The problem arises when:
If you apply that logic to Speed, why don't you apply the same logic to all other weapon properties? (Flaming, Bane, etc?)Care to cite any example of a "double flaming" weapon.
It was allowed in 3.5, in fact there was a adventure with double flaming and 1x frost weapon (deal 2d6 fire and 1d6 cold with every hit).
(Also Mephistopheles has a flaming/frost weapon)
One is still a number. You go through a lot of hoops to try to prove that it CAN be interpreted as not strictly forbidding it (and not succeeding, rather ignoring the parts you cannot explain). When you put that against a devs comment your statement doesnt hold much water..
Yes, devs have been wrong on RAW but they can only be wrong when RAW is clear. In this case its _at most_ unclear (i think its clear they do not stack), so the point is null. Either it doesnt work by RAW or RAW is ambigous and it doesnt work by FAQ.
One is still a number.
I have to apologize here. I honestly didn't think that was a serious response.
After all, I already cleared up how bonuses are not the same as extra attacks. Not even remotely. Not at all. Therefore, it's not a solid argument to make.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because he didn't provide any rule that supported his statement. He just said "no, creatures with many multiple attacks would get too much of a benefit for the cost."
Rules guys have been wrong about their own systems before, especially since this system isn't even theirs to begin with. LOTS of room for error there (Monks... nuff said.)
I for one believe this random guy on the internets reading more than I believe the Dev.
Wait. No I don't. That would be stupid.
Because he didn't provide any rule that supported his statement. He just said "no, creatures with many multiple attacks would get too much of a benefit for the cost."
Rules guys have been wrong about their own systems before, especially since this system isn't even theirs to begin with. LOTS of room for error there (Monks... nuff said.)
The FAQ shows intent.
If devs says "no" in an FAQ or does it by errata the result is the same.
The problem arises when:
If you apply that logic to Speed, why don't you apply the same logic to all other weapon properties? (Flaming, Bane, etc?)Care to cite any example of a "double flaming" weapon.
It was allowed in 3.5, in fact there was a adventure with double flaming and 1x frost weapon (deal 2d6 fire and 1d6 cold with every hit).
(Also Mephistopheles has a flaming/frost weapon)
Flaming/Frost is allowed. Flaming/flaming is not.
You mind quoting me the name of the adventure with the double flaming weapon. I am sure you are not correct since it was not legal then either. If not that then the adventure broke the rules.
Reroll if you get a duplicate special ability, an ability incompatible with an ability that you’ve already rolled, or if the extra ability puts you over the +10 limit. A weapon’s enhancement bonus and special ability bonus equivalents can’t total more than +10.
So we know what the RAI is... and we also know that there are plenty of times where RAI and RAW are different...
So I fail to see the point?
So we know what the RAI is... and we also know that there are plenty of times where RAI and RAW are different...
So I fail to see the point?
Many including myself thought you were arguing the RAW as the RAI.
You may have made a separation in one of your post, but if so I missed, and it seems others did as well.
No no, I'm simply arguing that the RAW supports it. The faq makes the RAI clear as day, but the rules themselves fail to show any clear reason why a AoMF enchanted with Speed wouldn't grant it's effect to all natural attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no, I'm simply arguing that the RAW supports it. The faq makes the RAI clear as day, but the rules themselves fail to show any clear reason why a AoMF enchanted with Speed wouldn't grant it's effect to all natural attacks.
I agree with that, I have seen much more farfetched arguments for RAW, just because the prerequiste is haste doesn't mean it has to work the same as the spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have some difficulty understanding how "one extra attack on a Full Attack action" can be interpreted as "more than one extra attack" under ANY circumstance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I *Hate* this FAQ. It is a blatant attempt to issue errata without it being official. The argument can be made that having multiple weapons with speed grants multiple additional attacks. If the rules completely disallowed that, SKR would have said so in the FAQ. That would have been an undebateable statement of the rules, but he didn't. It also doesn't clarify what you DO get for additional attacks. There hasn't been an errata for the AoMF, so the RAW for it hasn't changed. If the devs thought it needed fixing, it would have gotten changed in the last cycle of errata.
Also: The original FAQ has been edited. It quoted the price of a +4 amulet as 45,000 GP. It now reads 80,000, as it should. This mistake makes me think that the FAQ was issued as a knee-jerk reaction.
I have some difficulty understanding how "one extra attack on a Full Attack action" can be interpreted as "more than one extra attack" under ANY circumstance.
One extra attack on a Full Attack action with that weapon.
The reason it becomes murky is there is more than one weapon involved in the situation, each one individually and separately from the others providing an extra attack at full BAB.The rules don't provide a clear explanation and the FAQ doesn't involve the rules, but instead only concerns itself with potential abuse of power.
Having a Haste spell cast and a Speed weapon wielded is different than wielding two separate Speed weapons. Not very different, just different enough that the rules get cloudy.
InversionComplex... +1
If the devs thought it needed fixing, it would have gotten changed in the last cycle of errata.
Yet they did issue an FAQ on the matter so obviously they did think it needed to be addressed. I do agree that errata would have been better though.
This is one of those issues where the devs think an FAQ works when the community does not.
I would not call it a knee jerk reaction. Monster doubling all of their natural attacks is not a good thing. Nothing, not even epic level magic items should double your damage output.
I have some difficulty understanding how "one extra attack on a Full Attack action" can be interpreted as "more than one extra attack" under ANY circumstance.One extra attack on a Full Attack action with that weapon.
The reason it becomes murky is there is more than one weapon involved in the situation, each one individually and separately from the others providing an extra attack at full BAB.
The rules don't provide a clear explanation and the FAQ doesn't involve the rules, but instead only concerns itself with potential abuse of power.Having a Haste spell cast and a Speed weapon wielded is different than wielding two separate Speed weapons. Not very different, just different enough that the rules get cloudy.
InversionComplex... +1
Ah, thank you. That makes sense.
I'm going to stick to my guns, barring any further clarification, and assume that the extra attack cannot stack with itself, and once the bonus attack has applied once in a round, it will not do so again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The whole flurry of blows kerfuffle started because SKR wanted to justify the outrageous cost of an amulet of mighty fists for a monk by saying flurry requires actually attacking with two different weapons, which CAN be unarmed strikes, but they'd require separate enhancement. And thus the AoMF is a good deal because...you're paying 2.5x weapon enhancement cost instead of 2x cost... yeah, I don't get the logic either.
SO! To me, this means that to answer your question in the OP, it comes down to how they settle this flurry issue. IF they stick with what they're saying now, that w/o AoMF, you'd be paying twice to enhance your unarmed strikes (whether by a greater magic fang or some other way) and that AoMF thus exists as a convenience...to you (aren't they so thoughtful?) then...hells yes, you get an extra attack with each fist! Or however you do your cute little sorta-TWF-but-not thingy.
IF the side of logic and reason prevails and this whole thing becomes a distant, bad memory...all unarmed strikes are the same weapon, how you use it is merely descriptive combat fluff. Therefore, speed on AoMF would only give you one extra unarmed strike.
It's the only fair way to handle it.
|
|
Can you point to me where in this rule a numerical bonus is cited?
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.
Clap, Clap, Clap.
You have replied with a citation from www.d20pfsrd.com. That is not an official source and tend to paraphrase rules. Sometime that generate differences in the rules , as in this situation.
I have cited the PRD, that is on Paizo official site, use the books actual text and don't use the term number.
Maybe you need to check your sources before you use them to dispute a rule citation.
Really? That's cute...
But just for your reading pleasure:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/gettingStarted.html#bonus
You'll notice that the PRD has the exact same wording as the SRD that I referenced before, for both Bonuses and Penalties.
Seems my sources were just fine. ;)
Can you point to me where in this rule a numerical bonus is cited?
Stacking: Stacking refers to the act of adding together bonuses or penalties that apply to one particular check or statistic. Generally speaking, most bonuses of the same type do not stack. Instead, only the highest bonus applies. Most penalties do stack, meaning that their values are added together. Penalties and bonuses generally stack with one another, meaning that the penalties might negate or exceed part or all of the bonuses, and vice versa.Bonuses are numerical values that are added to checks and statistical scores. Most bonuses have a type, and as a general rule, bonuses of the same type are not cumulative (do not “stack”)—only the greater bonus granted applies.Penalties are numerical values that are subtracted from a check or statistical score. Penalties do not have a type and most penalties stack with one another.Clap, Clap, Clap.
You have replied with a citation from www.d20pfsrd.com. That is not an official source and tend to paraphrase rules. Sometime that generate differences in the rules , as in this situation.
I have cited the PRD, that is on Paizo official site, use the books actual text and don't use the term number.
Maybe you need to check your sources before you use them to dispute a rule citation.
Most of what is from D20Pfsrd is copied and pasted from this site. I know that when I add stuff to that site, that is how I do it, and how the others are supposed to do it.
I will tell you what I tell RD when he tries to say "it is D20PFsrd, so it does not count", check to make sure they match because most of the time they do.
RAW, Speed doesn't stack with similar effects such as haste or another speed weapon. How could there possibly be any confusion unless you're intentionally ignoring the rules, or being deliberately thick?
Is it because Speed doesn't specifically call out Speed as being a similar effect? If so, Blessing of Fervor just got way better.
Quote, from the rules, the definition of 'similar'. See the problem?
You clearly didn't see the problem, or didn't clearly see the problem. With something as open to interpretation as 'similar', it is left up to the individual to make a determination. So: does the part "with this weapon" not have enough impact to move it away from being similar, or is it enough to make it distinct? There CAN be more than one correct answer when the question is subjective.
THAT is the problem.
Only if you are a lawyer. For everyone else in the entire universe, similar means similar.
Master Arminas
And I can say that charcoal and diamonds are similar, or that my 7 cent bic pen and my boss's $120 gold tip marble body fountain pen are similar. Or how about Haste (the spell) and having a BAB of +6 or greater? Both of those give me an extra attack during a full-round attack action. Are they similar?
Only if you are a lawyer. For everyone else in the entire universe, similar means similar.
Master Arminas
Oh, I don't know, I'm sure somewhere, on some world, an ability that grants an extra attack is dissimilar to another ability that grants an extra attack.
Are you deliberately being thick-headed?
MA
And I can say that charcoal and diamonds are similar,
Molecularly, they are.
my 7 cent bic pen and my boss's $120 gold tip marble body fountain pen are similar.
If the factor of comparison is that they both write, they're pretty similar.
Or how about Haste (the spell) and having a BAB of +6 or greater? Both of those give me an extra attack during a full-round attack action. Are they similar?
Having a BAB of +6 is not an effect, so the comparison is moot. At least for the purposes of this argument. For other arguments, they could be considered similar.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this was the advice section, I wouldn't make more than one post in a thread like this(unless asked to). This is the Rules Questions section. I will go back and forth until every possible reasoning path has been tested, or the answers found. In particular, I am dissatisfied/dissapointed with how the Paizo crew handled this. So I will ignore the Errata in FAQ clothes and slam my head against this until my head breaks or the answers form from the aether and splashes of blood from head trauma.
Or how about Haste (the spell) and having a BAB of +6 or greater? Both of those give me an extra attack during a full-round attack action. Are they similar?Having a BAB of +6 is not an effect, so the comparison is moot. At least for the purposes of this argument. For other arguments, they could be considered similar.
Yes. Exactly. "Similar" isn't yes or no, there are degrees and conditions of similarity. So I'll ask (PURELY as a thought exercise): what degree of similar qualifies?
And I can say that charcoal and diamonds are similar, or that my 7 cent bic pen and my boss's $120 gold tip marble body fountain pen are similar. Or how about Haste (the spell) and having a BAB of +6 or greater? Both of those give me an extra attack during a full-round attack action. Are they similar?
I am sure "similar" does not need to be defined. At some point common sense steps in, or it should. I do see your point, but I don't want a rule book with every word defined because it does not really help the game. At some point it just gets tedious. Almost any rule can be misinterpreted if someone wants to bad enough. In short we have to rely on the player to be reasonable a lot of the times.
PS:I am in no way saying that every rule is easy to understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IC if you want perfectly detailed answers you are in for a lot of disappoint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please: no fluff reasoning. This is the Rules Questions section. I ask this because fluff is not rules, and has no impact on RAW.
Using your example: the Speed property isn't a spell effect, it's a property of the weapon. So they are different. This is the whole 'similar' thing again. Not the core of my problem with this.
Here is my problem: the Paizo crew has had many chances to address this, both errata cycles and through FAQ. They have not errata'd it at all, and their only FAQ only states the reason "It's too powerful". Nowhere did they state that it doesn't work because they can't stack. There is an implication of other answers, but they arn't stated. Why not? That FAQ entry has been edited before for a tangential numerical error, so why not an actual rule saying it doesn't work? Do the devs know something we don't? It can't be errata; they had a chance to put that in with the last set. We got a FAQ that was 100% opinion. The best/most common answer is based on subjective interpretation.
EDIT: I have no idea where I'm going with this anymore.
Why does it matter? If they put out errata it will be the same end result.
Or how about Haste (the spell) and having a BAB of +6 or greater? Both of those give me an extra attack during a full-round attack action. Are they similar?Having a BAB of +6 is not an effect, so the comparison is moot. At least for the purposes of this argument. For other arguments, they could be considered similar.
Yes. Exactly. "Similar" isn't yes or no, there are degrees and conditions of similarity. So I'll ask (PURELY as a thought exercise): what degree of similar qualifies?
Well, Haste is the defining case as it is specifically called out by the Speed property.
How are Haste and Speed similar? They only share one quality in common, they both grant an extra attack when you take the full-attack action.
That's what qualifies as similar in this situation, as clearly defined by the situation.
Exactly Quantum Steve, which is why . . . although it causes me much pain . . . I think that the extra attack from spending ki as a monk is also similar to haste and therefore doesn't stack.
Basically, the three things a monk can spend ki on (+20' speed, +4 dodge bonus, and an extra attack) are haste broken down into its seperate components. So I have come believe that they do not stack.
Master Arminas
Then they should do that. It wouldn't be hard. All it would take is a statement that it doesn't stack with itself; something they put in Haste. In the first printing, if memory serves. At least with errata it's official. FAQs seem not to be scrutinized (by Paizo)like errata is.
And another kick to the quickly dieing horse: Why didn't the FAQ address the Speed weapon property in general, instead of just the amulet?
It matters because this game is bad enough with rules lawyers; if the rules and/or reasoning get sloppier, it's done for. Fitting into a new group (with their own conventions on the rules) would be less fun than repeated blows to the genitals with a sledgehammer. At the very least the rules need a predictable structure.
They only answer specific questions asked, and even then it might take some prodding(more FAQ's).
If a rules lawyer is going to ignore something he won't care if it is errata or FAQ. I have shown people statements in the book that basically amount to 1+1=2, but they did not like it so they tried every nonlogical excuse they could to go against it.
I don't know how long you have been here, but you will see it soon enough if you stick around.
Oh, I've seen it. A 'true' rules lawyer would accept the errata (however begrudgingly) and play by it. I'm not sure what wraithstrike described should be called, but they are a whole other breed of bad gamer. I'm surprised that they can still find groups to play with.
As futile as it may be, it's about (and I know that it is a sore spot; don't jump me for this) things like what they did to the monk. That level of inconsideration should not be tolerated.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a rules lawyer is going to ignore something he won't care if it is errata or FAQ. I have shown people statements in the book that basically amount to 1+1=2, but they did not like it so they tried every nonlogical excuse they could to go against it.
I don't know how long you have been here, but you will see it soon enough if you stick around.
Totally off topic for this thread, but I've been perusing these boards for just a few months is all and I've come to the conclusion that if players would quit trying to 'break the game' the number of rules questions/faqs/errata/etc needed would drop to about 10% of what we actually see.