Wait.. this entire thread spawned from Paizo either not clarifying something or not creating an errata, so it's possible Paizo just has not clarified anything.
I did some forum searches and there seems to be a divide on what the real answer is.
I am just saying it only references gaining additional DR for energy. the semicolon does necessary change the focus, although it is a clause closely tied to the original, which is only referencing the energy resistance.
It would be great if this is a bonus to DR, but just like anything, it does not say the barbarian's DR is increased by +2, it says "this DR", which leads us to make our best guess. When I read it, "this" refers to the previous subject, which is the energy resistance and not the barbarians damage reduction.
I wonder if Paizo just put the wrong word, writing "this Dr" instead of "this resistance".
It's a debate either way.
Plus, there's already a Rage Power that increases your DR by +1. It's highly unlikely Dragon Totem Resilience gives you +2, and another +2 for each of the other Dragon-related powers.It is a totem power so taking this prevents you from getting pounce.
But feats are not designed with the basis of opportunity cost.
It is giving him damage reduction (Core p561) but it doesn't give him Damage Reduction (Ex) (Core p34.)I know that. Which is why I thought it would be good to get a ruling as to whether a similar class feature of a different name would be able to still be used in a situation like this to qualify or modify another ability.
By RAW Dragon Totem Resilience does not give an Invulnerable Rager any Resistance bonus to the associated energy and it does not give them an increase in DR as both are set off the Barbarian Class Feature Damage Reduction which was replaced.
Not to argue, but why?
It only talks about energy resistance in this ability.
The wording of the text is "This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one."
So, yes, you get Resistance equal to double your Damage Reduction Class Feature to one type of energy. Then their is a semicolon (;) that starts a new clause that says that "this DR," meaning the Barbarian Damage Reduction Class Feature, increases by 2 points per Dragon Totem feat.
Two abilities for one feat.
This is exactly right.
So, either you take 3 Rage Powers to increase your DR by +3, or you take 3 Rage Powers to increase your DR by +6 (and grab some nifty energy resistance).
I don't buy it.
Actually no, you have to take:
Animal Fury
Intimidating Glare
Dragon Totem
Dragon Totem Resilience
(that gets you +4 DR/-)
Dragon Totem Wings
(additional +2 DR/-)
That's four Rage Powers to get +4 DR/- with the option of a 5th for 2 more.
It's not "exactly right", it's a "horrible abuse of a typo".
Heh - if we start basing rules on our 'interpretations of what might be a typo', the entire house of cards will come crashing down...
Now if you can show me somewhere that a dev has acknowledged it was a typo, then I might be willing to hear an argument.
"This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one"
-
I would say that "this DR" is referring to the previous statement, absolutely, more specifically it's referring to the last thing mentioned in the previous statement.
Or to rearrange it for clarity's sake:
This DR, from her barbarian damage reduction class feature
"This resistance equals double her current DR/— from her barbarian damage reduction class feature; this DR increases by 2 for each dragon totem rage power she possesses, including this one"
-
I would say that "this DR" is referring to the previous statement, absolutely, more specifically it's referring to the last thing mentioned in the previous statement.
Or to rearrange it for clarity's sake:
This DR, from her barbarian damage reduction class feature
Interesting point.
So, take a 10th level barbarian with this rage power
His DR is 2/-.
If he takes this power, his DR is now 4/- with an energy resistance of 8 for one energy type?
That doesn't seem over powered. The other interpretation (wrong or otherwise), would be:
DR 2/- and energy resist of 6 to one type - this is kind of lame.
Barbarians are UP because Paizo hates them, why you try to take away one of their toys!
It's not like they're OP like those dastardly Monks! *narrows eyes*
/Just kidding
Ermm...
No, that's gotta be a typo. I've seen "DR" and "ER" get mixed up before. Just look at all the traits in Ultimate Campaign that give you DR 1 against fire, cold, electricity, or acid.
Um.. as far as I'm aware, energy resistance is always referred to as 'resistance' whereas damage reduction is always called 'DR' or 'damage reduction'. So it's very odd for you to be so absolutely sure it's a typo when the two terms are very different. The only people who would know whether or not that truly is a type, are the design team and the original writer.
As it stands, the Dragon Totem powers increase the Barbarians DR. Sure it's a higher increase than the 'Increased DR' powers, but it also has a lot more pre-reqs than the other powers do. Truthfully speaking, the only good power from the Dragon Totem line is Dragon Resilience, the others are all pretty crappy or only barely worth it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read it and thought to myself "ok he's superstitious, doesn't like magic stuff, so if he can save he does, got it." and never gave it a second thought.
I don't go through and parse the language to see what weird complexities can be teased out of the language through hyper-literal interpretation and by applying the rules of formal logic.
I start to infer what a rule or ability is supposed to be and do as soon as I read it's name, next there is usually some plain language introducing an idea (I guess they call this fluff), or it might get straight to the point. By this time I have a pretty good idea what the writer is trying to present.
"Oh, a rage power called Superstition, I wonder if this is for if i want to play one of those pulp fantasy sword and sworcery barbarians that always has some sorceror/wizard type nemesis and distrusts magic... +2 versus magic stuff... ok cool, that is what this is all about... oh but he has to save against magic that would help him? Ok I guess that balances it and makes sense. Cool, I get it, let's play."
That's as far as I go anymore, I have learned time and time again that the rules aren't written with the kind of precision to hold up to a lot of scrutiny beyond that.
Cool idea, casually written rules for executing the idea so it's playable in a game. That's how the rules are written and if you read them that way a whole bunch of debate and confusion evaporates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
NOW, I am not saying anyone's questions are not legitimate or anything like that. I rally like the rules forum and the debates, sometimes I join in, sometimes I read them just to learn. There are so many intelligent people on here and I love to see how they debate and analyze things. I learn a lot from it, and not just about Pathfinder. I have picked up a few things about rhetoric and debate and civility and logic and language all from following rules threads on Paizo :)
But lately I've been coming to this realization that no-one is really right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Half the time the official "way it works" doesn't even exist until we get them to take a position via FAQ requests :)
Think about it, what is the real, official "way it works" before an FAQ comes out?
You have the guy who wrote it, maybe a freelancer, who thought what he wrote meant one thing, then someone accepted it based on what he thought it meant which may have been something else, then you have other members of the staff who may understand it differently when they read it.
Then more freelancers use it in content they submit based on how they think it works, this content sees print, maybe no one has noticed yet that it's now in print working differently then the guy who original conceived of the ability ever intended it to work.
Meanwhile people at home are using it the way they think it works.
Which way is really the real way, until it becomes an issue for someone in PFS, or someone asks on a thread, and it gets FAQ'd, and someone official has to officially decide?
But here's the thing. The FAQ response is written in english just like the original rule was, and so it is subject to multiple interpretations as well... and the cycle begins again.
So, now I just make a call if I'm GM'ing or let the GM make a call if I'm playing.
It's how the game's written, it always has been, it doesn't really work any other way, unless you want to play the game of analyzing rules minutia, but that is really it's own hobby, and I don't mean that snidely, it happens to be a hobby I have enjoyed quite a bit in the past and still return to sometimes :) Just, my motivations is different now. For a while I felt like I owed it to my players to run everything "right", so the game would be fair and objective and pure and as it was intended. Now I read a rules thread just so I can decide "if this comes up in my game how will I rule", but I don't read a rules thread thinking I will eventually find out which way is "right."
There's my essay, hope someone likes it 8-)
tl;dr: you have to save against all three, because you're superstitious and hate magic.
There's my essay, hope someone likes it 8-)
tl;dr: you have to save against all three, because you're superstitious and hate magic.
Except of course, magic boots, magic weapons, magic shields, magic amulets, magic belts, magic headbands, etc.
And of course, you're only selectively superstitious when you're raging, and you don't trust the cure spell that's saved your life dozens of times before being cast by the exact same person who always casts it. The rest of the time you're fine with it.
Which explains why I never let flavor determine mechanics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right, totally fair points, the fact that it's an ability you activate makes my brain hurt a little right off the bat anyway, but the magic boots/amulets/headbands issue doesn't bother me much. I can easily imagine some dwarf or barbarian who doesn't trust magic having no problem strapping on magic equipment. I don't know why it makes sense to me it just does.
I don't mean to say flavor should dictate mechanics, and if I did feel that way I would at least still realize that's not what this forums for. What I do prefer is that mechanics be associated with their flavor. That is purely a preference but pathfinder for the most part satisfies me in that regard.
I'm just saying, if you start with looking at flavor, then look at the crunch through the lens of "ok cool concept how did they execute" reading the rules becomes much more fluid, because that is more in tune with the style of the writing.
Not every time, because a writer could come at it from either direction, but I think a lot of times it's not so much "The barbarian could use a rage power that gives +2 to saves versus spells, supernatural abilities and spell-like abilities, but forces him to save against just spells. What should we call it? How about superstitious? Now what kind of fluff can I give it?"
It's more like "Remember all those barbarian characters in sword and sorcery and pulp fantasy stories that distrust magic so much they can shrug off magical effects? Let's make a rage power that does that. How about +2 to saves but the drawback is he has to save even against magic that would help him. That makes sense and it will balance it. OK write that down in casual, plain english that gets the idea across. Keep it terse and succinct we have to keep the word count down. They'll get the idea and if they don't the DM will decide what's right for his table. That's how this whole game works".
That's all I'm saying is that these guys are not writing this stuff like they expect it to be used to establish precedent in a court of law or anything like that, they are writing it so we can have a framework for when we play make-pretend. The writing is more casual in style then we treat it to be on this forum.
But you know what, if I decided to GM a society game, knowing that people invest time in those characters and show up expecting their abilities to work a certain way, I would rule the other way on this one.
It says you get a +2 versus spells, (su)'s and SLA's, but in the must-save part it only mentions spells. In a culture and climate where people have to play under multiple GM's and the only way to reduce table-variance is to scrutinize the rules as if they were written with very precise language, this one is pretty cut and dry when you put on your RAW glasses.
I'm just not sure that way of reading is the best for getting at the intent.
RAI could be either way on this, you'd have to ask the author, but at my home-game I would rule you have to save against all three because it makes sense, it's easier to remember (same things you have a bonus against are the things you must resist), and it does follow from a sort of structural convention I have noticed in the writing style of the rulebooks which is that they tend to try to avoid repeating words when they are building on what they've just said.
And of course, you're only selectively superstitious when you're raging, and you don't trust the cure spell that's saved your life dozens of times before being cast by the exact same person who always casts it. The rest of the time you're fine with it.
Well, when you rage, you're not even able to make a knowledge check so... Yeah, it doesn't shock me that a power that add a layer of madness makes you try to resist any spell just because it become a reflex.
Yeah, that does help me get my head around it when you put it like that.