The rules disagree with you, the developers disagree with you, and I don’t understand why you keep repeating it. Can you articulate why you feel so strongly everyone else is wrong?
I normally run the PVP Arena fights at GenCon. I'm looking to add some pregens this year so people don't have time to build a character can join in the fun.
If people are interested in working together on some theoretical optimization of 12th level PFS legal characters using no more than 108,000 gp and require no more than 50 prestige points plus no use of any boons or scenario/module specific features. I'd love to hear some of the builds.
there is no need for an FAQ and they have their 'normal' sources [Orc bloodline, Elemental/draconic bloodline and Blood havoc].
But I don't even get how the nested (ability) source even factors in here? There is no other stat it is looking to fill here? It isn't like it's asking for an ability or some other stat. How do you see the nested source can in any way be connected to this question?
I think it's less "RAW is stupid" and more "using interesting interpretations to get to a cool for me RAW".
Most RAW is pretty easy to figure out which interpretation is likely and which is not.
Because Anchoring Weapon does not equal Levitate.
It's why we have FAQ on untyped ability bonuses. The whole rule system is strongly against same source stacking. When you have two different abilities with different names and different ways they work both adding the same ability. It was felt the ability was the source, so an FAQ made it clear that two different abilities that both add Charisma are the same source (Charisma).
You don't need to "get" why, just understand that two menacing weapons are the same source because they both have the menacing property.
intentionally fudging anything over there and not sure why you would accuse them of that.
Fudging is a harsh term, but they have no quibbles about doing editorial review. Things such as editing sentences “to make it easier to understand”, adding “Special:” lines to feats that don’t exist in the rules, and marking archetypes as stacking when they clearly don’t. I’ve brought up most of these issues with the site, none seem to get fixed.
I think they don’t see it as fudging as much as clarifying. It’s bad whatever term they want to use.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Honestly This Thread has me far more interested in how many natural attacks the Green Men actually gets since it's unclear whether they're only granted by their special abilities.
2 slams are clear.
Anything beyond that requires ignoring the rule about not getting any abilities not listed (Vines/Thorns).
You are failing to remember a whole host of FAQ that deviated from a technical reading you suggest. I could list you 15-20 just brainstorming. I’m sure you could just by reading the FAQ and remembering the various FAQ over the years you have participated.
The other thing you are missing is most of the time when we have developer comments “it works this way” as a known thing, the resulting FAQ ends up confirming those concepts. I can count a couple that failed to do so compared to a large number of successes.
That isn’t how they write the rules. You can be a generic human. You can’t be a generic diety. You can choose to assert “But RAW” but that just means you are choosing to ignore parts of the rules by using a interpretation counter to design, known stated intent, and convention.
N N 959 wrote:
I suspect you've debated it with him in the past, so you'd be better served to say you don't agree, say why, and leave it at that.
If you don't know the history, Scott gets a quirky not at all correct interpretation in his "current arsenal" and he hammers it through with sufficient number of locked threads until Paizo gives a FAQ tailored specifically to Scott as he is the only person who shares his view. When it happens, he proudly champions the fact he saved the forums.
When really all is happening is he engages in baiting with the most polite manner as possible to evade being seen to be baiting.
a monk with twf with 6 bab and a slam would be +4/+4/-1/-1 unarmed strikes +4 for the slam because of the twf penalties
natural weapons are not a manufactured weapon.
So twf penalties are not applied to natural weapons. Instead, you make them secondary and apply the -5 penalty to BAB for them.
There is just too much information to reference on this. This FAQ reminds me of the damage dice one. It would have been a non-starter until someone compiled a working formula.
Does someone have the time (in this thread) to compile a list of the various, and the most likely intended use of them. In a fair and reasonable way? In other words, "not the most powerful way to interpret".
If someone has that time, the chance this will get answered will go up. If not, it waits until they have months of weekly meetings to devote to it OR nothing else to do.
Yaba may be new. As the FAQ process has been explained, the faster they can:
If all that can be done in 15 minutes, you are likely to get an answer.
What’s to FAQ.
You only have attacks equal to your total offhand via twf/mwf rules.
Nothing else adds attacks to offhand.
There isn’t much confusion on this subject. Yes you can find the occasional thread where no one came along to correct for this. Yes you can find FAQ answer threads (vestigilearm) where developers tried in vain to explain how some where reading the rules wrong like you are. No that doesn’t mean you get infinite attacks just cause.
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.
Loudly is when you assert only you can translate rules into meaning and you not accept other interpretation not invented by you. That’s loud, disruptive, and harmful. This game is not designed to be interpreted that way. It’s not machine code with one path from words to meaning. It never will be. This type of quibbling turn people I know personally away from the forums. I’m sure it turns many more people I don’t know personally away.
John Murdock wrote:
i agree with darksol, if it was modifying extract or altering it, it would have been printed with saying it does, but it is printed by saying it only replace poison use, so it does not alter or modify or change extract
Let's try to stay on the issue, because saying how you think they write the rules doesn't match up with how they say they write the rules. See Gisher's post above. They simply don't write that it modifies or alters everything that modifies or alters most of the time. If you interpret things saying they modify or alter as the only things that modify or alter, you are missing most of the rules.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
due to clothing we were wearing were stopped repeatedly while 'on break' with questions.
At Magic the Gathering events, the judges are required to remove their judge shirts while on break. It something that should be done for GMing, as it cuts down on questions and it also doesn't let customers see us "goofing off" when we should be "working". In other words, it looks like you are wasting Paizo time when getting food, or chatting with friends.