| 12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, when reading through a lot of Pathfinder books, I see the word "may" written. An example, for instance:
When an urban barbarian rages, instead of making a normal rage she may apply a +4 morale bonus to her Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.
Typically, the word may means "expressing possibility" or "expressing permission". By this, there's reason enough to think the phrasing is claiming the barbarian has access to either rage OR controlled Rage as rage options (in this particular class feature, it doesn't claim the feature in question replaces rage either.) I could also see it as "the barbarian doesn't get rage, but instead has the possibility/permission of/to do controlled rage.
I see either way as working, and currently HeroLab (not an accurate source of information, I know) is suggesting it's the former. But I've seen this "may ____" phrasing a lot in archetypes specifically and descriptions in general, and I want to know if there's any catch-all rule to explain the way Paizo writers use this particular wording.
May means 'you can, but you do not have to'. An Urban Barbarian can Normal Rage or Controlled Rage as desired.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would not think so, based on the last sentence, "This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage." If it were only adding a choice, with some other listed modifications, it wouldn't need to say that.
"May" here indicates a choice, not between normal rage and controlled, but between Str, Dex, or Con.
I would not think so, based on the last sentence, "This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage." If it were only adding a choice, with some other listed modifications, it wouldn't need to say that.
To me, that last sentence just clarifies that all other rules (like being fatigued after rage, number of rounds per day and so on) still apply. If Paizo wanted the urban barbarian not to use normal rage, they would have phrased something like "Instead of a normal rage..".
Generally speaking, in most of the cases I would go with Zhayne
May means 'you can, but you do not have to'.
But since I'm not a native speaker, I might be wrong :-)
That's my read as well, Lord Nimm. 'Normal rules for rage' is the duration, post-rage fatigue, you fall out of rage when you're KO'd, etc.
In your example it is displaying that the barbarian has options. A or B. They can use rage as normal or they MAY use the other rules presented. Optional choice.
The final line is to clarify that besides the information presented, no other changes to the rage ability are happening, hence why "This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage.".
Given similar wording in other abilities I would assume they would also express options, but each case would have to be judged on it's context.
|
I love "may" options. I always have my eye out for them in archetypes, feats, and spells.
It means the same as everywhere else. It's an option. Regarding the specifics of Controlled Rage I am not sure, but I'd imagine you could either enter a normal Rage, with all its drawbacks, or enter a Controlled Rage, and operate under those rules.
"May" should (when properly used) always indicate the introduction of an option. In the specific scenario asked, I think it's pretty clear that an urban Barbarian has the option to either rage as a normal Barbarian, or use a Controlled Rage and gain more limited benefits but with no penalties.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"Hey Dad, can I borrow the car to go to John's party tonight?"
"Instead of that, you may have me drive you, or invite some friends over here tonight, or borrow the car to visit John tomorrow."
No reasonable person believes that borrowing the car to go to John's party tonight is one of four options being presented.
A word can have more than one use, and context tells us which one is correct.
"Hey Dad, can I borrow the car to go to John's party tonight?"
"Instead of that, you may have me drive you, or invite some friends over here tonight, or borrow the car to visit John tomorrow."No reasonable person believes that borrowing the car to go to John's party tonight is one of four options being presented.
A word can have more than one use, and context tells us which one is correct.
This is because you put the word "instead" in there. That changes the whole meaning because it specifically excludes it. As Lord Nimm previously pointed out.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
This is because you put the word "instead" in there. That changes the whole meaning because it specifically excludes it. As Lord Nimm previously pointed out.
When an urban barbarian rages, instead of making a normal rage she may apply a +4 morale bonus to her Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.
Yes. Instead of making a normal rage, she MAY apply ...
Not she DOES. She MAY.
She can enter a normal rage, or instead, she can enter a controlled rage.
This is because you put the word "instead" in there. That changes the whole meaning because it specifically excludes it. As Lord Nimm previously pointed out.When an urban barbarian rages, instead of making a normal rage she may apply a +4 morale bonus to her Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.
Used in a different way in the sentence. English grammar has many ways to express different things, sometimes even using the same words.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Used in a different way in the sentence. English grammar has many ways to express different things, sometimes even using the same words.This is because you put the word "instead" in there. That changes the whole meaning because it specifically excludes it. As Lord Nimm previously pointed out.When an urban barbarian rages, instead of making a normal rage she may apply a +4 morale bonus to her Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution.
So first it's because I added a word, then when you see it's in the original you change your stance to "used in a different way"?
I very deliberately phrased my example in exactly the same way as the rule. Both are "instead of X, you may A, B or C". Same "instead", same "may", same structure, everything.
If you think my example and the rule are supposed to be read differently, can you show me what's different about them?
If it was intended to be a full replacement, there were so many better ways to phrase it ...
'Instead of a normal rage, the Urban Barbarian enters a Controlled Rage. In this rage, she adds (stuff) instead of the normal benefits of rage.'
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes. Instead of making a normal rage, she MAY apply ...
Not she DOES. She MAY.
She can enter a normal rage, or instead, she can enter a controlled rage.
"May" denotes an option, but there's more than one way it can do so:
It could mean "you have the option of doing the following, but you don't have to".
Alternatively, it could mean "the things you can do consist of the following options: [X, Y, Z]".
Reading the sentence in its entirety makes it clear which of these meanings is being used.
May is indicating a new option not a must-use. Otherwise Bards would suffer at the loss of their swift action when they gain the ability to begin performing as a swift action. Up to that point a Bard could begin a performance, activate arcane strike, and attack. After they gain they ability at a higher level they wouldn't be able to do something they could at a lower level. That is dumb. Clearly, "may" is a new option.
Yes. Instead of making a normal rage, she MAY apply ...
Not she DOES. She MAY.
She can enter a normal rage, or instead, she can enter a controlled rage.
"May" denotes an option, but there's more than one way it can do so:
It could mean "you have the option of doing the following, but you don't have to".
Alternatively, it could mean "the things you can do consist of the following options: [X, Y, Z]".
Reading the sentence in its entirety makes it clear which of these meanings is being used.
Yes, and the particular sentence being discussed makes it clear you have the option of normal rage or Controlled Rage.
I would not think so, based on the last sentence, "This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage." If it were only adding a choice, with some other listed modifications, it wouldn't need to say that.
"May" here indicates a choice, not between normal rage and controlled, but between Str, Dex, or Con.
I agree here.
"Instead of that, you may have me drive you, or invite some friends over here tonight, or borrow the car to visit John tomorrow."Nope. You forgot the context in the front...
"When you go to the party tonight, instead of driving yourself you may have me drive you."
This sentence uses the word "instead", but still has the correct meaning of "may".
Agreed. Your proposed meaning, Jiggy, is correct in the scenario you provided, but it is not grammatically identical to the sentence as presented. Brf's example uses the same structure.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed. Your proposed meaning, Jiggy, is correct in the scenario you provided, but it is not grammatically identical to the sentence as presented. Brf's example uses the same structure."Instead of that, you may have me drive you, or invite some friends over here tonight, or borrow the car to visit John tomorrow."Nope. You forgot the context in the front...
"When you go to the party tonight, instead of driving yourself you may have me drive you."
This sentence uses the word "instead", but still has the correct meaning of "may".
No, his is actually further off than mine (though I did leave a bit off mine too).
The rule is in this format:Mine was:
His was:
Mine was identical except for leaving out "when you X". His inclusion of "when you X" is just about the only thing that's not different from Controlled Rage—he's completely altered the fundamental structure of the sentence as a whole.
Controlled rage should be parsed into two halves: first you've got which denotes that you're replacing normal-X with a different verion. They you've got which says "here's the list of things you can do".
Brf's sentence forms a break in a different spot. You start with , telling us the condition under which the next part of the sentence happens. Then we get , which shows that the default method of X is Y, but not-Y is also an option.
A correct example, that follows the entire structure of Controlled Rage (which, as a reminder, is ) would be something like this:
"When you go out, instead of going where you were planning you may go to the movies, the cafe, or the park."
That is the same structure as Controlled Rage. And I think it's pretty obvious that the originally-planned party is not an allowed destination.
Okay, so reform Brf's statement:
"When you go to the party, instead of driving yourself you may have me drive you, or you may take the bus, or you can ride with Bill."
I do not see it as obvious that this is barring you from driving yourself. I see it is as granting a list of options along with driving yourself.
To quote one of the meanings of the idiom "instead of" from dictionary.com:
"instead of, in place of; in lieu of: You can use milk instead of cream in this recipe."
When you read that it's in no way saying that you must use milk. It's simply saying you may.
To reformat it to fit our example:
"When you make the biscuits, instead of using cream you may use milk or buttermilk or sour cream."
That in no way indicates that the recipe is barring you from using cream; it's simply giving you a list of alternative options.
Phrasing the statement: Instead of doing X, you may ...
carries the implication that "Doing X" is now not allowable.
Phrasing the statement: When you do X, instead of normal X you may ...
does not carry the implication that "Doing X (as it is normally done)" is disallowed. At best it is ambiguous.
Jiggy, your construction carries an entirely different connotation than does brf's. It is structured differently than the Controlled Rage entry.
When using the Deflect Arrows feat you may choose to catch the weapon instead of just deflecting it.
With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls.
Both of these use a similar "When you X, you may do X differently" structure. Neither of them mean that having the option to do X differently divests you of the ability to do X normally. You can still use your STR modifier when attacking with a light weapon if you prefer. You can still just deflect an arrow normally if you prefer. Similarly, an urban barbarian can still rage normally, if that is preferred.
Just a thought, but if the ability were worded,
Controlled Rage (Ex): When an urban barbarian rages she may apply a +4 morale bonus to her Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution. This bonus increases to +6 when she gains greater rage and +8 when she gains mighty rage. She may apply the full bonus to one ability score or may split the bonus between several scores in increments of +2. When using a controlled rage, an urban barbarian gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage.
(Exactly the same except omitting "instead of making a normal rage")
there might be some confusion as to whether Controlled Rage was in addition to or instead of the benefits from normal Rage. The addition of the extra line would make it clear that Controlled Rage was instead of normal Rage without otherwise changing the meaning of the ability.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
"When you make the biscuits, instead of using cream you may use milk or buttermilk or sour cream."
That in no way indicates that the recipe is barring you from using cream; it's simply giving you a list of alternative options.
Okay, now that example seems comparable. :)
I could totally see that as a footnote in a cookbook, listing additional options (without removing the original option), as you say. It would be silly to think that a recipe would list cream as an ingredient and then say you couldn't use it and had to use something else instead.
On the other hand, I could also see that exact same sentence being given as a response to someone who was planning to make biscuits then discovered they didn't have cream; in that context, it would be silly to think the speaker was answering the problem of a lack of cream with "Well, your options are either to use the cream that you don't have or to use these other things instead."
So, the broader context in which the statement is found tells us which of two possible meanings the sentence has. Therefore, we now have to determine whether an alternate class feature listed as part of an archetype tells us to interpret it as "add these to your existing capability" or "replace your existing capability with these". Either message could be communicated with the sentence used. Which one was meant?
...I dunno. :/
I've always seen it played as an option, rather than replacing normal rage entirely. However, I can see how it might be interpreted in the other manner. I'm pressing FAQ to request clarification.
I think Jiggy has the right of it. Controlled Rage is a modified form of rage. The barbarian only gets one type of rage. The "may" refers to the modifier.
This can only lead to future RPG rulebooks being forced into using parenthesizes and logical operators, I just know it :)
Does no one else interpret it to mean that you can choose whether or not to add ANY bonus to your ability scores?
Not so much a Rage or Controlled Rage; or a Str, Dex, or Con; but more like Str, Dex, Con, or no score at all.
The last two sentences in that description are, to me, more enlightening than the one you're arguing about:
"When using a controlled rage, an urban barbarian gains no bonus on Will saves, takes no penalties to AC, and can still use Intelligence-, Dexterity-, and Charisma-based skills. This ability otherwise follows the normal rules for rage."
If controlled rage were the only option, there is no reason to add a conditional restriction to this statement. The only reason you would need to restrict "takes no penalties to AC, etc." in this way is if there is some other rage available, and you want to make sure that the urban barbarian still takes the penalties for whatever other rage they use.
As far as the sentence being argued about, it would have been very easy to say "Instead of a normal rage, an urban barbarian enters a controlled rage...", which would clearly indicate that controlled rage is supposed to replace the original rage. Likewise, it would have been very easy to just add "This ability replaces normal rage" at the end, like most other class features on archetypes.