RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Things flagged for FAQing are shown in a queue that the Design Team has to wade through. Items can't just be removed, they have to be "cleared" in some way, which involves selecting from a limited list of responses (such as "No response required" or "Answered in the FAQ" or the recently-added "Question unclear"). Sometimes, if a question is along the lines of "Does this really work the way it says it works?", they mark it as "Answered in the FAQ", which in such cases really means "Answered in its own text".
See also the sticky at the top of this very forum.
So considering the fact that the text isn't really all that clear ,that means what exactly?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My best guess is that the Design Team disagrees with you regarding how (un)clear the text is, though there could be some other reason. I suggest reading the aforementioned sticky for a good overall idea of the FAQ system; even if it leaves you unsatisfied, you'll have a better idea how to proceed if you want to seek further clarification in a new thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally speaking, it's been said (I'm sure for reasons exactly like this) that FAQ's are supposed to cover no more than their own stated subject. Extrapolating from the text of an FAQ can be rather thin ice, though that doesn't stop people from jumping all over it. For example: "You can't TWF with a two-wanded Weapon and an unarmed strike because Armor Spikes FAQ!!!(!!!!). We got you you miserable loophole munchkins!!!!(!!!!!)."
Generally speaking, it's been said (I'm sure for reasons exactly like this) that FAQ's are supposed to cover no more than their own stated subject. Extrapolating from the text of an FAQ can be rather thin ice, though that doesn't stop people from jumping all over it. For example: "You can't TWF with a two-wanded Weapon and an unarmed strike because Armor Spikes FAQ!!!(!!!!). We got you you miserable loophole munchkins!!!!(!!!!!)."
BadBird has it 100% right. Mark has confirmed it MANY times. A FAQ on slashing grace is ONLY about that issue with slashing grace.
Now you can extrapolate all you want, but then you wander into house-rule territory.
Generally speaking, it's been said (I'm sure for reasons exactly like this) that FAQ's are supposed to cover no more than their own stated subject. Extrapolating from the text of an FAQ can be rather thin ice, though that doesn't stop people from jumping all over it. For example: "You can't TWF with a two-wanded Weapon and an unarmed strike because Armor Spikes FAQ!!!(!!!!). We got you you miserable loophole munchkins!!!!(!!!!!)."BadBird has it 100% right. Mark has confirmed it MANY times. A FAQ on slashing grace is ONLY about that issue with slashing grace.
Now you can extrapolate all you want, but then you wander into house-rule territory.
Its not remotely house rule to interpret a sane level of consistency between rulings. A legitimate interpretation and table variance are different than a house rule. The "its strapped to my arm not in my hand" argument was seen before this faq, this faq just gave it a BIG push.
Even in a world where a 12 ounce bat can judo flip a red dragon, a buckler being strapped to your forearm and thus not in your hand for one feat that gives you dex to damage and lets you treat it as a piercing weapon but not strapped to your forearm and thus not in your hand for another very similar feat that gives you dex to damage and lets you treat it like a one handed piercing weapon would be a new level of head desking inanity.
Dervish dance: You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
Slashing grace: You do not gain this benefit while fighting with two weapons or using flurry of blows, or any time another hand is otherwise occupied.
Slashing Grace FAQ: does not allow most shields, but bucklers work because they don’t occupy the hand.
Its not remotely house rule to interpret a sane level of consistency between rulings.
That is NOT what Mark has said. We aren't meant to extrapolate anything from the FAQ's. They only cover what they cover. that would leave any extrapolating done as non a rule and therefor a house-rule. it's pretty straight forward.
A slashing grace FAQ has NO barring on any other feat.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see a quote from Mark saying that.
Otherwise you get silly munchkinism, like claiming that the FAQ restrictions on Magical Lineage don't apply to Wayang Spellhunter, or other such shenanigans regarding one-handed weapons like the Bastard Sword.
The FAQ system requires some extrapolation. If it didn't, or doesn't, then the FAQ team just increased their own workload.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see a quote from Mark saying that.
Otherwise you get silly munchkinism, like claiming that the FAQ restrictions on Magical Lineage don't apply to Wayang Spellhunter, or other such shenanigans regarding one-handed weapons like the Bastard Sword.
The FAQ system requires some extrapolation. If it didn't, or doesn't, then the FAQ team just increased their own workload.
I did say that FAQs on Slashing Grace do not necessarily pertain to Dervish Dance in any way; it's a combination of the wording difference between the feats (Dervish Dance calls out shields, Slashing Grace doesn't, and it's possible to wear a shield on a hand without occupying that hand, such as a buckler) and what line the feats are in (Dervish Dance is not under our purview, so we can't make FAQs that pertain to it without consulting more people). Certainly it would be strange for someone to say that the Magical Lineage FAQ wasn't a solid precedent for the functionally identical Wayang Spellhunter, but it's also true that the FAQ technically didn't call out all similar abilities.
We do try to make FAQs broad enough to cover multiple topics when the issue at hand is a broad topic, though, and address the issue rather than just mentioning the single rule, and those broader FAQs should necessarily have a broader realm of extrapolation than those on a particular feat. So it's a bit more nuanced, but neither of them really got what I said "wrong."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Everything in the FAQ for that feat, should remain exclusive to that feat.
Except, how they said Bucklers are handled.
Why just that?
It actually pertains to the basic function of the Buckler.
That's outside the feat.
We just need a FAQ on the Buckler.
That's it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not remotely house rule to interpret a sane level of consistency between rulings.That is NOT what Mark has said. We aren't meant to extrapolate anything from the FAQ's. They only cover what they cover. that would leave any extrapolating done as non a rule and therefor a house-rule.
Not every interpretation of a rule is a house rule.
A house rule is a CHANGE to the rules. Thats far different than an interpretation, which is what you have to do to any rule.
Not every interpretation of a rule is a house rule.A house rule is a CHANGE to the rules. Thats far different than an interpretation, which is what you have to do to any rule.
Making a rule where one doesn't exist is also a house-rule. Removing an existing rule is a house rule. As Mark said, we're talking different wording between the feats. No rulings have changed for dervish dance after the Slashing Grace FAQ. I think your use of the other FAQ is a houserule but that doesn't mean your final interpretation is. You can come to the right conclusion using the wrong method.
To quote Mark from another thread. [Incorporeality and Weapons treated as "magic for the purpose of ..."]
The FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has. In this case, the scope is incorporeality and counting as magic, no more, but also no less.
The scope of the Slashing Grace FAQ was Slashing Grace...
Everything in the FAQ for that feat, should remain exclusive to that feat.
Except, how they said Bucklers are handled.
Why just that?
It actually pertains to the basic function of the Buckler.
That's outside the feat.
We just need a FAQ on the Buckler.
That's it.
It'd be cool to have a buckler FAQ. Even if we all agreed that this FAQ altered the rules for bucklers in general, having it buried in another FAQ isn't the right place for it.
Making a rule where one doesn't exist is also a house-rule. Removing an existing rule is a house rule. As Mark said, we're talking different wording between the feats.
No one is removing an existing rule.
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
The question becomes "is a buckler carried in your off hand"
Answering that no is a legitimate call.
That call got a LOT more legitimate with the slashing grace FAQ saying that a buckler isn't occupying the hand.
No rulings have changed for dervish dance after the Slashing Grace FAQ.
The position of a buckler as not occupying your hand was clarified.
It was determined that dex to damage on a one handed weapon and a buckler was not over powered.
It was determined that you can fence with a buckler a la an actual swashBUCKLER.
From any perspective of rules interpretation the buckling dervish dancer got a boost.
I think your use of the other FAQ is a houserule but that doesn't mean your final interpretation is. You can come to the right conclusion using the wrong method.
how on earth would an interpretation METHOD be a house rule?
The FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has.
Because of the eldritch product line organization of paizo we don't get FAQs on the other stuff, so this is the best information I have to go on on a gray area so thats what I'm going to use. Nothing house rule about it.
No one is removing an existing rule.
You cannot use this feat if you are carrying a weapon or shield in your off hand.
The question becomes "is a buckler carried in your off hand"
Answering that no is a legitimate call.
That call got a LOT more legitimate with the slashing grace FAQ saying that a buckler isn't occupying the hand.
Not really. It's as legitimate as it was before the slashing grace FAQ.
The position of a buckler as not occupying your hand was clarified.
It was determined that dex to damage on a one handed weapon and a buckler was not over powered.
It was determined that you can fence with a buckler a la an actual swashBUCKLER.
From any perspective of rules interpretation the buckling dervish dancer got a boost.
Occupy yes. There is nothing that says occupy and carry mean the same thing in terms of the feats. See Marks post about "the wording difference between the feats".
how on earth would an interpretation METHOD be a house rule?
The FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has.
Doing something explicitly prohibited, such as expanding the scope of a FAQ, is against the rules. Would you prefer me say 'unofficial' or 'unfounded' instead of 'houserule'?
Because of the eldritch product line organization of paizo we don't get FAQs on the other stuff, so this is the best information I have to go on on a gray area so thats what I'm going to use. Nothing house rule about it.
I could care less WHY we aren't meant to expand on FAQ, I just know Mark said we shouldn't do it. If you want to make a personal call on a grey area, go for it. Using an unrelated FAQ to prove your point isn't. From a rules standpoint, unless the FAQ "cover multiple topics", nothing can be extrapolated from them. Nothing gets legitimized by an FAQ except the actual topic(s) of said FAQ.
Nefreet: I understand it's a reasonable ruling. Before I saw Mark repeatedly say "The FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has", I'd have agreed. However the Magical Lineage FAQ is worded "Can I use this trait to adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?" It doesn't say 'can A trait adjust a spell's effective level below the unmodified spell's original level?'
Silly? Maybe. The RAI is pretty clear but the RAW went from clear to cloudy by making FAQ's of such limited scope. With the stance on FAQ's, they are going to have to be worded in a more open manner if they are meant to be read that way. IE: if no trait is meant to drop spell levels below the original levels then it should say that instead of talking about one trait only.
Occupy yes. There is nothing that says occupy and carry mean the same thing in terms of the feats. See Marks post about "the wording difference between the feats".
Its a distinction without a difference. Do we REALLY want to encourage, if not outright demand, that people dissect every single word of the rules down to those minute nuances? Thats not splitting hairs thats inducing nuclear fission. We'd be back to barbarian and rogue uncanny dodge being completely different, using wayang shadow hunter to evade the restrictions on similar traits, taking feats multiple times because of vaugarities in the stacking rules, cats singing with dogs, uncanny dodge not working in the dark, people staying upright while dead...
Its not that uncommon for paizo staff to head desk at some of the dissecting players do of the rules and their writing but if you're going to make a pretty big difference in a character on two feats that do the same thing based on whether a buckler is being carried or occupied then you're requiring that players break out the scalpels and double check the kidneys to get the rules right. On the one hand they're saying use common sense, on the other hand they're saying forget common sense you need to read these rules over like a contract with a chelaxian Genie on a discount ring of 2 and a half wishes.
The LAST thing paizo should be doing for a complicated rule set who's goal is to get everyone on roughly the same page is to increase the level of pedanticism required to read their rules because their rules are NOT written tightly enough to survive it.
Doing something explicitly prohibited, such as expanding the scope of a FAQ, is against the rules. Would you prefer me say 'unofficial' or 'unfounded' instead of 'houserule'?
Unofficials fine. Unfounded is ridiculous.
I could care less WHY we aren't meant to expand on FAQ, I just know Mark said we shouldn't do it. If you want to make a personal call on a grey area, go for it. Using an unrelated FAQ to prove your point isn't. From a rules standpoint, unless the FAQ "cover multiple topics", nothing can be extrapolated from them. Nothing gets legitimized by an FAQ except the actual topic(s) of said FAQ.
For someone with gray in their name you have a very black and white view of the rules.
No, FAQs don't provide PROOF of the one true rule. But they do provide a fair bit of guidelines and evidence for other very similar rulings, either directly or by exposing some of the unwritten rules
For a rock solid example, would you really not use the Fly and diagonals movement FAQ for other 3d terrain like flying, swimming, or two earth elementals duking it out?
Graystone, I'm trying to wrap my head around something.
Are you saying that you can't extrapolate the fact that a buckler doesn't occupy a hand from an FAQ about Slashing Grace to apply to anything outside of slashing grace?
Are you saying that we can't know exactly how a character who doesn't have Slashing Grace wears a buckler, even though the FAQ tells us, because that would be "expanding the scope of the FAQ?" (I can't find the text of the thing, so I can only guess what is says generally from context.)
Graystone, I'm trying to wrap my head around something.
Are you saying that you can't extrapolate the fact that a buckler doesn't occupy a hand from an FAQ about Slashing Grace to apply to anything outside of slashing grace?
I'm saying that's what Mark has said. Look at Mark's post. Then look at his other quote: "The FAQ has the scope that the FAQ says it has". I'm not the one that's made the FAQ's so narrow, it's the PDT's.
Are you saying that we can't know exactly how a character who doesn't have Slashing Grace wears a buckler, even though the FAQ tells us, because that would be "expanding the scope of the FAQ?" (I can't find the text of the thing, so I can only guess what is says generally from context.)
I'm again stating the FACT that Mark has said FAQ's only cover what they cover. No more, no less. The slashing grace FAQ ONLY covers the feat slashing grace.
BigNorseWolf: I'm only following the guidelines set down by those that make the FAQ's. I've often extrapolated from the FAQ's in the past but when I presented those in questions, the reply from Mark was 'an FAQ only covers what it covers'. I'm into black and white because that's what I've been left with from the FAQ's. When I'm told by someone that crafts the rules that we aren't meant to extrapolate the rules I take them at their word.
Now does this complicate things and increase pedanticism? I'm sure it does. I'm not the one that picked that path though. I was happy to use the FAQ's as guidelines but I've been told that doing so is wrong and FAQ's are meant to have a very limited scope. If you don't like this, I'm not the one you should complain to. It's not what I wanted either.