|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I have this monk who is pretty cool and all but I have had repeated issues with GM's now about the Maneuver Masters ex. Ability-Flurry of Maneuvers.
For starters, I am not allowed to use the feature in armor in future gaming sessions without some sort of proof (a printout, etc) showing that I can flurry while wearing armor or do any number of things normally not allowed a typical monk trying to use flurry of blows.
Unfortunately, I have not found any errata, faq, or special rulings from an official source on the subject.
To begin, flurry of maneuvers replaces flurry of blows and it works very differently. Furthermore, the restrictions applicable to flurry of blows calls out flurry of blows in the weapon and armor proficiency section of the monk. But I don't have flurry of blows which is what is being referenced by the weapon/armor proficiencies.
Also, for the same reason that I argue that I can wear armor, use a shield and (if I wanted) probably use a non-monk weapon whole flurrying (of Maneuvers)I cannot use ki to get an additional attack or any equipment that specifically calls out flurry of blows as receiving benefit or penalty. Pathfinder is riddled with this where fighters who trade weapon training for something extremely similar but with a slightly different name. If I were a dragoon archetype attempting to use magical equipment to enhance weapon training, I would not be allowed because that magical enhancement would not apply to to the Dragoons Spear training....which is very similar (better even) but it's not actually weapon training, despite being training for a weapon.
Right now, I feel that I am looking at all the penalties for having a flurry ability and none of the benefits and without any official proof of what can and cannot be done with a flurry of Maneuvers, I am somewhat at a loss on what to do next.
From what I was able to find in the Rules forum, the consensus is as I have described above but no official weigh in has been posted anywhere and that is not good enough for pfs.
Help? I really like this character and build and (like my last monk) he is very precisely built. Depending on the outcome, he may have to be retired. The monk in question is fifth level if that has any bearing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
flurry of maneuvers has no weapon or armour restrictions im aware of. you need to explain to them it needs text saying you cant do things in armour. also think this should be in rules?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just remember that if you aren't proficient with the armor, you take the armor check penalty to all attack rolls, including combat maneuvers. You also lose your Wisdom bonus and monk bonus to AC while wearing armor, even if you are proficient.
And I agree with Mojorat, this is in the wrong forum. Your question is not a PFS question. Post in that forum with a clear question:
"May a Maneuver Master perform a Flurry of Maneuvers while wearing armor?"
Then click on the FAQ request.
It's not flurry of manuevers but this might help.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say, let's look at the spirit of game balance for a moment. Something I believe every player should take on as a responsibility when they want to argue ambiguous rules.
Do you actually think it balanced to get all the benefits of flurry and none of the penalties?
Again, just asking on why you feel ok arguing for this regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
|
Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say, let's look at the spirit of game balance for a moment. Something I believe every player should take on as a responsibility when they want to argue ambiguous rules.
Do you actually think it balanced to get all the benefits of flurry and none of the penalties?
Again, just asking on why you feel ok arguing for this regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
Not the op, but in this case would like to point out that in a lot of circumstances the flurry of maneuvers is just inferior to flurry of blows. Enemies CMD climbs massively as you go up in levels, a long with spells and powerful magic items negating much of their potency, and in some cases replicating the most powerful applications. Even early, it is usually unnecessary to land more than one maneuver. While it does have applications, it is no where near overwhelmingly powerful unlike the animal companion issues recently or the dubiously underpriced bracers of falcon's aim. I would not hesitate at all to allow an armored maneuver master at my table, given that they were aware of what they were giving up by doing so.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Andrew, I would agree with you, if this were an ambiguous rule.
Let's say somebody posted:
Do you think it's balanced that Summoners have spells like haste as second level spells, while Wizards and Sorcerers don't get them until they have access to third level spells?
Just asking why a summoner's player would feel okay arguing for that, regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
Your response, along with everybody else's would be "That's the rules of the game. The developers thought it was balanced. And anyways, we don't get the option of moving spells from one level to another in PFS."
That's my response regarding maneuver masters in armor. The rules allow it, and we can't monkey around with armor requirements in PFS.
|
|
Andrew, I would agree with you, if this were an ambiguous rule.
Let's say somebody posted:
Do you think it's balanced that Summoners have spells like haste as second level spells, while Wizards and Sorcerers don't get them until they have access to third level spells?
Just asking why a summoner's player would feel okay arguing for that, regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
Your response, along with everybody else's would be "That's the rules of the game. The developers thought it was balanced. And anyways, we don't get the option of moving spells from one level to another in PFS."
That's my response regarding maneuver masters in armor. The rules allow it, and we can't monkey around with armor requirements in PFS.
I believe it is ambiguous that maneuver masters can use armor.
Just like spear training gets all the benefits of weapon training, including being able to use gloves of dueling, flurry of maneuvers essentially is flurry of blows, but for maneuvers instead of unarmed strikes.
Sans official weight i fear you're headbutting RAW vs a legitimate RAI issue.
|
Dark Immortal
the Rules say nothing about Armor - tho I agree it probably should
I agree about the Non proficency penalty (tho I assume you have a level of something to make you proficent)
PFS Runs by RAW not RAI no matter how much people want to bicker about it
my recomendation (My assumption is youve already done this) - next time you play the PC and you are asked if you have proof that it does function in Armor .. turn the question around and ask if he has proof it doesnt.
after that Escalate this to your Local VC / VL
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly why I have posted it here. This issue came up yesterday with both my gm and the vc who both agreed that I shouldn't be able to use the ability in armor, this was after showing the book entry to the vc.
As to whether I think it is fair to be able to flurry while wearing armor and a shield: Monks are fun. They come with innate style and are very easy to differentiate from almost every other martial...if you have substantial system mastery with which to do so. Not being able to take an extra attack with kids, not having access to my wisdom modifier for ac, not having access to my bonus movement speed and not benefiting very much from staple or potent monk items such as the monks robe, braid of a hundred masters, etc, that all seems like I am giving up quite a lot in order to have access to the same features I had before (high ac and armor enchantments but via bracers of armor) but with a few basic perks that monks probably should have had access to anyway (brawling armor property) which, after taking several feats and dumping multiple stats allows me to keep up with an optimized fighter of equal level doing the exact same thing as me (as much as they can anyway).
I built a 10th lvl fighter and compared it to my monk and the two are almost the same except the monk version is just a million times cooler (more options) but the fighter version is simple and doesn't stand out from other martials (to me).
Oh, never mind that my flurry is worse than a normal flurry in terms of number of attacks (we get fewer in the end) and that those bonus attacks must be combat maneuvers which are more limited and maybe inferior to just dealing damage (but much more fun).
Finally, how does a dragoon get to use gloves of dueling for spear training when they gloves enhance the weapon training class feature which is being replaced. This sounds like the same issue to me, although maybe they made special note for the dragoon to be able to still qualify. Spears are weapons, after all. But that situation is not try as far as I know for any other archetype replacement ability.
|
|
If you want an official answer to show your VC, you need to ask in the Rules Forum. You won't get an official answer here.
Some people are going to agree with you in this thread, some are not. That isn't going to help you at all. Look, we already have two 5-star GMs taking exactly opposite positions. The one who is a VL agrees with your VC.
You really would be better served trying to get the Paizo rules team to weigh in. The way to do that is to create a thread in the rules forum.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
We're all human. If the table judge and the Venture Captain both want to ban the character from wearing armor, after a rules discussion, then there you are. There's really no higher recourse, unless you wanted to ask the VC to send a note to Mike or John, and it's my understanding that they are loathe to overrule a VC acting in his office.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know what to tell you then other than by RAW it is Legal
and VC's above all should know that in PFS RAW is Law not RAI
the next step I suppose is to complain about the VC to Campaign leadership tho that's up to you
as for the Dragoon part it doesn't replace it it
your limited to only spears and get an extra buff to it (Archer archtype actually replaces it)
one other thing to keep in mind ... both Archetypes you've mentioned come from Ultimate Combat .. and that book did noone any favors when it came to editing .....more rule loopholes came from that book and Ultimate magic than any other
|
|
Oh look, there is already a thread on this question:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pgl7?Maneuver-Master-Monk-with-Armor
Bump that thread and hit the FAQ link in the first post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course now the Brawler can flurry in both armor and shield. Or even flurry shield bash. But I suppose that's a different conversation. :)
-j
|
|
I took a moment to Look a little more closely at the ability
and as I suspected it Fully replaces - not Changes Flurry so there is a case supporting you on this - as sad as it is
the issue being you now have (By their standards) an illegal character ..
as per the Guide to organized play when an Archetype is banned you get a rebuild
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent
ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to
its current XP, maintaining the same equipment
and
If a class or prestige class changes in such a way that
you no longer have proficiency with a given weapon or
armor type: You may sell back the affected equipment and
only the affected equipment at full market value
now you have to decide what to do next ... were I you I think Id still run it up the chain just in case ...
then Id look at rebuilding as pr the 2 quoted paragraphs in the PFSGOP
|
|
by the VC / table GM's Ruling it is ...
unless he gets a ruling from up the chain he SHOULD either
A) be able to sell his Armor and/or Shield at full market Value
or
B) Since hes been "playing it illegally all this time" gain a full Rebuild Retaining the same gear
one of the 2 ... but not both
Basically since hes had a VO Rule He SHOULD get one of the above options ... I mean we aren't talking the extent of the Gunslinger Double Dex to Damage Exploit ppl were using for so long ...and even Mike said "if your using this exploit you have until X to rebuild it" not to mention the other 1/2 of it
you cant expect him to "Just eat the Cost" of the Armor and /or Shield if its been ruled "not legal"
Note - Since by RAW this Works I would allow it ... but Im just 1 person
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Wraith, nothing about the character is illegal, even if he's not allowed to use flurry of maneuvers in armor. A fighter can buy a scroll of silence even if he doesn't have any ranks in UMD. A wizard can buy a set of masterwork lockpicks, even if she doesn't have any ranks in Disable Device, or a great sword, even if she isn't proficient.
If characters had to be able to get full use out of all their equipment, then we wouldn't have rogues carrying around wands of cure light wounds.
Your second suggestion is especially fantastic. "I bought this spellbook, even though I don't know how to cast spells. So I am entitled to a free rebuild into a class that can use it." No.
|
|
Sans official weight i fear you're headbutting RAW vs a legitimate RAI issue.
Except that the rule about armor is not in the flurry of blows ability.
Its listed in the general class ability description area.
And the precedent that saying that Spear Training is essentially Weapon Training, just with a different name, and even though there is nothing that says in the rule books, Spear Training dudes and dudettes can use it as the prerequisite for anything that calls out weapon training leads me to believe that the same is true for Flurry of Maneuvers.
Flurry of Maneuvers works exactly like Flurry of Blows, except that it applies to maneuvers instead of unarmed attacks.
As such, all rules that apply to flurry of blows, except for those explicitly changed by the new ability, should apply to flurry of maneuvers.
|
|
Wraith, nothing about the character is illegal, even if he's not allowed to use flurry of maneuvers in armor. A fighter can buy a scroll of silence even if he doesn't have any ranks in UMD. A wizard can buy a set of masterwork lockpicks, even if she doesn't have any ranks in Disable Device, or a great sword, even if she isn't proficient.
If characters had to be able to get full use out of all their equipment, then we wouldn't have rogues carrying around wands of cure light wounds.
Your second suggestion is especially fantastic. "I bought this spellbook, even though I don't know how to cast spells. So I am entitled to a free rebuild into a class that can use it." No.
except that Either instance is EXACTLY what is Described in my above quotes
If a class, prestige class, or a class feature-dependent
ability score is altered: You may rebuild your character to
its current XP, maintaining the same equipment
the VC and table GM have Arbitrarily Ruled that the Flurry of Maneuvers does not Function in Armor - Hence Altering the Class ability
If a class or prestige class changes in such a way that
you no longer have proficiency with a given weapon or
armor type: You may sell back the affected equipment and
only the affected equipment at full market value
the VC an table GM have Rules that the Archetype has changed in such a way that he cannot use his class abilities while in Armor
the 2nd one is actually LESS Fitting than the Rebuild since there is already a precedent for Rebuilds based on Archetype Removal
Lets assume for a moment that he spent everything he had on armor that he can now no longer use with his class ... which should add up to roughly 12k gold ... if we did not allow him some sort of recompense for this ruling he becomes a 1/2 wealth PC at 5th level - note that is at worst
Im sorry but IMHO that is the very definition of Being a Jerk
Ruling against him AND telling him to go cry to someone else about all the wasted gold ... no thank you
- edited for formating
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PFS Runs by RAW not RAI no matter how much people want to bicker about it
Yeaaaah. no. Waaaay too much insanity down that path.
My familiar lands on the bad guys head. Makes a dc 10 ride check to guide his new mount off a cliff.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Wraith, the rules in the Guide are about changes made by the Campaign Leadership. That simply doesn't apply.
Clarifications made by campaign leadership or FAQ don't get rebuilds. Let alone clarifications made by a table judge and Venture Captain applying the rules as they best understand. As far as they're concerned, the player misunderstood the rule, and they are correcting the situation.
Again, if a player thought that buying a spellbook would let his character cast spells, it would be absurd to allow him a complete rebuild in order to do so.
Oh, wait...
You're being sarcastic. I get it. Yeah, it's just like they were changing the game rules. Huhn
PFS Runs by RAW not RAI no matter how much people want to bicker about itYeaaaah. no. Waaaay too much insanity down that path.
My familiar lands on the bad guys head. Makes a dc 10 ride check to guide his new mount off a cliff.
Actually that doesn't work because a character cannot have both a mount and a familiar.
|
|
Wraith, the rules in the Guide are about changes made by the Campaign Leadership. That simply doesn't apply.
Clarifications made by campaign leadership or FAQ don't get rebuilds. Let alone clarifications made by a table judge and Venture Captain applying the rules as they best understand. As far as they're concerned, the player misunderstood the rule, and they are correcting the situation.
Again, if a player thought that buying a spellbook would let his character cast spells, it would be absurd to allow him a complete rebuild in order to do so.
Oh, wait...
You're being sarcastic. I get it. Yeah, it's just like they were changing the game rules. Huhn
I thought VC's WERE Campaign leadership for their Areas since they are local representation for PFS Leadership in their respective Area
and Im sorry but Clarifications made by Campaign leadership or FAQ DO apply ... I have an 8th level Undead lord sitting on a shelf for almost 2 years till I come up with another concept that says different
and were talking about a 5th level PC that as far as I can tell has been played under the same GM multiple times before (this is an assumption) not a 1st or 2nd level PC with a misinterpretation of a rule
|
|
The rules for Undead Lord were changed, not clarified.
and the Rules for Gunslinger were clarified
so were Rules for Zen Archerand Sohei
ALL of those were allowed Rebuilds before the clarification
so again ... precedence exists
if you really want me to dig for Mikes posts about it I will ... but IIRC you were involved in each of those discussions
Actually that doesn't work because a character cannot have both a mount and a familiar.PFS Runs by RAW not RAI no matter how much people want to bicker about itYeaaaah. no. Waaaay too much insanity down that path.
My familiar lands on the bad guys head. Makes a dc 10 ride check to guide his new mount off a cliff.
hehehehhe.
The rules for Undead Lord were changed, not clarified.
I can't see punishing someone for a purchase made in a perfectly reasonable (and probably right) interpretation of the rules, especially considering how easy it would be for he person to fix the error with a number 2 pencil.
|
|
A rebuild would be worthless to me as described. At this point, ifflurry of maneuvers turns out to be flurry of blows I will probably retire yet another character early, and either stick to pure casters, play nothing but pregens or move on to home games only. I mean, unarmored monk with 19 str, 13 con and 12 wisdom? What's the point? Oh wait, I know...#####-new#
I have posted about this in the rules forum now, in an attempt to get some sort of official answer. Even here I am hearing people stating that because flurry of maneuvers us similar, it essentially *is* flurry of blows despite the fact that.....it's not.
Now if there turns out to be some raw on the issue proving it one way or the other (currently raw says it is FoM not FoB) then I will adjust my stance accordingly. Nothing I have seen suggests that FoM *is* anything, besides FoM. I have even read somewhere, on some slight clarification of FoM for purposes of attack bonus, because the wording is very poorly done on the ability in some regards. But nothing I have read suggests that FoB and FoM are the same ability. Considering the many different ways FoM *can* be interpreted, really does make it as good as, worse, and in some rare cases better, than FoB...but usually just worse.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM:
First, my interpretation of the RAW is that Flurry of Maneuvers is not restricted by armor. The "Spear Training Argument" doesn't apply and here's why:
...
It depends on how the archetype's ability is worded. If the archetype ability says it works like the standard ability, it counts as that ability. If the archetype's ability requires you to make a specific choice for the standard ability, it counts as that ability. Otherwise, the archetype ability doesn't count as the standard ability...
(emphasis mine, full FAQ here)
Flurry of Maneuvers doesn't work like Flurry of Blows. The attack penalties scale differently. The only reference to Flurry of Blows in the archetype is that it is replaced. No similarity is specified or implied.
Okay, so assuming we all agree on RAW, what happens next? Do we try to divine the RAI?
Argument for a conservative reading: "Look at the Pistolero! RAW, you could add Dex to damage twice and that was eventually fixed to what it was obviously meant to be in the first place! If it looks too good to be true, it is! "
Argument for a permissive reading: "Look at the Sohei! RAW, you couldn't use Flurry of Blows with armor even though it gave you Light Armor Proficiency, and that was eventually fixed to what it was obviously meant to be in the first place! Sometimes martials do get nice things!"
So maybe arguing RAI won't do us any good here. It could be an omission. It could be intended. If I had to guess, I'd say it's not intended because the archetype doesn't grant any armor proficiency (bolding because I'll be coming back to this).
What about deciding based on the power level of the ability compared to Flurry of Blows? Well, that's tricky, too. Maneuvers aren't easily comparable to attacks. CMDs vary wildly and even then it depends on the maneuver. And then the archetype also has some issues with the listed penalties. Depending on how you read it, a level 15 Maneuver Master Monk either gets three additional maneuvers at -12 for each, or -2, -5, -12. Or any other combination. So getting a bead on the actual--much less intended--power level of this ability is also probably a fruitless pursuit.
So for me, as a GM, I don't feel like I have anything other than my gut telling me not to allow this (and as I said before, my gut says it's probably an error as written). But I'm not supposed to second-guess rules as a PFS GM. So, again, as a GM, I feel compelled to let a player use Flurry of Maneuvers with armor.
As a player:
I have a Lore Warden/Maneuver Master Monk. He wears armor. He uses Flurry of Maneuvers.
Now I always try to raise the issue with a new GM before a game starts to give them a chance to weigh in. If they say it doesn't work, I don't do it. I've made sure that it is not an ability that my character relies upon, because while I believe it works RAW, I also suspect that should the issue be resolved, it may not go my way.
Similarly, I have a PC that combines Focused Shot and Kirin Strike. Some say that's stacking multiple bonuses from the same source because the source is the Int Mod. Some say it's not because the source is the Feat.
Also similarly, I try to raise the issue with my GM before the game to get a ruling on the spot. I don't count on that damage because I'm aware that a GM may disagree with my interpretation and they have the last word unless I want to escalate it to a VO.
Could I press the issue? Sure. I think I have RAW on my side. But I'm not going to. I prefer all my conflict to be in character and to that end I try make sure that gray areas and controversial rules aren't lynchpins of my builds, even if they do pop up sometimes. I figure that if the secret to my PC's efficacy is a controversial rule, chances are my permissive reading is the wrong one. In other words, if it's seems too good to be true, it probably is.
Back on topic
The OP may not think this was a controversial rule. I would generally say that as soon as you're searching through the Rules Forum to get a read on something, red flags should start going up.
Regardless, the point's moot because his character is level 5. I don't think campaign management is going to come in and overrule a VO. Best case is to get the rule clarified in a FAQ and hope it goes your way.
In the meantime, my advice to the OP for this character is to have a copy of that FAQ, a copy of the Maneuver Master Archetype, and a copy of the Monk class printed out with his character sheet. Present them to the GM, tell her you'll accept her ruling either way and hope for the best. In the case of a GM who's already ruled against you, you can either play without the ability or choose not to play that character with that GM.
If you really think the character can't function without Flurry of Maneuvers, I'd ask you to post the build in the Advice section and see what the hive mind can come up with. Depending on the maneuvers you've focused on, you may have more options than you think.
|
|
For those wishing to chime in on the rules forum and/or willing to help submit their vote for FAQ, the link is here
@Redward, the link was truly helpful. I will have to add that to the FAQ thread. Much appreciated! And I like the way you approach the characters designs with that area of flexibility in case things don't work in your favor.
I try and dot my I's and cross my T's before even creating a character. So many niggling tiny issues can come up after that it really pays to polish it as well as you can beforehand. My build got no weigh ins when I tried talking about it before. It was like pulling teeth. Nobody cared. That's fine, but the advice column usually nets me one to three people who will weigh in and that's about it. Also, my characters tend to be inspired by or hinge upon certain concepts. One was crane wing. The errata forced early retirement because the build fixated on soaking up attacks for the party.....especially critical hits. I am sure you can see why Crane Wing was central to the entire character concept. Without that ability, there was basically no character.
My new monk is very much like the old one. He is built very specifically (with slightly more open feats) but my stats were chosen as though I would be wearing armor and carrying a shield. Low hp, but a high ref save and evasion and armor based ac to keep my few hp unharmed. And of course, certain maneuvers to make needing an ac, less relevant. Unfortunately, rebuilds can't fix my 12 wisdom and similarly low con. Trying to compensate for that without armor is just silly considering what I had to do to get relevant bonuses to overrun. Equipment-wise, I would be trading off defense for my maneuver abilities.
Finally, flurry of maneuvers is 30% of my combat tactics. I either move/charge in with overrun, move and attack, or flurry and {insert standard/attack action maneuver}.
Losing that substantially limits the build and feats selected. It becomes a one trick poney, which I probably wouldn't have chosen to ride in this manner. So eh. Wait and see is where things are looking.
I thought VC's WERE Campaign leadership for their Areas since they are local representation for PFS Leadership in their respective Area
The rule in the guide is for changes made at a Paizo level, not for rulings venture officers make. Rulings Venture Officers make in their regions are clarifications and not rule changes.
As Venture Officers we are to offer guidance on rules so everyone can try and have fun, but we are humans and sometimes Venture Officers will make bad rule calls just like many others do.
Flurry of Maneuvers in armor has been a grey area since the book was released, it's one of those fabled table variance issues.
I'm pretty sure it was intended to follow the rules on armor, and ki points, so I won't fault a table GM that rules that way. But by Raw it can work in armor, and you can't use ki points on it like you can with flurry of blows to get an extra attack.
|
|
When you find yourself saying things like this, it should really be a major red flag, especially for a VO.Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say...
...regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
I've heard from more than one VO (and VC) that the rules are just guidelines, even in PFS. Evidently not much of a red flag.
|
|
When you find yourself saying things like this, it should really be a major red flag, especially for a VO.Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say...
...regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
I wouldn't say it's entirely uncommon, although I do disagree with VO's disallowing things that are explicitly RAW due to their personal gaming preferences. Not that that is what I'm implying Andrew does, but our even the VO's in my small corner of the country all have a variety of tastes and ideas about what belongs at the table.
|
|
When you find yourself saying things like this, it should really be a major red flag, especially for a VO.Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say...
...regardless of what the rules do or do not say.
Yeah, let's cherry pick isolated comments and not show the context they were written in.
Jiggy, you are starting to border on targeting and representing unfairly here. This isn't the first time in the last few weeks you've done this.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, the last time you accused me of misrepresenting you, I (and others who interpreted your words the same way I had) asked you what I was getting wrong, and last I checked you still haven't answered.
EDIT: And for the record, the context from which I pulled your "regardless of what the rules say" statements was your claim that we should be ruling things based on game balance instead and that players who instead assert the text to be correct are doing something wrong.
How exactly does that change the meaning of what I replied to in any material way?
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Hey Dark Immortal,
So this thread kinda shows the responses you can expect from your table GMs. It's not really a VO's call how they want the ability to work at the table. I'm sure GMs might ask their VO or coordinator their thoughts, but we don't have any further insight on this than anyone else that reads the rules.
Sadly, until this gets FAQ'd the best you can hope for is table variation. I have a similar situation with a Ki Mystic monk, as to how his ki pools work. It is still an unanswered question. There's a few of these oddball questions out there (like does an oracle's chain of perdition use CHA instead of WIS) and the answers are going to vary table by table due to the lack of official clarification.
Unfortunately, my best advice to you is to ask your GM, before the game starts in earnest, how he'd rule the ability. If he rules it such that you think your character is unplayable for the scenario then consider swapping to another character, or explain to him that you won't be able to play in that case. My ki mystic monk and an oracle in our area with chains of perdition have to do this at the start of each game we play at—it just becomes part of your character introduction.
The only thing you have on your side here is having all the facts gathered ahead of time, and presenting them to your GM in a calm, collected fashion. If you make it clear that you aren't trying to hedge out some OP build, or break the scenario, and you just want to be able to play your character, all good GMs out there will work with you to find a solution that will get you into the game.
I'm sorry that I don't have a better answer here, but until these ambiguous abilities get clarified, table variation is to be expected.
|
|
You know, the last time you accused me of misrepresenting you, I (and others who interpreted your words the same way I had) asked you what I was getting wrong, and last I checked you still haven't answered.
EDIT: And for the record, the context from which I pulled your "regardless of what the rules say" statements was your claim that we should be ruling things based on game balance instead and that players who instead assert the text to be correct are doing something wrong.
How exactly does that change the meaning of what I replied to in any material way?
Go back and reread what I initially said. You'll find that I didn't express how anyone should rule anything.
I expressed that a player should spend time on intent instead of strict by the rules, because that's when game balance gets broken.
In the other thread I was tired of constantly arguing about being misrepresented, so I'm done with it. Not gonna go back and exasperate myself further if the only way people can have a rules discussion is to try to tear down someone's credibility by misrepresenting what they've said.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Go back and reread what I initially said. You'll find that I didn't express how anyone should rule anything.You know, the last time you accused me of misrepresenting you, I (and others who interpreted your words the same way I had) asked you what I was getting wrong, and last I checked you still haven't answered.
EDIT: And for the record, the context from which I pulled your "regardless of what the rules say" statements was your claim that we should be ruling things based on game balance instead and that players who instead assert the text to be correct are doing something wrong.
How exactly does that change the meaning of what I replied to in any material way?
Regardless what the ability actually does and does not say, let's look at the spirit of game balance for a moment.
You told him to look at game balance "regardless of what the ability actually does and does not say".
How is that materially different from suggesting people should interpret things based on game balance rather than based on what's written? How are you being misrepresented?
If you're not saying what I thought you were saying, then what were you saying?
I expressed that a player should spend time on intent instead of strict by the rules, because that's when game balance gets broken.
What does "spend time on" mean, if not to come to a conclusion/ruling?
In the other thread I was tired of constantly arguing about being misrepresented, so I'm done with it. Not gonna go back and exasperate myself further if the only way people can have a rules discussion is to try to tear down someone's credibility by misrepresenting what they've said.
If you feel like you're consistently being "misrepresented" every time someone disagrees with you, is it possible you're just not being as clear as you think you are?
|
|
It wasn't the disagreements I had issue with. It was when folks straight out said, "you are saying x, and x is ludicrous," when I never said x. They were extrapolating meaning from what I said that was never there. I hate the use of logical fallacy on the boards, because most posters who accuse others of them, do so incorrectly. But those were definitely straw man arguments.
You'll find plenty of discussions I've had where when I've felt misrepresented the other posters and I have been able to reconcile it. They still disagreed with me, but they understood what I was actually saying.
As to this topic, you may not feel this is ambiguous. But I and others do.
On a things that many feel are ambiguous, I feel its the responsibility of the player to not just look at what exactly is written and interpret it in a way that most benefits them, and then base their entire build around it, and then get all upset when someone else's interpretation "nerfs" their character.
It is their responsibility in the face of ambiguity to accept (as Redward and Walter have stated) that it may work differently than they hoped, and accommodate their build accordingly.
The fact that you consistently interpret what I say as trying to tell folks not to follow the rules, when you know that's not what I'm doing, is what really bothers me.
|
I think the balance ship has sailed. This is a game where both rogue class and druid class exist. If there was "spirit of balance", animal companions wouldn't be a second PC and rogues wouldn't be rendered pointless by other classes with high skill counts.
While I do firmly believe the game has some instances of poor mechanical balance, I do not think we should seek to use that as a rally point to introduce further imbalance. I'd prefer we see some classes/feats/spells/ect. get chopped back in line a bit, but I digress.
I am a gamer who both runs my tables as well as plays my PCs as close to RAW as possible, but even with that said, there are some instances where you are going to encounter GMs or other players who are highly passionate about their interpretation of RAW/RAI, and they will fight for that interpretation tooth and nail. Some things are very cut and dry. Others are not explained very well even when you are looking at an ability and trying very hard to run it as written. When I am playing, I typically let it go (even when I am confident I am correct) unless doing so appears likely to result in my PC dying or otherwise suffering terribly.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
On a things that many feel are ambiguous, I feel its the responsibility of the player to not just look at what exactly is written and interpret it in a way that most benefits them, and then base their entire build around it, and then get all upset when someone else's interpretation "nerfs" their character.
It is their responsibility in the face of ambiguity to accept (as Redward and Walter have stated) that it may work differently than they hoped, and accommodate their build accordingly.
Now, see, that's a very different comment than the one I replied do. There's a huge difference between "If a topic is ambiguous, you should look at game balance to decide which interpretation to go with" and "go by game balance regardless of what's written".
The former is a wise bit of advice. The latter is what you originally said. If you think the two are the same, then I must reiterate what I said a minute ago: you're not being as clear as you seem to think you are.
|
|
I think the balance ship has sailed. This is a game where both rogue class and druid class exist. If there was "spirit of balance", animal companions wouldn't be a second PC and rogues wouldn't be rendered pointless by other classes with high skill counts.While I do firmly believe the game has some instances of poor mechanical balance, I do not think we should seek to use that as a rally point to introduce further imbalance. I'd prefer we see some classes/feats/spells/ect. get chopped back in line a bit, but I digress.
I am a gamer who both runs my tables as well as plays my PCs as close to RAW as possible, but even with that said, there are some instances where you are going to encounter GMs or other players who are highly passionate about their interpretation of RAW/RAI, and they will fight for that interpretation tooth and nail. Some things are very cut and dry. Others are not explained very well even when you are looking at an ability and trying very hard to run it as written. When I am playing, I typically let it go (even when I am confident I am correct) unless doing so appears likely to result in my PC dying or otherwise suffering terribly.
Probably the best anyone can do, really.