|
IMO, the intent is that damage often occurs during the heat of combat and rather spend a lot of time reworking all the PC's stats, they provided us with a quick play rule.
Drain and/or permanent ability changes are generally occur during less intensive times of the game where a player has time to make appropriate adjustments.
That being said, any significant (and sometimes minor) change in strength whether bonus or penalty should impact encumbrance, lifting, breaking things, etc. To argue the nuances of the words in some rules-lawyery way to say a penalty/bonus to Strength wouldn't affect carrying capacity, but most/all other aspects is just silly. Again IMHO.
Despite the FAQ, there still appears to be some ambiguity to the specifics of the rules, so expect some table variation.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To argue the nuances of the words in some rules-lawyery way to say a penalty/bonus to Strength wouldn't affect carrying capacity, but most/all other aspects is just silly.
Whatever the end result may be, this comment is completely inappropriate and, to me, offensive. Reading "this doesn't change your stat" and believing it does something materially different than changing your stat may well turn out to be wrong, but it is also a common-sense, plain-english interpretation.
Again, maybe it's wrong. I'm actually starting to lean more and more toward abandoning my original interpretation as I think about it more. But pointing at "not changing your stats must be different than changing your stats" and calling it "arguing nuances" or "rules-lawyery" is dishonest at best. It is nothing more than a petty put-down of those who disagree with you.
|
The rules give a list on what is affected with STR damage. It does not include Carrying Capacity. Under ability drain it says: "Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability." The two are very much not the same in the rules.
Edit: grammar.
So ... you're positing that because a Strength Check isn't specified in that list, that Strength Damage doesn't affect a Strength Check?
|
|
It was not intended to be a "put-down" and I probably should have emphasized that the same methods of rules-lawyery analysis applies to both sides of the argument. And I certainly think using words like "dishonest" are significantly stronger than saying something is silly.
With the advent of the FAQ I fail to see how a strict application of plain-English reading applies unless we all want to completely dismiss that the concept of "rules as intended" even exists.
Before the FAQ, it seemed, at least in my experience, that most would not make a change in carrying capacity due to the way it was worded in the CRB. The majority of those people also agreed that it was silly to say a significant reduction/increase in Strength wouldn't impact other related mechanics than the ones listed in the (arguably) non-exhaustive list.
It appears (to many) that the FAQ was meant to clarify the non-exhaustive nature of the original rule and that carrying capacity would be affected. But, that is interpretive. Because they used "bonus" and not "modifier" is probably just an over-sight, but we have no confirmation of that. It certainly seems counter-intuitive that increasing/reducing your Strength score would not have an impact on everything that uses it as a basis for modification. It is even more counter-intuitive (and IMO ridiculous) to think that we would apply a bonus, but ignore a penalty.
After the dust clears, all we can really expect regarding this topic is table variation and hopefully players avoid lengthy arguments with the GM during gameplay.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
And I certainly think using words like "dishonest" are significantly stronger than saying something is silly.
Note that I didn't call out your use of the term "silly". I called out your use of the term "rules lawyer".
Anyway, your view has valid points; valid enough that I've left my original stance and am now on the fence, as I mentioned in my reply to you. Regardless of who's right, can we at least not throw around undeserved labels? If you want to argue that my earlier stance ignores presumed RAI, fine; that at least has a basis (as described in your post). But labeling the most straightforward reading as being "rules lawyery" is an unfounded accusation, and also really undermines your (and likely others') credibility the next time you need to call out someone who actually IS rules lawyering.
Let's just discuss Pathfinder and not condemn legitimate opinions, alright?
|
So ... you're positing that because a Strength Check isn't specified in that list, that Strength Damage doesn't affect a Strength Check?The rules give a list on what is affected with STR damage. It does not include Carrying Capacity. Under ability drain it says: "Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability." The two are very much not the same in the rules.
Edit: grammar.
I'm positing that the authors of the core rulebook as of the 6th printing took the effort and the word count to make ability damage, and ability drain work differently from one another. They had to have a reason to spend resources to do this. It would have been quite easy to have them work the same as one another, and having them work the same would have saved significant word count. So, I have to believe that the difference is (or was, and they have since changed their minds) intentional.
So, yes, the damage to STR would not affect a Strength Check as written above. It could possibly be rationalized that any sophisticated use of STR would have been damaged, but a brute application of the ability would work fine. I'm not really attached to how it works one way or another. I do see that effort was made to make the rules work one way, so if it works a different way, it should be made abundantly clear.
|
|
So, yes, the damage to STR would not affect a Strength Check as written above.
Wow. Just ... wow. That's ... mind-boggling.
It could possibly be rationalized that any sophisticated use of STR would have been damaged, but a brute application of the ability would work fine. I'm not really attached to how it works one way or another. I do see that effort was made to make the rules work one way, so if it works a different way, it should be made abundantly clear.
Personally, I don't think that it's really necessary to justify, at all. I think the purpose of the text is to make it easier to adjudicate Strength damage on the fly. Strength damage affects all things which derive their sum from Strength. They simply delineate things under "Strength" that are most frequently affected by a strength penalty. It's not an exhaustive list that says "only"these things are affected". The "damage" section is shorter, simply because there's nothing more to say than, essentially, "rewrite all Strength references on your character sheet".
Essentially, any rule stands unless specified otherwise. Even if that section didn't call out the 2-for-1 nature of ability score changes, that's the way it is on the chart, so it's not changing anything about the way ability scores work even when damaged, and it wouldn't be implemented any different. All that section does is make the "normal" rule for ability scores abundantly clear. If it changed the way Carrying Capacity or Strength checks were performed or calculated, then that would need to be made abundantly clear. All the section is diong is making it clear that it's okay to treat it as a temporary penalty, rather than permanently rewriting the score.|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Even if that section didn't call out the 2-for-1 nature of ability score changes, that's the way it is on the chart, so it's not changing anything about the way ability scores work even when damaged, and it wouldn't be implemented any different.
Actually, that's not true.
What happens when a PC with, say 18 STR (or really, any even number) takes 1 point of STR damage?
If it were instead 1 point of STR drain, then the PC now has 17 STR; his STR bonus is now +3 instead of +4 (and everything that entails), his carrying capacity has dropped, etc.
But with STR damage, the rules are telling us a couple of differences: don't reduce your STR, and the penalties don't start until the 2nd point of STR damage.
So if 18 STR Larry takes 1 point of STR damage, then if you take the rules at face value, Larry still has 18 STR, and also has 1 point of STR damage. If we reduce his attack and damage bonuses and CMD and so forth, then we're violating the "for every 2 points, apply a penalty" rule because we're applying a penalty with only 1 point.
And if you're about to say "But taking 1 STR damage without getting weaker doesn't make sense!", then tell me what happens when 18 STR Larry and 19 STR Norman both take 1 STR drain at the same time, and tell me how much sense it makes.
|
|
I think people place too much value on the wording. I was just about to write something about bull strengths and if it would result in the same carrying capacity if you cast it first and get strenght damage or the other way round when I stumbled upon the following gem:
The subject becomes stronger. The spell grants a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength, adding the usual benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, and other uses of the Strength modifier
Now anyone who likes to follow exactly what is written will agree with me that using this wording will not improve your carrying capacity as the carrying capacity is dependent on strength not on Strength modifier. See page 171 CRB table 7.4
I checked out the wording for Belt of Giant Strength and that one doesn't include the modifier but only mentions strength. Sorry - to lazy to type that one.
So a literal reading of the rules results into
Drain effects carrying capacity
Damage doesn't effect carrying capacity
Bull Strength doesn't effect carrying capacity
Belt of Giant Strength does effect carrying capacity
the alternative is - maybe RAI is that all four alter the carrying capacity. The different wordings are a combination of
Historical grown
Written by different people or at different times
Try to focus on playability
Try to focus on the most important aspects
And yes - the end effect is that you end up with bits that contra indicate each other.
Edit: removed a don't in sentence above and spelling mistake
|
|
What I wanted to write originally
Start STR 10 = 33 lbs light
Bull Strength = STR 14 = 58 lbs light
STR damage -4 = STR 10 = 58 lbs
Start STR 10 = 33 lbs light
STR damage -4 = STR 6 = 33 lbs
Bull Strength = STR 10 = 33 lbs light
This would make it order dependent and not dependent on score what you can carry.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The different wordings are a combination of
Historical grown
Written by different people or at different times
I've been thinking about both of these things, actually. The latter (written by different people or at different times) seems very unlikely given that all the rules in question are under a single heading in a single place; we're not trying to figure out how two different chapters affect each other or anything. It's one block of rules, probably written all at once by a single person.
This is significant, because in the Ability Bonuses section (which comes first), the author states that the bonus DOES increase the ability score, and he ALSO tells you to note bonuses separately in case you lose them.
Now if a single author writes that one thing alters your stat and another thing doesn't, then presumably that person means them to work differently. Mr. Nolen suggests that "doesn't reduce your stat" just means "don't write it down", but just a minute ago the author (when writing about bonuses) already talked about noting things separately in case they're removed; why not use the same language a couple paragraphs down? It doesn't make sense that someone who just a minute ago said "this changes your stat, but mark it separately in case they're removed" would try to communicate the exact same thought a second time by instead saying "this doesn't actually change your stat".
Nobody tries to repeat a thought by saying the opposite.
So it seems like, at least originally, ability bonuses and ability damage were meant to work differently.
As for history, I'll revisit that in another post when I have time. :)
|
|
So, yes, the damage to STR would not affect a Strength Check as written above.Wow. Just ... wow. That's ... mind-boggling.
It could possibly be rationalized that any sophisticated use of STR would have been damaged, but a brute application of the ability would work fine. I'm not really attached to how it works one way or another. I do see that effort was made to make the rules work one way, so if it works a different way, it should be made abundantly clear.Personally, I don't think that it's really necessary to justify, at all. I think the purpose of the text is to make it easier to adjudicate Strength damage on the fly. Strength damage affects all things which derive their sum from Strength.
Essentially, any rule stands unless specified otherwise. Even if that section didn't call out the 2-for-1 nature of ability score changes, that's the way it is on the chart, so it's not changing anything about the way ability scores work even when damaged, and it wouldn't be implemented any different. All that section does is make the "normal" rule for ability scores abundantly clear. If it changed the way Carrying Capacity or Strength checks were performed or calculated, then that would need to be made abundantly clear. All the section is diong is making it clear that it's okay to treat it as a temporary penalty, rather than permanently rewriting the score.
Wow... Just, wow. Where does it say the bolded part? I seem to have missed it.
Under Ability Drain, it does in fact say that all statistics related to that ablility are affected. However, it does not say that about Ability Damage. I think that point may have been mentioned up thread. Also mentioned, I think, is that Ability Damage doesn't change the actual ability score. So, as Jiggy pointed out, 18-STR Larry doesn't take any penalties with 1 point of STR damage.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Well, a look at the history of ability damage is quite interesting!
I looked up the 3.5 rules for ability damage HERE and HERE (if anyone wants to cross-reference a physical rulebook, that's something I can't do, so feel free!) and the results are quite different from Pathfinder:
The character has temporarily lost 1 or more ability score points.
You actually lose ability score points. (And the only difference between this and drain is the change of the word "temporarily" to "permanently"; it's otherwise the exact same opening sentence.)
It then goes on (there and in the second link) to describe the recovery from ability damage as getting lost points back, and describes (identically in both damage and drain) what happens when any given ability score hits zero.
In 3.5, damage and drain are the same thing except for how long they last, and both involve actually changing your ability score.
Now, fast-forward to Pathfinder. Instead of just copying over the text of 3.5's ability damage/drain, they wrote new rules from scratch.
Why?
When they wrote their new ability damage rules, they changed from "you lose ability score points" to "your score doesn't change, you just get these penalties".
Why?
In addition to changing the general definition of ability damage, they took the time and word count to write a long list of effects for each ability score, which was not present in 3.5.
Why?
If memory serves, early printings of the CRB—despite stating that ability damage doesn't lower the affected stat—referenced what happens when a damaged stat "reaches 0". But then they errata'd it to instead say "when the damage equals/exceeds the stat".
Why?
---------------------------------
Some of the opinions presented in this thread are really hard to reconcile with the actions Paizo chose to take when making and maintaining Pathfinder.
|
|
Here it goes where it comes from
Variant: Separate Ability loss
Some players don't like keeping track of ability scores that go down because they find it hard to recalculate statistics based on their new ability modifiers. These players might find it easier to track ability loss separately sort of the way subdual damage works. In this variant, for each 2 points of ability damage, the character suffers a -1 penalty to checks related to that ability. If the ability loss equals or exceeds the ability score, then characters suffer the effect of having a 0 score in that ability. Temporary ability damage goes away at the rate of 1 point per day.
This variant leads to very nearly the same results as standard ability loss does.
So it seems the origin was a variant rule to make it easier to keep track. Pathfinder did not add this with any specific intentions but dropped the word variant rules - call it intention, word count or doesn't bother because it leads to nearly the same results. Actually that sentence actually is in the printed book
Edit: 2Jiggy - so actually it isn't new from scratch. Just a simplification that has been taken over (and because it is a simplification you now have issues)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Interesting! Thanks for the research, Thod.
So apparently, 3.5 had rules for ability damage that worked one way, and then had a faster variant that have "nearly the same" (aka slightly different) results. Pathfinder then adopted the variant rules as the standard, dropping 3.5's default rules entirely.
That seems pretty deliberate; porting over a variant that produces different results than what was left behind.
So for anyone who wants to acknowledge RAI in their adjudications, there you go. Nothing demonstrates intent more clearly than choosing one set of rules and leaving the other behind.
So a plain reading of Pathfinder's ability damage rules says you just apply a penalty for every 2 points. A look at the history of ability damage reveals that this is also the intent. So for the present, I don't see any more arguments for doing it differently other than "I don't like the results it produces"—though I'm getting excitedly curious on the topic and would love to hear any additional cases to be made. :)
As for the future, I'm speculating that the recent FAQ on ability bonuses may represent a shift in ideology such that we might in the (near?) future see a reversal of the current intent in regards to ability damage. Time will tell. :)
|
|
Jiggy
We seem to read the same and still come to different conclusions.
To me the intent always that ability damage works the same. Pathfinder just took the 'close enough is good enough' approach (sloppy?)- which unfortunately causes issues for carrying capacity.
So to me the variant rule and the existence before tells me the opposite. Carrying capacity is just the aberration that isn't 'close enough'.
It boils down to the interpretation
The change was deliberate (Paizo did look at all the consequences and felt that is not only simpler but an overall better ruling)
or was the change sloppy (Paizo felt this was a simpler solution and they didn't look at all the consequences aka carrying capacity)
As much as I admire Paizo - sometimes small bits slip through. So I interpret it as sloppy and not deliberate. But we can only speculate without input from whoever wrote this.
I once got burned when Jason Bulmahn corrected me about the weight of clothes. But I can't believe that insisted on clothes to have weight as this is the more accurate way to describe it - but ability damage not to lower carrying capacity.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Sloppy =/= not the rule.
Maybe they knew and accepted all the differences between what they picked and what they left behind, maybe they didn't. But that doesn't change that they picked what they picked and left behind what they left behind.
In the quote you provided, it states right out in the open that the results of that method aren't quite going to be the same as the "real" 3.5 rules. They couldn't have not known there would be differences. So are you just saying they knew about other differences, but not the difference of how carrying capacity interacts with it? How do you know which differences they knew about and which ones they didn't? Or do you think they managed to read a variant rule that announces its own imperfect results without realizing there would be any differences at all?
|
|
Jiggy
Words ...
This variant leads to very nearly the same results as standard ability loss does.
the results of that method aren't quite going to be the same
It says very nearly - you make a aren't quite going to be the same out of it.
Now - if I believe that the result is very nearly the same, then I'm fine with it - aka sloppy. If I feel the result 'aren't going to be quite the same' then I'm likely deliberate to change it as I shouldn't do something that bad.
I'm guilty myself - sloppy is also loaded and possible too strong a word.
So yes - I believe they read 'very nearly the same results' and took it for 'very nearly the same results'.
The issue is - for carrying capacity the different rules DON'T give 'very nearly the same results' - they differ massive !!
Albeit for anything else they are very nearly the same - it is just a rounding difference. That leads to - was carrying capacity regarded as important or not taken into account.
To be honest - without an electronic device like HeroLab it is painful to keep accurate track of capacity if it changes on a moments notice. I know what I'm talking about - having a Str. 7 wizard - keeping him on light encumbrance takes a lot of planning - that I do well before a game.
But I don't think I can convince you with my point of view. I see where you are coming from - but as I said - I don't think it was deliberate in regard to carrying capacity.
So a question - is it deliberate then that bull strength only adds benefits to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls and other used of the strength modifier and deliberately leaves carrying capacity out?
They changed the duration from 1hour/level to 1 min/level, they changed the amount (d4+1 to 4) but 'deliberately' left the part not mentioning the capacity out of the spell. So surely bull strengths doesn't improve carrying capacity.
To quote you once more:
Nothing demonstrates intent more clearly than choosing one set of rules and leaving the other behind.
(I only have 3.0 rules - so apology if there have been changes in between and I misinterpret Paizo here)
|
|
Remember trade goods, artwork, and jewelry/gems can be sold back for 100%
When my character has the spare money, they buy the following item:
NECKLACE OF RAISE DEAD
Price 5,450 gp; Aura none; Weight —
This necklace consists of a fine gold chain worth 450 gp from which hangs a large diamond that is worth 5000 gp. This necklace can be exchanged at an appropriate temple for one casting of the spell Raise Dead.