| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Taken from Blood of Angels (an official Pathfinder accessory about Aasimars), p.26, about new curses for the Oracle class:
Blackened: Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch. You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add burning hands to your list of spells known.
Emphasis mine, it says "weapon attack rolls", does the "weapon" part include unarmed strike or not ?
(The whole idea would be for a Peri-blooded aasimar fire oracle with this curse using unarmed strikes to attack... and possibly bypassing this penalty, if it can be done.)
Anyone ?
Pretty sure unarmed strikes count (there's some wording about treating them as such), and from reading blackened it seems clear that letting you use unarmed strikes without the penalty would be against the spirit of the rule in any case.
Pretty sure unarmed strikes count (there's some wording about treating them as such), and from reading blackened it seems clear that letting you use unarmed strikes without the penalty would be against the spirit of the rule in any case.
The thing is that unarmed strike don't have to be the fists and even if it was the case, the only reason I could explain the penalty would that it would be painful to hold a weapon... but punching shouldn't cause such a penalty... right ?
If it's painful to hold a weapon because your hands are so messed up, why wouldn't it be painful to instead smack those burned hands repeatedly against something?
Under Gamemastering in the PRD, headline Unarmed Attacks:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
No reason you can't kick, punch, elbow, headbutt and not take the penalty by RAW.
If it's painful to hold a weapon because your hands are so messed up, why wouldn't it be painful to instead smack those burned hands repeatedly against something?
What you are saying is that I should take damage if my unarmed strikes hit, because when punching, I'm not holding anything.
Under Gamemastering in the PRD, headline Unarmed Attacks:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:No reason you can't kick, punch, elbow, headbutt and not take the penalty by RAW.
So what you saying is that I'm taking the penalty regardless... well that sucks. The way I understand, kicking nets me a -4 penalty to attack rolls for a stigma to the hands. If I play an oracle with a bite attack, I'd get that penalty for the bite attack as well.
If it's painful to hold a weapon because your hands are so messed up, why wouldn't it be painful to instead smack those burned hands repeatedly against something?What you are saying is that I should take damage if my unarmed strikes hit, because when punching, I'm not holding anything.
So what you saying is that I'm taking the penalty regardless... well that sucks. The way I understand, kicking nets me a -4 penalty to attack rolls for a stigma to the hands. If I play an oracle with a bite attack, I'd get that penalty for the bite attack as well.Under Gamemastering in the PRD, headline Unarmed Attacks:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:No reason you can't kick, punch, elbow, headbutt and not take the penalty by RAW.
No, I'm saying by the rules you can take Improved Unarmed Strike and perform an unarmed strike without the -4 penalty, because the unarmed strike rules specifically call out other methods of dealing damage with the ability other than just using your hands.
No, I'm saying by the rules you can take Improved Unarmed Strike and perform an unarmed strike without the -4 penalty, because the unarmed strike rules specifically call out other methods of dealing damage with the ability other than just using your hands.If it's painful to hold a weapon because your hands are so messed up, why wouldn't it be painful to instead smack those burned hands repeatedly against something?What you are saying is that I should take damage if my unarmed strikes hit, because when punching, I'm not holding anything.
So what you saying is that I'm taking the penalty regardless... well that sucks. The way I understand, kicking nets me a -4 penalty to attack rolls for a stigma to the hands. If I play an oracle with a bite attack, I'd get that penalty for the bite attack as well.Under Gamemastering in the PRD, headline Unarmed Attacks:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:No reason you can't kick, punch, elbow, headbutt and not take the penalty by RAW.
Oh, my apologies, I misread that. Thanks for the clarification.
No, I'm saying by the rules you can take Improved Unarmed Strike and perform an unarmed strike without the -4 penalty, because the unarmed strike rules specifically call out other methods of dealing damage with the ability other than just using your hands.
You'd be incorrect about that. "Strikes, Unarmed" are weapons, with a table entry and description as such. The only reason the bite would be unaffected is it being a natural attack. Natural attacks are specifically called out as attacks without weapons by definition.
Under Gamemastering in the PRD, headline Unarmed Attacks:
Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:No reason you can't kick, punch, elbow, headbutt and not take the penalty by RAW.
Yeah, but there are two main objections to this:
#1-this is reading fluff as RAW. The RAW of it is that the curse applies that -4 penalty to all attack rolls, not just ones with your hands. The bit about hands is just a simple justification for the principle that the designers wanted you to take away from this curse.
#2-I'd imagine that the gods are as unforgiving as RAW. If they don't want you smacking stuff around, you won't be smacking stuff around. Do you want you legs burned too?
From these two points, it is seems fairly easy to keep to the spirit of the curse. I'd suppose that touch attacks wouldn't count though, since they are not strictly weapons and it doesn't matter how charred your hands are if all you have to do is poke something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, from a mechanics view, it imposes a -4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, which unarmed strikes count as. No question.
From a roleplay view, you could be perhaps off-balance with your kick/punch/elbow/headbutt because you are taking extra care not to get your charred hands to hit things, or perhaps flash back mentally to when your hands were burned and you recall the pain as you try to attack, which throws you off balance, or variety of other reasons that having difficulty with your hands can mess up your attacks.
|
Would it affect the melee touch attack of the Phantom Touch Revelation from the Occult Mystery?
As to what it affects it's a pretty simple checklist.
Do you have to make a weapon attack roll to use the spell/sla/etc?
Yes? -4.
No? No penalty.
The RAW is very short and clear, any weapon attack roll gets a -4 penalty. It doesn't matter what the weapon is if your attack counts as a weapon attack roll, you take the -4.
Melee attacks, ranged attacks, melee touch attacks, hell since rays also count as a weapon, perhaps rather oddly even spells such as Scorching Ray would also get the -4 penalty to hit, etc.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/feats.html#weapon-focus
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Common sense engaged: If the attack doesn't use the hands, don't apply the penalty. If it uses your hands, apply the penalty.
Rules are written with the basic assumption that people aren’t drooling mouth breathers.
If I said to you “I hurt my leg, and move slower now”. Would you assume I always move slower, always, in every situation? Like, even if I’m a passenger in a car, I’m now somehow mystically slower??? Or would you make the connection that I move slower when using my now injured leg to move?
I don’t know what is in the water… but this “Only part X of this whole thing is RAW, because I say so, so by RAW YZ” BS needs to stop.
The whole thing is RAW. Because the whole thing is what is the rules as they !
Burnt hands, penalty attacking with burnt hands.
You wanna kick a dude in the teeth? No penalty.
Common sense engaged: If the attack doesn't use the hands, don't apply the penalty. If it uses your hands, apply the penalty.
Rules are written with the basic assumption that people aren’t drooling mouth breathers.
If I said to you “I hurt my leg, and move slower now”. Would you assume I always move slower, always, in every situation? Like, even if I’m a passenger in a car, I’m now somehow mystically slower??? Or would you make the connection that I move slower when using my now injured leg to move?
I don’t know what is in the water… but this “Only part X of this whole thing is RAW, because I say so, so by RAW YZ” BS needs to stop.
The whole thing is RAW. Because the whole thing is what is the rules as they !
Burnt hands, penalty attacking with burnt hands.
You wanna kick a dude in the teeth? No penalty.
But that is an interpretation. You can argue that the rules were vague and worked only off of the very, very pervasive assumption that you would attack with your hands. But the fact remains, the written line is "You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls". It does not make exceptions for non-hand based attacks.
Do the designers honestly need to say "You are horribly burned over each and every surface of your body" just to impose a simple and fairly straight forward penalty? That seems like a far, far more metal flavor that was originally intended.
Common sense engaged: If the attack doesn't use the hands, don't apply the penalty. If it uses your hands, apply the penalty.
Rules are written with the basic assumption that people aren’t drooling mouth breathers.
If I said to you “I hurt my leg, and move slower now”. Would you assume I always move slower, always, in every situation? Like, even if I’m a passenger in a car, I’m now somehow mystically slower??? Or would you make the connection that I move slower when using my now injured leg to move?
I don’t know what is in the water… but this “Only part X of this whole thing is RAW, because I say so, so by RAW YZ” BS needs to stop.
The whole thing is RAW. Because the whole thing is what is the rules as they !
Burnt hands, penalty attacking with burnt hands.
You wanna kick a dude in the teeth? No penalty.
But that is an interpretation. You can argue that the rules were vague and worked only off of the very, very pervasive assumption that you would attack with your hands. But the fact remains, the written line is "You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls". It does not make exceptions for non-hand based attacks.
Do the designers honestly need to say "You are horribly burned over each and every surface of your body" just to impose a simple and fairly straight forward penalty? That seems like a far, far more metal flavor that was originally intended.
The curse does not say "You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls".
The curse says "Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch. You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add burning hands to your list of spells known."
To interpret that as 'You take -4 to weapon attack rolls, always, no matter what." Means you must deliberately ignore the first half of what is written.
I will see if I can find it, but I believe that one of the designers said the penalty only applied to attacks with manufactured weapons - not unarmed strikes or natural weapons.
I'd agree that it's most likely intended only to affect hand-held weapons; there's no reason why shriveled arms should cause you to be less accurate with a boot blade.
[edit]
Got it. It does not mention unarmed strikes. Frankly, since an unarmed strike can be made with any 'unoccupied' body part, and you're not required to call out what part you're using, I would probably not apply it to that either.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see them listed anywhere in the weapons table in the core rulebook.Are Natural Weapons not weapons?
So, Arcane Strike does not apply to Natural Weapons? No Favored Enemy bonus to attacks with Natural Weapons?
The "weapon attack" terminology comes up quite often.
Are saying this only means to include manufactured weapons, and also include unarmed strikes?
The curse does not say "You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls".
The curse says "Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch. You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add burning hands to your list of spells known."
To interpret that as 'You take -4 to weapon attack rolls, always, no matter what." Means you must deliberately ignore the first half of what is written.
No, you mustn't.
Nothing about the first part changes the fact that it says "You take a -4 penalty on weapon attack rolls".
Fluff and crunch are not the same. Fluff does not influence the rules. If it did I'd have RAW precedence to say my Barbarian always wins in a fight (Barbarians do " ruin all who would stand in their way" after all).
What is written as rules text is "you take a -4 penalty to weapon attack rolls".
If you attack with a weapon, you take a -4 penalty. Period.
Manufactured Weapon, Natural Weapon, or Unarmed Strike (classified as a weapon), doesn't matter. They're all weapons. You take a -4.
No, you mustn't.
Nothing about the first part changes the fact that it says "You take a -4 penalty on weapon attack rolls".
Fluff and crunch are not the same. Fluff does not influence the rules. If it did I'd have RAW precedence to say my Barbarian always wins in a fight (Barbarians do " ruin all who would stand in their way" after all).
'Fluff' and 'crunch' don't exist. Look at the ruling on the Cackle Hex for a perfect example of how you can trip up by ignoring something because you believe it to be 'fluff'. We have a singular text; while not everything in it is intended to be mechanical, it shouldn't be flat-out ignored either. We're meant to read the rules with common sense engaged. Common sense would indicate that a Barbarian does not win every combat despite the text you quoted, because that would render the game pointless.
And to point back up again, one of the designers has chimed in (see link above) to state that it was intended only to hinder manufactured weapons.
Didn't see that edit. So now we have RAI. It still doesn't change the RAW, but RAI is better in most cases.
Assuming this isn't one of those cases where the developer who came up with the ability's intent was overridden, like with the Titan Mauler.
No, you mustn't.Nothing about the first part changes the fact that it says "You take a -4 penalty on weapon attack rolls".
Fluff and crunch are not the same. Fluff does not influence the rules. If it did I'd have RAW precedence to say my Barbarian always wins in a fight (Barbarians do " ruin all who would stand in their way" after all).
What is written as rules text is "you take a -4 penalty to weapon attack rolls".
If you attack with a weapon, you take a -4 penalty. Period.
Manufactured Weapon, Natural Weapon, or Unarmed Strike (classified as a weapon), doesn't matter. They're all weapons. You take a -4.
I'm sorry Rynjin, but you have no basis for determining what is 'fluff' and what is 'crunch'. Nor is there any reference to either of those terms in the book's index.
I have significant doubts as to whether either of those terms are officially supported by the game rules.
You are ignoring the first half of the curse's text to come to the conclusion that the second half of the curse's text applies to everything universally.
It does not. Period.
Didn't see that edit. So now we have RAI. It still doesn't change the RAW, but RAI is better in most cases.
Assuming this isn't one of those cases where the developer who came up with the ability's intent was overridden, like with the Titan Mauler.
We have actual RAW, which is the entire text of the curse.
And you have 'Rynjin RAW', which is what you have cherry picked from the 'as written' text. Choosing to ignore everything else that doesn’t allow you to create a ruling that is absurd.
How are you differentiating between RAW and “other not important stuff, for some reason got printed here, guess I should pretend it isn’t here” text?
The whole thing is RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are you differentiating between RAW and “other not important stuff, for some reason got printed here, guess I should pretend it isn’t here” text?
Very easily.
Read any Feat, any class ability, any class. It is easy to determine what is rules text and what is fluff text, based on placement and wording of sentences.
The fluff text is usually very general, devoid of any overt rules text, as is the case with the Blackened Curse.
Notice the way it is worded, with very descriptive and flavorful word choice, but no mention of any mechanical benefit or penalty.
Look at all of the other curses.
The first sentence (bar the one for Deafened) is always a descriptor of a possible way to flavor your character.
Lame: "One of your legs is permanently wounded"
So does that mean my character concept is invalid if I want a character who is, say, magically shackled by the gods?
Haunted: "Malevolent spirits follow you wherever you go, causing minor mishaps and strange occurrences (such as unexpected breezes, small objects moving on their own, and faint noises)."
I have an Oracle right now who's haunted by the (quite friendly) ghost of his wife, who clings to him during combat (making it difficult for him to retrieve items). Is my character concept out the window because this is, indeed, "Rules Text"?
No. That would be quite silly indeed.
In the case of one curse this was proven to be semi-incorrect (the Blackened Curse), but not even then. It applies to all Manufactured Weapons...among which are the Boot Blade and Barbazu Beard and Armor Spikes, etc. that do not require hands...but still take penalties. So the "common sense" interpretation, clarified by the dev, isn't even completely correct (though it is MORE correct at this point than saying it applies to all weapons).
Developer clarification in question:
The Blackened oracle curse is meant to only impose a penalty on attack rolls with manufactured weapons. Thus, rays, weapon-like spells, and natural weapons are not affected by this curse.
EDIT:
Didn't see that Xaratherus' post included the link.
How are you differentiating between RAW and “other not important stuff, for some reason got printed here, guess I should pretend it isn’t here” text?Very easily.
Read any Feat, any class ability, any class. It is easy to determine what is rules text and what is fluff text, based on placement and wording of sentences.
The fluff text is usually very general, devoid of any overt rules text, as is the case with the Blackened Curse.
Notice the way it is worded, with very descriptive and flavorful word choice, but no mention of any mechanical benefit or penalty.
Look at all of the other curses.
The first sentence (bar the one for Deafened) is always a descriptor of a possible way to flavor your character.
Lame: "One of your legs is permanently wounded"
So does that mean my character concept is invalid if I want a character who is, say, magically shackled by the gods?
Haunted: "Malevolent spirits follow you wherever you go, causing minor mishaps and strange occurrences (such as unexpected breezes, small objects moving on their own, and faint noises)."
I have an Oracle right now who's haunted by the (quite friendly) ghost of his wife, who clings to him during combat (making it difficult for him to retrieve items). Is my character concept out the window because this is, indeed, "Rules Text"?
No. That would be quite silly indeed.
In the case of one curse this was proven to be semi-incorrect (the Blackened Curse), but not even then. It applies to all Manufactured Weapons...among which are the Boot Blade and Barbazu Beard and Armor Spikes, etc. that do not require hands...but still take penalties. So the "common sense" interpretation, clarified by the dev, isn't even completely correct (though it is MORE correct at this point than saying it applies to all weapons).
Technically speaking, yes, you are blatantly ignoring the rules.
You are free to ignore any/all rules if your DM agrees to do so. But that is houserules territory.
The 'fluff' text, as you put it, is just as binding as the 'crunch' text, they are two parts of the whole.
That is why they are both present, so that you have a description of what is happening, as well as rules for how to implement it.
What you are doing is applying something completely made up, and using an ability that is somewhat similar and applying the rules for that.
Of course you can do that in a home game all you like.
But if an ability describes the effect as “One of your legs is permanently wounded”. That means One of your legs is permanently wounded. It does not mean “You have ghost shackles” It doesn’t mean “You have funny, oversized shoes” it doesn’t mean anything other than “One of your legs is permanently wounded”.
Both the descriptive text and the mechanics of an ability are both RAW. Together, they make the RAW.
Feel free to continue to homebrew. We all do it from time to time. But don’t confuse it for RAW.
Technically speaking, yes, you are blatantly ignoring the rules.
Technically speaking no, I am not.
There is no mechanical impact to the text "one of your legs is permanently wounded". At all. That is not rules text, any way you slice it.
The EFFECT of that flavor is rules, but that flavor can be changed as easily as snapping my fingers, without breaking the rules in the slightest. As long as you gain no additional mechanical benefit or penalty, you have not changed the rules.
To the OP i think this is one of the cases where you will have to expect table variation and some mockery if you try it in PFS. And you will have to clear it with the GM if you try it in a home game.
I am with the not likely crowd. If you find a clever way to by pass a curse, i think, the answer is no.
But then again the lame curse is only 2 feats from not being there in any bad way.
So in short ask you GM. This is a contested matter;)
Technically speaking, yes, you are blatantly ignoring the rules.Technically speaking no, I am not.
There is no mechanical impact to the text "one of your legs is permanently wounded". At all. That is not rules text, any way you slice it.
The EFFECT of that flavor is rules, but that flavor can be changed as easily as snapping my fingers, without breaking the rules in the slightest. As long as you gain no additional mechanical benefit or penalty, you have not changed the rules.
Uh... the mechanical effect of "One of your legs is permanently wounded" is that your character's leg is wounded, permanently.
That is the rule for this curse. Your leg is permanently wounded. That is a rule. It is written. If you choose this curse for your oracle, the rule is that your leg is permanently wounded.
Every way you slice it, it is a rule.
Mechanical rules or fluff rules can both be changed as easily as you snapping your fingers.
Dodge gives a +2 AC. Wait, now it gives +3. Nope, now it gives +1.
Rules can be changed. Fluff or crunch, makes no difference, both can be changed. They are both important to abilities and without either one an ability is meaningless. If you choose to ignore one or the other, you're not playing the game by RAW.
Because if you are changing either of them, you are homebrewing. This being the rules forum, we shouldn't be discussing how you personally decide to ignore the game rules.
Now, you can ignore the rules all you like, more power to ya. But don't confuse your homebrew with RAW. Or even RAI.
'Fluff' as you call it is every bit as RAW as this 'crunch' you speak of.
|
I gotta side with Rynjin here. The thing about flavor vs. fluff is it's generally separated in the way that the ability is typed. It's pretty clear where the separation is in the ability.
The Fluff
Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch.
The Crunch
You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add Burning Hands to your list of spells known.
The fluff has no mechanical bearings on the rules. There's no rules for having burned hands outside of this. If there was, we'd have rules for what happened after someone failed the save against any manner of fire spells, or just managed to put their hands inside fire. This isn't a mechanical issue, it's a fluff one because there's no way to adjudicate that statement into one that has any meaning to the rules.
The Crunch is a hard and fast statement that effects the player at a mechanical level, in this case bestowing a penalty to attack roles with 'manufactured' weapons and adding Burning Hands to the list of the player's spells known. This is an identifiable rules based statement, and only states the mechanical changes to the character based on selecting this curse.
I'd be fine re flavoring this fluff as "The character's deity is staunchly opposed to their chosen wielding weapons, and will stop at nothing to keep them from using a tool of war against others." That'd be fine, as long as we kept the second line. No changes there, maybe a cosmetic difference, but that paper skin rule doesn't seem to affect any other facet of the character, so if I had a player who wanted to play a pacifist instead of a burn victim, that's fine. They're taking the same penalties, they're no better or worse mechanically, no problem.
You can say the fluff is immutable, but that's a needless constraint as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the actual, identifiable mechanics of the rule.
You do realize that we have a ruling, from the person that created the curse, and that it applies only to manufactured weapons, right?
I gotta side with Rynjin here. The thing about flavor vs. fluff is it's generally separated in the way that the ability is typed. It's pretty clear where the separation is in the ability.
The Fluff
Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch.The Crunch
You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add Burning Hands to your list of spells known.The fluff has no mechanical bearings on the rules. There's no rules for having burned hands outside of this. If there was, we'd have rules for what happened after someone failed the save against any manner of fire spells, or just managed to put their hands inside fire. This isn't a mechanical issue, it's a fluff one because there's no way to adjudicate that statement into one that has any meaning to the rules.
The Crunch is a hard and fast statement that effects the player at a mechanical level, in this case bestowing a penalty to attack roles with 'manufactured' weapons and adding Burning Hands to the list of the player's spells known. This is an identifiable rules based statement, and only states the mechanical changes to the character based on selecting this curse.
I'd be fine re flavoring this fluff as "The character's deity is staunchly opposed to their chosen wielding weapons, and will stop at nothing to keep them from using a tool of war against others." That'd be fine, as long as we kept the second line. No changes there, maybe a cosmetic difference, but that paper skin rule doesn't seem to affect any other facet of the character, so if I had a player who wanted to play a pacifist instead of a burn victim, that's fine. They're taking the same penalties, they're no better or worse mechanically, no problem.
You can say the fluff is immutable, but that's a needless constraint as long as it doesn't have anything to do with the actual, identifiable mechanics of the rule.
Uhm...
What madness is this now?
The fluff is all that actually matters... the mechanics are there to service the fluff. To make fluff interact with other fluff.
Otherwise we're just doing math problems, really really easy math problems.
I'd be fine with the curse offering - anything to attack and damage with attacks using the hands, so long as the fluff isn't altered. You could change it; make it suffer a -4 to all d20 checks that involve the use of the hands. Or, -4 to all attacks with manufacturing weapons or skill checks that involve tools... mechanics can be altered just as readily and easily as fluff. Or make it a -3… or make it a -6. Change change change, very easy to change anything. But as soon as you change something, you are not dealing with RAW.
Changing the fluff completely changes the ability into something wholly different and trashes the original ability into unrecognizable BS that you just made up. You are no longer using RAW. You have deviated. You are off-roading into homebrew territory. The original ability tells you what it does, what is means, how it works… when you purposefully ignore what is written…
You cannot pretend that you are using RAW when you blatantly disregard it.
Edit/addition: Pray tell, why on earth would a pacifist gain Burning Hands as a bonus spell? Your new fluff doesn't make any sense.
|
|
I am also with Rynjin here. Flavor is put into mechanics to give options for what you may want to look like/act like, but you can reflavor things as you like. You can flavor your lame curse as being shackled by gods, or having a back pain that keeps you from moving, or just flat-out being slow. Having the permanently wounded leg is just the option that the devs provided in the text.
Edit/addition: Pray tell, why on earth would a pacifist gain Burning Hands as a bonus spell? Your new fluff doesn't make any sense.
Well, there is always this. Or perhaps he was given it by a god and didn't want it.
The Blackened oracle curse is meant to only impose a penalty on attack rolls with manufactured weapons. Thus, rays, weapon-like spells, and natural weapons are not affected by this curse.
. . .
In the case of one curse this was proven to be semi-incorrect (the Blackened Curse), but not even then. It applies to all Manufactured Weapons...among which are the Boot Blade and Barbazu Beard and Armor Spikes, etc. that do not require hands...but still take penalties. So the "common sense" interpretation, clarified by the dev, isn't even completely correct (though it is MORE correct at this point than saying it applies to all weapons).
Ha. True enough. And that's the problem with RAW. And arguments and discussions have to start from RAW because that is the only shared beginning point.
To Xaratherus and Remy. If you don't believe in a difference between fluff and crunch, then you are ignoring the sentiment of many that flavor is mutable, and therefore denying may character concepts that would be a lot of fun. You also appeal to 'common sense,' which isn't at all common. Everyone has different experiences, and thus different starting points, and what may be 'common' to you may not be to them. In addition, not everyone has the same levels of comprehension. As an example, I am better at math than one of my parents, but I still had problems with calculus, where as a friend of mine took to it as a duck to water.
Blackened
Source Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels
Your hands and forearms are shriveled and blackened, as if you had plunged your arms into a blazing fire, and your thin, papery skin is sensitive to the touch.
Effect
You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls, but you add burning hands to your list of spells known.
At 5th level, add scorching ray and flaming sphere to your list of spells known.
At 10th level, add wall of fire to your list of spells known and your penalty on weapon attack rolls is reduced to –2.
At 15th level, add delayed blast fireball to your list of spells known.
Common sense to me is fluff is the text out front that is descriptive without any mechanical information. Crunch is the mechanical information. You obviously disagree. Many feel that fluff and crunch can be uncoupled, because the crunch in not inherently tied to the fluff, and do so to create similar characters with different role play potential.
Reading the ability strictly, you take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls. It's not complicated. It even applies to things that don't involve the hands because the designers didn't write it that way. The designer says it's supposed to do something else. Well... he should have written it that way.
Because even if it was supposed to do one thing, the printed version is another, and until there is official errata or a faq to the contrary, any change is a houserule. And yes, I would houserule for my games.
To Xaratherus and Remy. If you don't believe in a difference between fluff and crunch, then you are ignoring the sentiment of many that flavor is mutable, and therefore denying may character concepts that would be a lot of fun.
Frankly - yeah, I am ignoring that sentiment, because unless those are designers, it's mostly irrelevant. No offense meant by that. Ad populum is a fallacy for a reason; if everyone on the Earth thinks that gravity is stupid that doesn't cause us all to float away.
Again, I point back to the Cackle Hex. By N. Jolly's statement of how to determine "fluff" from "crunch" there's no need to actually vocally cackle because the "crunch" doesn't mention it. Yet there's an FAQ that says otherwise.
I'm not saying that there are descriptive texts in the book that contradict mechanics and that you currently have to ignore to make things make sense - there are. But the lesson that should be taken away from that is not "Ignore what you consider fluff when it suits you," it should be, "Contradictory descriptions should be officially altered so they no longer contradict their mechanics."
|
|
Again, I point back to the Cackle Hex. By N. Jolly's statement of how to determine "fluff" from "crunch" there's no need to actually vocally cackle because the "crunch" doesn't mention it. Yet there's an FAQ that says otherwise.
You mind showing me where that FAQ entry is, since I just checked the Ultimate Magic FAQ section and didn't find it anywhere. If it says I have to vocalize something, I will.
Adhering to the fluff doesn't make you a better player in the same way that ignoring it doesn't make you a worse one, but if that's how you want to play it, that's fine. It's just that you have to accept that the fluff and crunch are two different things, rather than acting like the flavor text trumps all. Otherwise why don't Rogues get free rerolls on all their saves, since they can
... bend fate to their favor...
Kind of seems at odds with those Barbarians who
...ruin all who would stand in their way
But those are both immutable fluff, so which one wins? I bet it's the Fighter, since he's
...woe to those who dare stand against them.
Frankly - yeah, I am ignoring that sentiment, because unless those are designers, it's mostly irrelevant. No offense meant by that. Ad populum is a fallacy for a reason; if everyone on the Earth thinks that gravity is stupid that doesn't cause us all to float away.
Hm. Fair enough. Ignore the sentiment. Just keep in mind, even the designer's are sometimes gainsaid by 'the company.' And there is a given proclivity in the books to print color/flavor/fluff text first and mechanical text second, sometimes separated by some sort (sub)heading/barrier.
Again, I point back to the Cackle Hex. By N. Jolly's statement of how to determine "fluff" from "crunch" there's no need to actually vocally cackle because the "crunch" doesn't mention it. Yet there's an FAQ that says otherwise.
So there was an official response then? :)
Effect: A witch can cackle madly as a move action. Any creature that is within 30 feet that is under the effects of an agony hex, charm hex, evil eye hex, fortune hex, or misfortune hex caused by the witch has the duration of that hex extended by 1 round.
. . .
Supernatural Abilities (Su)
These can't be disrupted in combat and generally don't provoke attacks of opportunity. They aren't subject to spell resistance, counterspells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
Maybe it's already been edited by the source I am citing, but with cackle as an example, it's in the Effect part. It's where the crunchy bits are. I see a move action where there is a vocalization and a mechanical change to specific hexes within 30'.
...and after looking at N. Jolly's post, was there a mention of Cackle? Is that, by chance, a strawman?
I'm not saying that there are descriptive texts in the book that contradict mechanics and that you currently have to ignore to make things make sense - there are. But the lesson that should be taken away from that is not "Ignore what you consider fluff when it suits you," it should be, "Contradictory descriptions should be officially altered so they no longer contradict their mechanics."
I actually agree with you there. But I do feel that there is a habit of printing, usually, that makes it relatively easy to separate the two.
I am just going to throw this out there, and take it as you will:
A Merfolk PC Oracle can choose the Lame Curse.
Which of the Merfolk's legs are permanently wounded?
You have made me laugh, Sir. Bravo.
You mind showing me where that FAQ entry is, since I just checked the Ultimate Magic FAQ section and didn't find it anywhere. If it says I have to vocalize something, I will.
Here ya go. Cackle's in the APG, not Ultimate Magic.
|
|
You mind showing me where that FAQ entry is, since I just checked the Ultimate Magic FAQ section and didn't find it anywhere. If it says I have to vocalize something, I will.Here ya go. Cackle's in the APG, not Ultimate Magic.
I don't know why I forgot that. I guess I didn't remember that it came from the APG. Thank you for that, I do appreciate the annotation.
In my games I'd allow them to simply make whatever loud noise they wanted vocally instead of making it hateful laughter, but I tend to trust the SRD on what is and isn't flavor text. Not sure how Cackle even got brought up...QSS.
I still stand by my claim that fluff exist to facilitate roleplay, and as long as it's not impacting the mechanics in an real way, it's entirely mutable.