Noticed a couple gray areas in an old multi-weapon FAQ and regripping


Rules Questions

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't know when the ship of thesius needs a rechristening cerremony but i'm pretty sure its not every time they pump the bilges.

That may be, but then I might not sail on that ship even though I still like a nice voyage across the ocean.


Buri Reborn wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
not really getting your point here.

It is the difference between the game someone might understand by purely reading only the books as printed, no 3.5 experience, and so on versus someone active on the forums, reads the FAQs, stays up on errata, with previous system experience, and so on. One of the biggest hurdles for me "getting" the game was that I never was into 3.5. Some of my earliest questions here were answered with "duh, noob" type responses or "it's always been like this" and was rather unfriendly even though this community likes to pride itself on its approachability.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its not really a new rule, it ... derives would be the wrong word, as it implies a mathematical certainty about the info you start with and the results you can, but it can certainly be interpreted from

the 2 weapon fighting rules, which specify a one handed weapon and an off hand, not any weapon and your off hand.

game balance, as am extra attack for 15? gold pieces of armor spikes is kinda nuts.

an absence of rules support , as there's technically no "attack with a two handed weapon and an offhanded option"

This is what I'm talking about. It's apparently a rule that's supposedly "always been known." I hate these kinds of rules. They require a certain kind of meta knowledge that's seemingly an open secret.

It was not "always been known", that's the reason the whole unwritten rule was son annoying.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


No. That is the exact opposite of what you're talking about. Those are the rules, they are written in the book ,. you don't need a forum to reach those conclusions.

THis is misleading at best.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:


THis is misleading at best.

It is not in any way shape or form misleading. You do NOT need a forum to reach those conclusions because the vast majority of people did reach those conclusions without a forum. The rule is there. You don't need a forum to reach it you need a change in perspective.

The rules are meant to be interpreted with an honest, neutral effort to derive meaning. If you want to try to force a reading on them in pursuit of mechanical advantage, you're going to get that reading.

Say it's unclear.
Say it's ambiguous
Say you didn't have a good response to an argument as to why someone thought it worked another way.

But when you complain that your "clever" interpretation was getting you more attacks or more damage than you should have was stopped by people making up rules? That's horsefeathers.


ShieldLawrence wrote:
Gisher wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:

1) Yes, each iterative attack is it's own thing and doesn't care what's before or after it.

2) If using TWF, currently I think the rules are that once you start attacking you're locked in to either not doing TWF or doing TWF and you are locked in on what weapon is your off hand.

So no, no 2wf and then using a THW.

Can you provide a link to a FAQ that explicitly says you are "locked in" to anything? I don't remember seeing that or similar phrasing anywhere.

I believe that is a reference to the FAQ linked to in the opening post. It says, in part:

FAQ wrote:

...

In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
"my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack" doesn't disqualify the iterative attack being two-handed.

I was just providing the reference that Atarlost requested. I did not make any claims based on that reference.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nicos wrote:


THis is misleading at best.

It is not in any way shape or form misleading. You do NOT need a forum to reach those conclusions because the vast majority of people did reach those conclusions without a forum. The rule is there. You don't need a forum to reach it you need a change in perspective.

The rules are meant to be interpreted with an honest, neutral effort to derive meaning. If you want to try to force a reading on them in pursuit of mechanical advantage, you're going to get that reading.

Say it's unclear.
Say it's ambiguous
Say you didn't have a good response to an argument as to why someone thought it worked another way.

But when you complain that your "clever" interpretation was getting you more attacks or more damage than you should have was stopped by people making up rules? That's horsefeathers.

Then You say it was unclear, or it was ambiguous but the whole "the vast majority of people read something agreed with me since the beginning" is quite dubious.

On the other hand, Implying a rule was interpreted in one way because the reader just wanted to deal more damage is a statement that only deserve a *rolling eyes*.

THe whole metaphorical hands was not in the book, otherwise the DEV would have not call it an unwritten rule.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:

maintained on the prd a history of changes so they could be seen

I do hate the idea that the books I've purchased years ago aren't the same I can go with today.

dissonance between your perception of the game and theirs which can easily lead to misunderstandings.

Strangely, you described a bunch of things as negatives that I consider positives.

We don't have change history at the ready access, so we don't bring up confusions over what version is in use.

I hate the idea that books don't get updated to correct for invalid interpretations. It was the fundamental issue I had with 3.5 and why if anyone says "let's play 3.5" I'll say "over my dead body".

I have a lot of experience in playing and GMing Pathfinder, and I can count on hands the number of tables I've seen have issue with the rules and a difference of opinion on how the rules work. I'm pretty confident all those times are when someone at the table is breaking a social contract, by not agreeing on how a rules works. It's always bad when it happens, for the GM and the other players at the table. So I'd recommend doing what I do. Accept the ruling unless you have a FAQ or developer post to back you up.


James Risner wrote:
We don't have change history at the ready access, so we don't bring up confusions over what version is in use.

But, we do. I bring an older book to make a character. You have an iPad and use the PRD. Which version are we using?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Buri Reborn wrote:
James Risner wrote:
We don't have change history at the ready access, so we don't bring up confusions over what version is in use.
But, we do. I bring an older book to make a character. You have an iPad and use the PRD. Which version are we using?

If you are playing Pathfinder, the PRD is most likely the correct version.

You don't take a class in college using a year old book either.


James Risner wrote:

If you are playing Pathfinder, the PRD is most likely the correct version.

You don't take a class in college using a year old book either.

I disagree. I can guarantee you in this scenario, I would be using my own book. To do otherwise is to, for all intents and purposes, call the books worthless outside of keeping Paizo's lights on.


Use your book and the free Errata update docs. Done.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Buri Reborn wrote:
books worthless outside of keeping Paizo's lights on.

99.9999% of all things in a book are identical to PRD, so for all cases except some narrow cases the resulting characters are identical.

It's one of the main reasons when they modify items, they don't change the price. They change the features. It is for this exact reason.


Chess Pwn wrote:
Use your book and the free Errata update docs. Done.

And parse out all the "add this word to the end of this sentence" stuff? No, thank you.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

So @Buri, all the reasonable solutions seem to be not acceptable to you. So what's the point? Short of no Errata, what is your preferred solution? What they mail out new copies of the book to all registered purchasers each reprint cycle?


James Risner wrote:
So @Buri, all the reasonable solutions seem to be not acceptable to you. So what's the point? Short of no Errata, what is your preferred solution? What they mail out new copies of the book to all registered purchasers each reprint cycle?

I've already laid out my preferred solution. It might not have been in this thread, though. Feels like there's a couple related threads I've participated in. My solution, in short, is for the PRD to also reflect the history of changes from one version to the next.

Also, just a tip on debate, using the "reasonable" standard trying to make your opponent seem unreasonable is really quite shallow and almost always has no standing.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Buri Reborn wrote:

PRD to also reflect the history of changes from one version to the next.

use of "reasonable"

I don't think a history of changes are a good thing, so for me it is entirely unreasonable to ask or have changes on the PRD. The errata documents for the PDF are the way that information should be conveyed.

As for word "reasonable", it's from this thread. You didn't seem to think any of the methods this has been handled were reasonable. I'm sure there are many reasonable ways it could be handled, but I don't know any other than how it is now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
I don't know when the ship of thesius needs a rechristening cerremony but i'm pretty sure its not every time they pump the bilges.

This was poetic.

That is all. Carry on with the discourse.

51 to 67 of 67 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Noticed a couple gray areas in an old multi-weapon FAQ and regripping All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.