|
That's fine, I hit FAQ too.
I just don't care for your insistence that we use good sense on one topic but must follow RAW on another when the rules are clearly lacking in both cases.
For the record, the FAQ on Spiritual Weapon actually clarifies that RAW says Oracles use Wisdom. That removes any ability PFS GMs have to use good sense - but that doesn't mean we should therefore abandon good sense in other, ambiguous cases.
|
That's fine, I hit FAQ too.
I just don't care for your insistence that we use good sense on one topic but must follow RAW on another when the rules are clearly lacking in both cases.
The spiritual weapon issue is clear how its ruled in the FAQ. Its been FAQ'd. If you want to petition them to change the FAQ, that's fine. But you can't say there is still ambiguity on it though, now that there is an FAQ that clearly spells it out.
|
The rules either allows something or it doesn't
None of the things you mention are relevant to a discussion of what the rules as written actually say.
Its incredibly relevant.
If you say that something is absolutely 100% clear, absolutely 100% non contradictory, then of course if something says that something is legal then it is.
On the other hand if you have unclear areas, areas open to general interpretation, and areas where the rules contradict each other then that's exactly the sort of thing the human DM is supposed to be dealing with.
Which sounds more like the pathfinder rules set to you?
|
|
But every other single typed bonus in the game explicitly reference the type. Why would ability modifiers be the secret, unmentioned stepchildren of regular bonus types?
And how do you deal with abilities that, say, add Cha mod to AC as a Deflection modifier? Does it create a brand new bonus type that CharismaDeflection?
Regardless of how cheeseweasel something does really change what the RAW arguement is. The rules either allows something or it doesn't. how it effects the game isn't relevant when discussing strict RAW.
If you can provide a single rules source that calls outabilities modifiers explicitly as a bonus type I'll withdraw my arguement. Otherwise, RAW is clear on this matter.
If I had two abilities, one that said add intelligence to my ac as a dodge bonus, and one that said add my int to ac as a deflection bonus, are you seriously argueing that they shouldn't stack?
I reference you Trait bonuses. I know this is a function of the APG being printed after the CRB, so the Trait bonuses aren’t going to be noted in the CRB.
However, if you want to go with your RAW, then Trait bonuses should be able to stack as well, yes?
They do say ability modifiers are bonuses. And so your Dexterity Modifier is also your Dexterity Bonus.
To me, that is the very definition of a typed bonus. It tells you what kind of bonus it is.
Untyped bonuses are when you see, “You get a +2 bonus on…”
Not, “Add your Dexterity Modifier (bonus) to…” This tells you what type of bonus it is. Its your Dexterity modifier.
|
|
<blink> there are GMs out there like that? (re: Item 2.) That seems odd.
The overall goal of trying to get things changed quickly, are going to run into a problem:
Generally the design team doesn't FAQ things that are errata bait. If its going to be errata, they wait until the book needs a reprint, and then make the change in the book itself. No idea when Ultimate Combat will get its reprint.
As I said, mine was for something different, and it did eventually get fixed. Even point (1a) is, I believe, enough reason to bring it up to a GM anyway.
Yes, there are GMs like #2. Some of them have a lot of stars. They are good people and good GMs. That's just how they roll.
I confess I tend to fall into #2 here. If something is supported by RAW I'll run it that way in PFS. Of course if I feel that it was truly stupid I also post about it. Personally I don't think I usually run around trying to exploit loop holes.
Although I have found my share of them as Mark can vouch for...
So does this mean that my fighter/rogue gets to add double his STR bonus to melee damage since that's the standard for both classes and technically I am getting it from two separate sources? See how dumb that seems?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
So does this mean that my fighter/rogue gets to add double his STR bonus to melee damage since that's the standard for both classes and technically I am getting it from two separate sources? See how dumb that seems?
Except that adding Strength to damage isn't a class feature. It's a core rule about how attacks work.
Yes, I am aware, it's called being wry. The point is; I am a notorious min/maxer at my tables(although always with thorough RP to boot) and even I see this as an obvious MaxCheese loophole, it's just silly.
|
|
This is closer to munchkinism for taking advantage of an unclear or contradictory ruleHi, I think it is poor form to blame players for things like this.
It is pretty insulting overall!
You don't see a problem with a player willfully taking advantage of a known loophole that leads to some pretty egregious power? Especially when the consensus is that its a loophole that will get closed once errata happens?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is closer to munchkinism for taking advantage of an unclear or contradictory ruleHi, I think it is poor form to blame players for things like this.
It is pretty insulting overall!
Don't like the term munchkin, then don't be a munchkin.
The pisterlo is, oddly enough, good with pistols. It has an ability that is gun training with pistols. If you're going to try to double the benefit of it by bouncing archetypes off of each other and insist that adding dexterity twice isn't adding the same source twice then munchkin is the most polite epitaph I can think of.
|
Just a side note... I know Herolab gets vilified, but at least it gets this right... Go make a Pistolero. It won't let you pick Pistol for gun training... because you all ready have it, it's called Pistol training...
You are required to pick another type of gun. This isn't a drawback of the Archetype, it's a bonus.
Think about it, at level 5 you can add your Dex (only once) to two types of Gun, say the Pistol AND the Blunderbuss. Also at level 9 you could add the Musket and be very versatile with your firearms.
Enjoy!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't see a problem with a player willfully taking advantage of a known loopholeI see a problem with generalizing an entire group of people with one word!
There have been problems in the past with this type of thing, and I think it is fairly obvious that using a derogatory term to generalize a group of people is both unfair and does not lead to productive discussion.
Unfortunately, BNW decided to continue to label others, and there is nothing more I can do
If someone walks into a room with a giant block of cheddar on their heads, the problem is the giant block of cheddar on their heads, not the epitaph "cheese-head"
|
|
I"m perfectly ok with the same stat being added to something multiple times as long as each time it gets added as a different bonus. Adding it as the same bonus should not work and if something seems to be written to allow it to work then what was written is probably not what was intended.I agree with this. But when what is written and what is intended are difference in PFS, we go with what is written unless there is an explicit ruling/houserule that differs.
Just because my interpretation of RAW is different than yours, does not mean either of us is necessarily wrong.
I don't mind arguing our points back and forth. But please stop acting like I'm making stuff up to satisfy my own inclinations.
|
|
No mater how stupid or cheesy it is, the rule book says untyped bonuses stack,
Unless they come from the same source. A dex bonus and a dex bonus are the same source.
and both abilties are untyped bonuses. The source of those bonuses are the abiltiies that grant them
No, they both merely add the ability to apply your dex bonus to damage. The source is your dexterity.
since without those abilties you don't get the bonuses.
Without those abilities your dex bonus doesn't apply to damage. Your argument is that the rules are so tightly written that the ability isn't a dex bonus, mine is that the rules require enough common sense to say that a bonus from your dexterity is the same as your dex bonus.
|
|
I"m perfectly ok with the same stat being added to something multiple times as long as each time it gets added as a different bonus. Adding it as the same bonus should not work and if something seems to be written to allow it to work then what was written is probably not what was intended.I agree with this. But when what is written and what is intended are difference in PFS, we go with what is written unless there is an explicit ruling/houserule that differs.Just because my interpretation of RAW is different than yours, does not mean either of us is necessarily wrong.
I don't mind arguing our points back and forth. But please stop acting like I'm making stuff up to satisfy my own inclinations.
I will if you actually start to answer my points.
Your "interpretation" that ability bonuses are a bonus type is not written into the rules. Period. The rules for what are bonus types are very clear, there is a table for them in the core book, and any new bonus types they have added clearly follow the same format as the previous types, such as trait bonuses. You haven't been able to provide a single citation where anything is called out as a "dexterity bonus to Y" You are inventing leaps of logic that don't follow how things are spelled out in the rules book, and it is conflicting with explicit examples I have providing in the rules (where ability modifiers are added as explicity typed bonuses, when that is the case).
Your interpretation and the rules as they are written differ. No matter how well thought out or logical your interpretation is, the rules just plain don't say that. In my home games, I probably won't let fury's fall and agile manuevers stack. But the rules in the book say they do stack.
Actually the rules as written don't specifically say that those two feats stack.
Not all typed bonuses are listed as the types in the core rule book.
You can say it isn't part of the rules all you want, but that doesn't make you correct.
My interpretation is that ability bonuses are typed by the ability the bonus comes from.
|
|
Except when dealing with RAW, common sense isn't applicable.
Of course it is. Google any ravingdork thread if you want to see how unplayable the game gets if you take common sense out of rules interpretation.
I'm not saying it always applies, but english in general and the pathfinder rules specifically simply aren't tight enough to opperate without it.
Especially since your "common sense" does not match with my "common sense". That's why for PFS, we go with the RAW instead of the individual GMs interpretation of how things should work.
Except you don't have raw.
Your concept that the bonus is a "trench warfare" bonus or a "Pistol training bonus" IS NOT RAW. It is not the only logical interpretation. It is the weaker interpretation.
You cannot try to finagle a cheesey combo declaring that the raw is sacrosanct when you don't actually have the raw on your side.
If "Dexterity" was the source of the bonus, any character with a dexterity score would get the bonus, since they have the source. That's what the word 'source' means.
This isn't raw either. Again, don't try to bash someone over the head with raw if you don't have it.
Dexterity modifier is simply what you use to calculate the amount of the bonus. It is not it's source, it's source is the thing that actually provides the bonus, which is the class ability.
Not raw. I see source differently and you can't quote something to show me I'm wrong.
Gun Training adds dex to damage with guns. Without Gun Training, you don't get to add your dex to damage with guns. Thus, Gun Training is the source of adding your dex to damage to your guns. Gun training is what provides the bonus. Your dexterity doesn't provide the bonus without Gun Training.
I wish i could draw pictures on this thing
DEX----Gun training-----> Damage
Dex---->Pistol training--> Damage
Gun training and pistol training are not individual sources, they're merely different paths to get from the same source to the same die roll... which isn't allowed. This is
1) More raw than any of your points
2) More reasonable than your way of reading it
3) Doesn't allow the blatant cheese
4) The interpretation espoused by the creative director.
If you think your counter argument is good enough to beat a pfs dm over the head with to make them accept your character you're off your rocker.
Futher clarification. Dodge grants a +1 dodge bonus to AC. Is the source of that bonus the dodge feat, or the numeber 1? Do other bonuses to AC of exactly +1 not stack with the dodge feat? Per your interpretation, the source is not dodge feat. So what would the source be?
Complete and total non sequitur.
1 is the number coming from the dodge feat. +your dex is the number coming from your dex.
If I somehow manage to get the two copies of the same feat or class ability the provides the same untyped bonus, do they stack, since the source isn't the feat or class ability that "allows" you to get the bonus?
No. They do not.
If we follow your logic further, we reach more situations that don't meet your common sense standard. If dexterity is the source of the damage, and the CRB is the score of dexterity, then the CRB is the real source of the bonus. Thus any untyped bonus in the CRB does not stack with any other untyped bonus in the CRB.
That isn't my logic. If you need to misrepresent my logic that badly you've lost.
The only logical or reasonable way to define the source of a bonus is the class feature, feat, magic item, ect, that actually grants the ability. To do otherwise defies common sense you claim is important.
Or you know, the source of adding your dexterity bonus to damage MIGHT just be your dexterity. Simply declaring your way is the only sensible way doesn't actually make it so, especially when you need to declare three or so steps in your argument that aren't raw as raw. There's no violation of common sense, raw, or logic here.
FWIW, I was told that the pistolero's ability will be fixed in the errata.
I was told that much more recently than two years ago :)
This is the problem with them getting much better at identifying how many books to print per run. UM has received errata already, about a year after it came out actually, but UC hasn't. I'm not sure what that means.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I was told that much more recently than two years ago :)
This is the problem with them getting much better at identifying how many books to print per run. UM has received errata already, about a year after it came out actually, but UC hasn't. I'm not sure what that means.
It means that they printed a LOT more UC books on initial print run than they did of the UM books.
As I understand the Pistol Training was supposed to replace Gun Training.
DEX----Gun training-----> Damage
Dex---->Pistol training--> DamageGun training and pistol training are not individual sources
Since it came to light that both appeared to be "legal" I've rejected any PC with both, with either "my interpretation" and if the PC didn't like that then with "Rule 0 it doesn't work like you think it works."
|
|
IMHO - When we (as judges) make a ruling, I feel there really should be a better reason than "just because I said so!". Otherwise we are just playing in a bunch of different home games...
The guy who has a problem with animal companions doesn't like how objectively easy the handle animal rules are, or their ac, attack, and damage and abilities written in black and white in the book.
The DM who has a problem with the pistolero/mysterious stranger has a problem with the cheesey interpretation of a very gray (if not black) area of the rules that allegedly create an untyped "pistelro" bonus and an untyped "mysterious stranger" bonus. That IS a much better reason.
Also, going forward knowing* that once UC errata hits, the pistolero ability will explicitly replace gun training.
|
|
Also, going forward knowing* that once UC errata hits, the pistolero ability will explicitly replace gun training.
** spoiler omitted **
And that Mike has said that when errata does happen, don't be surprised if you don't get a rebuild.
If you can't rebuild out of one of your two archetypes, then that player is now illegal to play.
|
|
This isn't serious right, a joke post?
And that Mike has said that when errata does happen, don't be surprised if you don't get a rebuild.
If you can't rebuild out of one of your two archetypes, then that player is now illegal to play.
Presumably you'd have to blow the PP on retraining.
If you didn't have the PP you'd have to DM for credit.
|
|
This isn't serious right, a joke post?
And that Mike has said that when errata does happen, don't be surprised if you don't get a rebuild.
If you can't rebuild out of one of your two archetypes, then that player is now illegal to play.
No, it isn't.
If you build an illegal combo (when combining Pistolero with Mysterious Stranger) when Pistolero is errata'd as Pistol Training replacing Gun Training,then as Mike said, "Don't be surprised if you don't get a rebuild."
If you can't rebuild, then the character becomes illegal and you cannot play them.
He gave a grace period of a Month back last February or March till sometime in March to rebuild out of one of the archetypes.
This isn't serious right, a joke post?
And that Mike has said that when errata does happen, don't be surprised if you don't get a rebuild.
If you can't rebuild out of one of your two archetypes, then that player is now illegal to play.
I can confirm this.
I'll also point out that James was referring to the link I posted, wherein CWheezy is the post right after Mike's post saying 'you're SOL'.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Cheapy and CWheezy are different posters.This isn't serious right, a joke post?What I find interesting is you are the very next post after he said it wasn't a joke.
Andrew, I'm confused.
CWheezy said "a joke post", but in the linked thread CWheezy was the next post. How did Cheapy come into play? What am I missing?
|
|
Cheapy and CWheezy are different posters.This isn't serious right, a joke post?What I find interesting is you are the very next post after he said it wasn't a joke.Andrew, I'm confused.
CWheezy said "a joke post", but in the linked thread CWheezy was the next post. How did Cheapy come into play? What am I missing?
Chuckle... I figured you were referring to his post that was right after mine in this particular thread. Not the linked thread.