dogmatic... literalist... analIt's also clear that the intention of the spell is...What makes that so clear?
So, you've got nothing that makes it clear that the rule is intended to work the exact opposite of how it says?
Thanks for your contribution, I guess.
|
If RAI you agree, then why would you argue against RAI to find a RAW loophole?
Because in PFS, RAI has no meaning and there are no house rules.
Given the existence of ongoing class warfare on the forums, and in the PFS environment, I try to make sure all my weapons are well honed and well oiled just in case I have need of them.
Developer clarifications to specific arguments also help. Errata bringing outdated content up to speed would be even more useful.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If RAI you agree, then why would you argue against RAI to find a RAW loophole?Because in PFS, RAI has no meaning and there are no house rules.
Given the existence of ongoing class warfare on the forums, and in the PFS environment, I try to make sure all my weapons are well honed and well oiled just in case I have need of them.
Developer clarifications to specific arguments also help. Errata bringing outdated content up to speed would be even more useful.
RAI always has meaning, particularly when RAW is unclear.
Saying you agree that RAI it works this way means you agree that the intent was for it to work that way.
A rule is nothing but an attmept to convert intent into a readable and understandable format. It is just a translation of the intent into words.
Ignoring RAI in favor of RAW is like reading this, shrugging your shoulders and falling into the river.
Saying you agree that RAI it works this way means you agree that the intent was for it to work that way.
The intent of whom? And how do you know?
Jason Nelson, the author of the Titan Mauler archetype has said his intent was to allow it to use bigger weapons than normal. That's the RAI, and it's clear. The RAW does not permit this. This doesn't mean the RAW is a mistake, it means that for whatever reason, the RAW doesn't match the RAI. In this case, it's probably an editor deciding that it should work differently. But maybe the meaning just got unintentionally lost during editing. Nobody knows why the RAW doesn't match the author's RAI, but Paizo has backed it up with a FAQ supporting the altered version that was printed.
In many cases, what people claim is "clearly RAI" is actually just what they themselves think it should be. Without someone saying "I wrote this, and here's what I intended it to do...." you're just guessing. Or you have a mysterious psychic link with the author you've neglected to tell us about. In any case, determining the RAI is often not so clear-cut. Whose Intent should take precedence? The author? The editor? The rule-guy who approved it? Some guy on the forums who talks about his 25 years of experience playing similar types of games?
This is the rules forum, we're here to find out what the rules actually say. It's fine to also mention what you think the rules are trying to say, especially if you have any evidence of that. But in the end, which is more useful?
"Run it like this."
or
"The rules say it works like this, but because of (reason) I think it's supposed to work like that."
Determining what the rules actually say empowers the reader to make an informed decision on how to use that rule (or modify it, or ignore it) to better suit the style of play that their gaming group enjoys.
It is common understanding, that when Dimensional Door get's cast on seomeone else, the condition "after using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn" applies for the caster, not for the one being teleported.
That makes the RAI discussion rather hard to my mind. If a fighter can take a full attack action AFTER being teleported and that's ok with RAI, than why can't I cast the spell within my full attack action?
The point is: I am not taking any other actions - I'm just finishing it.
Whoever considers that "common understanding" is not reading the spell description properly. There's a reason it says "after using" the spell and NOT "after casting" the spell.
It is common understanding, that when Dimensional Door get's cast on seomeone else, the condition "after using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn" applies for the caster, not for the one being teleported.Common understanding? Perhaps at your table. There is nothing in the spell description (in either the PF or 3.5 version) to suggest this. I just looked at both...
To clarify, dimension door's wording doesn't seem to indicate that it can be 'cast' on someone else; it does indicate that you can bring along other objects or beings with you, and the FAQ on the PFSRD states the loss of action only applies to the caster, not to anyone traveling with her.
Dimension door says, "After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn." If the caster brings other creatures with them when they cast the spell, are the passengers unable to take any other actions until their next turn, or is that just for the caster?
That restriction only applies to the caster.
As to the root issue - whether you could use dimension door at the start of a spell combat and then take all your attacks after you teleport: Although rare, there are spells and effects that occur "immediately"; what happens if one of these "immediate" actions interrupts spell combat?
For example, an evil magus is attacking a level 14 paladin. The magus has 4 total attacks per round with spell combat (including delivering a touch spell with his weapon, if he so opts). The magus hits the paladin, and his first strike drops the paladin below 0 hit points. The paladin triggers blaze of glory, and the damage immediately drops the magus.
Does the magus get the rest of his attacks while he's falling to the ground in a charred burst of unholy ashes? No; something has occurred during the execution of his action which makes it impossible for him to complete that action (i.e., taking the remainder of his iterative attacks).
I would argue that the same holds true even if the interruption incident is self-inflicted - i.e., a magus could start spell combat, and then before attacking, cast dimension door - but doing so would act as an interruption and would cancel any iterative attacks still remaining.
the FAQ on the PFSRD states the loss of action only applies to the caster, not to anyone traveling with her.
Here's a link to the FAQ in question.
|
|
Considering that Dimension Door was written more than a decade prior to spell combat, I wouldn't parse the words in hope.The same could be said for spell combat + haste, yet that is exactly what is happening. If people want to parse wording that is far older than spell combat in order to limit it, I'll do the same to expand it.
FAQ:
Magus: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
No. Spell combat is its own kind of full-round action, and is not a full attack action.
—Pathfinder Design Team, Friday
So people parsing a decade old spell was right.
Think about that.
The trick with dimension door is to take your actions you want to do BEFORE you cast it. If you cast dimension door at the end of your turn, then who cares if you can't take any more actions? :-P
If a magus casts dimension door... he'd best do so at the end of his line of attacks, because once he casts it... he's done for the round.
Some rules supersede others. In this case, dimension door's cap on being able to do things after you cast the spell supersedes the general rule that a magi can finish his current action. Dimension door creates a spell-specific exception to the rule.
No errata needed.
Standard disclaimers apply.
|
|
....
To clarify, dimension door's wording doesn't seem to indicate that it can be 'cast' on someone else; it does indicate that you can bring along other objects or beings with you, and the FAQ on the PFSRD states the loss of action only applies to the caster, not to anyone traveling with her.
getting killed clearly interrupts, while dd does not state anything regarding interrupting or negating current actions.
@Xarathus: If you want to argue about rules, please read them:
Dimension Door
School conjuration (teleportation); Level bard 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none and Will negates (object); Spell Resistance no and yes (object)
Where what you cited contradicts what Xaratherus wrote?
You can cast the spell only upon yourself and you can bring other people or objects with you.
You can't cast the spell on another person and send it away without going with him.
If you have doubts, read the text of teh spell:
You may also bring one additional willing Medium or smaller creature ...
|
|
FAQ:
Magus: Does spell combat count as making a full attack action for the purpose of haste and other effects?
No. Spell combat is its own kind of full-round action, and is not a full attack action.
—Pathfinder Design Team, Friday
So people parsing a decade old spell was right.
Think about that.
Having an official FAQ eliminates table variation and allows me to plan my character. I'm less worried about what the ruling is than the existence of the ruling itself.
The people I play with will be disappointed. I will no longer be hasting them as my magus will be memorizing other spells instead.
getting killed clearly interrupts, while dd does not state anything regarding interrupting or negating current actions.
@Xarathus: If you want to argue about rules, please read them:
Dimension Door
School conjuration (teleportation); Level bard 4, sorcerer/wizard 4
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V
Range long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none and Will negates (object); Spell Resistance no and yes (object)
The text of dimension door rather clearly states that you cannot take any further actions once you have cast it and teleported away.
My example showed that even though spell combat is considered "an action", the various attacks that are made as part of that are also considered "actions", and if something - death, or casting dimension door, for example - occurs in the midst of completing that action, any further benefits from that action are nullified.
It appears, based on the FAQ, that this is the expected behavior.
Actually, I think I have to apologize at Xaratherus... the part I was referring to can be interpreted in 2 ways. As I have seen DD run regarding "Target you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures" the "or other touched willing creatures" subsentence has been intrepreted as "the caster may dd a touched willing creature (without being dded himself)".
You could also read it as "you may dd another willing creature, but only if you dd yourself".
I seriously don't know what's right and my current Magus is my first own character that plans on getting DD.
No worries. I hope you like DD. I know I do on my magus; as a spell dancer, I can do it once per minute for free, and it has some amazing tactical applications. I eventually plan on getting the whole change of dimension feats and becoming a blink-strike monster. ;)
It appears, based on the FAQ, that parsing of rules can result in long standing rules interpretations being overturned.
Up until last Friday, most tables never questioned spell combat + haste.
Yep. And I actually edited my post because I had not yet had enough caffeine and my original post was unnecessarily snarky.
The ruling also makes the speed ability to be added with arcane pool rather useless...
Not useless, it just only works when you full-attack. You don't have to use Spell Combat every round.
also, it still leaves open the question, wether you can attack with spell combat and natural attacks, as some suggest...
Answered in this FAQ.