I abuse this enchant rather frequently by getting a courageous AOMF (which is dirt cheap with no enhancement bonus) and a flawed Pale Green Prism ioun stone for all day heroism. In late levels you can have the party buffer drop a 16th level greater magic weapon on your amulet each day to get a +3 bonus.I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.
Correct, an AoMF is not usable with GMW, since an AoMF is not an eligible target for GMW, so that right there is impossible.
In addition, I suggest he re-reads this clause:
In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1).
In order for there to be an increase, it has to have an enhancement bonus. If you simply buy a Courageous AoMF, it actually does nothing, since all of its effects are dependant upon there being an enhancement bonus in the first place.
And that's ignoring the factor that it's based off of the weapon's enhancement bonus, which AoMF most certainly is not a weapon.
Correct. Both A and B are examples of wielding a weapon.No, it is not, in the slightest. Unless you have a different book than I do?
It gives no distinction as to whether wielding is actually using (A), merely holding ready to use (B), or whatever. At all.
Which is not helpful, as it can't be both and clearly defined at the same time.
I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.
To the contrary, that's exactly what an amulet of the mighty fists is for.
Secondly, one COULD argue that the enhancement bonus EXPLICITLEY NAMED IN THE SPELL, which it actually grants as an enhancement bonus, isn't actually the bonus they said it was. Any other man would be well within his right to laugh the person stating that out of the room.
In my world (RAW), an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. So what if it doesn't stack, it's not stacking with anything here.
Sarrah: The issue is that the book has a lot of "when you wield, X", but not any "when X, you wield". See the difference?
Since it's such a basic part of the game and so many rules rely on it, we need a proper definition of the game term. Unless there is a game term definition, one uses the common english meaning of the word, but since that has several different shapes and nuances it's still unclear what even the intent is.
"Spell resistance" is a defined game term for example: link
It has a definite meaning. If an ability triggers based on spell resistance, that doesn't apply to other forms of protection against spells. If spell resistance lacked a defined meaning, the common english meaning of the word would apply, and there would be debates about what constitutes resisting a spell (does saves apply? partial saves? partial saves with evasion? spell immunity? immunity to the damage of a spell? etc). This is what happens with "wield". The game makes loads of references to it, but an actual definition is lacking.
And many different people have many different ways to read what is wielding.
Consider someone wearing armor spikes, spiked gauntlets, and a greatsword. There are at least three different interpretations here:
1. When wielding the greatsword, no other weapon can be wielded, because a character only has two hands and by the weapon size rules, light weapons like spikes and gauntlets require a hand.
2. When wielding the greatsword, you cannot wield the gauntlet because your swords requires the hand you're using it in, but you can use the armor spikes since you don't have to actually hold them in your hand.
3. You can wield all four at the same time, because wield in the game means wear and be reasonably able to use.
All three of these are possible ways to read the rules, and none go directly and blatantly against the rules in a way that can't be argued be basd on that specific overrides general or that a common word should be interpreted a certain way. Personally I prefer interpretation 1, but I can't claim that it's defined that way in the game, because the rules are simply missing. And I understand people liking other interpretations better, though I think it opens up to potential abuse either in already published cases (courageous weapon) or future material, and I prefer to make one ruling and not change it unless I have to.
I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.To the contrary, that's exactly what an amulet of the mighty fists is for.
Secondly, one COULD argue that the enhancement bonus EXPLICITLEY NAMED IN THE SPELL, which it actually grants as an enhancement bonus, isn't actually the bonus they said it was. Any other man would be well within his right to laugh the person stating that out of the room.
In my world (RAW), an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. So what if it doesn't stack, it's not stacking with anything here.
I agree with you on enhancement bonus being enhancement bonus, but an amulet of mighty fists is not a weapon. It can be crafted to provide magical bonuses as if it was a weapon, but it isn't a weapon. If greater magic weapon had target: object touched it would have worked and given the benefit to unarmed strikes, but it has target: weapon touched, and as such AoMF isn't a valid target (well, it could be, depending on GM interpretation of if AoMF is a valid improvised weapon and whether improvised weapons are treated as weapons for purposes like this - but it's not clear in the RAW).
I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.To the contrary, that's exactly what an amulet of the mighty fists is for.
Secondly, one COULD argue that the enhancement bonus EXPLICITLEY NAMED IN THE SPELL, which it actually grants as an enhancement bonus, isn't actually the bonus they said it was. Any other man would be well within his right to laugh the person stating that out of the room.
In my world (RAW), an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. So what if it doesn't stack, it's not stacking with anything here.
If you can show me an Amulet of Mighty Fists defined in the weapons table, then you would be correct. But unfortunately for you (and any other munchkins trying this), it's not. It's a Wondrous Item. Wondrous Items aren't (all) weapons, so it's not an applicable target for GMW.
In addition, I'll point out that even if it could be enhanced, it can't get any higher than +4 if there is already a Courageous property active on it as the bonuses on an AoMF does not go higher than an effective +5; of which would only be available at level 16 with AoMF, which an extra +2 won't be gamebreaking. If anything, it keeps that +1 property relevant throughout the game; it's not really more powerful than the Keen property, which is the de facto +1 property in the game for martials.
With all the charging errata and crane wing changes i do not even want to see this errataed...
+2 morale bonus increase at maximum if you have +4 weapon? cool for barbarian i guess, but nothing that will break something (unless it already broken)
Cool concept, but will probably be FAQed into another useless enchant.
People who believe HeroLab to be accurate are funny.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
With all the charging errata and crane wing changes i do not even want to see this errataed...
Cool concept, but will probably be FAQed into another useless enchant.
People who believe HeroLab to be accurate are funny.
So you like all the cases where the game is broken, is being interpreted in an awkward way, where the text has two interpretations and one is broken?
As for Herolab being accurate, it is more accurate than forum posters ;-)
With all the charging errata and crane wing changes i do not even want to see this errataed...
Cool concept, but will probably be FAQed into another useless enchant.
People who believe HeroLab to be accurate are funny.
So you like all the cases where the game is broken, is being interpreted in an awkward way, where the text has two interpretations and one is broken?
As for Herolab being accurate, it is more accurate than forum posters ;-)
Have a look at the times they tried to "clear up any confusion" regarding mounted combat or Flurry of Blows. The status quo is often less awkward and confusing.
Which is not helpful, as it can't be both and clearly defined at the same time.Correct. Both A and B are examples of wielding a weapon.No, it is not, in the slightest. Unless you have a different book than I do?
It gives no distinction as to whether wielding is actually using (A), merely holding ready to use (B), or whatever. At all.
I'm not here to argue the stupidity of the English language that surrounds certain words. Regardless of being helpful, both of them are the correct answer.
Sarrah: The issue is that the book has a lot of "when you wield, X", but not any "when X, you wield". See the difference?
This is a logic fallacy. x = 'you wield', y = 'when x'
y->x does not follow x->y.
~y->~x follows x->y.
What you are saying is something a philosophical person would say to fool the average person into thinking that the original statement is necessarily incorrect.
You list spell resistance as a word phrase that is defined. There are HUNDREDS of words/word phrases that are undefined in that manner in pathfinders. Common grammar must be used to understand the definition as to how these hundreds of words/word phrases relate to the terms around them. Wield is one example of these hundreds of words where grammar must be used to understand its definition.
Consider someone wearing armor spikes, spiked gauntlets, and a greatsword. There are at least three different interpretations here:
1. When wielding the greatsword, no other weapon can be wielded, because a character only has two hands and by the weapon size rules, light weapons like spikes and gauntlets require a hand.
2. When wielding the greatsword, you cannot wield the gauntlet because your swords requires the hand you're using it in, but you can use the armor spikes since you don't have to actually hold them in your hand.
3. You can wield all four at the same time, because wield in the game means wear and be reasonably able to use.
Fantastic. You are arguing 'what slot does this take?' rather than 'what does wield mean?'. This is answered in the Core Rulebook also. Page 150-151
Here are some quotes: "The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you're wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of your armor""Combining elements of full plate and chain mail, half-plate includes gauntlets and a helm."
I wonder if ultimate combat has a better definition as ultimate combat specifically deals with piecemeal armor.
page 200:
"This armor piece consists of pauldrons, gardbraces, rerebracs, vambraces, and gauntlets all cunningly designed to increase the maneuverability of the wearer.
I thought the Core Rulebook made this clear. Gauntlets take up part of the armor slot and not a weapon slot.
So to answer your original 3 questions: gaunlets are not wielded, they are worn.
Design Manager
|
I don't know if it's been touched on, but this FAQ, would imply that there is a use component for a wielded weapon to provide a benefit.
"Unless otherwise specified, you have to use a magic item in the manner it is designed (use a weapon to make attacks, wear a shield on your arm so you can defend with it, and so on) to gain its benefits."
So, since Courageous is a weapon property, if you wanted to have Courageous gauntlets and reap their benefits you'd need to be using them as a weapon.
|
Interesting. I guess if you had a +4 Furious Bane Courageous weapon and you were fighting the right creature then yes, you could get +4 to your morale bonuses. You are getting a +8 enhancement bonus for the price of a +7. Even still, it's only a better option when used by a Barbarian because the bump to strength combined with the bump to attack rolls, saves, and damage will stack. Even then it is only while you have rage and a spell in effect at the same time. Take either of those out and it is better to just have a flat enhancement bonus. Unless getting +1 to saves is really worth giving up the +1 to hit and damage you would be getting otherwise. It only really seems to become powerful at higher levels(when you can afford a +7 weapon).
To be honest, I'm not sure why I'm arguing this anymore, people are convinced courageous is overpowered when it does less damage with less +to hit than a flat enhancement bonus. I wouldn't buy a courageous weapon anyway even with the allegedly overpowered interpretation as it isn't as good as just getting a furious weapon and just increasing the enhancement bonus. At least then you have the bonus all the time and don't depend on a spell. Without the spell in effect you are worse off than someone who just adds an enhancement bonus to the weapon.
I still hold that what people really have a problem with is furious. Courageous isn't "overpowered" until you add furious to it.
It all depend on what you are combining it. Heroism will give you a nice set of bonuses.
You claim that you will lose against a straight +1 to the weapon enhancement. Not completely true.You will lose 1 point of damage but gain a +1 skills and saves. with a +2 courageous weapon and the bane ability if you are an inquisitor you can get a +1 to hit, -1 damage, +2 to skill and saves while using bane, etc.
Note that you can combine it with greater magic weapon, so you get back the +1 you call you would be losing with ease.
People fixating on the barbarian is a great way to hide what other tricks you can do with this property.
Thanks for noticing my oversight from Core Rulebook (page 150):
"You can have spikes added to your armor which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see "spiked armor" on Table 6-4) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a -4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can't also make an attak with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) An enhancement bonus to a suit of armor does not improve the spikes' effectiveness, but the spikes can be made into magic weapons in their own right."
The gauntlet / spiked gauntlet is still part of the armor - taking up the armor slot. They are not wielded. There are special circumstances using part of your armor as a weapon. Using armor in this way is still not wielding the armor, it is still wearing the armor....
The spikes are enhanced separate from the armor. The spikes half can get courageous, but the armor half cannot.
|
|
getting a +8 enhancement bonus for the price of a +7. Even still, it's only a better option when used by a Barbarian becauseYou can't buy a +7 enhancement bonus and items are priced based on who can use them most effectively. Not on the average user.
Really now? Interesting.
Anything you can cite me for that? Seems like the majority of things are just priced how it sounds good to Paizo as a general price, and some can make better or worse use of it than others, barring items that only one class can really make use of.
It is not the price, it is the crafting cost that is based on the optimal user:
So more than likely, the price will be as if the light/esplend worked for everyone despite the fact it doesn't.Correct.
When building an item, you calculate the cost to create it as if it were in the hands of an optimal user. Otherwise it's basically cheating.
The price generally is dependant from the crafting cost but sometime there is a difference.
This is a logic fallacy. x = 'you wield', y = 'when x'y->x does not follow x->y.
~y->~x follows x->y.What you are saying is something a philosophical person would say to fool the average person into thinking that the original statement is necessarily incorrect.
Huh? We seem to fully agree. My point was just that while the effect of wielding is often mentioned, the cause of it isn't.
You list spell resistance as a word phrase that is defined. There are HUNDREDS of words/word phrases that are undefined in that manner in pathfinders. Common grammar must be used to understand the definition as to how these hundreds of words/word phrases relate to the terms around them.
Absolutely. I fully agree. The issue is that "wield" has several definitions in common grammar that mean the game can be interpreted very differently by different clear-headed people doing their best to determine how it should work.
In most cases I'm with you about this to 100%, but this is so unclear and such a central part there needs to be a definition. Just like there needs to be a definition of spell or attack (the latter being another case where they somewhat messed up due to a lack of proper definition, though to a lesser degree).
...Consider someone wearing armor spikes, spiked gauntlets, and a greatsword. There are at least three different interpretations here:
1. When wielding the greatsword, no other weapon can be wielded, because a character only has two hands and by the weapon size rules, light weapons like spikes and gauntlets require a hand.
2. When wielding the greatsword, you cannot wield the gauntlet because your swords requires the hand you're using it in, but you can use the armor spikes since you don't have to actually hold them in your hand.
3. You can wield all four at the same time, because wield in
Fantastic. You are arguing 'what slot does this take?' rather than 'what does wield mean?'.
Not at all. Slots - in their game sense term - only exists for magic items, basically. In the more general sense, some interpret the handedness rules to work via something similar to slots, and that is part of the reason of interpretation 1, but the argument isn't about slots, it's about wielding.
This is answered in the Core Rulebook also. Page 150-151
Here are some quotes: "The price given is for a single locked gauntlet. The weight given applies only if you're wearing a breastplate, light armor, or no armor. Otherwise, the locked gauntlet replaces a gauntlet you already have as part of your armor"
That's... about getting gauntlets as part of your armor, and really has nothing to do with using them as weapons. It doesn't have anything to do with how a spiked gauntlet is wielded.
I thought the Core Rulebook made this clear. Gauntlets take up part of the armor slot and not a weapon slot.
There is no armor slot, nor a weapon slot, really. Armor actually really has no slot, and you can wear several armors at the same time if strength (and common sense) allows (though you won't get any benefit). Slots mostly matter for magic items, but even then there's no weapon slot.
So to answer your original 3 questions: gaunlets are not wielded, they are worn.
If spiked gauntlets are not wielded at all, that would be a very major distinction between them and basically every other weapon. It would mean a magus cannot spell combat with a spiked gauntlet, and you cannot two-weapon fight with a spiked gauntlet as an off-hand weapon.
The rules support for this being the case - just because the equipment section mentions you get gauntlets for free when buying plate armor - is incredibly weak, weaker than most other interpretations, and it leads to far-reaching consequences and would not unlikely be in contradiction to several published NPC's. So I don't believe that is the right interpretation.
And much less do I think it's a clear-cut reading of the text.
|
|
Correct. Both A and B are examples of wielding a weapon.No, it is not, in the slightest. Unless you have a different book than I do?
It gives no distinction as to whether wielding is actually using (A), merely holding ready to use (B), or whatever. At all.
Same book, page. 468
Activation: Usually a character benefits from a magic weapon in the same way a character benefits from a mundane weapon—by wielding (attacking with) it.
So, following your logic, wielding is attacking with the specific weapon.
As the thread Can we get an official definition for "wielding"? show it is way more complicated than that.|
|
I agree with you on enhancement bonus being enhancement bonus, but an amulet of mighty fists is not a weapon. It can be crafted to provide magical bonuses as if it was a weapon, but it isn't a weapon. If greater magic weapon had target: object touched it would have worked and given the benefit to unarmed strikes, but it has target: weapon touched, and as such AoMF isn't a valid target (well, it could be, depending on GM interpretation of if AoMF is a valid improvised weapon and whether improvised weapons are treated as weapons for purposes like this - but it's not clear in the RAW).I'm not sure if that combo is RAW-legal, since Greater Magic Weapon has to be used on a weapon, which the amulet technically isn't. Plus, one could argue that the the bonus granted by Greater Magic Weapon isn't the same as the one a weapon gets for being a +X weapon.To the contrary, that's exactly what an amulet of the mighty fists is for.
Secondly, one COULD argue that the enhancement bonus EXPLICITLEY NAMED IN THE SPELL, which it actually grants as an enhancement bonus, isn't actually the bonus they said it was. Any other man would be well within his right to laugh the person stating that out of the room.
In my world (RAW), an enhancement bonus is an enhancement bonus. So what if it doesn't stack, it's not stacking with anything here.
While not allowing the use or magic weapon or greater magic weapon on a Amulet of Mighty Fist would be RAW compliant, it would be a way to weaken monks that I find not agreeable.
Seeing how greater magic fang work maybe it is the right interpretation, but still it is problematic.I wish there was a difference between AoMF with an enhancement to unarmed attacks and an enhancement to natural attacks.
While not allowing the use or magic weapon or greater magic weapon on a Amulet of Mighty Fist would be RAW compliant, it would be a way to weaken monks that I find not agreeable.
Seeing how greater magic fang work maybe it is the right interpretation, but still it is problematic.
I wish there was a difference between AoMF with an enhancement to unarmed attacks and an enhancement to natural attacks.
Sure, that sounds reasonable. We use house rules for monks to make them more viable and less item-dependant, so it's not really a needed ruling in our games, and helps keep the shapeshifters and others in check.
Sure, that sounds reasonable. We use house rules for monks to make them more viable and less item-dependant, so it's not really a needed ruling in our games, and helps keep the shapeshifters and others in check.
While not allowing the use or magic weapon or greater magic weapon on a Amulet of Mighty Fist would be RAW compliant, it would be a way to weaken monks that I find not agreeable.
Seeing how greater magic fang work maybe it is the right interpretation, but still it is problematic.
I wish there was a difference between AoMF with an enhancement to unarmed attacks and an enhancement to natural attacks.
Yeah, it's a perfectly reasonable house rule to say that that GMW can be used on an amulet of mighty fists, it remains a house rule. Personally, I prefer allowing hand wraps/pre-errate brass knuckles to give the monk a better option for improving their unarmed strikes with magic.
With all the charging errata and crane wing changes i do not even want to see this errataed...
Cool concept, but will probably be FAQed into another useless enchant.
People who believe HeroLab to be accurate are funny.
So you like all the cases where the game is broken, is being interpreted in an awkward way, where the text has two interpretations and one is broken?
As for Herolab being accurate, it is more accurate than forum posters ;-)
Not if all these "Hero Lab told me I could do something blatantly against the rules? Is that rules legal?" posts I see pop up once a week are any indication.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Not if all these "Hero Lab told me I could do something blatantly against the rules? Is that rules legal?" posts I see pop up once a week are any indication.
In nearly every example, it is a disputed RAW where two sides argue over what is the "one true RAW". The only one I know that was wrong for a while is the Wild Shape Shaman that get Wild Shape at 6th. HL granted it at 4th still, which ultimately was confirmed incorrectly with a recent FAQ.
Not if all these "Hero Lab told me I could do something blatantly against the rules? Is that rules legal?" posts I see pop up once a week are any indication.In nearly every example, it is a disputed RAW where two sides argue over what is the "one true RAW". The only one I know that was wrong for a while is the Wild Shape Shaman that get Wild Shape at 6th. HL granted it at 4th still, which ultimately was confirmed incorrectly with a recent FAQ.
So, to be clear, you're seriously asserting that in a case of disputed RAW, you're the one who's always correct, and not any of the other forum posters?
Because, make no mistake, you also are nothing more than a forum poster.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you're seriously asserting that in a case of disputed RAW, you're the one who's always correct, and not any of the other forum posters?
No
I'm asserting that if anyone on the forum reads a rule differently and they believe it says what they believe, then they are correct for them. The others are correct for them. And neither of the groups should say the other is wrong. I'm always willing to accept that, but never willing to accept someone saying "I'm right and you are wrong, end of discussion."
As for what my line means that you replied. Herolab doesn't always match everyone's version of RAW. Some people complain that it doesn't match and put it down. But in the vast majority of those cases, it is a case of a disputed RAW (Courageous property on a raging barbarian) and way more often than not HL follows the correct reading according to Paizo. Sometimes (like shaman wild shape at 6th level) they don't where they gave characters wild shape at 4th with a shaman archetype.
So what you're saying is this:
As for Herolab being accurate, it is more accurate than forum posters ;-)
Was just a pointless assertion.
Since in a case of "disputed RAW" on the forums, there are obviously people on both side of the argument. Otherwise it's not disputed.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Was just a pointless assertion.
I see a lot of opinions on the forums, and while I'm happy to say they can have their version of interpretation. I find that HL matches my version and ultimately my version when it lands in FAQ/Errata status.
I've been wrong once I can remember (FCT on Monk Unarmed Strike) and I've been right more times than I can count (Most recently on Courageous property). In ever case except HL has agreed with my version of the RAW except the Wild Shape Shaman at 4th level thing.
So, it wasn't pointless as much as if you tracked their position you would notice it tends toward the conservative view. Nearly every disputed RAW issue has a conservative and progressive stance. When things get FAQ/Errata to make it clear, it is rarely in the progressive stance direction.
So HL is more accurate than a lot of forum threads, yes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Basically:
- I'm happy to allow your progressive RAW if you don't reject my conservative RAW.
- If you reject my conservative RAW, I'll reject your progressive RAW in kind.
- If you sit at my table, I'll run it the conservative RAW way and know I'm following RAW.
- If I sit at your table, I'll accept it ran the progressive RAW way with only a "I don't agree but I fully accept" comment.
I see a lot of opinions on the forums, and while I'm happy to say they can have their version of interpretation. I find that HL matches my version and ultimately my version when it lands in FAQ/Errata status.
The point I'm making is that "your version" is not YOUR version. And the fact that you're a forum poster in the first place makes that statement pointless.
"It's more accurate than forum posters...except the ones that agree with me" is a silly statement to make.
I've been right more times than I can count (Most recently on Courageous property).
This remains to be seen.
So HL is more accurate than a lot of forum threads, yes.
Except the ones that agree with you.
Making this, again, a pointless statement to make.
Basically:
- I'm happy to allow your progressive RAW if you don't reject my conservative RAW.
- If you reject my conservative RAW, I'll reject your progressive RAW in kind.
- If you sit at my table, I'll run it the conservative RAW way and know I'm following RAW.
- If I sit at your table, I'll accept it ran the progressive RAW way with only a "I don't agree but I fully accept" comment.
I agree with you in a general sense but in this case it's RAW vs RAI and not RAW vs RAW.
RAW-wise there's no correct way to read it other than "it adds to ANY morale bonuses from ANY other source" (which is its exact wording).
Whether the PDT really MEANT any when they wrote it is another matter, but the RAW is indisputably "any from any source". As unambiguous as it gets.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I've been right more times than I can count (Most recently on Courageous property).This remains to be seen.
So you are honestly saying that you don't believe Sean is lying and there really was a get together to hash out the rules of Courageous, but you won't accept it until they make a FAQ or Errata to word it differently so the hole you read (the progressive or awkward RAW way) is closed off.
Really?
RAW is indisputably "any from any source". As unambiguous as it gets.
Only when you ignore context, and say this ability that only relates to saves. I'm going to extend the context to everything under the Sun. Just cause I get more power if I do it that way?
The rules are written to be read in context, and the PDT has on several occasions said they wish we would understand this instead of read things out of context and then ask for FAQ answers to things that the majority of players are not confused about as they have correctly read the rule.
So you are honestly saying that you don't believe Sean is lying and there really was a get together to hash out the rules of Courageous, but you won't accept it until they make a FAQ or Errata to word it differently so the hole you read (the progressive or awkward RAW way) is closed off.
Really?
There is no "hole" I'm reading. That's what you can't get through your thick skull in this whole mess.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO RAW WAY TO READ WHAT THAT EMAIL SAID IS INTENDED.
And, unless you're implying that Jason Buhlman and SRM are lying when they say "Any non-FAQ/Errata quotes are not RAW", we can drop the whole blame schtick.
You are not arguing from a position of authority here, stop acting like you are.
RAW is indisputably "any from any source". As unambiguous as it gets.Only when you ignore context, and say this ability that only relates to saves. I'm going to extend the context to everything under the Sun. Just cause I get more power if I do it that way?
The "context" is specifically saves against fear.
But you conveniently ignored that fact to try and make a point, when what you're really doing is reading it an "awkward RAW way" (by your logic) as well by expanding the context to include all saves.
Just 'cause you can get more power if you do it that way?
I can buy, in context, that another RAW reading is "It only applies to saves against Fear". Even though that's not nearly what it actually says, I can see that.
But there is precisely 0 way to read it that implies that it applies to all saves. None.
It's either "everything" or "Saves against Fear". Everything being as written, and saves against fear as possible RAW in context.
The ONLY reason you would even think to read it as it adding to all saves is because of that e-mail. It is not implied anywhere in the text either by what is written or what is implied. At all.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You are not arguing from a position of authority here, stop acting like you are.
Would it be nice that they put "any bonus to saves" instead of "any bonus"? Sure.
The point is that if we didn't have the authoritative way to handle this case, we would both have to accept that the rule reads both ways. But with a known quorum on this matter (the fear that some forum posts might be off the cuff is why the "not official until FAQ" was given), we should understand the rules in this case are limited to saves like the context suggests.
I don't think you understand the distinction between as written rules and as intended James.
As written rules cannot say anything aside from what they explicitly say in text. The courageous property may be intended to work the way you claim, but there is no written support for it in the rules text.
Whether SKR sent an email somewhere saying that the property is meant to work differently is irrelevant to the written rules until such time as the written rules see errata.
I want to point out that this is not an attack upon your position, I am simply trying to state that you and Rynjin are talking past each other because both you and him are using the definition of raw differently.
You are not arguing from a position of authority here, stop acting like you are.Would it be nice that they put "any bonus to saves" instead of "any bonus"? Sure.
The point is that if we didn't have the authoritative way to handle this case, we would both have to accept that the rule reads both ways. But with a known quorum on this matter (the fear that some forum posts might be off the cuff is why the "not official until FAQ" was given), we should understand the rules in this case are limited to saves like the context suggests.
Allow me to repost.
The "context" is specifically saves against fear.
But you conveniently ignored that fact to try and make a point, when what you're really doing is reading it an "awkward RAW way" (by your logic) as well by expanding the context to include all saves.
Just 'cause you can get more power if you do it that way?
I can buy, in context, that another RAW reading is "It only applies to saves against Fear". Even though that's not nearly what it actually says, I can see that.
But there is precisely 0 way to read it that implies that it applies to all saves. None.
It's either "everything" or "Saves against Fear". Everything being as written, and saves against fear as possible RAW in context.
The ONLY reason you would even think to read it as it adding to all saves is because of that e-mail. It is not implied anywhere in the text either by what is written or what is implied. At all.
Please, point out to me where in context it even vaguely HINTS at it being applied to all saves.
The only reason you think it makes sense is because of confirmation bias due to that e-mail.
There is no way to read it that way if you read it objectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think you understand the distinction between as written rules and as intended James.
As written rules cannot say anything aside from what they explicitly say in text. The courageous property may be intended to work the way you claim, but there is no written support for it in the rules text.
Whether SKR sent an email somewhere saying that the property is meant to work differently is irrelevant to the written rules until such time as the written rules see errata.
I want to point out that this is not an attack upon your position, I am simply trying to state that you and Rynjin are talking past each other because both you and him are using the definition of raw differently.
I tried to explain this to him earlier but I don't think he understands the difference between RAW and RAI.
RAW: Courageous increases bonuses against fear effects and boosts all morale bonuses from any source by half the enhancement bonus. RAW is defined by making no interpretation. Say there was an effect called Animal Slayer. It grants a +10 damage bonus. RAW that is all it does. A Rules As Interpreted would say that it is only against animals.
RAI#1: Courageous increases bonuses against fear effects and boosts morale bonuses that increase your save from fear effects.(Contextualized RAI)
RAI#2: Courageous increases bonuses against fear effects and boosts morale bonuses that increase your saves.(Awkward RAI, has no language that would imply that this is the proper interpretation)
I tried to explain this to him earlier but I don't think he understands the difference between RAW and RAI.I don't think you understand the distinction between as written rules and as intended James.
As written rules cannot say anything aside from what they explicitly say in text. The courageous property may be intended to work the way you claim, but there is no written support for it in the rules text.
Whether SKR sent an email somewhere saying that the property is meant to work differently is irrelevant to the written rules until such time as the written rules see errata.
I want to point out that this is not an attack upon your position, I am simply trying to state that you and Rynjin are talking past each other because both you and him are using the definition of raw differently.
He doesn't, and that's because he believes RAW and RAI somehow fall under a universal understanding, which he labels "context."
What he doesn't realize is that the context of a sentence is the intent behind that sentence. Something which he has yet to prove is true in this thread, and until a FAQ/Errata comes to pass, he never will, because he has no other means to prove his "context" is the right "context."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you are honestly saying that you don't believe Sean is lying and there really was a get together to hash out the rules of Courageous, but you won't accept it until they make a FAQ or Errata to word it differently so the hole you read (the progressive or awkward RAW way) is closed off.
Really?
There is no "hole" I'm reading. That's what you can't get through your thick skull in this whole mess.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO RAW WAY TO READ WHAT THAT EMAIL SAID IS INTENDED.
And, unless you're implying that Jason Buhlman and SRM are lying when they say "Any non-FAQ/Errata quotes are not RAW", we can drop the whole blame schtick.
You are not arguing from a position of authority here, stop acting like you are.
RAW is indisputably "any from any source". As unambiguous as it gets.Only when you ignore context, and say this ability that only relates to saves. I'm going to extend the context to everything under the Sun. Just cause I get more power if I do it that way?The "context" is specifically saves against fear.
But you conveniently ignored that fact to try and make a point, when what you're really doing is reading it an "awkward RAW way" (by your logic) as well by expanding the context to include all saves.
Just 'cause you can get more power if you do it that way?
I can buy, in context, that another RAW reading is "It only applies to saves against Fear". Even though that's not nearly what it actually says, I can see that.
But there is precisely 0 way to read it that implies that it applies to all saves. None.
It's either "everything" or "Saves against Fear". Everything being as written, and saves against fear as possible RAW in context.
The ONLY reason you would even think to read it as it adding to all saves is because of that e-mail. It is not implied anywhere in the text either by what is written or what is implied. At all.
While I dislike that, I must agree with Rynjin that reading the ability RAW the only possible conclusion is that it applies to all morale bonus. That make it too good for the cost, but it is the only valid conclusion.
The other possible conclusion is that it applies only to saving throw morale bonuses against fear. Conservative and it require some interpretation of the text. Weak for the cost.Sean mail give a interpretation that probably reflect the intended level of power but the ability require an errata to work that way.
I see no way to reach that conclusion reading the ability.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I don't think you understand the distinction between as written rules and as intended James.
I understand it more fully than you do apparently. I'm willing to say "sure it reads your way but it also reads this way". Some others are not.
The problem here is we know how to read the rules, because we have a developer consensus. There are three ways to read that line:
- Everything under the sun is improved.
- Only Save vs Fear are improved (my initial.)
- Loosely related in context gives us all saves not just fear.
If we used progressive or awkward RAW, I could come up with an alternative interpretation for nearly every single rule using English in the Core. We don't share those interpretations now because we know what the rules mean, which is to say how to read their meaning. How to interpret them. It is perfectly acceptable to have alternative/awkward/progressive interpretations of RAW for rules where we have no input from developers/FAQ/Errata. It is a problem with how we communicate if we do have that input and we choose to ignore it. This causes us to snap back at the developers once they tell us how a rule works. Something we shouldn't do.
I understand it more fully than you do apparently. I'm willing to say "sure it reads your way but it also reads this way". Some others are not.
I don't think you understand the difference between RAW and RAI. RAW clearly says one thing. RAI can say many things.
You keep passing your RAI as RAW when it simply cant possibly be so because no text supports your claim. Context is RAI.
A few others and I are annoyed because you're quite clearly trying to pass RAI as RAW.
The argument for this topic is pretty much over. No new revelations are going to pop up till they FAQ it. It'll either be,
RAW: All morale bonuses are increased
RAI#1: All morale bonuses that increase fear saves are increased
RAI#2: All morale bonuses that boost saves are increased
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I don't think you understand the difference between RAW and RAI. RAW clearly says one thing. RAI can say many things.
You absolutely don't understand RAW. RAW can clearly say more than one thing and often does. RAI is often never one of the versions of RAW.
the fact that RAI usually refers to rules as the author intends them. Not rules as James Risner wants them to be!
How I want them to be is irrelevant, I'll rule them however the FAQ/Errata suggests or how a developer tells us they should be. Regardless of how I'd like it to work.
I don't think you understand the difference between RAW and RAI. RAW clearly says one thing. RAI can say many things.You absolutely don't understand RAW. RAW can clearly say more than one thing and often does.
But in this case, there's no way the RAW states that it adds a bonus to all saves.
I can buy that RAW it can be interpreted as only applying to fear saves (because there's a large difference between "RAW read with common sense" and "RAI"). But no, there is no language at all even hinting or implying at it affecting all saves.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
But in this case, there's no way the RAW states that it adds a bonus to all saves.
I can buy that RAW it can be interpreted as only applying to fear saves (because there's a large difference between "RAW read with common sense" and "RAI"). But no, there is no language at all even hinting or implying at it affecting all saves.
My original reading of RAW is it clearly only applies to Saves vs Fear. Learning RAI, you can see why they said "any" as a way to expand to all saves but not non-save morale bonuses. I don't like the language for that, and I'd like to see "save" word added in that line.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
you need to retract your claim that you were right as to the rules in this case
probably ought to be errata, not an email answer.)
if it were clear, we wouldn't have hundreds of posts on the topic.
Consider my claim retracted. I wasn't correct, but neither are those that believe it works on Barbarian Rage.
I seriously doubt we will ever see this errata'd because the limited number of in real life people who are confused about this ability and think it works on Barbarian Rage is so few. It isn't worth their time to fix, but I wish they would fix everything. I'd be happy with a 1,200 page FAQ book.
On the use of clear, I used that as a specific contrast to the "clearly works on Rage bonuses to stats." Unless everyone agrees there can be multiple RAW interpretations, I'll champion the alternative with equal vigor.