But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit there and make reasoned argument against the possibility of reasoned arguments, not without inviting accusations of being a manipulative and dishonest troll.However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
I'm fairly certain that Scott is not denying the existence of reasoned arguments. His point is that common sense is in fact, nothing like a reasoned argument.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are staking out a position that denies the possibility of a reasonable, common sense approach. Yet you are attempting to convince others of your position. There is a contradiction between your claims and your action.
Not quite.
I'm saying that the very idea of common sense has become a crutch that we use to avoid having to actually formulate solid arguments. By saying, "But it's common sense!" you have said something that amounts to, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I don't have to explain why because if you don't know already, it would be lost on you anyway."
Reasonableness is possible. Arguments can be made, and good arguments can be made. But this thread makes the claim that seeking intention over the written word is better (something that is tough to argue against), and then makes the further claim that it's possible to know that intention in every case simply by applying "common sense". That's silly. As has been shown above (see: druid companions and metal armor), common sense has absolutely no bearing. Arguments can be made from either side, and all of those arguments have merit, and none can be said to be better because in the end all we're doing is making educated guesses at what someone else (the designer) thought was the better argument.
Again, and this is important, when you are arguing for the intent of the rule, you are not necessarily arguing for the best way for the rule to be interpreted. You are arguing for what the designer of the rule would think is the best way for the rule to be interpreted.
deinol's advice to find something that works for your game is the best advice in this thread, because, in the end, that's the only interpretation you have any real control over, and it's the only one that matters.
That is in no way "obvious." To me, it seemed that metal armor, being "unnatural," prevented them from connecting to the source of their spells. It in no way implied some kind of ethical dilemma to me. I have no problem with them putting metal armor on their companions; perhaps they are ethically obligated to protect their companions to the best of their ability as wardens of nature, while not wearing armor made of metal is an important sacrifice to prove their devotion. You are adding in a fluff element which is only one of several possible explanations for the RAW. It is in no way RAI.From 3e: “Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor, but the class rules don’t specifically prohibit druid pets from wearing it. Can a druid dress his/her animal companion in metal armor?”
Now the druid code isn’t particularly well thought-out, but it does clearly imply a RAI answer to this question. Druids swear an oath not to wear metal armor, which clearly implies that they have an ethical objection to it. Whatever that ethical objection may be, it’s sure to hold up in regards to an animal which a druid is responsible for. Ergo, druid pets wearing metal armor is utterly silly.
Obviously the devs neglected to write in an “Also, druid companions can’t wear metal armor either” rule because they didn’t foresee druid players wanting to. And yet when this came up on the WotC forum and then on the Giant forum, there were plenty of people saying “Well we don’t know what RAI is!” and even “Why not? Wolves in mountain plate armor seems reasonable to me!” And I guarantee that, at this very moment, someone is reading this post and contemplating a similar response.
But whaddya gonna do? I’ve argued till I’m blue in the face, but all that really accomplishes is raising my blood pressure. In the end, I just put it down to interweb craziness and move on.
This made me lol like I've never loled before. It wouldn't fly in games where I was behind the screen. That said, if that's how you boogie in your own games, then by all means, I'm making a Druid with a jaguar companion, outfit him with a metric ton of metal armor, and name him Ravage!
|
I'm fairly certain that Scott is not denying the existence of reasoned arguments. His point is that common sense is in fact, nothing like a reasoned argument.But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit there and make reasoned argument against the possibility of reasoned arguments, not without inviting accusations of being a manipulative and dishonest troll.However when do you let common sense take overThe idea that common sense is even a thing is something that desperately needs to be put to rest. That phrase is violently mishandled.
But he's dancing on both sides.
When I said that no one "reasonably" disagrees about RAI, he attacked that.
Then he changed the wording to common sense (creating a strawman), and then attacked that strawman, while demanding I defend it.
This isn't about rules discussions, where honest folks come to the threads to look for suggestion. This is for people who have no interest in trying to figure out what the Rule as Intended is, but rather want to find ways to exploit loopholes in the Rule As Written.
Put another way, if identifying what the Rule as Intended is I isn't your goal, you are a cheese builder, looking for loopholes to exploit RAW.
And that way I just put it, is also pretty much the title of this thread. Almost verbatim in fact.
So the common sense strawman, and the "you know everything" strawman, have nothing to do with the basic point of the thread.
That being, if you are more interested in RAW than RAI, you are probably trying to find an exploit. And finding an exploit in a role playing game that goes against the rules as they were intended, is pathetic.
But he's dancing on both sides.
Am nooooooooooooooot!
When I said that no one "reasonably" disagrees about RAI, he attacked that.
Because it's silly. People have reasonable disagreements about RAI all the time. The fact that you don't find something that you disagree with reasonable isn't the point. Of course you don't find it reasonable. If you found it reasonable, you wouldn't disagree with it. But there are reasonable disagreements, whether or not you personally see it that way.
Then he changed the wording to common sense (creating a strawman), and then attacked that strawman, while demanding I defend it.
No, another poster used the words "common sense" to defend your position. I responded to that. Don't conjure up ulterior motives where none exist.
Put another way, if identifying what the Rule as Intended is I isn't your goal, you are a cheese builder, looking for loopholes to exploit RAW.
What if you think you know what the rule as intended was, but still disagree with it?
That being, if you are more interested in RAW than RAI, you are probably trying to find an exploit. And finding an exploit in a role playing game that goes against the rules as they were intended, is pathetic.
Again, what if the rules as they were intended are still bad rules?
Is it pathetic to try and find your way around a rule whose intent was wrongheaded to begin with?
Or maybe it's pathetic to call someone pathetic for playing the game in a way that they find enjoyable?
|
|
When I said that no one "reasonably" disagrees about RAI, he attacked that.Because it's silly. People have reasonable disagreements about RAI all the time.
ciretose's claim is that people do not have reasonable disagreements about the RAI, your claim is that they do ("all the time"). If you claim is true, then ciretose's claim is easily refuted. So refute it. Don't call it silly and claim it's easily refuted. That's meaningless and disingenuous. Refute the claim.
If people really do have reasonable disagreements about the RAI all the time, then it should be simplicity itself to refute ciretose's claim that they do not.
The fact that you are dismissing ciretose's claim as easily dismissible but refuse to demonstrate that by example is a pretty strong indication that your claim is facile and has no merit.
This made me lol like I've never loled before. It wouldn't fly in games where I was behind the screen. That said, if that's how you boogie in your own games, then by all means, I'm making a Druid with a jaguar companion, outfit him with a metric ton of metal armor, and name him Ravage!
Awesome! RAWR! That's the thing - just figure out a compromise with your DM. Sometimes players have their own ideas that conflict with the DMs ideas. As long as it doesn't actually hinder play or the campaign, I'd usually give it to them.
And +1 to everyone pointing out that there is no such thing as common sense, and that common sense and logic have nothing to do with each other. Common sense is something politicians refer to when they lack the ability to use logic.
|
|
Again, what if the rules as they were intended are still bad rules?Is it pathetic to try and find your way around a rule whose intent was wrongheaded to begin with?
Or maybe it's pathetic to call someone pathetic for playing the game in a way that they find enjoyable?
If you move the goalposts any further, this will become another edition wars thread...
Seriously, you've gone from trying to bait into a discussion of the definition of "reasonable" to "who care's what the intention was, man, I make my own rules and how dare you judge me!"
Crazy thought, why not actually refute what I'm saying. It's harder than arguing with yourself, but I think you may find it more fulfilling.
When I said that no one "reasonably" disagrees about RAI, he attacked that.Because it's silly. People have reasonable disagreements about RAI all the time.ciretose's claim is that people do not have reasonable disagreements about the RAI, your claim is that they do ("all the time"). If you claim is true, then ciretose's claim is easily refuted. So refute it. Don't call it silly and claim it's easily refuted. That's meaningless and disingenuous. Refute the claim.
If people really do have reasonable disagreements about the RAI all the time, then it should be simplicity itself to refute ciretose's claim that they do not.
The fact that you are dismissing ciretose's claim as easily dismissible but refuse to demonstrate that by example is a pretty strong indication that your claim is facile and has no merit.
Man, how many times does the druid-companion-in-metal-armor thing need to be brought up? Or the Slowed condition? Or any number of other examples that have already been brought to the forefront in this thread.
ciretose's claim was that reasonable disagreements over RAI don't happen. This thread is living proof that they do. That's all we need.
Heck, the Slowed condition thing has come up in my own games multiple times (with different groups).
Crazy thought, why not actually refute what I'm saying. It's harder than arguing with yourself, but I think you may find it more fulfilling.
We already did that. Last page. We've moved onto discussing something else.
Look, ciretose. You've accused me of arguing a straw man when the reality is that someone else broached the topic (defending your own position). You've accused me of baiting when the reality is that some of us decided to comment on a salient point deinol made. You've accused me of moving the goalposts when the reality is that we refuted your argument (see: Tequila Sunrise's post - and its follow-up discussion - that you never bothered responding to) fifty posts back and have moved on.
I mean, how do you think I ought to respond to this sort of behavior?
|
|
Man, how many times does the druid-companion-in-metal-armor thing need to be brought up?
I haven't seen anyone agree with you that the Druid's animal companion in metal armor thing is a reasonable disagreement over RAI. In fact, I've seen several people scoff at the notion that there is a reasonable way to interpret the prohibition so as to exclude the Druid's animal companion.
You were only able to do it by introducing a lot of fluff that is not in the book. From my perspective the link and share spells abilities indicate that the animal companion (which is in of itself a class ability) is an extension of the druid, and thus would share in the same prohibition.
Or the Slowed condition?
That's a 4E concern. I'd rather not get into a discussion over a game I've never played or read.
ciretose's claim was that reasonable disagreements over RAI don't happen. This thread is living proof that they do. That's all we need.
No, this thread is proof that one person can grasp at straws in a feeble attempt to avoid acknowledging the plainly obvious.
|
|
When I said that no one "reasonably" disagrees about RAI, he attacked that.Because it's silly. People have reasonable disagreements about RAI all the time.ciretose's claim is that people do not have reasonable disagreements about the RAI, your claim is that they do ("all the time"). If you claim is true, then ciretose's claim is easily refuted. So refute it. Don't call it silly and claim it's easily refuted. That's meaningless and disingenuous. Refute the claim.
If people really do have reasonable disagreements about the RAI all the time, then it should be simplicity itself to refute ciretose's claim that they do not.
The fact that you are dismissing ciretose's claim as easily dismissible but refuse to demonstrate that by example is a pretty strong indication that your claim is facile and has no merit.
Man, how many times does the druid-companion-in-metal-armor thing need to be brought up? Or the Slowed condition? Or any number of other examples that have already been brought to the forefront in this thread.
ciretose's claim was that reasonable disagreements over RAI don't happen. This thread is living proof that they do. That's all we need.
Heck, the Slowed condition thing has come up in my own games multiple times (with different groups).
Would you argue the intention of the "No metal for druids" rule was to exclude animal companions?
Would you argue the slowed condition was not meant to apply at all if you have increased movement from other sources?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, there is a brief moment of silence. Scott and Ciretose stare deeply into eachothers eyes, each smouldering with anger. And then, dear readers, as if drawn by the mutual passion of a thousand flaming moths, they lock arms and lips, and a furious make-out session commences. Their lust is so potent, so illicit, that they are both near-instantly offered jobs in the adult film industry. The go on to find wealth and happiness, and it was all thanks to their argument about... wait... what was it about again?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't seen anyone agree with you that the Druid's animal companion in metal armor thing is a reasonable disagreement over RAI.
That is in no way "obvious." To me, it seemed that metal armor, being "unnatural," prevented them from connecting to the source of their spells. It in no way implied some kind of ethical dilemma to me. I have no problem with them putting metal armor on their companions; perhaps they are ethically obligated to protect their companions to the best of their ability as wardens of nature, while not wearing armor made of metal is an important sacrifice to prove their devotion. You are adding in a fluff element which is only one of several possible explanations for the RAW. It is in no way RAI.
In fact, I've seen several people scoff at the notion that there is a reasonable way to interpret the prohibition so as to exclude the Druid's animal companion.
THAT'S THE POINT. The very nature of an argument is that neither side sees the other's position as reasonable. Of course people are going to scoff at it. They disagree with it. That doesn't mean that the disagreement itself isn't reasonable.
I mean, damn, if that's how you think arguments work, no one has ever had a reasonable disagreement in the history of ever.
You were only able to do it by introducing a lot of fluff that is not in the book.
No. I don't know if you're thinking of someone else, but my counter to the druid vow dilemma was that Catholic priests take vows of celibacy. This doesn't mean that they condemn sex. They simply acknowledge that sex is harmful to them, and their relationship with God.
The fact that you got me mixed up with someone else seems like pretty solid evidence that someone out there agreed with me.
But, more importantly, I LOVE that your response to it was "But it's not in the book, therefore it doesn't count!"
From my perspective the link and share spells abilities indicate that the animal companion (which is in of itself a class ability) is an extension of the druid, and thus would share in the same prohibition.
And your perspective is reasonable, as is the opposite perspective. These perspectives are grounded in their own reasons, and it's impossible to say who has the better argument because we're not actually trying to figure out who has the better argument. We're trying to figure out who the rule's designer would think has the better argument.
And, of course, I've already said this.
That's a 4E concern. I'd rather not get into a discussion over a game I've never played or read.
I don't really care. People disagree over it, that disagreement is reasonable.
No, this thread is proof that one person can grasp at straws in a feeble attempt to avoid acknowledging the plainly obvious.
This is totally off-topic, but the above line would be perfect for a supervillain about to deliver his masterstroke.
Would you argue the intention of the "No metal for druids" rule was to exclude animal companions?
I wouldn't argue either way, because I can see the merits of both perspectives (the priest example I used was merely for the sake of illustrating the point). If I were running a game, I would allow my players to outfit their animal companions in metal armor, because I err on the side of saying, "Yes, you can do that" when it comes to my players.
Would you argue the slowed condition was not meant to apply at all if you have increased movement from other sources?
Dear lord. That's not even what the Slowed condition argument is about.
In my mind, there is a brief moment of silence. Scott and Ciretose stare deeply into eachothers eyes, each smouldering with anger. And then, dear readers, as if drawn by the passion of a thousand flaming moths, they lock arms and lips, and a furious make-out session commences. Their lust is so potent, so illicit, that they are both near-instantly offered jobs in the adult film industry. The go on to find wealth and happiness, and it was all thanks to their argument about... wait... what was it about again?And nine months later, the synthesist is born.
I wasn't quite at the point of laughing out loud until I got hit with the second post.
Man, how many times does the druid-companion-in-metal-armor thing need to be brought up?I haven't seen anyone agree with you that the Druid's animal companion in metal armor thing is a reasonable disagreement over RAI.
Glad to see you are actually reading all the posts here.
Oh, wait...
Will save:
No way I could stay out of this one.
My take is this:
If the rules as written are actually written so poorly that we need to constantly question intent for fear of "cheese," and if this lack of clarity in the rules is so pandemic that it spawns whole threads... then maybe we need to question the value of the written rules, and not the motives of the people who intereperet them differently from ourselves.
There are a lot of places where, in the transition from 3.5 to PF, ubiquitous disagreements like "How much damage does an Empowered inflict wounds spell deal?" could have been cleared up by careful rewriting of the offending rule. This was very pointedly not done. My asumption is that the intent in leaving things unresolved was to allow "wiggle room" for different groups to play them differently, before making an actual decision. In other words, playtesting isn't over yet.
Often, if there are two interpretations, one may well be more effective than the other. That doesn't mean that the more effective one is automatically "cheese" -- it might mean that the less effective one is crippled, but the designers have yet to make a determination. Alternatively, it might mean that they just didn't think of something that they should have thought of (as with the "no cost for SLAs" example), and thereby failed in their job as designers in that instance, and should issue a clarification erratum ASAP by way of a "mea culpa."
Will save: 1d20-20
Wow. Your will save modifier looks a lot like mine.
Will save: 1d20-20
No way I could stay out of this one.My take is this:
If the rules as written are actually written so poorly that we need to constantly question intent for fear of "cheese," and if this lack of clarity in the rules is so pandemic that it spawns whole threads... then maybe we need to question the value of the written rules, and not the motives of the people who intereperet them differently from ourselves.
Just to play the role of Devil's avocado: Could it be possible that there is a small, though vocal, minority of people exploiting any potential loophole rules by arguing that intent is far more difficult to judge than it actually is?
Just to play the role of Devil's avocado: Could it be possible that there is a small, though vocal, minority of people exploiting any potential loophole rules by arguing that intent is far more difficult to judge than it actually is?
To badly paraphrase the man, "Never assume evil intent when simple ignorance will do."
Also, to counter-argue your counter-argument: could it be possible that there is a small, though vocal, minority of people exploiting one or two well-known rules loopholes in order to institute a witch-hunt over "cheese makers"? I get the feeling sometimes that if I dare to try and wear armor AND carry a shield, I'll be immediately accused of "cheese."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An excellent case in point are the endless threads on Vital Strike + charge.
In this instance, there's no question of whether the RAI were obvious, because the game designers themselves disagree over the interpretation.
Just to play the role of Devil's avocado: Could it be possible that there is a small, though vocal, minority of people exploiting any potential loophole rules by arguing that intent is far more difficult to judge than it actually is?To badly paraphrase the man, "Never assume evil intent when simple ignorance will do."
Also, to counter-argue your counter-argument: could it be possible that there is a small, though vocal, minority of people exploiting one or two well-known rules loopholes in order to institute a witch-hunt over "cheese makers"? I get the feeling sometimes that if I dare to try and wear armor AND carry a shield, I'll be immediately accused of "cheese."
Touche, sir.
|
An excellent case in point are the endless threads on Vital Strike + charge.
One camp (including Jason Bulmahn) says "OMG IT'S CHEESE DON'T LET ANYONE DO IT OMG!"
Another camp (including James Jacobs) says "What's the problem? It's not in any way game-breaking, and it allows normal people to get some use out of an otherwise lacklustre feat." In this instance, there's no question of whether the RAI were obvious, because the game designers themselves disagree over the interpretation.
Along those same lines, and still a-brewin': Brass knuckles.
This reminds me of the endless threads on Vital Strike + charge.
One camp (including Jason Bulmahn) says "OMG IT'S CHEESE DON'T LET ANYONE DO IT OMG!"
Another camp (including James Jacobs) says "What's the problem? It's not in any way game-breaking, and it allows normal people to get some use out of an otherwise lacklustre feat." In this instance, there's no question of whether the RAI were obvious, because the game designers themselves disagree over the interpretation.
I was going to say that as a designer, Jason's job is to be conservative on rulings. James answers these sorts of question from a "I'd allow that in my game but ask your GM" caveat and is inclined to be more lenient.
But then I got to thinking of them as supreme court justices with one of them writing the dissenting brief. We totally need a Pathfinder Rules Supreme Court. With written briefs on rulings. ;)
We totally need a Pathfinder Rules Supreme Court. With written briefs on rulings. ;)
Which of course means that "cheese" is not always defined unanimously according to "common sense."
All aboard! Ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!
Ay, Ay, Ay, Ay, Ay, Ay, Ay
Crazy, but that's how it goes
Millions of people living as foes
Maybe it's not too late
To learn how to love
And forget how to hate
Mental wounds not healing
Life's a bitter shame
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
Let's Go!
I've listened to preachers
I've listened to fools
I've watched all the dropouts
Who make their own rules
One person conditioned to rule and control
The media sells it and you live the role
Mental wounds still screaming
Driving me insane
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I know that things are going wrong for me
You gotta listen to my words
Yeah
Heirs of a cold war
That's what we've become
Inheriting troubles I'm mentally numb
Crazy, I just cannot bear
I'm living with something' that just isn't fair
Mental wounds not healing
Who and what's to blame
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I'm going off the rails on a crazy train
I was going to say that as a designer, Jason's job is to be conservative on rulings. James answers these sorts of question from a "I'd allow that in my game but ask your GM" caveat and is inclined to be more lenient.
But then I got to thinking of them as supreme court justices with one of them writing the dissenting brief. We totally need a Pathfinder Rules Supreme Court. With written briefs on rulings. ;)
If it means you don't get labeled a "rules lawyer" until you pass the Bar exam, I'm all for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then I got to thinking of them as supreme court justices with one of them writing the dissenting brief. We totally need a Pathfinder Rules Supreme Court. With written briefs on rulings. ;)If it means you don't get labeled a "rules lawyer" until you pass the Bar exam, I'm all for it.
At this point I'm now picturing every thread in the rules area as a Monty Python sketch where people in funny robes and wigs try to seriously argue about Pathfinder rules. We the audience sit back and laugh at the absurdity of it.
|
|
An excellent case in point are the endless threads on Vital Strike + charge.
One camp (including Jason Bulmahn) says "OMG IT'S CHEESE DON'T LET ANYONE DO IT OMG!"
Another camp (including James Jacobs) says "What's the problem? It's not in any way game-breaking, and it allows normal people to get some use out of an otherwise lacklustre feat." In this instance, there's no question of whether the RAI were obvious, because the game designers themselves disagree over the interpretation.
Actually if the Game Designer, the one who wrote the rule (Jason) is against it than the RAI doesn't include being able to charge with vital strike.
A house rule would allow it, and that is fine. Lord knows I've said ad nauseum in thread after thread "That is fine, house rule it for your game."
And that isn't cheese, that is building for your game.
Cheese is knowing that the intent of vital strike is to have a single attack that can do significant damage, but trying to find a work around that lets you use it for multi-attack through some loop hole.
That is what we are talking about, and that is very prevalent on the threads when you are actually able to get people to post builds.
Some may see this as simple ignorance, I see it as often intentional ignorance.
This appears to be the split.
Fine lets not use the term common sense lets use your term resonable.
I find a dicussion over whether or not alchemist do 1d6 or 2d6 first level bomb damage based on RAW reasonable. I do not however find arguing summoners having 100 extra evolution points or paladins having 400 energy resistance reasonable and anyone that does is clearly in the camp of the Cheese makers blessed as they may be.
Fine lets not use the term common sense lets use your term resonable.
I find a dicussion over whether or not alchemist do 1d6 or 2d6 first level bomb damage based on RAW reasonable. I do not however find arguing summoners having 100 extra evolution points or paladins having 400 energy resistance reasonable and anyone that does is clearly in the camp of the Cheese makers blessed as they may be.
Probably, yeah.
That doesn't mean that there aren't other discussions over RAI (some of them mentioned in this thread) that have no clear "right" answer.
Fine lets not use the term common sense lets use your term resonable.
I find a dicussion over whether or not alchemist do 1d6 or 2d6 first level bomb damage based on RAW reasonable. I do not however find arguing summoners having 100 extra evolution points or paladins having 400 energy resistance reasonable and anyone that does is clearly in the camp of the Cheese makers blessed as they may be.
Probably, yeah.
That doesn't mean that there aren't other discussions over RAI (some of them mentioned in this thread) that have no clear "right" answer.
And on that we agree. However most discussions without clear answers aren't always cheese makers my players didn't know you couldn't spring attack and vital strike until just recently wasn't really hurting the game (Just a lot of monsters) so yes we can agree that some are cut and dry.
Some RAI is hard to adjudicate. We don't all know what the game designers meant. We can't read their minds.
Post an example.
My experience is that it is generally clear, even among those on opposite sides of RAW debates, why a rule was put in.
The debate is about alternative ramifications.
Some examples I've run into:
1. Freedom of movement: The "move and act normally" text is open to a huge amount of interpretation. Does it work against all difficult terrain such as heavy undergrowth, snow, and the like making it so you can take 5 foot steps in difficult terrain or charge over difficult terrain? Do you need a form of locomtion in water such as fly? Do you still need to make swim checks to move in water? Nowhere in the text does it say you gain water walking, so how can you move and act normally besides negating the penalties for attacking with certain weapons underwater?
Does it work against daze and stun, effects that stop you from moving and acting normally? Some players think it does help against such effects because it works against hold effects, but I refuse to run it that way.
freedom of movement has never been clarified by the designers. It has been left to DMs to argue with their players over what it works. I made it not work for naturally occurring difficult terrain since the spell feather step specifically lists as allowing normal movement over difficult terrain and freedom of movement does not, nor does it allude to allowing normal movement over difficult terrain.
It seems to primarily be intended for magical and extraordinary abilities that directly have a movement impeding effect, but the text is so open-ended how can I know?
2. Spell Turning: Ray spells are effect spells. It says spell turning doesn't turn effects. I learned that James Jacobs in Paizo games allows spell turning to turn ray spells. But the wording in ray spells and the spell turning spell made me unsure if it would turn rays.
I'd been not allowing it to turn rays for some time. Now I reversed that decision because of clear guidance from the developers as to intent.
3. Deadly Defense: This is a lvl 19 ability. According to how I read the ability, I figured it allowed an attack every time a creature hit you, even if it was the same creature. So you could get attacks on a creature continually hitting you like come and get me, but the designer apparently intended the "per creature" to be more important than the "per hit" text, which means one AoO per creature that hits you. Which makes the ability substantially weaker for a lvl 19 ability, and a great deal weaker than Come and Get Me. Which is a little strange to me.
4. Mind Blank and Non-detection: The way the text is worded, it is unclear whether it works against see invisibility and true seeing when you are invisible. And there has been no clarification as to intent and quite a few arguments over RAW.
I play it that non-detection does not stop see invisibility or true seeing. I play it that mind blank stops both since it lists see invisibilty as a spell it stops and thus would probably stop a similar divination like true seeing.
The entire argument against non-detection not working against see invisibilty is that the spell makes the caster see differently and is not inherently a spell attempting to detect the invisible caster. I buy that argument for see invisibilty.
But since mind blank lists see invisibility as a blocked spell, I don't buy that argument for true seeing versus mind blank.
If they ever made see invisibility or true seeing transmutation spells, then problem solved. But at the moment I have no idea what the designers intended. So I go with the ruling that makes the most sense to me.
5. Devastating Blow: Does Overhand Chop work with it? It seems reading both Overhand Chop and Devastating Blow, they would work in unison. But if you go by RAW, they don't. But I tend to believe it was intended that Overhand Chop be useable in conjunction with Devastating Blow. So I allow it.
Did the designers intend it this way? I don't know.
6. Calcific Touch: Did the guy who made this spell really intend it for it to be the ultimate big dragon killing spell? Doubtful. But it's in the game and that is what it does if you run it by the RAW. A player can empower and reach this spell annihilating a Great Wyrm Red Dragon in one or two rounds with no saving throw.
Do I think the designer intended this? No. I do not. But what do I do about it?
I think there are a lot of rules that don't clearly show the intent of the designer and Paizo would be doing us all a great service if they took the time to take care of these problems DMs have to deal with in the game because it creates friction between the DM and the players. And there is no clear answer other than eratta that does a re-design for a spell like calcific touch or eratta that makes a spell like freedom of movement or mind blank more clear.
Yeah but your Druid from who lived his whole life in ustalav claiming his knowledge nature skill makes him familair with polar bears and T-rexs would be a bit much.
The issue isnt optimazation the issue is something that is clearly a loophole. Yes knowing to prep calcific touch against a dragon is a wonderful move even better if you can empower or maximize. However looking for ways to get something that is cleary an exploit isnt optimazation its Munchkining
Let's make something very, very clear.
If you aren't following RAI as intended, I am unimpressed with your build.
Lawyering a loophole to make your Uber-build doesn't not impress me. It depresses me actually. And I don't think you are a rules genius, but rather I think it is a sad and pathetic person who feels the needs to subvert rules in an imaginary world in order to succeed.
Because really, is there anything more sad than having to cheat in a role playing game among friends?
When you are reading the rules, and you have two options: One that seems reasonable and one that seems broken, if you choose the broken one you are wrong.
Seriously, you are wrong.
Developers are trying to make a game that is challenging, balanced, and fair.
Don't be the jerk who is trying to break the game.
Please, I'm begging you. After reading some of the people who post on here ridiculous rules subversion (I am looking at you Eidelon threads) half of the problems could be solved by asking the simple questions "What is the rule as intended".
You don't win if you are subverting the rules, no matter what lawyering you do. You aren't smarter than the Devs or the system, you just have a weak DM. And in the same way a child who doesn't get punished isn't awesomely petulant, they are a spoiled brat, you aren't brilliant, you are just...well to quote the Dude, if you are that guy then "You're not wrong Walter, you're just an..."
I mostly agree. I have no problem with optimization (and I like to optimize my pc's) but some times people go way beyond the edge.
I am not sure about the eidolon threads. (haven't read them all)
But this reminded me of a person who wanted to play a vow of poverty shapeshifter ranger master of many forms. Twice I found mistakes in his build and even I told him I didn't allow flaws he took three of them.
No issue with raw vs rai here but latter he had shapeshifted into a bear and made a claw attack. Acording to him when you hit with a bear claw attack, you deal damage, roll for grapple and if you succeed you deal damage again! He was actually right by the raw and had to look into the Rules of the Game articles about grappling to prove him he was wrong.
All that said he was a pretty ok guy and a good roleplayer. So the campaign went on pretty well.
Yeah but your Druid from who lived his whole life in ustalav claiming his knowledge nature skill makes him familair with polar bears and T-rexs would be a bit much.And? Precision, please. What is the druid from Ustalav familiar with? Is he familiar with all animals that appear in Ustalav, no matter how rare, localised, or seasonal? Can he become familiar with animals from a detailed description of them by another druid, who could even change into one himself if necessary? How about descriptions from other people, study of multiple books, etc? Does he need to observe them himself, and if so how long for before he is cnsidered familiar? Does a Knwoledge: Nature check mean anything in this case?
Also, what if he summons a creature? And since not every single day is played out in a character's life, if there is a chance he could have summoned the creature, can the player said he did on a day that was not played out?
|
|
Personally, why should anyone care if you think they're wrong? And what's with the name calling?
If you don't like optimization threads or threads talking about RAW stay out of them. Don't try and tell other people they shouldn't have those discussions or that their version of fun is wrong. Just mind your own business and don't try to act like someone made you the king of Pathfinder.
It isn’t about optimization.
It is about trying to find loopholes in RAW by ignoring RAI.
When you approach a rule, you can ask yourself one of two questions.
1. What is the intent of this rule.
2. How can I exploit the wording of this rule to do (X).
If you don’t do the second thing, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU.
If you do the second thing I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU.
I am very much in favor of occasionally bending RAW toward the intent of the rule for flavor sake.
I am very much against bending the rule from RAI to try to formulate some corner case and exploit a loophole.
And this is argued in the rules thread constantly. From “Contacting another plane isn’t distracting, I can totally take 10” to “It doesn’t say my quadruped eidelon can’t roll on it’s back and therefore get four attacks in a round and not be considered prone.”
It isn’t about my personal reading of the rule, it is about starting from the position of asking “What is the intent of this rule” when interpreting the rule rather than “Oh, they forgot a comma, now I can totally do that!”
I have to admit this thread is the first time I've ever experienced the idea that druid's animal companion couldn't wear metal armor. While I can see the logic behind such a position, I don't see anything in the druid description that makes such a position automatically the only right choice.
Heck, I could see logic in someone saying that a druid can't cast (helpful) spells on anyone else that wears metal armor. And again that might make for an interesting roleplaying characteristic, but I don't think such is the automatic default of the class.
And I don't think that is some cheesy loophole exploitation. I just don't see a taboo for the druid is automatically taboo for the animal companion. If the taboo had instead been that the druid couldn't eat meat, would that mean that the druid's animal companion couldn't as well?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheddar golems, smoothie potions, rind armor (peeled from wheels o' cheese), necklaces of habanero-infused cheese fireballs, cheesehead helm of teleportation (only to Packers home games), scrolls written on cheesecloth, stale feta shields, keen cheese slicers ... smacks lips ... now I'm hungry.
Variant of acid pit is fondu pit. fondu arrow, limburger cloud, feta-kill [ooc]cloudkill variant[/i], transmute blood to fondu ...
Mmmmm ... death ... by cheese!
An excellent case in point are the endless threads on Vital Strike + charge.
One camp (including Jason Bulmahn) says "OMG IT'S CHEESE DON'T LET ANYONE DO IT OMG!"
Another camp (including James Jacobs) says "What's the problem? It's not in any way game-breaking, and it allows normal people to get some use out of an otherwise lacklustre feat." In this instance, there's no question of whether the RAI were obvious, because the game designers themselves disagree over the interpretation.
Actually if the Game Designer, the one who wrote the rule (Jason) is against it than the RAI doesn't include being able to charge with vital strike.
A house rule would allow it, and that is fine. Lord knows I've said ad nauseum in thread after thread "That is fine, house rule it for your game."
And that isn't cheese, that is building for your game.
Cheese is knowing that the intent of vital strike is to have a single attack that can do significant damage, but trying to find a work around that lets you use it for multi-attack through some loop hole.
That is what we are talking about, and that is very prevalent on the threads when you are actually able to get people to post builds.
Some may see this as simple ignorance, I see it as often intentional ignorance.
This appears to be the split.
One person is not writing the rule. Jason may have conceived the rule, but in the process of editing you've got a whole bunch of game designers who've signed off on it and, perhaps, even tweeked the rule. But at the very least tacitly approved it for the publication of the book.
As has been well demonstrated in this thread, particularly by Maddigan (thank you for bringing some concrete and serious examples, btw) it seems that there are plenty of examples where game designers could have come out and given us RAI over RAW. And yet they generally don't. Even on issues that have lasted for the past TEN YEARS like Freedom of Movement.
It's not that they haven't clarified some things that were confusing. Look at Paizo fixing Polymorph. But there are plenty of rules which the designers appear to have intentionally left vague. It seems the point is to allow flexibility.
Or, perhaps (and this is most subversive of all) they know we enjoy having these arguments, and have thrown us a few bones to keep them going. But SHHHH! don't tell anyone. That's half the fun of the game for many people.
Ah yes, the commoner railgun. Hilarious stuff actually.Point is, there is a huge difference between "optimal builds" you post on the forums and builds you actually use - for example, most of my chars have at least 10 int, in 20 pt build it's quite rare for me to sack a stat.
Same goes with "munchkin builds" using loopholes - posted on forums, they are kind of fun (as is this idea of 300 peasant readying handing over a pole to create a highspeed canon out of them ^^)
However it doesn't work. While the distance traveled by the object in that 6 seconds may indicated a velocity impated to the object being passed, by RAW no addiontal effect is added. The last pesent in line can throw the "rock" just like any other character, but no more.
When you Hax a system be ready for it to react oddly.
I did however consider it for a Golum based transportation system. As the loophole does allow for almost instantious transit across any distance of the passing chain.