paizo.com Recent Posts in AOMF questionpaizo.com Recent Posts in AOMF question2017-10-21T21:05:02Z2017-10-21T21:05:02ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#932017-10-25T03:30:54Z2017-10-25T03:30:54Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote>Usually ignoring developer input. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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:</p>
<p>#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.</p>
<p>#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.</p>
<p>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.</p>James Risner wrote: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...graystone2017-10-25T03:30:54ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionScott Wilhelmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#922017-10-28T05:16:02Z2017-10-25T02:32:28Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Wilhelm wrote:</div><blockquote> The thing I see shutting down threads is when the debate breaks down into verbal abuse, insults, and name-calling. </blockquote>Which always happens when you have two sides who believe they are right and the other is wrong. Usually ignoring developer input. </blockquote><p>Insulting personal remarks are not the inevitable result of disagreement. People always have the choice to conduct themselves in a civilized manner, and there is no excuse for doing otherwise. I try very hard to never deal in personal remarks myself. I do not tolerate it when I see it, and I deeply regret it if I ever engage in it.
<p>I demand to be treated like someone who is giving his best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say, because that, pretty much is what I do. I try to treat others as if they are doing the same.</p>James Risner wrote:Scott Wilhelm wrote: The thing I see shutting down threads is when the debate breaks down into verbal abuse, insults, and name-calling.
Which always happens when you have two sides who believe they are right and the other is wrong. Usually ignoring developer input. Insulting personal remarks are not the inevitable result of disagreement. People always have the choice to conduct themselves in a civilized manner, and there is no excuse for doing otherwise. I try very hard to...Scott Wilhelm2017-10-25T02:32:28ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionJames Risnerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#912017-10-25T01:05:17Z2017-10-25T01:05:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Wilhelm wrote:</div><blockquote> The thing I see shutting down threads is when the debate breaks down into verbal abuse, insults, and name-calling. </blockquote><p>Which always happens when you have two sides who believe they are right and the other is wrong. Usually ignoring developer input.Scott Wilhelm wrote:The thing I see shutting down threads is when the debate breaks down into verbal abuse, insults, and name-calling.
Which always happens when you have two sides who believe they are right and the other is wrong. Usually ignoring developer input.James Risner2017-10-25T01:05:17ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionScott Wilhelmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#902017-10-24T21:56:02Z2017-10-24T21:56:02Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Wilhelm wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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. </blockquote><p>Usually, an appeal to popular opinion is a fallacy that immediately marks an argument as wrong, but in a situation like this, there is some validity to this, because in this case, the argument is, "but that is not the way the game is played!" And there is some validity to playing a game the way it is played.
<p>One problem with saying that, though, is that unless you are the author of some kind of scientifically rigorous sociological study, you only have your own anecdotal, personal experience to offer as evidence.</p>
<p>I don't want to dismiss anyone's personal experience, but I don't believe that anyone can come on these forums and authoritatively state that they know how the majority of people play this game. I don't think that even when you can find a few people on the forum who agree with each other, even quite a few, that they can be confidently be said to speak for the majority.</p>
<p>And even if they could, just because someone wants to play the game in a way that nobody else does, that does not necessarily mean he shouldn't be allowed to. That is a completely different question. </p>
<p>And of course if someone can consistently demonstrate that a very unpopular way of playing the game that is also very damaging to the game is also a technically-legal way of playing the game, he is doing a great service to the Pathfinder community by continuing to defend the point until Paizo finally recognizes the problem and fixes it.</p>
<p>The thing I see shutting down threads is when the debate breaks down into verbal abuse, insults, and name-calling.</p>James Risner wrote:Scott Wilhelm wrote: Cavall wrote: 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...Scott Wilhelm2017-10-24T21:56:02ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#892017-10-24T04:47:55Z2017-10-24T04:47:55Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote>“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</blockquote><p>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. :PJames Risner wrote:“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. :Pgraystone2017-10-24T04:47:55ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionJames Risnerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#882017-10-24T04:11:50Z2017-10-24T04:11:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Scott Wilhelm wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>Scott Wilhelm wrote:Cavall wrote: 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...James Risner2017-10-24T04:11:50ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionScott Wilhelmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#872017-10-24T00:02:03Z2017-10-24T00:02:03Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>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.Cavall wrote: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.Scott Wilhelm2017-10-24T00:02:03ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionCavallhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#862017-10-23T23:04:05Z2017-10-23T23:04:05Z<p>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.</p>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.Cavall2017-10-23T23:04:05ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionScott Wilhelmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#852017-10-23T20:24:39Z2017-10-23T20:24:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote> 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. </blockquote><p>FAQs "correcting for hyper analysis" does not mean the hyperanalysis was wrong. In fact, it probably means the analysis was right. If the developers could prove the poster wrong without changing the rules, they could just do that.James Risner wrote: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.
FAQs "correcting for hyper analysis" does not mean the hyperanalysis was wrong. In fact, it probably means the analysis was right. If the developers could prove the poster wrong without changing the rules, they could just do that.Scott Wilhelm2017-10-23T20:24:39ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#842017-10-23T06:04:34Z2017-10-23T05:55:50Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote><p> 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.</p>
<p>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:
<br />
Damage dice is very hyper.
<br />
Actually without researching I couldn’t think of another. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>James Risner wrote: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...graystone2017-10-23T05:55:50ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionJames Risnerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#832017-10-23T05:08:08Z2017-10-23T05:08:08Z<p>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.</p>
<p>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:
<br />
Damage dice is very hyper.
<br />
Actually without researching I couldn’t think of another.</p>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.James Risner2017-10-23T05:08:08ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#822017-10-22T16:38:56Z2017-10-22T16:36:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote>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.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote>They’d like rulebooks 43,556 pages long.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>•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.
<p>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...</p>James Risner wrote: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...graystone2017-10-22T16:36:00ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionJames Risnerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#812017-10-25T10:49:45Z2017-10-22T16:14:00Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote> So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple? </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>Cavall wrote: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.James Risner2017-10-22T16:14:00ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#802017-10-22T16:38:37Z2017-10-21T21:35:45Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote> If you're moving the goal post</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote>And no. I'm not calling anyone spineless. That's you and your goal post moving again.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote>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. </blockquote><p>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.
<p>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.</p>Cavall wrote: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. Cavall wrote:And no. I'm not...graystone2017-10-21T21:35:45ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionCavallhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#792017-10-21T21:04:23Z2017-10-21T21:04:23Z<p>If you're moving the goal post move it to where conversational now means total definition and you won't have an issue. But that's a fallacy so moot. </p>
<p>And no. I'm not calling anyone spineless. That's you and your goal post moving again.</p>
<p>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.</p>If you're moving the goal post move it to where conversational now means total definition and you won't have an issue. But that's a fallacy so moot.
And no. I'm not calling anyone spineless. That's you and your goal post moving again.
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.Cavall2017-10-21T21:04:23ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#782017-10-21T21:05:02Z2017-10-21T20:54:35Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote>Let's not confuse hyper analyze in a rules forum with average player first off. </blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote>Secondly because they want to do it one way</blockquote><p>If they WANT do do it one way, they should do it and stick with it.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote>people hyper analyzed and demanded they do it another, the only real response to keep you happy would be to never respond to requests.</blockquote><p>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.
<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote>So again, your issue isn't with the ones who wanted to do it one way, it's with everyone that said no. </blockquote><p>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...Cavall wrote: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. Cavall wrote:Secondly because they want to do it one way
If they WANT do do it one way, they should do...graystone2017-10-21T20:54:35ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionCavallhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#772017-10-21T20:29:47Z2017-10-21T20:29:47Z<p>Apparently. </p>
<p>Let's not confuse hyper analyze in a rules forum with average player first off. </p>
<p>Secondly because they want to do it one way and then people hyper analyzed and demanded they do it another, the only real response to keep you happy would be to never respond to requests.</p>
<p>So again, your issue isn't with the ones who wanted to do it one way, it's with everyone that said no.</p>Apparently.
Let's not confuse hyper analyze in a rules forum with average player first off.
Secondly because they want to do it one way and then 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 again, your issue isn't with the ones who wanted to do it one way, it's with everyone that said no.Cavall2017-10-21T20:29:47ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#762017-10-23T20:18:17Z2017-10-21T19:52:17Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Cavall wrote:</div><blockquote> So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple? </blockquote><p>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.
<p>Asking for consistency and for the Dev's to following their own suggestions doesn't seem like much to ask.</p>Cavall wrote: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...graystone2017-10-21T19:52:17ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionCavallhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#752017-10-21T18:59:53Z2017-10-21T18:59:53Z<p>So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple?</p>So really your problem isn't with the Devs but with the players forcing the Devs to no longer keep it simple?Cavall2017-10-21T18:59:53ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#742017-10-21T19:49:16Z2017-10-21T18:52:38Z<p>Gisher: thanks for the reply. It's nice to know someone is reading/understanding my posts. ;)</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>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,...graystone2017-10-21T18:52:38ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionGisherhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#732017-10-21T18:03:39Z2017-10-21T18:03:39Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote>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 </blockquote><p>So you want conversational, yet you hyper-analyze the conversation?
</p>
</blockquote><p>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.'
<p>Edit: Ninja'd with a much clearer response from Graystone.</p>James Risner wrote:graystone wrote: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
So 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...Gisher2017-10-21T18:03:39ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questiongraystonehttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#722017-10-23T20:17:34Z2017-10-21T17:53:44Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote>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 </blockquote><p>So you want conversational, yet you hyper-analyze the conversation?
</p>
</blockquote><p>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.
<p>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...</p>James Risner wrote:graystone wrote: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
So 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...graystone2017-10-21T17:53:44ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionJames Risnerhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#712017-10-21T17:36:11Z2017-10-21T17:36:11Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote>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 </blockquote><p>So you want conversational, yet you hyper-analyze the conversation?graystone wrote: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
So you want conversational, yet you hyper-analyze the conversation?James Risner2017-10-21T17:36:11ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionScott Wilhelmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#702017-10-21T11:22:37Z2017-10-21T11:22:37Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">Perfect Tommy wrote:</div><blockquote> <div class="messageboard-quotee">graystone wrote:</div><blockquote><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...</p>
<p>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. </blockquote>I think the rule discussion is over, </blockquote><p>The rule discussion was over before you made your first contribution to this thread: we have been talking about a ruling that was already made!
<p>Your contribution to this thread has been to very strongly prove my point that that ruling invites what James Risner calls "aggressive quibbling."</p>Perfect Tommy wrote:graystone wrote: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...Scott Wilhelm2017-10-21T11:22:37ZRe: Forums: Rules Questions: AOMF questionScott Wilhelmhttps://paizo.com/threads/rzs2unvi&page=2?AOMF-question#692017-10-21T11:12:19Z2017-10-21T11:12:19Z<div class="messageboard-quotee">James Risner wrote:</div><blockquote><p> All combat maneuvers are attacks.
</p>
Only disarm, sunder, and trip are normally made with weapons.
<br />
No other combat maneuver can be used with a weapon (baring special rules you have.) </blockquote><p>Thank you!
<p>I have been arguing these very points!</p>James Risner wrote: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.)
Thank you! I have been arguing these very points!Scott Wilhelm2017-10-21T11:12:19Z