See the way I see it RAW and RAI are all well and good and its good to have a grasp on them but far more important is RAGM (rules as game mastered). I'm glad that Paizo employees are good about letting us know thought processes but just like with the possible monk Retcon i could give a dire rats butt about the RAI for FoB and will be proudly contining allowiing my "munckin" players to flurry away with their temple swords and glaives and for the one guy shotguns.
|
But I have paid a lot of money buying books from WoTC and Paizo over the years so that when I sit down at a table with someone else, I can presume we are both agreeing to play the game by the rules the developers intended, unless otherwise agreed on.
The problem I see here is that RAID (Rules As Intended by the Devs) are in fact merely your take on RAI.
But RAI are not a common reference for all players and GMs. RAW are.
Ciretose, I feel that you are saying that the way you understand the RAI is obvious for all people and that anyone not agreeing with you is a cheater trying to exploit a loophole. I cannot agree with this absolute take on things.
One of my GMs once told me that my Wizard's Raven familiar could not use an Aid Another action to grant him a bonus on Knowledge rolls.
Was I trying to exploit a loophole in rules, and thus forcing a kind of homebrew rules of mine on him ?
Was he trying to frustrate me by creating a new houserule out of the blue ?
Or were we merely in disagreement about both the RAW and the RAI (even the RAID) ?
|
|
But I have paid a lot of money buying books from WoTC and Paizo over the years so that when I sit down at a table with someone else, I can presume we are both agreeing to play the game by the rules the developers intended, unless otherwise agreed on.The problem I see here is that RAID (Rules As Intended by the Devs) are in fact merely your take on RAI.
But RAI are not a common reference for all players and GMs. RAW are.
Ciretose, I feel that you are saying that the way you understand the RAI is obvious for all people and that anyone not agreeing with you is a cheater trying to exploit a loophole. I cannot agree with this absolute take on things.
One of my GMs once told me that my Wizard's Raven familiar could not use an Aid Another action to grant him a bonus on Knowledge rolls.
Was I trying to exploit a loophole in rules, and thus forcing a kind of homebrew rules of mine on him ?
Was he trying to frustrate me by creating a new houserule out of the blue ?
Or were we merely in disagreement about both the RAW and the RAI (even the RAID) ?
I am saying that the question should be what is the RAI, not what can I get away with under RAW.
If you honestly believe that the Devs thought you should be able to gate in amd control creature that is +6 CR relative to the party as a standard action, I can't argue with you, personally, on the basis of RAI.
But I think most people would agree that this isn't what the Devs intended when they wrote the rule, and that having a +6 CR creature be available to a caster as a standard action was likely an unintended consequence.
Similarly all the people who were upset over antagonize and some other things are saying that the rules as written don't allow the player to cheese, but that they weren't intended to allow the player to cheese.
People will still disagree. I am not trying to stop disagreement. I am trying to get people to stop going "Well it doesn't say I can't do X, so clearly the Devs want us all to be able to do X" when X and then turn off their brain as to thinking about "Was it that they want to allow me to do X, or did they just miss a loophole."
This is a scene from one of my favorite movies that illustrates my frustration.
The rules forum should be able trying to figure out what the Devs intended when they wrote the rules, understanding the Devs are human and that the books are finite and can't cover every scenario. You should be able to go to the rules forum when there is an unclear rule and have a discussion with reasonable people about how to adjudicate unclear rules.
95% of the people on the thread do this.
About 5% come in going "Don't nerf me bro!" and defending loopholes and exploits, while threadjacking the process. The topic goes from "How do you think they devs meant for this to work, because it seems wrong" to "The rules say I can!(aka don't specifically say I can't) How dare you!"
I think the issue is that most of the community does not see RAID as RAI. The look to each rule and then piece·meal them together.
There have been post in the rules section where people will tell the OP "yeah it works(is legal), but you should not do it or I would not allow it if I were the GM". They don't say it is not rules legal.
There is a difference between what combinations a dev never thought of, and something not being a rules-legal by RAI(not RAID).
Even the devs don't agree on balance. Sean and Jason not agreeing on whether or not a trip weapon should get a +2 bonus is an example, and James while not the rules guy is still a dev, who often goes with the rule of cool, so even RAID will change depending on who you talk to.
Sean will probably allow you to get 4 caster levels, while Jason might not. Sean seems to be more open with giving out more power by some of his post.
edit:Many times when people say something is cheese they are saying "yeah the rules allow it, but don't bring it to my table." They are not saying the tactic/rules combination is not allowed by RAI.
|
|
I think the issue is that most of the community does not see RAID as RAI. The look to each rule and then piece·meal them together.
There have been post in the rules section where people will tell the OP "yeah it works(is legal), but you should not do it or I would not allow it if I were the GM". They don't say it is not rules legal.There is a difference between what combinations a dev never thought of, and something not being a rules-legal by RAI(not RAID).
Even the devs don't agree on balance. Sean and Jason not agreeing on whether or not a trip weapon should get a +2 bonus is an example, and James while not the rules guy is still a dev, who often goes with the rule of cool, so even RAID will change depending on who you talk to.
Sean will probably allow you to get 4 caster levels, while Jason might not. Sean seems to be more open with giving out more power by some of his post.
edit:Many times when people say something is cheese they are saying "yeah the rules allow it, but don't bring it to my table." They are not saying the tactic/rules combination is not allowed by RAI.
Like I said, I am not out to stop disagreement. I agree with your assessment of the differences between the Devs. I personally love Sean's work on the Gods and I think he is absolutely brilliant, but I personally prefer Jason's more conservative approach. I 100% agree that they disagree about rules, and you are never going to get tablets from on high answering all the questions.
At the same time, I think quite often the rule threads collapse onto "It doesn't say I can't." rather than the more reasonable "Do you think this was intentional or a mistake?"
Well on the last sentence I think we have found some middle ground, but I still don't think it makes something a non-rule.
<rant> Now there are times then the "the rules don't say I can't" makes me raise an eyebrow. Then I state an example of how that interpretation basically makes another rule irrelevant.
Then they try to say you can't know the intent..... </rant>
Many of those cases are wishful thinking.
An example is the this which I made when responding to RD. I am sure someone will try it one day though.
The bottom 2nd quote from the sorcerer rules is what I am talking about.
RAW maybe, RAI no.
There was a way to get free wishes in 3.5. I don't know if it carried over to PF or not, but even so. I would not allow it. It involved a bottle that you could pull outsiders out of IIRC. That is the type of thing that is legal, but the GM should just say no to.
edit:They might not have been free, but they were very easy to come by.
Efreeti bottle is what your talking about and i dont remeber the method but i basicly assured you always got the best roll on the random chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we need to introduce more terms?
PAI (play as intended).
For example, Chain-binding genies is RAI - the rules interacting in this instance are all valid and function as the devs intended - but not PAI - the devs recognise that the rules do this and say you shouldn't do it for reasons other than being against the rules.
IF the Efreeti Bottle held a Noble Efreet (slim chance) THEN you could extort 3 wishes from it as opposed to other services... but Efreeti are NOTORIOUS word-bending hairsplitters. I'd rather have one wish I had to pay for, personally.
Alternately, the Iron Flask occasionally contains other vicious outsiders that can grant wishes when found... or you can trap such with it... but again, wishes from THOSE sources are voted Most Likely To Bite You In The @ss by discriminating wishers.
I think the candle of invocation combined with the prayer beads was a culprit also, but I am not sure. I do know the candle of invocation was used.
|
|
I think this all feeds into my "Why we can't have nice things" rant.
We want to have a game with Genies who grant wishes. It is a common trope from stories we all know. But we don't want some jackass at the table to ruin the game by wishing for more wishes all the time...
Similarly spells like Simulacrum and Gate, as well as feats like leadership are things we want in the game. They are things that by their nature you could write entire separate rule books about use scenarios and still have loopholes people will try and exploit. So the Devs have to choose to exclude cool ideas, or leave it to GM fiat and hope for the best.
Consider the eidelon. In my humble opinion, the Devs wanted to give people a look behind the curtain and allow them to build their own creature using the framework they Devs use to limit power. They wanted you to be able to make whatever you want, and still have it balance.
As an idea, it was wonderful.
And then people found ways to exploit it, so they have to keep hammering down loopholes like whack-a-mole because people want to stretch it to the absolute limit, without having to deal with drawbacks. It takes a special group to be able to have Summoners without fights and problems, and that is a shame because it ruins it for the reasonable players who just want lots of different balanced options, not to "win".
I generally play with reasonable people. We have a couple people in our group who push it (often because they don't fully read the spell...) but no one who doesn't understand the concept of cost benefit analysis of choices or tries to rules lawyer away trade offs.
The Devs what to put cool things in the game, but they don't want to have a broken game. They want as many people as possible to sit at a table and be able to play together, without aquaman syndrome occuring.
It sounds like this is what 5E is trying to do, not that I'm optimistic considering WoTC's recent work. It is a great goal.
But unfortunately a vocal minority want to "DO ALL THE THINGS!" without having any trade offs or drawbacks. They want to be able to be quiet and sneaky while casting spells with verbal components, be party face with a really low charisma, or play a drow noble lich who is accepted in normal society with no consequence, etc...
And they can do that in their game. If they find a DM who allows it, god bless 'em. But if I hear one more time that it is "cruel" to no permit it, because it is totally RAW...
I'm just sayin'.
Uh, 'Aquaman Syndrome?' That's a new one on me.
|
The problem I see here is that RAID (Rules As Intended by the Devs) are in fact merely your take on RAI.But RAI are not a common reference for all players and GMs. RAW are.
Ciretose, I feel that you are saying that the way you understand the RAI is obvious for all people and that anyone not agreeing with you is a cheater trying to exploit a loophole. I cannot agree with this absolute take on things.
BR--
I don't think that's quite what Ciretose meant (in fact, I think he's said so a few posts down from this), but I'm going to insert my opinion here--
To me, both RAW and RAI are subject to interpretation, and while there are some interpretations out there that I regard as pretty much wrong (yes, not every possible interpretation is reasonable), there usually are many different reasonable interpretations of the rules possible, and for the game that you're in, you have to come together with the rest of your group and figure out which interpretation you think is correct and/or that you will apply in the game (not settling these questions is asking for the fights and rules disputes to continue-- although at the same time, you can leave some questions well enough alone if they never come up in your group).
So, yeah-- there isn't One True Path for how to play the game. Doesn't mean these discussions aren't important, because they help people figure out which interpretations of RAI/RAW they believe are most correct for how they play the game. And of course, this is still not bringing up the 'house rules' most of us apply where we've come to RAI/RAW issues that we don't like and decide that while we understand what the RAI and RAW is, we'd rather do it differently at our table.
But-- when I look for RAI, I may be different from others, but I don't think I'm looking for RAID actually-- "RAI" is more of a 'how are these rules supposed to work, what are the effects/actions/events in the game world that the rules are supposed to explain in mechanical terms, what makes sense' etc-- because the game is a committee product, and if you go looking for intent as 'developer intent'-- then which developer are you going to ask and consider the final word, because they don't agree with each other. So, I guess my definition of RAI is, more simply put, trying to understand how the rules are supposed to work together to make a good game-- that part of the "intent" rather than "what any one developer says his intentions were when he wrote or edited it-- presuming he's the particular developer who worked on that rule in the first place.
Which brings me to this post:
See the way I see it RAW and RAI are all well and good and its good to have a grasp on them but far more important is RAGM (rules as game mastered).
Although I do not agree with much of what Talonhawke appears to do at his table (based on statements not repeated here), I agree with this basic point-- when it comes down to how you play the game, RAGM is more important than RAI and RAW in a general sense-- and it is also relevant to discussions on these boards, although 'RAGM' particularly blurs the lines between official rules and house-ruling things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aquaman is pretty universally reviled as one of the most worthless superheroes ever. I mean, who approved his application for the Justice League? They should be sacked. Seriously.
I see a lot of places where the RAI are sufficiently unclear -- to the extent that different developers give contradictory rulings on the same thing! -- that I'm not anxious to pretend that "RAI" is even knowable in the majority of cases. Nor do I believe that, for example, Jason Bulmahn's decision on how a rule "should" work is automatically better than JJ's or SKR's, simply because he's listed first in the credits.
Then again, I have it easy. When people ask me what I intended when I wrote a certain houserule, I can usually tell them -- and then call a vote on how they want it to "really" work.
|
|
I see a lot of places where the RAI are sufficiently unclear -- to the extent that different developers give contradictory rulings on the same thing! -- that I'm not anxious to pretend that "RAI" is even knowable in the majority of cases. Nor do I believe that, for example, Jason Bulmahn's decision on how a rule "should" work is automatically better than JJ's or SKR's, simply because he's listed first in the credits.
Then again, I have it easy. When people ask me what I intended when I wrote a certain houserule, I can usually tell them -- and then call a vote on how they want it to "really" work.
Which is reasonable, as usual from the maker of Kirthfinder :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Superman can have his @$$ handed to him by John Constantine... a guy notorious for foul habits and unclean living. Not to mention selling his soul to three different lords of Hell.
Which makes Supes kinda stupid and weak.
Aquaman is pretty universally reviled as one of the most worthless superheroes ever. I mean, who approved his application for the Justice League? They should be sacked. Seriously.Yeah, I hate nearly invulnerable people with Wonder Woman level strength and a bunch of niche powers that let him function where very few other heroes can. What a crappy character (;
If Aquaman is so bad-arse, why does he always need rescuing? That's all the Justice League ever did; "hey guys, Aquaman is in trouble again. Let's go get him..."
Dude can ride on Dolphins... Awesome, too bad we're headed for the Gobi. Aquaman can breath underwater... Awesome, too bad this case is land-locked...
Aquaman gets in trouble because he tries to solo the laviatin. Superman takes 20 heroes to patrol 20% of the earth. Aquaman handles the other 80, and aliens, mutants and gods have no trouble jumping in the water with him. Superman got soloed by a use car salesman, Max Lord.
Yeah, Aquaman rides dolphins and superman weaves baskets; they both have better powers.
Aquaman is the king of the oceans. He is at least better than hawk girl or green arrow. What are their powers? Winged flight? Being rich?
First - I hate Superman. I mean I hate him and I know that's really strong term to use, especially in reference to a fictional character.
Aquaman does indeed patrol 80% of the globe - where no human lives...
Superman does patrol 20% of the globe - where everybody does live...
Who's working the tights harder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the problem with divining RAI is alot easier with multiple books and odd combinations of abilities coming together to produce a "wtf" effect of "smacks guy with the booK" stop doing that, you know they didn't intend that" and you move on.
its alot harder though when you are dealing with say, two Core spells from the main book and several monsters from The Bestiary.
Not some 4th generation 3rd campaign setting critter- but something straight outta the Bestiary. The same one they gave you to go with the Core Rule Book for use together.
You say
"You can't gate him in and dominate him, thats against RAI".
I say.
Why? Two spells in the core book and a monster from a core book using another ability.. that derives from the core book.
Now I understand a DM is insane to allow it. I understand that I'd never try it.
But trying to make someone understand why it isn't RAI is entirely different. How can you say it isn't intended when the same issue happened in 3.5 and wasn't resolved?
The same really goes for alot of things you used to be able to do that you can /still/ do. They redid the rules. If they didn't change somtehing that used to work, so that it still works.. how is it not RAI?
(even if no sane DM would allow it.. which is a different metric altogether)
I think alot of "RAI" really is "would the Dm allow it". But RAI is.. what did they intend to happen.
Gating in a Genie and Dominating it isn't exactly an original idea. they've had multiple opportunities to fix it (like when they wrote up the spells or the bestiary entries, etc). Just check the Balor. They fixed it always having that lightning sword too.
I agree that we should look to RAW and look RAI.. but sometimes they don't always equal "its not RAI if they Dev's wouldn't allow it in their own games".
Sometimes RAI is "they haven't changed it in 3 editions of the game, clrealy they intended for this to work.. Time to take out the Banhammer and fix it".
Which comes back around to what Wraithstrike said. Just because its RAW or RAI Doesn't mean its a good idea. But some new guy coming to the forums and asking about gating/dominating Genies.. well, all you can really argue is "yes it works that way. Yes they could have changed it. No they haven't. Yes you need to houserule it.".
(for some things that doesn't work, obviously, with new rules/spells/abilities. those can be useful to ask what would the Dev do.. but in light of things Like gate/dominate/wish how can we really say what they would do and/or intend? heck I won't even use the Slumber hex in my games and there's no ifs ands or buts about how it works. and I'm the Witch, not the DM..)
-S
|
The game is made up.
Let me say that again, because it is important.
The game is made up.
. . .
If you don’t like the Devs intent, house rule to your heart’s content. That is the social contract you are making at your table.
But stop coming on here and proposing ludicrous things as if the Devs meant for you to be able to do them, and it isn’t a loophole.
To be honest, the "dev's" opinions on RAI is just an opinion, and no more valid or official to me than anyone else's, except that they have way too much other (and it's usually fluff orientated) stuff to have a very accurate opinion when it comes to the actual rules. To be clear, few of them worked on 3.0, which is where almost all the issues with RAI come up, so they had absolutly no "intentions" with the rules.
Obviously, there are brand new mechanics out there, but not so many, and they usually don't vary so much in interpritation. So any RAI by the devs, is basically their own house rules if it contradicts the RAW, in my opinion. I'll look at it, weigh it, look at their reasonng, look at what it changes/screws up/alters and most importantly what if it lets something else happen that is probably shouldn't.
I'll judge it on criteria, most importantly is does it ruin fun and player's concepts. Is it really, really broken, and is it overly unfair to one group of classes/race/etc. Lastly, and this more a afterthought, is if it changes/alters/breaks the setting, I promise I'm going to do that anyway.
But that's just me.
** spoiler omitted **
To be honest, the "dev's" opinions on RAI is just an opinion, and no more valid or official to me than anyone else's, except that they have way too much other (and it's usually fluff orientated) stuff to have a very accurate opinion when it comes to the actual rules. To be clear, few of them worked on 3.0, which is where almost all the issues with RAI come up, so they had absolutly no "intentions" with the rules.
Obviously, there are brand new mechanics out there, but not so many, and they usually don't vary so much in interpritation. So any RAI by the devs, is basically their own house rules if it contradicts the RAW, in my opinion. I'll look at it, weigh it, look at their reasonng, look at what it changes/screws up/alters and most importantly what if it lets something else happen that is probably shouldn't.
I'll judge it on criteria, most importantly is does it ruin fun and player's concepts. Is it really, really broken, and is it overly unfair to one group of classes/race/etc. Lastly, and this more a afterthought, is if it changes/alters/breaks the setting, I promise I'm going to do that anyway.
But that's just me.
....and me....
So if the rules allow for one player to make a lack luster combination of a wizard with an negative intelligence modifier and another to synergize his Paladin / Sorcerer / Dragon Disciple using Charisma, this is totally RAW. I'm sure the developers never intended for a player to be totally outpaced and struggle to survive in comparison to another player. Or maybe this is just something that might happen and it's up to the GM to handle in his or her own game.
What you're spouting as RAI vs RAW issue isn't about rules. It's about events that could happen. It isn't the blatant misreading of a rule. It's just an unpleasant situation that could pop up. Gating Solars = cheesy. I get it. But are you telling me that caster levels aren't supposed to affect the variables in the spell where it mentions caster levels? To interpret any other way would seem against RAI, because that would make bonuses to caster levels useless.
If anything it is the case of a creature whose hit dice align differently than its actual power level and a spell which like many other spells determine a creature's power level by their hit dice...
If someone puts an item in the book that has a really high crit rate and has x3 multiplier and does decent damage; that would be really cheesy to use. That doesn't make it a loophole.
And god forbid that there be a feat that, even though it has a chance to fail if the set up isn't right, can compel a sentient creature to run up and melee the user. It still wouldn't be a RAI vs RAW issue.
If someone puts an item in the book that has a really high crit rate and has x3 multiplier and does decent damage; that would be really cheesy to use. That doesn't make it a loophole.
And god forbid that there be a feat that, even though it has a chance to fail if the set up isn't right, can compel a sentient creature to run up and melee the user. It still wouldn't be a RAI vs RAW issue.
I see what you did there. :)
|
|
** spoiler omitted **
To be honest, the "dev's" opinions on RAI is just an opinion, and no more valid or official to me than anyone else's, except that they have way too much other (and it's usually fluff orientated) stuff to have a very accurate opinion when it comes to the actual rules. To be clear, few of them worked on 3.0, which is where almost all the issues with RAI come up, so they had absolutly no "intentions" with the rules.
Obviously, there are brand new mechanics out there, but not so many, and they usually don't vary so much in interpritation. So any RAI by the devs, is basically their own house rules if it contradicts the RAW, in my opinion. I'll look at it, weigh it, look at their reasonng, look at what it changes/screws up/alters and most importantly what if it lets something else happen that is probably shouldn't.
I'll judge it on criteria, most importantly is does it ruin fun and player's concepts. Is it really, really broken, and is it overly unfair to one group of classes/race/etc. Lastly, and this more a afterthought, is if it changes/alters/breaks the setting, I promise I'm going to do that anyway.
But that's just me.
1. See, quoting is perfectly fair game. Well cited, Beckett.
2. I don't think we all share the same answer to the question, some people honestly and truly believe things I think are completely ridiculous.
But we should all be asking the same questions, and I find the rules discussion tend to derail when people stop doing that.
|
|
What you're spouting as RAI vs RAW issue isn't about rules. It's about events that could happen. It isn't the blatant misreading of a rule. It's just an unpleasant situation that could pop up. Gating Solars = cheesy. I get it. But are you telling me that caster levels aren't supposed to affect the variables in the spell where it mentions caster levels? To interpret any other way would seem against RAI, because that would make bonuses to caster levels useless.
I believe that the caster level enhancements began as "For the purposes of X types of spell your caster level is X"
No one would argue that in that case, for X spell, you aren't going to get the benefits from the spell of being a higher caster level. AKA, you will have more hit dice, etc...
The questions are:
1. If it doesn't say it is for X spells, does that mean your actual caster level is higher or does it mean that the effects of spells you cast are similar to someone of a higher caster level, which isn't the same thing.
2. If you have to be a certain caster level to accomplish a task, are you able to bypass actually being that caster level with items, or is caster level like HD, where even if you are technically getting bonus hit dice, your HD remains the same.
3. Did the Devs really intend for you to up your caster level by at least 10 (where RD got to without even trying...) or was this a mistake.
There are sub-questions of course, but I think it comes down to those.
My argument is that you have to ask those questions, not just if the rules "allow" me to do something, by omission.
For the record, my answers are
1. I think meant the effects are higher, not that the caster is a higher level caster, regardless of if it is specified or not.
2. Given my answer to one, obviously I think you can't.
3. No, I think they missed it.
I hit FAQ, so I'll find out one day if I'm wrong. Won't be the first time, won't be the last time. But I've been right on these things more than I've been wrong.
I believe that the caster level enhancements began as "For the purposes of X types of spell your caster level is X"
No one would argue that in that case, for X spell, you aren't going to get the benefits from the spell of being a higher caster level. AKA, you will have more hit dice, etc...
The questions are:
1. If it doesn't say it is for X spells, does that mean your actual caster level is higher or does it mean that the effects of spells you cast are similar to someone of a higher caster level, which isn't the same thing.
2. If you have to be a certain caster level to accomplish a task, are you able to bypass actually being that caster level with items, or is caster level like HD, where even if you are technically getting bonus hit dice, your HD remains the same.
3. Did the Devs really intend for you to up your caster level by at least 10 (where RD got to without even trying...) or was this a mistake.
There are sub-questions of course, but I think it comes down to those.
My argument is that you have to ask those questions, not just if the rules "allow" me to do something, by omission.
For the record, my answers are
1. I think meant the effects are higher, not that the caster is a higher level caster, regardless of if it is specified or not.
2. Given my answer to one, obviously I think you can't.
3. No, I think they missed it.
I hit FAQ, so I'll find out one day if I'm wrong. Won't be the first time, won't be the last time. But I've been right on these things more than I've been wrong.
1. If it doesn't say "X spell", then you apply the ruling to all spells. I'm still not seeing where effects falls into a different category than having a higher caster level for casting spells. What is the difference? It doesn't state which effects are affected, so either you can assume all or nothing (which would leave raising caster useless).
2. Name a case where you have to be a certain CL to accomplish a task. If you need a certain CL to obtain a feat, well do you allow bonuses from ability score boosting items? If you need a certain CL to cast a spell, well anyone who's read UMD rules knows that you can make a check to cast a spell off a scroll your CL is too low for, so CL boosting items would be useful here. As for actual spell effects such as having an extra d6 of damage per caster level, I think items and such come in place here for sure.
3. Personally, I think it's just poor planning to allow caster level to outpace hitdice. It's has the same problems of allowing base attack bonus to outpace hitdice, and has more potential for abuse.
|
|
3. Personally, I think it's just poor planning to allow caster level to outpace hitdice. It's has the same problems of allowing base attack bonus to outpace hitdice, and has more potential for abuse.
So we basically agree on the end, taking different paths to get there.
Which is fine, but we both agree the Devs didn't mean to provide this kind of power loophole.
Sometimes the devs in playtest don't know whether to allow stuff. knowledge pool loohole. JB didn't know whether to allow this but in the end never really got answered in that thread. Then there is something else I think is not RAI because it makes no sense but would probably waste a devs time like whether you could make an obsidian urumi. Obsidian doesn't bend so that should not work on something that is basically a whip sword.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen comments from devs that directly contradicts the RAW. I have also seen comments from devs that directly contradicts other comments that same dev has made before. When you say RAI, do you mean what the dev thinks about a rule now, today, or do you mean what the dev meant when the rule was originally written. Because that can change. Perhaps the dev had make a compromise due other desires from other devs, but later goes back to what they thought the idea should have been before they compromised.
The questions are:
1. If it doesn't say it is for X spells, does that mean your actual caster level is higher or does it mean that the effects of spells you cast are similar to someone of a higher caster level, which isn't the same thing.
Since caster levels affect everything related to it I would say there are no exemptions unless the ability list exemptions, which some do. AS an example there are abilities that only affect your caster level for on school of magic, and some that don't have any restrictions.
2. If you have to be a certain caster level to accomplish a task, are you able to bypass actually being that caster level with items, or is caster level like HD, where even if you are technically getting bonus hit dice, your HD remains the same.
See number 1
3. Did the Devs really intend for you to up your caster level by at least 10 (where RD got to without even trying...) or was this a mistake.
I think the devs give you options, but they can't think of every possible combination. I am sure they would say going slightly over your caster level is still balanced, but going +10 over was not intended as a way for most groups to play. That does not mean it is not RAI. There are groups that enjoy that, so it is not inherently wrong even if most of us would not enjoy it. RD's method does not grant a blanket +10 either. Many of those were situational. There were no more than 5 caster levels that did not have restrictions.
|
|
I've seen comments from devs that directly contradicts the RAW. I have also seen comments from devs that directly contradicts other comments that same dev has made before. When you say RAI, do you mean what the dev thinks about a rule now, today, or do you mean what the dev meant when the rule was originally written. Because that can change. Perhaps the dev had make a compromise due other desires from other devs, but later goes back to what they thought the idea should have been before they compromised.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but what I am arguing for is for people to try to have intention be the goal rather than trying to justify loopholes.
We wouldn't be discussing it if it were not unclear in some way, but at the same time if you are arguing you "can" do something ridiculous because it doesn't "say" you can't, rather than discussing if it makes sense or is balanced, you are likely full of it.
|
|
This isn't always going to work but you can take a rule that you have questions about and look at other rules that are associated with that rule and the actions that go along with it. For example the Chain Genie exploit. If this was the true intention of the designers then they would have either A: Made Wish a lower level, B: Made Wish less powerful, or C: Lowered the Cost of the Spell.
Another one is the infamous charging while on horseback. It's obvious that you can't run along the back of a horse and charge after your horse has charged but what some people are trying to do is exploit the wording to give themselves an advantage and they know damn well that they are exploiting the way it works, the same goes for the Chain Genie. It is very obvious that the game wasn't intended to work that way.
I see what Ciretose is saying and what is happening is some people don't want to admit that they are exploiting the rules and trying to justify it by saying it's how the designers intended because the rule is written that way. It has become a morale issue.
Last time I checked, Pathfinder's default was to play by the rules but when you are aware that you have found a loophole and you continue to use it and try and defend your position by saying that it's within the rules then that's just being a douche.
Chain Genie can break the game. You are not supposed to be able to use Wish that way, that many times at that low a price. I mean just look at how the game would be if everyone raised all their stats by 5 on top of magic items that already have.
You know damn well when you are exploiting a rule that could wreck the game.
This isn't always going to work but you can take a rule that you have questions about and look at other rules that are associated with that rule and the actions that go along with it. For example the Chain Genie exploit. If this was the true intention of the designers then they would have either A: Made Wish a lower level, B: Made Wish less powerful, or C: Lowered the Cost of the Spell.
Another one is the infamous charging while on horseback. It's obvious that you can't run along the back of a horse and charge after your horse has charged but what some people are trying to do is exploit the wording to give themselves an advantage and they know damn well that they are exploiting the way it works, the same goes for the Chain Genie. It is very obvious that the game wasn't intended to work that way.
I see what Ciretose is saying and what is happening is some people don't want to admit that they are exploiting the rules and trying to justify it by saying it's how the designers intended because the rule is written that way. It has become a morale issue.
Last time I checked, Pathfinder's default was to play by the rules but when you are aware that you have found a loophole and you continue to use it and try and defend your position by saying that it's within the rules then that's just being a douche.
Chain Genie can break the game. You are not supposed to be able to use Wish that way, that many times at that low a price. I mean just look at how the game would be if everyone raised all their stats by 5 on top of magic items that already have.
You know damn well when you are exploiting a rule that could wreck the game.
Amen brother(?), sing it!