First question:
So, " with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons ". Without the oxford comma, this sentence fragment is unclear. Light and one-handed are exclusive groups, but piercing and melee are not. Does the benefit apply to:
1) all "light weapons" AND all "one-handed piecing melee weapons" i.e. "light weapons or one-handed piercing melee weapons"
2) all "light piercing melee weapons" AND all "one-handed piercing melee weapons" i.e. "piercing melee weapons, that are either light or one-handed"
3) all "light melee weapons" AND all "one-handed piercing melee weapons" i.e. "melee weapons, that are either light or one-handed piercing"
The strict English reading, because there are no commas in this sentence fragment, is number 1 above.
Second question:
No option above includes all weapons that Weapon Finesse normally applies, so weapons like natural weapons, whip and elven curved blade gain no benefit from Swashbuckler Finesse. Right?
Third question:
This ability says it qualifies as a prerequisite for other feats and abilities that require Weapon Finesse. With either understanding of the weapons that benefit from this ability above, this ability will not apply to some weapon types that Weapon Finesse normally applies to. When another ability requires Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite AND the other ability refers to the weapons that benefit from Weapon Finesse AND the PC does not actually take the Weapon Finesses feat, Swashbuckler Finesse still becomes a valid prerequisite HOWEVER is this other ability supposed to apply only to those weapons that Swashbuckler Finesses applies to, or is it supposed to apply to only those weapons that Weapon Finesse applies to, or both?
Consider Swashbuckler Finesse and Serpent Lash. Serpent Lash gives a benefit to whips and has a Weapon Finesse prerequisite. With Swashbuckler Finesse applying as the prerequisite that means that a PC with both has no special skill with a whip due to Weapon Finesse, yet somehow gains additional skill with Serpent Lash. Right?
Mark
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
#2 is the correct reading.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Bigdaddyjug is correct.
Also, I believe that swashbuckler finesse replaces the weapon list from weapon finesse with light and one-handed piercing melee weapons. So many finessable weapons from the weapon finesse list (like 2 handed melee weapons) are not covered.
Morag
Number one.
The principle is that this feature is based on weapon finesse. Originally the swashbuckler had just "weapon finesse" as a bonus feat. Because of mad issue for expertise this was changed to a class feature.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
ElementalXX wrote: Number one.
The principle is that this feature is based on weapon finesse. Originally the swashbuckler had just "weapon finesse" as a bonus feat. Because of mad issue for expertise this was changed to a class feature.
Number one is incorrect. They only get the benefits for piercing light weapons, not bludgeoning or slashing light weapons (unless they're also piercing).
Number 2 is correct, as was stated previously.
Jeff Merola wrote: ElementalXX wrote: Number one.
The principle is that this feature is based on weapon finesse. Originally the swashbuckler had just "weapon finesse" as a bonus feat. Because of mad issue for expertise this was changed to a class feature.
Number one is incorrect. They only get the benefits for piercing light weapons, not bludgeoning or slashing light weapons (unless they're also piercing).
Number 2 is correct, as was stated previously. I cant be raw sure about the text because as the op stated it is confusing. The intent however was not as you suggest
ElementalXX wrote: Jeff Merola wrote: ElementalXX wrote: Number one.
The principle is that this feature is based on weapon finesse. Originally the swashbuckler had just "weapon finesse" as a bonus feat. Because of mad issue for expertise this was changed to a class feature.
Number one is incorrect. They only get the benefits for piercing light weapons, not bludgeoning or slashing light weapons (unless they're also piercing).
Number 2 is correct, as was stated previously. I cant be raw sure about the text because as the op stated it is confusing. The intent however was not as you suggest Are you sure? Here's a text comparison of the playtest versions and the release version.
Original wrote: Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 2nd level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, as well as gains a +4 bonus to her CMD on disarm, steal, and sunder attempts made against these weapons. Update wrote: Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for Combat Expertise. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites. Release wrote: Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benef its of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites. As you can see, the swashbuckler never got the normal feat. It was always a special thing, and it was always restricted to piercing only. Unless you have a developer quote stating that it was intended to apply with all light weapons, that's never been the case.
Light or one-handed piercing melee weapons actually isn't unclear in the slightest. Using strict English guidelines, it is evident that the phrasing is light piercing weapons and one-handed piercing weapons.
Now, could it be even clearer? Yes, but in a book full of fairly atrocious editing, this isn't unclear.
@Nocte - Well yes it is. It's the exact opposite order of the primary example of the ambiguity of not using the Oxford comma. Consider the attribution of a work or literature: "To: my parents, Tim and God". Am I saying that Tim and God are my parents? Place an additional comma after Tim and it is totally unambiguous. Try diagraming the rule's sentence. You'll see that it can go both ways because of lack of punctuation. In a way this rule is similar to a dangling participle error as well. Consider "I saw the trailer peeking through the window." Well, it actually says that the trailer is peeking through the window. A correct way to phrase this is "I, peeking through the window, saw the trailer." -- I really loved the Weird Al song Word Crimes. Although I think he's wrong about his example of the Oxford comma statement in his song.
I you to write a program with this instruction if statement will allow all light weapons.
But if we comprehend it from reasonable point of view it will allow only piercing melee light weapons, i believe.
All of the swashbucklers class abilities call out that they only work with piercing weapons, whether light or one-handed. Why would Swashbuckler Finesse work any different?
For an example, look at Swashbuckler Weapon Training.
Jeff Merola wrote:
stuff
Oh i used to recall it different, well i guess my memory is playing tricks
mjmeans wrote: Second question:
No option above includes all weapons that Weapon Finesse normally applies, so weapons like natural weapons, whip and elven curved blade gain no benefit from Swashbuckler Finesse. Right?
Third question:
This ability says it qualifies as a prerequisite for other feats and abilities that require Weapon Finesse. With either understanding of the weapons that benefit from this ability above, this ability will not apply to some weapon types that Weapon Finesse normally applies to. When another ability requires Weapon Finesse as a prerequisite AND the other ability refers to the weapons that benefit from Weapon Finesse AND the PC does not actually take the Weapon Finesses feat, Swashbuckler Finesse still becomes a valid prerequisite HOWEVER is this other ability supposed to apply only to those weapons that Swashbuckler Finesses applies to, or is it supposed to apply to only those weapons that Weapon Finesse applies to, or both?
Consider Swashbuckler Finesse and Serpent Lash. Serpent Lash gives a benefit to whips and has a Weapon Finesse prerequisite. With Swashbuckler Finesse applying as the prerequisite that means that a PC with both has no special skill with a whip due to Weapon Finesse, yet somehow gains additional skill with Serpent Lash. Right?
1. #2, as noted.
2. The whip and curved blade are screwed. Most natural weapons are, but there are a handful (Bite, Gore, I /think/ that's it) that are piercing.
3. You can take Serpent Lash. Not much reason to unless you took Slashing Grace (Whip), but you're perfectly entitled to. Corner cases are weird.
mjmeans wrote: @Nocte - Well yes it is. It's the exact opposite order of the primary example of the ambiguity of not using the Oxford comma. Consider the attribution of a work or literature: "To: my parents, Tim and God". Am I saying that Tim and God are my parents? Place an additional comma after Tim and it is totally unambiguous. Try diagraming the rule's sentence. You'll see that it can go both ways because of lack of punctuation. In a way this rule is similar to a dangling participle error as well. Consider "I saw the trailer peeking through the window." Well, it actually says that the trailer is peeking through the window. A correct way to phrase this is "I, peeking through the window, saw the trailer." -- I really loved the Weird Al song Word Crimes. Although I think he's wrong about his example of the Oxford comma statement in his song. You have far too much concern for the rules of writing and far too little common sense. I'm not trying to insulting here, but I realize that my statement is, and for that I apologize. But the rules were meant to be read with a common sense approach, and everyone in this thread but you appears to agree on how to interpret it.
I believe you are trying to argue based on rules about Oxford commas to try and get your way so you can use Swashbuckelr's Finesse with the weapon you want. Not because you don't understand how to parse the sentence.
Also, it's probably a bad assumption to think that the writers of the book understand how to properly use an Oxford comma or were even concerned with doing so while writing the book. This isn't the first book with bad editing, and probably wont be the last. And still, the majority of the time the meaning and intention behind the rules is usually pretty clear from context.
Actually no. I agree that #2 is the way it should have been written. I think it is the most fair and reasonable way. However, that is not how it is written. And to require the reader to 'read between the lines' to suss what was really meant is bad writing. What I want is for the editors to be a little more diligent about correct grammar and tone down the writing style. They should have had a better technical editor review process even if it delay publication a week or two.
I will follow rules as written unless someone can point me to an official ruling to the contrary; no matter how stupid or unbelievable the literal reading is. I do not decide 'what is reasonable' in the game. I am not the author. It's not Mark's Pathfinder, it's Paizo Pathfinder. If Paizo wrong it, it's law. This is why I brought this up. If I GM a PFS game and a player comes to the game with this ability I will be required to follow the rules as stated and that is #1 above. So there needs to be an official ruling that #2 is correct if that is what was meant.
There's reading between the lines, and then there's just reading with basic comprehension. If you're reading it one way, and literally everybody else is reading it another... perhaps you're reading it wrong?
The mistake mjeans is doing is assuming that there is a universal rule about using the serial comma. Most times academia encourages it while journalists and those worried about content length tend not to use them. At best it's not being there leads to ambiguity and NOT, as he asserts, #1 automatically being the correct reading. Since it's just ambiguity, he should follow what he thinks should be the correct reading, #2.
Search for serial, series, Oxford or Harvard commas for more info on them.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
