MachOneGames's page

In normal dungeon scenarios most of the feats that people associate with mounted combat don't work. There are too many ways to disrupt a charge and too many rules surrounding them.

My advice is to give up on everything that relates to charging and build your mounted characters around movement. The charge mechanic is just too frustrating, but moving your character 100' or more in a round and swatting at things is fun. Especially when you ride into an area, make an attack, and ride out.

Why build feats around ride-by-attack when it is nerfed by not being able to charge? Your mount can double-move; and you can attack once without investing any feats. Spend your feats on things that help you do damage and lunge. Lunge is an essential feat for a mounted character.

Building a character around six feats that can be nullified by a 5 degree turn in the middle of a 100' move doesn't make any sense. Players get too excited by the "potential" for damage to realize that every monster in the game knows how to disrupt those feats.

Get rid of charging and you will have fun playing a mounted character.

I used to teach martial arts and weapon arts. Power comes from the legs and body moving together. The arms are used at the end. Thrust, push-cut, and pull-cut are all driven by the whole body. Having four arms would not be twice as effective as two. You would be interfering with your own lines of attack.

This is one of those few instances where the rules make a bit of sense to a simulationist. Capping the total strength bonus at 1.5 seems to make sense. You can't move in four directions at once.

If I had a four-armed character I would put two short defensive weapons in my bottom set of hands - probably bucklers. I would use these extra hands to grab when the opportunity arose.

A four armed character could be an incredible grappler.

She's got the Tongues curse, and she thinks it's a blessing that prevents her from being mind controlled by demons and devils, since they'll have no common language. (Yeah, she's a bit naive. It's a lot of fun to play her.)

I like that. Kudos.

Castarr4 wrote:

Yes, you can use it on yourself. It's very powerful. You'll always be wishing for more immediate actions though.

Can you provide some rules basis for that interpretation?

"you can force a creature" does not read like it works on oneself.

I can force myself to eat cabbage.

Damn. Should have picked the over, thought this thread would be locked by 150.

It was really off-putting when they shut down the last discussion. I get into animated conversations with my family and friends all the time. It isn't a sign of disrespect to disagree.

I thought locking the thread was more disrespectful than anything that was said. It's kind of like saying "you guys aren't talking about anything important." Which is funny because the thread morphed directly into -- what is a set of rules for an RPG; which is a pretty central question. At the risk of getting banned or shunned or whatever they do in Paizo-world, it seems really juvenile to lock a thread like that.

Is there a middle ground that Malachi and Mr. T. share philosophically, or is the pursuit pointless -- are there two games? Big stuff. Inflammatory stuff. Interesting stuff to me.

That reminds me; it was mentioned earlier that the square root of nine has two valid answers: +3 and -3.

You have nine oranges. Arrange them into a square. How many oranges are in each row? Is 'minus three' a valid number of oranges in a row?

I haven't noticed any Pathfinder or other d20 system rule based on the mathematics of quantum physics. A non-weapon object either threatens or it doesn't.

Minus three is not a valid answer. One and two are valid answers also. I can arrange a square so that the first row has one orange, the second row has two, the third row has three, the fourth row has two, and the fifth row has one.

Sometimes things that we think only have one answer... have many.

"It never says that this rule ONLY applies to objects not crafted to be weapons "

That is your premise.

You have mis-framed the opinion counter to yours by plugging your premise into their conclusion and then showing how everything breaks down.

"Objects that are not deliberately round can be ovoid. Therefore, all objects that ARE deliberately round cannot be ovoid."

Wow! That sounds stupid. Malachi, how can you be so stupid? You are being stubborn and holding on to stupid ideas.

Wait! Let's turn this around and use Malachi's premise and Mr. T's conclusion. Now Mr. T's argument sounds stupid.

Unless... maybe ... that was never... his opinion at all. Hmm..

It almost feels like a Zen kōan.

When is a pole of wood, not a pole?

When it is part of a longspear.

I never knew that "kōan" had an accent on the "o." Live and learn.

When I read the rules I get the impression that you should identify the closest function of anything that a character picks up.

Ie, a sword could have a ring guard or a basket hilt, but not change the categorization. If I pick up a sharp something that is like a dagger, I use the dagger rules from the weapon table. However, if it is ungainly and does not function well as a weapon then I used the improvised weapon rules and get the damage from the closest weapon. "Not crafted to be a weapon" does not refer to the mental state of the person who brought the object into existence -- in my mind it refers to how well it works as a weapon.

Why is everyone wasting time stating the worst possible interpretation of the opposing view? "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit." And, after reading this thread, I suggest the "reductio ad absurdum" arguments are the lowest form of argumentation/discussion. Especially since they very rarely attempt to frame the original argument in anything close to its original form.

Who agrees that we should attempt to categorize any object with the closest weapon that it resembles? Thus, a pointy stick is a longspear. If something doesn't really function properly as a weapon, you use the improvised weapon rules.

Does everyone agree on this point? I'm not trying to set up any argument; just seeing if this is a reasonable reading of the rules that we have consensus on from both sides.

"Sometimes (not X) are Y."

I was reading the sometimes differently. In this reading I would replace sometimes with "In some combat situations..."

Not, "when evaluating the properties of items some of those items not crafted to be weapons can be used as improvised weapons." I don't think it was intended to comment on object classification.

When I read it I see weapons and improvised weapons set up as mutually exclusive categories. We can debate the existence of a third class of objects -- objects that are neither improvised or normal weapons. The rules make everything that is not a weapon eligible to be an improvised weapon.

So, I am of the opinion that every object that you wield in combat is either an improvised weapon or a normal weapon: two mutually exclusive categories.

Fabricate and craft are the same thing. To suggest otherwise is pure sophism.

The whole argument boils down to...

can you re-classify a weapon into an improvised weapon?

And then there are two camps screaming that they both have the answer. When the truth is that it depends on your premise.

Mr T. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic at university. How would you apply set theory to the argument then?

Aren't weapons and improvised weapons mutually exclusive groups in the wording? We can't parse syllogisms until we define our sets, no?

Again, it has been a long time (over 24 years) since I studied formal logic so it -- like many things are a bit of a blur.

We classify everything into two sets: Weapons and "Objects not designed to be weapons", right? The rule says "Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat. " This identifies the set pretty conclusively. In fact to do it more conclusively would require mathematical notation.

The argument for the improvised attack is that we instantly re-classify part of the weapon (the shaft) as an improvised weapon, so that we can apply our rule. Please let me know if that is not the argument. Your reading that follows from this premise is that the Longspear (and all weapons by corollary) are divisible into improvised weapons, so that you may make an improvised attack with all objects. With a weapon you may make either an improvised attack or a weapon attack.

While this is on the surface sensible I think it defies set theory in formal logic. If you want to operate in a formal logic world we can't re-classify things "in media res." In order to get off the horns of this dilemma I think you need to stop parsing the rule text as formal logic. At which point I don't think you can use it to prove your point.

purpose of the rules is to tell you exactly what you're allowed to do (and nothing more)

I see the rules like programming code. I invoke a rule the same way I invoke a sub-routine or module. The flow of the game is determined by the rules.

As a simulationist-narrativist I imagine the scenario and formulate a response. I have to fit my response into the available rule paradigms.

I ran into a scenario years ago where I was playing an archer. There were 20' tall giants marching towards a 20' tall wall. They were 100' from the wall. I was 100' on the other side of the wall. I tried to invoke the rule for making a ranged attack with my bow. The gamist at the table informed me that I did not have line of effect. I could not invoke a ranged attack as I did not have a valid target. I could imagine "Arching" my shot over the wall. I could easily draw many arcs that could hit the target. "Can I at least roll a d20 and see if I get a twenty?" Nope, said the gamist. 100% cover. I agreed. I marked two arrows off my character sheet. Just because the rule doesn't fit perfectly to the tactical situation doesn't mean that we should be able to annul it.

You have to fit your action into one of the rule paradigms. Not the other way around. Am I missing something?

i perfectly understand the gamist philosophy, it's just based on false premises.

Because you or I don't share the premise does not make it false. You can't with a sweep of your hand invalidate a rules-only premise because it doesn't fit with our prediliction towards a rules-as-symbology approach.

The people who made the game are called game-designers. They are not called world-builders or reality-shapers. They are not creating a unified theory of everything; they are making rules for a game.

If we want to add meaning to the rules and suggest that they exist to serve another purpose we invalidate any discussion of rules. We pervert their game if we do not accept this basic truth. When something is a bit unclear we should endeavour to uncover the rule.

and you still think that somehow a crossbow wasn't crafted to be a weapon if you use it in melee... why don't you apply your logic consistently?

"Sometimes objects not crafted to be weapons nonetheless see use in combat." I take this to mean that there are objects that are used in battle that lack statistics in the game. Here is a rule to handle those occasions.

"An improvised thrown weapon has a range increment of 10 feet."

If I am honestly looking for a rule here it seems sensible that there are two classes of improvised weapons: Improvised melee and improvised thrown. The function of the rule is to provide properties for weapons when none is provided by the rules.

A crossbow is not designed to be used in melee or designed to be thrown. It is consistent to use it as an improvised weapon of either kind. A throwing dagger should not be used as an improvised thrown weapon but use the properties it is specifically given. A melee weapon by the same token would not be eligible for use as an improvised melee weapon.

I know, breathe, the rule serves a function. Reality is not its master ... the purpose it serves in the game is.

I was being facetious.

Text has destroyed my attempts at humor.

Smirk. I stand rebuked. :)

My last thing to say about the topic. I agree about the haft. I taught martial arts, including weaponry, for about ten years. There are a ton of spear, oar, and staff techniques that use the less-than-optimal strike with the mid-part of the weapon. There are trips, grapples, and even a few wrist breaks.

The point is that in order for any of that to matter you need to get permission from the gamist that a haft strike with the weapon is so essential to the game that we extend the concept of improvised weapons. If the spear is now usable as both a weapon and an improvised weapon it changes changes the function.

Remember that wrist-break I told you about. When an opponent grabs your weapon you secure their knuckles so that they can't let go then use the shaft as a lever to apply pressure to their wrist. It is very easy to break someone's wrist this way. Is it real? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Do we add a rule? No. It is too far from the function of the game to be included.

Simulationists will argue from what is reasonable and work back towards the rules. A gamist perspective works from the rules. A spear is a weapon to the gamist. It is already classified. Allowing a weapon to instantly re-classify as an improvised weapon is not covered by the rules. There is no precedent. It adds a complexity.

The form of the argument must be:

As a simulationist I have clear historic and tactical evidence that a spear is very often used to deliver a half-haft blow. This is a short-range bludgeoning attack.

It seems entirely unreasonable that my character should be prohibited from declaring this action. This will make the game less enjoyable for me knowing that I cannot take a reasonable action.

How can we adjudicate this action without altering the built-in balance and mechanism of the game? If you allow "catch-off-guard" advantages to a melee weapon like a spear are you not giving the weapon extra qualities? Should the spear have reach and "use-improvised 5ft?" Attacking with a spear shouldn't surprise a seasoned fighter.

If the gamist never bends on any of these issues then you take the voice of the simulationist away from the table. If the simulationist never relents then the gamer is silenced at the table. They have to play at a table where anyone can add a rule to the game under the auspices of "reality."

If everyone could bend just a bit it would make the game better.

"Hence the simulationist vs gameist divide, which is absolutely what this thread is about."

You are completely on point with that comment. Five hundred posts around that very divide. The starting premise of the simulationist is the reasonable action of bashing with the haft of a weapon -- an object with history and function. The starting point of the gamer is the clearly defined function of the "weapon" within the rules. The two sides are not going to come together without accepting the truth of the other side.

Arguing that there is a rule function that "can" handle want your simulationist wants to do doesn't carry any truck with the gamer that sees the addition of a rule as not elegant. The simpler interpretation is more correct rules-wise, regardless of which is more realistic.

"They want you to have to plan your character a little more carefully than that." What you are referring to here is optimization. Ever since 3rd Edition, Dungeons and Dragons and subsequently Pathfinder has been more focused on the building/planning of a character -- an exclusively gamist activity -- rather than the act of playing/immersing that was the domain of the simulationist.
Modules are pre-structured series of CR-balanced encounters to test how well the characters have been built. Adhering to the artificial balance that is baked into the rules by the game designers is more important to the gamer than trying to create a shared imaginative space.

The narrativists are long gone. They are still playing 2nd Edition, or other systems, where you can't talk your way past a guard with a dice roll, or search a room with one.

We used to have a three-way balance at the table. The gamer would accept that cross-checking an opponent with your spear is something that should be included in order to make room at the table for the simulationist. They would be your best ally in finding the perfect rule to use -- ensuring that game balance was reasonably preserved. Now there is a war between the perspectives. Positions have become as intractable as American politics, and the gamists don't feel that the rules owe any allegiance to simulation -- while simulation must bend to the rules.

So, if you wonder why a thread like this persists at 500+ posts and you have rancor and frustration -- understand what Anguish identified. This is a debate of Simulationist vs Gamist. On a forum like this the simulationist will lose. Every single time. Eventually, but always.

So, if you think that you can make a 5ft improvised attack with your spear... you are a simulationist. You are wrong. The gamists don't want you here. Give up. Go home.

"Let people run it the way they want," is never a valid conclusion here because it doesn't address the principal question.

I think so and I really want to agree. To some questions there may not be an answer. The rules are not perfect; like English the rules just evolved. There are lots of stupid parts in the rules.

The interpretation that Darkvision clears the blindness status effect cannot be correct.

That's his (Tactics) point too. He outright says that the Darkvision does not clear the blind effect/status in the post right above yours. The text says that the character can now see. However, if the blind condition still exists and the character sees 60', even in the dark is this next conclusion going to be that he can see but takes the penalties as if they are blinded because they haven't cleared the condition. (Hmm... do we still think this is a rational argument? I think I would rather bang my head against the table.)

The core crux is that specific trumps general (and, by extension, more specific trumps less specific).

Which is more specific -- the spell description or the blinded condition? These rules didn't descend from heaven. They are flawed. Much of it is un-compartmentalized crap. D&D has historically clung to a whole bunch of abstractions and tried to patch rules onto them.

I'm not a hard-core rules-lawyer. I'd try to solve it by imagining what makes the most sense according to verisimilitude. However, there isn't really a place for that at a rules-only discussion. So, I'm going to bid adieu to all of you now and go back to my own world and own game-table. I am afraid that the all the pieces of the game don't fit together with the level of perfection that some seem to think they do.

Maybe by the next edition they can flow-chart the rules and parse them through some computer analytics. They would be bullet-proof and unassailable, locked up tight in an iron box. Maybe we could have players declare their actions by pushing buttons on a controller. That would eliminate all of this ambiguity. It gets so messy when you let humans interact with the rules. They try to do things that are unexpected. Rather than describing what the players see we could even just flash images on the screen with music and effects and everything.

Yeah... a controller, a screen, and a box where the rules are.

Sorry all. This probably isn't the forum for me. Peace.

If it doesn't create any light how does it function to give a -40 stealth to all creatures? Those creatures could be in the shadow or in complete darkness -- nothing will sparkle in darkness. Makes no sense unless they are glowing independently of light sources.

Also the spell says "continues to sparkle until it[the dust] fades." Either the dust is changing hue or it is reducing the amount of light that it is emitting. Of those uses of the word "fade" I would suggest that diminishing light would make more sense.

Remy, I agree with your reading of English. Much like I agree with Tacticslion who made a very similar argument. However, what about the function of "conditions?" In the rules conditions seem to override abilities. For example a character who is stunned cannot take some actions even if they gain the ability to. I don't know if that is assumption or fact. Does anyone know ... Do the rules say somewhere that conditions always override abilities? Or, are we all inferring that from the context.

Again, your reading of the English is spot on.

"I think you're under the mistaken impression that I and certain others are doing this for our own benefit"

I never formed any opinion of why you post. Based on the good quality of your thoughts, I found your mis-reading of other people's opinions frustrating. I am sure you are normally an asset to these forums.

My initial post was.. could we not see vision as an array and flash blindness (from an event -- not a spell that persists) as a condition that gives blindness to all the elements currently in the array? Adding another element to the array (darkvision) after a flash event would therefore work in spite of the character having the blinded condition. My evidence for this was that darkvision and normal vision do not overlap and flashes don't damage the entire eye -- they just overload the photo-receptors. You can't have darkvision PHOTO-receptors. There must be another kind of receptor (magnetic? gravitational? who knows). Something separate. Mechanically the two kinds of vision can be altered independently.

Then there was a lot of noise.

Yeti eventually came at the crux of my hypothesis and suggesting that I was adding a concept to the rules from the Simulationist perspective. In the rules there is but one "blinded" condition. I agreed, lamenting that the newer versions of the game are driving the Simulationist and narrativist perspectives from the game. The challenge is to get all three types of players to co-operate and create a shared game at the table. Yeti suggested that this is best done at each gaming table.

To me, my part of the topic is closed.

..Although I am curious about the evidence for conditions trumping abilities. I suspect they do.

I'm sorry if the last post sounded "preachy." I found the whole experience of posting on the forum frustrating and sometimes infantile. Thanks to Yeti for the insight. I'm pretty comfortable with his/her conclusions. I'll use my house rule when I GM and be happy with the RAW (Rules-as-Written) interpretation when I play.

I wish you all a Happy New Year. Enjoy!

I'm so sorry I ever brought this back up again. It is so tedious at this point. There are at least three ways of seeing this. Kazaan, your premise is that there is a see function and dark, normal, and low-light modify this function. From that premise your position is logical.

Tacticslion is expressing the view that there is one status -- seeing. Each time a status arises it replaces the current status. Normal sight is replaced by blindness. Blindness is replaced by darkvision, etc. Again, a fairly reasonable argument. I get it. @Tacticslion I used to teach High School English too and get where you and your wife are coming from. Structurally, I think the rules establishes the notion of conditions that override the use of certain abilities and actions. I think that is why you can't just take the English on face value.

My premise was that there are eyes and there are separate non-dependent kinds of vision. More complicated, but more in line with a natural world. Eyes become a container for different kinds of vision. An array with various elements if you will. My conclusion was in a very specific instance the logical result was darkvision. Yeti pointed out that my version has to add a concept to the text and should be considered a variation.

Nobody was pulling things out of their a@@ to try and break the game.

I own a technology company that consults with many different businesses. I am used to programmers being unable to understand things from two or more different points of view. I recognize that they are often strident in expressing their views and do not make an effort to genuinely understand other people's ideas. They believe that others are trying to "read the explicit in the most exploitative way possible" because someone naturally coming to a different conclusion is not considered. Don't get me wrong. Some of these guys are brilliant, but they have a hard time working with others.

Unfortunately many of these extremely talented individuals never reach their potential. Their inability to treat other views with respect and the lack of listening skills leaves them firmly and permanently fastened to mid-level positions. We end up managing them and they are very frustrated that they are managed by people with less technical skill and raw mojo. They rarely have a seat at the table with the C-level execs. They were so smart that they thought they didn't have to listen.

Even if you are the smartest guy in the room you are not going anywhere if you don't listen.

Darkflare

Source Pathfinder Chronicles: Faction Guide

Created by the drow-hunters, this alchemical flare explodes in black sparks 1 round after lighting. Any creature in the same square as a darkflare when it explodes must make a DC 15 Fortitude save or be unable to see with darkvision for 1d10 rounds. Affected creatures can still see in normal light with no penalty. A darkflare has no effect on creatures without darkvision. The DC to create a darkflare with Craft (alchemy) is 20.

This clearly illustrates that darkvision is on a separate scale from normal vision.

So the published material seems to contradict the consensus on this topic.