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


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 106 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

51 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite.

The question, as said in the title, is:
Are the descriptions found outside of clear rules text, such as what isn't found in the "prerequisites", "benefits", and "special" sections of a feat, supposed to be considered rules text?

To make sure everyone knows what I'm talking about, I will paste the entirety of the power attack feat and bold the description section.

Quote:

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.

Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.

Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.

You must choose to use this feat before making an attack roll, and its effects last until your next turn. The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage.

As you can see, the bolded text is part of the feat, but it is not within the prerequisites, benefits, or special sections of the feat. This is the feat's description, and the subject of this question.

Normally this is not an issue. It is usually obvious what the function of the feat is. However, I've noticed several examples of feats that simply work differently from the description, and this ends up spawning a pretty significant amount of controversy. As far as I can tell from these forums, there seems to be a pretty significant distribution between people who interpret the rules as if the descriptions were part of the rules text, and those who interpret the rules as if the descriptions were pure fluff and not to be projected into the rules.

---

Examples where this has come up:
1) The recent Fox Shape thread:

Quote:

Fox Shape (Kitsune)

You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.

Special: A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat.

Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.

Controversy: The description mentions other forms, thus many people think that you require some sort of shapeshifting ability, even though said requirement is nowhere mentioned within the prerequisites, abilities, or special sections of the feat.

2) Thunder and Fang:

Quote:

Thunder and Fang (Combat)

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

Prerequisite: Str 15, Two-Weapon Fighting, Weapon Focus (earth breaker), Weapon Focus (klar)

Benefit: You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon. When using an earth breaker in one hand and a klar in your off hand, you retain the shield bonus your klar grants to your Armor Class even when you use it to attack. Treat your klar as a light weapon for the purposes of determining your two-weapon fighting penalty.

Normal: An earth breaker is a two-handed weapon, preventing the use of a klar in one hand without imposing penalties for using the earth breaker one-handed. A klar can be used either as a one-handed weapon or a shield; it does not grant a bonus to AC during rounds in which it is used as a weapon.

The controversy: Again, due to wording in the description that is not detailed in the other sections of the feat, there is healthy debate on whether you can use the feat's benefits for other things, such as wielding an earth breaker with other weapons, or even dual wielding them.

3) Pummeling style(pre-errata):

Quote:

Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)

You collect all your power into a single vicious and debilitating punch.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.
Benefit: As a full-round action, you can pool all your attack potential in one devastating punch. Make a number of rolls equal to the number of attacks you can make with a full attack or a flurry of blows (your choice) with the normal attack bonus for each attack. For each roll that is a hit, you deal the normal amount of damage, adding it to any damage the attack has already dealt from previous rolls (if any). If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit.

Which was errata'd into:

Quote:

Pummeling Style (Combat, Style)

Your unarmed strikes weave together in an effortless combo, focusing on the spots you've weakened with the last hit.

Prerequisite(s): Improved Unarmed Strike; base attack bonus +6, brawler's flurry class feature, or flurry of blows class feature.

Benefit: Whenever you use a full-attack action or flurry of blows to make multiple attacks against a single opponent with unarmed strikes, total the damage from all hits before applying damage reduction. This ability works only with unarmed strikes, no matter what other abilities you might possess.

Controversy: This was even more obvious, since the word "Punch" was found in the rules text, yet they still had to errata it due to unclear language. There was quite a bit of argument, almost from the same perspective: The description is important as rules vs the description is only fluff to how the feat functions.

From here we come to something I personally found as an additional example, a feat that I'm sure we're all pretty sure works exactly how it works.
4)Artful Dodge

Quote:

Artful Dodge (Combat)

You are practiced at avoiding attacks when outnumbered.

Prerequisite(s): Int 13.

Benefit: If you are the only character threatening an opponent, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC against that opponent.

Special: The Artful Dodge feat acts as the Dodge feat for the purpose of satisfying prerequisites that require Dodge.

You can use Intelligence, rather than Dexterity, for feats with a minimum Dexterity prerequisite.

My take: It seems like, if you were to take descriptions as being important, you could easily argue that in addition to being the only character threatening an opponent, you must also be threatened by more than one opponent, due to the description saying "when outnumbered".

There are probably lots of other examples where this conflict has come up, but I am not all-knowing, so I can't quite think of them. There are probably lots of examples where this will come up in the future, as well.

---

Basically, here's how I feel about it. I've heard it voiced that the description is sometimes important to determining the function of the feat, but I don't believe it should work that way. In my opinion, it should be always important or never important, because otherwise you spawn a whole bunch of doubt in the whole thing and you'll constantly have people second-guessing the description vs the mechanics, instead of instantly knowing whether they need to pay attention to it.

If it's always important, then I think it's important to make the language consistent with the feat, so that no conflicts arise, such as my reading of Artful Dodge. It's important to meld in your description with the text in a way that summarizes without adding too much to the word count, so that readers can quickly get an idea if that feat is for them.

On the other hand, if it is never important, I think that it's important to avoid using any language that can be mistaken for rules, such as keywords, feat names, ability names, etc. If the description is fluff, make it suggested fluff. For the record, I am in this camp, because I believe that suggested fluff is important to include to make the books feel a bit more alive, but should not be mandatory, as your character's own fluff is half the fun of the game as far as I'm concerned.

I realize that this is quite a question to ask of Paizo, but I think that it's equally important to get straitened out in order to minimize future confusions. In fact the way a lot of descriptions are written, I feel that it's almost required to errata quite a number of them to go with this ruling, if this ruling is ever made. However, I still feel it is important enough to ask. Should descriptions have any bearing on the function of the feat, or should they be considered fluff?

What do you guys think?


Here's an example I noticed while looking into racial feats recently:

Cleave Through (Combat)

Quote:

You are ferocious at hewing smaller opponents.

Prerequisites: Str 13, Cleave, Power Attack, base attack bonus +11, dwarf.

Benefit: When using Cleave or Great Cleave, if your initial attack hits, you may take a single 5-foot step as a free action before making your additional attacks. If doing so places a creature within your threatened area, that creature becomes a legal target for your additional Cleave attack(s) as long as it meets all the other prerequisites.

Normal: You may only make additional attacks with Cleave against creatures you threaten when you make your initial attack.

Are the enemies you use this feat against really required to be smaller than you? If so, this is an unfortunate racial feat for Dwarves.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The descriptions are fluff, not rules text. Follow rules text first and then use fluff for guidance if the rules text is not clear.

There are many examples of fluff contradicting rules text.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hah now this is a FAQ that would change a hell lot of things.

Well , for now , i consider descriptions pure fluff.

Liberty's Edge

The text outside the rule mechanics generally give an indication about the RAI of the ability. It will not supersede the text of the rules, but sometime it clarifies them.

As we don't even have a unified definition of wielding, you really think we can get a codified way to make the feat and ability text so that what is "fluff" and what is "rule text" is always clear?

Let's take the Cleave through feat. it is a egregious example of a badly written feat.
The intent seem to be that it work against smaller opponents (BTW, Dwarves are medium sized, like human, so it being a dwarven feat isn't particularly limiting) but the rule text don't give any limit. As written it work against everything. it seem a reasonable way to use it too. But if that is the intention the descriptive text should be redone as it can generate confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

As we don't even have a unified definition of wielding, you really think we can get a codified way to make the feat and ability text so that what is "fluff" and what is "rule text" is always clear?

...

But if that is the intention the descriptive text should be redone as it can generate confusion.

This is exactly what I'm realistically aware of in making this thread. It might not be possible to do, but maybe if they're aware of it for future publications etc, we'll have less conflicts in the future, maybe more errata for clarity.

I know it's very unrealistic to ask them "fix this now with all the errata necessary!", so I simply want to just raise the issue just in case they're not aware it's quite an issue.


Diego Rossi wrote:

The text outside the rule mechanics generally give an indication about the RAI of the ability. It will not supersede the text of the rules, but sometime it clarifies them.

As we don't even have a unified definition of wielding, you really think we can get a codified way to make the feat and ability text so that what is "fluff" and what is "rule text" is always clear?

Let's take the Cleave through feat. it is a egregious example of a badly written feat.
The intent seem to be that it work against smaller opponents (BTW, Dwarves are medium sized, like human, so it being a dwarven feat isn't particularly limiting) but the rule text don't give any limit. As written it work against everything. it seem a reasonable way to use it too. But if that is the intention the descriptive text should be redone as it can generate confusion.

I agree that clarification on this point is a long-shot but it would be nice to have, even if the only response we received was more insight on Paizo's internal rules on how they write feats. If we got a better and more consistent idea of their intent, we could better interpret the fruits of their labor instead of having to turn every odd-numbered level into an exercise in debate and house-ruling.

I know dwarves are medium-sized, but so are most enemies they will face. They would not be able to use this feat against humans, for instance, or even other dwarves or duergar. That wording would be expected for a giant's feat, but seems odd in this context. If it had received a second reference in the Benefit text, it would be perfectly clear what the intent was.

Here's another example of a feat that has debatable descriptive text:

Born Alone

Quote:

You are so tough and vicious that you killed and ate the rest of your litter while still in the womb.

Prerequisite: Orc.

Benefit: Whenever you kill or knock unconscious an opponent with a melee attack, you gain temporary hit points equal to your Constitution bonus (minimum 1) until your next turn. These temporary hit points do not stack. You do not gain this bonus if the opponent is helpless or has less than half your Hit Dice.

Do you have to actually have the backstory described above in order to take this feat? For that matter, do you even have to have been born alone, or is it just artistic license?


Personally, I ignore all flu unless it already suits the nature of the game I'm running. To consider fluff rules means I have to run a game that caters to that fluff.

If I want to take the mechanics of Born Alone and consider them a sort of quasi-vampirism ability from a necromantic ally inclined orc tribe, I'm going to to.

The fluff isn't rules, nor should it be. All that does is limit gameplay options.

If the developers want descriptive things to be included in the rules, they need to add it to the rules text.

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"Fluff = Rules" is an actual debate people are having?

-Skeld

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Skeld wrote:

"Fluff = Rules" is an actual debate people are having?

-Skeld

Yes.

Some are suggesting fluff=rules, whenever they want it to, but not when they don't want it to.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Skeld wrote:

"Fluff = Rules" is an actual debate people are having?

-Skeld

Yes.

Some are suggesting fluff=rules, whenever they want it to, but not when they don't want it to.

Quoted for truth.

Liberty's Edge

Doomed Hero wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Skeld wrote:

"Fluff = Rules" is an actual debate people are having?

-Skeld

Yes.

Some are suggesting fluff=rules, whenever they want it to, but not when they don't want it to.

Quoted for truth.

Work both ways, a lot of people call "fluff" whatever don't suit them. Look the tail terror threads.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Skeld wrote:

"Fluff = Rules" is an actual debate people are having?

-Skeld

Yes.

Some are suggesting fluff=rules, whenever they want it to, but not when they don't want it to.

Quoted for truth.
Work both ways, a lot of people call "fluff" whatever don't suit them. Look the tail terror threads.

This is exactly why I think they should state it one way or another, because the fallout of that is probably less than what we're getting now.


This reminds me of Undead Master feat, and why the rules don't live up to its fluff:

PRD wrote:

Undead Master

You can marshal vast armies of the undead to serve you.

Prerequisites: Spell focus (necromancy), the ability to cast animate dead or command undead.

Benefit: When you cast animate dead or use the Command Undead feat, you are considered to be four levels higher when determining the number of Hit Dice you animate. When you cast command undead, your duration is doubled.

Fluff promises the feat allows you to control more undead... except it does not increase the number of HD of undead you control, only how many you animate per cast.

So the "vast armies" are just +4 HD of Command Undead. Which in turn makes people argue that by fluff the feat also increases the number of HD to control as well. Sure the feat is poorly worded, but the fluff text makes it even worse.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think this is an unrealistic proposal. I don't believe that Paizo has adhered to a single standard in writing flavour text for feats; in quite a few cases the flavour text is important in distinguishing exactly what a feat is supposed to do or how it is meant to be read. And in others it really is just fluff.

So if you tried to lay down a single standard on all existing feats, some would adhere while others wouldn't. You'd have to go through all existing feats with a fine-toothed comb to see if they changed because of this FAQ.

Pathfinder's rules language isn't as tight as that of Magic the Gathering. I don't think anyone's rules language is that tight. Maybe some other card games; it's both easier and more urgently needed if you have "units" with less room for text on them.

Pathfinder is mostly written in natural English, not a sort of formal language that looks a lot like English (like MtG). You have to be ready to cope with some ambiguity.


Ascalaphus wrote:

I think this is an unrealistic proposal. I don't believe that Paizo has adhered to a single standard in writing flavour text for feats; in quite a few cases the flavour text is important in distinguishing exactly what a feat is supposed to do or how it is meant to be read. And in others it really is just fluff.

So if you tried to lay down a single standard on all existing feats, some would adhere while others wouldn't. You'd have to go through all existing feats with a fine-toothed comb to see if they changed because of this FAQ.

Pathfinder's rules language isn't as tight as that of Magic the Gathering. I don't think anyone's rules language is that tight. Maybe some other card games; it's both easier and more urgently needed if you have "units" with less room for text on them.

Pathfinder is mostly written in natural English, not a sort of formal language that looks a lot like English (like MtG). You have to be ready to cope with some ambiguity.

You know, I think even that would be fine if they could tell us that. It just feels like as it is it's too inconsistent and we have it generating confusion because of differing expectations and such.

Grand Lodge

Unfortunately, I don't think there is a single "one true approach".

For most things, the flavor text should be something you can freely ignore, as far as rules go, as it should be the one thing that needs to be adaptable to the PC. Even PFS allows for reflavoring.

In rare cases, the rules text is confusing, vague, and one must look to the flavor text as a guide.

So, it is my suggestion, that when those situations come up, the flavor text should be treated similar to the magic item creation rules, as far as using it as a rules component.

Basically, if the feat/ability functions fine, without needing the flavor text, then that's what you should default to.

In the end, there should never be forced flavor.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

I think this is an unrealistic proposal. I don't believe that Paizo has adhered to a single standard in writing flavour text for feats; in quite a few cases the flavour text is important in distinguishing exactly what a feat is supposed to do or how it is meant to be read. And in others it really is just fluff.

Even more than this, it's rare that just one person write a single feat. As I understand, there could be 4 or even more people who touch the feat before it goes to print. Freelancer Joe might write a feat that says

"Excaliblast
Your invincible sword can shatter walls.
Benefit: Any sword you wield can cause walls made of stone or any material with a lower hardness to erupt in a showering cascade, utterly destroying the wall and any enemy within 50 feet."

But then it goes to the design team lead who says "Whoa, that ability is clearly too strong!" At which point he changes it to-

"Excaliblast
Your invincible sword can shatter walls.
Benefit: Any sword you world is treated as though it were made from adamantine. In addition, if you have taken the Weapon Focus feat, any sword which would benefit from it deals double damage against inanimate objects."

Then the design team is done and it goes off to the development team, who immediately thinks "Wow, JB must be dipping into the scotch during 'creative time' again. Better tidy this thing up!"

Which leads to-

"Excaliblast
Your invincible sword can shatter walls.
Prerequisites: Weapon training class feature
Benefit: While wielding a weapon that would benefit from your weapon training class feature, treat its hardness as 10 higher than it actually is."

So you've had multiple people in there, tweaking and adjusting the feat, until it's completely unrecognizable from its original form and function, but the flavor text remains unchanged, despite no longer having significance to the feat's current intended effect.

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, which led to FAQ threads, which led to a design review deciding that it had to do something but a static bonus to hit just wasn't the right fit since it steps on Weapon Focus' toes, which led to errata, which led to this-

"Prone Shooter
While prone, you use the ground to stabilize your aim while using a crossbow or firearm.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus (crossbow or firearm), base attack bonus +1.
Benefits: If you have been prone since the end of your last turn, the penalty to your Armor Class against melee attacks made against you is reduced to -2. In addition, the bonus to your Armor Class against ranged attacks made against you is increased to +6."

Whew! Good thing I have that descriptive text there! Otherwise how would I know that using the ground to stabilize my aim gives me a bonus to AC?

...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

People hate it when a wide-ranging FAQ breaks pieces of the game that were previously working well. Making such a sweeping judgement would most likely do that.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
People hate it when a wide-ranging FAQ breaks pieces of the game that were previously working well. Making such a sweeping judgement would most likely do that.

If delineating what is and is not rules relevant, or at least establishing an order of precedence, breaks the game, then whatever it was doing before cannot be described as "working well".

Having written many feats in well reviewed products for multiple publishers, I can tell you definitively, without any hesitation or need to reference my prior work, that the stuff between the name of the feat itself and either the prerequisites or benefits line (as appropriate since not all feats have prereqs) is fluff. I did my best to make it fun, interesting, and appropriate to the feat's effect, but it is not necessary to inform the feat's function and should never be used to override the carefully parsed rules language in the benefits section.

Now, that's just me, and I certainly don't have the design experience or resources of the Paizo design team, but I did use the rules and guidelines developed by their own staff members when designing those feats. They certainly don't have to answer this FAQ if they feel it's a nest of vipers they'd rather not wade into (and who can blame them given the acidic commentary and negative response that the bulk of their FAQs and commentary have engendered in the past few years), but I don't think there's any real basis for a doomsaying prediction that defining the mechanical relevance of their feat format will cause things that were previously functional to stop functioning.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This...

This just isn't going to end well.

Shadow Lodge

I have suggested before, and i truly believe this is a simple fix for Paizo.

A statement added to the Getting Started section of the Core Rules book right after the section on "The Most Important Rule" would very simple solve this with Minimal effort on their part:

Quote:

Recognizing flavor text: In this book, and all titles printed after its publication date, Whenever you encounter text that is italicized, that text is present as flavor to give you an in game context to which the subsequent rules apply. As a specific exception, when you encounter the italicized title of a feat, spell, or class ability contained within the rules text, it is a reference to that specific feat, spell, or class ability which provides further information on the functionality of the rule in question.

Quote:

Example:

Blinding Critical (Combat, Critical)

Your critical hits blind your opponents.

Prerequisites: Critical Focus, base attack bonus +15.

Benefit: Whenever you score a critical hit, your opponent is permanently blinded. A successful Fortitude save reduces this to dazzled for 1d4 rounds. The DC of this Fortitude save is equal to 10 + your base attack bonus. This feat has no effect on creatures that do not rely on eyes for sight or creatures with more than two eyes (although multiple critical hits might cause blindness, at the GM's discretion). Blindness can be cured by heal, regeneration, remove blindness, or similar abilities.

Special: You can only apply the effects of one critical feat to a given critical hit unless you possess Critical Mastery.

Then all they need do is Italicize the descriptive texts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
in quite a few cases the flavour text is important in distinguishing exactly what a feat is supposed to do or how it is meant to be read.

When feats are truly so horribly written that you have to rely on fluff text, that's an indicator that the feats needs re-written not that the fluff text should hold any significance to the rules. There are several reasons for this. As Ssalarn points out not every author is writing the fluff as a rule to be followed and even if they did, the fluff might be made by someone other than the person that made the final feat. There can be multiple pieces of fluff: which do you pick when they contradict?

For myself, fluff text the expendable part that can be safely jettisoned for my own fluff. You could try to parse RAI out of the given fluff but that really is an act of futility as there is never proof that the fluff was written based on the actual feats intent and even if it was the thrust is for a cool sound bite and not a factual statement. If there where real vampires, I wouldn't look to Twilight [the fluff] for help.

Master of Shadows: All they'd have to do is "Italicize the descriptive texts" AND go back and edit the majority of feats to actually give "in game context to which the subsequent rules apply". Many don't. At all.

Shadow Lodge

graystone wrote:


Master of Shadows: All they'd have to do is "Italicize the descriptive texts" AND go back and edit the majority of feats to actually give "in game context to which the subsequent rules apply". Many don't. At all.

Well, TBH, if there is a clear cut visual distinction like Italicized, then everyone will know of a certainty that the fluff doesn't matter. No need then to rewrite flavor text. It would be nice, but with such a distinction, Power Attack could say: You swing your sword (or whatever giant carrot happens to be at hand) and all the fluffy bunnies turn green before you splatter them! and every one would know that the text had no mechanical bearing on the game.


greystone wrote:
When feats are truly so horribly written that you have to rely on fluff text, that's an indicator that the feats needs re-written not that the fluff text should hold any significance to the rules.

Bingo!

Liberty's Edge

Ascalaphus wrote:

I think this is an unrealistic proposal. I don't believe that Paizo has adhered to a single standard in writing flavour text for feats; in quite a few cases the flavour text is important in distinguishing exactly what a feat is supposed to do or how it is meant to be read. And in others it really is just fluff.

So if you tried to lay down a single standard on all existing feats, some would adhere while others wouldn't. You'd have to go through all existing feats with a fine-toothed comb to see if they changed because of this FAQ.

Pathfinder's rules language isn't as tight as that of Magic the Gathering. I don't think anyone's rules language is that tight. Maybe some other card games; it's both easier and more urgently needed if you have "units" with less room for text on them.

Pathfinder is mostly written in natural English, not a sort of formal language that looks a lot like English (like MtG). You have to be ready to cope with some ambiguity.

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

As RPG probably GURPS.
on the other hand those rule sets are very dry reading.


Zhayne wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
When feats are truly so horribly written that you have to rely on fluff text, that's an indicator that the feats needs re-written not that the fluff text should hold any significance to the rules.

Bingo!

HEY! I wrote that! :)


graystone wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
When feats are truly so horribly written that you have to rely on fluff text, that's an indicator that the feats needs re-written not that the fluff text should hold any significance to the rules.

Bingo!

HEY! I wrote that! :)

Sorry. Fixed it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zhayne wrote:
greystone wrote:
When feats are truly so horribly written that you have to rely on fluff text, that's an indicator that the feats needs re-written not that the fluff text should hold any significance to the rules.

Bingo!

This is the kind of thought that I can get behind.

Shadow Lodge

What if in the future, the fluff text was only written after the mechanics and prereqs?

It's kind of how I always described the old vs new Metallica albums.
This is just a personal theory, not a fact.
The old Metallica seems to write badass songs, and then give them a name that fit. The new Metallica seemed to try to right songs around a nifty title they came up with.


I don't think they can make a blanket determination like that, as there is debate on what is fluff and what is rules. Some of it is pretty clear cut but sometimes it's hard to determine. I don't think Paizo can go through and edit everything they've already produced to make a sweeping correction like some are suggesting. I think for the most part the descriptions and fluff are helpful in understanding how some mechanics are intended to work or an example of what the mechanic actually looks like in use. In home games, I haven't had much of an issue with this adding confusion as we can all talk about it and come to an understanding.

For me, it seems to be more of an issue in PFS games where the rules are generally interpreted much more rigidly.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Fluff can go into clarifying the rules text in question, such as the Fox Form feat and Thunder and Fang.

It shouldn't be used exclusively, such as feats and traits, but doesn't need to be completely ignored when looking at how the rules were intended to be.

The situations that has been the most common with this discrepancy is the use of Racial Heritage. Taking feats that uses abilities and particulars (like Tails or Wings) that a Human/Half-Orc/Half-Elf would not have makes a square peg trying to fit a circular hole. Adopted also has this problem as well as some other abilities that allow for the character to take other race's feats and traits.

This is a blurb that Stephen Radney-Macfarland posted in the Tail Terror thread. She also said in another post that she isn't equating herself to being a FAQ, but that enough debate happened that she felt something needed to be said about this subject.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Actually, Stephen, a tail is not in the prerequisites. Being a kobold is. Thus you can take the feat by RAW (though, since you've weighed in this is clearly not RAI). If you wish to make it more air-tight, please change the prerequisites.

Yes, you can take the feat, but it does no good, unless you have a tail. If you are human (no tail) and take the feat, there are ways in which you could gain a tail (including GM fiat) get a tail, hence it is not part of the prerequisites.

As a matter of design principle, I'm not sympathetic to making rules always as air-tight as you suggest. While the game may not seem to act like it sometimes, the rule of Pathfinder are not a strict code. Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstance; a narrative, adjudicated and can be played with by a GM both to tell her tale and to create fun.

Logic will eventually have to suffice. If the feat allows you to do something with your tail, and you have no tail, the assumption that it grants you a tail is stretching. At the same time any home GM can easily come in and say that you have a tail, if it fits your character concept and her story.

As some of you have pointed out, PFS has to take a harder tact on this, and I agree. But I believe they have the tools to do so. If you are a human, who takes the Racial Heritage, you can take the feat, but it does not grant you anything if you don't have a tail. Humans do not have tails, ergo, your tail is nonexistent and can't be augment. In other words it is foolish to take the feat expecting it allows you to grow a tail. Neither feat says you grow a tail.

In other words, I have no idea how rules as written say you grow a tail. That seems purely outside the rules as written. The same could be said for a magic item of feat that augments darkvision. If it said your darkvision improves by 20 feet, but you don't have darkvision that does not mean that it grants you darkvision of 20 feet, because you cannot improve what you don't have. It could be possible (due to the prerequisites or the available item slot) to take the feat or wear the item. It is even possible with some of racial trait swaps to take an item designed to augment the core traits or morphology of the race, but since you have swapped out of that option, it is possible for you to take it, but for you it does nothing. It is also possible though some strange item, encounter, or monster, or GM fiat to lose a tail if you were a kobold, but that doesn't mean the act of having this feat would allow you to regrow such a tail.

In summary, when we write the rules, we do intend a level of reason and even common sense. We have to, because instead of making things "air-tight." Personally I believe, and have always believed, that one of the benefits of tabletop RPGs is to allow the mind and the imagination to breathe. Often we don't feel we need to codify such things in rules, because the logic is (we suppose) easily apprehended by the mind and the common sense of it is pleasing to the imagination.

Looking at it, this is from a thread called DOES THE RACIAL HERITAGE FEAT, COMBINED WITH A FEAT THAT IMPROVES AN INHERENT FEATURE (CLAWS, POISON, ETC) GRANT YOU THAT FEATURE?

Using the fluff to ascertain how to apply a feat in an unusual circumstance, such as a human taking a feat normally only for a specific race, should not be taken as using fluff as hard, fast rules. A part of "RAW" is determining "RAI" and when that can be ascertained through the description normally referred to as "fluff," I don't think it is a stretch.


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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

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?"

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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

1 to 50 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