various things about balanceOn the topic of balance, for what it's worth, while the discussion I was having with Sslarn never covered the second part of my initial question
Does this fall outside of the general tolerances of item pricing (and if so, how far outside, compared to how far the "fear saves only" interpretation does?)I'm not yet convinced that it does. There is a lot of room in Pathfinder item pricing for some ways to get a bonus being better priced than others: anyone who has ever contemplated buying bracers of armor +8 for their fighter rather than a +2 breastplate knows that well enough.
Or who has ever contemplated whether it would be better to upgrade their amulet of natural armor or their magic full plate from +2 to +3 first. Or whatever. There might be minor advantages or disadvantages to either, but for a character who wears armor, there's no great difference between a +1 AC from natural armor or from enhancement to armor bonus other than that one costs twice as much.
+2 ghost touch, mithral, weightless, no skill penalty, no arcane spell failure breastplate. The bracers are a force effect, weight almost nothing and have no encumbrance penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
Still costly, but they have some extra benefits that can compensate in the hand of the optimal user. The price of the magical items is based on the optimal user, not the worst user.The natural armor bonus work when you are polymorphed. The armor bonus don't. Again, the price is based on the best user.
Wild Dragonhide fullplate. Just gonna leave that right here. +3 for lots of AC with none of the downsides. Forget best user... more like only user on top of it all.
The difference between the two passages is that on one we must interpret ignore because it isn't a game defined term and on the other it is written almost entirely as game defined terms.I don't even know which you claim is which. Neither "any" nor "ignore" is game defined terms, both have dictionary meanings that we can consider against what the ability should do and thus sub them for different words (such as you did about resistance).Any source is certainly defined. Any other source refers to any other source of morale bonuses.
Any is hardly a word to argue the definition of. In fact go ahead.
Oh look cross referencing. Here we see energy resistance further defined.
Again your issue seems to have more to do with words not being game defined in a glossary rather than context.
Is "any source" defined _in the game_? If so, where do I find it, or do you just assume the common english meaning of the word? The common meaning by which "ignore" means "ignore", not "negate"?
Good find on the resist energy spell, though it's really easy to argue a "specific vs general" there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enchant is barely useful now, as you need to have +4 weapon for it to do any effect on stats (+2 str gives +1 modifier). Only kind-of abuse you can get is party of people with courageous weapons cast bless to get +2 bonus from it instead of +1 (+3 if their weapon is enchanted to +4), but instead of courageous they can just add another +1 at same price and get +1 to attack AND damage AND maybe DR overcome.
If interpreted as to work only on fear saves it is another useless enchant that was viable option before for characters who often have morale bonuses, but nowhere near broken.
Your whole discussion of context doesn't matter. The game assumes that we possess these two things: Common sense and an understanding of the English language.
So we can look at Energy Resistance and say "well, if ignore doesn't mean negate, then this does nothing. It's probably supposed to have some effect, so ignore must mean that it 100% in any and all ways ignores that any of that amount of damage took place, thus effectively negating it".
And we can look at Courageous and see that it says "any bonus". Okay, well, any is an all encompassing term. Does it have any modifiers? Well, yes it does, it says "any morale bonus". Cool, then. Anything else to limit the kind of bonus? No. Anything in the language around the kind of bonuses this effect applies to that refers back to the previous sentence? No.
Digging up my own quote from the very first page:
Had it been "In addition, any such morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source", then it would obviously be the case that it only applies to morale bonuses on saving throws against fear, but that is simply not the case. As written, any means any.
See, for Energy Resistance we first use our understanding, and when that doesn't make sense we apply some common sense because we know abilities are supposed to do stuff.
With Courageous we use our understanding of the English language, and since it actually does make sense, we don't need to do anything to it unless we think it breaks our game and has to be changed for that reason.It honestly hurts to see someone being so wilfully obtuse as you are being.
PS: To me it is quite obvious from Energy Resistance that ignore means negate. So obvious that I never even considered reading it in any other way. I am completely just playing along with that one—I didn't go through the above conscious process because I reached the conclusion automatically simply by reading the written words. I think most people do, because I have never heard anyone say that Energy Resistance by RAW doesn't do anything before.
|
Wild Dragonhide fullplate. Just gonna leave that right here. +3 for lots of AC with none of the downsides. Forget best user... more like only user on top of it all.
The natural armor bonus work when you are polymorphed. The armor bonus don't. Again, the price is based on the best user.
I am not sure of what you mean, but:
Price +3 bonus. Wild: The wearer of a suit of armor or a shield with this ability preserves his armor bonus (and any enhancement bonus) while in a wild shape.
Is pretty costly, and it work only for character with the wild shape ability, not all polymorphed characters.
A druid would still get a way better armor bonus for a lower cost than a natural armor amulet but they stack and the druid after purchasing a +1 wild set of armor would get better benefits by buying a +2 amulet than by increasing the armor enhancement bonus to +2.
|
|
Enchant is barely useful now, as you need to have +4 weapon for it to do any effect on stats (+2 str gives +1 modifier). Only kind-of abuse you can get is party of people with courageous weapons cast bless to get +2 bonus from it instead of +1 (+3 if their weapon is enchanted to +4), but instead of courageous they can just add another +1 at same price and get +1 to attack AND damage AND maybe DR overcome.
If interpreted as to work only on fear saves it is another useless enchant that was viable option before for characters who often have morale bonuses, but nowhere near broken.
Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....
Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.
Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....
Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.
That is good point, heroism/hope adds to skill and ability checks as well as damage but plain another +1 will add +1 to attack and damage even without morale buff. Yet i did underestimated morale bonuses, now when i think about it one of my characters have destruction domain 1st lvl power wich is morale bonus to damage and courageous would be good enchant for him.
Still feels more like smart play than abuse, unlike many other "legit" things.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I reached the conclusion automatically simply by reading the written words. I think most people do, because I have never heard anyone say that Energy Resistance by RAW doesn't do anything before.
You missed his point. The point is that RAW isn't some nebulous thing void of all interpretation, or you run into all kinds of things like Energy Resistance that without interpretation falls apart.
|
|
Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....
Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.
That is good point, heroism/hope adds to skill and ability checks as well as damage but plain another +1 will add +1 to attack and damage even without morale buff. Yet i did underestimated morale bonuses, now when i think about it one of my characters have destruction domain 1st lvl power wich is morale bonus to damage and courageous would be good enchant for him.
Still feels more like smart play than abuse, unlike many other "legit" things.
Again, how you treat "wield" make a lot of difference, but with the "wield = wear" interpretation for armor spikes and spiked gauntlets it is a +1 bonus for 8.000 gp. Cumulative with your weapon enhancement, skill competence bonus, resistance save bonus and so on.
I said this in page 1, any changes after 7 pages?My interpretation is that it does add the bonus on any morale bonus.
"A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."
I think that it's pretty clear.
Like I say, if there is no official statement, go by RAW or talk the RAI in your table, don't try to be the next mesias and make your words the ultimate truth.
Now you can continue twisting the words like lawyers, these are my 2cts.
None whatsoever. "Any morale bonus from any other source" is so unambiguous that I am amazed this is even being debated.
Enchant is barely useful now, as you need to have +4 weapon for it to do any effect on stats (+2 str gives +1 modifier). Only kind-of abuse you can get is party of people with courageous weapons cast bless to get +2 bonus from it instead of +1 (+3 if their weapon is enchanted to +4), but instead of courageous they can just add another +1 at same price and get +1 to attack AND damage AND maybe DR overcome.
If interpreted as to work only on fear saves it is another useless enchant that was viable option before for characters who often have morale bonuses, but nowhere near broken.
Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....
Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.
I will agree that the bolded parts aren't entirely accurate. Though the increase is hardly overpowered; you're forgetting it's merely a +1 until you reach a +4 Enhancement Bonus weapon. Compared to Keen or Furious, this property isn't really something worthwhile to snatch right away. And you're forgetting something: The first 2 require that you have a spellcaster or item able to buff you at all times. In cases of prepared spellcasters, that's not a guarantee, and it costs spell slots. In the cases of spontaneous casters, that costs spell/day, which may not be as big a deal, but spontaneous casters aren't as commonplace or powerful, and it takes longer to reach those spells. The third is an item which, as you so quaintfully pointed out, costs 28,000 gold.
Spending 28,000 gold or taxing your spellcasters each fight with buffs (something they will either be annoyed by or is being wasted in comparison to much more powerful spells) on top of your claimed "8,000 gold overpoweredness," which actually may or may not be the best option at the time, is hardly gamebreaking.
This is no different an argument from the Fate's Favored trait. If you're spending WBL and spell slots/spells per day every time, JUST TO MAKE IT ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING, instead of just be a waste of traits/weapon properties, then everything you invest in to enhance something else is ROFLLOLWTFBBQ-OP.
Heroism, good hope, the flawed ioun stone ....
Please, let's try to avoid the "it only benefit barbarians and only if the weapon has a +4 or more enhancement" argument. It is a false statement.
That is good point, heroism/hope adds to skill and ability checks as well as damage but plain another +1 will add +1 to attack and damage even without morale buff. Yet i did underestimated morale bonuses, now when i think about it one of my characters have destruction domain 1st lvl power wich is morale bonus to damage and courageous would be good enchant for him.
Still feels more like smart play than abuse, unlike many other "legit" things.Again, how you treat "wield" make a lot of difference, but with the "wield = wear" interpretation for armor spikes and spiked gauntlets it is a +1 bonus for 8.000 gp. Cumulative with your weapon enhancement, skill competence bonus, resistance save bonus and so on.
You could even be more stupid about this and say "COURAGEOUS AOMF OP" for a mere 4,000; but it's quite obviously something that's not applicable to AoMF, since it doesn't pertain to Unarmed Strikes in any manner. (Also, since it doesn't have an Enhancement Bonus, it wouldn't increase anything.)
In addition, wearing Armor Spikes and Spiked Gauntlets is about as close to wielding them as you can get, since you don't need hands to make attacks with them. Of course, with the (ridiculous-stupid) FAQ, you can't use a two-handed weapon with it. If you're going to require holding the gauntlets/spikes in-hand to use, good luck trying to argue with the real-life common sense that is, say, putting on a jacket and/or any standard pair of gloves to keep you warm.
Again, how you treat "wield" make a lot of difference, but with the "wield = wear" interpretation for armor spikes and spiked gauntlets it is a +1 bonus for 8.000 gp. Cumulative with your weapon enhancement, skill competence bonus, resistance save bonus and so on.
Actually, there's a strong case to be made that a +1 courageous weapon does nearly nothing except for the +1 bonus against fear; it could very well be argued that the (minimum one) comment refers to the enhancement bonus of the weapon rather than the increase in morale bonus it grants.
Actually, its not uncommon for alreay statedrules to be repeated within brackets in specific cases. Look at various feats for example. Now, Im not saying it should be run that way, but its certainly within the RAW (though maybe not RAI) to make the argument.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
only one valid grammatical reading in this case. See my previous posts on the subject. If you'd like I could draw up a sentence diagram and link you to it.
Clearly not the only, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've already read your diagram in previous posts. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.
How does the existence of a vague RAW somewhere else invalidate the definition of "any morale bonus"? You could argue that the intent was to write it differently, but there is only one valid grammatical reading in this case.I reached the conclusion automatically simply by reading the written words. I think most people do, because I have never heard anyone say that Energy Resistance by RAW doesn't do anything before.You missed his point. The point is that RAW isn't some nebulous thing void of all interpretation, or you run into all kinds of things like Energy Resistance that without interpretation falls apart.
The resistance rules are not vague. There is a very clear and distinct definition of "ignore", and all variations of it seems to be different wordings of the same thing: To (willfully) not pay attention to.
Thus, Energy Resistance does not have vague rules. It very clearly states how much cold damage a pit fiend can not pay attention to. There is only one valid grammatical reading in this case too, it's just a more obvious case of "not RAI".
only one valid grammatical reading in this case. See my previous posts on the subject. If you'd like I could draw up a sentence diagram and link you to it.Clearly not the only, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've already read your diagram in previous posts. It doesn't add anything to the discussion.
No, we are having this discussion still because you reject our reality and substitute your own.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
No, we are having this discussion still because you reject our reality and substitute your own.
If your reality is "there is only one true RAW" then, yes I am in fact rejecting it and substituting my own. Specifically that your version of RAW is a version of RAW, and so is the one that it only works as save vs fear, and the final RAW (read through developer team colored glasses) is that it only works vs all saves.
If your reality is "there is only one true RAW" then, yes I am in fact rejecting it and substituting my own. Specifically that your version of RAW is a version of RAW, and so is the one that it only works as save vs fear, and the final RAW (read through developer team colored glasses) is that it only works vs all saves.
My reality is that an email to herolabs doesn't change what's written in the books, FAQ and errata aka the only official rules sources.
By now it seems that most posters in this thread agree that any does mean any, yet some choose to disregard that for balance purposes in their own games. Unless my memory fails to serve, it's been several pages since I've seen other people that you argue against it.
"Only works vs all saves" cannot possibly be RAW, because nothing in the rules say anything to suggest that. I can see the argument for working against fear saves only, but I don't agree with the logic behind it. I guess in that way I accept the potential for 2 different RAW's for Courageous even if I don't agree with them both based on the language in the description. Your "final RAW (read through developer team colored glasses)" is NOT RAW, because it is not written and you can't twist the meaning behind the written words to mean exactly that specific group of morale bonuses.
and the final RAW (read through developer team colored glasses) is that it only works vs all saves.
If you're able to prove this is the RAW reading, you should be able to bold where it explicitly says this without explanation.
The fact is is that no such text exists. So it can't possibly be RAW if the text doesn't support it.
Not only that but the developer reading is clunky and awkward at best. It's an interpretation that has zero context(Applying to all saves not just morale bonuses to fear which makes more sense).
So your argument is pretty terrible. Clinging to the developer interpretation doesn't get you brownie points and make you look like a fanboy. It's important to give criticism where it's due not just jump on the bandwagon. Confirmation Bias is a terrible terrible thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that last RAW, for the last time, is not RAW.
There is precisely zero way to read it that way. And if cannot be READ that way, it is not RAW.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Clinging to the developer interpretation doesn't get you brownie points and make you look like a fanboy.
I'm not clinging to anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that it isn't clear cut and only one true RAW. There is a minimum two ways to read it (all and only save vs fear). The fact others will not accept that, is the only reason I'm still posting. Want me to stop posting? Everyone can agree it needs errata or proper FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clinging to the developer interpretation doesn't get you brownie points and make you look like a fanboy.I'm not clinging to anything, I'm just pointing out the fact that it isn't clear cut and only one true RAW. There is a minimum two ways to read it (all and only save vs fear). The fact others will not accept that, is the only reason I'm still posting. Want me to stop posting? Everyone can agree it needs errata or proper FAQ.
Currently the discussion is whether to keep it RAW or to change it to the interpretation of only saves vs fear which is RAI at best.
Neither of these match the email to hero labs.
Either way if Courageous gets changed, it'll be quite the Crane Wing maneuver.
I'm at a loss why this is even a thread. If I have a +4 sword and have an extra 18K gp to invest, my first thought is not going to be "Ooh! I can get an extra +2 from Inspire Courage, or from raging, as long as those are active!" It's going to be "Ooh! I can get a +5 sword that's always +5!"
So, if the property isn't something you'd normally even want to take most of the time without the nerf (unless you're a barbarian with a full-time bard cohort providing theme music), then why in Gygax's name would it even exist with the nerf, at which point it is 100% equivalent to extra page count, and has no purpose other than to sucker people into reading it before rejecting it?
|
No, the infamous FAQ leads to the conclusion that you either have to hold a jacket in your hand in order for it to keep you warm, or else the jacket doesn't keep you warm unless you have a free hand....or have an additional metaphorical hand?
....as it clearly states on p.1437 of the Unwritten Rules!
No, the infamous FAQ leads to the conclusion that you either have to hold a jacket in your hand in order for it to keep you warm, or else the jacket doesn't keep you warm unless you have a free hand....or have an additional metaphorical hand?
Has anyone asked for a FAQ on how many metaphorical hands humanoids have?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone asked for a FAQ on how many metaphorical hands humanoids have?No, the infamous FAQ leads to the conclusion that you either have to hold a jacket in your hand in order for it to keep you warm, or else the jacket doesn't keep you warm unless you have a free hand....or have an additional metaphorical hand?
Well, there is the unwritten FAQ. It was a recent amendment to the unwritten rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the point that I present a well developed logical explanation and he's like "I read your post and it added nothing to the discussion". I have to give him credit, that's a really good cop out for when someone corners you with logic and you want to demonstrate that your brain doesn't even operate on the same level.Confirmation bias will alter your view of how you read RAW.
Is this a personal attack?
This is a statement that holds true to all those discussing how this enchantment works.
I also believe it's critical to be reminded of this fact.
If this offends your sensibilities, I apologize.
The "he" in question is Mr. Risner. Apologies for grumpiness, but at this point I'm kinda done with being dismissed. Discourse I like. Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint only for it to be passingly referred to as "not adding to the discussion" is pretty frustrating.
Take a page from my book in regards to Captain Context Man.
At this point I'm just going to ignore every post you make in this thread; you're so dead-set in believing your interpretation is the RAW of the book that there is no way I can convince or explain it to you that what you think is the RAW is simply your viewpoint of the RAI, and that the RAI is basically inconclusive until the PDT comes in and tells us what's supposed to go down.]
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "he" in question is Mr. Risner. Apologies for grumpiness, but at this point I'm kinda done with being dismissed. Discourse I like. Spending half an hour trying to figure how to explain my logical viewpoint only for it to be passingly referred to as "not adding to the discussion" is pretty frustrating.
You are fighting a losing battle my friend.
“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as the herolabs post and the rules text, you can't get there from here. If the herolabs post is to be taken as correct, then the printed rules are in error (and vice versa).
That's why errata would be the appropriate means to make a change, if warranted. (I'm not sure the case for change on balance grounds that was made in this thread has been strong or convincing, but, YMMV)
I'm at a loss why this is even a thread. If I have a +4 sword and have an extra 18K gp to invest, my first thought is not going to be "Ooh! I can get an extra +2 from Inspire Courage, or from raging, as long as those are active!" It's going to be "Ooh! I can get a +5 sword that's always +5!"
So, if the property isn't something you'd normally even want to take most of the time without the nerf (unless you're a barbarian with a full-time bard cohort providing theme music)
Well, there are a few things. At the levels where a +5 weapon comes into play, Heroism is basically up for the whole day if you want.
So you can choose between:
- +1 to attack and damage and bypass certain DR with that specific weapon; or
- +2 to all attack rolls (including, say, grappling), saves, and skill checks, and potentially an additional +2 to strength and constitution if you happen to be a barbarian.
And potentially, depending on how you interpret "wield" and that whole circus, for 8k gp you can have a gauntlet that grants +1 to all attack rolls, saves and skill checks as well as potentially +1 to strength and constitution (or some other bonus if you have some other class ability that grants a bonus).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You aren't going to get a +2 on attack rolls including grappling, because grappling is not wielding that weapon.
That depends on how wielding is defined, which is still vague. And seeing as how armor spikes are used in a grapple I find it really hard to argue that they don't apply.
What makes the +5 weapon (and +4) good in pathfinder is the ability to bypass DR, which is significant if you are making 4-6 separate attacks per round. Which you should be if you are investing that much into a single weapon.
That's fair (though the general consensus seem to be that flat bonuses are among the best investments, especially for classes like bard or if you TWF). Note though that the only difference is alignment-based DR, which at that point is pretty trivial to bypass anyway (you're likely to have a Holy weapon unless the campaign is neutral-focused, and the times you suspect to fight those with DR/lawful or DR/chaotic, there's a lot of options (oil of align weapon in worst case scenario).
The difference between +2 and +5 is huge, not so much between +4 and +5.
You aren't going to get a +2 on attack rolls including grappling, because grappling is not wielding that weapon.That depends on how wielding is defined, which is still vague. And seeing as how armor spikes are used in a grapple I find it really hard to argue that they don't apply.
Armor spikes aren't being used to initiate the grapple.
Armor spikes aren't being used to initiate the grapple.You aren't going to get a +2 on attack rolls including grappling, because grappling is not wielding that weapon.That depends on how wielding is defined, which is still vague. And seeing as how armor spikes are used in a grapple I find it really hard to argue that they don't apply.
That's not at all clear in the rules, since neither use nor wield are game terms. They do damage on the initial grapple, so I'd say it's pretty reasonable to say that you're using armor spikes in a grapple. And whether or not they are considered used, they might still be considered wielded. It's a very big grey zone.
You can use Armor Spikes outside of grappling.
You can attack with them just like you would with a dagger, or unarmed strike.
Of course - noone is disputing that. The question is, are you wielding armor spikes when grappling (or initiating a grapple). I'm bound to say yes, seeing as how you're using them to deal damage, but again, "wield" is incredibly vague and there's no definite way to tell.