Antagonize error?


Rules Questions


3 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Hi,

The antagonise feat states the following:

Ultimate Magic wrote:

You can make Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to make creatures respond to you with hostility. (...) The benefits you gain for this check depend on the skill you use. This is a mind-affecting effect.

Diplomacy: You fluster your enemy. For the next minute, the target takes a -2 penalty on all attacks rolls made against creatures other than you and has a 10% spell failure chance on all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.

Intimidate: The creature flies into a rage. (...)

Obviously, from the name, this feat is meant to enrage an opponent. Hence my question.

In the paragraph on intimidate, a 10% spell failure chance is imposed on "all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect". Shouldn't the latter restriction be "that do not have you within their area of effect"? Since "that" is repeated, implied repetition of "do not" is not possible. Alternatively, the second "that" could be left out, in which case the repetition of "do not" would be implied.

In other words, I guess one of the following is what the author actually means:

"all spells that do not target you or that do not have you within their area of effect" or

"all spells that do not target you or have you within their area of effect".

Your opinion on this subject is appreciated. I guess the first alternative is the clearest.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yea IMO it definitely appears to be a typographical error, as the two written and assumed intended purposes conflict in their effect.

Actually on second reading through and interpretation, perhaps the 10% spell failure on AOE spells you are inside of is because they are focused on you as their target and the spell is not targeting only you?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kroisos wrote:


In the paragraph on intimidate, a 10% spell failure chance is imposed on "all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect". Shouldn't the latter restriction be "that do not have you within their area of effect"? Since "that" is repeated, implied repetition of "do not" is not possible. Alternatively, the second "that" could be left out, in which case the repetition of "do not" would be implied.

all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.

this is actuality broken up like this

all spells that do not (target you) or (that have you within their area of effect).

so separately it is read as
all spells that do not target you.
or
all spells that do not have you within their area of effect.

this is actually quite clear when you break up teh words and look at what they're effecting.

not is an adverb, do a verb, what is "doing"? "all spells" what are all spells not doing? targeting you, or have you with in their area of effect.

Sovereign Court

As Bandw2 says - it's written awkwardly and can potentially be read two ways, but it's not technically wrong, and the way they meant it to be read is pretty obviously as Bandw2 explains above.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
As Bandw2 says - it's written awkwardly and can potentially be read two ways, but it's not technically wrong, and the way they meant it to be read is pretty obviously as Bandw2 explains above.

it's actually written in the more proper English way. as you're not supposed to break up the verbs that interact with the subject. it;s unfortunate that the 2nd break has another vague verb in it "have" which can cause confusion, but the first one also has the verb "target".

It is written correctly.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Bandw2 wrote:
Kroisos wrote:


In the paragraph on intimidate, a 10% spell failure chance is imposed on "all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect". Shouldn't the latter restriction be "that do not have you within their area of effect"? Since "that" is repeated, implied repetition of "do not" is not possible. Alternatively, the second "that" could be left out, in which case the repetition of "do not" would be implied.

all spells that do not target you or that have you within their area of effect.

this is actuality broken up like this

all spells that do not (target you) or (that have you within their area of effect).

so separately it is read as
all spells that do not target you.
or
all spells that do not have you within their area of effect.

this is actually quite clear when you break up teh words and look at what they're effecting.

not is an adverb, do a verb, what is "doing"? "all spells" what are all spells not doing? targeting you, or have you with in their area of effect.

Actually, you need to look more closely.

Look again at how you say it should be parsed:
"all spells that do not (target you) or (that have you within their area of effect)."

This means that we have these two statements:
"all spells that do not (target you) or (that have you within their area of effect)"
"all spells that do not (target you) or (that have you within their area of effect)"

Remove the struck-through parts for clarity, and we get the following:
"all spells that do not (target you)"
"all spells that do not (that have you within their area of effect)"

Now look at that last part.

Look at it really closely. Speak every word aloud if you have to.

It includes the phrase "that do not that have you".

See it now? You've skimmed it too quickly (likely the same mistake that both the author and the editor made), missing the fact that there's an extraneous "that" which prevents your method of parsing from being correct, therefore having a material impact on the meaning of the sentence.

The final "that" forces the sentence to be parsed like this:
"all spells (that do not target you) or (that have you within their area of effect)"

If (as seems obvious) this was not the intention, then the sentence needs to EITHER include another "not", OR get rid of the final "that".


No, Bandw2, there's a problem with the way you broke up that text. Look:

Text:
all spells that do not (target you) or (that have you within their area of effect)

Text if broken up like you say it should be:
all spells that do not (target you)
or
all spells that do not (that have you in your area of effect)

See, you can't break it up like that, because then you have an extra "that" that transforms the sentence into a grammatical wreck. You need to have both "that"s in the same place, either inside or outside of the "or" division. The sentence actually works like this:

Text:
all spells (that do not target you) or (that have you within their area of effect)

Text when broken up correctly:
all spells (that do not target you)
or
all spells (that have you within their area of effect)

You can't set it up so that one "that" is outside of the parentheses and the other is inside, because it makes the entire structure fall apart entirely.

Edit: ninjad by Jiggy


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

ah yes, that would definitely put the expectation that the have in the 2nd part is the determining verb. That definitely is an editing error though, not really needing a FAQ, but an error all the same.

Dark Archive

Bandw2 wrote:
ah yes, that would definitely put the expectation that the have in the 2nd part is the determining verb. That definitely is an editing error though, not really needing a FAQ, but an error all the same.

I'm sure it's probably a mere typo, but I still couldn't let "it is written correctly" stand.

While I have your attention, you missed your appointment in the torture chamber to atone for your own capitalization and punctuation errors. Expect a knock on your door soon.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Grammar Nazi wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
ah yes, that would definitely put the expectation that the have in the 2nd part is the determining verb. That definitely is an editing error though, not really needing a FAQ, but an error all the same.

I'm sure it's probably a mere typo, but I still couldn't let "it is written correctly" stand.

While I have your attention, you missed your appointment in the torture chamber to atone for your own capitalization and punctuation errors. Expect a knock on your door soon.

don't worry, I'm brother's with the commission of Internal consistency's director, i'll be out in no time.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
don't worry, I'm brother's with the commission of Internal consistency's director, i'll be out in no time.

>:(


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Grammar Nazi wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
don't worry, I'm brother's with the commission of Internal consistency's director, i'll be out in no time.
>:(

thanks, i'm sure i'll remember next time

:3

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Antagonize error? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.