| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The class ability says "An archivist can use Disable Device to disarm magical traps as per a rogue’s trapfinding ability"
A rogue gains a bonus to Disable Device equal to 1/2 his class level on disabling devices per Trapfinding. Is this the same for Bard on Magic Lore?
My reading is no. The rogue's trapfinding ability lists two distinct portions: 1/2 level bonus on checks and ability to disarm magical traps. They are in two separate sentences. Take a look at the identically named Urban Ranger ability. It just lists the ability to disarm magical traps ("as the rogue class feature"). I'm pretty sure that the "like a rogue" wording is partially to indicate that it is an Ex ability and not a magical one, since both bards and rangers have the ability to use magic.
Honestly, I think the "like a rogue" terminology is unnecessary.
My reading is no. The rogue's trapfinding ability lists two distinct portions: 1/2 level bonus on checks and ability to disarm magical traps. They are in two separate sentences. Take a look at the identically named Urban Ranger ability. It just lists the ability to disarm magical traps ("as the rogue class feature"). I'm pretty sure that the "like a rogue" wording is partially to indicate that it is an Ex ability and not a magical one, since both bards and rangers have the ability to use magic.
Honestly, I think the "like a rogue" terminology is unnecessary.
"Like the Rogue" implies that the ability works like the Rogue's Trapfinding ability in that he can disable magic traps. The problem is how much like the Rogue's Trapfinding ability it is.
"Like the Rogue" implies that the ability works like the Rogue's Trapfinding ability in that he can disable magic traps. The problem is how much like the Rogue's Trapfinding ability it is.My reading is no. The rogue's trapfinding ability lists two distinct portions: 1/2 level bonus on checks and ability to disarm magical traps. They are in two separate sentences. Take a look at the identically named Urban Ranger ability. It just lists the ability to disarm magical traps ("as the rogue class feature"). I'm pretty sure that the "like a rogue" wording is partially to indicate that it is an Ex ability and not a magical one, since both bards and rangers have the ability to use magic.
Honestly, I think the "like a rogue" terminology is unnecessary.
It's exactly like the disabling traps portion of the ability, that is, you can disable magic traps using Disable Device rather than Dispel Magic.
It's exactly like the disabling traps portion of the ability, that is, you can disable magic traps using Disable Device rather than Dispel Magic."Like the Rogue" implies that the ability works like the Rogue's Trapfinding ability in that he can disable magic traps. The problem is how much like the Rogue's Trapfinding ability it is.My reading is no. The rogue's trapfinding ability lists two distinct portions: 1/2 level bonus on checks and ability to disarm magical traps. They are in two separate sentences. Take a look at the identically named Urban Ranger ability. It just lists the ability to disarm magical traps ("as the rogue class feature"). I'm pretty sure that the "like a rogue" wording is partially to indicate that it is an Ex ability and not a magical one, since both bards and rangers have the ability to use magic.
Honestly, I think the "like a rogue" terminology is unnecessary.
Yes, that fails to answer my question because you aren't a developer. Does a Rogue not add half his level to disabling magic traps?
A rogue does, because his ability specifically calls out doing so. Non-rogues do not because their abilities specifically say "disarm magical traps as a rogue". This seems to mean that they get to use the Disable Device skill to disable magic traps. Normally, you can only use the Disable Device skill to disable non-magical traps.
As to not being a developer, I am getting tired of that whiny call from so many forumites. I am almost sorry that the devs post here at all (almost). For some reason, normal insight isn't good enough for you. A normal reading of RAW (which any human can do by reading the rules) is what answers in the Rules Questions sub-forum will come from. Unless something happens to be answered by a Dev (which is a privilege and not a right), this is all you can ever expect to get. Also, until this last post, you made no reference to only accepting answers from a developer and so I provided you with a RAW ruling.
If you are having trouble making a decision at your own table as a GM, I have offered another GM's perspective on the RAW. If you are trying to convince your GM that his/her ruling (which doesn't allow the 1/2 level bonus to trap-related checks), then I am sorry to disappoint. Had I said yes, would you still be clamoring for the Word of God on this?
I just checked the errata and FAQs again to confirm, but the devs have been silent on this issue so far. I suspect that, as you are the first person I could find on the boards (using the search function), table rulings have been pretty simple to come by. If you are asking for PFS, then this belongs in the PFS forum and not he general forum.
All that said, please explain to me what is wrong with my reading of the rules? Aside from not being a developer, that is.
A rogue does, because his ability specifically calls out doing so. Non-rogues do not because their abilities specifically say "disarm magical traps as a rogue". This seems to mean that they get to use the Disable Device skill to disable magic traps.
There is no reason to add "as a rogue's trapfinding ability" if NOTHING is added to the the ability because it already says "can use Disable Device to disable magic traps." That is the problem. You haven't answered the question; you have only repeated the part that raises the question and asserted that amounts to answering it.
Unless something happens to be answered by a Dev (which is a privilege and not a right)
If they don't want to clarify the rules in their game, they shouldn't write them.
Also, until this last post, you made no reference to only accepting answers from a developer and so I provided you with a RAW ruling.
There is a distinct difference between the RAW text and RAW ruling. A ruling implies a decision has been made and written down and can be referenced. You are simply interpreting a statement differently than I am interpreting it. I posted this here because THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO REQUEST THAT THE DEVS ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and point me to the link that says "Request rules clarification directly from developers."
If you are trying to convince your GM that his/her ruling (which doesn't allow the 1/2 level bonus to trap-related checks), then I am sorry to disappoint
This has nothing to do with convincing my GM of anything. This came up while I was pondering my character sheet template. A +1/2 level bonus is a SIGNIFICANT improvement and change of the ability, especially since the class doesn't get Disable Device as a class skill, nor does any other archetype with a Trapfinding-like ability that I can think of. This wouldn't only affect the Archivist but also the Detective (at least).
I suspect that, as you are the first person I could find on the boards (using the search function), table rulings have been pretty simple to come by. If you are asking for PFS, then this belongs in the PFS forum and not he general forum.
I do not and refuse to subscribe to the line of belief that if a rule is unclear, it only matters in Pathfinder society and therefore the people who wrote the rule shouldn't have to clarify it.
If going to the PFS forums is the ONLY way to get a REAL ANSWER, then I will do that.
A rogue does, because his ability specifically calls out doing so. Non-rogues do not because their abilities specifically say "disarm magical traps as a rogue". This seems to mean that they get to use the Disable Device skill to disable magic traps.There is no reason to add "as a rogue's trapfinding ability" if NOTHING is added to the the ability because it already says "can use Disable Device to disable magic traps." That is the problem. You haven't answered the question; you have only repeated the part that raises the question and asserted that amounts to answering it.
Something is added: precedence. As far as I can tell, the reference here is to indicate that if you are confused why this class ought to be able to disable magic traps, look at the rogue. I wasn't merely restating the ability and saying the problem was solved. I restated the ability, explaining what the confusing clause seems to make reference to. That would be what explanation is.
Unless something happens to be answered by a Dev (which is a privilege and not a right)If they don't want to clarify the rules in their game, they shouldn't write them.
Um... Not true. Lots (I'd say most) gaming systems write rules and then never touch them again. No errata. No FAQs. No rules support whatsoever. Rather than thinking that you are entitled to an explanation, consider yourself lucky that the rules have been as updated and explained as they have.
Also, until this last post, you made no reference to only accepting answers from a developer and so I provided you with a RAW ruling.There is a distinct difference between the RAW text and RAW ruling. A ruling implies a decision has been made and written down and can be referenced. You are simply interpreting a statement differently than I am interpreting it. I posted this here because THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO REQUEST THAT THE DEVS ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. Perhaps you can prove me wrong and point me to the link that says "Request rules clarification directly from developers."
Actually, if you want only answers from the Devs, you might need to specify that early in your original post. The vast majority of threads in this forum are responded to by normal forumites. Rarely do the Devs pop in and give specific answers. When they do, it is a privilege and not a right.
As far as RAW text vs RAW ruling, what you lamented me doing earlier ("you have only repeated the part that raises the question and asserted that amounts to answering it") would be RAW text. That isn't helpful. Any time something more than just the words written in the book are used, it is an interpretation. Even saying exactly the same words that are printed can have interpretation by giving certain words/phrases emphasis, as you have. That said, if a Dev pops in and gives their opinion (and it is just an opinion until it becomes official FAQ or errata), it's also an interpretation. Look at several of James Jacobs' "rulings" that have been contradicted by official errata/FAQs. So, even if you do get a dev to comment, there is nothing which makes that legally binding for play.
If you are trying to convince your GM that his/her ruling (which doesn't allow the 1/2 level bonus to trap-related checks), then I am sorry to disappointThis has nothing to do with convincing my GM of anything. This came up while I was pondering my character sheet template. A +1/2 level bonus is a SIGNIFICANT improvement and change of the ability, especially since the class doesn't get Disable Device as a class skill, nor does any other archetype with a Trapfinding-like ability that I can think of. This wouldn't only affect the Archivist but also the Detective (at least).
Urban Ranger does. It gains Disable Device and Knowledge (Local) in place of Handle Animal and Knowledge (Nature). Also, my Detective bard does just fine without the class skill/half level bonus.
I suspect that, as you are the first person I could find on the boards (using the search function), table rulings have been pretty simple to come by. If you are asking for PFS, then this belongs in the PFS forum and not he general forum.I do not and refuse to subscribe to the line of belief that if a rule is unclear, it only matters in Pathfinder society and therefore the people who wrote the rule shouldn't have to clarify it.
If going to the PFS forums is the ONLY way to get a REAL ANSWER, then I will do that.
I was in no way suggesting that PFS was the only way to get a "real answer". I was merely suggesting that, if you were wanting a ruling for PFS play, that this question belonged there. As you had not stated your reasons for wanting clarification, I decided to speculate. Probably for the worse, it seems.
I was also not suggesting that unclear rules only matter for PFS. I was suggesting that the rule was less unclear than you seem to believe.
At this point, as you have made it clear that you will accept nothing but the Word of God on the issue, I bid you good luck in your quest and I will no longer bother with this thread.
Um... Not true. Lots (I'd say most) gaming systems write rules and then never touch them again. No errata. No FAQs. No rules support whatsoever. Rather than thinking that you are entitled to an explanation, consider yourself lucky that the rules have been as updated and explained as they have.
I fail to see how citing other companies that do that contradicts my opinion.
Actually, if you want only answers from the Devs, you might need to specify that early in your original post. The vast majority of threads in this forum are responded to by normal forumites. Rarely do the Devs pop in and give specific answers. When they do, it is a privilege and not a right.
The idea was to get this tagged as FAQ by as many people as possible. You can't address the devs directly outside the forum to get stuff like this answered.
Maybe the title of the thread should be "As the Rogue's Trapfinding ability." or something.
My reading, and my GM at the time, read "no".
I'll risk to put some common sense.
They only specify "As the Rogue's Trapfinding Ability" to say that they can disable the same magic traps than the Rogue can, no one more, no one less. ¿Is it redundant? Yup, but no harm is done as far as i can see.
If the entire ability would be equal to the rogue's, they would say "You gain the Rogue's Trapfinding Ability" and nothing more.
Assuming the contrary, and Cartigan is actually right, the Archivist only would get the half level bonus to disarm traps for magical traps, because "An archivist can use Disable Device to disarm magical traps as per a rogue’s trapfinding ability"