Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Uh...you asked the people who wrote it what it meant and they told you.
Now you are telling them they are wrong.
Seriously?
Fair enough. Though "telling them they're wrong" isn't really what anyone has done, I think. Try (in vain) to sway opinion? Sure. Express disappointment in an interpretation of what they deem to be vague original wording? Absolutely.
Also, keep in mind that often it is not the Paizo employees writing this stuff. They outsource bits and pieces of the hardcover books to many of their contributors. It could very well be that someone not on Paizo's company payroll wrote it, and when a developer looked at it he didn't apply super-strict wording to it, thought it looked good, and moved on. Thus, vagueness occurred, making people sad.
Edit: PS - These are the same people who, when asked what they meant when they wrote "use a monk weapon in flurry of blows" came back with a ruling that they later reversed. I think you can cut people a little slack if they're still holding out hope on something as minor as this is in comparison to flurry of blows.
I think the issue is that the clarification is how the trait is actually written. If they "clarify" it to cover weapons other than slings, it potentially has far-reaching, unintended effects for any other Feat, Trait, etc. that could be applied to a shared aspect of many specific weapons.
They may very well update the trait in errata to cover all types of slings, but it shouldn't be changed via FAQ (insert arguments about whether the 2H/TWF/Armor spike FAQ is a change).
All they're saying is this is how it currently works as written.
|
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gh#v5748eaic9qus
Halfling, Warslinger: What kind of slings does the this reload ability work with?
The warslinger ability says, "Halflings with this racial trait can reload a sling as a free action." It doesn't say "any type of sling" or "all slings," just "a sling." The ability only affects standard slings, not halfling sling staffs or any other kind of sling.
The ruling is fine, but the explanation is lazy. Like you've never re-worded an ability before.
Perhaps in a future publication we can get a feat line that builds off this racial trait, making the Slingstaff a viable alternate to the bow. Or, if that's too powerful, how about a feat that gets rid of that pesky AoO that this trait does not address when a Halfling tries to re-load his sling as a free action while threatened - like "sling mastery" or something (I'm aware of Ammo Drop - it's almost there)
It's like the Design Team has stock in fictitious long/short bows and are afraid to let any other ranged weapon rival their effectiveness.
The design team is to bows in Golarion what the NRA is to assault rifles in USA...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for calling us lazy. Thanks for the snark. That really encourages us to explain any FAQ answers we give. Yet another reason to provide only a minimalist answer in a FAQ, so that people can't nitpick, make fun of, and criticize our reasoning.
The point at which it is attached to the short club is the point at which it ceases to be a sling and becomes a sling staff. Kind of like how you have to take Rapid Reload separately for a Musket and an Axe Musket, even though one is just the other with an axe on it.
I'm not familiar with that particular weapon, but if it is as you say*...I would be in favor of that having overlap, too.
D&D 3E had a lot of weapons that had...what would I call it...? "Shared Proficiency" works, I suppose. Basically, a lot of weapons that were just modifications or variations of existing core weapons had rules where that if you were proficient with X exotic weapon, any feats pertaining to Y core weapon also applied to it. For example, the Whip-dagger and the whip both got benefits from feats taken for whips. Great bow got to share benefits with longbow feats. Longstaff shared feats with Quarterstaff.
And so forth.
The game needs more of that, not less. Martials already get feat taxed to death as it is, and it's far too easy for weapon-specific feats to come back and bite you when you find a weapon with a better enhancement and fits with your style (2H reach polearm fighting, for instance), but isn't quite the same as the one you took Weapon Focus and Improved Critical and so forth for. If weapons are very similar in design and function, letting them share feats is completely reasonable and makes sense.
*The fact that one includes melee use on top of ranged does make it sound different enough at least that it might need to specifically only share feats for ranged/musket use, not for the melee attacking axe use.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for calling us lazy. Thanks for the snark. That really encourages us to explain any FAQ answers we give. Yet another reason to provide only a minimalist answer in a FAQ, so that people can't nitpick, make fun of, and criticize our reasoning.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings, but perhaps you need to look at this another way. If you did explain the rationale behind your decisions, perhaps it would reduce the criticism you received.
At the end of the day we're your clientele. We pay you for the products and services you provide.If there's a 'balance' reason why a racial trait shouldn't work with a racial weapon I'd like the professionals to explain it to me. Saying "oh, it just says 'sling'" does come off as a cop out.
What else is there to explain? They don't need to explain any balance issues at all. If the intent was to apply that trait solely to slings, then the only answer necessary is, "It was always our intent for that ability to apply only to slings." That is precisely what they did.
What you're asking for is a lengthy explanation as to why the way you want things to work isn't what they intended when the rules were drafted years ago. If they were making a new decision between these competing ideas, that would make sense. But, they're not. They're simply answering the question, "What did you mean when you said 'X'?" They provided the answer. No other rationale is necessary.
And even if you're the clientele, you still ought to treat the Developers with respect and courtesy. Being a customer isn't a blank check to be rude.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you did explain the rationale behind your decisions, perhaps it would reduce the criticism you received.
"Ha.
Ha ha.Ha.
Ha ha ha.
Ha.
Ha..."
—the Joker
So to clarify, there is NO way a Halfling sling staff can ever be used as a full-round ranged attack? A sling and a double sling can, but not a halfling sling staff?
- Gauss
A sling and a double sling can make full-round (ranged) attacks if you take the feats Ammo Drop and Juggle Load. However, because the wording does not state 'sling staff' you cannot use those feats with a sling staff.
Benefit: You can load a sling or one end of a double sling with one hand as a swift action or move action. This does not provoke an attack of opportunity.
Benefit: You can load a sling or double sling as a free action. This does not provoke attacks of opportunity. This feat allows you to fire your sling as many times in a fullattack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.
In short, Halfling sling staves are inexplicably unable to make full round attacks.
- Gauss
|
|
What else is there to explain? They don't need to explain any balance issues at all. If the intent was to apply that trait solely to slings, then the only answer necessary is, "It was always our intent for that ability to apply only to slings." That is precisely what they did.
What you're asking for is a lengthy explanation as to why the way you want things to work isn't what they intended when the rules were drafted years ago. If they were making a new decision between these competing ideas, that would make sense. But, they're not. They're simply answering the question, "What did you mean when you said 'X'?" They provided the answer. No other rationale is necessary.
And even if you're the clientele, you still ought to treat the Developers with respect and courtesy. Being a customer isn't a blank check to be rude.
If the response had been "it was always our intent for that ability to apply only to slings". I would have been good with that. I wouldn't have liked it, but I would have accepted it without comment.
You only think I was being rude because of how you're reading my statements. Not your fault, I probably have could of phrased my comments better. There is nothing rude about constructive criticism - which is what I was trying for. I missed the mark, obviously, but oh well. I'm not going to dwell on it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I think that some of what is driving the PDT is us. We are being so legalistic on the rules (some of which was written with a broad paintbrush rather than a sharp point pen) that they have had to respond in kind. If it doesn't say it, then it doesn't do it.
This leaves things like the Sling Staff out in the cold because it *may* have been intended to be lumped in with "a sling" because it is "a type of sling" but since it doesn't state that so they have had to revert to legalistic interpretations.
- Gauss
|
Slingstaff is still not a terrible weapon. You could make archers that threaten the squares around you with less feats. It just prohibits the use of full attack. MY halflings don't tend to be full BAB martial warriors, but more, defensive blaster casters. The halfling Slingstaff does require a martial weapon proficiency feat for them, but it is more fun flavor wise to use a clubsling than a crossbow. Its as good as a light crossbow in damage and I don't really use weapons for damage if I am a spell caster.
.....or people could just accept the design team's ruling as official. But, no. They'd rather read into those semantics as well to divine, what, RAI of an FAQ? Seriously?
People. The design team has ruled on this issue. Why care and nitpick about HOW they answered? It's answered. Definitively and clearly. That's what you wanted. Just because you don't like or agree with it doesn't make the answer not final or the issue not solved. Houserule it and move along. These are not the halfling specific racially crafted exotic weapons you're looking for.
Not attempting to be rude or anything, but how do we know this.What else is there to explain? They don't need to explain any balance issues at all. If the intent was to apply that trait solely to slings, then the only answer necessary is, "It was always our intent for that ability to apply only to slings." That is precisely what they did.
What you're asking for is a lengthy explanation as to why the way you want things to work isn't what they intended when the rules were drafted years ago. If they were making a new decision between these competing ideas, that would make sense. But, they're not. They're simply answering the question, "What did you mean when you said 'X'?" They provided the answer. No other rationale is necessary.
That's fair. I think we know this because the question essentially boiled down to, "When you said 'sling', did you mean 'sling' or 'sling and other things like slings'?" The answer was "We meant 'sling'."
This isn't a situation where 3.5 did things differently than Pathfinder with the same or similar wording. This isn't a situation where they're revamping a previous FAQ. So, I honestly don't think there's more to it than "We meant 'sling'." I understand wanting maybe an answer to the question, "If it means just 'sling', is there a reason it didn't and can't be expanded to other stuff?" But that's not what the FAQ was asked to address.
Besides, SKR did give the rest of the reason as you noted. It amounts to "Because the word was intended literally" and "If we expand it, we aren't aware of the unintended consequences this could cause."
Unfortunately, the FAQ also means that the feats Ammo Drop and Juggle Load cannot be used with a Sling Staff either because they have the same wording.
Previously I would have thought that they all apply to the Sling Staff.
I'm not disagreeing with the FAQ per se, but I am wondering if the FAQ was really intended to prevent the Sling Staff from making use of Ammo Drop and Juggle Load and thus prevent it from ever performing a ranged full attack action.
- Gauss
Unfortunately, the FAQ also means that the feats Ammo Drop and Juggle Load cannot be used with a Sling Staff either because they have the same wording.
Previously I would have thought that they all apply to the Sling Staff.
I'm not disagreeing with the FAQ per se, but I am wondering if the FAQ was really intended to prevent the Sling Staff from making use of Ammo Drop and Juggle Load and thus prevent it from ever performing a ranged full attack action.
- Gauss
Wouldn't surprise me if that answer was no. But as you mentioned earlier, I think the default position for these things necessarily has to be somewhat conservative insofar as strictly construing language goes. What we as end-users do with the product pretty adroitly sums up the adage "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile."
Those two feats may have been an unintended casualty of this FAQ, but I think the reasoning really is to avoid exploitation. And frankly, I can't really blame them for taking that position. Our penchant for exploitation is, after all, why we can't have nice things, so to speak.
I agree Fretgod99, I am just happy that I am not really vested in PFS. I can do what I want in my games. Even the ones where I am not GMing I can usually explain my position well enough to the GM/group that we come to a consensus.
I only came into PF a few years ago. I love it more than I ever did 3.5 and it is my RPG of choice. I appreciate the active Devs. But, I am getting weary of the language and layout issues. In a way, this is one more 'language issue'. However, I recognize that this is due in no small part to the quick way that PF was put together from the ashes of 3.5. I think I am ready for a completely cleaned up version of PF. Not a massive rebuild, just a layout and cleaner text version. /rant
- Gauss
If you aren't happy with the FAQ answer, and aren't using PFS, then just houserule it to include slingstaffs.
Don't let the rules lawyers here (myself included) get you "weary of language and layout". Remember rule 0 and rule 1. If you're the DM, the rules are whatever you interpret them to be. And they're all optional.
The only language issues are people that argue RAW and RAI tirelessly (and the munchkins that abuse the loopholes which lead to said arguments). This is another illusion of this forum site. RAI doesn't mean a damn thing in the long run. Only the printed word and you or your DM's interpretation of that printed word matter.
In my particular case, I'm a stickler for RAW. But I rely heavily on some of the other "Paizo All-Stars" like BBT, Cheapy, and Ravingdork to give me the "devil's advocate" scenarios that I might not think of. I respect them all highly because they keep me on my toes. Having a fresh perspective on rules that I might be fuzzy on is important to me. But by all means don't let my opinion or theirs get you frustrated.
Did you mean to say RAI, SCPRedMage? Because that particular quote definitely supports PFS perspective. "Only printed word (RAW) and DM's interpretation of that printed word matter." That's pretty much PFS in a nutshell.
Or are you just putting a disclaimer out there for PFS advocates?
If you re-read, I address that in the very first line. ", and aren't using PFS, " (which Gauss suggests he isn't).
So, I'm confused. Yes, no Slingstaff for you PFSers. That's the tradeoff you get for sacrificing table variance to play in campaign. Be unhappy about it all you wish, but you chose to play PFS and it's inherent limitations.
Barry, I am a semi-retired rules lawyer, Im just getting tired of it in my old age. :)
I am not frustrated with the website, or the posters. I am frustrated with trying to explain Pathfinder to people who are new to the game. Frustrated with trying to explain why 'wielded in' and 'wielded as'. Frustrated with having to show newer players that they need to look in 2, 3, or more places to understand a single rule.
Do not misunderstand me. I love Pathfinder and the 3.5/PF 'engine'. I am also an experienced gamer with about 30 years of D&D behind me. Compared to 3.5 Pathfinder has cleaned up many things. But compared to 3.5 Pathfinder is also a lot more confusing in many respects. That is the source of my frustration. Not these forums.
As icing, some of the recent FAQs have muddied things up for me and others. While the FAQs may be technically correct as per the wording they have the downside of being counter-intuitive in some cases. That too is frustrating.
- Gauss
Understood. I am in the same boat. Pathfinder was meant to continue the lineage of D&D and improve upon the complications, not add more.
I've been playing since White Box, and you're right, FAQ's only muddy things up. But here's the beauty, and I'll repeat it because it bears repeating:
Unless you're playing PFS, the rulebook says whatever you want it to.
And I will repeat: I am tired of explaining it to new gamers because the book doesn't. :)
I have plenty of house rules. My issue is not that I cannot house rule the FAQs etc. It is that the language, terminology, layout, etc are unclearl. If you read the book from cover to cover as a new gamer you are left scratching your head. My weekend group has 3 people with less than 2 years gaming experience. Half of the rulebook is gibberish to them because of the way it is written. I have to translate much of it.
Even a proper glossary would work wonders. Know what I do when I want to define a term? I get out my 3.5 PHB, turn to page 304 and show them the glossary. And yet, the Devs keep saying Pathfinder is not 3.5 and we should not be using 3.5 standards. If that is the case we need Pathfinder standards (a glossary).
Sorry, got on a rant again. Really, I do love Pathfinder and I really do appreciate the Devs. :)
- Gauss
Not a rant. Completely applicable. There are many grey areas, fuzzy logic, and blatant omissions in every single RPG system out there.
It's because you can't predict every situation when writing the rules, you can't predict people's interpretations of the written word, and they don't want to paint you into a corner with too many rules.
So, each one empowers the DM/GM/Storyteller to be the rules lawyer/interpreter. If you're frustrated, take a break from the role. Otherwise, it's our job to fill in the holes that the book doesn't.
If you want a real head-scratcher, go pick up the "rules book" for the FarScape RPG. You'll want to flush it down the toilet after about 6 pages. It's literally the worst I ever read.
Pathfinder CRB does have a glossary. In fact, it has two. Now, ask me if everything necessary is in it. Or them. Of course, the answer is "not even close". Find me a hard definition of "primary hand", "off-hand", "normal weapon", or any other completely undefined game term.
Find me the disclaimer that the design team built the entire game around assuming a character will only have two hands to attack with and never feet, extra claws, tentacles, etc...
Sorry, that one's MY pet peeve...
Well, strictly speaking, I am not frustrated per se, I was just using your verbage (you brought up frustrated first).
Where is the glossary? It is nowhere in the CRB. Open the CRB PDF, hit Ctrl+F, type glossary, hit enter, nothing.
- Gauss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is such an awful ruling. I understand the FAQ answered the interpretation of the words in the book as being 'a sling' - and I get that that is really the purpose of the FAQ. But how do we go about getting this errata'd instead, so the wording in the book actually makes some logical sense? (The halfling racial trait for their elite warriors does not benefit their racially preferred weapon). There needs to be an ERRATA button next to the FAQ button.
It's Slings only, but there is a fix in the Weapon Master's Handbook. Slipslinger Style is a feat that will allow you to use warslinger with all sling weapons, not just the sling.
Which is absolutely the worst way to 'fix' inconsistency in previous rules. "If you take this feat, you can pretend we had some idea what we were doing 5 years ago".
Nevermind that the 3rd in the slipslinger chain is completely redundant. What is it supposed to accomplish?
Slipslinger Grenadier is a standard action to use. Bombardment allows you to full attack. You do your full sling damage, plus the alchemical weapon effect.
Oh, okay, that makes sense - forgot the 2nd style feat was limited to standard action. The sentence about it being a free action to load it is redundant, however.
Slipslinger Grenadier:
"as a standard action you can use a sling to hurl an alchemical splash weapon, treating it as a sling bullet for the purpose of drawing and loading it into your sling."
Which, since it requires being a warslinger halfling to gain this feat, means that it can be drawn and loaded as a free action. That's why, by the time you get Slipslinger Bombardment, the free action loading comment is needlessly confusing.