|
Great, so now you want the rules to be 10,000 times longer so that they're ironclad for insane DMs. Perfect. I hope you're willing to pay a million bucks a book, because you're gonna be the only one buyin' 'em.
There's already a simple fix that negates the whole argument: read the frickin' rules.
I did...but the rules can go either way...which was the point. And the rules don't have to a 10000 times longer. Most of the arguments can be closed off using a 5-10 page FAQ+erattas. And I'm asking that most be closed off. The 3.5 assumption if feats are EX should be in the FAQ for example. 3.5 feats did have SU and spell like feats. They were explicitly labeled as such. Having no labels and go you pick is just bad bad news.
3.5 feats did have SU and spell like feats. They were explicitly labeled as such. Having no labels and go you pick is just bad bad news.
Really? So Holy Strike, Vorpal Strike, Positive Energy Aura, Spell Stowaway, Ghost Attack, Psionic Fist, Wild Talent are all EX abilities? That's not even everything, that's just a smattering from the 3.5 OGL content that I spent <5 minutes looking up.
Bloody hell...nobody bothers to read what spells actually do anymore? Read above. AMF negates EFFECTS...not the ability. Otherwise walking in a AMF would wipe your caster of all spells. The EFFECT of the feat is extra use of ability. Negating that effect is what's changing the use per day.
Right, but the paladin has a (Su) effect to have X LoH, and a (Su) effect to get more.
If having one effect suppressed prohibits from coming back, then same goes for the other.You are playing fast and loose with what is an ability and what is an effect, which is bad move #1. Then you are letting the rules use you to make an absurd conclusion rather than you using the rules to conclude valuable results.
And just to be thorough, I guess I should add:
Bloody Hell, some people don't bother to use rational thinking to keep what the rules say in the larger context and purpose.
|
|
3.5 feats did have SU and spell like feats. They were explicitly labeled as such. Having no labels and go you pick is just bad bad news.Really? So Holy Strike, Vorpal Strike, Positive Energy Aura, Spell Stowaway, Ghost Attack, Psionic Fist, Wild Talent are all EX abilities? That's not even everything, that's just a smattering from the 3.5 OGL content that I spent <5 minutes looking up.
Well never said 3.5 authors were perfect either...but that's what was suppose to happen :P .
|
|
Bloody hell...nobody bothers to read what spells actually do anymore? Read above. AMF negates EFFECTS...not the ability. Otherwise walking in a AMF would wipe your caster of all spells. The EFFECT of the feat is extra use of ability. Negating that effect is what's changing the use per day.Right, but the paladin has a (Su) effect to have X LoH, and a (Su) effect to get more.
If having one effect suppressed prohibits from coming back, then same goes for the other.You are playing fast and loose with what is an ability and what is an effect, which is bad move #1. Then you are letting the rules use you to make an absurd conclusion rather than you using the rules to conclude valuable results.
And just to be thorough, I guess I should add:
Bloody Hell, some people don't bother to use rational thinking to keep what the rules say in the larger context and purpose.
Okay your kinda missing the point, but IF you rule that the effect of usable a number times per day is a part of the effect of lay on hands, then your opening up AMF wiping any caster's spell memorized when they enter one. If you do NOT, then you have to deal with the feat effect of extra uses per day coming back or not. ALL the variable ruling is perfectly valid by RAW. So which is it? And you don't think a ruling that can cause AMF to wipe casters out isn't gonna cause some issues (assuming uniform rules application). The whole point, which your missing is that giving everyone the ability to call feats whatever they want is gonna just generate conflict. Yeah you can resolve it and take a ruling that is best for the group...but why should we HAVE to do that? The rules should cover something as basic as how an ability works.
Why do I keep reading this thread?
Hey, is this meant to be an ironic post?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Put me down for it's pretty easy to figure out what type of ability a feat is. And in favor of not wasting precious rules space trying to cover every possibly case for the folks who want to waste their energy failing to figure out the rules. And I think the people who review Paizo's rules are pretty darned good at it.
Also, when AMF is talking about supressing an effect, you do have to use some judgement as to what that means. In the case of a feat, it gives a benefit, which is not usually the same thing as an effect. If a feat gives me +1 hp per level, that's not going to be an effect. If it lets me stun someone, the stunning would be an effect. Easy enough. Hanging an argument on an extra channel use being an effect is gonna leave your argument on the floor.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Also: any time you count uses per day, you count up.
For example, a cleric who can channel 4 times a day has used 3 uses. If she gets drained 4 points of Charisma, she now has only 2 uses available, and cannot channel. If she gets a restoration, she goes back to having 4 uses per day, but still only has one more available, because she's used 3.
No rule is being invented, nor is there really a problem unless one is dealing with an inattentive rules lawyer. Process of elimination is being used, as previously described. When an ability does not state (Su) or (Sp), what is left is (ex), is it not?This reasoning is fallacious. Let me show you how:
When an ability does not state (Ex) or (Sp), what is left is (Su), is it not?
Precedent had already established that unless an ability is labeled (Sp) or (Su), it is extraordinary.
Apparently that changed somewhere along the way in Pathfinder.
Apparently that changed somewhere along the way in Pathfinder.
That might have been true for feats in the past, but it was NEVER a blanket rule for everything. In both v3.5 and in Pathfinder their are plenty of examples of abilities that are completely normal (that is, they don't belong in any of those three categories).
Where can I find the statement of Ex being the default?
You can't and James Jacobs came in and already said that there isn't a default.
I'm Extraordinary by default, you guys too.
Someone quoted the 3.5 Expanded Psionic Handbook, as if a 3.5 Accesory were a reliable source for anything (j/k)
I quote hogarth (quoting 3.5 EPH)
"Because psionic feats are supernatural abilities—-a departure from the general rule that feats do not grant supernatural abilities—-they cannot be disrupted in combat (as powers can be) and generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity (except as noted in their descriptions)."
Imo the contributor that wrote that part was drunk, as that "general rule" doesn't exist.
Edit: Prolly something more was mentioned, but I'm not going to read all that silly thread again.
Where can I find the statement of Ex being the default?
Nowhere. I tried to find this in my 3.5 core books (due to the arguments here), and it wasn't printed anywhere as far as I could tell.
Nowhere. I tried to find this in my 3.5 core books (due to the arguments here), and it wasn't printed anywhere as far as I could tell.
I just did a search on the entire 3.5 PH and it's not in there at all.
Meanwhile:
You can't write rules so they're 100% clear to everyone. Skip used to get Sage Advice questions asking "Do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?" You have to aim for a reasonable level of comprehension that won't run overlong and be redundant or condescending. If some people still aren't able to correctly interpret the intent of the rule, then those people shouldn't be GMing.
Or, as Monte says, "The DM is not a robot."
Book of Vile Darkness (which was a 3.0 product, but an accessory and not Core) stated that Vile Feats were supernatural abilities rather than extraordinary abilities.
Book of Exalted Deeds (which was a 3.5 product, if I'm not mistaken, and yet again an accessory and not Core) stated that Exalted Feats were supernatural in nature - rather than extraordinary abilities 'as most feats are' (this was the definition on BoED).
And then, of course, there was the intro for Psionic Feats in the 3.5 Expanded Psionic Handbook and in the SRD (slightly more 'Core' since it was included in the SRD), which stated that Psionic Feats were supernatural abilities - a 'departure from the general rule'.
But even then, there was not a clear and absolute 'tag' for each and every feat in existance - a feat which allowed for a different type of Wild Shape form, like the 3.5 Epic Feat 'Dragon Wild Shape' from SRD, obviously would have been supernatural in nature (since Wild Shape is - and was in 3.5 too - by its very nature a supernatural ability), but what about other less obvious feats - like the 3.5 Epic Feat 'Blinding Speed' from SRD, which stated that the character could 'act as if hasted for 5 rounds per day' ? Ex, Su or Sp ? Any of them would have been valid, somehow.
Just my 2c.
|
|
Nowhere. I tried to find this in my 3.5 core books (due to the arguments here), and it wasn't printed anywhere as far as I could tell.I just did a search on the entire 3.5 PH and it's not in there at all.
Meanwhile:
You can't write rules so they're 100% clear to everyone. Skip used to get Sage Advice questions asking "Do I have to take Power Attack before I can take Cleave?" You have to aim for a reasonable level of comprehension that won't run overlong and be redundant or condescending. If some people still aren't able to correctly interpret the intent of the rule, then those people shouldn't be GMing.Or, as Monte says, "The DM is not a robot."
Okay I get the reasonable level of rules comprehension...but considering I went through some 600 posts of people telling me that wield does not actually mean wield...I do think having ambiguity of feats can be anything is a bad thing. If you really don´t wanna use a default, then a couple footnotes in the feats list would have been all you needed. I don´t think somebody not being able to figure out if the spell countering feat in the APG is an EX, spell like or SU means they can´t be a DM...because hell...now that feats are anything I sure as hell can´t figure it out. The feat is based on a spell...but lacks the CL that spell like should have. So it could be SU...but it´s suppose to be a fightery type feat. It´s just BAD. Like I said, the best solution is write a FAQ, pick a default for feats. Then errata the offending feats.
Oh and the default I believe was posted in a FAQ.
And finally, the lack of errata content and FAQs so far is kinda disheartening. It feels as if your not supporting your product. You make the books, fix a couple of typos and then move on. The mechanics groups I play with have the APG. My more causal players do not...because I don´t allow it yet. Because I can´t trust the rules you guys have written...and with the core book getting such little support, I´m probably not gonna allow the APG until I play test it for another couple of months...assuming I allow it at all. I should not have to playtest the book for months to compile my own errata before I can allow casual players to play with it.
|
And finally, the lack of errata content and FAQs so far is kinda disheartening. It feels as if your not supporting your product. You make the books, fix a couple of typos and then move on. The mechanics groups I play with have the APG. My more causal players do not...because I don´t allow it yet. Because I can´t trust the rules you guys have written...and with the core book getting such little support, I´m probably not gonna allow the APG until I play test it for another couple of months...assuming I allow it at all. I should not have to playtest the book for months to compile my own errata before I can allow casual players to play with it.
Just as a quick side bar ...
Paizo has begun to impliment an FAQ. Don't forget the FAQ tag one can click to ask that a given rules question be answered in the official FAQ. And, as some have noted in other threads, these FAQ answers ARE starting to appear, although so far this has been done VERY quietly and under the radar for some reason (I'm guessing so any bugs can be fixed before an official announcement).
Go to the product page of some of Paizo's main products, like the Core book for example and you'll see the new Frequently Asked Questions Tab...
There are not very many answers yet, but at least we can see that there is some actual progress!