What would the PDT do vs What do the words say?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.

A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.

Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.

My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.

I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.

Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.


32 people marked this as a favorite.

Team "What would the PDT do"


20 people marked this as a favorite.

Team "What do the words say"


PDT? Um, Pathfinder Design Team?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm favoriting both, and here's why: They both have their intrinsic value.

What the rules say is important, because not everything has to come down to what the PDT says (as the rules as written are sufficient). In fact, some tables might not even consider the PDT's intent at their home games, even if they are official, because they would value their own ruling over what the PDT's official stance is. The rules as written need to have some value because the assumption is that the PDT is "translating" their intent through what the rules say.

Now, granted sometimes they do this in a poor manner (as you've just given an example of), in which case the intent behind the rule (penalty reduction only applies to TWF penalties) is valuable. But the ability to discern both the RAW, and the PDT's intent behind the RAW, is the best course of action, as it tells you what the rule should be, but not what the rule actually is, and is key for discerning the different types of rules that may (or may not) exist.

People may disagree with this, and feel that there is one true answer, and they're probably right. But I'd rather that the one true answer should be answered properly by both, and not differently by one or the other, and knowing the situation on both sides of the spectrum further helps provide the one true answer that people are usually searching for.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

I'm favoriting both, and here's why: They both have their intrinsic value.

What the rules say is important, because not everything has to come down to what the PDT says (as the rules as written are sufficient). In fact, some tables might not even consider the PDT's intent at their home games, even if they are official, because they would value their own ruling over what the PDT's official stance is. The rules as written need to have some value because the assumption is that the PDT is "translating" their intent through what the rules say.

Now, granted sometimes they do this in a poor manner (as you've just given an example of), in which case the intent behind the rule (penalty reduction only applies to TWF penalties) is valuable. But the ability to discern both the RAW, and the PDT's intent behind the RAW, is the best course of action, as it tells you what the rule should be, but not what the rule actually is, and is key for discerning the different types of rules that may (or may not) exist.

People may disagree with this, and feel that there is one true answer, and they're probably right. But I'd rather that the one true answer should be answered properly by both, and not differently by one or the other, and knowing the situation on both sides of the spectrum further helps provide the one true answer that people are usually searching for.

I am just asking what you think most are asking for or what you would ask for, but I do understand your post. <thumbs up>


Ciaran Barnes wrote:
PDT? Um, Pathfinder Design Team?

Yeah.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
People may disagree with this, and feel that there is one true answer, and they're probably right. But I'd rather that the one true answer should be answered properly by both, and not differently by one or the other, and knowing the situation on both sides of the spectrum further helps provide the one true answer that people are usually searching for.

I'd like to think thatthat most people do use both to varying degrees. I think that wraithstrike is asking which way you lean when a conflict arises between the two.


I'd go case by case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Intent > Word


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:

There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.

A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.

Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.

My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.

I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.

Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.

This is what's known as a biased poll. Beginning a poll with "choose between these two positions. Here's my opinion and an example of why I think it's better. I will provide no such argument for the opposite side" immediately skews the results and makes your experiment tainted. Try again :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.

I think this is a bit disingenuous. I know in the last thread it was not a debate of two different readings but a debate of ruling OR intent. My argument in the last thread was that if there is a rule, give it. Intent is fine for figuring out which reading of the rules you should use but NOT for overriding the rules themselves, like making up a rule/condition that doesn't exist.

Saying you think the intent of Shield Master wasn't to get rid of ALL penalties is a different thing than thinking the intent of weapon focus is to give a +2 hit or works on all weapons. One is determining the merits of two different readings and the other is clearly making up new rules. My intent was to say that intent doesn't override the rules but are important to figuring out if a reading of them is correct.

IMO, when the rules are clearly written it's just muddying the waters to add 'intent' into the mix to try to make it less clear.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Going to give a devil's advocate argument for ignoring intent in most cases: Intent often changes between concept and printing.

A lot of the designers create something with one thing in mind, but it's changed by other designers before being printed.

The Titan Mauler Barbarian is an easy example. Its principle creator and designer says it was intended to allow the wielding of progressively larger and larger weapons, but the actual archetype does not allow this, and was actually not meant to allow this at all in the final printing.

Going strictly by the creator's intent, rather than the text, results in an incorrect interpretation of the rules in this case.

There's also the fact that knowing intent at all is often difficult. Determining intent for 90% of the items in any given book is going to be guesswork. Working solely on the text generally gives a consistent, if sometimes absolutely bonkers powerful or just plain broken option, whereas guessing intent is largely subjective.

Of course neither of these apply to every scenario, and a mix of both is preferable, but for my money if you HAVE to pick just one, pick the text because it requires the least guesswork and personal interpretation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why are you making it so only RAW or RAI is relevant, not each in its appropriate place? I mean, that's literally what your two positions are "what the PDT would do" is RAI, and "what the words say" is RAW. It is important to recognize the difference and understand that they both have merit, and are not necessarily the same thing.

Some of the worst messes on the rules forum come from when what the actual RAW is doesn't mesh with how a poster perceives the RAI to be, so that poster attempts to twist things to make the two match instead of recognizing the disparity


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"What do the words say"


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Written rules first. If that doesn't work then you have to turn to intent.

Stating from trying to determine intent just seems backwards. You need to understand what is written before you can even begin to work on intent, surely.


The words ARE the best way of divining intent. I'm not interested in abusing a rule or twisting its use away from its intended purpose. However where the words are not clear or are ambiguous or contradictory then additional clarification from PDT is enough for me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Why not both?

Answering what is allowed by RAW is important, because that informs what options are valid for choosing RAI or some other sensible interpretation within the existing rules framework. It is possible RAI and RAW don't mesh at all, but in that case going with RAI involves a houserule until an FAQ or errata is issued, so arguing RAI in such cases is doing the original poster a disservice; instead one should argue the most sensible interpretation that is allowed by how the rules are actually written, possibly bringing up what they believe RAI to be but noting doing it that way is not supported by the rules.

I favorited "what do the words say" and not "what would the PDT do" because while I believe answering intent or interpreting the rules in a sensible manner is important, such intent or interpretation must come from an evaluation of RAW first and foremost. So no matter what, you're answering the question based on what the words actually say.

Shadow Lodge

I'm interpreting "What do the words say" to be more along the lines of "the intent of what the rules say" as opposed to the alternative, which I tend to view more along the lines of "this is WHAT I THINK/WANT the original intent to have been".

Generally I will look at the rule or option itself first, and read it a few times. Next, I'll try to look for other, similar rules, if it is not clear or a gray area. Mostly from the Core Book only. After that, I try to examine a few theoretical situations involving the rules, or to swap the issue in question with something else and see how it looks from those angles. I also try to remember that 75-90% of the rules where not actually even written by the PDT, so the original intent was from other folks anyway.

Just based on the way the original post was written and the way the two options where termed, I expect that both will come out pretty close, with around a 10% higher ranking of "WWPDTD?" just because it reads as a more positive choice. The "right" group to be in.


DM Beckett: To give you an example of what I meant when I was debating something with wraithstrike right before this thread; I was talking with someone that complained about my "formulaic rules interpretation" in a separate thread about alchemic silver weapons. The poster was using the intent that 'bludgeoning weapons where intended to deal full damage so a morning star would ignore the -1 damage for slashing/piercing damage.' A clear example of using intent instead of a clear and easy to understand written rule. The poster also wanted to use "real world logic and 'common sense'" instead of rules. This is why I called the basis of this thread a "bit disingenuous" as I never said intent was meaningless just that it's "not for altering/changing the existing reading or inventing a rule from scratch."

thread with wraithstrike

intent post

intent post 2, formulaic

THIS is what I mean about not bringing intent into a rules debate when there is a clear rule.

Shadow Lodge

@Graystone

I was mostly aiming that at Wraithstrike's original post, rationalizing why I opted for book over PDT. I agree with what you have said in your last two posts here.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

What the Words Say

Because the other option has given us crane wing, metaphorical hands, 1/day magic items with attunement periods, (previously) requiring 2 actual weapons to flurry of blows, feats and abilities letting you add spells known not working unless they're in-class, and many more.


I went with PDT. There are problems with either option as absolutes, but by definition going with what the people who write the game meant - as opposed to what ended up in print - is the path to playing the game "right".

Sometimes things get altered in copyfitting (Mark has pointed out a few of those with regards to the kineticist recently, for instance). Sometimes typos happen. Sometimes the author is unclear and the editors have to guess what was intended. Sometimes unusual corner cases are simply missed.

When trying to figure out how a rule works, I start with what it says, but then I overrule that based on what I expect PDT would tell me if I asked "does this seriously work this way?"

But hey, you can still have arguments about things like reach weapons threatening 5ft distance as improvised weapons, because the literal wording can be read multiple ways, and the intent of PDT can be extrapolated either way based on how you read the text.

So shrug.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Claxon wrote:
Intent > Word

Action > Intent

Therefore in this case

Word > Intent

Intent is simply an aggravating/mitigating circumstance.


DM Beckett wrote:

@Graystone

I was mostly aiming that at Wraithstrike's original post, rationalizing why I opted for book over PDT. I agree with what you have said in your last two posts here.

Cool. You where parsing the meaning of 'What do the words say' and 'the intent' meant in the OP so I wanted to present what I was thinking when I said intent and some context. It was more a reaction to what you wrote than a commentary on it, but I'm glad you agree. ;)

I agree with your post too BTW.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Intent >>>> words.

Lots of people (especially on these forums) try to hold the words as written to an utterly absurd standard.

1) there literally is NO such single thing as "rules as written". Human written languages are not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous.

2) even in actual legal documents such as contracts and laws intent matters greatly. Trying to hold game designers to a higher standard than lawyers is ridiculous

3) Paizo is trying to make its books easy and fun to read. That exacerbates points 1 and 2 above.

4) Paizo fully realizes that they cannot specify everything. They intelligently don't try. Which means that the rules HAVE to be read with intent firmly in mind


I really can't see a social game being enjoyable if it's operated at a word-for-word basis. Examining the probability of the intent of the interpretation of the rules is of high value (should be applied to every set of rules and not only for Pathfinder rules or game rules). Otherwise we're stuck in a bureaucrat's dream.

There's also a lot of Pathfinder rules that just doesn't work as writen. They wouldn't be close to "broken" if just a few patches are applies with the mindset "this is probably what they intended when they wrote this" (My go-to example: Giving the Alchemist a caster level equal to the Alchemist's level in regard to discoveries. Because it doesn't have one right now, which renders some discoveries not usable. I also don't find it worth bugging the PDT about).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:

Intent >>>> words.

Lots of people (especially on these forums) try to hold the words as written to an utterly absurd standard.

1) there literally is NO such single thing as "rules as written". Human written languages are not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous.

What is the BAB of a 1st level Fighter?

If you say 1 then you have just invalidated your point.
If you say anything else then you d not have a gaming system, you have magical story hour.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thorin001 wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

Intent >>>> words.

Lots of people (especially on these forums) try to hold the words as written to an utterly absurd standard.

1) there literally is NO such single thing as "rules as written". Human written languages are not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous.

What is the BAB of a 1st level Fighter?

If you say 1 then you have just invalidated your point.
If you say anything else then you d not have a gaming system, you have magical story hour.

If you think human writing is 100% unambiguous then I suggest you read up on semiotics and related subjects.

But to answer your question, please tell me what you mean by Fighter. I've seen children described as fighters. Is that what you meant?

Everything has context. Obviously, I think that I understood your question because we share context. But your very simpke question IS ambiguous. Only by intuiting your intent can I answer that question.

Please do NOT respond by tightening up your question as that totally misses the point. Obviously, language can be tightened up to reduce ambiguity but at the cost of increased verbiage and turgid prose.

Agsin, I'll use the example of contracts. Some very well trained people work very hard to make the wording unambiguous. And continually fail ( as lawsuits show)

Liberty's Edge

Following 'what the words say' (which, in and of itself, involves a great deal of personal interpretation) to the exclusion of real world logic, common sense, and whether the words in question were ever even intended to apply to the specific situation being considered results in effectively random and meaningless results.

What the words say is only step one in understanding the rules.


pauljathome: While the entirety of human language may be "not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous" you certainly CAN have unambiguous questions and answers. I don't need to know the intent behind Halfling having a +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength but if someone asks what stat modifiers the race gives I can clearly give that answer, again without knowing the intent.

I think that was his point.

CBDunkerson wrote:
What the words say is only step one in understanding the rules.

"Weapon Focus: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon." What is the second step here?

Liberty's Edge

graystone wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
What the words say is only step one in understanding the rules.
"Weapon Focus: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon." What is the second step here?

Interpreting which of multiple possible meanings of those words is most likely the intended meaning.

For example; "the selected weapon"

A strict textualist could, indeed logically SHOULD, argue that this means you get the aforementioned +1 bonus only with a single specific weapon. i.e. one particular longsword. Note, it does not say 'selected weapon type'. Rather, it specifically refers to only a single selected weapon.

Of course, if we look at OTHER text related to the subject we DO find references to 'type' of weapon... though amusingly, this is most clearly stated in the 'fluff text' that some people insist should be ignored. Still, the specific benefit says "weapon"... so a strict textualist should still find that it only applies to a single weapon... OF the type selected (i.e. if you select longswords then you can get a +1 bonus with ONE specific longsword).

That clearly isn't the intent, but then... there aren't REALLY any people who always follow a strict formulaic reading of the text. Just some who THINK they do... without realizing that they violate that principle more often than they abide by it. After all, the mind is not wired to ignore logic and intent as a matter of course. Nine times out of ten everyone jumps to the intended, rather than literal / formulaic, meaning without even realizing they have done so.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a false dilemma. You use both, but hope the words are an apparent and clear expression of intent.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
graystone wrote:
"Weapon Focus: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon." What is the second step here?

Interpreting which of multiple possible meanings of those words is most likely the intended meaning.

For example; "the selected weapon"

As an additional example, that text actually says that you get a bonus to the roll. So, a 19 becomes a 20 which is an auto crit.

Also, of course, what is "an attack roll"? Does it apply to dazzling display? Does it apply to the roll to see if you're affected by concealment? The roll to see where a splash weapon that misses lands?

If you follow the rules forums at all you will constantly see arguments that are as silly as the above examples.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All of those things are spelled out in the rules. Miss chance rolls are not attack rolls, sorry you were confused on that.

Quote:
If you follow the rules forums at all you will constantly see arguments that are as silly as the above examples.

But I don't see much point in ridiculing people because they're talking about something you personally don't like.


CBDunkerson/pauljathome: If you're confused, look at the rest of the rule or other related rules.

"the selected weapon"; Well look here, it says "Choose one type of weapon" and "Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon." So it clearly isn't "single specific weapon". Strict formulaic reading of the text works as is.

As to attack roll, well yeah... The game DOES take basic understanding of core ideas. If you don't understand how attack rolls work you should really look that up. That rule is pretty clear to.

You can feign ignorance or purposely misread thing if you wish but saying there aren't any unambiguous rules is disingenuous to say the least.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Option 3: "What's best for the gaming table."
(Though if it had to be based on the rules, I'd lean toward "What the weight of the rules seem to imply in a consistent manner according to my reading, regardless of individual wordings.")

In doing so, I have a four-step process that I use.

It's very complicated.

- Step 1: What do the rules say?

- Step 2: Determine if that wording conflicts with other RAW, RAI, RAtT, or RAU.

- Step 3: Determine what makes the game the most fun for the most people at the table.

- Step 4: Ignore the others, and go with Step 3.

Of course, that's a little disingenuous. I actually go with step 1 when possible, and examine step 2 in my final decisions. I don't ignore the rules unless it will strongly negatively effect the narrative in some manner. After all, the rules are the universal basis by which we share a singular game.

But there's a passage in the Core that is often ignored. Curious, as it's called "The Most Important Rule" by the rules.

The Most Important Rule wrote:

The Most Important Rule

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.

... thus, I use that one.

But, in truth, I never really check, "What would the PDT do" in my thought process. Why? Because I have no idea what the PDT would do. I don't know if they'd use the RAW, the RAI, house rules, Organized Play rules, or anything else. I mean, you know, they're a team of individuals - what any individual may do at a given time could be quite different from any other individual. What they'd do as a team could be quite different from what they'd do as individuals... and that could differ from RAW to RAI to all sorts of other things, besides.

I mean, I suppose I tend to guess that they'd likely go with a more RAI variant of RAW, but each of their "I" could differ from each of the others, so I try to look at the general trend rather than specifics - RAtT is usually a better predictor and creates a more consistent experience than either RAW or guessing at RAI. Similarly, doing what's best for the table in the specific instance is better than that.

So, uh, "neither" I guess.


All that said, I find it very important to know what the rules actually say (the RAW) so that I know when I'm diverging from it, and how to do that responsibly and for the best. By knowing the RAW, I can guess the RAI, and have a decent concept of the RAtT.
(The RAU is usually clarified via FAQ.)

So, you know, I usually try to be extremely clear on what the rules actually say, and from there argue about their tendencies, implications, and concepts.

"Rules say X. I like to go with Z. Y just sucks for everyone."

Liberty's Edge

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
This is a false dilemma. You use both, but hope the words are an apparent and clear expression of intent.

If you use both then that would inherently argue against the claim that Rules forum discussions should be limited ONLY to 'what the words say' with 'what would the PDT do' relegated to Advice or House rules.


Triune wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:

There have been quiet a few times people had disagreements in the rules forum because one was discussing what he thought the most literal interpretation of a rule was, and another person was discussing how they thought the PDT intended for a rule to be ran when they made it.

A few posters have also told me they thought most people came to the rules forum to find out the most literal interpretation of what the book said.

Myself and other people try to figure out intent. As an example there is a feat which says it removes all penalties when using Two-weapon fighting. Most agree that this means you don't suffer the TWF penalties, but a very literal interpretation would mean that you actually ignore all penalties on attack rules when weilding a shield with another weapon.

My reason for doing this is to have a record of the community's default position. So as an example if "what the words say" is an overwhelming majority people can specify that they want to know the opinion on intent, and vice versa.

I think it will help with a large number of debates by having a standard.

Please use the following posts to vote with. "Favorite" the one which matches your opinion.

This is what's known as a biased poll. Beginning a poll with "choose between these two positions. Here's my opinion and an example of why I think it's better. I will provide no such argument for the opposite side" immediately skews the results and makes your experiment tainted. Try again :)

Feel free to start a new poll.

edit: I think you get the point I was trying to make. If you can represent my point, without what you call "being biased" feel free to make a new thread.

Personally, I don't see the problem with stating my opinion, but I also don't believe in complaints without being willing to take action to solve it. The ball is in your court.

One of use can make a link to the new topic, once it is made.


skizzerz wrote:

Why not both?

Answering what is allowed by RAW is important, because that informs what options are valid for choosing RAI or some other sensible interpretation within the existing rules framework. It is possible RAI and RAW don't mesh at all, but in that case going with RAI involves a houserule until an FAQ or errata is issued, so arguing RAI in such cases is doing the original poster a disservice; instead one should argue the most sensible interpretation that is allowed by how the rules are actually written, possibly bringing up what they believe RAI to be but noting doing it that way is not supported by the rules.

I favorited "what do the words say" and not "what would the PDT do" because while I believe answering intent or interpreting the rules in a sensible manner is important, such intent or interpretation must come from an evaluation of RAW first and foremost. So no matter what, you're answering the question based on what the words actually say.

Both is not always an option.


thorin001 wrote:
pauljathome wrote:

Intent >>>> words.

Lots of people (especially on these forums) try to hold the words as written to an utterly absurd standard.

1) there literally is NO such single thing as "rules as written". Human written languages are not anywhere close to 100% unambiguous.

What is the BAB of a 1st level Fighter?

If you say 1 then you have just invalidated your point.
If you say anything else then you d not have a gaming system, you have magical story hour.

I interprit the rules to say that level 1 Fighters have a BAB of 1. I really don't see how this invalidates his point.

I could also argue that the text in itself does not carry a meaning, it's just the way we interpret it that does. Text and writing is just ink on paper. How is it supposed to carry any (universal) meaning? Isn't it just a channel between the idea/intent of the designers and players? But we're digging into deep, relative and optional religious stuff. There's not really any "definite answer" to those questions (and it would go against basic human rights to enforce my opinion in this matter).

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:

CBDunkerson/pauljathome: If you're confused, look at the rest of the rule or other related rules.

In other words, you admit that context matters greatly. That you have to INTERPRET the words based on other parts of the book at the very least. Which, in turn, means that you have to interpret THOSE words in the context that the book constitute rules for a game, that English and common sense sometimes prevails, etc etc etc.

I assure you that I am not at all confused. I just realize that writing is a very imperfect medium and will not support the weight that some people try to put on it


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pauljathome wrote:
graystone wrote:

CBDunkerson/pauljathome: If you're confused, look at the rest of the rule or other related rules.

In other words, you admit that context matters greatly. That you have to INTERPRET the words based on other parts of the book at the very least. Which, in turn, means that you have to interpret THOSE words in the context that the book constitute rules for a game, that English and common sense sometimes prevails, etc etc etc.

I assure you that I am not at all confused. I just realize that writing is a very imperfect medium and will not support the weight that some people try to put on it

Rules are written so that the intent is captured within what is written. If you don't use what is written as your first and primary source you are essentially saying that the author has failed as your default position.

I'd rather start from the assumption that the authors are investing the written word with their intent - that is what written communication is after all.


Words > intent

But context does matter along with internal consistency. Dev intent doesn't matter because a good dev can express intent with the rules and a bad dev is not worth listening too.(Dragon totem DR)

As for the twf feat. Context would lead you to believe the feat removes twf penalties not power attack penalties while twf.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

What the Words Say

Because the other option has given us crane wing, metaphorical hands, 1/day magic items with attunement periods, (previously) requiring 2 actual weapons to flurry of blows, feats and abilities letting you add spells known not working unless they're in-class, and many more.

This mirrors my thoughts as well.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What would the PDT do vs What do the words say? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.