|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qox
is the rules team overreaching? silencing a supernatural ability? what makes this supernatural ability sonic dependent? can't it be equally plausible that the witch cackles in a void, but her patron still knows she's cackling, and extends the duration of her hexes ( which her patron is already powering ), within 30 ft. of the witch.
if the powers all originate from the witch herself, whats the point of dark covenants?
Which part of the definition of the word "cackle" don't you understand?
cack·le (kkl)
v. cack·led, cack·ling, cack·les
v.intr.
1. To make the shrill cry characteristic of a hen after laying an egg.
2. To laugh or talk in a shrill manner.
v.tr.
To utter in cackles: cackled a sarcastic reply.
n.
1. The act or sound of cackling.
2. Shrill laughter.
3. Foolish chatter.
Common English words have meaning, the Devs have used those words because they don't want to have to make up words and define them. They could have called it "Blitzerploph." Then defined "Blitzerploph" as cackling madly.
But if they did, they would have to explain why it didn't also affect sneak attacks.
|
|
but cackle is a supernatural ability. by the existing game rules when they created and wrote cackle, its supernatural. it exists beyond the natural.
and supernatural abilities don't get affected by things like a silence spell.
if they start to, then it opens the doors for a silence spell blocking Demons from summoning more demons, claiming the demon is reciting true names of demons, which can't be heard across planes of existence when the speaker is in a zone of silence. ....
you've had one rule , thats existed for a long time.
then they wrote another rule, without thinking "oh, cackling actually has to make a sound for it to be effective, even though its a supernatural ability."
Then instead of trying to think of why Cackle should work in silence (because its supernatural ) or how Cackle underwater works, they just think "lets just limit it in silence and disregard the larger rules implications."
Next comes the question, are any of the witches other hexes effectively subject to this Verbal component rule? Is Slumber purely supernatural, or does the witch whisper a lullaby? Does it work in Silence? Misfortune? Fortune? What about when the Witch isn't in Silence, but the subject of Fortune via a Scar Hex is in silence. If the Witch Cackles, and the scar hex should make it effect the subject, but the subject is in silence, do they receive the benefit of the Cackle even though they can't hear it?
If a witch cackles in the woods and no one can hear her, do her scar hexes still extend 1 round?
Pathfinder (and 3.5 and further back.) is a game of exceptions. The number of things that don't work as per the general rules because of a specific exception is staggering.
Specific trumps general. Period and end of story. This one supernatural ability specifically is effected by something the SU abilities normally are not. That's how the game works.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fn#v5748eaic9qox
is the rules team overreaching? silencing a supernatural ability? what makes this supernatural ability sonic dependent? can't it be equally plausible that the witch cackles in a void, but her patron still knows she's cackling, and extends the duration of her hexes ( which her patron is already powering ), within 30 ft. of the witch.
if the powers all originate from the witch herself, whats the point of dark covenants?
Well, there's part of your problem right there. The witch doesn't ask her patron to do things and then rely on the patron to power them--that's the cleric's shtick.
Instead, the patron teaches the witch how to do cool things (like cackle), and then the witch does those cool things herself, using her own power.
That's why the witch is Int-based (you're learning your magic, just like a wizard does, but with a patron instead of a book), and why there isn't a section about becoming an Ex-witch by pissing off your patron. Hell, your patron could get flat out murdered, and you'd still be able to cast spells and cackle with no problems.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Cackling in a void" ?
Great name for a metal album?
I remember before the FAQ came out, when people wanted a definitive answer on Cackle + Silence. And there was a large amount of people that said it made no sense that Silence didn't stop Cackle.
Kinda funny to see things turn around now.
Nothing in the description mentions the target needing to hear the witch, nor is there any mention of the witch needing to make actual sound. There is absolutely no mention of the affect being based on sound.
Cackle does say that the witch cackles madly as a move action. Its the act that extends the duration of hexes, not any byproduct of the act, and works wether or not you see or hear the witch doing it. Cackle doesn't cause the person hexed to extend duration because he heard the witch. It's all the witch.
Just because you are an area of silence doesnt mean you cant laugh, it just means you cant hear people laughing.
Saying silence prevents cackle from extending hexes is like saying jokes cant be funny if you cast silence at the end of the punchline. If you want to shut down cackle you have to shut down the witch from taking actions. Silence does not do that. Just because you cant hear the witch delighting in your misfortune doesnt mean she isn't.
That is my ruling, anyway.
is the rules team overreaching?
Overreacting? Probably, but then again witch's don't get much love. Nerf nerf nerf, no good hexes for yous!
but cackle is a supernatural ability. by the existing game rules when they created and wrote cackle, its supernatural. it exists beyond the natural.
and supernatural abilities don't get affected by things like a silence spell.Where exactly are you getting this rule interpretation from?
Supernatural abilities are not immune to silence if the effect requires you to hear it to work.
Supernatural abilities don't require vocal or somatic components, and cackle doesn't state is has to be heard.
Most of the bardic performance options are supernatural. A harpy's captivating song is supernatural. All the FAQ does is clarify that Cackle also falls into the category of supernatural powers that are basically sonic effects.
Except the FAQs doesn't state that its a sonic effect. Bardic Performance states it has a visual and somatic component, and that is has to be heard or seen. Harpy states that its a sonic effect and a charm effect.
nerf nerf nerf...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which part of the definition of the word "cackle" don't you understand?
cack·le (kkl)
v. cack·led, cack·ling, cack·les
v.intr.
1. To make the shrill cry characteristic of a hen after laying an egg.
2. To laugh or talk in a shrill manner.
v.tr.
To utter in cackles: cackled a sarcastic reply.
n.
1. The act or sound of cackling.
2. Shrill laughter.
3. Foolish chatter.Common English words have meaning, the Devs have used those words because they don't want to have to make up words and define them. They could have called it "Blitzerploph." Then defined "Blitzerploph" as cackling madly.
Yeah, I really can't see this ruling as doing anything but fixing a fairly obvious oversight on the part of the original cackle design. It struck me as obviously a sound-based power.
Nothing in the description mentions the target needing to hear the witch, nor is there any mention of the witch needing to make actual sound. There is absolutely no mention of the affect being based on sound.
This is why the clarification is necessary to get the rules to behave the way the devs want them to and why they're considering clarifying in the next APG printing.
Yeah, I really can't see this ruling as doing anything but fixing a fairly obvious oversight on the part of the original cackle design. It struck me as obviously a sound-based power.
I can't see it as any way other than 'play it our way or your wrong', because rather than say "yeah, its cool if cackle is a giggle, or laughter, or chanting" it says "NO! Your a loud cackle that everyone knows and you have to hear! Anyway else is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Bad players!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't see it as any way other than 'play it our way or your wrong', because rather than say "yeah, its cool if cackle is a giggle, or laughter, or chanting" it says "NO! Your a loud cackle that everyone knows and you have to hear! Anyway else is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. Bad players!"
Am I missing something or is that not what rules, in fact, do? They define what the hex means just like they define verbal components in spellcasting as being audible and in a strong voice. Is not allowing a spellcaster to whisper or silently mouth the verbal components also slapping the players down?
Some players thought they could take advantage of an apparently insufficient definition to cheese it by arguing that cackling madly (madly already being in the text pre-clarification, I might add) could be silent despite the common definition of the actual word cackle. Frankly, I was mystified by the attempt and now the designers are clarifying what they meant. Simple as that.
Seriously? "This is how this rule works", coming from the design team, equates to calling people bad?
It does. It isn't just 'this works when silent' its 'this is a loud cackle'. Specifying it was a loud cackle is exactly that. You play with their vision of the way things are done, or your wrong apparently. Would it have hurt to say it didn't have to be a loud cackle?
Is not allowing a spellcaster to whisper or silently mouth the verbal components also slapping the players down?
Different thing altogether. If that's the case then why aren't all hexes now worthless when silent and obvious? As is, now you have a weird guy who makes things happen and just stands there cackling at the top of his lungs.
I dont see how it can "obviously" be anything that is not covered in the description. Sounds to me like people trying to shutdown witches on the cheap. If silence did work witches would be getting screwed over hard. Being able to sustain hexes with cackle is what makes all the hexes on the cackle list worth having. While maintaining hexes witches are already basically staggered for the duration of the fight.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Seriously? "This is how this rule works", coming from the design team, equates to calling people bad?It does. It isn't just 'this works when silent' its 'this is a loud cackle'. Specifying it was a loud cackle is exactly that. You play with their vision of the way things are done, or your wrong apparently. Would it have hurt to say it didn't have to be a loud cackle?
Yeah, same as saying that a wizard is half-BAB instead of full or 3/4, or saying that cleric spells are divine and never arcane, or any other rule in the game. It works that way, and other ways are incorrect.
How does ANY of that mean that anyone is being called "bad"? Being wrong about how a rule works does not make a person bad, so announcing the former does not equate to an accusation of the latter.
Yeah, same as saying that a wizard is half-BAB instead of full or 3/4, or saying that cleric spells are divine and never arcane, or any other rule in the game. It works that way, and other ways are incorrect.Seriously? "This is how this rule works", coming from the design team, equates to calling people bad?It does. It isn't just 'this works when silent' its 'this is a loud cackle'. Specifying it was a loud cackle is exactly that. You play with their vision of the way things are done, or your wrong apparently. Would it have hurt to say it didn't have to be a loud cackle?
That's more an argument about mechanics than about fluff. Telling me I have to be a particular kind of person or fluff is far more insulting than something mechanical like wizards being you know... wizards as they have for a long time. A closer example would be telling me my wizard has to wear a pointy hat.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's more an argument about mechanics than about fluff. Telling me I have to be a particular kind of person or fluff is far more insulting than something mechanical like wizards being you know... wizards as they have for a long time. A closer example would be telling me my wizard has to wear a pointy hat.
Even if a rule came down that your wizard has to wear a pointy hat, I still don't see how that equates to calling anyone "bad".
That's more an argument about mechanics than about fluff. Telling me I have to be a particular kind of person or fluff is far more insulting than something mechanical like wizards being you know... wizards as they have for a long time. A closer example would be telling me my wizard has to wear a pointy hat.Even if a rule came down that your wizard has to wear a pointy hat, I still don't see how that equates to calling anyone "bad".
It states that you have to do it, that's why. I see it as unnecessary. If you don't have to do it, then why do it beyond telling someone how to do something? It infers there's a right way and a wrong way.
Edit: I should add that if you phrase it as a suggestion, "most witches cackle" or "Many wizards wear pointy hats" its a much different stigma.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It states that you have to do it, that's why. I see it as unnecessary. If you don't have to do it, then why do it beyond telling someone how to do something? It infers there's a right way and a wrong way.
I didn't ask how it could be suggesting that there's a right way and a wrong way. I asked how it is that the claim of a right way and a wrong way equates to calling someone "bad".
It states that you have to do it, that's why. I see it as unnecessary. If you don't have to do it, then why do it beyond telling someone how to do something? It infers there's a right way and a wrong way.I didn't ask how it could be suggesting that there's a right way and a wrong way. I asked how it is that the claim of a right way and a wrong way equates to calling someone "bad".
Its the way I see it. I just told you why. Its just unaccepting and unapologetic, and I feel its stating that there's a right way and a wrong way. That wrong way is bad. They told you that you were wrong and that this is the way to do it.
That's more an argument about mechanics than about fluff. Telling me I have to be a particular kind of person or fluff is far more insulting than something mechanical like wizards being you know... wizards as they have for a long time. A closer example would be telling me my wizard has to wear a pointy hat.
The best way to think of this is that your Witch can choose to laugh quietly if she wants to... In order to activate the "Cackle" ability, however, she must spend a Move action and the laugh must be loud enough to be heard by those you intend to effect. (Excepting the Scar Hex, which is a specific exception to the general rule that cackles only effects those within 30 feet, because it must be heard.)
That is no different than saying that your pointed hat wizard must speak his verbal components in a "firm" voice (or whatever word is used). That is not "just fluff" of the Wizard and I believe the same logic is being applied to the Cackle ability.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I just told you why.
No, you just re-stated that it's saying "your idea is wrong", but that's not what I asked. I asked why "your idea is wrong" is the same as "you are bad". That question is not answered by yet another reiteration of "they're saying other ideas are wrong". I already know that. I already know that they're saying other ideas are wrong. You've repeated that plenty already.
What I'm asking is why you think "your ideas are wrong" would also mean "you are bad".