|
Cite please? Because other then JJ mucking things up, I don't remember any other game designers contradicting what has been used since 3.x days.
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
Don't tell Lisa! I'll get fired!
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!
I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
I won't ;) .
Actually agree with you on that...and that's kinda the point I'm trying to get through to RD...and failing. If his group has ruled that the VS and cleave work with spring attack and they are having fun with it, errata or not, they can STILL keep playing that way with no ill effect. The only people that this really affects is PFS players.
Amen, James, amen. Discussing things that are fuzzy to oneself is one thing, cutting rules up and analyzing not only the rules, but the thought process that went into the rules, and the lunch that the designers likely had the day the rules were written just gets a bit tiresome.
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
As Mortika said, it can allow us to avoid arguments at the table later on, so its a good thing, even if it can be a bit taxing at times.
I like your lunch joke. Reminds me of the time I challenged a game designer's ruling because he had been taking powerful pain killers at the time and made a poor decision as a result. The ruling was later reversed.
Know what makes me sad? Seeing discussions/topics clogged with nonconstructive criticisms for daring to actually talk about something.
The posts that do nothing but state that you don't have to follow the official rules in your own game could follow their own advice, by not reading threads they don't enjoy.
The advantage these threads serve have been stated already in this same thread. Better to hash it out during the time when you can't game than to clog the actual gaming sessions with debate and a lack of understanding.
It's quite valid to have issues with the rule, even outside Pathfinder Society. Not everyone runs their own game, and in fact the majority are players (4+ PCs vs 1 DM). So when someone sees a rule changed for the worse (or a bad rule in general), it's outside of their control whether it gets included or not. Like it or not, many DMs will not question an official rule, either trusting the designers' wisdom or wanting to avoid too many house rules. There exist DMs and players that will drop a system once house rules become sufficiently large (or the system sufficiently unfun).
Know what makes me sad? Seeing discussions/topics clogged with nonconstructive criticisms for daring to actually talk about something.
This I agree with. There is nothing wrong with discussing a rule change, especially if said rules change happens to be generally unpopular and/or confusing.
On a more serious note; threads like this kind of make me sad. Think of all the fun gaming time that could have been had instead of spending hours arguing over a a rule!I often miss the days where the GM got to decide how things worked in the game.
Yeah, well when you make a game based on rules, people expect them to be consistent and easy to interpret.
Never even mind that Pathfinder has a living setting that requires you to adhere to the rules as written.
Try these out.Cite please? Because other then JJ mucking things up, I don't remember any other game designers contradicting what has been used since 3.x days.
According to the game designers, you're both wrong.The term needs to be done away with entirely, in large part because its not a defined term (nor should it be) and is only serving to muck things up royally.
Links to several JB quotes.
All the links you are showing from JB are referring to Attack Actions, whereas IIRC the term "attack action" was no where in the old description of Spring Attack. It was instead an unspecified action, labeled an Attack. I have never seen any quotes from the designers (other than JJ, one time, saying he was allowing it in his home game) which specify that they intended to allow VS with SA. In fact, although I don't have links saved, I have seen quotes from the designers to the contrary.
All they did was clear up the unspecified action. Which is one of the things the masses have been crying about for quite some time. And now that they have cleared up the confusing writing and specified exactly what type of action it was meant to be, they are rewarded with this. They have stated many times that they try to lave things up to individual groups and GMs. But when people demand an official answer, what a lot of people really seem to be saying is "AGREE WITH ME!" and "PROVE ME RIGHT!" what they don't seem to be able to accept is when the ruling comes down and it is not in line with their particular view of how the rules should be. The designers can't please everyone. So take their ruling as it is, for what it is, and be careful what you wish for in the future.
As for "hashing it out" what is there left to hash out? The ruling has been made, taking it or leaving it is a decision, once again, for individual groups and DMs, not in a forum which has no bearing on the game you are actually at home playing.
|
As Mortika said, it can allow us to avoid arguments at the table later on, so its a good thing, even if it can be a bit taxing at times.
You shouldn't need this. If you have a question at the table ask your DM. He answers, end of story. If there is still an argumant at the table, somone is being a d*ck.
All the links you are showing from JB are referring to Attack Actions, whereas IIRC the term "attack action" was no where in the old description of Spring Attack. It was instead an unspecified action, labeled an Attack. I have never seen any quotes from the designers (other than JJ, one time, saying he was allowing it in his home game) which specify that they intended to allow VS with SA. In fact, although I don't have links saved, I have seen quotes from the designers to the contrary.All they did was clear up the unspecified action. Which is one of the things the masses have been crying about for quite some time. And now that they have cleared up the confusing writing and specified exactly what type of action it was meant to be, they are rewarded with this. They have stated many times that they try to lave things up to individual groups and GMs. But when people demand an official answer, what a lot of people really seem to be saying is "AGREE WITH ME!" and "PROVE ME RIGHT!" what they don't seem to be able to accept is when the ruling comes down and it is not in line with their particular view of how the rules should be. The designers can't please everyone. So take their ruling as it is, for what it is, and be careful what you wish for in the future.
As for "hashing it out" what is there left to hash out? The ruling has been made, taking it or leaving it is a decision, once again, for individual groups and DMs, not in a forum which has no bearing on...
There is a stat block in one of the APs that has a character with VS and Spring Attack. The tactics for the character say that they use the 2 together. This was used as justification that they should work together before spring attack was clarified, and is what caused JJ to say they probably should be usable together.
The problem with this clarification, though needed, is that it goes against what was previously said and published to take a sub-optimal but marginally effective build and make it worse. Vital strike brought spring attack into usefulness, and this ruleing once again makes it underpowered. Spring attack could have been worded in such a way to allow the combination to work.
For instance, "When you use a move action to move, you may perform an attack action at any point in the movement after you have moved 10 feet and continue your movement. You do not provoke AoO for this movement from the target of the attack. You may not use this against foes that started adjacent to you at the start of this turn."
This would allow you to combine vital strike and sunder with spring attack, which you can not do under the new wording, while still adding the clarity that was asked for.
There is a stat block in one of the APs that has a character with VS and Spring Attack. The tactics for the character say that they use the 2 together. This was used as justification that they should work together before spring attack was clarified, and is what caused JJ to say they probably should be usable together.
Fair enough. I was unaware of that. Actual publications like that do give far more weight to the argument that it should be compatible. Then again, it could be a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing. I have actually found them before. A feat in one AP that stemmed from rules that didn't actually exist anywhere in any RAW. The publication you are referring to could very well have been a similar event, where a writer liked that particular view of the ambiguous rules and created that NPC with that in mind. It may have been overlooked published without any intention of making that the official stance of the designers themselves.
The problem with this clarification, though needed, is that it goes against what was previously said and published to take a sub-optimal but marginally effective build and make it worse. Vital strike brought spring attack into usefulness, and this ruleing once again makes it underpowered. Spring attack could have been worded in such a way to allow the combination to work.
While I can understand the frustration of people who had characters taking advantage of stacking those feats. You admit yourself it is a sub-optimal build. In fact, I would say "sub-optimal" is an understatement:
The best candidates for using that combo IMO would be Rangers, Clerics, Druids and Rogues. Barbarians, Fighters, and Paladins would have a far better result standing toe to toe and dishing out full attacks. Clerics and Druids do a little melee sometimes but their main power comes from spells for the most part, so I can see the mobility of the SA feat tree coming into play, but really don't see VS being worth it. Melee Rangers could make good use of it especially after gaining HiPS. But most melee Rangers are TWF which makes VS a poor secondary option for rounds in which you need to move and it would be useless for archery rangers. Rogues make the best use of SA especially if they go Shadowdancer and gain HiPS, but they don't get the higher versions of VS until way late in the game because of BAB requirements. Also they have Sneak Attack so don't really need VS, and again, the TWF chain is a better option.
Spring Attack has IMO always been about mobility and strategic positioning. As you say, trying to make it a power-hitting combo is "Sub-Optimal" at best. So why try to make the square peg fit in the round hole.
Actually, the best candidate is the Monk.
Actually, the best candidate is the Monk.
.
I personally think Stunning Strike, Flurry of Blows, and Combat Maneuvers (Particularly Disarm and Grapple) are far better ways to go for a Monk than SA. Although I must say, VS would be more useful for a Monk than for most due to the high dice they roll for damage in later levels. Still, they have better options IMO.
It depends whether you want to try and pummel something to death using abilities that are either saving throw based or are increasingly against things better at it than you.