm pretty sure your barbarian will be doing just fine without massive bonus increases.

He would, but it's still disappointing. I liked having extra good Superstition without being human.

Grand Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


PFS Barbarians will be in for a surprise, and maybe the PFS Bards. But as far as unchained is concerned? Not a big deal.

Won't be too bad for PFS. Since it is an actual errata, Mike Brock has okayed selling back the enhancement for full price.

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:
I'm pretty sure your barbarian will be doing just fine without massive bonus increases.

What massive increases? A +4 courageous weapon (or a+2 furious courageous weapon) gave a "massive" +2 to Strength and Constitution while raging. Hardly overpowered at the levels where a +4/+5 weapon are the norm.

What poor wizard felt threatened that y'all had to make sure to nerf martials just that much harder?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

Answered in FAQ

FAQ wrote:

Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.

A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.

Thank you so very much, this issue has been nagging me, ever since I discovered it in Herolab... and did some research.


To be fair, +3 to saves, to-hit from Heroism or Good Hope (and damage from that last as well) is a pretty hefty bonus, but considering it requires a +4 Furious COurageous weapon to pull off, I still disagree it was too much.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mystic Lemur wrote:
What massive increases?

Oh, well, if they WEREN'T massive increases then your character isn't out very much at all, and the 'nerf' is equally small. After all, your characters wasn't relying on those bonuses much at all.


This one always bugged me because the RAI was so bloody obvious. You get a morale bonus to saves against fear and if you have another morale bonus it gets increased by half as much. I'm surprised it took this long for them to say that the obvious reading that the clauses are connected is the way it works.


Atarlost wrote:
This one always bugged me because the RAI was so bloody obvious. You get a morale bonus to saves against fear and if you have another morale bonus it gets increased by half as much. I'm surprised it took this long for them to say that the obvious reading that the clauses are connected is the way it works.

For a certain value of "obvious". As written, there is no way you could get that from the text. At best, the text may say it applies only to saves against fear.

I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:

D-d-d-d-d-d-double FAQ!

#1

FAQ wrote:

Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.

A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.

I call b*$$&$+@ on this one. You can say it was "meant" to be that way all you want, but there is literally no way to read the ability that way as written.

I absolutely cannot believe that if the intent was for it to only work on Fear effects someone consciously decided to word it in a manner that CANNOT be read to give the effect intended. It wasn't even a matter of ambiguity, here.

Change it, I guess, but claiming it was meant to be that way all along just makes the guy who originally wrote it look like a colossal screw-up.

What Cheapy said.

I agree with you that the original wording is nearly impossible to read in the way intended; that's why it will need to be changed in the next errata.

Mark Seifter wrote:
In this particular case, the PDT members who were actually there for UE's publication made it clear that the fear thing was the original intent, after I explained why the exact wording of the text made it do the other thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
To be fair, +3 to saves, to-hit from Heroism or Good Hope (and damage from that last as well) is a pretty hefty bonus, but considering it requires a +4 Furious COurageous weapon to pull off, I still disagree it was too much.

My thinking exactly. Another ability that just went from 'useful at high levels as an option' to 'why would you use this?'

I'm no power gamer, I don't seek out to create the most powerful characters possible, and I don't feel that just because an option isn't the most efficient it is trash. But too many abilities actually are trash. Bothers me.

Shadow Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
This one always bugged me because the RAI was so bloody obvious. You get a morale bonus to saves against fear and if you have another morale bonus it gets increased by half as much. I'm surprised it took this long for them to say that the obvious reading that the clauses are connected is the way it works.
For a certain value of "obvious". As written, there is no way you could get that from the text.

*scratches head* Weird, how did I get it from the text then?


TOZ wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
This one always bugged me because the RAI was so bloody obvious. You get a morale bonus to saves against fear and if you have another morale bonus it gets increased by half as much. I'm surprised it took this long for them to say that the obvious reading that the clauses are connected is the way it works.
For a certain value of "obvious". As written, there is no way you could get that from the text.
*scratches head* Weird, how did I get it from the text then?

Obviously reading comprehension is a vice now because it's bad to correctly interpret rules text as intended by the author.


It take a severe lack of reading comprehension to interpret the word "any" as "this specific thing and no other thing", which is the exact opposite of the definition of the word "any".

Just because you GUESSED correctly about what it was MEANT to say does not mean that's what the text actually says.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, do those in PFS, who counted on Courageous working as it was originally written, get to trade out the enchantment, or are granted a rebuild?

This is an ERRATA, not a FAQ.


There is a specific thread in the PFS section about the courageous FAQ. Mike basically stated that you can sell your weapon for a complete refund.

Silver Crusade Contributor

blackbloodtroll wrote:

So, do those in PFS, who counted on Courageous working as it was originally written, get to trade out the enchantment, or are granted a rebuild?

This is an ERRATA, not a FAQ.

They understand. ^_^

401 to 450 of 477 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / The Courageous Property: What does it really do? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.