| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Fuzzy-Wuzzy: You understand I have nothing to prove here, right? I am simply asking for a ruling. I did not ask to treat several contexts as one.
Did you read Underfoot Assault? It references "adjacent" and "attacker's space" as two different things. Then it goes on to say that you are considered to occupy the attacker's space. Then it is speaking of adjacent people being next to the attacker (and the Mouser) again.
This ability also seems to keep assuming that the foe is medium sized and Mouser is small or smaller. But this changes if the foe is Large or larger. Are all of the foe's squares "adjacent"? In how many of instances of "adjacent" are those squares "adjacent"? What if there are two Mousers working in concert? They are able to occupy the same square as both eachother and their Large sized opponent, correct? So are they considered "adjacent" to eachother during that time?
All that being said, I think it would be far more simple to have a definition of "adjacent" rather than make a ruling for every single occurrence of the word in the context of rules. Don't you?
I understand you know how you interpret it. I also know how I do. But in a place like PFS that doesn't matter. Barring a definition each GM is going to rule how they see fit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did read Underfoot Assault. AFAICT if you consider a square to be adjacent to itself everything works fine throughout the ability. Please tell me where this fails, if you think it does.
Also, I think it takes the Large+ foe / Medium Mouser case into account just fine--that's actually how I read it first:
While the mouser is within a foe’s space, she is considered to occupy her square within that foe’s space.
There'd be no point to saying that if the foe's space were assumed to be only one square.
I see no reason to think that every square of the foe is automatically adjacent to the mouser or to any other arbitrary square. I don't know why you even consider this to be a question. The fact that adjacency has an ambiguity in whether a square is adjacent to itself doesn't make it open season on the concept in any other regard. I hate to ask this since they're such a pain to make, but could you supply a diagram of a specific situation you consider to have a meaningful ambiguity?
And why should two medium Mousers be able to share the same space while using this ability any more than they usually can? I don't see anything that implies that.
All that being said, I think it would be far more simple to have a definition of "adjacent" rather than make a ruling for every single occurrence of the word in the context of rules. Don't you?
Of course! But now you're talking about how the PF rules should have been written in the first place, i.e. with a clear definition of adjacency. That doesn't help us interpret the PF rules as they actually are.
To reference the existing FAQ again, it would have been simpler for them to say "you are always your own ally" or "you are never your own ally," but it would not have fit the existing written rules. Simplicity is only desirable when it does not come at the expense of accuracy.
And I'm explicitly not suggesting each occurrence of the word be ruled separately. That's the point of contextual rulings. You decide for the whole ability whether "squares adjacent to X" includes square X or not.
I understand you know how you interpret it. I also know how I do. But in a place like PFS that doesn't matter. Barring a definition each GM is going to rule how they see fit.
Okay, now I'm confused again about what you still seek in this thread. Obviously it would be desirable to get an official ruling from the devs, but we know that is not going to happen in this thread. We could aim for a definition that should have been used so that there wouldn't be any ambiguities to resolve; I don't see the point in doing that. It would be great to come up with a definition that (a) resolved each and every ambiguity nicely and (b) was so clearly The Right Definition that every GM felt absolutely compelled to use it as soon as they saw it. We also know that is not going to happen. What we can hope for is an answer that satisfies (a), comes within spitting distance of (b), and might plausibly be what the devs eventually rule.
Fuzzy-Wuzzy: Once again, I do not have a dog in the race. I do not think that your logic fails at all. I think that you believe me to be adversarial in this debate when I am actually not part of the debate at all. I am, in fact, trying to avoid the debate altogether.
Please tell me where this fails, if you think it does.
I do not think that it fails. Once again, I do not disagree with you. However, I could easily see someone else saying that they think that "adjacent" means "squares next to you". And without a definition within the rules who am I to argue with them? According to the dictionary definition of the word they are as correct as you are/I am.
Does this make sense?
I am not arguing with you.
I do not yet know of anyone who is.
I anticipate having troubles with PFS GMs (one in particular) who may have a different definition of "adjacent" than you and me.
The purpose of my original post was to confirm whether or not this term is defined anywhere in the rules that I was not yet aware of. And, secondarily, if it is not defined to see what can be done to get it defined.
So, once again... I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOU. ;)
Also, saying that marking a post in the rules forum will not result in a ruling from the Devs is false and misleading. That is, in fact, what the FAQ button is for. It has lead to rulings several times in the past and it is the recommended course of action from the Devs to get a ruling on something. I also do not intend on arguing this point as it is simple fact. I will preempt any disagreement with this to someone who cares to argue this point as it will not be me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lune there is no issue with how adjacent works.
In ever instance i can see from searching the rule system adjacent isn't a problem.
You seem to be stuck on the fact that sometimes it mentions adjacent squares. Which isn't an issue since that doesn't change what adjacent means.
I can drop an object in my square or in an adjacent square.
A medium creature can be adjacent to another creature.
A pair of tiny hawks sharing the same space are adjacent to each other.
A medium creature is adjacent to the tiny hawk 5ft above him.
I just don't see the issue since there isn't one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lune there is no issue with how adjacent works.
In ever instance i can see from searching the rule system adjacent isn't a problem.
You seem to be stuck on the fact that sometimes it mentions adjacent squares. Which isn't an issue since that doesn't change what adjacent means.
I can drop an object in my square or in an adjacent square.
A medium creature can be adjacent to another creature.
A pair of tiny hawks sharing the same space are adjacent to each other.
A medium creature is adjacent to the tiny hawk 5ft above him.
I just don't see the issue since there isn't one.
He's simply saying that he thinks some random GM might have a problem with it, and if/when/whenever that happens, he wants to have an actual rule to back it up with.
To that there is no answer. There is no actual rule that tells you want you want to know. You just have to rely on your GM not being a dick.
Lune there is no issue with how adjacent works.
In ever instance i can see from searching the rule system adjacent isn't a problem.
You seem to be stuck on the fact that sometimes it mentions adjacent squares. Which isn't an issue since that doesn't change what adjacent means.
I can drop an object in my square or in an adjacent square.
A medium creature can be adjacent to another creature.
A pair of tiny hawks sharing the same space are adjacent to each other.
A medium creature is adjacent to the tiny hawk 5ft above him.
I just don't see the issue since there isn't one.
He's simply saying that he thinks some random GM might have a problem with it, and if/when/whenever that happens, he wants to have an actual rule to back it up with.
To that there is no answer. There is no actual rule that tells you want you want to know. You just have to rely on your GM not being a dick.
Yeah. Sounds more like a personal problem than a rules issue.
Whenever an adjacent foe attempts to take a 5-foot step away from you, you may also make a 5-foot step as an immediate action so long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered this ability. If you take this step, you cannot take a 5-foot step during your next turn. If you take an action to move during your next turn, subtract 5 feet from your total movement.
It says as long as you end up adjacent to the foe that triggered it.
So if the Mouser is sharing a space with a larger foe and that foe makes a 5ft step so can the Mouser as long as that ends the Mouser adjacent to the foe.
Still not seeing the issue.
No "feeling" strongly about it.
Just how the feat works.
Things that spell out adjacent squares always mention it. As in the case of dropping an object where it states you can drop an object in an adjacent square.
Lune: So when I made a proposal and you/Byakko said there were ambiguities / judgment calls to be made, you meant not "your rule still has ambiguities so it wouldn't solve the situation" but rather "your proposal will not be accepted by everyone so it won't solve the situation"? Okay, then... but I have to say I found the latter too obvious to be worth saying out loud :-)
The purpose of my original post was to confirm whether or not this term is defined anywhere in the rules that I was not yet aware of. And, secondarily, if it is not defined to see what can be done to get it defined.
What conclusions have you come to regarding your secondary purpose?
Also, saying that marking a post in the rules forum will not result in a ruling from the Devs is false and misleading.
And it's not what I said. I know that's why the FAQ button is there, that's why I pressed it. But it is also simple fact that the devs don't make those rulings by reading the entire discussion thread. That's why the devs explicitly recommend FAQing one concise post that clearly states a single question. That's all they're likely to read.
Brain in a Jar: It is good that you do not see an issue. I agree with you. I do not see an issue either.
This discussion isn't about ME as I have said repeatedly. Honestly, it is getting rather annoying having to repeat myself. claudekennilol, thank you for repeating it for me.
The issue is exactly as Byakko put it. There are other issues like it.
There ARE some people out there who do not believe that "adjacent" can mean "in the same square as". I think this ruling is silly but due to a lack of definition within the rules they are completely within their rights to rule that way. This would, of course, have wide ranging impact like not allowing many Teamwork Feats to work while a Hunter is mounted on his Animal Companion and Step Up to work with a Mouser.
My son has a Hunter and I have a Mouser so it is actually relevant to us.
BBT: Agreed. I couldn't have said it more concisely myself.
Edit: In fact, at this point I think FAQing this point may be approaching pointless. Perhaps it might be better to start another thread?
Brain in a Jar: It is good that you do not see an issue. I agree with you. I do not see an issue either.
This discussion isn't about ME as I have said repeatedly. Honestly, it is getting rather annoying having to repeat myself. claudekennilol, thank you for repeating it for me.
The issue is exactly as Byakko put it. There are other issues like it.
There ARE some people out there who do not believe that "adjacent" can mean "in the same square as". I think this ruling is silly but due to a lack of definition within the rules they are completely within their rights to rule that way. This would, of course, have wide ranging impact like not allowing many Teamwork Feats to work while a Hunter is mounted on his Animal Companion and Step Up to work with a Mouser.
My son has a Hunter and I have a Mouser so it is actually relevant to us.
I understand. I clicked the FAQ for you and your son.
It just baffles me that someone could read those abilities and rule against it. Since they would be going out of there way to add text to a feat/ability description to do so.
It is the visibility issue that I am concerned with here...
I understand that. But not everyone reads to the 60th post in a thread. ;)
I understand that. But not everyone reads to the 60th post in a thread. ;)
Why would anyone not read the 60th post in a thread? I just saw blackbloodtroll's other thread, FAQ'd it, saw the link to this thread, FAAQ'd this, and went back to read the discussion in this thread that I missed. Is it at all possible that other people aren't as obsessive over the minutiae of every individual post the way I am?