Speculation on the unchained summoner


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Celanian wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
Seriously, someone just claimed that blind races and goblins are literate and you're calling me out for trolling?????

And by the rules, they are right. Because the language rules have no exception for blind races or goblins.

Now, what does this have to do with the unchained summoner, I ask you.

By the rules they'd be wrong. Even if in your bizarre world toddlers, blind folks, and goblins are literate, the fact that the Canon mentions pre-literate cultures means that literacy is not universal in-Canon and thus the CRB cannot be correct even under the most narrow, obtuse, interpretation even if you ignore the text of the bestiary.

You didn't answer my question.

As for the rules....

Bestiary wrote:
Languages: The languages most commonly spoken by the creature are listed here.
Intelligence wrote:

You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:

The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.

Linguistics wrote:
Special: You must be trained to use this skill, but you can always attempt to read archaic and strange forms of your own racial bonus languages.

Now, unless you show a rule stating that blind or goblin creatures do not gain literacy, by the rules you are wrong. Because the Bestiary rule does not contradict the CRB rule.

Edit: In fact, I've done half the work for you now.

Goblin Bestiary entry wrote:
Goblins believe that writing steals words out of your head, and as a result of this belief, goblins are universally illiterate.

Now you just need to find specific text about blind creatures and literacy.


Reference to pre-literate cultures. I've posted it in this very thread. So unless you can tell me how a culture can be pre-literate and literate at the same time, I think I've just proved my point. The CRB rules are not absolute.

PS: Look under the rules for blindness. It specifically states that the blind condition prevents you from reading.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

And you still haven't answered the question about how this relates to the unchained summoner.

Edit: Now we are getting somewhere. The blinded condition does say that visual checks like reading fail. However, I would say not all forms of reading require sight. In any event, this is better support than your 'pre-literate society' comment, as that only applies to the specific societies that it refers to, and is not a general rule.


Celanian,

I agree with you that these things are common sense and should be reflected in actual gameplay.

But, there's a kind of separation of Rules and Setting at work in Pathfinder, and most people around here abide by it.

Therefore, it does not matter if goblins have setting info that declares they can't read; the rules do not specifically forbid it.

In fact, there's even room in the setting for a heretical goblin who goes against the normal goblin beliefs, or a blind seer who can read graven runes with his fingers. Much like the separation of church and state in government, there is actually much to be gained from seeking rigid clarity in one and flexibly creativity in the other.

The heart of the disagreement here is that you are talking to people who see the rules like MATH requiring PROOFS -- and while your sense for implicit truths from the setting might make excellent qualities in a player or GM, they don't contribute meaningfully to the wonky world of rules parsing.

Try to remember that while it may seem obtuse, in their heart of hearts these rules wonks are really just trying to aspire to an all-inclusive, consistent rule set. (Impossible, but an aspiration nonetheless).

Don't take it personally! And now, back to the Unchained Summoner please.


Thanks M.E. Lincoln!

It does feel like I'm beating my head against a wall, but your explanation makes sense.

Honestly, anyone who's that much of a rules lawyer and who completely ignores common sense as well as any text that doesn't support their arguments, doesn't sound like a person who would be fun to game with. I'm glad my players have at least a modicum of common sense!


There is what the rules say, and then there is what we actually do at the table.

These do not always coincide.


Celanian wrote:
Honestly, anyone who's that much of a rules lawyer and who completely ignores common sense as well as any text that doesn't support their arguments, doesn't sound like a person who would be fun to game with. I'm glad my players have at least a modicum of common sense!

Spoiler:

Much like the study of pure mathematics, these folks seek a deeper truth through the exclusion of subjectivity, including "common sense."

It may seem crazy, but when it comes to actually working with the rules, it really helps to know what is literally printed on the page in case there is a misunderstanding during play. That doesn't mean you have to abide by it... but it there IS a logical paradox in the text, it can help communication to know about its existence.

Well, many groups play happily for years without venturing into this territory... but all it takes is ONE TIME to screw everything up.

Go easy on the rules lawyers. Some of them do good work so we don't have to.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Now you just need to find specific text about blind creatures and literacy.

Tell me, do you also insist dead characters can act continue to act normally? Nowhere in the rules does it say they cannot.

Common sense.
The CRB mistakenly assumes everyone has some.

Dark Archive

Undone wrote:
Successful Troll is Successful wrote:
Celanian wrote:
These are truly the Bizarro boards.
Successful Troll will remind fellow poster, successful troll not need be WRONG to be trolling.
This may be the best post of the entire thread.

Still not Pirate Ship Eidolon. Man, that concept still makes me smile.


Celanian wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
Seriously, someone just claimed that blind races and goblins are literate and you're calling me out for trolling?????

And by the rules, they are right. Because the language rules have no exception for blind races or goblins.

Now, what does this have to do with the unchained summoner, I ask you.

By the rules they'd be wrong. Even if in your bizarre world toddlers, blind folks, and goblins are literate, the fact that the Canon mentions pre-literate cultures means that literacy is not universal in-Canon and thus the CRB cannot be correct even under the most narrow, obtuse, interpretation even if you ignore the text of the bestiary.

No, it means it WAS NOT universal. Meaning in the past. Nothing about the present.

And blind people can read using braille so there.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Tell me, do you also insist dead characters can act continue to act normally?

Dead characters gain the unconscious condition on the way to negative Con and cannot act. The only exception is anything that kills without HP damage.

Artanthos wrote:

Common sense.

The CRB mistakenly assumes everyone has some.

Common sense tells you what the rules SHOULD say.

It doesn't tell you what they ACTUALLY say.


Starbuck_II wrote:
Celanian wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
Seriously, someone just claimed that blind races and goblins are literate and you're calling me out for trolling?????

And by the rules, they are right. Because the language rules have no exception for blind races or goblins.

Now, what does this have to do with the unchained summoner, I ask you.

By the rules they'd be wrong. Even if in your bizarre world toddlers, blind folks, and goblins are literate, the fact that the Canon mentions pre-literate cultures means that literacy is not universal in-Canon and thus the CRB cannot be correct even under the most narrow, obtuse, interpretation even if you ignore the text of the bestiary.

No, it means it WAS NOT universal. Meaning in the past. Nothing about the present.

And blind people can read using braille so there.

The CRB does not specify that it's only for present day Golarion. A character wouldn't use different str or dex rules if they time travel, so what makes you think the int rules would change?

The CRB does not state braille. It specifically states "your racial language". So rules lawyers taking things literally must believe that a slithering tracker (a blind ooze with 3+ int) can read undercommon even though they're blind.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Celanian wrote:
The CRB does not state braille. It specifically states "your racial language". So rules lawyers taking things literally must believe that a slithering tracker (a blind ooze with 3+ int) can read undercommon even though they're blind.

Here is the disconnect.

You are saying 'it should not be so, and thus it is not so'.

We are saying 'it should not be so, but it IS so according to the rules'.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Tell me, do you also insist dead characters can act continue to act normally?
Dead characters gain the unconscious condition on the way to negative Con and cannot act. The only exception is anything that kills without HP damage.

The dead condition has nothing to do with hit points, and may be reached by means that leave a characters hit points untouched.

By strictest possible RAW without regard for common sense, as is being argued in this thread, Circle of Death has no affect. It imposes the dead condition without dealing damage.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
The CRB does not state braille. It specifically states "your racial language". So rules lawyers taking things literally must believe that a slithering tracker (a blind ooze with 3+ int) can read undercommon even though they're blind.

Here is the disconnect.

You are saying 'it should not be so, and thus it is not so'.

We are saying 'it should not be so, but it IS so according to the rules'.

How do you explain pre-literate cultures? There is no statement in the CRB that the int rules apply only to present day, so every entity with 3+ int and a language who has ever existed or will ever exist has literacy according to the CRB under the strict rules lawyer interpretation. And yet an official publication states that pre-literate societies have existed in the past.

So either that official publication is wrong (and since it's official with no errata, good luck showing it), or the rules do not give 100% literacy to everything and everyone.

Scarab Sages

Starbuck_II wrote:
And blind people can read using braille so there.

Please provide RAW demonstrating the existence of braille.

Literacy rates and the existence of specific languages are not covered in the core rules for good reason. Literacy rates are setting specific. One setting may have near universal literacy, in another only priests and highly educated scholars may be literate. Neither setting violates RAW.

To put that statement in context, assume the setting for a game is Numeria just after Starfall. The players are all playing Kellid characters dealing with the aftermath of the cataclysm. Cannon dictates all players will be illiterate. This is in accordance with published material, not a houserule, and no amount of pointing at the CRB will change this.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Celanian wrote:
How do you explain pre-literate cultures?

Why do I need to? The rules don't cover them.

Celanian wrote:
So either that official publication is wrong

Which has happened before.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
How do you explain pre-literate cultures?

Why do I need to? The rules don't cover them.

Celanian wrote:
So either that official publication is wrong
Which has happened before.

The fact that it's mentioned shows that they exist.

Prove that it's wrong. It's official and no errata has been released. I think I'd take the word of an official published product over the opinion of some random internet poster.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Celanian wrote:
The fact that it's mentioned shows that they exist.

And? The rules weren't written with them in mind. The writers expect GMs to use that common sense that Artanthos hypes so much and say 'the rules say these people are literate, but they exist before literacy was a thing, so I'm ignoring them'. Ignoring rules does not change them.

Celanian wrote:
I think I'd take the word of an official published product over the opinion of some random internet poster.

Then why are you even discussing this?

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
How do you explain pre-literate cultures?
Why do I need to? The rules don't cover them.

The rulebook could be 10,000 pages long and still fail to cover every possibility.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Celanian wrote:
The fact that it's mentioned shows that they exist.

And? The rules weren't written with them in mind. They expect GMs to use that common sense that Artanthos hypes so much and say 'the rules say these people are literate, but they exist before literacy was a thing, so I'm ignoring them'. Ignoring rules does not change them.

Celanian wrote:
I think I'd take the word of an official published product over the opinion of some random internet poster.
Then why are you even discussing this?

The rules provide a broad, generic framework. They do not describe every possible society in every possible world, nor should they.

At this point you are arguing the existing cannon for Golarion, the world that Pathfinder sprang from, cannot be correct because the core rules do not cover everything that exists within Golarion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
At this point you are arguing the existing cannon for Golarion, the world that Pathfinder sprang from, cannot be correct because the core rules do not cover everything that exists within Golarion.

No, I am arguing that the canon of Golarion does not change the wording of the CRB.

I have already said that the rules fail to model a pre-literate society.


*canon

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some folks: "The rules say X."
TOZ: "Actually, the rules say Y."
Some folks: "No, the rules can't say Y, common sense is X, so the rules say X."
TOZ: "The rules still say Y, it's just that common sense means you should abandon the rules in order to do X instead. But that doesn't change that what the rules actually say is Y."
Some folks: "Now you're arguing that everything not covered in the rules is wrong!"


The core PF rules are different than Golarion.

Case in point, Aasimar ages

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

You're right Jiggy, I'm wasting my time here.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
And? The rules weren't written with them in mind. They expect GMs to use that common sense that Artanthos hypes so much

SO much irony fail in that sentence. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Thank you, I edited it to be more clear.


TOZ... Don't feed trolls.

Shadow Lodge

What else am I supposed to do with my time? Something productive?


Play something... :-)


Jiggy wrote:

Some folks: "The rules say X."

TOZ: "Actually, the rules say Y."
Some folks: "No, the rules can't say Y, common sense is X, so the rules say X."
TOZ: "The rules still say Y, it's just that common sense means you should abandon the rules in order to do X instead. But that doesn't change that what the rules actually say is Y."
Some folks: "Now you're arguing that everything not covered in the rules is wrong!"

This guy gets it.

Also Cel you've been verbally abusive in this thread. Be professional and disagree with people without insulting them.

Scarab Sages

TOZ wrote:
What else am I supposed to do with my time? Something productive?

Like arguing that anything the rulebook does not disallow must work.

While arguing that anything the rulebook does not allow cannot work.

The rulebook does not dictate canon. Literacy rates are setting specific specific and cannot be defined in rules built to allow many possible worlds. That may not sit well with people who are trying to use "the rulebook does not say X," but it is the way the rules work.

I have already pointed to very specific Paizo published material and settings demonstrating this. Feel free to ignore published material that conflicts with your viewpoint, but when you show up to a real game, your arguments won't fly. Handing explosive runes to a primitive in the jungle won't get you anything but a blank stare if canon dictates they are illiterate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
The rulebook does not dictate canon.

Never said they did. What I said is that canon does not change what the printed rules say.

Take up the explosive runes argument with someone who was actually arguing it.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
The rulebook does not dictate canon.

Never said they did. What I said is that canon does not change what the printed rules say.

Take up the explosive runes argument with someone who was actually arguing it.

Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Artanthos wrote:
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."

It's allowed to, you know.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."
It's allowed to, you know.

True facts, Campaign setting material is completely separate from the core rules and thus are under the jurisdiction of the DM. DM's decisions supersede the core rules at 99% of tables.

It's important to know where core rules end and DM fiat begins and in the case of literacy you'll have to take it up with the GM. In most campaigns literacy doesn't matter all too much, but if a player wants to make literacy important then they will need to ask the DM beforehand just like how if a player wants to run a necromancer or benefit from leadership they need to talk with the GM.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also Cel you've been verbally abusive in this thread. Be professional and disagree with people without insulting them.

You seem to have a very strange definition of "verbally abusive" if you're calling me out and not people on the other side of the discussion.

Maybe you should look in a mirror.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."
It's allowed to, you know.

Since this entire discussion was based on the Golarion specific setting (see numerous postings in this thread mentioning it), then why are you even arguing this?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."
It's allowed to, you know.

Quick example of this. According to the Advanced Race Guide, aasimar and tieflings reach adulthood at age 60. According to Golarion material however (Rise of the Runelords, Council of Thieves) both races reach adulthood at a scale much closer that of a human. There, Golarion canon explicitly violates the rules.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Clerics in Golarion must worship a deity as well, in direct contradiction to the Core rules as well.

Celanian wrote:
Since this entire discussion was based on the Golarion specific setting (see numerous postings in this thread mentioning it), then why are you even arguing this?

Because my response was on the basis of rules from the moment I first responded to you. Even when I finally reviewed the rest of the thread, nothing led me to believe you were limiting yourself to a specific setting.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Then your argument remains, "Canon for Golarion violates the rules."
It's allowed to, you know.

that makes me think, isn't it impossible to have godless clerics on golarion even though its in the rules? so like a baseline for something being allowed by the rules but disallowed by the setting. of course i could be remembering wrong.

edit:damnit toz


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Clerics in Golarion must worship a deity as well, in direct contradiction to the Core rules as well.

Celanian wrote:
Since this entire discussion was based on the Golarion specific setting (see numerous postings in this thread mentioning it), then why are you even arguing this?
Because my response was on the basis of rules from the moment I first responded to you. Even when I finally reviewed the rest of the thread, nothing led me to believe you were limiting yourself to a specific setting.

Count how many times I mentioned "Golarion" in this thread. It's pretty hard to miss.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Also Cel you've been verbally abusive in this thread. Be professional and disagree with people without insulting them.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
TBH I think some of us are just enjoying the amazing display of mental gymnastics this guy is awarding us with every time he posts.

Ah yes, I remember this comment. I think the only word I can say is "hypocrite".

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Celanian wrote:
Count how many times I mentioned "Golarion" in this thread. It's pretty hard to miss.

It's hard to equate that to setting when you keep talking rules.

Celanian wrote:
By the rules they'd be wrong.
Celanian wrote:
The CRB rules are not absolute.
Celanian wrote:
So either that official publication is wrong (and since it's official with no errata, good luck showing it), or the rules do not give 100% literacy to everything and everyone.


I thought it would be implied that I was talking Golarion since I was using Golarion many times as my examples and talking points in this thread. Rules and setting do intersect.

If you stick to the CRB, you get this very interesting quote in the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class:

However, due to their role as historians and preservers of posterity, hopefuls must be literate and scholarly—for Pathfinder chroniclers are more than mere treasure hunters.

If the rules intended everyone to be literate, then there is no need for that statement. Clearly it was intended that some entities must be illiterate in the CRB since that line would be superfluous otherwise.


I really hope this thread gets locked sooner rather than later. It's been entertaining, but we have no hope of this thread getting back on track. This argument has gotten stale too since now we have people desperately pulling quotes from flavor text.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Celanian wrote:
Clearly it was intended that some entities must be illiterate in the CRB since that line would be superfluous otherwise.

And those entities are called out as such. True Primitive Barbarians and the like.

Now that we have resolved our differences, can we let the thread try to get back to the unchained summoner?


I also think that evolutions are badly priced.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
I really hope this thread gets locked sooner rather than later. It's been entertaining, but we have no hope of this thread getting back on track. This argument has gotten stale too since now we have people desperately pulling quotes from flavor text.

Well, it does seem like you're doing your best to get the thread locked.

351 to 400 of 432 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Speculation on the unchained summoner All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.