|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The wording is clear there isn't a need for an errata. Because they are one after another, a usable weapon fits the following criteria: light OR one-handed AND piercing melee weapon.
If it read "light melee weapons or one-handed piercing melee weapons, then it'd be number 1 in your example.
As written however it conveys exactly what the writers wish.
Why use common sense when pedantry is so much fun!
(2 is the correct interpretation.)
|
|
Something like "light piercing melee and one-handed piercing melee weapons" would clear everything up.
There is no need for this. Grammar isn't 100% the issue it's mechanics as well. "Light" and "One-Handed" are modifiers of melee weapon. Alone they mechanically mean nothing. So the "Light" in "Light" and One-Handed Piercing Melee Weapons requires melee weapons to mean anything. Piercing is a type of melee weapon. Because it comes before the word melee weapons it's stating only piercing melee weapons.
Grammatically speaking it absolutely is incorrect and unclear. The community has just mostly agreed upon that interpretation, and that was not what I recommended it read. Something like "light piercing melee and one-handed piercing melee weapons" would clear everything up.
You're saying two is the correct interpretation with no evidence to support it. I don't doubt that that was the intention of the ability, but as it is it isn't clear. There absolutely is need for an errata. If about 20% of the community is unclear on it then it has been poorly done and those that are convinced in their beliefs, like yourself, have no hard evidence to support yourselves.
Errata not needed in this case, minor gramatical issues like this are the whole reason we play with a GM who can discuss with the group and make the decision.
Even rules which are very clear and well defined can and will be disputed by people's own interpretation, hence the need for a GM.
So what if a group is playing with a swashbuckler who uses a light bludgeoning weapon, as long as the GM and group have no problem with it who cares, even if it gets errated the same group would just house rule it there way.
errata is pointless if it so bloated by tiny inconsequential updates that it's impossible to find rulings on what your looking for.
English doesn't have strong operator precedence rules. Good luck.
Add another for #2.
Yep, #2.
|
|
I'm convinced it's none of the above.
"...gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons...."
CLEARLY means it works in two cases:
a] When attacking with a one-handed piercing melee weapon.
b] When making a touch attack to deliver the spell light.
The wording couldn't be clearer.
I'm convinced it's none of the above.
"...gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons...."
CLEARLY means it works in two cases:
a] When attacking with a one-handed piercing melee weapon.
b] When making a touch attack to deliver the spell light.The wording couldn't be clearer.
What if I'm attacking with a club that has had light cast on it? Does that count?
Don't feed the pedants. It's number 2.
|
|
What if I'm attacking with a club that has had light cast on it? Does that count?I'm convinced it's none of the above.
"...gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons...."
CLEARLY means it works in two cases:
a] When attacking with a one-handed piercing melee weapon.
b] When making a touch attack to deliver the spell light.The wording couldn't be clearer.
Yes- -it's a one-handed melee weapon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...with ((light) or (one-handed piercing) melee weapons)
...with ((light or one-handed) piercing melee weapons)
Honestly, I'm not exactly sure which one is correct. Normally Weapon Finesse applies to all light weapons, so why not now? On the other hand, the swashbuckler class has this obsession with piercing weapons.
If we look at Slashing Grace (risqué, I know), it turns a one-handed slashing weapon into a one-handed piercing weapon. Why not a light slashing weapon? If we use the first derivation, because it isn't needed. If we use the second one, because the feat is broken.
I like to think my English is pretty good, but I'm not a native speaker. And I can't figure out if one of those derivations is truly more correct than the other. My English (and possibly that of many others) was not learnt through systematic mastery of grammar, but by reading and listening. And those don't equip you to decide things this subtle. So I think the text could use some polishing, if only for the international audience.
No matter which interpretation you have decided is the right one, the OP is absolutely correct that the grammar is not clear.
This is a pretty sweeping problem that exists across the board for RPGs too. It'd be nice if someone (*cough* Paizo *cough*) might step up to the plate and start setting a standard that is above the already-low average.
Errata not needed in this case, minor grammatical issues like this are the whole reason we play with a GM who can discuss with the group and make the decision.
Not picking on this poster, but this is never a good argument. Sometimes, it's the GM asking the rules question. Why do we always assume it's a player?
...with ((light) or (one-handed piercing) melee weapons)
...with ((light or one-handed) piercing melee weapons)Honestly, I'm not exactly sure which one is correct. Normally Weapon Finesse applies to all light weapons, so why not now? On the other hand, the swashbuckler class has this obsession with piercing weapons.
If we look at Slashing Grace (risqué, I know), it turns a one-handed slashing weapon into a one-handed piercing weapon. Why not a light slashing weapon? If we use the first derivation, because it isn't needed. If we use the second one, because the feat is broken.
I like to think my English is pretty good, but I'm not a native speaker. And I can't figure out if one of those derivations is truly more correct than the other. My English (and possibly that of many others) was not learnt through systematic mastery of grammar, but by reading and listening. And those don't equip you to decide things this subtle. So I think the text could use some polishing, if only for the international audience.
+1
Errata not needed in this case, minor grammatical issues like this are the whole reason we play with a GM who can discuss with the group and make the decision.Not picking on this poster, but this is never a good argument. Sometimes, it's the GM asking the rules question. Why do we always assume it's a player?
I my advice assumes nothing, it doesn't matter who is asking the question the advice stands. It is up to the GM and players to decide how they are going to play this game.
Do you really want to see a 1800 page rule book that reads like a legal document ? Because that is exactly what your asking for. The sheer volume of words required to create statements that are beyond reasonable ambiguity is immense. Solicitors make entire careers out of reinterpreting unambiguous statements to make them say something completely different.
anyone looking for absolute rules are doomed to fail, there are no absolutes in language . Absolutes are the prevue of mathematics. If you want absolute rules then you'd need to write your entire rulebook using nothing but mathematical equations. Soon as you introduce language you introduce ambiguity.
Want an example ? having just read this I can guarantee your brain won't interpret it in the way I intended you to interpret it. Would using more words to explain it help ? no, in fact they would probably just make the problem worse ;)
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's a huge leap in logic to suggest that grammatically correct phrasing in a rule book will turn it into unreadable legal jargon.
Paizo is a *publishing company.* There is literally no excuse not to get clear and correct grammar in their products.
As to the general argument of, "It is always up to the GM and players to decide how the rules work," well of course that's true. But educated decisions on homebrew rules can't be made without the correct interpretation of the original, printed rule. (ie: How do I know if I want to change a rule if I can't be sure how the rule actually works?)
And with such arguments, you must be careful. It's easy to go far enough down this particular rabbit hole to get to, "Well then why even buy the rules at all if it's up to me to figure it all out anyway?" That way madness lies. ;)
Does Swashbuckler Finesse work with non-piercing light weapons?
If the answer is no, then what is your evidence of this? Because the wording of the ability can absolutely be read and understood in a way that the above question is allowed. If you disagree, pick up an english book and find out how wrong you are.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's a huge leap in logic to suggest that grammatically correct phrasing in a rule book will turn it into unreadable legal jargon.
Paizo is a *publishing company.* There is literally no excuse not to get clear and correct grammar in their products.As to the general argument of, "It is always up to the GM and players to decide how the rules work," well of course that's true. But educated decisions on homebrew rules can't be made without the correct interpretation of the original, printed rule. (ie: How do I know if I want to change a rule if I can't be sure how the rule actually works?)
And with such arguments, you must be careful. It's easy to go far enough down this particular rabbit hole to get to, "Well then why even buy the rules at all if it's up to me to figure it all out anyway?" That way madness lies. ;)
Clear and Correct by whose standards ? I can guarantee and American English major, an oxford English professor , and an Australian exchange student are all going to have different opinion about what is grammatically correct and acceptable. Grammar isn't a universal constant because language is mutable.
As to correct rule interpretations have you not seen JJ post his opinion on the forums about how a rule works only to be later contradicted by the person who wrote the rule.
The only way you can know for sure if you are interpreting a rule correctly is if the author of that rule was sitting next to you every time it came into contention to confirm that is how he or she intended it to be run.
You think what your asking is simple or easy, its just not.
|
|
Do you really want to see a 1800 page rule book that reads like a legal document ? Because that is exactly what your asking for. The sheer volume of words required to create statements that are beyond reasonable ambiguity is immense. Solicitors make entire careers out of reinterpreting unambiguous statements to make them say something completely different.
Did you know that the phrase "light and one-handed piercing melee weapons" is repeated 18 times in the Swashbuckler writeup? It's already sounding like legalese, without having that desired precision.
anyone looking for absolute rules are doomed to fail, there are no absolutes in language . Absolutes are the prevue of mathematics. If you want absolute rules then you'd need to write your entire rulebook using nothing but mathematical equations. Soon as you introduce language you introduce ambiguity.
The English language as a whole is ambiguous, that is, you can write sentences that can be interpreted in multiple ways. Sure. But you can still write sentences in English that are not ambiguous. Just because it's possible to write ambiguous sentences doesn't mean all English sentences must be ambiguous.
It's part the job of an editor to eliminate this ambiguity, in the first or in later printings of a text. Also, to polish the language. For example, all that would be needed here would be to have one a bit of text like this at the beginning of the class writeup:
Swashbuckler Weapons: swashbucklers train with precision weaponry. All light piercing melee weapons and one-handed piercing melee weapons are considered swashbuckler weapons.
...
[some ability:]When a swashbuckler does [something] with alight or one-handed piercingswashbuckler weapon, [something] happens
That would actually reduce the amount of legalese while also making it clearer.
As part of a job application I had to interpret phrasing that kept becoming more and more like legalese and therefore more difficult to interpret. I think that once you read enough of it some people can get used to it, but it is still too much for most people, and it would not be fun to have rules written in that manner. However anything less than that level of writing can be misinterpreted by someone. Even some of the more straight forward rules here have not been understood.
PS: To the OP-->The answer is #2.
Swashbuckler Weapons: swashbucklers train with precision weaponry. All light piercing melee weapons and one-handed piercing melee weapons are considered swashbuckler weapons.
...
[some ability:]When a swashbuckler does [something] with alight or one-handed piercingswashbuckler weapon, [something] happensThat would actually reduce the amount of legalese while also making it clearer.
That's nice
think you could come up with that on the back of editing 35'000 words with a deadline in sight and another 50'000 words to go ?
|
|
Swashbuckler Weapons: swashbucklers train with precision weaponry. All light piercing melee weapons and one-handed piercing melee weapons are considered swashbuckler weapons.
...
[some ability:]When a swashbuckler does [something] with alight or one-handed piercingswashbuckler weapon, [something] happensThat would actually reduce the amount of legalese while also making it clearer.
That's nice
think you could come up with that on the back of editing 35'000 words with a deadline in sight and another 50'000 words to go ?
I think by now it's well-established that the Advanced Class Guide Adventure Path won't be remembered as the best-edited book Paizo ever rushed to GenCon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think by now it's well-established that the Advanced Class Guide Adventure Path won't be remembered as the best-edited book Paizo ever rushed to GenCon.
Swashbuckler Weapons: swashbucklers train with precision weaponry. All light piercing melee weapons and one-handed piercing melee weapons are considered swashbuckler weapons.
...
[some ability:]When a swashbuckler does [something] with alight or one-handed piercingswashbuckler weapon, [something] happensThat would actually reduce the amount of legalese while also making it clearer.
That's nice
think you could come up with that on the back of editing 35'000 words with a deadline in sight and another 50'000 words to go ?
To make money
pay staffand you know generate new content for people to pick apart on their forums ;)
maybe even make a profit like a business or something ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't insist on flawless books, I can overlook some mistakes here and there. But I do pay for those books, so I'm entitled to point out the flaws. Especially when they actually matter.
In this case, I think it's genuinely ambiguous what the line is supposed to mean. On the one hand, if it's any light weapon as well as one-handed piercing weapons, it gives nice coverage of the things Weapon Finesse normally covers. If it's only piercing light weapons, then it's both worse and better than weapon finesse, because other weapons that might fit the swashbuckler theme won't be covered, like the sap.
18 times they repeat "light and one-handed melee piercing weapons", and one time it's "one-handed and light melee piercing weapons". Was that one ability with different wording supposed to be different (WHY?!), or did we just get a glimpse of what the writer really meant?
|
In this case, I think it's genuinely ambiguous what the line is supposed to mean. On the one hand, if it's any light weapon as well as one-handed piercing weapons, it gives nice coverage of the things Weapon Finesse normally covers. If it's only piercing light weapons, then it's both worse and better than weapon finesse, because other weapons that might fit the swashbuckler theme won't be covered, like the sap.
18 times they repeat "light and one-handed melee piercing weapons", and one time it's "one-handed and light melee piercing weapons". Was that one ability with different wording supposed to be different (WHY?!), or did we just get a glimpse of what the writer really meant?
There is no ambiguity in either of those lines.
The object(s) in both sentences are [piercing melee weapons], and in both cases the category of said weapons are listed, Light and One Handed, thus excluding Two Handed [piercing melee weapons].
The order of listing for the categories is irrelevant, Light can go first, or one handed go first, so long as they are both being used to describe which [piercing melee weapons] are eligible for use with Swashbuckler's Finesse.
Grammatically speaking it absolutely is incorrect and unclear. The community has just mostly agreed upon that interpretation, and that was not what I recommended it read.
Its the interpretation I decided on before reading anyone else's opinion on it. It also makes the most sense, considering that piercing weapons are apparently a defining element of pathfinder swashbucklers.
Yes, it could have been more clear without using too many more words. Many a designer will comment on this, but an errata isn't necessary.
|
|
What makes you so sure the objects aren't [melee weapons] instead of [piercing melee weapons]? It looks to me like a fine example of global syntactic ambiguity.
Because I can read and parse a sentence without trying to wheedle every ounce of possible cheese out of it?
What makes you so sure the objects aren't [melee weapons] instead of [piercing melee weapons]? It looks to me like a fine example of global syntactic ambiguity.
I agree there is ambiguity. I am inferring the meaning, which I believe is an important part of reading a rule book like those of PF. An errata would be fine, I just don't think it is necessary.
I would say the most restrictive reading would result in the least "cheese" possible. The more permissive a reading gets, the more likely for the ability to be able to produce cheese.
Reading the sentence in context with the rest of the swashbuckler abilities, it is pretty clear that swashbucklers love piercing weapons, and it makes sense that the ability focuses on those.
Because I can read and parse a sentence without trying to wheedle every ounce of possible cheese out of it?Is that not the opposite of what is being done?
What do you mean by "cheese" anyways?
Is reading something in a more restrictive manner "cheese"?
Whose stance are you even referring to?
The stance that it is "both light (inclusive) and one-handed piercing weapons". I don't toss the cheesy line around too much, but in my experience it takes effort to read 'light or one-handed piercing weapons' as anything other than 'light piercing weapons or one-handed piercing weapons.' English may not be a super-precise language, but the modifier for the categories is clearly stated at the end of the sentence here.
Hell, by the logic that it is 'light (inclusive) or one-handed piercing weapons' their Panache feature, and, oh yeah, basically every single time this is brought up in the Swashbuckler class, they can suddenly use clubs and shields (If proficient in their use) to qualify for Panache gains, or Precise Strike, or Superior Feint, or any other ability for which this is mentioned.
It doesn't work that way.
Or, to put it another way: Does Swashbuckler Weapon Training work with all one-handed weapons, and only light piercing weapons? No, it doesn't.
|
I am not sure how you switched that around.
Also, you can use all Swashbuckler abilities with Spiked Shields, both heavy, and light.
Arguably, you could use it with a Club, if you had Weapon Versatility.
I am not sure that the intent was to disallow Swashbuckler Finesse with a Kukri, but allow with a Light Pick.
BBT, Swashbuckler Weapon Training switches the position of the words 'light' and 'one-handed' in its text. Going by the inclusive method, it applies the training bonus to all one-handed weapons, and light piercing weapons.
It doesn't work, the entire class is based around piercing weapons, their abilities apply just to piercing weapons. Everything they do references piercing weapons.
Hell, they had to introduce Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace just to increase the Swashbuckler's repertoire of weaponry beyond that.
Also, Martial Versatility doesn't work. It applies to Feats, nothing I've put down is a Feat, they're class abilities, with the exception of Fencing and Slashing Grace, which still wouldn't work for the club, as it is never slashing or piercing.
|
|
Not Martial Versatility, but Weapon Versatility. Choose a weapon, deal a different kind of damage, like piercing.
Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace have nothing to do with Light weapons.
By your current standards, a Swashbuckler must take the Weapon Finesse feat, to finesse any non-piercing Light weapons.
Does that really sound right to you?
|
|
So you think it's perfectly obvious. But it's not obvious to me. So I ask you to explain it, and you say again that it's obviously so and that I'm trying to do cheesy things because I dare question it.
It doesn't take me "effort" to read it in two different ways. Maybe there's some secret rule of grammar that they don't teach to foreigners; but to me it looks like a typical example of ambiguous writing.
---
Anyway, I've since come to the conclusion that it's most likely indeed only piercing weapons, but not because of any "obvious" grammar. Rather, the following:
* Although the word "piercing" is only used in the phrase "light and one-handed piercing melee weapons" in the class description, the abilities "perfect thrust", "deadly stab" and "stunning stab" indeed suggest that you're always assumed to be using a piercing weapon.
* Swashbuckler Finesse doesn't include all normal finesse weapons; for example it doesn't cover the Elven Curve Blade, not by any reading of it's description. So if one normal finesseable weapon is certainly not included, it becomes less odd that say, light bludgeoning weapons aren't included either.
---
By the by: Swashbuckler Weapon Training was never going to work with clubs or heavy shields, because they're not light weapons. It does however work with spiked shields!
Not Martial Versatility, but Weapon Versatility. Choose a weapon, deal a different kind of damage, like piercing.
Slashing Grace and Fencing Grace have nothing to do with Light weapons.
By your current standards, a Swashbuckler must take the Weapon Finesse feat, to finesse any non-piercing Light weapons.
Does that really sound right to you?
Yup. In fact, that's what Swashbuckler's Finesse states. It only counts for Light or One-Handed [i]Piercing{/i] melee weapons.
Also yes, you're right, if you're willing to take Weapon Versatility to get your club to do Piercing damage, you could use it. Go you.
Swashbuckler Weapon Training (Ex): At 5th level, a swashbuckler gains a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with one-handed or light piercing melee weapons.
Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons
The reason to call out weapon training is because it switches the order. One-handed or light piercing vs light or one-handed piercing. If indeed finesse is all light weapons and one-handed piercing weapons, then weapon training is all one-handed weapons and light piercing weapons.
So you think it's perfectly obvious. But it's not obvious to me. So I ask you to explain it, and you say again that it's obviously so and that I'm trying to do cheesy things because I dare question it.
It doesn't take me "effort" to read it in two different ways. Maybe there's some secret rule of grammar that they don't teach to foreigners; but to me it looks like a typical example of ambiguous writing.
I will try. To me, when I look at the sentence, I see "light" or "one-handed" as the options of piercing melee weapons. If I were to write a sentence to mean the other way, I would word it, "light weapons or one-handed piercing weapons" repeating weapons shows that the or is between "light weapons" and "one-handed piercing weapons". Without the repetition, the or only applies to the two things immediately adjacent to it, "light" and "one-handed".
As a different example. If you asked to borrow a pen. And I asked you, "do you want the blue or black ballpoint pen?" It is clear the question is "do you want the blue ballpoint pen or do you want the black ballpoint pen?" If the blue pen was not ballpoint, then I would have said, "Do you want the blue pen, or the black ballpoint pen?" or "Do you want the black ballpoint pen or the blue pen?"
Swashbuckler Weapon Training seems like it should be worded like Swashbuckler Finesse.
Is that word switch intentional?
That seems, odd.
They functionally mean the same thing the way I read it. light piercing weapons or one-handed piercing weapons. The order of one-handed/light doesn't matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
