FAQ Request: Feat and ability descriptions to be considered "rules" or "fluff"?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

CampinCarl9127 wrote:
Only on the rules forums are questions like this so heavily debated.

You have a lot of people who like debating, and no GM to lay down the law. Only other place I can think of this would be some sort of RPG player bar. And even there I imagine during the inevitable brawl people complaining about provoking attacks of opportunity or whether that broken barstool is a onehander doing d6 or twohander doing d8 damage.

I honestly like the idea that rules are supposed to help bring fluff to life. Then again, my barbarian likes to consider herself the brains of our party, in the book-learning sense. (Sadly, she's in the running for that title.) And some mechanics can work otherwise. Hell, look at what happened to the Excaliblast example earlier -- the description says 'sword', but sooner or later you're going to have Choppy McAxequeen or Smashy Earthbreaker wanting in on the fun.

For homegames, of course, you have a friendly (and possibly bribed) GM who can decide on this. And PFS probably has something similar.

And I just thought of someone trying to pull 'Magical Tail' / 'Tail Terror' as a combo. Fails, of course. 'No, you can't tailslap until you get a tail. Wait, you now have a magic fox tail from Magical Tail? Um, that's a kitsune thing, not a kobold. Kitsune tails are fluffy and soft and adorable, not smashy. How many Racial Heritage feats are you wanting to waste on this?'

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Ssalarn wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Don't think that happens? Just look at Prone Shooter. Originally, if I recall the statements made by the design team correctly, it was designed to give a bonus to hit while firing from prone. Then someone who didn't realize that the rules for firing while prone had changed between PF and 3.5 decided to change it so that it instead negated penalties that didn't exist,
Those penalties didn't exist in 3.5 either.

Which makes it worse, since one has to wonder where the hell the idea that those penalties existed in the first place came from :P

Point remains the same - what was originally written and what went to print were two different things, what the feat is now is something else again, yet despite extremely disparate functionality, the flavor text stayed the same, until you now have a feat whose flavor text does absolutely nothing to inform the feat's functionality. Trying to use that flavor text to inform the feat's function is only going to muddle the issue. "Golly gee GM-Man, the feat says it helps me aim but doesn't seem to indicate exactly how it does that! All it's got is something about my armor class. What do?"

I agree. My point was just that the changes in design/development can be even more confusing that you expect, to the point of having no obvious outside cause.

Quote:
On another note, if a FAQ were to come about as a result of this thread, one would hope it would be specific to feats. I saw someone mention applying this FAQ to spells earlier, and that way lies only madness. Spells use a different format and could not be mediated by a single overarching ruling since the way the are presented has fluff and mechanics inextricably intertwined and lacks the clear delineation used in the feat format.

There is an analog for Spells, at least in the Core Rulebook - The class spell lists contain a one-sentence summary of the spell. Handy if you're a new player, or playing a wizard for the first time, or just trying to get a feeling for what each type of caster 'does'. But they do potentially conflict with the actual spell text. There's just rarely an argument since they're on a separate page from the spell description proper, instead of just on the other side of a bolded Benefits:.


thaX wrote:


To ignore the Description completely when a question arises is just as bad as giving it more credence to change a rule completely or make it into something it is not.

No it isn't. A description should NEVER EVER EVER be used in an attempt to determine what the rules actually say. Descriptions are never rules. Far more often than not, people try to use descriptions to twist what the rules actually say to conform to the way they THINK the devs intended, or just how they THINK the rules SHOULD work.


Dallium wrote:
thaX wrote:


To ignore the Description completely when a question arises is just as bad as giving it more credence to change a rule completely or make it into something it is not.
No it isn't. A description should NEVER EVER EVER be used in an attempt to determine what the rules actually say. Descriptions are never rules. Far more often than not, people try to use descriptions to twist what the rules actually say to conform to the way they THINK the devs intended, or just how they THINK the rules SHOULD work.

I don't mind it being used as an extra resource, to be honest. Whether it fits that way will of course vary between GMs. Keep in mind how often 'check with your GM' comes up, even in the theoretically strictly-codified PFS play.

Ultimately, the GM is the final arbiter, and he or she can reflect on 'fluff' how he or she feels. Good ones will try to strike a reasonable balance with players' input and thoughts. Don't forget The Most Important Rule.

Core Rulebook wrote:
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.


Personally, I see descriptive text as pure fluff designed to give a better idea of what something is intended to be like.

For example, if there's fluff text that states "a stream of flames erupts from your fingertips, burning enemies to the bone", I am perfectly aware that it does not actually do that (unless it's enough damage to kill them and the player wants it to be cool) - the power there does fire damage, and probably nothing else.

Basically... fluff is what you can imagine it looks like, while rules text are how it actually functions in the game.


Diego Rossi wrote:
graystone wrote:


Diego Rossi wrote:
graystone wrote:
For myself, fluff text the expendable part that can be safely jettisoned for my own fluff.

The problem is that nothing guarantee that what you call "fluff" is the same thing that other people will call fluff when reading the same piece of text.

With feats it is a minor problem, we already have a reasonably clear separation between the description and the mechanics.

With spells? In this forum I have read people define fluff what I consider pieces of the rules and vice versa.
Same for ability descriptions, traits, monster abilities and so on.

This shouldn't be an issue. There is a section that doesn't have rules in them. Read Feat Descriptions. It explains feat format.

Feat Name, Prerequisite, Benefit, Normal, Special. Note, there is NO section for fluff. It literally has so low a priority that it doesn't make it into the format used for all feat descriptions... It's a section without meaning as for as the PRD is concerned.

thaX: tail terror had 0% to do with the fluff. The ACTUAL rules section had "You can make a tail slap attack with your tail." The fluff didn't change the fact that the actual rules didn't grant you a tail.

I have bolded the part you missed.

If you read the thread title, it say "FAQ Request: Feat and ability descriptions to be considered "rules" or "fluff"?", so we aren't speaking only of feats. A specific format the refer only to feat is of limited use. And I have seen people in this forum posting their opinion that even piece of text under the "Prerequisite, Benefit, Normal, Special" sections was fluff.

No, I didn't miss it. Look in the Spell Descriptions section. Note that the fluff is also not worth enough to be part of the standard format. I've found no mention of it in any place that gives the format for the rules elements. Do you have one that does?

As to 'I've seen people posting this...', I've seen people say that shields aren't weapons so I don't see any validity in basing an argument that people think it.

thaX: I'll agree with Dallium. The fluff shouldn't be used as any kind of rule. If you wish to use it to houserule something because you think the fluff shows some kind of RAI go for it. But to say it's the RAW rule, it's my turn to say "well, just wow."

"The description tells you, most of the time, the purpose of the feat." And that right there should be your clue that you should use them. By your own words you admit that sometimes you don't get an accurate description of the feats from the fluff.

Born Alone: "You are so tough and vicious that you killed and ate the rest of your litter while still in the womb." So you'd require anyone that took this feat to be a prenatal cannibal? It pretty clearly shows artistic license and not actual rules to me. But feel free to house-rule that people with the feat are baby-eaters...

Liberty's Edge

Is there a way to vote, 'please do not answer this FAQ'?

Any simple answer will inevitably cause more problems than it solves. I agree with others who have said that the precise 'rules' (e.g. the 'Benefit' section on feats) are the primary source, but the descriptions can be helpful in interpreting that rules text.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Old style wargames. Look Starfleet battles or Advanced Squad Leader as some example.

I don't think we really want the language precision of ASL in most RPGs. They did define a difference between "adjacent" and "ADJACENT" to have two different kinds of adjacency. That sort of thing may be important for some kinds of games, but RPGs have always a been a bit faster and looser to enable situations that aren't anticipated in the rulebook.


alexd1976 wrote:

I don't see it that way, I doubt he did either...

Character descriptions are not a rules discussion. Background and motivations aren't rules either.

You design your character, and describe your character.

In regards to how RULES work, applying logic and common sense are a good idea. Mechanical interpretation of rules without consideration of the game as a whole... THAT is what leads to frustration and arguments.

No, because if you make fluff not a separate concept to crunch as was suggested, the descriptions on what a member of a races or classes personality is like becomes rules. Which is such a ridiculously stupid idea I don't know where to begin.

Shadow Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:


People who go by RAI read an entire section of the book, and possible reference other books, before making a decision on something. This is the 'holistic' approach. More often than not, houserules abound in these groups...

This is just plain not the case. Every solid RAW argument I have made came backed with quotes including the entire relevant section of text, and often citations of or entire quoted sections of other crediblesources as well.

I will admit, that on occasion I may misread something, or leave out a piece of relevant information, but as a person who prides himself on sound judgement and strong reasoning, whenever such mistakes are pointed out to me, I will ALWAYS make the appropriate corrections and or recant my position as warranted often accompanied by a note of apology for my confusion. I know I am not everyone who posts, but I can tell you of a certainty that i have seen everyone in this thread who argues for RAW interpretations and discarding fluff has done the same. I read enough of this forum that i can make that qualified statement.
Conversely, I have not seen the 'Lets Embrace Fluff' crowd do the same. when ever they're proven wrong by FAQ or Errata, it is my experience (and I will admit that I may be dipping into a biased memory) they resort to childishness and claims of "Brokenness" and "That's OP".

On the subject of Credible Sources:

These include Printed Paizo Books, Paizo.com/PRD, Official FAQ and Errata.

They do not under any circumstance include random forum thread quotes from members of the design team or the plot team regardless of who they are or what their background or experience is.

Alex1976 wrote:

So you rule that the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat doesn't grant proficiency, it just removes a -4 penalty...

Because the name of the feat is Fluff, right?

First off, the name of the feat is not fluff, the descriptive text located between the Feat Name and the Benefit is Fluff.

Secondly, this is indeed exactly what the feet does "For the Selected Weapon" Proficiency = Not Having the -4 non proficiency Penalty.
Lastly, Many feats are poorly written, this is one of them.


alexd1976 wrote:

So you rule that the Martial Weapon Proficiency feat doesn't grant proficiency, it just removes a -4 penalty...

Because the name of the feat is Fluff, right?

About that, actually...

Quote:


Martial Weapon Proficiency (Combat)
Choose a type of martial weapon. You understand how to use that type of martial weapon in combat.
Benefit: You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty).
Normal: When using a weapon with which you are not proficient, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls.
Special: Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. They need not select this feat.

You can gain Martial Weapon Proficiency multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

So, the benefit of the feat is that you can make attacks normally, without the nonproficiency penalty. However, it then goes on to give a Normal: line, saying that without this feat if you were using a weapon you weren't proficient with, you'd take a -4 penalty on attack rolls. If the feat made you proficient with it, then it would only need to say that the feat gives you proficiency, for that clarification to work. However, the rules text of the feat just says you make the attacks without the penalty.

It then says that barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all martial weapons. Not that they don't take the penalty, but that they're proficient (and thus wouldn't take the penalty, but the rules wording is specifically different). I would imagine that the intent is for you to gain proficiency in the weapon, but no, the feat does not grant it. In fact, the feat's structure implies that it does not give you proficiency, because otherwise it would use a consistent wording instead of two different ones.

The feat doesn't have fluff text beyond the name, which gives us insight into the RAI. However, by RAW, no, the feat does not give you proficiency. It just removes the nonproficiency penalty.

Would I ever have the feat not give proficiency? Hell no. But not because I think that the RAI has any precedence over the RAW. I would houserule the feat to grant proficiency in addition to its current rules, because the alternative is silly. The game only exists within the rules text, and each table's interpretation of many things is different. I care greatly about the RAW, but only because that's what informs us of how the game works. I care about the RAI somewhat, because it's a window into what the options are originally intended to do, but oftentimes, I ignore the RAI in favor of the RAW because the RAW is more fun or better for my table, specifically. I care about the fluff immensely; without the fluff, all we'd have is a framework. At the same time, though, I don't think the fluff is rules. I keep the fluff I like and replace or discard fluff I don't like, and so do my players, because the game itself only exists within the RAW.

RAI is only relevant for determining what sort of game the developers want you to play. RAW is what matters for determining what game I want to play.

51 to 100 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / FAQ Request: Feat and ability descriptions to be considered "rules" or "fluff"? All Messageboards