It's not all about you.
Ohh blackbloodtroll, are you bitter about this ruling?
I still appreciate what you have to say.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Confused.
It has no support, and I rely on the rules as a basis for what it doesn't cover.
This doesn't even fall into the "common sense" area.
I am trying to figure out what this actually means as a rules change.
This isn't a clarification.
This is a big errata.
I want the details.
I understand. Atleast you got an official answer. I think it is a foolish as well, but C'est la vie.
I have PFS DMs that say I can not use spiked armor to make AoOs. So I say I use unarmed strike(cleric of Irori) and they fight me on that so my reach fighter can not attack nearby enemies. Due to ignorance.
I do not know. I have had 2 different DMs saying you need a free hand to use armor spikes. I guess it is from the mark moreland post.
Then since they say no on the first just continue in a no.
I remember the second time it happened a player started flipping out asking why I needed a free hand to kick someone.
As for me with DM's poor ruling I argue my point once and then shut up.
With way things have been going, you may need that free hand to kick.
Now who is running around screaming "HANDS?"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not know. I have had 2 different DMs saying you need a free hand to use armor spikes. I guess it is from the mark moreland post.
Then since they say no on the first just continue in a no.
I remember the second time it happened a player started flipping out asking why I needed a free hand to kick someone.
As for me with DM's poor ruling I argue my point once and then shut up.
Huh. That's too bad. It might be worth talking to them outside of the game.
|
|
Confused.
It has no support, and I rely on the rules as a basis for what it doesn't cover.
This doesn't even fall into the "common sense" area.
I am trying to figure out what this actually means as a rules change.
This isn't a clarification.
This is a big errata.
I want the details.
Well, this is how I had always played it, even in 3.5, until others in other threads convinced me that I was doing it wrong.
Quite honestly, there is nothing in the rules that specifically supported your interpretation. There is nothing that says that you could do it, you and many others just assumed that it was allowed because there was nothing specific to prevent it.
There is no rules change, or even a paradigm shift. It's just a matter of the rules not being interpreted in a way that you thought they were supposed to be.
It's not easy to change your mindset. You have to make a conscious effort to remind yourself how it is supposed to be interpreted, but after a while it does get easier.
Learn and adapt. That's all that any of us can really do in the end.
EDIT: Not intended to be a snarky response, but just trying to be helpful in understanding that the ruling isn't as earth-shattering as your post implies it to be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, attacking with a barbazu beard provokes an AOO, so it's not equivalent to using armor spikes or a spiked gauntlet: you're balancing a positive (ability to use it with a two-handed weapon in the same round) with a negative (doing so provokes an AOO).
Hell, the Barbazu Beard specifically calls out being used as a off-hand weapon, with a two-handed weapon.Certainly. That tells me that the Barbazu Beard is an exception to the rule.
But it's not phrased as an exception... It says with that structure indicating the latter part is true because of the first part, with no suggestion of any exception to the general rule. I am not one to tout auxiliary material as being of prime relevance in interpreting core rules, but to say that Barbazu Beard's text 'tells you' that it is an exception to the rules for 2WF is just not a very solid claim, to say the least.
Certainly, the AoO aspect of Barbazu Beard is a good reason justifying why it SHOULD be an exception (assuming a restrictive general rule), but that isn't the same thing.
The FAQ here just has basically no justification that anybody pointing at RAW could discern.
That makes it nigh impossible for anybody to infer how the rationale of the FAQ applies to other tangential cases which can't all be mentioned in the FAQ - Nor should they be, there just needs to be a solid basis to clarify how the actual rules are interacting. If the FAQ is over-ruling or adding onto the RAW, it should be clear what exactly is going on, so that people can apply the "effective (FAQ updated) RAW" accordingly. As is, it's not clear if there is a New-Rules-By-FAQ being applied to 2WF in general (or what that ruling specifically is, if it is BARRING wielding weapons in 2 hands, or just negating the damage boost*), or if there is a ruling that Armor Spikes require a free hand to use (which affects things when 2WF is not even being used). * This would affect the RAW for main-hand damage of Double Weapons, if it were the case.
Sean, may I ask the reason behind the banning of 2-handed weapons + armor spike?
This weapon combination has been possible since 3.5, IIRC, and it's not a particularly powerful combo. It also doesn't seem any more unrealistic than half the stuff mundane characters are capable of doing.
I don't mean to sound demanding or hostile , I'm honestly confused.
Just because the rule isn't printed in the book doesn't mean there aren't rules that guide and limit what characters and monsters can and can't do.
For example, the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary has a table of Monster Statistics By CR. Before the existence of that book, there was no printed rule that said "a CR 1 monster shouldn't have 500 hit points." But if someone wrote a 500 hp CR 1 monster for an adventure or monster book, it would get changed or deleted long before it saw print—because some rules aren't in the printed books, but they're still real rules, and are there for the good of the game.
with that structure indicating the latter part is true because of the first part, with no suggestion of any exception to the general rule.
As it turns out, we often don't call out the general rule when we make a specific rule that breaks the general rule. For example, the Cleave feat never states, "although you can normally only make one attack with a standard action, when using Cleave you can..."
Why? Because we don't want every rule element in the books to be twice as long as they currently are (once for the existing rules text, and once again to spoon-feed you a reminder that the normal rules don't let you do that and the new rules text is an exception).
|
|
SKR quote from "other" thread that gives a good explanation.
If you would stop being combative about the FAQ rulings and actually think about what he is saying, it does make sense.
Other examples of not calling out the general rule when we make a specific rule:
Bolas: A bolas is a pair of weights, connected by a thin rope or cord. You can use this weapon to make a ranged trip attack against an opponent. You can't be tripped during your own trip attempt when using a bolas.
Trident: A trident has three metal prongs at end of a 4-foot-long shaft. This weapon can be thrown.
Blinding Critical: Whenever you score a critical hit, your opponent is permanently blinded.
Cure Light Wounds: When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5).
And so on.
Those examples a not viable comparisons.
I find this solution to have no positive effect on balance, verisimilitude, or gameplay.
Using the alteration of strength bonus, as I noted, does.
In all three of my gaming groups, we have used that balancing solution.
Well, that's your opinion. Feel free to houserule it however you like. I think I'm done trying to explain it to you, you've obviously made up your mind and are unwilling to hear any arguments to the contrary.
|
|
I find this solution to have no negative effect on balance, verisimilitude, or gameplay. It's pretty much in line with how I've always interpreted it to be, so I'm not worked up about having to adjust my understanding of how the game is played.
And if it had worked out to be that I was wrong? I still wouldn't be worked up about having to adjust my understanding of how the game is played. I would learn, adapt, and move on. (I certainly wouldn't be whining about it).
As it turns out, we often don't call out the general rule when we make a specific rule that breaks the general rule. For example, the Cleave feat never states, "although you can normally only make one attack with a standard action, when using Cleave you can..."
Sure, if a novel feature is being introduced, the standard rules don't have to be mentioned, novel functionality tied to the item/whatever is itself the exception.
But Barbazu Beard is taking the exact opposite tack from a merely 'exceptionality-neutral' approach, it's actively affirming it derives from the standard rules with the 'thus' phrasing. That 'thus' phrasing is now simply inaccurate with the latest FAQ. Pre-FAQ, how could anybody who understands the usage of 'thus' NOT believe that Barbazu Beard was functioning as the standard rules allow?
This is not remotely the first FAQ that has this problem. I do not think they care. Imho, this means one might as well just decide things at one's own table, maybe using the FAQs as advice/thoughts (though without reasoning or justification they are not nearly as useful as they could be).
As HangarFlying points out, the devs basically have secret rules/principles they use for things that are not spelled out anywhere in the actual rules. Nor do they seem to feel a need to clarify the rules, not even any of the more esoteric ones (like TWF or main/off-hand oddness weirdness). Unless you count a lack of errata but occasional forum comments as clarifying the rules. Point is, no errata.
I by far do not see it as negatively as you, it is more of a communication issue for me.
Paizo has a fairly solid understanding of their rules, and the assumptions around which the game is designed.You can certainly diverge from any of their rules/FAQs, but that is the solid baseline for me.
The issue for me is that they aren't making clear the basis, it doesn't matter if it's some 'un-stated rule' type of thing,
I mean perhaps that is less than optimal, but let's try to work with what we got...
If there is an unstated rule, why not state that in the FAQ? Why not state what specific parts of the RAW are being over-ruled,
so that people can intelligently resolve both the RAW and FAQ for situations not directly addressed?
Certainly I think actually issuing Errata would be better, and would motivate me to buy new Core Rule Books,
but if we have a FAQ we do have a basis to play the game by the rules as clarified by Paizo.
But when the RAW is being very non-specifically over-ruled, we DON'T have the basis to do that.
It's not about Paizo's motivation for the ruling "Because we want to" is perfectly fine, having their 'secret rules/guidelines' specified to the letter isn't needed per se.
But clarifying how the ruling interacts with the actual RAW is still a good thing.
|
|
I'm sitting by myself in the middle of the country in front of my computer in the basement of my house. Regarding these recent FAQs, I've come to conclusions that pretty much coincide with the PDT interpretation without any outside influence. Your "RAW is being very non-specifically over-ruled". My RAW is being confirmed by the FAQ.
Wait, so Sean is explicitly saying they are operating on 'secret rules/guidelines' and you still think this is based off of RAW?
Paizo themself is not even saying that.
I removed some posts. Everyone calm down, don't be jerks, and act like adults. I don't want to find this thread exploded by tomorrow morning.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, what I'm saying is that how I interpreted the rules (RAW) coincides with the FAQ entry. Therefore, my reading of RAW means that I don't think there needs to be any changes to the printed rules just because other people's reading of RAW has proved to be wrong.
It hasn't been proved to be wrong. Sean explicitly acknowledged invoking "secret unwritten rules" to reach the FAQ's ruling. So anybody's argument about WHAT THE RAW ACTUALLY SAYS was never 'proven wrong'. If anything, it was proven right, because if they were wrong, "secret unwritten rules" wouldn't need to be invoked to over-ride the RAW.
But I get that you don't really care what the RAW says, you only care how you think the game should be played. If you missed it, the reason why people place any particular importance on the RAW (not 'your RAW') is because everybody's preferences and assumptions may be different, discussing what the RAW /actually/ says and means is the only thing to focus on objectively. Plenty of people who can discern RAW from what-is-not-RAW, CAN and DO share house-rules or discuss actual approaches to gameplay that diverges from RAW... Recognizing one doesn't de-legitimize the other. Your refusal to recognize the objective realm of RAW doesn't seem to aid communication or anybody's ability to enjoy the game.
|
|
There is no such thing as "RAW", or at least what you think to be "RAW". RAW is nothing more that the individual's way of interpreting the written word. What I interpret to be "RAW" may very well be different than what you interpret to be "RAW". You discount my "objective view of RAW" because it apparently differs from your "objective view of RAW".
If there is only possible "objective" interpretation of RAW, why are there all of these heated debates in which the opposing sides are "quoting RAW"?
There is no "the RAW". There is only individuals interpreting the written word in an objective manner using other rules, examples, rulings, or erratas as support for their interpretation. And yes, even with objective observation, different interpretations are possible. That is why the PDT tells us which interpretation of the rules is the official one.
|
There is no such thing as "RAW"
Well, I've just discovered that there is such a thing as 'secret unwritten RAW'.
We have a section called 'Rules Questions' on this forum. It appears that we now need a new section entitled 'Secret Unwritten Rules Questions'.
How can any of us make any character when the rules for doing so are partially secret?
The rules for characters aren't secret: they're as per the PRD. The "super-secret unwritten rules" that Sean has alluded to are the game design meta-rules. They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world. They are, however, the rules that the design team use to determine game balance.
So when Sean says "a low-level core class and race character should not get more than 1.5xStr to damage without some additional cost", he's pointing out that if someone presented an option that seems to break that meta-rule, PDT will shoot that option down.
|
How can any of us make any character when the rules for doing so are partially secret?
The secret rules are actually the ones that reasonable people should be able to gather by using common sense combined with logic. The reason they're not there is so that reasonable people don't need to read twice as much text as they should.
They have precisely zero impact on playing the game, because they are not rules for how a character interacts with the game world.
They just issued a FAQ based on those secret un-written rules, over-riding the RAW.
|
|
Are we unreasonable for not seeing all these unwritten rules?
Who are you to judge what is, and is not, reasonable?
After reading this thread, as a person, I judge you to have been unreasonable, and would guess that you're trolling at this point. As Sean said, your mind is made up, and no amount of reason could possibly change your mind. All this kicking and screaming isn't getting you anywhere. I only say this to answer your question, though I imagine this may get deleted, whatever.
Are you unreasonable for not seeing all these unwritten rules? No, I don't think we can catch all of them always, after all, none of us are perfect, but just because you got one wrong doesn't mean that there's a cause to try and argue about it.