| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@James Risner: Again you are using words like "your position". Please show me where my "position" is not simply what the CRB says.
Also, note that I proposed an altered rules text that would fix this and future problems without interferring with the text formatting of the book. No need to misuse and significantly alter the spell rules when the regular stacking rules can fix the problem just fine.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
where my "position" is not simply what the CRB says.
No need to misuse and significantly alter the spell rules
The cool thing about English is that none of us get to dictate what the language means.
While making things clearer is a good thing, I don't think any of the developers thinks that using the stacking rules to block stacking is misuse. It is just that it is more narrow interpreted by some to be restrictive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think any of the developers thinks that using the stacking rules to block stacking is misuse.
This is not in the least what I said. Seriously, even in the partial quote you did is the difference between what I said and what you are accusing me to say unmissable. Please read my post again. And while you're at it, please read the stacking rules again, so that you understand what I'm talking about.
You say a lot of things yet back them up with absolutly nothing:
You said "(...) you are not following the rules as written". Please show my where what I've said clashes with the rules.
You said "(...) RAW allows me to reject stacking dodge bonuses from the same source due to the stacking rules". Please quote the exact part of those rules you are refering to.
You said "If you assert that by RAW they can only be interpreted to stack, then I'll say your not using RAW but some (...) house rule." Please show where that interpretation diverges from the rules.
James Risner linking the Temporary HP FAQ should've closed the deal; the only reason any arguments are going on is because people don't like the ruling because it's not in the book, to which point I say grow up and write an errata in your hard copy.
It even says in the first sentence of that FAQ:
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source...
That's as official as it gets. The FAQ made by the devs says outright that the general rule is effects from the same source do not stack. That's it, them's the breaks.
It doesn't matter if the effect is a Supernatural Ability, a Spell or SLA, an Extraordinary Ability, a Class Feature, whatever, it doesn't stack with itself unless there is explicit language stating otherwise.
The fact that such is lacking from Offensive Defense means it won't stack with itself. There was also a statement from a Dev (I think the one who created the talent) that says that it's not designed to stack up, despite being a Dodge Bonus, though I can't find it unfortunately. If someone has some better luck, please post it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You say a lot of things yet back them up with absolutly nothing
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source...
Generally as long as you keep saying "there is no rule", I'll keep saying you are ignoring the "same source" rules in the spells and magical effects section. A rule, that the developers use in other FAQ as a reason for non-spells stacking issues from Orange Ioun Stone to Charisma to AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not the way I read it. "for 1 round" is seperate from the "for each sneack attack die rolled".If they stacked, I could get SUM(5,10,15) = +30 AC.
If I use the skill as written, but no stacking, I get MAX(5,10,15) = +15 AC.
I figured out my error about 4 hours later as I lie in bed staring at the ceiling.
[rant]Pazio, adding a simple comma would have made this sentence so much easier to understand. Don't skimp on the punctuation too.[/rant]
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James Risner linking the Temporary HP FAQ should've closed the deal; the only reason any arguments are going on is because people don't like the ruling because it's not in the book, to which point I say grow up and write an errata in your hard copy.
It even says in the first sentence of that FAQ:
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source...That's as official as it gets. The FAQ made by the devs says outright that the general rule is effects from the same source do not stack. That's it, them's the breaks.
It doesn't matter if the effect is a Supernatural Ability, a Spell or SLA, an Extraordinary Ability, a Class Feature, whatever, it doesn't stack with itself unless there is explicit language stating otherwise.
The fact that such is lacking from Offensive Defense means it won't stack with itself. There was also a statement from a Dev (I think the one who created the talent) that says that it's not designed to stack up, despite being a Dodge Bonus, though I can't find it unfortunately. If someone has some better luck, please post it.
The word "Generally" at the beginning inherently includes the concepts of "exceptions" and since specifics (i.e. exceptions) trump general (ala words like "generally") and, in specific, we've quoted a FAQ in which the Devs admitted that RAW conflicts with itself; this means it is, literally, not RAW.
(Incidentally, the "specific trumps general" is necessary for having this ruleset, otherwise most things wouldn't do what they say they do.)
"As official as it gets" is, at best, "Things are this way most of the time (except when they aren't)" based off of the quote you provided.
RAI? Now, perhaps, yes. They said they are "leaning" that way, after all.
This doesn't make it any more RAW than noting that ability scores are a source... which some took to be, but were not supported by the rule set itself until the FAQrrata - RAI, yes, but not RAW. Now it's been clarified that this was the intent... still not, technically, errata (since it hasn't been printed), but clarified intent.
This whole issue is predicated based on a problem: that certain concepts are "intuitive" to certain people with particular forms of thought, but not to others... yet those others feel (justifiably, as it works so well most of the time, even in this game) that their intuitive senses are correct - hence if something isn't written, it's not a written rule, but an unwritten "sense" of such things that are either expected to be ephemerally communicated (probably because people tend to presuppose that others think the same way that they do when such arguments of these demonstrably prove that this isn't true; but possibly just do to accidental omission) which adds to the fact that we can demonstrably prove both that RAW and RAI only sometimes used to work the way we are currently supposed to intuit them (and sometimes opposed the current presuppositions) in both this edition and former editions, which this one is supposed to be based off of... and the issue of "this is the way it must be" comes from a position that is never actually taken within any FAQ that directly addresses the issue that we're actively talking about.
That's a long way of saying, "It's important to note that it's not actually written down the way you imply, and the quote given doesn't support the argument you claim it does without a person taking substantial liberties. That's not how rules work."
(A shorter, snarkier way might be [relevant citation needed], but I'm not trying to be snarky - this line just hit me as funny, so I'm sharing it.)
It's how communication often works, but not how rules work. If it was how rules work, we wouldn't have need of lawyers to get people out of trouble due to technicalities, because all right-thinking judges would (mystically?) divine the true nature and meaning of the laws of the land sans argumentation.
It's the difference between spirit (which can sometimes be intuited, but only by those who happen to think similarly, and only so long as they never diverge from the original source... which is an ever-present danger) and letter (which can sometimes be clear... as mud; but at least it's mud that can actually be analyzed, even if people can come to opposing conclusions).
Laws, rules, and similar go by letter first, and then spirit after.
Because, again, if things just went by the "spirit" of a thing, either everyone would always get along, or we'd be living in anarchy-land of lawless chaos.
Often, going by the spirit of a thing is better. But that's not inherently true, and it's not always possible.
Communication through text be haaaarrrrrrd, yo.
(Unless it's straightforward and exceedingly specific, in which case it becomes absurdly hard.)
Again, I know I'd likely run it with them not stacking. Doesn't matter that it's not the sole method of producing a RAW understanding of the thing. To some, that's a feature. To others, that's kind of a RAW deal.
G'night everybody~!
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
"It's important to note that it's not actually written down the way you imply, and the quote given doesn't support the argument you claim it does without a person taking substantial liberties. That's not how rules work."
This doesn't make it any more RAW than noting that ability scores are a source... which some took to be, but were not supported by the rule set itself until the FAQrrata
Well written understanding of the issue, RAW should be "follow the spirit not the letter" or you risk running into FAQ that doesn't change the text but does change your permitted interpretation.
Some examples of things they do not plan on changing the wording, but do they do expect you to reach the same interpretation as they have or you should alter your interpretation:
Yet, if I recall correctly, in the Same Source -> Ability Score thread (the one devoted to that actual FAQ), several brought up that very issue (the implications for weird nesting of Same Source), and it was a Dev that explicitly noted that it was not the case - said FAQ only applies to that specific issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well written understanding of the issue, RAW should be "follow the spirit not the letter"(...)
No. No, no, no, no, no! To follow the spirit not the latter is not RAW. That is "rules as intended", RAI. RAW is short for "rules as written". That literally means "follow the letter". If you aren't following the letter, you are not using RAW, but RAI. If you interpret the rules to make them behave how you think they should be, that's not RAW, but RAI. If you interpret the rules to make them behave how some Paizo devs think they should be, that's still not RAW, but RAI. If you change the rules to make them consistent with an FAQ that does not actually apply to the topic at hand, that's again not RAW, but RAI.
Generally as long as you keep saying "there is no rule", I'll keep saying you are ignoring the "same source" rules in the spells and magical effects section.
I don't want to be mean, I'm only asking to avoid confusion: English is not your first language, right? Because not only do you seem to have problems understanding what "rules as written" means, and when I talk about "misuse of spell rules" change that to "misuse of stacking rules" and therefore completely change the meaning, but also say I was ignoring the "spells and magical effects" section in even though I have directly mentioned or referenced these rules in five of my posts in this thread. This means that per definition I cannot be ignoring them.
Generally, effects do not stack if they are from the same source...That's as official as it gets. The FAQ made by the devs says outright that the general rule is effects from the same source do not stack. That's it, them's the breaks.
Here's the funny thing: That part of the FAQ is not wrong, yet it doesn't invalidate what I'm saying. Generally, effects from the same source don't stack. Generally means "usually" or "in most cases". And that is true, most things don't stack with themselves - may it be because they are spells, have a bonus type that doesn't stack, or are untyped. The usage of the word "generally" means that there are exceptions and nothing in that FAQ says that Dodge bonuses cannot be such an exception.
If anything, this FAQ quote proves that there are exceptions to the whole "same source = doesn't stack" thing that you seem to think is a law.This is why I previously said "The way FAQs work, the PDT has to actually say that they change the stacking rules. As long as they don't do that, the text in the CRB is the only general rule regarding this topic." The FAQ (or, to be precise, the explanation in it) is not worded the way an actual rule would be. The FAQ is written to answer a specific question, changing the rules would require an errata - that's the way the Pathfinder rules and the FAQ system work.
Also, as Tacticslion and I both said, FAQs only apply to the stuff they explicitly make rulings for.
It doesn't matter if the effect is a Supernatural Ability, a Spell or SLA, an Extraordinary Ability, a Class Feature, whatever, it doesn't stack with itself unless there is explicit language stating otherwise.
Core Rulebook page 221 says "Indeed, extraordinary abilities do not qualify as magical, though they may break the laws of physics." There you have it, it's in the very definition of the term that rules applying only to spells and magical effects don't apply to extraordinary abilities.
Why don't you stop trying to shoehorn FAQs about different abilities in and give me a quote of an actual written rule? Either that, or admit that the CRB completly supports my point of view and the only relevant FAQ says "we're working on it, but don't change anything yet".
There was also a statement from a Dev (I think the one who created the talent) that says that it's not designed to stack up, despite being a Dodge Bonus
Oh, there is no doubt that that is not designed to stack. Not only do I consider it obvious that for instance a level 10 sap master should not be able to get up to +50 dodge bonus to AC from the talent alone, but this is also the only thing the Offensive Defense FAQ actually clarifies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a rogue with this talent hits a creature with a melee attack that deals sneak attack damage, the rogue gains a +1 dodge bonus to AC for each sneak attack die rolled for 1 round.
Since this only provides for a +1 per die, the only way I can get +5 Dodge AC is if it stacks dice. The question is just how much does it stack.
/cevah
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
No. No, no, no, no, no! To follow the spirit not the latter is not RAW. That is "rules as intended", RAI. RAW is short for "rules as written".
That's your view. Raw is rules as written, which requires interpretation and we have been told the general rule is that things from the same source don't stack.
If we follow your interpretation, they could spend years naming all the items that shouldn't stack (orange iounstone) among other things.
No. No, no, no, no, no! To follow the spirit not the latter is not RAW. That is "rules as intended", RAI. RAW is short for "rules as written".
That's your view. Raw is rules as written, which requires interpretation and we have been told the general rule is that things from the same source don't stack.
If we follow your interpretation, they could spend years naming all the items that shouldn't stack (orange iounstone) among other things.
That's his view... and also seems to be the view of the PDT, if what they said in the Ability Score thread is at all accurate of their view.
|
Sometimes, following the "Letter" of the rule in question discounts other known quantities and forgets about any sort of interaction with other pieces of the game and, a lot of the time, breaks or does something that goes beyond the original intent of the rule.
A period here, a comma there, better phrasing, a sentence more to clarify... it all amounts to the same as what the rule was "supposed" to be.
clearly, this particular issue has leeway for a player to misconstrue the intent of the rule and add in something that was not intended nor be used in a particular manner as to negate the rules it is supposed to comply with elsewhere.
RAW is not always a concrete certainty, though the developers do try to make it clear for us how to use and play this content in the game.