|
Rysky, do you see this post of mine? Will you answer the question at the end of it please? That will really help the conversation be more productive than a cyclical Yes/No that's going on with you right now.Sure, and I'm going by option 1.
2 is people reading too much into the word "operate" in my opinion.
Okay perfect, now we have a base to work from.
So lets pretend for a moment that they wanted this to be different from the archetype stacking rule. How would they convey that archetypes that change the bonuses that rage gives like urban aren't able to work for Unchained, but a class that has the same bonuses but gains rage later like mad dog are able to work? What do you think they'd write to convey that idea? I'm curious to see what would need to be there to convey to you that it should be ran the way we think it should be.I'm not saying that our way is right or intended or anything with this. I'm again trying to find a common base. What would be needed to be said to have you read it and share our view that urban is No but mad dog is yes?
They wouldn't.
|
I'm not saying they would or will ever do this.
The question is, "IF they did, how would it need to be phrased to convey that intent to you?" Hence the wording of, "let's pretend"
This will help us see why, "how ... operates" doesn't mean that to you and why you feel we're putting to much emphasis on it. Again, to help it not be a cyclical yes/no but a productive discussion.
|
|
They would have to be quite explicit with a detailed example. They certainly would not try and make the distinction with one word in a conversational style.
You're welcome to go ahead and give an example of what would need to be there to convey this idea to you.
And remember, this was in the blog post, so they probably didn't want to write an entire paragraph on this. So your detailed and explicit example should also be succinct if possible.
And also, this needs to be "future proof" a rule that would work for future material, so no explicit list of yes these no those, but some guiding rule to know if an archetype is approved or not.
Those that think it works feel that adding one word was clear enough to convey that intent.
Wording elsewhere : That modifies rage.
Wording chosen : That modifies HOW rage OPERATES (such as urban).
To us, adding those two little words in a conversational style is clear that they meant to convey something different from the first idea. It's explicit that it's different and gives an example of a class altering how rage operates.
Obviously this isn't what everyone perceives. Hence the questions as to what would need to be there to convey such intent. This helps us see the foundation to the argument that it's not allowed, and also helps the DEVS know how to phrase such things to be clear if it was their intent.
|
|
Why is it so hard for you guys to answer the simple question?
How would the DEVs need to phrase this for you to read that text and think that mad dog is okay for unchained?
There is no reworking of rules, since the rule is whatever this line of text is. There's no president for unchained barbarians taking archetypes. So whatever is written is the rule.
There is no "gotcha" or trap or anything with this question other than trying to facilitate useful discussion. Otherwise we can have a cyclical Yes/No for 5 pages or until the thread gets locked for being cyclical.
We say we feel the current wording says yes.
You say the current wording means no.
We've explained why we feel it is yes.
You just say no, it's not like that.
You haven't given any reasoning why to help us understand, or given us what would be needed for you to say yes, thus showing that since it in no way comes close to that needed wording it is no. Or anything else that can help this discussion be productive.
And posters that post repeatedly post in a discussion without trying to have the discussion be productive are seen as trolls and thus the thread would spiral downwards as the try-ers try less because it seems they are dealing with trolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the Devs included a statement like this:
"The Unchained Barbarian is currently able to add all archetypes available as of 6/1/2016 except: blah blah blah.Any future archetypes will include whether or not they are able to be added to the Unchained version."
Basically, I do not see what would be so difficult to have a document within the PFS boards that lists all Classes and the Archetypes that can be used with them in PFS play. This should be very simple to determine and there should not be area for debate. However, as things are currently written it seems to be open for interpretation with many options based on close reading.
It would make it so much easier to have a page devoted to dealing with this in a clear and concise manner.
PFS Unchained Barbarian
Illegal Archetypes: X, X, and X. All other archetypes are legal to use with the Unchained version of the Barbarian.
|
|
Why is it so hard for you guys to answer the simple question?This is getting quite laughable.
How would the DEVs need to phrase this for you to read that text and think that mad dog is okay for unchained?
That is on YOU, not us.
We don't think the wording allows you to do what you want, so why would we go out of our way to come up with an interpretation that supports your agruement?
|
|
That creates extra work and you have to maintain it as new archetypes come along. While possible to have a list, I'm curious as to a line that handles all future and past archetypes with a rule we can apply to know.
Would this have worked to make it clear?
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify the bonuses and penalties of the rage class feature (such as the urban barbarian archetype)"
Would that have been clear that mad dog is okay and urban is not okay?
|
|
Why is it so hard for you guys to answer the simple question?This is getting quite laughable.How would the DEVs need to phrase this for you to read that text and think that mad dog is okay for unchained?That is on YOU, not us.
We don't think the wording allows you to do what you want, so why would we go out of our way to come up with an interpretation that supports your agruement?
1st) I'm not asking for an interpretation of the current text. I'm asking for new text that would make it clear to you that they meant what we think they meant.
but assuming that you understood that,
How am I supposed to READ YOUR MIND to know what text YOU WOULD INTERPRET to mean our view?
The reason is to see what you think it would have taken to get our view. If you feel that there is no possible way for them to simply phrase something that conveys our view then it helps us know why you think that it doesn't work and we can go down that route to be convinced ourselves. If you do come up with a phrase it helps us be able to see clearly why "how rage operates" isn't good enough. And thus we can discuss that. But as it stands you're not really giving us anything to work on to be converted to your view.
|
|
*blink*
*blink*
"I want text to justify what we see"
Then you do to, instead of asking other people to do it and getting mad when they don't.
I have stated my position as simply as possible. You are the ones interpreting the word "operate" to mean this very extended and extremely specific effect in regards to a specific archetype.
|
|
So far all you've stated is.
NO, it doesn't work like that. They wouldn't ever mean to write that intent. You're saying operate means to much.
Merely having stated your position isn't always helpful to have others be able to understand it. And just restating it doesn't do anything more to help us understand the WHY of your view.
And you're really not getting what I was asking for. I stated MULTIPLE times that this wasn't to justify our position and how it would be the base of converting us to your view. That you providing the text needed to convey what we think was okay was to help us understand you.
I'm glad that I happened to guess right on trying to read your mind that this text,
"The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify the bonuses and penalties of the rage class feature (such as the urban barbarian archetype)"
Was able to convey what we think is okay.
So you're saying that how rage operates is different than the bonuses and penalties of the rage. Can you expound upon this difference? Why do you think the barb level is included in how rage operates?
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Linda and I have looked at the issue, and it appears the mad dog archetype is something of an outlier, being the only barbarian archetype we could find that states it modifies rage without actually changing how the feature function (simply when it's accessed). At a glance, the list of incompatible but otherwise legal archetypes appears to include: Dreadnaught , Flesheater , Mooncursed , Primal Hunter , Savage Technologist , and Urban Barbarian .
We're looking strongly to declaring the unchained mad dog good to go with a few clarifications.
Any concerns or questions about how this might operate or whether such would introduce contradictory complications or troubling precedents before we lock this in?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We agree, staying awake longer than 24 hours has the best drug free hallucinations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
on the badger issue.
we already have a FAQ for having unchained rage and normal rage. That only one can operate at once and thus you can't stack rage.
So it seems like you wouldn't need to convert it's rage to unchained because it already can't stack. Leaving it with two pools. So mechanically it's not a problem to leave as is, though it might be confusing needing to work with both rages available on a character.
Separate issue.
Can you alter the blog to be more standard wording of, "doesn't work for archetypes that alter rage" and/or change the example from urban to "like archetypes" or "like determining if archetypes are allowed to be combined" or something? I mean sure we can always point people to an official post, but clearer language at the source is nice if possible.
And then if you change the blog post in campaign clarifications that mad dog is an exception and allowed on unchained?
Thus all archetypes that alter rage in any manner don't fit unless given an exception in campaign clarifications or on additional resources.
I feel this would be the best way to handle it from a user's perspective, though I know that the solution might not be easy or follow conventions on your end, so whatever way you do it is totally great.
My question will be this: Will there be an option for current Mad Dog Barbarians who did not select Unchained option because we did not think it would work to retroactively switch to the Unchained version?
I would prefer to have rolled as Unchained, but didn't only because I did not think it was a legal option. I was in the camp that though delaying rage was an adjustment to how it operates.
|
Wow. Thanks John. That's a well thought out response. I hadn't considered the issue of the badger, but given that much of the appeal of the Unchained Barbarian is the simpler rage rules, I would rather see them consistent between barbarian and animal companion.
I'll wait and see if this becomes final. I don't see any other issues with implementing this.
|
|
Linda and I have looked at the issue, and it appears the mad dog archetype is something of an outlier, being the only barbarian archetype we could find that states it modifies rage without actually changing how the feature function (simply when it's accessed). At a glance, the list of incompatible but otherwise legal archetypes appears to include: Dreadnaught , Flesheater , Mooncursed , Primal Hunter , Savage Technologist , and Urban Barbarian .
We're looking strongly to declaring the unchained mad dog good to go with a few clarifications.
Much as I clarified in a blog discussion after Pathfinder Unchained released, the unchained mad dog barbarian should use the unchained barbarian rage rules in all respects that reference rage. I particular, I'm considering how an unchained mad dog with a badger animal companion would operate; with this clarification, the badger would have several rounds of unchained rage at its disposal, not two distinct pools of different, stackable rage.
An unchained mad dog barbarian would qualify for the ferocious beast and greater ferocious beast rage powers printed alongside the archetype. These are largely a variation on the ferocious mount and greater ferocious mount rage powers already available to the unchained barbarian.
An unchained mad dog barbarian's list of recommended rage powers does not provide access to other rage powers otherwise inaccessible to unchained barbarians (e.g. bestial leaper and reckless abandon). They're suggestions, not binding rules text. Any concerns or questions about how this might operate or whether such would introduce contradictory complications or troubling precedents before we lock this in?
Thanks John!! I'm happy to be legal :-)
|
Pathfinder Society Lead Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks John!! I'm happy to be legal :-)Linda and I have looked at the issue, and it appears the mad dog archetype is something of an outlier, being the only barbarian archetype we could find that states it modifies rage without actually changing how the feature function (simply when it's accessed). At a glance, the list of incompatible but otherwise legal archetypes appears to include: Dreadnaught , Flesheater , Mooncursed , Primal Hunter , Savage Technologist , and Urban Barbarian .
We're looking strongly to declaring the unchained mad dog good to go with a few clarifications.
Much as I clarified in a blog discussion after Pathfinder Unchained released, the unchained mad dog barbarian should use the unchained barbarian rage rules in all respects that reference rage. I particular, I'm considering how an unchained mad dog with a badger animal companion would operate; with this clarification, the badger would have several rounds of unchained rage at its disposal, not two distinct pools of different, stackable rage.
An unchained mad dog barbarian would qualify for the ferocious beast and greater ferocious beast rage powers printed alongside the archetype. These are largely a variation on the ferocious mount and greater ferocious mount rage powers already available to the unchained barbarian.
An unchained mad dog barbarian's list of recommended rage powers does not provide access to other rage powers otherwise inaccessible to unchained barbarians (e.g. bestial leaper and reckless abandon). They're suggestions, not binding rules text. Any concerns or questions about how this might operate or whether such would introduce contradictory complications or troubling precedents before we lock this in?
Legal pending a modest period of public review, though that's looking positive so far.
|
I have a mad dog barbarian and never considered unchained thinking it illegal. Can't say it's mattered, he's only got 4 barbarian levels and I don't think has even raged once. I imagine I'd keep the Core Barbarian just so I don't have to fork over another $10 to HeroLab for the Unchained add-on (I already have the book but have converted all but my -01 to HL). My impression was Unchained was a bit less cumbersome math-wise to use.
|
|
The big advantage to Unchained barbarian is the temporary hit points, so when you are dropped unconscious or stop raging you just don't drop dead. The only drawback I found was you get +2 to damage instead of +3 a core barbarian would get fighting two handed. Also Core gets the +2 to fort saves when raging. There is probably a good thread that already has this that I should be reading...
