I said it once in this thread, but no one answered. So I'll ask again: what does it matter if it's a retcon or not?+1 on this and does it really matter? As a good friend of mine often likes to say "Learn to deal, and house-rule it!"
I skipped to the last page because I don't think this need discussing, we all have better things to do then rant about this, like finding a loophole or playing the game.
-Flash
The problem is, you can't house rule it if you're a PFS monk. That's pretty much the main issue.
Intent is always important when analyzing outcomes.
Believe it or not, houseruling can have some unintended consequences in groups anyway where favoritism may be perceived. Fortunately, this "clarification" is not official, correct?
I don't think it is, yet.
So you have to make a +13/+8/+3 with your off hand, and the other attacks can be in any combination.
Actually, according to the FAQ, that's not true:
Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting (page 202): If I have iterative attacks from a high BAB, can I make attacks with different weapons and not incur a two-weapon fighting penalty?
Yes. Basically, you only incur TWF penalties if you are trying to get an extra attack per round.
Let's assume you're a 6th-level fighter (BAB +6/+1) holding a longsword in one hand and a light mace in the other. Your possible full attack combinations without using two-weapon fighting are:
(A) longsword at +6, longsword +1
(B) mace +6, mace +1
(C) longsword +6, mace +1
(D) mace +6, longsword +1
All of these combinations result in you making exactly two attacks, one at +6 and one at +1. You're not getting any extra attacks, therefore you're not using the two-weapon fighting rule, and therefore you're not taking any two-weapon fighting penalties.
If you have Quick Draw, you could even start the round wielding only one weapon, make your main attack with it, draw the second weapon as a free action after your first attack, and use that second weapon to make your iterative attack. As long as you're properly using the BAB values for your iterative attacks, and as long as you're not exceeding the number of attacks per round granted by your BAB, you are not considered to be using two-weapon fighting, and therefore do not take any of the penalties for two-weapon fighting.
The two-weapon fighting option in the Core Rulebook specifically refers to getting an extra attack for using a second weapon in your offhand. In the above four examples, there is no extra attack, therefore you're not using two-weapon fighting.
Using the longsword/mace example, if you use two-weapon fighting you actually have fewer options than if you aren't. Your options are (ignoring the primary/off hand penalties):
(A') primary longsword at +6, primary longsword at +1, off hand mace at +6
(B') primary mace at +6, primary mace at +1, off hand longsword at +6
In other words, once you decide you're using two-weapon fighting to get that extra attack on your turn (which you have to decide before you take any attacks on your turn), that decision locks you in to the format of "my primary weapon gets my main attack and my iterative attack, and my off hand weapon only gets the extra attack, and I apply two-weapon fighting penalties."
Believe it or not, houseruling can have some unintended consequences in groups anyway where favoritism may be perceived. Fortunately, this "clarification" is not official, correct?
It's a clarification, not a rule change. It became "official" the moment SKR hit "submit post," which is why it immediately became a problem for PFS games.
It's a problem for PF Society. But to claim it's official and the clarification they say it is, is completely dubious given all the examples raised showing that this was NOT how it has always been. Until something official is released, like errata or FAQ or whatever, what should matter to home games is what the PRD says.
It's a clarification, not a rule change. It became "official" the moment SKR hit "submit post," which is why it immediately became a problem for PFS games.
It's under review, which makes it only provisional at the moment. The problem is that while it is not technically a retcon, it effects a lot of stuff as if it were, with characters needing to be reconfigured and errata needing to be issued. On the other hand, treating FoB the way the majority of players - including some writing material accepted and published by Paizo themselves - have treated it does not effect those that originally had the TWF interpretation in any way, save to open new avenues to them.
And so we wait...
|
Until something official is released, like errata or FAQ or whatever, what should matter to home games is what the PRD says.
This is how d20pfsrd.com treats these sorts of things. While messageboard posts are nice to have, until it's in the FAQ pages, or released in an official errata PDF, or added to the PRD, or actually printed in a book, we don't view it as official, pretty much no matter who says it or how much they say "this is official."
We've seen too many cases of things being declared as "official" on the boards then changing back and forth several times. This way we're not constantly changing, unchanging, and rechanging the entries on d20pfsrd.com. Obviously anyone else can treat this as official as you like though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a clarification, not a rule change. It became "official" the moment SKR hit "submit post," which is why it immediately became a problem for PFS games.It's under review, which makes it only provisional at the moment. The problem is that while it is not technically a retcon, it effects a lot of stuff as if it were, with characters needing to be reconfigured and errata needing to be issued. On the other hand, treating FoB the way the majority of players - including some writing material accepted and published by Paizo themselves - have treated it does not effect those that originally had the TWF interpretation in any way, save to open new avenues to them.
And so we wait...
I realize I'm probably just splitting hairs here, but:
Sean's post isn't specifically what's under review; the core FoB is what's under review.To sum it up as simply as I can:
SKR- "You're all doing it wrong. Even the people that work for us have been doing it wrong. It works like this. It has always worked like this."
JB- "Sean's right guys; our way is the way it works and everyone's been doing it wrong. However, since everyone has been doing it wrong, and because you people have pointed out how there's inherent flaws with the correct way that we missed, we're gonna have to take another look at FoB and see if we can't make it work correctly."
I'm paraphrasing like crazy, but you see my point?
Removed some posts. Attacking users, even if they are Paizo employees, is not okay. Please familiarize yourself with the messageboard rules.
I realize I'm probably just splitting hairs here, but:
Sean's post isn't specifically what's under review; the core FoB is what's under review.
To sum it up as simply as I can:
SKR- "You're all doing it wrong. Even the people that work for us have been doing it wrong. It works like this. It has always worked like this."
JB- "Sean's right guys; our way is the way it works and everyone's been doing it wrong. However, since everyone has been doing it wrong, and because you people have pointed out how there's inherent flaws with the correct way that we missed, we're gonna have to take another look at FoB and see if we can't make it work correctly."I'm paraphrasing like crazy, but you see my point?
Without a doubt, and I think Paizo's approach has been entirely reasonable so far. I don't like the original 'clarification', but they have done the right thing IMHO in reviewing it.
|
Despite the ability functioning as TWF, it is a unique ability granted to the monk class. There are numerous feats that overwrite the RAW because they illustrate and allow for special exceptions, whereby the Core and RAW are generalizations. As a unique function of the class, there can be granted exceptions to the TWF rules.
Many of the feat descriptions list the Normal conditions, and then the Benefit line - whereby the feat grants an exception to how things normally go. The mechanics are already in place for special dispensation, so I don't see complications in reviewing (and hopefully granting) the request beyond the clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still wondering why the game designers even opened this can of worms. What was the point? You think we're going to believe in anyway they intended Flurry of Blows to operate like Two-weapon Fighting when they're making archetypes like the Zen Archer and Sohei? Their own designers believed Flurry of Blows worked as we all believed it work. A Sohei can use Flurry of Blows with a bow, polearm, or spear and a Zen Archer with a bow. SKR or Buhlman can't spin this for a single second as anything other than them attempting to change something for reasons I cannot fathom.
This has to be one of the most ridiculous rule changes I have ever seen posted on this board by a game designer. If someone has power or oversight down there at Paizo and just good old fashioned sense, that person should slap SKR's hand and whoever else decided to open this can of worms, withdraw the comment, and quietly let this go away as though it never happened. Because Flurry of Blows has not been an issue in any game I have yet ran and why it is being made an issue now is beyond me.
I think, Maddigan, it came about in a discussion on why Amulet of Mighty Fists was overpriced, and why brass knuckles got errata'd to be weapons and not use unarmed strike damage.
Amulet of Mighty Fists is overpriced for a single weapon, but as the devs always regarded unarmed strike as 2-3 weapons, it's much less so - in theory. In practice, I think it is still overpriced for what the monk gets out of it, especially with it being limited to +5 total bonus.
|
they should change greater magic weapon so that its effect builds off the hd of the target, that way i could toss permancy on my fists and not get stuck with a +3 punch, with an amulet, when everyones else is running around with a +10 vorpal long sword of doom.
20 hd monk gets +5 to his fists off the GMW and +5 special qualites from the amulet.
I think, Maddigan, it came about in a discussion on why Amulet of Mighty Fists was overpriced, and why brass knuckles got errata'd to be weapons and not use unarmed strike damage.
Amulet of Mighty Fists is overpriced for a single weapon, but as the devs always regarded unarmed strike as 2-3 weapons, it's much less so - in theory. In practice, I think it is still overpriced for what the monk gets out of it, especially with it being limited to +5 total bonus.
The bolded is the root of so many issues that regardless of the outcome of this rules change needs to be answered.
I agree. Hell, even if it IS the equivelant of two weapons, it still costs as much as two-and-a-half weapons. If I buy two weapons I can choose two different sets of effects, but I can't do that with the AoMF. My two weapons can have different bonuses, and I can concentrate on using just one at no penalty - and I cannot do that with FoB and the AoMF.
So, if the AMF was costed at 60% of it's current value (150% what a magical weapon would cost) and it was allowed to go up to +10 worth of enchantments (enhancement still maxs out at +5) then there would be no problem with the current ruling on FoB, right?
Wrong.
You'd still have the issue of the current ruling of FoB = TWF breaking Zen Archer monks as written (they use a two-handed ranged weapon for FoBs, and the ruling says that you have to use two weapons). Same goes for any Sohei/Tohei (always confuse those two) which uses a two-handed weapon for flurry (which was legal previously), or a polearm wielding monk. Also, it breaks all the entries Paizo has in every adventure path where they show monk stat blocks with the monk using flurry with a single weapon (which is every weapon using monk, as was demonstrated in previous threads).
There would still be an issue since most people to include the devs have allowed monks to be published under the "wrong" interpretation. I do think it would be less of an issue though.
RAW it still does not work with certain archetypes also. They did say they would fix it.
With all that aside had this interpretation been known as the intent during playtesting it could have been handled before the final version of PF was printed. I might have to check the beta playtest since I did not participate, but I would assume everyone assumed the one weapon flurry was possible, and the devs never said anything about it.
Paizo has never errata'd AP's to my knowledge. They often tell you what the statblock should be if you ask about it on the boards though. Every monster that had an error when the books came out still has those errors.
Now they might make an exception for the monk, but then the questions will come about the other errors.
So, if the AMF was costed at 60% of it's current value (150% what a magical weapon would cost) and it was allowed to go up to +10 worth of enchantments (enhancement still maxs out at +5) then there would be no problem with the current ruling on FoB, right?
Wrong. Paizo tied together the FoB and AoMF issue, not us. They are really two completely separate issues as far as I can see.
The flurry-of-blows issue is that it causes problems with existing monk builds including official ones. It removes from the monk one of the few advantages in combat that they have, the ability to make multiple strikes with one weapon rather than split it over two. In fact it isn't that big an advantage as I will explain:
Objection #1:
Other TWF fighting classes cannot make all their attacks with one weapon, so if they are fighting, say, a creature which only one of their weapons can injure, the monk has an unfair advantage.
Answer:
They can simply not attack with their ineffective weapon and still retain their full BAB (with a +2 bonus for not using the off-hand, in fact) while the monk cannot. Each class has abilities the others do not, FpB happens to be the monk's, and it's not as if monk weapons are awesome, quite the opposite.
Objection #2:
The monk could invest all their funds into a single weapon, rather than two, and it will be considerably better than the two weapons, isn't that unfair?
Answer:
No not really, doubling the funds only adds up to about a +1 additional bonus. Each combat class has it's attack-thing: Weapon training, rage, smite evil, sneak attack and weapon training. The monk has unarmed strike, flurry-of-blows and stunning fist. Unarmed strike isn't relevant here, as the monk is using a weapon. If you make flurry-of-blows just TWF, they effectively lose it as their 'thing' because it's just a nerfed version of the ranger's combat style or the fighter's bonus feats. That leaves stunning fist, only unlike all the other combat class benefits, you cannot use stunning fist with a weapon unless it has the ki-focus property - which is a +1 equivelant. So if we let the monk use FoB without the TWF restriction, they are still withheld from half their 'special' benefits unless they get that extra weapon property, which leaves them with a weapon the same value in combat as the TWFer can afford.
The Amulet of Mighty Fists issue is that it costs a small fortune to get one and it's limited in enhancement, making the monk pay through the nose to make his unarmed strike half as effective as the fighter's weapon.
I know, but you suggested that this was also a fix to the question of TWF and FoB, when the two are kind of unrelated as far as I am concerned.
HappyDaze,
You miss the point I was making. If this is Paizo making a new ruling, that's fine. But the statement was, this is how it's always been. Yet the company hasn't treated it that way anywhere, at anytime. Not in a single supplement, not in any of the core rule books, not in any of it's APs. So stating this is 'how it has always been' just doesn't ring true. Can you make it work with everything that's been published? Yes, by retconning everything that's been published*. Can you make it work without retconning everything that's been published*? Yes, by using the interpretation that everyone (including Paizo) has operated under.
*Everything regarding monks.
The AOMF and FOB = TWF issues are completely unrelated - in fact, characters that are using the AOMF are likely the least affected by the clarification. (The only difference is now they have to carry and draw two of each backup weapon instead of one.) They're only related in the sense that "monks have to carry two weapons to flurry with weapons, so AOMF should cost a fortune", as a argument, relies on the clarification that monks can't flurry with a single weapon. A cheaper monk-only AOMF addresses literally zero of the plethora of issues the clarification introduces.
Adding a line to Sohei and Zen Archer (well, a section, to deal with the various ambiguities that arise when you let someone TWF with a single weapon - you're essentially creating a third combat style) does fix those classes in the sense that it stops them from being flagrantly silly and nonfunctional, respectively, but further increases the delta between those classes and the base monk. (And makes mincemeat of the "AOMF needs to cost a fortune because of TWF stuff" argument, but that's no great loss because nobody with any degree of system mastery believes that anyway, and the AOMF is so sacred that it must never be surpassed for any use.) Errata to Sohei and Zen Archer does put out the largest and hottest fires, since it makes the game non-broken, if a linerally worse system to the way it was pre-clarification. The system is still arbitrarily stricken of concepts like "monk that fights with a weapon but can also take advantage of the plethora of monk-focused character options that require a free hand", but whatever. Screw those guys. Weaksauce arguments for why the AOMF needs to be overcosted are way more important than a weapon-using monk being able to use Deflect Arrows or anything.
Cheaper AOMF WOULD help with ONE classic monk problem though. That is true.
Hey, take what you can where you can.
The system is still arbitrarily stricken of concepts like "monk that fights with a weapon but can also take advantage of the plethora of monk-focused character options that require a free hand", but whatever. Screw those guys. Weaksauce arguments for why the AOMF needs to be overcosted are way more important than a weapon-using monk being able to use Deflect Arrows or anything.No, those concepts can still work. Fight with the weapon in one hand and keep the other hand free. If you'd like to make unarmed strikes without using that free hand, that's still an option too.
Under the clarification, a monk that wants to fight with a weapon and use deflect arrows has two options:
1) He can fail to enhance his unarmed strike, making half of the attacks in his flurry awfully feeble.
2) He can get an AOMF on top of his magic weapon, paying 3.5 times what a fighter pays for his magic weapon just to keep up, and be linerally inferior to a barefisted monk.
I'm not saying that I think that "fight with a kama, use all the monk stuff that wants you to have a free hand" should be an AMAZING option, but I think that two options still available to characters that want to do that are all but tantamount to evicting them from the system.
Consider option 1: If there was a rule that said that characters could only have one enchanted weapon, would people still consider the TWF fighter a real option?
Now option 2: If there was a "three-and-a-half weapon fighting" style that required you to keep 3.5 weapons up to date but offered no advantages over TWF whatsoever (and also required you to TWF with weapons from different groups, so you don't get to apply things like weapon focus to both with a single feat, for good measure), would anyone consider three-and-a-half weapon fighting to be a real option?
And then when you cut that cost, the AoMF becomes very under priced for, say, a Druid or Animal Companion or Feral Alchemist or etc etc etc.
There needs to be a way to enchant an unarmed strike and ONLY an unarmed strike. The argument the devs are using with the AoMF is totally bunk, IMO.
And then when you cut that cost, the AoMF becomes very under priced for, say, a Druid or Animal Companion or Feral Alchemist or etc etc etc.
There needs to be a way to enchant an unarmed strike and ONLY an unarmed strike. The argument the devs are using with the AoMF is totally bunk, IMO.
This is why I proposed a different item purely for monks here, one that takes up two slots but costs a lot less than a AoMFm if more than a single weapon.
Because all those natural attacks are at a significantly higher to-hit bonus than the iterative attacks of a monk, which means there's a much better chance that bonus from the AoMF actually gets applied. (Besides, consider a creature with upwards of 7 natural attacks and Imp. Multiweapon Fighting taking those secondary attacks down to a -2. That's huge. Combine all that usefulness with the fact that it also works with an Unarmed Strike and it's very much worth that 2.5x increase in cost. The monk's issue, as has been pointed out several times, is that everything about natural weapons doesn't apply to the monk's FoB or UAS, which means either you have to pay way more than you should need to for an equivalent bonus, or you have to homebrew a fix - Dabbler's suggestion for example.)
I'm not sure I'd agree. For natural attacks it does have the benefit of application to multiple attacks, but each natural weapon only strikes once per turn whereas a weapon can potentially strike four times per turn (although with descending bonuses). Most of the natural weapon users you mentioned get 3-5 natural weapon attacks (assuming no weapon use) while the Monk gets up to 3 unarmed strike attacks if using a weapon as primary, and up to 7 if he's only using unarmed strikes. Why is this so much better for the natural weapon users?
Well let's see. Last week my party fought a Shemhazian Demon, which has six attacks, three at +25 and three at +23 to hit. At that level (CR16, so 15th level) a monk gets six attacks at a base of +13/+13+/+8/+8/+3/+3.
I think we're comparing apples and oranges here, the monks multiple attacks are far and away the inferior of the two.
At the same time a TWF fighter could get more functionality and versatility out of two enchanted weapons at 20% less cost and with no upper limit.
If a monk got two weapon fighting at 1st level instead of FoB, At 20th he would have six attacks at 13/13/8/8/3/3. As apposed to his FoB progression which gives him 18/18/13/13/8/8/3
Two Weapon Fighting =/= Flurry of blows. A monk can only get Full Base Attack(albeit at a -2) if using a full attack action.
They are very different abilities, that being said, how is he attacking that much faster if not alternating his attacks? Any way you slice it striking with one limb or weapon and pulling back for another swing will always be slower than striking with your fist then kicking then elbow to the jaw then punch to the gut then headbutt, which I believe was the intent.
I'm not sure I'd agree. For natural attacks it does have the benefit of application to multiple attacks, but each natural weapon only strikes once per turn whereas a weapon can potentially strike four times per turn (although with descending bonuses). Most of the natural weapon users you mentioned get 3-5 natural weapon attacks (assuming no weapon use) while the Monk gets up to 3 unarmed strike attacks if using a weapon as primary, and up to 7 if he's only using unarmed strikes. Why is this so much better for the natural weapon users?Well let's see. Last week my party fought a Shemhazian Demon, which has six attacks, three at +25 and three at +23 to hit. At that level (CR16, so 15th level) a monk gets six attacks at a base of +13/+13+/+8/+8/+3/+3.
I think we're comparing apples and oranges here, the monks multiple attacks are far and away the inferior of the two.
At the same time a TWF fighter could get more functionality and versatility out of two enchanted weapons at 20% less cost and with no upper limit.
Dab, every new post brings new readers to this thread. Half of them choose to disagree with you and so you have to present the same arguments. What is it, now, about ten basic criticisms you have to respond to over and over again with the same (criticism-appropriate) explanation? How do you stomach it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is something people get used to hear, especially in long threads since most people are not going to read several pages to see the points that have already been made.
Dab, every new post brings new readers to this thread. Half of them choose to disagree with you and so you have to present the same arguments. What is it, now, about ten basic criticisms you have to respond to over and over again with the same (criticism-appropriate) explanation? How do you stomach it?
When I was married, I had to develope one of two things - either great patience, or the ability to hide bodies really well; I opted for patience. If you met my ex-wife, you would understand.
If a monk got two weapon fighting at 1st level instead of FoB, At 20th he would have six attacks at 13/13/8/8/3/3. As apposed to his FoB progression which gives him 18/18/13/13/8/8/3
Two Weapon Fighting =/= Flurry of blows. A monk can only get Full Base Attack(albeit at a -2) if using a full attack action.
Yes, which then gets kind of silly if you only want to attack with one of them. Way I see it, the devs need to stop making it such a multiplicity of compromises - it's either it's own thing you can't use with TWF, or it's TWF with full BAB.
They are very different abilities, that being said, how is he attacking that much faster if not alternating his attacks? Any way you slice it striking with one limb or weapon and pulling back for another swing will always be slower than striking with your fist then kicking then elbow to the jaw then punch to the gut then headbutt, which I believe was the intent.
Oh I've seen it done in the dojo, half a dozen strikes in less than that many seconds with one weapon isn't actually that hard, especially with lightweight weapons.
So it simply comes back to needing to reduce the cost of the AMF like I said before. It's an easy fix. Just cut the cost to 60% of what it currently is...
Nope nope nope. Changing the price of the AOMF doesn't change a single thing about option 1 or option 2. No matter what you cost the AOMF or an AOMF replacement at, you're still more or less paying for a weapon for no reason if you want to be a base monk with a weapon.
If I were a conscientious game designer, and I was put in a position where something wasn't being played as I intended, and I further discovered that huge amounts of published material supported the "other way" instead of the way I intended, then I would take a step back and truly analyze whether the "other way" wasn't just as good, or better, than what I intended, before I did anything rash and broke huge stacks of previously published material in my haste.
I would absolutely not, under any circumstances, ramrod my opinions through, breaking huge stacks of previously published material in the process.
If I were a game designer's boss, and I noticed a game designer under my employ who valued his own opinions more than the continuity of the game, and ramrodded his opinions through, breaking huge stacks of previously published material in the process, I would fire him and hire a new game designer who was conscientious of others in his job.
If I were playing a game where the guy who ramrodded rules "clarifications" through that broke huge stacks of previously published material was an owner of the game, and couldn't be fired, then I guess I'd just house rule it for now and keep my eye on other games to play. I would indubitably be disappointed that the game I'd spent so much time supporting was succumbing to the trappings of previous (now dead) games, though.
In the big picture, Pathfinder is still a pretty good game, all things told. Even with some dumb clarifications it's still head and shoulders over Dark Heresy in terms of system. I think this Monk thing combined with some other highly questionable "clarifications" might set it below Shadowrun 4 in terms of consistency and applicability of rules, but it's still quite good.
If I were a conscientious game designer, and I was put in a position where something wasn't being played as I intended, and I further discovered that huge amounts of published material supported the "other way" instead of the way I intended, then I would take a step back and truly analyze whether the "other way" wasn't just as good, or better, than what I intended, before I did anything rash and broke huge stacks of previously published material in my haste.
That's what they are doing, after finding out 90% of players were not doing it the way they intended.
|
I want to tackle the whole "the game designers know more than we do" issue that I have seen come up. Just because you may be a game designer doesn't automatically make you more knowledgeable than someone who isn't. I had someone try that crap because they worked for Microsoft. Well the fact of the matter was yes he worked at Microsoft and I didn't but he needed to realize that I didn't work there because I am an employee of Apple and I never bothered to apply at Microsoft.
Also I want to say that when someone holds a high up position, it is their job to make sure that everyone is in the same boat. Paizo is not a multinational corporation, I'm sure most of the decisions are all made under the same roof so it's not like there are over 400 offices worldwide to have to take care of.
If you 100 people in a room and you ask them a question with 99 people giving an answer and that 1 guy giving something different then you can almost bet your life that those 99 people aren't wrong.
It's a bad situation no matter how you look at it. If communication is actually that bad then I would be calling a meeting to get some things straight or if it's down to someone just not admitting that they were wrong and everyone else is right doesn't look good from a business perspective.
I want to continue to give Paizo my money so they really need to get their acts together.
If you 100 people in a room and you ask them a question with 99 people giving an answer and that 1 guy giving something different then you can almost bet your life that those 99 people aren't wrong.
That depends a lot on what the question is, Shallowsoul. I mean, a thousand years ago you could ask a hundred people if the world was flat and most would agree it was, and they would most certainly be wrong.
What you mean is that if most people do something with the game one way, then that's the right way. Well it may not be, especially if it's causing a problem. Not that this applies in this case, but you take my point.
Myself, I maintain the designers are the pros, they get paid for this kind of thing. At the same time they are human, they will make mistakes. Lastly, Paizo's a small company, the Apple to WotC's Microsoft. Apple may make generally better products, but they have made some bloopers now and then.
|
|
If you 100 people in a room and you ask them a question with 99 people giving an answer and that 1 guy giving something different then you can almost bet your life that those 99 people aren't wrong.That depends a lot on what the question is, Shallowsoul. I mean, a thousand years ago you could ask a hundred people if the world was flat and most would agree it was, and they would most certainly be wrong.
What you mean is that if most people do something with the game one way, then that's the right way. Well it may not be, especially if it's causing a problem. Not that this applies in this case, but you take my point.
Myself, I maintain the designers are the pros, they get paid for this kind of thing. At the same time they are human, they will make mistakes. Lastly, Paizo's a small company, the Apple to WotC's Microsoft. Apple may make generally better products, but they have made some bloopers now and then.
The main point was to show that just because you are a game designer that doesn't mean you automatically know more than someone who isn't. That person could actually apply and get you fired because they know more.
I wasn't talking about asking what the meaning of life is. As of right now the proof points to the fact that those few people are wrong and the majority was right.
Higher ups in companies can't use the excuse about having so much to keep up with that they can't look over everyone's shoulder to make sure they have it correct. When you are in a high position is is your job to make sure you are looking over those shoulders to make sure they are using the right rule.