Hey, it's a real issue. All my characters have a depthless psyche so they don't get to ignore this.
The point of these obnoxious RAW arguments (at least when I make them, which is a lot), is me subtley saying to the game's writers:
"Hey, seriously, pay more attention when you're writing/editing rules because this is the ridiculous outcome when you don't."
I trust actually good GMs to make the right call and rule different from RAW when RAW is stupid--and RAW is stupid a lot. I don't trust bad GMs to do that, but hopefully obstinate RAW stances on issues that are clearly absurd will get them to realize, "wow, I don't want to be a slave to this nonsense..."
There's a reason I titled myself a devil's advocate.
|
More that I have noticed a tendency to post "problems" with RAW that aren't actually problems, since prior to the post no one even realized that RAW wasn't technically just doing the obvious and common sense thing.
Most recently is the Haste thing. I'm curious where this first came up and who started it, because no one seems to be actually playing that way.
Yet for, hell years now, this keeps coming up as a "problem".
But if no one actually plays that way, is it actually a problem?
If everyone realizes dead characters don't take actions, is it a problem that isn't spelled out clearly?
It was as if the Devs figured we weren't all idiots and we could just use common sense.
Omission is not permission. Problems aren't problems unless they are actually causing problems.
There is enough stuff that actually needs to be addressed and clarified without things like this clogging the works.
Well obvs.
Isn't that how everybody plays?
You aren't wrong. All it says is "When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, or if he succumbs to massive damage, he's dead." How are we supposed to implement an undefined condition?
A dying creature is unconscious and near death. Creatures that have negative hit points and have not stabilized are dying. A dying creature can take no actions. On the character's next turn, after being reduced to negative hit points (but not dead), and on all subsequent turns, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check to become stable. The character takes a penalty on this roll equal to his negative hit point total. A character that is stable does not need to make this check. A natural 20 on this check is an automatic success. If the character fails this check, he loses 1 hit point. If a dying creature has an amount of negative hit points equal to its Constitution score, it dies.
and death is just an advanced condition of dying.
yuck yuck yuck :)
|
|
You aren't wrong. All it says is "When your character's current hit points drop to a negative amount equal to his Constitution score or lower, or if he succumbs to massive damage, he's dead." How are we supposed to implement an undefined condition?
This needs to be FAQed immediately. The Devs clearly have dropped the ball on this one.
For shame.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No dead is not an advanced condition of dying, not by RAW.
Now if you are dying and then go into the dead condition then you are not taking actions because by RAW having the dead condition does not remove the dying condition. However if you take enough damage to go directly to the dead condition, and bypass dying then by RAW nothing is stopping you from taking actions. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game uses ordinary English meanings of words that aren't otherwise defined by the game. So this isn't an issue that needs any kind of clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A dying creature is unconscious and near death.
wait does death need to be actually adjacent? what if i took a 5ft step as my last action? does death have reach?
But if no one actually plays that way, is it actually a problem?
Yes. Perfection is a noble goal, and leaving problems in the book because most people ignore them is not going to lead to Perfection.
Technically, it is illegal to walk backwards after dark in Connecticut. Do you really think it's totally cool to just leave that law on the books (as they've done) because nobody enforces it? What happens if a cop or lawyer or something really dislikes you and tries to push the issue somewhere down the road?
Every potential problem should be fixed.
If everyone realizes dead characters don't take actions, is it a problem that isn't spelled out clearly?
That specifically? Probably not because "dead" has a real world definition. For the Haste thing? Yeah, it should get fixed.
Omission is not permission. Problems aren't problems unless they are actually causing problems.
I disagree--you should seek perfection in all things. Just because nobody currently causes problems, it does not mean nobody ever will.
|
Actually there is a much more serious issue with the Dead condition.
Read it again - it only deals with characters
So RAW a companion can be unconscious (here the word creature is used). But once it reaches negative Constitution it stops being unconscious but isn't dead as dead only applies to characters.
So RAW once a companion is below negative CON it is not affected by any condition anymore and could come back into a fight.
I stumbled over this when a player insisted his companion would be dead below 0 HP and I couldn't find RAW when a companion actually is dead (apart of common sense and applying the same rules that state character).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose while I do understand the point of this thread, the reason for the RAW needing to be fixed is that not all GM's are reasonable, and some of them are PFS GM's. My response to SKR telling him about the haste issue was on similary strict reading of another issue involving clerics.
IIRC it was whether or not a cleric could count his domain spells as being on his spell list. Paraphrasing SKR-->"That does not need to be written out".
Me-->brought up haste and "held weapons" as an example of RAW not working.
SKR-->It shall be fixd.
Now I don't expect for the RAW to ever work perfectly because someone can always find a loop hole, which is why I hope the rules team has a priority list, or ranking system for a lot of the questions.
Imaginary meeting"
Jason B.--"Dead condition is at the very bottom of the list. I will try to get to it before I retire." :)
Actually there is a much more serious issue with the Dead condition.
Read it again - it only deals with characters
So RAW a companion can be unconscious (here the word creature is used). But once it reaches negative Constitution it stops being unconscious but isn't dead as dead only applies to characters.
So RAW once a companion is below negative CON it is not affected by any condition anymore and could come back into a fight.
I stumbled over this when a player insisted his companion would be dead below 0 HP and I couldn't find RAW when a companion actually is dead (apart of common sense and applying the same rules that state character).
Good point. I always took all non-PC's as NPC, but that is not the case.
Nonplayer Character (NPC): These are characters controlled by the GM.
While the GM can take over the companion the rules don't really put him under GM control normally.
Actually there is a much more serious issue with the Dead condition.
Read it again - it only deals with characters
So a dead player can take actions? I understand.
Player-murdering spree, anyone?
The game uses ordinary English meanings of words that aren't otherwise defined by the game. So this isn't an issue that needs any kind of clarification.
Show me where it says that in the rules.
For all we know the rules just use a language that is superficially similar to English but with some words having wildly different meanings.
|
|
Actually there is a much more serious issue with the Dead condition.
Read it again - it only deals with characters
So a dead player can take actions? I understand.
Player-murdering spree, anyone?
You miss the bit that I'm more often the GM.
Players often think that RAW only applies to them. So if a player thinks he can act while dead - well - show me raw that a monster even can be dead.
RAW it only applies to characters. Show me RAW how to kill a monster (apart of undead who have some extra lines in there for below 0 HP). Think about it before you invoke the RAW argument.
For all we know the rules just use a language that is superficially similar to English but with some words having wildly different meanings.
mind = blown
Think about it before you invoke the RAW argument.
I was joking. I tend to be joking when I advocate killing people.
Every country has a set of laws, with pages likely numbering in the thousands. Even if those are presumable written to be as clear as possible, the court system (with lawyers and judges) is still needed to interpret what it says. I don't want a Pathfinder Court.
Design Manager
|
Every country has a set of laws, with pages likely numbering in the thousands. Even if those are presumable written to be as clear as possible, the court system (with lawyers and judges) is still needed to interpret what it says. I don't want a Pathfinder Court.
I though Rules Forum was the Pathfinder Court....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
