|
What's so hard about "it was never intended in Pathfinder"?
It's preposterous to demand that a company and group of developers taking 3.5 under OGL and making it into their own game must not change the decisions of the devs of the previous game.
The facts I see are: Devs say it was never intended in Pathfinder. It was intended in 3.5.
There is no way for both of those to be true.
Added the correct wording, and yes there is a way for both of those to be true.
Then why have the text stay the same as 3.5? See usually when people expect a rule to be different they WRITE THE RULES different.
I mean, I'm just a Panda, but even I know that.
SHR said in this very thread that when that FAQ came out, it was controversial and none of the pathfinder developers agree with it now, and presumably didn't agree with it then.
And it said nothing about the 1.5 damage.
It also came out around the same time, I believe that the Abjurant Champion came out...so...
You asked the people who wrote the game what the rule is. They told you what it was.
If you prefer WOTC design, have you considered 4e?
@ciretose: And since I try to be diplomatic, I'll point out that even if your 'opponent' in a debate is being impolite or illogical, it doesn't really mean you have to scream at them in a belittling fashion. :P
|
|
@ciretose: And since I try to be diplomatic, I'll point out that even if your 'opponent' in a debate is being impolite or illogical, it doesn't really mean you have to scream at them in a belittling fashion. :P
You called him "butthurt" :-)
Dude, the amount of abuse I took from these same very posters in a thread discussing this very issue...
I am being nice...
Karma is a wheel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I said this 200 posts before and I probably will two hundred from now... This isn't that big of a deal. We asked for a ruling, we got it. A bunch of people didn't like the ruling and wanted a rationale for the ruling. SKR came on and gae one. A bunch of people didn't like the rationale, so two other Devs came on repeatedly to further explain it. Each time, a bunch of people didn't like what they had to say and complained more. I actually think the Dev team went WAY above and beyond. This is especially true because if you don't like the rule, YOU CAN JUST HOUSE RULE IT. Over a 1000 posts and not one post has disagreed that you can change the rules you don't like. This is beyond silly.
|
|
They allow that combination with one-handed weapons, which would come out with comparable damage and still have the ability to switch between two-handed and one handed, something you don't get with the Kukri set up.
It would do somewhat less damage, but be more flexible than the Kukri set up.
This is the point. No one option should be clearly better. With thf and armor spikes I get the advantage of big move damage and get even better damage than an optimized TWF build.
You want every option to be a trade off. Otherwise everyone is playing "the" build and the game sucks.
I've started a thread to request clarifications on things affected by this ruling (or at least called into question). Please leave the sniping and insults in this thread. The one below is only for questions brought about by this ruling.
Your OP in that thread is sniping and insulting toward the Devs...
You claiming anything is 'sniping and insulting' is high irony.
And no, it's not sniping or insulting. I honestly do not know anymore what the rules say on the questions I asked, because I do not know if the unwritten guidelines affect those situations. I can't know. It's impossible to know for sure, without clarification.
Well I was in the middle of doing that, thanks for invalidating my time Nicos. =/
Still, is 5.6 extra DPR such an amount that the combo needed to be banned?
I removed some posts. Sarcastic sniping doesn't make your position on this issue any stronger.
|
|
Well I was in the middle of doing that, thanks for invalidating my time Nicos. =/
Still, is 5.6 extra DPR such an amount that the combo needed to be banned?
1. It wasn't banned. It was never intended in the first place. It was a loophole people thought they found. They were incorrect, they have now been corrected.
2. It is 5,6 over the optimal two handed build made with the class that best gives bonuses to using a single weapon.
By changing one feat and which weapon the bonuses went to.
For what is a corner case option, except for the loophole.
So yes.
Also, could you bring back the goalpost when you are done with it?
:)
|
|
I've started a thread to request clarifications on things affected by this ruling (or at least called into question). Please leave the sniping and insults in this thread. The one below is only for questions brought about by this ruling.
Your OP in that thread is sniping and insulting toward the Devs...
You claiming anything is 'sniping and insulting' is high irony.
And no, it's not sniping or insulting. I honestly do not know anymore what the rules say on the questions I asked, because I do not know if the unwritten guidelines affect those situations. I can't know. It's impossible to know for sure, without clarification.
Should I link to some of the stuff you have thrown my way?
I never fire first. But I don't shy from firing back.
Is there a hallmark card for "Sorry the Devs didn't agree with you despite how stupid you told me I was for saying exactly what they eventually ruled"?
EDIT: Well...don't usually fire first... :)
Eh?
What goalpost have I moved?
You are correct as far as I can tell.
However, is that a significant enough of an amount to warrant a complete removal of the option?
Rather than a slight nerf, or a Feat tax, or whatever?
*looks up at SKR's post a few posts up*
How 'bout we try not to make Sean delete more posts?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts. Sarcastic sniping doesn't make your position on this issue any stronger.
Sorry, it was sarcasm. But, not entirely invalidated.
If the wording has not changed on the rules for TWF, 2HF, and Armor Spikes, but the intent changed when it switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder; how then are we to determine whether something like the spell fireball, which has not changed in wording either, did not have its intended rules change?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some posts. Sarcastic sniping doesn't make your position on this issue any stronger.Sorry, it was sarcasm. But, not entirely invalidated.
If the wording has not changed on the rules for TWF, 2HF, and Armor Spikes, but the intent changed when it switched from 3.5 to Pathfinder; how then are we to determine whether something like the spell fireball, which has not changed in wording either, did not have its intended rules change?
Do you think we expect you to have to read the 3.5 library and FAQs by designers of that other game in order to know how to play Pathfinder?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think we expect you to have to read the 3.5 library and FAQs by designers of that other game in order to know how to play Pathfinder?
Even without reading the 3.5 FAQ at all (I never did), the 3.5 rules led to being able to TWF with greatsword+armour spikes.
None of the relavant rules changed in PF. How can the result have changed? How can the players know the result has changed, without any FAQs from either game?
If you want TWF and 2HW to be exclusive, put that rule in the book.
BTW, you can't have missed all the posts that believe this latest FAQ means you need a free hand to use armour spikes at all, or that you need a free hand to kick, or if you TWF with a one-handed weapon and a kick then you lose your shield bonus to AC on the grounds that you already used your 'off-hand' to kick so you don't have it free to use a shield. 'It's obvious', they scream, because they say that you explained the FAQ by saying that you can't use armour spikes while wielding a greatsword because you used your off hand on the greatsword.
Have whatever rules you want, but leaving them unexplained like this has a predictable negative effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Disappointed I get, maybe. Displeased or angry I don't.
But, that's just me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Crash_00: It's amazing to me that in the same post you can concede that you have no facts whatsoever to back up your position, denounce the one verifiable fact in evidence, and demand further proof from me, while simultaneously being rude and condescending.
That is quite a spin you've got there.
The FAQ from 3.5 is fact. Your post is supposition and hearsay.
I didn't say the shield thing was obvious.
I never did. it was an exercise in "if, then".
That post was merely extending the logic of the FAQ to the possible loss of the shield's AC bonus if you used your secondary attack to do anything other than defend with the shield.
There was no "HA! And you can't do this either, suckers!"
It was a guess on how to extend the logic to other scenarios.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even without reading the 3.5 FAQ at all (I never did), the 3.5 rules led to being able to TWF with greatsword+armour spikes.
None of the relavant rules changed in PF. How can the result have changed? How can the players know the result has changed, without any FAQs from either game?
They led you to that interpretation. Others obviously read it differently.
Why am I absolutely confident in saying that?
The fact that there was an FAQ - a frequently asked question - on the issue indicates that there were people who were interpreting the rules in different ways often enough that the designers felt the need to clarify it.
Be displeased with this ruling - but don't pretend like the rules in 3.5 were these clear-cut guidelines that were never interpreted both ways, because the simple fact that an FAQ was created shows that to be a false position...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Even without reading the 3.5 FAQ at all (I never did), the 3.5 rules led to being able to TWF with greatsword+armour spikes.
None of the relavant rules changed in PF. How can the result have changed? How can the players know the result has changed, without any FAQs from either game?
They led you to that interpretation. Others obviously read it differently.
Why am I absolutely confident in saying that?
The fact that there was an FAQ - a frequently asked question - on the issue indicates that there were people who were interpreting the rules in different ways often enough that the designers felt the need to clarify it.
Be displeased with this ruling - but don't pretend like the rules in 3.5 were these clear-cut guidelines that were never interpreted both ways, because the simple fact that an FAQ was created shows that to be a false position...
I totally get that some people read it one way and some the other, and that this was true in both editions.
The difference is that the 3.5 FAQ explained what the truth was, without changing any rules at all.
The new PF FAQ adds a new rule that was never in either edition of the game: a 'hard cap' of 1.5 x Str bonus. No-one could have known about this in either edition just by reading the rules.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know the 3.5 designers didn't agree on this issue, else they wouldn't have gone back and forth on their version of this FAQ.
Do you think that every designer is going to agree with how a rule works? That my colleague Andy Collins (who spearheaded the 3.5 PH) and I agree 100% on all rules issues? That we're going to have the exact same opinion on some ambiguous or unclear rules text?
Do you think the initial 3.5 designers (and two out of three of them weren't the designers of 3.0) know more about the Pathfinder RPG than Jason, Stephen, and I?
Do you think the later 3.5 designers (none of whom were the designers of 3.0) know more about PF that Jason, Stephen, and I?
Don't you think that with the significant changes to PF compared to 3.5, that Jason, Stephen, and I may have a different perspective about how the PF rules should work than the people who worked on the previous iterations of the game?
3.5 is TEN years old next month. Don't you think that an additional TEN years of experience in playing, running, and designing for the game is going to create a different perspective about how some rules work together?
Mind you, I was involved in the 3.0 design (I was the first designer other than the 3E team to write monsters for the 3E Monster Manual). I was involved in 3.5 design, too. And Pathfinder design. And I designed for 2E, and was a player and GM for 1E and Basic/Expert.
So why the ridiculous response to ONE ruling that didn't go the way you want? Why are you suddenly questioning whether you understand fireball correctly or the design intent for that spell?
If you don't understand something in PF, and there's no supplementary information available to explain it, you can look to the 3.5 FAQ to see if there's anything relevant there to help you understand. But the 3.5 FAQ is not binding to PF rules questions because 3.5 is not the same game as PF.
The new PF FAQ adds a new rule that was never in either edition of the game: a 'hard cap' of 1.5 x Str bonus. No-one could have known about this in either edition just by reading the rules.
Except that numerous people did (based on their comments in these discussions), somehow, before the FAQ, so at least some people were getting that this was an intended (if not explicit) 'rule' of the game.
But with the FAQ it was made clear what the text allowed, Xaratherus, and in that they were quite explicit.
That's fine. For someone who never really heavily played 3.5 (or at least ran it - I played a lot, just didn't run any games with it), I wasn't even aware of the FAQ until it came up in regards to this discussion.
So to me, and to anyone else who played Pathfinder, that FAQ is mostly irrelevant.
Should Paizo have changed the text to more clearly reflected their intent? Yeah, probably. Does that justify the explosive nincompoopery from both sides on the issue? Not in the least.
You know the 3.5 designers didn't agree on this issue, else they wouldn't have gone back and forth on their version of this FAQ.
Do you think that every designer is going to agree with how a rule works? That my colleague Andy Collins (who spearheaded the 3.5 PH) and I agree 100% on all rules issues? That we're going to have the exact same opinion on some ambiguous or unclear rules text?
Do you think the initial 3.5 designers (and two out of three of them weren't the designers of 3.0) know more about the Pathfinder RPG than Jason, Stephen, and I?
Do you think the later 3.5 designers (none of whom were the designers of 3.0) know more about PF that Jason, Stephen, and I?
Don't you think that with the significant changes to PF compared to 3.5, that Jason, Stephen, and I may have a different perspective about how the PF rules should work than the people who worked on the previous iterations of the game?
3.5 is TEN years old next month. Don't you think that an additional TEN years of experience in playing, running, and designing for the game is going to create a different perspective about how some rules work together?
Mind you, I was involved in the 3.0 design (I was the first designer other than the 3E team to write monsters for the 3E Monster Manual). I was involved in 3.5 design, too. And Pathfinder design. And I designed for 2E, and was a player and GM for 1E and Basic/Expert.
So why the ridiculous response to ONE ruling that didn't go the way you want? Why are you suddenly questioning whether you understand fireball correctly or the design intent for that spell?
Because yesterday X + Y = Z, and today it doesn't. The variables haven't changed. Only the result.
I can't see how you think it's unreasonable for us to question why.
The difference is that the 3.5 FAQ explained what the truth was, without changing any rules at all.
It was a bad FAQ at the time. Like a lot of the FAQ/Sage answers from that time period (i.e. after Skip Williams wasn't answering them).
Except that numerous people did (based on their comments in these discussions), somehow, before the FAQ, so at least some people were getting that this was an intended (if not explicit) 'rule' of the game.
I've not seen a single person say they knew about the 1.5x Str cap. Would you mind pointing out one from before the post revealing that?
I've seen many say they read the rules a different way, with the off-hand limit and so on (which is intuitive and could be inferred from the rules), but never the 1.5x Str cap.
I didn't say the shield thing was obvious.
I never did. it was an exercise in "if, then".
That post was merely extending the logic of the FAQ to the possible loss of the shield's AC bonus if you used your secondary attack to do anything other than defend with the shield.
There was no "HA! And you can't do this either, suckers!"It was a guess on how to extend the logic to other scenarios.
There is no text anywhere that says using a shield to defend somehow uses an "off-hand" Your primary and off-hands are terms for how you wield weapons only, and the terms are distinct from your physical hands. A shield just uses a physical arm/hand, and that's it. You'll only use an off-hand on a shield if you attack with it and another weapon.
Though some people here have gotten themselves confused by misreading the buckler text and ripping statements out of context from it.
Well, to be fair, until Saturday there was no text anywhere that said you can't TWF with a THW and armor spikes.
Except there was.I was trying to figure out in what other scenarios your action economy would be limited by the logic in that FAQ. Some one asked a question, and I answered it, with guesses. It ain't that deep, bro.
The fireball issue was hyperbole, except in this one regard: The text didn't change, only the intent did.
Do I actually question whether fireball works the way I have understood it for years? No, of course not. But, then again I never questioned TWF either.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Eh?
What goalpost have I moved?
You are correct as far as I can tell.
However, is that a significant enough of an amount to warrant a complete removal of the option?
Rather than a slight nerf, or a Feat tax, or whatever?
Again, it wasn't a removal.
It was one of the many things the optimization threads came up with that aren't actually allowed.
It is like saying "The game doesn't say I can't throw a tiger and get the tigers pounce damage, plus deadly aim..." then the devs say "Throwing tigers isn't allowed"
Nerd rage: WHY DID YOU CHANGE THE TIGER TOSS!
They didn't. It was apparently not clear enough before, now it is.
Why is it there? Because a corner case option shouldn't be the best option. You can still do it with a one-handed weapon, or even with a two handed weapon once you have multiple attacks. It isn't removed.
It is just no longer better than the other options.
Which is exactly the right ruling.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fireball issue was hyperbole, except in this one regard: The text didn't change, only the intent did.
Do I actually question whether fireball works the way I have understood it for years? No, of course not. But, then again I never questioned TWF either.
So you're deliberately overreacting in an unhelpful way.
Because the PF design team has a different interpretation of a specific chunk of text than three completely different designers from 5 or 10 years ago... for a game with many different moving parts than the game those other designers were talking about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that numerous people did (based on their comments in these discussions), somehow, before the FAQ, so at least some people were getting that this was an intended (if not explicit) 'rule' of the game.I've not seen a single person say they knew about the 1.5x Str cap. Would you mind pointing out one from before the post revealing that?
I've seen many say they read the rules a different way, with the off-hand limit and so on (which is intuitive and could be inferred from the rules), but never the 1.5x Str cap.
The one that comes to immediate mind is Fretgod, here.
That said, I didn't mean to imply that most people based it on the specific theory\rule that SKR presented as reasoning. Most of them either did not elaborate on their reasons for not allowing it, or offered up different reasons.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A bit of advice.
If you ever find yourself arguing with not one, but all of the developers of a game about what a rule they wrote means...stop digging.
I've been on the other side of this in the take 10 debate. Admitting you are wrong is not actually going to cause you bodily harm.
It might actually lead to good natured joking with the Dev who corrected you.
That is what happened to me.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So why the ridiculous response to ONE ruling that didn't go the way you want? Why are you suddenly questioning whether you understand fireball correctly or the design intent for that spell?
In all seriousness, and intending no disrespect or sarcasm, the reason why 'the ridiculous response' happened is because the presentation of the FAQ fostered that response.
* the initial response of a single word 'no', without any reasoning, prompted people to try to extrapolate what the reason 'must be' in order to rule on similar cases. Since the FAQ was about armour spikes and not about TWF, was this purely a foible of that weapon?
* then came the edit re: spiked gauntlets, which gave a reason (for them) which involved both your hands being occupied with the greatsword, therefore no hand is available to use a gauntlet. You also used the word 'likewise', which seemed to indicate that this was also the reason armour spikes didn't work. So, armour spikes need a hand? All off hand weapons need a hand, even if they don't? How does that even make sense when you recently issued a FAQ stating that letting go of a two-handed weapon with one hand, or re-gripping the weapon was a free action. Why can't I attack two-handed, remove my gauntlet hand as a free action, then punch with the gauntlet? Oh, I can, but not when TWFing? When else would I do it? What's going on?
* you then explained that there is an unwritten 'hard cap' of 1.5 x Str bonus to damage. You didn't say anything about hands, but that didn't stop people believing that it was all about hands. It seemed to me that this was a game balance decision, based on the idea that it is sneaky and cheaty to try and do more damage this way. But such a style still does less damage than a single greatsword when attack penalties, feat investment, MAD stat investment, WBL split over twice as many weapons, all are taken into account. It seems like the reason you don't want it is because it's too powerful, but it is demonstrably less powerful than using a single greatsword.
How do you think that the idea of using unwritten rules to make your decision came across?
Then you seem to think that we think that we are getting an extra attack just because we have extra weapons available to attack. No-one ever thought this. We had a greater choice of weapons, but the number of attacks we have remains constant.
So now people are believing that you lose your shield bonus to AC if you use armour spikes or a kick as your off hand weapon, on the grounds that you said that the 'off hand' is used on the attack, so can't use a shield at the same time.
TL;DR, the ridiculous response is caused by the lack of a comprehensive explanation.