Fluff Text vs. Mechanics?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matthew Downie wrote:

Some elements of the pro-fluff faction seems to be arguing that Golarion = Pathfinder. (Presumably all the people who played games set in Golarion before the Pathfinder Core rulebook was published were playing Pathfinder without knowing it.)

I am pro-fluff. I donate generously to fluff. Some of my best friends are fluff. But I believe that the thing that makes fluff so great is that it allows for creativity, and this creativity requires fluff to be mutable.

I've been playing in a campaign not set in Golarion, using the same classes and bestiary monsters as Pathfinder, but a different pantheon. It still feels like Pathfinder to me.
Player creativity is also enhanced by mutable fluff. My Barbarian is not from a barbarian tribe. My Inquisitor does not work for the inquisition. My Zen Archer Monk is not a monk, just a poet with a gift for archery.

If your pro-fluff stance bans my fluff, then I don't want to be associated with it.

Pathfinder may be a world independent game system. But as the devs themselves say, virtually everything they create, they do so with an eye as to how it would fit into the Golarion cosmos. So that viewpoint is not without merit.


Scythia wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Scythia wrote:
Iron Gods is still explicitly Pathfinder. It has all the elements of traditional fantasy, with some sci-fi added in.
Like Star Wars.

I was unaware that Star Wars was set in Golarion. Did the the Deathstar mean to blow up Andoran, and target Alderaan by mistake?

I know what you're trying to say, and that is true, but you overlooked "explicitly", as in Iron Gods is designed in both rules and "fluff" to be Pathfinder (with sci-fi added). Not merely similar.

From a literary standpoint Star Wars is definitely more "Epic Fantasy In Space" than what is traditionally considered sci-fi but that's a different discussion entirely.


thejeff wrote:
voideternal wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm still curious what this game of Pathfinder with no fluff whatsoever looks like.

I imagine it to look like the Core Rulebook with every fluff-description of any kind of game mechanic keyword replaced with variable names.

Instead of "Class" you would say "X1"
Instead of "Attack roll", you would say "Y3"
Instead of "AC", you would say, "B5"

Here's an example of a game:
GM: A, C3, C1, D4, P0 Q3?
A: Y3 15 *rolls d20* 28 O4.
GM: *rolls d20* M T13.
C3: Q8 *rolls d20* I5 D1. *rolls d6*

I would not call the above game Pathfinder. Heck, I would not call it a game, because there's no clear win state. Would you?

I could see, barely, running combats like that. I couldn't see running a game like that. There's stuff in between the combats - even if it's just dressing to set up the fights, but that's all fluff.

Edit: That's actually a little farther than I'd go. "Attack roll" and "AC" are mechanics terms. Those would be okay. But you wouldn't be wielding any particular kind of weapon or wearing any specific armor - though it would still have AC bonus, check penalty, weight and all the other mechanics definitions.

While I can respect that there are people that wouldn't mind a mechanics-only game, I'd be run out of the house if I ran a game like that. My wife has a degree in mathematics and she looked at this and told me that if I left out the story and descriptive elements she'd do unspeakable things to me, things that I cannot put on the message boards without a ban.

The fluff and rules are both important. The story is what we are playing for, I'd hope. The rules are how we get there. You need both otherwise you have results with no meaning, and a story with no decision-making ability.


Scythia wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Scythia wrote:

Iron Gods is still explicitly Pathfinder. It has all the elements of traditional fantasy, with some sci-fi added in. It's still about elves, dwarves, wizards, Paladins, and the same everything else, just with some new toys.

It's a Granny Smith with caramel, still an apple and still sour, just with something added overtop.

Although, if you doubt that "fluff" is as important to something being Pathfinder as rules, look at some reactions people have had to Iron Gods, and the technology guide, as not being Pathfinder. Likewise the inclusion of guns (yes some object to guns on a rules basis, but many others object on a "no guns in fantasy" basis).

That is because of personal bias and then not knowing what they are talking about. Even back during first edition of D&D expedition to the barrier peaks had a sci-fi element. The mindflayers came from outer space. The background has them ruling much of the known multiverse, even taking over the blood wars.

And any GM's campaign is still Pathfinder/D&D, if he uses that rule set. Even if he has eastern classes, guns, and sci-fi with aliens.

Now once you switch over to Shadowrun or Exalted rules then you are playing that game. By the same token if you bring an Exalted story to Pathfinder/D&D then that is what you are playing.

edit: If you try to advertise Pathfinder and use some d10 or d6 system that is another rule system you will likely have some very unhappy people, even if you claim it is Rise of the Runelords or another AP.

Likewise, if you advertise Pathfinder and tell people they're going to be wookie, twi'lek, and ewok (using the stats of half-orc, tiefling, and halfling) rebels fighting the Galactic Empire from their trusty starship the Centennial Condor, you will likely have some very unhappy people even if you're using the Pathfinder rules system.

I agree because they will be expecting Pathfinder races and so on, not some GM's homebrewed races or reflavoring of orcs or half-orcs into wookies, and TIE fighters, and force powers, and whatever other changes need to be made to make Star Wars fit into Pathfinder.


knightnday wrote:

While I can respect that there are people that wouldn't mind a mechanics-only game, I'd be run out of the house if I ran a game like that. My wife has a degree in mathematics and she looked at this and told me that if I left out the story and descriptive elements she'd do unspeakable things to me, things that I cannot put on the message boards without a ban.

The fluff and rules are both important. The story is what we are playing for, I'd hope. The rules are how we get there. You need both otherwise you have results with no meaning, and a story with no decision-making ability.

Absolutely agreed. It's just a thought experiment prompted by claims that "You can play a game of Pathfinder without any fluff whatsoever and it will still be a game of Pathfinder."

And I still want to know what he thinks that would look like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Wait, who's doing pathfinder star wars, sign me up, I don't care if I gotta glue a bunch of fur on my Half-Orc or Halfling, we all gotta make sacrifices :D


thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:

While I can respect that there are people that wouldn't mind a mechanics-only game, I'd be run out of the house if I ran a game like that. My wife has a degree in mathematics and she looked at this and told me that if I left out the story and descriptive elements she'd do unspeakable things to me, things that I cannot put on the message boards without a ban.

The fluff and rules are both important. The story is what we are playing for, I'd hope. The rules are how we get there. You need both otherwise you have results with no meaning, and a story with no decision-making ability.

Absolutely agreed. It's just a thought experiment prompted by claims that "You can play a game of Pathfinder without any fluff whatsoever and it will still be a game of Pathfinder."

And I still want to know what he thinks that would look like.

I think the argument should have been that you can play with almost any fluff, and it will still be Pathfinder as long as you use the Pathfinder ruleset.

Certain stories could not be pulled off accurately without changing the rules which is why certain systems are better for certain things.
Of course you can homebrew some and it will still be the same system as I said earlier.


Okay, got my Magus... I mean Jedi knight made, all I need is a Null Blade... I mean Lightsaber and he's ready to go


wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:

While I can respect that there are people that wouldn't mind a mechanics-only game, I'd be run out of the house if I ran a game like that. My wife has a degree in mathematics and she looked at this and told me that if I left out the story and descriptive elements she'd do unspeakable things to me, things that I cannot put on the message boards without a ban.

The fluff and rules are both important. The story is what we are playing for, I'd hope. The rules are how we get there. You need both otherwise you have results with no meaning, and a story with no decision-making ability.

Absolutely agreed. It's just a thought experiment prompted by claims that "You can play a game of Pathfinder without any fluff whatsoever and it will still be a game of Pathfinder."

And I still want to know what he thinks that would look like.

I think the argument should have been that you can play with almost any fluff, and it will still be Pathfinder as long as you use the Pathfinder ruleset.

Certain stories could not be pulled off accurately without changing the rules which is why certain systems are better for certain things.
Of course you can homebrew some and it will still be the same system as I said earlier.

But how much can you refluff and still have it be the same? If you change all the classes and monsters and gear to be different fluff, without changing the mechanics (or with minimal houserules as you say), is it really PF? If it's all high tech knights with nanotech "magic", following the same rules, is it really the same game?

But it's mostly semantics at that point. What do you actually mean when you say "I'm running Pathfinder."? If someone suggested a PF game, I certainly wouldn't expect an entirely reskinned game. Any more than I'd expect a hugely houseruled one. A few things reskinned to be something more appropriate and it wouldn't surprise me, but giving the whole game a facelift seems out of line. It's like houserules. Changing a few things leaves the basic game in place, but at some point you've changed enough that you're not meeting expectations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
But it's mostly semantics at that point.

It seems like nothing but, to me.

I've been struggling to come up with a consequence for adopting either position (Anzyr's or Scythia's) and I can't think of one beyond how you refer to your game.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have an example of Fluff that needs to be referred to when interpreting the rules.

Thunder and Fang feat.

The overall want was to duel wield Earth Breakers (Or wield an oversized one with two hands) The "fluff" actually says that the feat is to wield an Earth Breaker and a Klar together.

"Oh, well that's just fluff... look at this particular part here and notice the ill placed period..."

Just fluff.

Just ignore it because it is just fluff that says what the feat is supposed to do. Riiiiight.


thejeff wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
thejeff wrote:
knightnday wrote:

While I can respect that there are people that wouldn't mind a mechanics-only game, I'd be run out of the house if I ran a game like that. My wife has a degree in mathematics and she looked at this and told me that if I left out the story and descriptive elements she'd do unspeakable things to me, things that I cannot put on the message boards without a ban.

The fluff and rules are both important. The story is what we are playing for, I'd hope. The rules are how we get there. You need both otherwise you have results with no meaning, and a story with no decision-making ability.

Absolutely agreed. It's just a thought experiment prompted by claims that "You can play a game of Pathfinder without any fluff whatsoever and it will still be a game of Pathfinder."

And I still want to know what he thinks that would look like.

I think the argument should have been that you can play with almost any fluff, and it will still be Pathfinder as long as you use the Pathfinder ruleset.

Certain stories could not be pulled off accurately without changing the rules which is why certain systems are better for certain things.
Of course you can homebrew some and it will still be the same system as I said earlier.

But how much can you refluff and still have it be the same? If you change all the classes and monsters and gear to be different fluff, without changing the mechanics (or with minimal houserules as you say), is it really PF? If it's all high tech knights with nanotech "magic", following the same rules, is it really the same game?

But it's mostly semantics at that point. What do you actually mean when you say "I'm running Pathfinder."? If someone suggested a PF game, I certainly wouldn't expect an entirely reskinned game. Any more than I'd expect a hugely houseruled one. A few things reskinned to be something more appropriate and it wouldn't surprise me, but giving the whole game a facelift seems out of line. It's like...

It is still the PF rule system, but if you want to deviate very far from type of fantasy the game was designed for then you should let people know in advance that you are using the PF rule system for something they may not be expecting. As an example Eberron is just as much D&D as Forgotten Realms is, but Eberron is not what I would consider a typical fantasy setting, and if it(Eberron) was just some guy's homebrew system he would be wise to let everyone know what it is up front. However I would still have considered it to be D&D, even if it had never been published.

I do agree that after so many houserules a thing becomes a different thing, but for this sentence I am only speaking of mechanical changes.


Matthew Downie wrote:

Some elements of the pro-fluff faction seems to be arguing that Golarion = Pathfinder. (Presumably all the people who played games set in Golarion before the Pathfinder Core rulebook was published were playing Pathfinder without knowing it.)

I am pro-fluff. I donate generously to fluff. Some of my best friends are fluff. But I believe that the thing that makes fluff so great is that it allows for creativity, and this creativity requires fluff to be mutable.

I've been playing in a campaign not set in Golarion, using the same classes and bestiary monsters as Pathfinder, but a different pantheon. It still feels like Pathfinder to me.
Player creativity is also enhanced by mutable fluff. My Barbarian is not from a barbarian tribe. My Inquisitor does not work for the inquisition. My Zen Archer Monk is not a monk, just a poet with a gift for archery.

If your pro-fluff stance bans my fluff, then I don't want to be associated with it.

I totally agree,

I think there is a huge difference between Pathfinder (Golarion) canon that generates its own tropes to characters and situations that arise from going against those same tropes.


thaX wrote:

I have an example of Fluff that needs to be referred to when interpreting the rules.

Thunder and Fang feat.

The overall want was to duel wield Earth Breakers (Or wield an oversized one with two hands) The "fluff" actually says that the feat is to wield an Earth Breaker and a Klar together.

"Oh, well that's just fluff... look at this particular part here and notice the ill placed period..."

Just fluff.

Just ignore it because it is just fluff that says what the feat is supposed to do. Riiiiight.

Both you've done the same thing as the

"Oh, well that's just fluff... look at this particular part here and notice the ill placed period..." crowd. You're reading the fluff and adding text. It just says that "you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar" but what it FAILS to say is "when wielding an earth breaker and klar AT THE SAME TIME" which is what a lot of people seem to read it as.

Myself, in a contest between rules and fluff, rules win out every time.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fluff is mutable. It's not set in stone, and is generally vague and imprecise by intention.

Crunch is immutable. It's designed to explain exactly how things work, but also is sometimes vague and imprecise, but certainly not intentionally.

They're both important, but if you're not willing to allow the fluff to change at all, then you're holding the game's spirit hostage just as much as the guy who comes to the table with a statblock but not a character.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

It shouldn't be Fluff vs. Rules. One should complement the other, not be at odds with it.

The rules of the Thunder and Fang explains the mechanics of wielding the two weapons together, as described in the fluff.

A lot of posts was nashed and bitterly posted about the period, the fact that One Handed should mean that the weapon itself changes (it does not, BTW) and the explanation of leveraging the EB with the Klar was how it was being use in that one hand being discarded and the same points being made over and over to try and make them true.

It was finally (Thankfully) locked. Now there is an Archtype of fighter that allows the wielding of oversized Two Handed Weapons (In Giant Slayer companion, I believe) and another for the Kasatha that allows for the double wielding of Bows.

Doesn't change the feat that was discussed before, but it does allow for some things that was wanted that the feat should not have provided.

I bring it up because it is one case where the Fluff actually helps when looking at the rules for that feat. EB and Klar, clearly. Yet, some wanted something else entirely.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The rules say what the rules say. When it says "you can do this" you can do whatever "this" is. The fluff is part of that, but it is not the extent of it.

The fact remains that you will not be convincing anyone that you can't do what the rule say you can do. And you sure as hell don't get to tell other people how things work at their tables.


I don't think the "vs" is means "against", but sometimes the flavor may not match the mechanical intent. As an example cleave requires two attack rolls, but from an in-game perspective it is one big swing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think anyone link this yet, so here it is.


pres man wrote:
I don't think anyone link this yet, so here it is.

Yeah but with how she turned out, that is more proof against mutable fluff. Changing the fluff makes YOU CRAZY!


Some semi-random thoughts.

Fluff & Crunch. Crunch (mechanics) is the skeletal and muscular structure of the game. Fluff (flavor) is the skin and nervous system of the game. Both are important, of course. The crunch gives you tools to do things, but the fluff tells you what you want to do and how it will look.

Still, one can "reskin" the game, say playing a pseudo-Star Wars game with PF mechanics. Likewise, one can graft the "skin" on to another frame, say playing a game set in Golarion using the 4e system. Yet, not all frames and skins fit perfectly, and some due to the design choices fit better with each other than something else might.

When I might indicate that mechanics are more important than flavor is when someone says something like, "I want to play a paladin, but I'm not sure I can trust my GM." I suggest reskinning a ranger, for example, and playing that as a paladin. Since there is no alignment restriction, you can play it as you see fit without fear of your GM making you lose your abilities. Basically you can be a paladin without having levels in the class "paladin".

But this doesn't mean flavor in general isn't important, just that perhaps one particular flavor is not all that important.

By the way wookies would be bugbears. Gamorreans would be orcs.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Seranov wrote:

The rules say what the rules say. When it says "you can do this" you can do whatever "this" is. The fluff is part of that, but it is not the extent of it.

The fact remains that you will not be convincing anyone that you can't do what the rule say you can do. And you sure as hell don't get to tell other people how things work at their tables.

Certainly, I can point out some irregularities. As a GM, I can tell a player that his interpretation of the rules are a bit left of the mark. I have told a player before that he can not double wield Two Handed Weapons, specifically Earth Breakers, or wield a larger one two handed. That was not nor will ever be the purpose of the feat that he tried to abuse.

A part of that is looking at the description of the feat before even looking at the rules. (Fluff before Crunch) The rules say how it goes mechanically and tries to do this in a limited amount of words.

If one tries to do legalize to make the rules do things that was not intended, the first thing that is discarded is the "Fluff."


Both fluff and crunch are mutable and flexible. They exist to serve whatever concept the player has in mind. Sometimes the player really wants this or that mechanical ability because it synergises awesomely with this other mechanical ability, and the fluff is adjusted to match (like the perennial sorcadin), and sometimes, the player has a specific type of fluff they want to achieve, and mechanics need to be created, modified or ignored in order to make it happen.

Both things are okay. As are the cases where both crunch and mechanics need to be modified.

As a person who's never played anything out of the box and loves to houserule, homebrew and the like, I'm more than fine with changing whatever needs to be changed to let the player play what they want. And conversely, that's what I prefer from my DMs.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Adjusting to fit, or to do something not intended?

The "well, the rules don't say a can't" thing is not adjusting, it is something else. This is usually what is being done when rules are being discussed in this way.


I need to look at my player's guide where the feat first was placed. I have the feeling that the line about wielding the earth breaker one handed was not in it. If that is actually the case, and the line was added later without the "fluff" text being changed, this might be a case were it wasn't edited very well.

Again, assuming the line wasn't originally present, then this would seem to indicate to me that the feat was changed to in fact allow for using the weapon one-handed, two of them, or a large one two-handed. If that is the case, then the player wouldn't be "abusing" anything.

Again, I will check later and see if I am right that the line wasn't present originally.

Silver Crusade Contributor

From its original appearance in 3.5's Pathfinder Adventure Path #10: A History of Ashes,
New Feat: Thunder and Fang
You have mastered the ancient Shoanti fighting style of Thunder and Fang, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and a klar. As you swing at foes with Thunder (your earth breaker), you slash at them with the Fang (your klar).
Prerequisites: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)
Benefit: As long as you are fighting with an earth breaker and a klar (and you make attacks with your klar as your offhand attack), you can fight with both weapons as if you were wielding a double weapon, and retain your shield bonus to your Armor Class granted by your klar. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your total penalty to attack.
Special: A fighter may select Thunder and Fang as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Hope this helps. :)

Dark Archive

It's not that the rules don't say they can't. It's that the rules very specifically say "you can wield an Earth Breaker in one hand" with no other qualifiers. That's what the feat lets you do, even if you don't like that's how they rewrote the feat. If you can wield it in one hand, then you could very easily pick up a second one and do the same with it. There's no abuse there, just following the rules as they're written.

The fluff doesn't come before the crunch, it comes with it. And it certainly isn't a limitation, because that's what the crunch sets down. The fluff's job is to explain what the ability/feat/etc. is like, and then it's the crunch's job to explain what it can do.


Regarding the original post, your GM has the right to remove a race from the game, but it's pretty odd to tell you what your character does and does not know.

Looking at the Knowledge skills, you can get up to DC 10 untrained, which would give you SOME level of knowledge of the monster...

However, if he decides to make them somehow a secret race, it's his choice I guess.

Crappy GMing, but ultimately it is the GM that defines the setting, not the players.


In pathfinder 10, you treat the earthbreaker and klar as a double weapon. The new feat seems to be a clear departure from it, since the old one made it clear it they where a package deal while the new one just affects the weapons effort without linking it to TWF.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Graystone.

The main reason they did that was to have the STR bonus be 1.0 and .5 for the two weapons instead of the 1.5 str for the EB.

I pointed it out as a clear case where fluff would most definitely be used to clarify intent and clarify the mechanics implementation.

The point about the EB is that they never do change. Still a Two Handed Weapon, they are just wielded differently with the feat. Still can't wield two of them, or an oversized one with that feat.

Seranov.

You can use an EB in one hand. It still is not a One Handed Weapon.

Reading a part of the feat and discarding the rest is a poor way to read a rule.


thaX wrote:

Graystone.

The main reason they did that was to have the STR bonus be 1.0 and .5 for the two weapons instead of the 1.5 str for the EB.

I pointed it out as a clear case where fluff would most definitely be used to clarify intent and clarify the mechanics implementation.

The point about the EB is that they never do change. Still a Two Handed Weapon, they are just wielded differently with the feat. Still can't wield two of them, or an oversized one with that feat.

Seranov.

You can use an EB in one hand. It still is not a One Handed Weapon.

Reading a part of the feat and discarding the rest is a poor way to read a rule.

"You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon." This is quite clear. I can use 2 one handed weapons in TWFing. since I can "use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon", I can TWF with it.

Reason for no 1.5 str? How does that make sense. It stop you from getting two handed damage when you two hand it? What's the difference between attacking with the double weapon version as a THW and actually using it as a THW?

Clear fluff intent: There is? it simply states "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar." What it DOESN'T say is 'You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar AT THE SAME TIME.' There is no reason to assume that it's affects ONLY work when you dual wield one klar and one earthbreaker. That fluff works just fine for using two earthbreakers since I'm wielding the weapons pointed out in the fluff (earth breakers and klars).


graystone wrote:
it simply states "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar." What it DOESN'T say is 'You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar AT THE SAME TIME.' There is no reason to assume that it's affects ONLY work when you dual wield one klar and one earthbreaker. That fluff works just fine for using two earthbreakers since I'm wielding the weapons pointed out in the fluff (earth breakers and klars).

Surely it would say "earthbreaker or Klar" if the intent wasn't to restrict it to at the same time?


Steve Geddes wrote:
graystone wrote:
it simply states "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar." What it DOESN'T say is 'You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar AT THE SAME TIME.' There is no reason to assume that it's affects ONLY work when you dual wield one klar and one earthbreaker. That fluff works just fine for using two earthbreakers since I'm wielding the weapons pointed out in the fluff (earth breakers and klars).
Surely it would say "earthbreaker or Klar" if the intent wasn't to restrict it to at the same time?

"Earthbreaker or Klar" might also imply that you're only good with one weapon and not the other.


That's a good point - maybe it would need to be even wordier. Nonetheless, the flavor text as written seems to be clearly referring to wielding both at the same time (at least to my ear).

Perhaps I'm subconsciously putting weight into the historical version (where the at-the-same-time-ness was explicit).

Dark Archive

thaX wrote:

Seranov.

You can use an EB in one hand. It still is not a One Handed Weapon.

Reading a part of the feat and discarding the rest is a poor way to read a rule.

Except not a single part of the rule says ANYTHING in regards to it other than "you can use an EB in one hand." It just says "you can use it one hand."

I'm pretty much just flabbergasted that you somehow think "you can use a thing in one hand" doesn't mean "you can use a thing in one hand." The fluff very specifically condones wielding an Earth Breaker in one hand, and in fact that's the damn point. You could use an Earth Breaker in one hand and have an empty offhand and the feat couldn't care less, because it lets you do that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:

Graystone.

The main reason they did that was to have the STR bonus be 1.0 and .5 for the two weapons instead of the 1.5 str for the EB.

I pointed it out as a clear case where fluff would most definitely be used to clarify intent and clarify the mechanics implementation.

The point about the EB is that they never do change. Still a Two Handed Weapon, they are just wielded differently with the feat. Still can't wield two of them, or an oversized one with that feat.

Seranov.

You can use an EB in one hand. It still is not a One Handed Weapon.

Reading a part of the feat and discarding the rest is a poor way to read a rule.

"You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon." This is quite clear. I can use 2 one handed weapons in TWFing. since I can "use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon", I can TWF with it.

Reason for no 1.5 str? How does that make sense. It stop you from getting two handed damage when you two hand it? What's the difference between attacking with the double weapon version as a THW and actually using it as a THW?

Clear fluff intent: There is? it simply states "You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar." What it DOESN'T say is 'You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar AT THE SAME TIME.' There is no reason to assume that it's affects ONLY work when you dual wield one klar and one earthbreaker. That fluff works just fine for using two earthbreakers since I'm wielding the weapons pointed out in the fluff (earth breakers and klars).

Wielding it in one hand is not the same as a one handed weapon. It didn't change the weapon itself, the damage die didn't go down a step, it wasn't remade.

It is assumed (from the fluff) that one is wielding both weapons when using the effects of this feat. That the rules did not make that clear is disappointing, but not something that allows for the other interpreted proposed use of the feat. (Dble wielding EB/wielding larger EB)

This is stuff we went through in the original thread, something that a Paizo member at a Con outright said that it doesn't work. The thread went on after that for two more pages before being locked.

There were some using the original wording of the feat to get 1.5 times strength with the EB and then .5 with the Klar when using the feat. Using the EB one handed makes the Str bonus at 1.0 times, making the TWF simulie be in tune with normal fighting parameters.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
thaX wrote:

Seranov.

You can use an EB in one hand. It still is not a One Handed Weapon.

Reading a part of the feat and discarding the rest is a poor way to read a rule.

Except not a single part of the rule says ANYTHING in regards to it other than "you can use an EB in one hand." It just says "you can use it one hand."

I'm pretty much just flabbergasted that you somehow think "you can use a thing in one hand" doesn't mean "you can use a thing in one hand." The fluff very specifically condones wielding an Earth Breaker in one hand, and in fact that's the damn point. You could use an Earth Breaker in one hand and have an empty offhand and the feat couldn't care less, because it lets you do that.

Yes, you can use one EB in One Hand, even without the Klar. My point is that the character can not use two EB. Otherwise, the feat would be called double thunder.


thaX wrote:
Seranov wrote:
thaX wrote:

Seranov.

You can use an EB in one hand. It still is not a One Handed Weapon.

Reading a part of the feat and discarding the rest is a poor way to read a rule.

Except not a single part of the rule says ANYTHING in regards to it other than "you can use an EB in one hand." It just says "you can use it one hand."

I'm pretty much just flabbergasted that you somehow think "you can use a thing in one hand" doesn't mean "you can use a thing in one hand." The fluff very specifically condones wielding an Earth Breaker in one hand, and in fact that's the damn point. You could use an Earth Breaker in one hand and have an empty offhand and the feat couldn't care less, because it lets you do that.

Yes, you can use one EB in One Hand, even without the Klar. My point is that the character can not use two EB. Otherwise, the feat would be called double thunder.

If you agree that you can use a earthbreaker in one hand, they rest of the rules step in BECAUSE you can wield it in one hand. If it's "not a One Handed Weapon" stops it from being used in your second hand it would also stop it from being used in your main hand. Unless you think that your off hand isn't "one hand".

Steve Geddes wrote:

That's a good point - maybe it would need to be even wordier. Nonetheless, the flavor text as written seems to be clearly referring to wielding both at the same time (at least to my ear).

Perhaps I'm subconsciously putting weight into the historical version (where the at-the-same-time-ness was explicit).

A lot of people seem to be stuck on the fluff of the style and/or how the old feat worked. This feat doesn't read that way though. It gives several benefits and only the middle one deals with using a earthbreaker and klar at the same time (and by itself would satisfy the feat dealing with klars and earthbreakers at the same time). The two other benefits, earthbreakers as one handed weapons and klars as light for TWF aren't limited to having both weapons. You could count the klar as light for TWF when using it with a longsword or the earthbreaker with a bastard sword. Only keeping your shield bonus requires use of both.


You may be right (I did concede that possibility).

Nonetheless, the "and" in the part of the feat I bolded seems to be referring to wielding both at once, to my ear.

Quote:
"You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar."

To me that sounds like "you have increased effectiveness when you're fighting with (an earthbreaker and klar)". Not "you have increased effectiveness when wielding an earthbreaker and increased effectiveness when wielding a klar".


Steve Geddes wrote:

You may be right (I did concede that possibility).

Nonetheless, the "and" in the part of the feat I bolded seems to be referring to wielding both at once, to my ear.

Quote:
"You have mastered the ancient Thunder and Fang fighting style, allowing you to fight with increased effectiveness when wielding an earth breaker and klar."
To me that sounds like "you have increased effectiveness when you're fighting with (an earthbreaker and klar)". Not "you have increased effectiveness when wielding an earthbreaker and increased effectiveness when wielding a klar".

Note what I said. Benefit #2 does indeed deal with wielding them at the same time, so it fits the way you read it. Why should every benefit require the use of both? IMO it makes perfect sense that learning how to one hand the earthbreaker and how to use the klar better with another weapon would fit in with the style. Why would you forget those things when you only have one? The klar is somehow holding the earthbreaker? The earthbreaker somehow makes the klar lighter? Or does it make sense that these abilities work by themselves in a vacuum?


I dont really put much effort into analysing the rules logically - largely because I think they will almost all fail the reality check if you do that (a much bigger question). Nonetheless, if I were to make a stab at it - maybe the fighting style involves lots of movement, combination moves etcetera which are explicitly based around the imbalance between the two.

I generally rely on the books, but looking at this site gave me another perspective. It seems to me that the "normal" section of the feat's description is listing everything that has changed by virtue of the feat. If the intention was to grant greater facility with the earthbreaker on its own, perhaps they would have said

"An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of another weapon in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed."

rather than specifically calling out the klar.

(Am I right that the contentious part of this feat is people trying to justify the use of two earthbreakers simultaneously?)


Steve Geddes wrote:


"An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of another weapon in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed."

rather than specifically calling out the klar.

(Am I right that the contentious part of this feat is people trying to justify the use of two earthbreakers simultaneously?)

The normal section here is messed up as it implies that you can use a two handed weapon in one hand with a penalty. As such, I'm pretty much ignoring it. Even if I where it take it into consideration, learning to use the earthbreaker 1 handed would indeed allow it to be use without penalty with the klar. However, nothing in that statement would prevent that same training to allow for you using it the same way without the klar.

As far as what's contentious, it's usually that people assume it's meant to work ONLY when used to TWF those two weapons. thaX, for some reason I do not understand, seems to think that you can't TWF with 2 earthbreakers but can use a single one handed earthbreaker. Maybe you'll have better luck understanding his reasoning.


Cheers. I can understand ruling it's only klar/earthbreaker and I can understand ruling it's much more permissive and lets you use an earthbreaker one-handed in any situation. I struggle to see why you'd go halfway though.

One of the benefits of playing with the same group all the time is that things like this dont really matter - we just do whatever we all think sounds right and avoid anything we just can't agree on. One of the downsides is I dont get any practise at arguing rules - so half the time I can't even understand what the problem is that everyone's getting so worked up about. :/


Steve Geddes wrote:
Cheers. I can understand ruling it's only klar/earthbreaker and I can understand ruling it's much more permissive and lets you use an earthbreaker one-handed in any situation. I struggle to see why you'd go halfway though.

You mean why you'd only wield one? Lets say your metal klar gets hit with rust spell/rust monster. Your earthbreaker gets sundered? Being able to use those weapons with other options just makes sense. the reverse just makes sense too. Why would not having time to strap my klar on force me to use my earthbreaker in two hands?

On a more min/max level you deal a lot of damage with an earthbreaker and the idea of wielding two 2d6 attracts those that like big damage. It's -4 to hit with both so I don't worry too much about it being overpowered.

Steve Geddes wrote:
One of the benefits of playing with the same group all the time is that things like this dont really matter - we just do whatever we all think sounds right and avoid anything we just can't agree on. One of the downsides is I dont get any practise at arguing rules - so half the time I can't even understand what the problem is that everyone's getting so worked up about. :/

LOL I can understand that. After a while you just know how everyone will read something and don't even see it in a different light. I wish I had a stable group to play with, but my old group fell apart long ago do to RL issues.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Keep this in mind.

The Earth Breaker is still a Two Handed weapon. However you choose to/are able to wield it is not the same as turning into a different weapon. You would have to change the damage dice down a step, for one thing.

I can see the character dropping the shield at some point during battle, but still one handing the weapon he has. Perhaps he wants to hold a potion to take the next round.

The character, no matter how efficient he is with the weapon, still can not wield two Two Handed weapons effectively enough to be able to met out damage represented by the weapon dice that the weapon has. He would be lucky not to hit himself while trying to twirl the suckers around.

The Klar is considered a light weapon when used as a part of this feat. The developer has stated (in the former thread and elsewhere on this site) that the Thunder and Fang was wielded with the Klar providing leverage for the Earth Breaker, the shaft of the weapon and the Klar forming sort of a T.

The discussion turned to the Bastard sword (a One Handed weapon that has set rules on it's own proficientcies) and soon went in circles.

Look at the rules for sized weapons. Read it all the way through, not just the first paragraph. It is not a sliding scale. The measure of effort is comparing the size of character to the size of the weapon. (Small/Medium/Large/Ect) The weapon itself stays the same, it was made to be wielded in a certain way (Light/One Handed/Two handed) Wielding the weapon differently, because of size differences or because of feats, doesn't change what the weapon actually is.

My real main beef with the whole thing is when it is tried to wield an oversized Earth Breaker with two hands. Can't be done. Not without the fighter archtype, the feat does not give you that ability.

Dark Archive

You show where that is explicitly spelled out and I'll believe it. Until then, it specifically says you treat Earth Breakers as a one-handed weapon. This is a specific rule that overwrites the general rule.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Seranov wrote:
You show where that is explicitly spelled out and I'll believe it. Until then, it specifically says you treat Earth Breakers as a one-handed weapon. This is a specific rule that overwrites the general rule.

Please read the previous post.

The weapon Does not change.

I don't know why someone would change the weapon size rules to a sliding scale because a character can wield it in a different way.

The reason I brought it up in the first place is that the "fluff" of the feat actually has bearing on how to use the mechanics of the rules below. This is what you can do while wielding an Earth Breaker and Klar.

When you, as a player, deviates from what the feat is meant to do to what it "doesn't say I can't do," the first thing that gets ignored is the "fluff."


thaX wrote:
Seranov wrote:
You show where that is explicitly spelled out and I'll believe it. Until then, it specifically says you treat Earth Breakers as a one-handed weapon. This is a specific rule that overwrites the general rule.

Please read the previous post.

The weapon Does not change.

I don't know why someone would change the weapon size rules to a sliding scale because a character can wield it in a different way.

The reason I brought it up in the first place is that the "fluff" of the feat actually has bearing on how to use the mechanics of the rules below. This is what you can do while wielding an Earth Breaker and Klar.

When you, as a player, deviates from what the feat is meant to do to what it "doesn't say I can't do," the first thing that gets ignored is the "fluff."

You just add your own fluff instead.

"My character has created a variation of the Thunder and Fang style that uses two Earthbreakers."

Bam! Done.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Did you read the title of the thread?

The feat itself does not actually allow the use of two EB's. Think of it logically, how would one actually do it? The character would end up hitting the things together and might even cause himself an injury. That was never, nor should be, the purpose of the feat.

Please read the previous posts.

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Fluff Text vs. Mechanics? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.