For this FAQ, I understand it but am bothered by the why. Your hands seem anything from "incidental", as not using both is a -4 [the equivalent of non-proficiency].No one is saying that hands are incidental.
But having hands is not the same as making a natural attack.
AoMF help you hit. Empty hands help you hold. I don't understand why that concept is hard, or provokes dissonance.
Ok it's like this:
If I use a Dan bong to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a garrote to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Sibat to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Kumade to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Harpoon to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Grappling hook to grapple, I make an attack with it.
If I use a Mancatcher to grapple, I make an attack with it.If I use my hands[unarmed] to grapple, I don't attack with it/them?
And if you say hands doesn't equal unarmed attacks, we've determined that individual parts of the body are specific unarmed weapons: Unchained monk teaches us that hands, feet and heads are their own type of unarmed strike.
SO it goes like this:
Combat maneuvers tell us to make attack rolls: Common reading says you make attack rolls to make an attack.
You need 2 hands to avoid a -4 to grapple. Common reading says that you've actually using those hands to attack.As to "Empty hands help you hold", that makes little to no sense if you haven't managed to put your hands on the target so you can hold them [ie, attack them]. EVERY other time you're required to touch/grab something in the game you make an attack [they even made an 'armed' unarmed attack for this kind of thing]. An AoMF adds it's bonuses to touch spells as they are ""Armed" Unarmed Attacks", an "unarmed attack" that "counts as an armed attack" and AoMF buffs "unarmed attacks" [not unarmed strikes]: but they somehow don't work on grapples...
Again, I understand the ruling: That's different that...
I still, surely, do not get either your point or the disconnect.
You have a mancatcher. You make an attack with it.
You then execute a grapple combat maneuver.
AoMF helps with neither.
As for "every other time you touch a target you're making an attack.."
Thats clearly not true, either. Sleight of hand is not an attack and yet you can use it to take (or give) an item.
Clarity: Not an attack in the sense that no attack die is rolled.
I take no position on whether it is an attack for the purposes for breaking invisibility.
The problem is that attack is overladen with definitions, and used non-rigorously in the rule definitions.
Attack as incolloquial english: you attacked my honor.
Attack as in roll d20. You may make an attack action...
Attack as in invisibility -offensive action against a target with its own set of rules.
Not to mentions terms such as spell attack; attack of opportunity; etc.
There's a difference between "I make a attack with it" and a specific kind of attack.
Choosing to use your hands to do something that isn't an an unarmed attack using unarmed damage means it would not benefit from the amulet.
Or one would be right to say that a ladder is being attacked when you climb it, graystone.
I throw a grappling hook at a person to grapple them I attack them. When I grab someone with my hands, I somehow don't make an attack but a maneuver. Now when I look at maneuvers, it tells me to make an attack roll...
Remember, I'm arguing that this ruling isn't the 'common sense', 'conversational style' read of the rules. If I make a touch attack, I'm making an unarmed attack but somehow grabbing, way more that touching, isn't an attack or unarmed.
As to the ladder, we're taking about an offensive action taken against something: not something applicable to a ladder. Now I toss a grappling hook to hook a wall and I roll an attack.
I still, surely, do not get either your point or the disconnect.
You have a mancatcher. You make an attack with it.
You then execute a grapple combat maneuver.AoMF helps with neither.
As for "every other time you touch a target you're making an attack.."
Thats clearly not true, either. Sleight of hand is not an attack and yet you can use it to take (or give) an item.
On the mancatcher, I use the weapon to get the bonus. For an unarmed grapple, I use my hands to get a +4 to hit.
As to "every other time you touch a target you're making an attack..", you may add "in combat". For combat, it's Steal [an act that requires an attack roll].
I do think it is an attack.
Then this is where 'conversational reading' fails. It's an attack that you make unarmed but it isn't an unarmed attack...
But a natural attack and unarmed strike are attacks with clear damage rolls.
"natural attack and unarmed strike" aren't the entirety of unarmed attacks though. Touch attacks are counted as 'armed' unarmed attacks and not every touch spell does damage.
They aren't grapples.
Just attacks you make unarmed.
You're not striking the target you are holding them.
So hitting with a net, lasso or Tanglefoot bag isn't an attack? Holding a target can be the result of a weapon attack without damage so where is the line for unarmed to be different?
An unarmed strike is an option to do unarmed. But not the only option.
Oh, that's been my point the whole time. Unarmed attacks covers "Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons" in addition to 'normal' attacks without a weapon.
Climbing a ladder was another such option as an example.
For an attack? We already agreed at the start of the post that we were talking about an attack.
EDIT: another instance of an attack for no damage: Apparent Treachery spell: Apparent Treachery = "To cast a spell against an affected target must succeed at an attack roll to touch the target, even if the spell is harmless"
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
All combat maneuvers are attacks.
Only disarm, sunder, and trip are normally made with weapons.
No other combat maneuver can be used with a weapon (baring special rules you have.)
Only combat maneuvers made with unarmed strike or gauntlet are unarmed attacks.
Grapple doesn’t use a weapon so is never unarmed.
All combat maneuvers are attacks.
This was in relation to it being an attack that you do unarmed and it not being an unarmed attack: not what I call "conversational reading".
Only disarm, sunder, and trip are normally made with weapons.
I know that's what's said in the Blog Post, but it doesn't really follow. There are a fair amount of grappling weapons, for instance, and it's hard to call your "attack unarmed" as an "incidental" Weapon IMO.
No other combat maneuver can be used with a weapon (baring special rules you have.)
Yep. Needing 2 hands or take a -4 would seem to make the "weapon" in this case not "incidental": "Happening as a minor accompaniment to something else" seems at odds with -4.
Only combat maneuvers made with unarmed strike or gauntlet are unarmed attacks.
Natural weapons are defined as unarmed attacks as are touch spells.
Grapple doesn’t use a weapon so is never unarmed.
Many grapples do use a weapon though. Even "touching" is an unarmed attack. Again, a touch works but a grab is somehow different... Doesn't pass the "conversational reading" test IMO.
Again, I understand the rule. I disagree it follows the "conversational reading" way some posters always insist on telling people is THE one way to interpret the rules. From my perspective, people that don't know of the FAQ or blog are likely to think the amulet adds a bonus to grapple. It's even LESS likely if they've seen WWF type wrestling, as it's unlikely never think that 'grappling isn't an unarmed attack'.
Basically, I'm saying 'if I keep seeing people say 'read it conversationally'', I'd like the rulings to actually follow that or have people stop saying it. :P
I throw a grappling hook at a person to grapple them I attack them. When I grab someone with my hands, I somehow don't make an attack but a maneuver. Now when I look at maneuvers, it tells me to make an attack roll...
Remember, I'm arguing that this ruling isn't the 'common sense', 'conversational style' read of the rules. If I make a touch attack, I'm making an unarmed attack but somehow grabbing, way more that touching, isn't an attack or unarmed.
I think the rule discussion is over, you are repeating yourself without adding more to the discussion and without repudiating or disputing my point.
A to hit roll is used to hit - whether it is a melee touch attack, a regular attack or whatever. What happens AFTER the hit is an entirely different proposition.
Paizo ruled that once you hit, you may attempt to grapple.
Two separate things. Hit. Grapple.
AOMF helps with hitting. Not with Grappling.
Hands empty helps with Grappling. Doesn't help with hitting.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for Sleight of hands - suggest you go read the description again.
You can certainly use sleight of hands in combat. No to hit roll necessary.
Same way a coup-de-grace is an attack that doesn't require a to hit roll.
More or less, a hit roll is used as a way to gauge your chance of success against someone that is aware of your presence and trying to oppose your actions. Thats all.
The grapple check is used to determine your success in grappling. AOMF gives a bonus to hit, not to grapple.
I think the rule discussion is over
Ah... This is what I said in my first post. It's been YOU that's been on this like a bone: you've been disagreeing about why I dislike the ruling. If you think this is a rule debate, I suggest you wander to another thread: this debate isn't a rule debate: the question was answered.
As for Sleight of hands - suggest you go read the description again.
You can certainly use sleight of hands in combat.
No one visible can sleight of hand in combat. That and you don't actually touch the person, just remove something from them: "grab the item".
Same way a coup-de-grace is an attack that doesn't require a to hit roll.
Not correct per se: You hit on an assumed max roll. You treat it as rolled to hit. For instance, you add everything that a successful roll to hit does.
More or less, a hit roll is used as a way to gauge your chance of success against someone that is aware of your presence and trying to oppose your actions. Thats all.
So you don't need an attack roll to hit when you're invisible? Looking at the assassin, their death attack requires them to be undetected or not recognized as an enemy: it still requires an attack roll.
The grapple check is used to determine your success in grappling. AOMF gives a bonus to hit, not to grapple.
Ah... grapple makes an attack roll: attack rolls are to hits... Targeting CMD instead of AC is the only real difference.
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus."
"If your attack roll equals or exceeds the CMD of the target, your maneuver is a success and has the listed effect."
It's pure semantics to fine a substantial difference between the to hits of maneuvers and weapon attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the Steal combat maneuver is for, =)
None of which changes the fact: grayson made the representation that every xxx was an attack with an attack roll.
He further made the representation you had to use a steal combat action to remove an item. These statements are just wrong.
I provided two examples
coup de grace - no attack roll.
Sleight of Hand - no attack roll. SOH can be used to remove an item in some circumstances in combat.
So no, not every offensive action taken requires an attack roll. Which seems pretty obvious: spells.
As for "so you don't need an attack roll..."
Needing an attack roll to attack someone who is aware of you does not mean you don't need an attack roll to attack someone who isn't aware of you.
And since this isn't a real argument - I'm out.
Perfect Tommy: For coup de grace and Sleight of Hand, I really can't see them as actually proving what you think they do. Both abilities aren't really use in combat VS it's target. For one the target is helpless and not an active combatant and the other requires the target not know you're there necessitating that they aren't in combat with you. Technically both abilities can be used in a combat just NOT against as foes IN combat with you. It'd be much like me saying a grappling hook can be used to attach it to a wall with an attack roll in combat: the ability isn't actually part of the combat past taking part during it as it's not targeting an actual combatant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, I'm saying 'if I keep seeing people say 'read it conversationally'', I'd like the rulings to actually follow that or have people stop saying it. :PSo you want conversational, yet you hyper-analyze the conversation?
No, I want people like you to stop coming into threads and saying 'the one true way to read the rules is conversational' when the Dev's have shown a pattern of not following that rule: full stop.
Myself, I have no issue with "hyper-analyze" as it MIGHT be the correct reading. It's the fact that others suggest it's wrong out of hand that I have an issue with. Had no one come into the thread and suggested the 'one true way' to read the rules, I most likely wouldn't have made any posts these last few days as my posts have ALL been that the ruling this time in fact doesn't follow that 'one true way'. All my quibbling leads back to your posts on how we're meant to read the rules...
Basically, I'm saying 'if I keep seeing people say 'read it conversationally'', I'd like the rulings to actually follow that or have people stop saying it. :PSo you want conversational, yet you hyper-analyze the conversation?
Really? Graystone did not state a personal preference for a conversational interpretation of the rules, but even if there was a stated preference that would have no bearing on whether thread discussions should be conversational or 'hyper-analytic.'
Edit: Ninja'd with a much clearer response from Graystone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gisher: thanks for the reply. It's nice to know someone is reading/understanding my posts. ;)
As to my personal preference, I'd LOVE to have conversational interpretation be a viable option but far too often we run into ill-defined/undefined terms/rules and we're forced to start analyzing. Because some people love a puzzle [we're playing D&D after all], they look at analysis from all angles: or hyper-analyzing.
As the game has progressed to the point where some terms HAVE to be left vague, like wield, without a major overhaul, analysis [and hyper-analysis] will always be part of rules debates. I wish that the DEV's would make a point of defining terms when possible though to add as much surety to the game as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple?
The Dev's are the ones that said we're meant to read books conversationally. They made the rules with vague terms that have multiple meanings in conversational reading. They make rulings that aren't conversational when there is an option that IS. None of this is on the average player that's JUST trying to figure out what they wrote means and being unable to do so in the manner that's been suggested.
Asking for consistency and for the Dev's to following their own suggestions doesn't seem like much to ask.
Let's not confuse hyper analyze in a rules forum with average player first off.
Lets not confuse 'hyper analyze' as a single monolithic thing. Analysis is in various degrees and what is 'too much' for one is not enough for another. With a moving goalpost of what is 'hyper analyze', the "average player" may qualify. "conversational" reading of vague terms forces the analysis.
Secondly because they want to do it one way
If they WANT do do it one way, they should do it and stick with it.
people hyper analyzed and demanded they do it another, the only real response to keep you happy would be to never respond to requests.
So you're saying that the Dev's are so spineless that they are unable to make conversational rulings? Let me ask you this: just WHO was asking for the multiple nested source FAQ when they could have JUST made stats a type [and Mark even suggested it and was shot down]. Don't pretend that the Dev's where/are 'forced' to make convoluted, hyper analytic rulings: If anything forces them, I suspect it's to avoid altering the page count in the physical books not the player base.
So again, your issue isn't with the ones who wanted to do it one way, it's with everyone that said no.
Couldn't disagree more. If they were that spineless, they would have gone with the crowd and let ammo use it's weapon's enhancement bonus to bypass DR...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're moving the goal post
You misunderstood. As what is defined as 'hyper analyze' varies from person to person, the goal post moves with each and every person. There IS no one 'hyper-analysis'. MY definition of 'hyper-analysis' is a constant set of variables that doesn't meet with my sense of 'conversational". It isn't something that's easily altered on a personal level. If you find that moot, you totally misunderstood on a conceptual level.
And no. I'm not calling anyone spineless. That's you and your goal post moving again.
Sorry, I either misread you or was thinking of another post. Looking at it now, I'd say to "keep me happy", all they need to do is follow one set of expectations and stick with it. If it's conversational, keep it that way. If it's technical, that keep it that way. Don't switch between the two so we don't know which one you'll use.
Nor am I going to state anything based in your suspicions. This is a rules forum not a betting room. Leave your theories and personal insults about the dev team at the door.
I was thinking you said they were "forced" to make rulings one way or another. Spineless seemed apt in that situation. It wasn't meant as an insult to the Dev's but was a counterpoint to what I thought you said. My bad.
As to suspicions, Dev's and authors have said material has had to be cut material to fit the page layout and page count and Mark has mentioned about being unable to change something because of that so it doesn't seem out of place if FAQ/errata might be affected by that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple?
I think their problem is with Devs not spending thousands of hours rewriting all ambiguous rules to be program code with every term used with a dictionary definition. They’d like rulebooks 43,556 pages long.
Any time hyper-analysis is used, it’s nearly always destined to be wrong. I’d bet anything 90% of FAQ published in the last 5 years corrects for hyper analysis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think their problem is with Devs not spending thousands of hours rewriting all ambiguous rules to be program code with every term used with a dictionary definition.
Not at all. What I want is for Dev's and other posters to acknowledge and accept that the rules are "ambiguous" and therefore the use of "conversational reading" often doesn't get you to the ruling the Dev's give when ask. It gets REALLY, REALLY old when in every thread someone hops in and says 'well the Dev's SAID you "read it conversational" and when you do that for the subject of the thread, it fails to give you either an answer or the correct one.
They’d like rulebooks 43,556 pages long.
I've acknowledged that the game is too far along to get some terms nailed down, like wield. That is no excuse to keep making new rulings based on vague wording. HOW much space does it take to let us know if a thrown weapon is the (group) or not? It's simple/easy things like that that drive me crazy, because it's SO simple to fix/clarify and it never is.
Any time hyper-analysis is used, it’s nearly always destined to be wrong. I’d bet anything 90% of FAQ published in the last 5 years corrects for hyper analysis.
*Shrug* If that was the case then the reaction is wrong. If the intent is to keep a conversational flow to the game, then RULE like that. If they have a pattern of answering hyper analysis with hyper analysis, all that tells us is that's how things are done. If we go with your numbers, if you want an answer answered and you are reading the rule conversationally you only have a 10% chance to get it answered.
SO the moral of your answer is that MORE people should read things using hyper analysis because 90% of FAQ's rely on/result from that reading...
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I’d say it a different way. If you read it conversational with your GM, you don’t need a FAQ. They FAQ the things that deviate conversational methods by hyper analysis by a vocal few.
Also, you see most of the FAQ answers as breaking conversational, but I see it the opposite way. I see most of the answers maintaining conversational with a few exceptions:
Damage dice is very hyper.
Actually without researching I couldn’t think of another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I’d say it a different way. If you read it conversational with your GM, you don’t need a FAQ. They FAQ the things that deviate conversational methods by hyper analysis by a vocal few.
Also, you see most of the FAQ answers as breaking conversational, but I see it the opposite way. I see most of the answers maintaining conversational with a few exceptions:
Damage dice is very hyper.
Actually without researching I couldn’t think of another.
You keep claiming a preternatural connection to the Dev's and can always figure out how they'll rule. I, unfortunately, am mortal and have to use what's in front of me to figure out the rulings.
Reading with my DM: I game online with multiple DM. I rarely see a the same one repeatedly. As such, FAQ's are expected, as a common rule base is required to play [much like PFS]. While I could negotiate about a rule, I'd rather not do that for the multitude of FAQ's out there. So 'just ignore the FAQ's' isn't a viable options.
As to conversational, you claim to have a reading style that so closely matched the Dev's that you can accurately predict how they'll rule. As such, I'm unsurprised that you'd say you find the ruling in line with your reading. I have a different reading style it seems and I find an increasingly large amount of FAQ veering off what I'd call "conversational" and from replies on this site I don't seem to be the only one thinking so. Multiple people have agreed with me that we don't know how to look at rules anymore because the Dev's keep alternating between conversational and technical rulings.
So your conversational reading and POV is different. All I'm asking for is a consistent style of ruling the game and for a number of the community this isn't happening.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Clarification doesn't always mean someone was right, it could just as easily mean someone was confused or someone was exploiting through something like a typo.No, but it often does, and I suspect it probably does. If a player is just confused, a simple explanation is all that is needed. If the player has found an exploitable typo, the he is right to point it out.
I’ve seen a lot of items with only one person not understanding and being in every thread until a FAQ lands because too many threads were getting locked.
So I don’t like the “it’s a typo we all know what it means” stick nor the “I’m alone in saying it works this way and everyone is telling me I’m wrong but I keep asking for a FAQ” behavior either.
“I’m alone in saying it works this way and everyone is telling me I’m wrong but I keep asking for a FAQ” behavior
While I find the 'tilting at windmills' behaviour annoying too, it's worked in the past. That guy from the Ammo FAQ thread managed to get the FAQ to agree with him and he was the lone voice for it working like that. That ruling makes me wonder what other things the community takes for granted as correct are wrong. :P
Usually ignoring developer input.
Unless that input is from Jason, it's not really a sure thing. While I LOVE to have Mark and others pop in, they always say 'this in my opinion' or 'this is how I'D do it'. Mark has said in various threads that he suggested rulings and got shut down. Dev comments are just suggestions until it's official.
There is also the times when a rule is assumed to be there but isn't. Maybe it's a 3.5 holdover, maybe it's a house rule they used or maybe a rule they never looked at very well. 2 examples:
#1 When the question of negative energy damaging constructs came up, Mark said "of course it does!" I asked where it said that, then pointed out undead/constructs get infinite temp hp from going to the positive energy planes not hurt. We ended up with a FAQ to fix it. Marks initial reaction was wrong.
#2 back in 3.5 days, when eberron comes out, I had a 6 month 'debate' with the creator, keith baker, about warforged and melting them down for the valuable metals. [they could take feats to be made out of mithral/adamantine] I eventually found out that it was based on his home game and HIS world doesn't allow melting down special materials and reusing them. For 6 months, he was arguing his house-rule instead of the written rules.
The bottom line, unless the developers post is an official one, it's their personal advice. While I find it valuable, it's not a guarantee of correctness.