While yes i agree it should be errated soon i dont think if you go to a sacntioned event and break out your level 12 summoner with 36 extra evolution points or even your 5th level dwarf barbarian with 40+ rounds of rage and point out that its in the RAW and they never told you otherwise it will be playable.
Back to the original point of the thread...
The 1/4 is actually pretty useful. When you consider that by level 20 you've got 5 extra skill points from that, and then if you take Extra Evolution a max number of times you've got 4 from that you've got an Eidolon with 9 extra skill points.
Alternatively you can draw from that pool for your Greater Aspect ability and still have an Eidolon that is more powerful than a Summoner who HASN'T used Greater Aspect.
It doesn't SEEM to be that cool a feature, until you start realizing what you can do with 9 extra evolution points. I mean, making an Eidolon HUGE costs 10 evolution points.... so at 20th level you've basically given your Eidolon a +16 STR -8 Dex +8 Con +8 Natural armor for 1 evolution point and can go on to use the other 25 to customize the crap out of that thing.
The textual mistakes in the first printing does not cause any rule-wise significance.
The human paladin resistance bit is only an example (and clearly a flawed one, given commonsense and subsequent editing) and not a general rule for favored class alternative bonus.
The rules only state that the bonus stack with itself, not that they in anyway are calculated per level.
As we look into the favored class alternatives, neither they describe the bonusses as being per level, as such we have no RAW to suggest that interpretation.
The only uncertainty which could be derived from the former human paladin example, is whether there was a mistake in that entry or in the human paladin favorite class entry. 'Per level' could be missing one place, or mistakingly have be added the other. At that time we might not have known which was true (although commonsense would suggest the latter), but since Paizo edited the text (which is official, although it hasn't been made public), then there can be no dispute the rules as of now.
It didn't and does not build a premise to make a claim that any other favored class options are per level.
Ok.... I'm going to chime in here as what I am in the NON-gaming world. A graduate level English Major.
You guys are fighting over a misunderstanding of the use of a Comma. Comma being "," that tiny little point of punctuation.
In the case of resistance given the points stack.
But if you go on to read more than the generic example they clarify things. Specifically the part about fractions.
If you turn to page 23 of the APG the Paladin favored class options specifically reads (Maximum +10) so even if you want to read it that there is an uberstack affect NO YOU CANNOT GET TO RESISTANCE 100.
In some cases, RAW trumps RAI regardless, hence why I flagged this thread as FAQ and think other should do the same.The new wording is in the 2nd print book. The new wording is in the PRD. it IS official. Your RAW is from an old source. no need to FAQ
That's the thing, not everyone is aware that it IS an old source. Pathfinder isn't an MMO, you can't just patch or hotfix bugs and mistakes. That's the entire point of errata, to correct or clarify mistakes they may have made.
That has to be the biggest load of garbage I have ever heard.
Nah. It's the stuff you've been posting, and I'm pretty sure you know it.
New poster shows up throwing out takes on the rules that no sane person would ever arrive at? You've had a pretty good run of trolling but I think we're all on to you now.
Love how we argue over it not being errated. And while yes i would agree that it would help at the same time as Dire put it no sane person needs errata to tell them they are wrong.
Character attacks on people are pointless and not helpful. And frankly, I don't see why people are arguing.
There is a printed rule that has not been properly errata'd. Yes, the usage of common sense easily solves the problem of how to handle that rule, because the interpretation of how it was written is absurd and unbalancing. However, in the absence of common sense, there are rules, and those rules were never properly implemented. And somewhere out there, there's somebody that's going to throw common sense out the window and try to rules lawyer themselves into being more powerful. And if that somewhere happens to be PFS, where the GMs have their hands tied on 'house rules' or interpreting anything in any way other than how it is expressly written, it could be a problem.
Make you a deal I'll drop common sense as an arguement and you go find the PFS GM who will allow the 100 EP summoner or event the 440+ rounds of rage barbarian deal?
It's not a matter of them allowing something. It's a matter of them being bound to follow the written rules, no matter how ridiculous.
The Second printing which they would have does have those things updated. just because a player who shows up doesnt have it doesnt mean they would allow it.
Why don't you all take this arguing over Errata vs Printing to a different thread because you've completely KILLED the actual thread, which has to do with Half-Elf Summoners.
your right Bruno thank you for your insight that sorcerers should have every spell below ninth level if their human. paladins should have more Energy resistance than every nessacary. Summoners can have a Eidolon with every abialty plus ones you have time to make up. Barbarians can be faster than anything in the books. And finally to end the rant Alchemist cna have 120+ bombs a day.
All these things were clearly meant to be this way and we humbly bow before your supior knowledge and understanding of the rules.
Now Please go to your meeting of the Lolly Pop Guild and leave those of us with brains alone.
I lol'd hard to this.
Dear sir, you win an Internet.*Pours fuel on the troll's fire*
Thank you *puts Internet into bag of holding*
|
That's the thing, not everyone is aware that it IS an old source. Pathfinder isn't an MMO, you can't just patch or hotfix bugs and mistakes. That's the entire point of errata, to correct or clarify mistakes they may have made.In some cases, RAW trumps RAI regardless, hence why I flagged this thread as FAQ and think other should do the same.The new wording is in the 2nd print book. The new wording is in the PRD. it IS official. Your RAW is from an old source. no need to FAQ
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for not obeying the law. " -Judge Dredd
|
|
It's not a matter of them allowing something. It's a matter of them being bound to follow the written rules, no matter how ridiculous.
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
says hai2u!
|
Regarding the original topic:
The +1/4 evolution points is one of the main reasons you see so many summoners as half-elves. It's downright the most valuable ability you could get for a summoner.
As for this incident with stacking, at first I thought Bruno was some raving lunatic (hey, those kind of people are not unheard of!). After some reading though, and I checked my APG and PRD, he proved to be right! What's the lesson here? Even if the suggestion is extraordinarily ridiculous, check the background and the rules throughoutly without immediately dismissing the situation.
Granted, Bruno didn't bring his point up so clearly at first. A copy from the APG p. 9 would have proven the point before people started to roll their eyes. :)
And errata is always around, whether you like it or not. They spot a mistake, they fix it. There's a solid reason I like PDFs a lot more than physical copies, as PDFs are easier to update to the current version.
I cleaned up some posts. Play nice.
|
Regarding the original topic:
The +1/4 evolution points is one of the main reasons you see so many summoners as half-elves. It's downright the most valuable ability you could get for a summoner.
As for this incident with stacking, at first I thought Bruno was some raving lunatic (hey, those kind of people are not unheard of!). After some reading though, and I checked my APG and PRD, he proved to be right!
Unless you read the section of text which explains how you use the alternate favored class bonuses.
Finally, some of these alternate favored class benefits only add +1/2, +1/3, +1/4, or +1/6 to a roll (rather than +1) each time the benefit is selected; when applying this result to the die roll, round down (minimum 0). For example, a dwarf with rogue as his favored class adds +1/2 to his trap sense ability regarding stone traps each time he selects the alternate rogue favored class benefit; though this means the net effect is +0 after selecting it once (because +1/2 rounds down to +0), after 20 levels this benefit gives the dwarf a +10 bonus to his trap sense (in addition to the base value from being a 20th-level rogue).
Which makes it pretty clear.
Reading the whole section instead of just cherry picking a single phrase brings clarity.
I am truly glad that some of the people in this thread, who will remain nameless, are not sitting down at my table. I have a very special piece of marble that I reserve for flinging at people who try to very clearly manipulate the rules beyond what is logically allowed.
I mean, really? You think a HUNDRED evolution points is equivalent to 1 hp / skill rank a level? If you're not trolling and are seriously confused, then use your head! Compare the bonuses to the OTHER Favored Class benefits or even the other Summoner Benefits!
If you're trolling, I have a pit of acid with your name scrawled at the bottom. Under the acid. Please, by all means, go check it out to prove me wrong.
|
|
Ogre, you are correct the text says to a DICE ROLL and summoners do not roll dice to figure evo points. the words "to a dice roll" or "to a roll" is stated more than once in that sentence, not 100% sure how people were overlooking that.
The wording on the specific bonus is unclear, the text in the forward section clearly demonstrates how the rules are meant to be applied. The fact that it doesn't go into exacting detail to spell it out for every specific situation is irrelevant, it sets enough precedence that reasonable people can make the connections.
After a certain point you are no longer accidentally misreading a rule and deliberately twisting it and you have crossed that point. If your group plays that way, enjoy. If the rest of your group doesn't play that way then you are likely going to irritate the hell out of them and there is a fair chance you will get asked to leave or break the whole group up.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
First of all, I'd like to thank everyone on this board who is being civil and trying to determine the Pathfinder game rules. It's easy to get snarky, and I applaud those people who aren't falling for that trap.
I think any GM worth his salt would know better, period. I mean really if you as a GM would agree with that arguement, I think you either are very very new to gaming or plan on rushing the party with the tarrasque by level 10.
With respect, Talonhawke, some of the "bonus per level per level" are powerful but not ridiculously so. For example, a paladin at 10th level having 100 points of resistance to a single energy type seems powerful but not game-breaking. (This is in exchange for 10 hit points, which would be useful to the paladin in every combat, under every circumstance. It seems like a much fairer trade to me than 10 points of resistance to a single energy type.)
I've been a gamemaster for over 30 years, and I'm still not sure what sorts of abilities the Pathfinder design team feels are overpowered (3.5 spiked chains; vital strike as an attack action) or not (heirloom weapon, Hellcat Stealth, that taunting feat from UM that forces an enemy to physically rush towards you and attack you...)
At the end of the day, there's only one reading of the rule that a remotely reasonable person would arrive at.
It's not the one where the eidolon gets literally every evolution. If someone genuinely considers that one to be a valid possibility (which I do not believe to be the case), they are not a remotely reasonable person and are politely requested to not breed or harm others.
I've already pointed out that pg 23 of the APG under Paladin Favored Class specifically states that you CAN'T get 100 Energy resistance.
All the people reading page 9 would do well to go on to read the actual EXPANDED sentences on Favored Class abilities because they're pretty clearly written out in the actual lines talking about them, as opposed to the generic lines describing them as a preface.
No I really dont see how this is anymore broken than any other min/maxed character.
Excuse me while I fall over laughing.
Edit: I can't say anything nice, so I'm going to call it a day and give up on this topic.
|
The main fact is specific rules trump general. The general has bad wording, the specific sum it up nicely.
*************
Here is half-elf:
Favored Class Options
Instead of receiving an additional skill rank or hit point whenever she gains a level in a favored class, half-elves have the option of choosing from a number of other bonuses, depending upon their favored class. The following options are available to all half-elves who have the listed favored class, and unless otherwise stated, the bonus applies each time you select the listed favored class reward.
Bard: Add 1 to the half-elf's total number of bardic performance rounds per day.
Druid: Select one cleric domain power at 1st level that is normally usable a number of times per day equal to 3 + the druid's Wisdom modifier. The druid adds 1/2 to the number of uses per day of that domain power. For half-elf druids whose nature bond gives them an animal companion, add +1 skill rank to the animal companion. If the half-elf ever replaces her animal companion, the new companion gains these bonus skill ranks.
Fighter: Add +1 to the fighter's CMD when resisting a disarm or overrun.
Ranger: Add +1 skill rank to the ranger's animal companion. If the half-elf ever replaces his companion, the new companion gains these bonus skill ranks.
Rogue: Add a +1/2 bonus on Bluff checks to feint and Diplomacy checks to gather information.
Summoner: Add +1/4 to the eidolon's evolution pool.
Witch: Add one spell from the witch spell list to the witch's familiar. This spell must be at least one level below the highest spell level she can cast. If the witch ever replaces her familiar, the new familiar knows these bonus spells.
************
Add +1/4 instead of +1 HP or +1 SP for a summoner option. Each time it raises, you gain either +1 HP, +1 SP, +1/4 Evolution, No more, No less. And I know certain folks will latch on to "unless otherwise stated", that term is referring to abilities that cap off, like resistance. This cap at 10, so if you take it 11 times, it would not be added on since you are maxed out.
|
|
I'm puzzled as this case is actually solved already. Regardless of whether Paizo has or hasn't released an errata for older printings fixing the few lines in Advanced Player's Guide page 9, it has been edited in later printings and thus should be considered an official change.
While specifically 'cherry-picking' this said "per level" thing from APG, it still was a contradictory description bound to confuse some people. It's necessary to point out these contradiction so they may be fixed to upcoming printings of the product.
An example of a contradiction appears if you keep reading the said page 9 of APG. The text gives out an example of a dwarf rogue gaining +10 to trap sense at level 20 due to the +½ alternate favored class bonus. Just one paragraph ago this was not the case.
While the intention of the rules was clear from the beginning, knowing issues like these helps oneself. If you later encounter a delusional player insisting on playing by the 'rule' described, you are able to counter that and offer facts to trump this false interpretation.
Remarks about how one would not allow said player to play in his/her games just because the player interpretates contradictionary rules differently is not getting this anywhere. As Bruno said critical, objective research and evaluation will solve the issue in a shorter period of time and avoid unnecessary insults. Similar rule issues are bound to happen, and those who bring up these contradictions are not the culprits. Shame on the people who actually attempt to use misinterpretations in games. I've had a good share of those experiences... stubborn people who can't see their error and insist on using the more powerful (if not overpowered) interpretation. It sours the mood.
If anyone would come to my table and start flinging metamagicked cantrips/orisons for unlimited amounts per day, I'd be fine with it. I know how that works and agree with it (although some would not), and don't find it in any way to be game-breaking.
I, at least, never thought of the particular interpretation as correct or balanced in any way. But I did point out that it was, in fact, a valid interpretation of the rules, no matter my objections to it, and would thus like to see the problem solved on a level beyond the simple DM fiat of laughing at the player and telling him to stop trying to munchkin.
