Sorry, your reasoning and analogy are faulty.The moment you take an analogy absolutely literally, you've crossed the line from "Person I can have a reasonable discussion with" to "Someone who can't (or chooses to ignore) basic concepts and I can therefore safely ignore and/or snicker at from the sidelines".
Not my problem that you choose a bad analogy...
Want an appropriate analogy?
Doorstop
This small wooden wedge is cut at a sharp angle.
You can place a doorstop as a move action in front of an open door to keep it open.
////
Now... we intend to make something new. We want something that works like a doorstop, ie is being used 'as a doorstop'.
Rock
A simple rock has many uses for those clever enough to see then.
You can place a rock as a move action in front of an open door to keep it open.
////
But a rock isn't a doorstop. While you can 'use it as one', it still isn't one. We borrowed the mechanics of the doorstop to adjudicate how to resolve the use of the rock 'as a doorstop'.
The same thing is happening when you make up new fluff. You use your 'new fluff' as the old fluff.
So, your new Anti-Weapon Curse fluff is used 'as Blackened Curse' fluff. You borrow the mechanics of the Blackened Curse to adjudicate your new invented curse...and walla, new mechanically functional fluff is born!
(But it isn't RAW, because you made it up)
>Throw up Flargles
>Scream deeply into pillow (which is the same pillow whether it has a white or black pillowcase on it) in frustration.
>Slam haglarther as I walk out of the shingyn.
And a cosmetic change is not a mechanical change. It's "maddening" you because you're ignoring basic logic and concepts that REAL LIFE is based on somehow.
You KNOW that changing the appearance of something doesn't change what it is. You could not have somehow missed this basic fact unless you grew up under a rock.
A person who gets plastic surgery doesn't become a different person. If I color foam purple it's still foam. If I call my feet "Garbleshnaps" they're still feet.
I know you don't understand the concept of an analogy but that's all I've got for you. It's so simple I can't break it down any further for you.
Renaming or changing a cosmetic detail of something does not change what it is. This is so ingrained in our language and culture that the word cosmetic has a double meaning of both "relating to appearance" and "not important or substantive". When the language itself has betrayed you it's time to give up your stance, man.
Blackened and burnt arms with papery thin skin is not simply cosmetic.
Being cursed by the gods is not simply cosmetic.
If you were to argue for something like the marks on your burned arms being red and purple instead of black… that would be ‘cosmetic’.
You are talking about two wholly and distinct and separate things. And pretending they are somehow identical.
That is what is maddening, this insane notion that the only thing different from ‘scorched hands and arms” and “god don’t like me using swords” is that it is simply a ‘cosmetic’ difference. It isn’t.
And as far as ‘real life’ is concerned… yes, actually… changing the appearance of something does in fact change it. Even if that change is purely ‘cosmetic’ it is still different. In fact I work in a highly regulated sector, where strict change controls are in place. If you went around willy nilly changing things, even on a purely ‘cosmetic’ level, you’d get fired, fined and/or jailed.
Even something as innocuous as using a different brand of the same color paint could get you in hot water. But OMG you say? They’re the same! No.. they’re not. You’d never know by looking at it, but how that paint interacts with other compounds on a chemical level is VERY different.
Oh, but paint is ‘just’ cosmetic, right!? No… no it isn’t.
Everything is functionally different in real life. Which is why if you insist on RL analogies you are going to always fail to make your point.
The game works differently. The game has some things that ‘function’ the same as other things that aren’t the same object/thing/substance/ability etc. Why? Because the mechanics are simplified abstractions for quickly adjudicating how the fluff interacts with the other fluff. Everything is simplified and abstracted, so it is perfectly reasonable in this context that some things will share similar or even identical mechanical functions.
However. When you invent entirely new fluff… you need to either A) Make entirely new mechanics for it. Or B) Borrow the mechanics from something already in print.
B is much easier. B is exactly what you are describing doing. Neither A nor B are RAW.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So we are back to all barbarians being raging angry people.
So we are back to all barbarians being raging angry people.
Back? When did they remove Barbarian's raging? I missed that, whenever that was.
Oh wait... are you saying barbarians aren't people? That seems a bit uncouth.
Actually I'm saying certain GMs require rage to always be portrayed as foaming at the mouth veins pulsing from the forehead anger. That a character can't have their rage be a focused state of mind dedicated to downing ones foes as efficiently as possible.
Actually I'm saying certain GMs require rage to always be portrayed as foaming at the mouth veins pulsing from the forehead anger. That a character can't have their rage be a focused state of mind dedicated to downing ones foes as efficiently as possible.
Yeah, well... it is "Rage"...
Speaking of focused states of mind; "While in rage, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration"
What you described sounds very different from the barbarian's rage ability. It actually sounds a lot like the Urban Barbarian archetype’s "Controlled Rage" though.
Just so I truly understand this stance:
Is everything written in the Core Rulebook a rule?
What about other Pathfinder books?
If you invent new fluff, it needs mechanics.
Whether you invent new mechanics or borrow mechanics from something else... you are 100% in homebrew territory.
The mechanics presented in the book apply to the fluff for which they are listed. Add new fluff, you need mechanics for new fluff.
All of this isn't RAW. But many/most games use this to some degree.
Example: Say I want a curse for my oracle, but don't really like any of the ones in print. I'm making an Oracle of Waves, and want something a bit more thematic.
So... I make one up! New fluff is born;
The air around you is heavy and thicker than normal, almost as though you moved through fluid, slowing you down...but also making you almost buoyant.
Now, we can just borrow the mechanics from the Lame curse, because it is fairly close to what we're looking for.
At 5th level, you are immune to the fatigued condition (but not exhaustion).
At 10th level, your speed is never reduced by armor.
At 15th level, you are immune to the exhausted condition.
And...walla! We just homebrewed us up a new Oracle curse to go with our Waves Oracle. Legit? Sure. RAW? Nope.
RAW, you do not need legs to choose the Lame Curse.
RAW, you don't need hands to choose the Blackened Curse.
You're being absurd.
Remy: What is this "walla" business you keep using to introduce the solutions to your analogies and rhetorical questions? I'm pretty sure what you intend is "voila", which is a French word and means, roughly translated, "there you have it". It is extremely difficult to take an argument about the proper use of language seriously from someone who clearly demonstrates such glaring ignorance of the language himself.
I admit that usually this sort of nit-pickery is pretty low and, since I gleaned your intent despite the fumbling of the verbiage, rather pedantic however I feel it is relevant considering the ridiculous heights to which you are elevating your language-based nit-pickery on this matter. Stubbornly lecturing your detractors on the importance of grammatical minutiae while fumbling your own is quite comical to behold.
Remy: What is this "walla" business you keep using to introduce the solutions to your analogies and rhetorical questions? I'm pretty sure what you intend is "voila", which is a French word and means, roughly translated, "there you have it". It is extremely difficult to take an argument about the proper use of language seriously from someone who clearly demonstrates such glaring ignorance of the language himself.
I admit that usually this sort of nit-pickery is pretty low and, since I gleaned your intent despite the fumbling of the verbiage, rather pedantic however I feel it is relevant considering the ridiculous heights to which you are elevating your language-based nit-pickery on this matter. Stubbornly lecturing your detractors on the importance of grammatical minutiae while fumbling your own is quite comical to behold.
Checkmate man, you got me. My English sucks because I used the wrong spelling of a French word.
I mean, “walla” isn’t like, ya know, an exclamation. And it most certainly isn’t a common version of English pronunciation for that exclamation or anything.
Good thing I’m not using words that don’t even exist though. Ya know… like nit-pickery.
But for the record… I really don’t care how bad people’s grammar is. If what they’re saying is wrong, I’ll point it out, and I’ll point out why. I’m objecting primarily to the content of the arguments presented, not the grammar.
I haven’t been critiquing anyone’s grammar in the entirety of the thread… so I’m not really sure what your beef even is to begin with.
|
So, the stance here is that all fluff is RAW and any deviation is a houserule, correct? Does that mean all barbarians are ** spoiler omitted **Nope
(They do have uncanny dodge though)
So, either you just admitted that you aren't arguing that fluff is immutable, and thus most of your argument is reduntant, or you are saying that despite the Barbarian fluff being that they are unprofessional warriors with a 6th sense, they aren't unprofessional psychic warriors, or unprofessional warriors with a 6th sense.
Also, if you read the Role section of barbarians, it says they charge into combat. Which means that if they walk into combat normally, or are jumped and can't charge, they either can't enter combat or break RAW because the fluff says the charge into combat. Not they walk into combat or others charge them in combat, but that they charge into combat. Because that is fluff, and fluff is RAW, according to you. So do barbarians really need a houserule to take any action other that charge at the beginning of combats, or is it possible that fluff is mutable?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could someone point me to the page in the rule book where there's a description of the word "fluff"?
[edit]
I dropped out of the thread awhile back and probably should have stayed dropped out, but I wanted to restate my point a bit more clearly:
The concepts of "fluff" and "crunch" are wholly community-made. There's no rule in the book anywhere that says, "When you read a rules passage, this is the text that's purely descriptive and can be ignored at your leisure, and this is the section that contains rules mechanics to which you must pay attention."
Does "fluff" and "crunch" make sense in a lot of cases? Yes. Are they easily identifiable in a lot of cases? Sure. Should you always ignore what you consider to be "fluff" and assume that it has no bearing on mechanics? Absolutely not. In many cases, you can read the full text of an ability, feat, etc. and synthesize the common-sense way in which it's intended to function, incorporating both the mechanical text and the descriptive text. When you skip that step, you wind up with stealth-Cackling Witches who are then upset because a designer FAQ is forcing "fluff" on them by saying, "No, you really do have to cackle loudly!"
Considering the premium that the designers put on word count, to assume that "fluff" is just there as pretty filler is pretty nonsensical. All the text is there for a reason. And it's true that not all of it is relevant to the mechanics of the game; it's also true that in some instances the purely descriptive text actually contradicts the text that actually contains mechanical language. Those latter cases should be fixed. But to argue that they just threw in all of this descriptive text with the assumption that you're going to ignore it when making your rules rulings? I don't see that as valid.
It IS there for a reason.
To give the game an identity, which makes it sell better. People don't buy rulebooks, they buy settings (hence why Pathfinder's business model is based mostly around selling APs and modules, not splatbooks).
But it's not meant as a restrictor in 99% of cases. Corner cases like Cackle and the Paladin are not the norm. There is a mechanical impact to the fluff, since they wrote the fluff in an attempt to restrict the ability. Which IMO is poor writing but it sneaks in every now and then.
But in most cases, that's not what's going to happen. You can obliterate the fluff text and strip the ability down to its core mechanical elements without changing anything of value.
People don't buy rulebooks, they buy settings
The core GURPS, Fate, and Rifts rulebooks would tend to disagree. There have been hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of dollars worth of core rulebooks - non-setting specific - sold.
Pathfinder could have done what numerous other systems have done - released the core rule book with no mention of Golarion whatsoever - and made all of the setting information separate from it, and the core book would still be a terrific game.
Now, I'd argue that they included all that text because they didn't want to make a mechanical system completely disconnected from the basic setting.
But in most cases, that's not what's going to happen. You can obliterate the fluff text and strip the ability down to its core mechanical elements without changing anything of value.
So then you can point me to the page in the book that tells you how to separate fluff from mechanical elements? If that's the intent it would be rather bad design if they left out something so important, especially since it would lead to lots of table variation as different GMs decided that different portions of text were "fluff" and "crunch".
Take the earlier designer quote regarding the very ability we're discussing. By a strict interpretation of RAW using the "throw out the fluff" argument, Blackened puts a penalty on all your attacks - with manufactured weapons, with unarmed strikes (even with your feet, which aren't mentioned to be burned in the fluff), with natural attacks, and even with weapon-like spells (rays, etc.).
But the designer clarified that well, no, that's not right - it should really only affect manufactured weapons. Why? He doesn't posit but where do you hold manufactured weapons normally? In your hands. And what does the curse's "fluff" say is damaged? Your hands (and forearms). QED.
Again, I stand by this stance: The best interpretations of the rules come when the mechanics you derive synergize with the description provided by the rules.
It makes no more logical sense one way or another.
Even with saying "it's only manufactured weapons" you get weird scenarios where someone takes a penalty to using a boot blade but not to clawing someone with their Natural Attacks.
The Blackened Curse is the worst possible example you could have made there.
At least if it was ALL weapons you could justify it by saying "Look bro we don't want you to use weapons. Don't make me burn the rest of you."
No real logical justification for the actual clarification.
Fluff is that which doesn't effect the mechanics of a game. Take the lame curse.
One leg is permanently wounded. Reduce speed 10ft.
Which change affects the game rules more:
Your legs are divinely shackled. Reduce speed 10ft.
One leg is permanently wounded. Rename character Gregory House.
The funny thing is, you'd take that penalty if you were a kobold with a tail attachment, or using vestigial arms..
Why?
Because he penalty to attacks is not specified to your hands.
any attack which can be called a weapon attack is actually at a penalty for this..
You could be a synthesist summoner and still be affected by dual Blackened lame curse....
Don't you even see that no matter how hard you will argue, you won't agree without a dev' statement or an example from an official book on that particular case ?
Your last post, Andrew R, is the typical proof this thread will go nowhere anymore: Everybody can read it as if you pointed out the other side, because we don't know the freakin' intent of the rule.
his may have come up but do monks unarmed strikes take the penalty since they count as both natural and manufactured.
The comments of a designer are just talk on the internet. Unless things are changed in a FAQ or errata the rule can just be taken at face value.
From the rule for the curse:
"You take a –4 penalty on weapon attack rolls"
From the base rules:
"An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon."
Q.E.D.
You take a -4 penalty on unarmed strike attack rolls.
I've always read this simply as Democratus says, any weapon attack roll. Unarmed Strikes are essentially treated as weapons. Personally, I've always felt this was meant to exclude spells, as they are "touch" and, thematically and mechanically speaking, require less 'precise movement' for targeting. (Guns being a weapon too, despite being touch. I've always felt, though didn't haven't done it so as not to punish my players, that dexterous hand-based skills such as Disable Device should have a -4 to the skill)
As far as being able to have the Blackened Curse without hands, how would you then cast "Burning Hands"? :)
)
As far as being able to have the Blackened Curse without hands, how would you then cast "Burning Hands"? :)
Same way a Spirit Naga casts Ray of Frost, I would imagine, or anything else that casts a spell that says you fire something from your fingers.
his may have come up but do monks unarmed strikes take the penalty since they count as both natural and manufactured.
No, because Monk unarmed strikes are only manufactured when beneficial. Otherwise treat as Natural.
Patrick Renie answered this one on these message boards a while back. A quick search will reveal the answer -- this curse applies only to manufactured weapons.
This curse is still a significant penalty because oracles do not get Improved Unarmed Strike for free. As a result, you have to spend feats or class levels to do much damage in melee.
Ah.
Well, then we are, more or less, in agreement.
An Oracle's Curse is something that even a wish cannot rid you of.
I wouldn't be too lenient on those trying to completely circumvent it, without some difficultly.
Still, this particular Curse is written poorly.
I wouldn't say the option of using a base d3 damage, not special material, not masterwork, not enchantable, nonlethal weapon that provokes attacks of opportunity and doesn't threaten without a feat as completely circumventing the curse.
You could legitimately say the essence of the curse is that you have burned arms which as a consequence makes wielding weapons with your hands painful, and that fighting with kicks is a valid if not so effective work around consistent with the actual curse.
Sort of like getting a mount if you are lame.