Chess Pwn rocks!
Agreed. That was a really well written explanation, Chess Pwn!
On the subject of the thread, hopefully the promised Gauntlet FAQ will clarify this issue as well. Mark Seifter has said it might address deeper issues than the original question.
Agreed. That was a really well written explanation, Chess Pwn!
I'll take your word on that, as I don't play PFS of keep up with it's house-rules.
On the subject of the thread, hopefully the promised Gauntlet FAQ will clarify this issue as well. Mark Seifter has said it might address deeper issues than the original question.
It'd be awesome to see an FAQ but "deeper issues" worries me a bit. If it clarifies the whole unarmed combat with 'weapons' issue I'm all for it. Hopefully they don't sneak in a nerf I can't think of now. Unarmed combat isn't exactly a top tier so hopefully the FAQ doesn't lower it's usefulness.
I hope they either remove unarmed affects and make them straight weapons or make them equipment with modifiers to unarmed attacks and remove them as independent weapons. As/is, they are a weird hybrid of unarmed attack and weapon with no clear way of telling when it's one or the other.
|
I also dont understand his confusion with how a gauntlet and an amulet of MF would interact. there's a general rule that states "similar bonuses granted from different sources do not stack unless explictly stated". so it's the same instance as using a ring of protection with
the mage armor spell. basically pick the "highest" and use that. however it would get confusing if you have a flaming gauntlet with a shocking amulet.
Mage armor give a Armor bonus, a ring of protection a Deflection bonus. They stack.
Mage armor don't stack but overlaps with armors.The ring of protection don't stack but overlaps with anything that give a deflection bonus.
Agreed. That was a really well written explanation, Chess Pwn!I'll take your word on that, as I don't play PFS of keep up with it's house-rules.
I don't play PFS either, so when Chess Pwn explains the rules so clearly that even I understand them, I'm impressed.
Why thank you. :D
So yeah. Not seeing where it says GMs are forced to follow the rules as you see them.
Nowhere in the above quoted document does it say that a PFS GM has the right to rule against anything explicitly allowed by the RAW simply because a developer has stated in an unofficial capacity (I.E. Not in a PDT FAQ, Errata, or Clarification Document) that the rule in question wasn't, in their opinion, supposed to mean what it actually says.
A PFS GM cannot (within the bounds of their code of conduct) declare that a Medium Longsword does anything other than 1d8 points of base damage, nor can they declare that an attack made with a Gauntlet is not an unarmed strike which can deal lethal damage (as it has been explicitly declared by its description to be).
You know that whole argument and line of thing would be better served as a PFS thread.
It likely would (or maybe not considering the resistance my arguments generally garner), but if a discussion of the rules for Gauntlets to crop up in the PFS-specific forum it would just end up being moved here to Rules Questions anyway.
Not the gauntlets but the rabid insistence that you believe PFS is meant to be run like a computer runs a program or like a math equation. When in fact it's closer to cooking than either.
Cooking generally works much better when you follow the directions, and some dishes simply cannot be made properly unless you follow the directions as precisely as possible. Others, not so much; I am not inclined to believe that Pathfinder is the "Microwave Mac-and-Cheese" of Table Top Roleplaying Games that your statement suggests.
Regardless, my points about PFS were relevant because the reason the above quoted document was written was to produce as consistent an experience as this poorly written ruleset is capable of producing. Consistency requires that everybody be following the same rules, just like consistency in cooking requires everybody follow the same recipe.
|
Cooking generally works much better when you follow the directions, and some dishes simply cannot be made properly unless you follow the directions as precisely as possible. Others, not so much; I am not inclined to believe that Pathfinder is the "Microwave Mac-and-Cheese" of Table Top Roleplaying Games that your statement suggests.
All tabletop RPGs are that way.
FATE or Munchkin are probably closer to "Microwave Mac-and-Cheese" (in my not so humble opinion...); HERO System is like making a Lasagna from scratch (or whatever the hardest dish you can think of is). Pathfinder falls somewhere in the middle for me. Most of that difficulty comes from the core ruleset being written conversationally (like a recipe you pulled off the internet which was written by a bored house wife) and character creation involving thousands and thousands of pages of written material... but I digress.
Cooking generally works much better when you follow the directions, and some dishes simply cannot be made properly unless you follow the directions as precisely as possible. Others, not so much; I am not inclined to believe that Pathfinder is the "Microwave Mac-and-Cheese" of Table Top Roleplaying Games that your statement suggests.
Regardless, my points about PFS were relevant because the reason the above quoted document was written was to produce as consistent an experience as this poorly written ruleset is capable of producing. Consistency requires that everybody be following the same rules, just like consistency in cooking requires everybody follow the same recipe.
The point was that nothing is set in stone see your opinion of PFS is microwave mac & Cheese try deviating from that recipe and you will screw up. Take real Mac and cheese and you will find you can deviate from the recipe and in fact for the best you can get will probably have to.
But the easiest way to handle this is put up or shut up. Make a thread on the PFS general discussion and make your case for rules as you believe it should be and it should be fairly simple to get an answer.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
A PFS GM cannot (within the bounds of their code of conduct) declare that an attack made with a Gauntlet is not an unarmed strike which can deal lethal damage (as it has been explicitly declared by its description to be).
Sit at my table, and I'll declare it not Unarmed Strike. You can make lethal with Unarmed Strikes and you can attack with a Gauntlet for 1d3. I'll also give you all the info you need to report me. I'm unconcerned.
What you fail to understand is what you think is RAW doesn't make it RAW until there is official FAQ/Errata making you right. Until then, you are wrong if your GM thinks you are wrong. Period. End of discussion.
A PFS GM cannot (within the bounds of their code of conduct) declare that an attack made with a Gauntlet is not an unarmed strike which can deal lethal damage (as it has been explicitly declared by its description to be).Sit at my table, and I'll declare it not Unarmed Strike. I'll also give you all the info you need to report me. I'm unconcerned.
What you fail to understand is what you think is RAW doesn't make it RAW until there is official FAQ/Errata making you right. Until then, you are wrong if your GM thinks you are wrong. Period. End of discussion.
I already said above that if I sat at your table I would indeed play by your ruling without complaint (to you). I would probably also report you afterwards for your breech of PFS' Code of Conduct. But frankly, I would never knowingly sit at a table you were GMing, because you can I just don't get along. So I doubt it will ever be a problem for either of us.
What I think is RAW is whatever is literally written in the rulebooks (and by unfortunate extension of the way Pathfinder is published, FAQs, Errata, and Official Clarification documents). Those sources are the only things which I cite as being the "Rules as Written" in a Rules Discussion such as this. Anything else, anything at all, I consider a House Rule. But I don't actually have a problem with playing House Rules so long as I know what they are. I certainly write enough of my own for my casual campaigns. My problem is with GMs who claim their House Rules are RAW, and would adjudicate according to them in situations where house-rules have been prohibited (such as PFS).
You don't experiment when cooking? I'm guessing you don't cook that much.
Oh no, I am a terrible cook. Unlike with Table-Top RPGs, I don't have the interest to learn the recipes or the patience to follow the directions. So I stick with simple things that aren't ruined by my lack of expertise. Much like some people choose to stick to simple games which cannot be ruined by their lack of expertise.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
What I think is RAW is whatever is literally written in the rulebooks (and by unfortunate extension of the way Pathfinder is published, FAQs
Which is only in your mind. What you think of RAW isn't RAW, isn't what dev team is required to think of RAW, isn't what your GM is required to think of RAW, isn't what your fellow players are required to think of RAW.
In short, it doesn't matter what you think the rules say. It matters what the GM and the players think. If you don't share their views, you can't insist they are wrong. Primarily because it's likely at that point that you are wrong.
In short, what you think is RAW is counterproductive to this forum and the goal of discussing rules if you insist only you know how to read what is written.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, the official way rules are handled in PFS is the GM interprets the rules but can't go against anything official by FAQ/Errata/Campaign Clarifications/Additional Resources/Guide to Pathfinder Society.
No GM is violating the rules by interpreting something not clarified.
Which is only in your mind.
Actually the "Rules as Written" are literally written right there on scraps of paper we call "books" (and available digitally), I am certain of this because I check my sources before I post any of my opinions to a rules forums. The meaning of each written word contained in said books can be found in any English dictionary, or when new words are defined, in the text itself if it is well written, which are also available on paper (and available digitally). This is sort of how reading works, but I'm explaining it because you do not seem to understand the concept.
Now, certainly I cannot force anyone else to think in the same language as I do... but if I'm thinking in English, and someone else is thinking in whatever sad excuse for pseudo-English they were taught (or vice versa), that does make it completely impossible for us to ever reach a consensus. However, that doesn't deprive me of my right to insist they are wrong (and vice versa). As clearly evidenced by the fact that you continue to insist that I am wrong without any credible evidence to support your case.
I similarly believe that what you consider to be RAW is counterproductive to this forum and the goal of discussing rules if you continue to insist that numerous sentences do not mean what they actually say (and what any English dictionary would support that those words mean). I'm certainly not going to abide what I consider to be the spread of misinformation in a forum already rife with misunderstanding. So to paraphrase my comment in another thread; we are destined to do this forever.
In short, the official way rules are handled in PFS is the GM interprets the rules but can't go against anything official by FAQ/Errata/Campaign Clarifications/Additional Resources/Guide to Pathfinder Society.
No GM is violating the rules by interpreting something not clarified.
You forgot to include the rather important qualifier of "published Pathfinder RPG source" (Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Game Guild Guide 12) in your litany of sources a PFS GM cannot go against. Which is the clause that prevents said PFS GMs from declaring that because they think Longswords should do 10d6 base damage, it is so.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Actually the "Rules as Written" are literally written ... This is sort of how reading works ... I'm certainly not going to abide what I consider to be the spread of misinformation in a forum already rife with misunderstanding
That isn't how English works. That isn't how the developers, writers, and publishers believe it works.
Your stance of "not abiding" is why threads get locked. It's why people continue to disagree with you. It has a chilling effect on discussion. It makes the forums a hostile and toxic environments.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You forgot to include the rather important qualifier of "published Pathfinder RPG source" (Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Game Guild Guide 12)
PFS GMs from declaring that because they think Longswords should do 10d6 base damage, it is so.
I didn't, they renamed the Pathfinder Society Guide to that file.
You are conflating a rule that isn't in debate (longsword damage as 1d8) and gauntlet attacks status (which is likely to be clarified in future FAQ by has not yet been).
It doesn't help your argument by trying to suggest there is confusion about longsword attacks.
I suggested nothing of the sort regarding longswords. I was simply using an example you cited as supporting evidence for my point.
Regarding Gauntlets, the rules are actually quite clear if you just read the actual rulebook and don't try to twist the meaning of its descriptions to support your own opinions. Case-in-point, I've been polling everyone I know IRL who plays Pathfinder and I've yet to find anyone who agrees with your oddly restrictive opinion of Gauntlets (5:0 in my favor so far IRL). On of said players is even playing in a completely unrelated campaign where the GM has allowed them to purchase an Enchanted Gauntlet and apply their Brawler Damage to attacks made with it (so 6:0).
Hmm... it would be nice if the Paizo message boards had an interface for taking polls like the other message board I participate in does. The ability to make simple "Does X Work" Polls might be handy for ascertaining trends of opinions within the community.
Nothing in the gauntlet description says that if you are a monk, you use your monk unarmed strike damage. You are inferring this to be true.
That would normally be a good assumption, but the developer of pathfinder (Jason Bulmahn) has the opinion that brass knuckles which had similar wording do not allow a monk to use his unarmed strike damage. These changes to brass knuckles, and while intended for gauntlets, did not make it into the description for gauntlets.
My question is if you know that the developer of the game you are playing feels that a rule is one way, but you want to interpret it the other way - why are you playing this game?
I'm not inferring. To infer implies that the rule isn't explicitly stated. The CRB currently states that when using a Gauntlet you can "deal lethal damage with unarmed strikes". therefore it is quite reasonable to believe you are making an unarmed strike with a gauntlet until the RAW tells you otherwise (which it does not). The developer's opinions on the subject are simply irrelevant to me. The Core Rulebook has been reprinted five times, they've had plenty of opportunities to errata this is they were going to. However until the rules actually change to support the developer's opinion, it is just that, an opinion. As we all know, opinions are only worth the paper they're written on (or not in this case).
As for why I still play Pathfinder (despite its many, many flaws and generally toxic community base). To be frank?
Because I already own the books (making me a victim of the sunken cost fallacy I suppose), and making a house-rule to override RAW I don't agree with in my own games is actually quite painless and supported by the RAW!
Also because I cannot readily find online groups for the obscure (but much, much better) system I prefer, and I'm tired of always being stuck being the GM (a gamer has needs you know)
Here made a thread for your poll just needs the positions posted.
So if you or James wants to list your positions there or send them to me via PM and I'll update them we can see what people think.
So yeah. Not seeing where it says GMs are forced to follow the rules as you see them.Nowhere in the above quoted document does it say that a PFS GM has the right to rule against anything explicitly allowed by the RAW simply because a developer has stated in an unofficial capacity (I.E. Not in a PDT FAQ, Errata, or Clarification Document) that the rule in question wasn't, in their opinion, supposed to mean what it actually says.
A PFS GM cannot (within the bounds of their code of conduct) declare that a Medium Longsword does anything other than 1d8 points of base damage, nor can they declare that an attack made with a Gauntlet is not an unarmed strike which can deal lethal damage (as it has been explicitly declared by its description to be).
Dude, you misquote the rules repeatedly. Gauntlets are unarmed attacks if you attack via gauntlet. But it has the side ability of allowing you to make Unarmed strikes that deal lethal damage. Similar to how some equipment lets your unarmed strikes do piercing, or how some give +1 shield bonus to AC. NOTHING in the rules is saying that a gauntlet attack IS an unarmed strike.
EDIT:
man, for someone who's so insistent on RAW and not reading your own view into RAW I don't see how you can say that a gauntlet, mentioning it makes your US lethal, somehow turns the gaunlet into an US.
"A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
Unarmed attack, not Unarmed strike. they are different.
(Exotic – Eastern)
Light Melee Weapons
Emei piercer 3 gp 1d2 1d3 19–20/×2 — — P monk, see text PRG:UC
"The ring prevents the wielder from being disarmed and turns unarmed strikes into piercing attacks."
This does similar to gauntlets. This exotic weapon is a weapon, and causes your unarmed strikes to be piercing. It does not make this exotic weapon mysteriously an unarmed strike.
EDIT:
Scizore
The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC
Does this suddenly make this a shield? No it's still a weapon that has an extra special part.
To be misquoting there would have to actually be typos and errors in my quoted material, which is unlikely since I usually cut & paste my quotes directly from whatever source I cited immediately afterwards. If I didn't cite a reference, I was probably paraphrasing (as in post #78 above). Although I do make mistakes occasionally (usually when I have to type out a quote from a source outside of the PRD), nobody is perfect right?
Instead, the appropriate accusation to make would be that I have misunderstood the rules repeatedly, which is the very accusation I level back at you.
I find it interesting that you've chosen to truncate the description of a Gauntlet to exclude the part which doesn't support your opinion. Here is the full text:
"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplates) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets." (CRB 146; UE 28).
*Note: The CRB entry technically says "(except breastplate)" instead of "(except breastplates)" but I didn't want to requite the whole text what is essentially an irrelevant difference.
The bolded section explicitly states that an attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike. If the intent were for that sentence to mean anything other than what I have interpreted it to mean, the wording would be very different; I can come up with several examples of wording that would have explicitly stated what you think Gauntlets do, but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The sentence that follows the first explicitly states that the attack remains an Unarmed Attack because otherwise the gauntlet (being a weapon) would allow you to make "Armed" "Unarmed Strikes" and therefore not provoke attacks of opportunity without the need for the wielder to have Improved Unarmed Strike. Which I can imagine was never the intent of the item's description... Not even back in the 3.5th edition Players Handbook when Gauntlets were listed right above Unarmed Strike on the Unarmed Attack section of the Weapon Table and read as follows: "This metal glove protects your hands and lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets." (3.5 PHB 117)
Hmm, that is an unusually similar description, isn't it? Its almost as if the description hasn't changed significantly in two editions and over nine different printings (1 Players Handbook, 6 Core Rulebooks, and 2 Ultimate Equipments for those counting). That being the case, I imagine we should be asking Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, or Skip Williams for their opinions and not Jason Bulmahn, since one of them is more likely to have actually penned the description in question. Not that I actually believe any of their opinions are relevant of course.
Scizore
The scizore grants a +1 shield bonus to AC
Does this suddenly make this a shield? No it's still a weapon that has an extra special part.
No, the Scizore is not a shield. It lacks the explicit statement that weapons such as the Klar possess making it a shield: "A traditional klar counts as a light wooden shield..." (UE 31). Of course it goes on to erroneously mention armor spikes and such, but that has already been fixed in url=http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gg#v5748eaic9ut0]-{This Errata}-[/url]. But I digress, the Scizore simply grants a shield bonus (not unlike the Shield spell in some regards), it is not a shield.
|
The bolded section explicitly states that an attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike.Not in the slightest.
To expound on this, it's the sentence after the one you bolded that explicitly stats an attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed attack, but not an unarmed strike.
"This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack."
The gauntlet does two separate things:
1- It allows you to make an unarmed strike do lethal damage instead of nonlethal without a -4 to hit.
2- It is a 1d3 weapon that is considered an unarmed attack.
Wait, if it isn't an unarmed strike.
Then there is no way to not provoke with a guantlet, since IUS only affects Unarmed Strikes not Unarmed Attacks.
How do you keep thinking that "this lets some other attack that isn't a gauntlet do something else that it normally doesn't do, attacks with the gauntlets are unarmed attacks."
is somehow saying, "attacking with this is an unarmed strike, attacks with this are unarmed attacks."
Wait, if it isn't an unarmed strike.
Then there is no way to not provoke with a guantlet, since IUS only affects Unarmed Strikes not Unarmed Attacks.
I still believe that once we get an FAQ you probably won't provoke with them anymore.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Looks like a typo. The entire rules on Unarmed Strike ability mentions unarmed strike except that one section about small monks. Honestly this is the first time I remember this being pointed out in hundreds of threads.
The current core:
Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.
Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table 3–10. The unarmed damage values listed on Table 3–10 is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.
Well, assuming that they do mean "attack" there and not "strike" is there any circumstance in which a small-sized monk could make an unarmed attack and not deal less damage? I guess if they're using a weapon that counts as an unarmed strike that is not properly sized for them.
But honestly, I'd be content to just put the kibosh full stop on people trying to use oversized gauntlets, because that's silly.