|
pretty sure it was not you, and even it it was I am not upset about it. I am ok with it it just really sucks that it was changed so late in my characters career.
I only get one more feat and I really want to take discordant voice. So I got the work around by buying Deadly. Really I was hoping this got enough traffic to draw the powers that be to it to just give a quick answer.
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It has to be Xmas for you to be nice? Another VL who doesn't think they need to maintain decorum on the forums.I'm addressing it. Next time, please just flag it and move on, or send me an email.
Sorry to raise a thread from the dead, but I am searching where the issue has been resolved, and I have not found it.
Could someone point me to the way?
Thank you
|
|
it hasnt been as far as I know
I checked the Additional Resources PDF (updated this month)
"Pathfinder Player Companion: Adventurer's Armory
Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Everything in this book is legal for play with the following exceptions: a pseudodragon is not legal for purchase unless you're a wizard with the Improved Familiar feat, elephants are never legal for play, and armored kilts are not legal."
So I guess the Adventure's Armory version of the Scorpion Whip is still legal to use (it is not covered by the errata).
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Newer books gets precedence over the older ones, so if there is a version of the item in a newer book, an "updated" entry, then that one is the one used, despite any additional resourses having it legal in out of print companion books.
I have a new character using this thing, and from what I understand it still deals lethal damage and hits armored foes. The blades/barbs are in the tip! I shall keep using this way unless the GM stops me, then just attempt trips and bite those that get close.
|
So reviving this old thread so we can further discuss the changes to the scorpion whip and what that will mean without clogging down the additional resources page.
I have just one question, is the Adventurers Armory whip finessable? The other changes I understand, I just don't quite know when it comes to this question. My understanding is no, it's not finessable anymore because the AA doesn't have the Finesse tag attached to it.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
As I understand it, the scorpion is a normal whip except for the bits called out to be different. So these things it keeps from the whip: Finesse, 15ft reach, provoking when adjacent, Whip-related feat (it's still a whip). These things are different: d4 damage, can hit armoured enemies, always does lethal damage.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The "other" scorpion whip, from UE, has been removed from PFS legality" link:
After discussing with the rules and design teams, PFS will use the scorpion whip found in the Adventurer's Armory, not Ultimate Equipment. Future printings of the Ultimate Equipment will fix the problem.
So the SW from AA is clearly the right one. What does it say?
Scorpion Whip: has a series of razor-sharp blades and fangs inset along its tip. It deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses. If you are proficient with whips, you can use a scorpion whip.
I take those blue words to mean that the scorpion whip is like a whip in all aspects except those things explicitly called out to be different. The quote from SKR confirms that that was indeed what was meant;
A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table.
Since pretty much everyone in Paizo with anything to say about it chose to revert to the AA version, and SKR explained what they intended in AA, and SKR was one of the editors of AA, I think it's pretty clear we should indeed be using it that way.
And you know what's so nice about that? The weapon works. This answers all the questions and solves all the problems that the UE version had.
|
|
Sean's post was prior to the second printing.
The stats for the scorpion whip say it has reach, but does not mention 15'. It also does not state that it is finessable. As a matter of fact the only thing in the weapons stat block the says anything about a whip, is that those proficient in whip are proficient in this weapon.
So you don't get all the standard whip stuff not specifically called out in this weapons stat block.
|
|
My understanding of the scorpion whip from the AA is that its like a whip but is One-handed weapon that has a 10ft reach, threatens within that reach, does slashing damage for 1d4 for medium and has the disarm/ trip properties.
Being proficient whips makes me also proficient with Scorpion Whips.
I understand SKR's post as clarifying whether or not my whip feats and traits apply with using the Scorpion Whip. Which I understand from his post that they do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table.
That's the relevant quote. The bolded part shows that the stats for the scorpion whip supersede the stats for a whip.
You don't get 15' reach, because the scorpion whip only has reach.
You don't get a finessable weapon, because the scorpion whip is not a finesse weapon.
I don't see any argument that can change that.
|
A scorpion whip uses the same rules as the whip in the PFRPG Core Rulebook, except (1) it deals lethal damage, even to creatures with armor bonuses, and (2) the stats in the table.That's the relevant quote. The bolded part shows that the stats for the scorpion whip supersede the stats for a whip.
You don't get 15' reach, because the scorpion whip only has reach.
You don't get a finessable weapon, because the scorpion whip is not a finesse weapon.
I don't see any argument that can change that.
Not even the argument from SKR qualifying how it's intended to work?
That's like saying the whip doesn't have 15' reach because the whip stats table only has "regular reach".
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stats in the table:
Whip 1 gp 1d2 1d3 ×2 — 2 lbs. S disarm, nonlethal, reach, trip
Scorpion whip 5 gp 1d3 1d4 ×2 — 3 lbs. S disarm, reach, trip
So the above changes is what he said (both cases they're exotic one handed weapons).
Also, it deals lethal damage to creatures with armor bonuses as he mentioned as point 1.
Outside of the price, damage, weight, and the removal of nonlethal...nothing has changed from the whip to the scorpion whip in the table.
So, according to SKR, you use the same rules as if it was a whip (i.e. finessable, provokes, and 15' reach).
I don't really see any argument as to how you can change the basics of what is a whip, just because you stick a few blades or hooks in it.
|
|
Its heavier, because of the blades and hooks which is why it might not be finessable.
The longer it is, the more unwieldy it becomes with those blades and hooks on it, therefore it is only 10' long instead of 15'.
In any case, Sean's quote is from 2010. The reprint happened about a year and a half after that. Since the reprint did not significantly change the language in the Adventurer's Armory, you have to go with what's actually written in the Adventurer's Armory.
it has a stat block, and has no description defining any further than a one-handed weapon that does lethal damage at 10' reach and has the disarm and trip qualities.
Until there is a developer post dated after the reprint, or other explanation differently, I have to go by what the stat block and description actually says.
|
|
I am conceding from this argument, unfortunately I can see it being both ways, I am pretty equally divided 50-50.
I'd like to believe its a different weapon, like what Andrew is saying, however I could see the scorpion whip being finessable too, since the scorpion whip is like a regular whip according to SKR and the Weapon Finesse feat specifically calls out Whips as being finessable.
Until we get a this is right and this is wrong interpretation from the powers that be, I'll have to concede I don't understand how the Scorpion whip works and not use it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think the scorpion whip is also 15 ft, because it's said to be like a whip except where the table or text makes it different. And a normal whip is ALSO listed as a Reach weapon in the table. So I don't think the scorpion whip being listed as a Reach weapon is any obstacle to it reaching 15 ft.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its heavier, because of the blades and hooks which is why it might not be finessable.
The longer it is, the more unwieldy it becomes with those blades and hooks on it, therefore it is only 10' long instead of 15'.
In any case, Sean's quote is from 2010. The reprint happened about a year and a half after that. Since the reprint did not significantly change the language in the Adventurer's Armory, you have to go with what's actually written in the Adventurer's Armory.
it has a stat block, and has no description defining any further than a one-handed weapon that does lethal damage at 10' reach and has the disarm and trip qualities.
Until there is a developer post dated after the reprint, or other explanation differently, I have to go by what the stat block and description actually says.
So every dev post that's clarified anything before a next printing is just null and void if the clarification isn't included in the next version?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
claudekennilol, that's my take on the process, yes.
Let's say that a product is released, and there's an ambiguous rule. (As a hypothetical example, maybe a particular hex is affected oddly by a new feat. Some people say apply the rule as written; others say that the combination is too powerful.)
So, a developer, after some casual consultation with the rest of the development team, addresses the issue with a ruling or guideline.
And let's say that, six months later, the same development team issues a FAQ, or some errata in the next printing of the book, going a different way than the developer's ruling.
Probably the original ruling was revisited and got overturned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
claudekennilol, that's my take on the process, yes.
Let's say that a product is released, and there's an ambiguous rule. (As a hypothetical example, maybe a particular hex is affected oddly by a new feat. Some people say apply the rule as written; others say that the combination is too powerful.)
So, a developer, after some casual consultation with the rest of the development team, addresses the issue with a ruling or guideline.
And let's say that, six months later, the same development team issues a FAQ, or some errata in the next printing of the book, going a different way than the developer's ruling.
Probably the original ruling was revisited and got overturned.
Right, nothing changed about the scorpion whip from the first to the second printing so nothing changed about SKR's post. Until we have a post overturning SKR's ruling on it then it is still valid.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you would want any other interpretation. This one is a fair reading of the text, and confirmed by one of the editors of the book in question; and now again supported by Paizo's choice of AA over UE. And it makes all the mechanics work right and make sense. So why look so hard for another interpretation that breaks it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you would want any other interpretation. This one is a fair reading of the text, and confirmed by one of the editors of the book in question; and now again supported by Paizo's choice of AA over UE. And it makes all the mechanics work right and make sense. So why look so hard for another interpretation that breaks it?
Because... reasons? To be punitive to players that don't play Fighter, Cleric, Rouge or Wizard or stray beyond sword & board, morningstars, daggers or quarterstaves? You know what, I don't care why some people want to be argumentative and needlessly try to reinterpret the rules to be as player-unfriendly as possible.
We got the good Scorpion Whip back and it's PFS legal. That's all I need to know.
Now we just need to get the kusurigama and double chained kama and similar weapons to be likewise clarified.
:)
Personally I would love the above mentioned weapons to be made finessable.
-j