Sangalor: Nail/head.
I think you have formally put terms to the thing I was trying to explain for the past several posts.
Yes, to me the Designer's Intent (DI) is more important (at least in this case) than what Paizo's Intent (PI) is. I think everyone is mostly in agreeance here with what information we have but perhaps not what is most important to them. Basically, to spell it out with your system:
DR - Designer's RAW, i.e. what he wrote to achieve
What Dennis - the designer - originally wrote was in favor of allowing Shadowdancer (and likely other things such as Clerics with the Travel domain and the Shadow Bloodline power) to qualify for the Dimensional line of feats.
DI - Designer's RAI, i.e. what he intended with DR
Dennis intended it to be DR.
PR - Paizo's/Developer's RAW, i.e. what Paizo developer's, usually based on DR, wrote to achieve
This case appears to be an exception where the designer's intent did not meet with what Paizo as a whole wanted to accomplish. Paizo, in whatever fashion, elected to change the DR. Paizo does not, however, have the ability to change DI as that is an opinion that rests solely in the hands of the designer.
Also, note that "Paizo" is a broad term used to describe several developers and designers, not all of whom will always agree on such matters. I'm sure some were pro-qualification while others were con. In whatever fashion it was decided the cons won (pun intended) and that is what made it to print.
PI - Paizo's/Developer's RAI, i.e. what they intended, usually but not always equal to DI
Well, this one is a bit unclear to me. Obviously we know what the PR is on this issue but as we have heard what the original designer and another developer said and while they say it isn't RAW they both say they would allow it. That isn't the same as saying that they intended for it to be allowable but neither is it the same as saying that they intended to disallow it. I mean, they intended to print that it was not allowed as per RAW but they seem to support it's use. Its a bit fuzzy.
Personally, I believe that this is due to a differing of opinions amoung Paizo staff. Some think it should be more open-ended, while others think that a more strict rule would be better. I can understand though why a company would like to er on the side of caution and make something more limiting in print than what they would personally intend on allowing so as to limit power creep. I can see this as being a cautious prediction but honestly I don't see a lot of room for abuse with the material currently available in Pathfinder.
Nonetheless, without more information I think PI may be open for debate.
HR - Houserule implementation. Can be completely different from the previous variants, or equal one of them.
Has there actually been anyone who said they would not allow it in their home games? I think we are fairly unanimous on this point.
*************************
So, if it matters I think that we all agree that DR, DI and HR all point to: yes. Heck, thats 3/5 right there. I'm not sure where people's opinions sit on PI but I don't think there is definitive evidence to show either side. I'm also not sure it is valuable to debate or make any conjecture based on it as we may get differing opinions even amoung Paizo staff. I'm not sure that would be constructive either for us or for Paizo.
wraithstrike: I would like to appologize for not making myself more clear what I was referring to (DR and DI). I tried in vain to make it clear. While Sangalor was able to pick up on it and spell it out more eloquently than I was I do think it ironic that it was your level of understanding of me that was the issue, not the other way around. However, communication is a two-way street. I'm not sure how I could have made it more clear but I'll strive to do so in the future.
We good?
Oh, and I did figure out the message system. And yeah, it must have been recently implimented as I recall James recently stating it didn't exist. Ask and thou shalt recieve, eh? Thats service! :) To anyone curious wraithstrike and I are trying to clear up what exactly it is we disagree on privately now as well. (I think.)
Point 2 in your PM to me made everything clear. That was where I was not understanding you before.
Glad I could help :-)
|
Thread necro to point out to anyone who comes across this thread while searching for the answer (as I did a little while ago) that the original question has been effectively answered "no" in the FAQ. However, for the shadowdancer, the feat Flexible Shadow Jump in the Blood of Shadows Player Companion expressly allows shadow jump to qualify for Dimensional Agility and then the rest of the feat tree. AND it is PFS legal.